Trackers vs Sequencers, the difference?

[LPChip]

I think its good to have a topic like this, because probably not everyone knows the difference, and perhaps we can discuss in what the real difference is

To me, the difference are a few things.

The appearance, as a tracker usually looks a bit like an excel sheet, where a sequencer usually looks like a collection of channels with a bar behind it that represents a score of music.

Entering notes, as a tracker has the notes written down like C, D, E, etc., where a sequencer usually has a graphical form with the extended feature of having the actual note script (f:4/4 ||   d, d^d, etc ) or using the piano bar.

The overview while editing, as a tracker, you can view the content of all the channels at once (unless you have over x channels, but then you can still scroll) where a sequencer only displays the current channel, which usually restricts you to edit one sound at a time.

The sound, as a tracker, the samples are always saved in the song where a sequencer depending on the application, usually uses the midi bank that comes with your soundcard.


In my opinion, the biggest difference between a tracker and a sequencer is the overview while editing, and entering notes.

[Sam_Zen]

Nice topic indeed.
I've tried the sequencers. Rebirth, Reaktor, Fruity Loops, etc. Every time the excursion didn't last long, returning to the tracker concept. Mostly because I didn't felt the same potential of being able to control things. Too much preset external factors I had to deal with.
But this is personal. I don't think it's necessary to put things 'versus'. If people are happy using these programs, fine by me. But to look at the differences can be interesting.

Imo a very basic difference is your 4th one, the sound.
A tracker-file contains the whole song. The score and the instruments used. So it's almost hardware independent.
As long as another computer has a player that deals with the tracker-format, one can reproduce the song exactly the same. While every midi bank can be different on a set, soundfonts etc. And sequencers often have their own pre-baked samples.
This was the main reason for me, when I started composing digital electronic sound, to choose for the tracker-concept instead of the midi-concept.

The survey is a very strong one indeed. The patternview has exactly the right format fit for the computer, a vertical score. That's why I don't fancy piano bars and other contraptions to emulate the non-digital practice.

Sequencers though came up long before trackers. Analog ones like Moog consisted of a number of steps, which subsequently were activated, driven by a speed-controlled clockpulse, each step having a potentiometer to set the frequency value for that step, shortly spoken. Tangerine Dream and Tonto's Expanding Head Band used the Moogs a lot.
Later on, more control appeared like skipping steps, jumping back and forth within the sequence, and quantizing to make the values well-tempered.
Those sequencers were in fact the introduction of the rhythmical element in the composing of electronic sound. Patterns.

[terumi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_sequencer

[Asharin]

I mainly use trackers because it's what I am used to, ever since my Amiga 500 days  :shock:
I'm just set in my ways..though I have modernised (if you can call it that) in the way that I mainly use VSTi's instead of samples, but I still occasionally use samples.
Well always really, cos any vocals in my tracks I import to modplug as a sample

[Louigi Verona]

Too much preset external factors I had to deal with.

I use FL Studio and I don't deal with any presets... I guess it comes down to just having more experience with it and understanding how it works.

I think that sequencers have more control over what you do. In a tracker you can apply only one effect to the channel and 1-3 effects to the note, while in a sequencer you apply effect to an instrument and you can edit any quantity of note properties - cut off, resonance, volume, panning. You can also edit events of ANY parameter.

Sequencers have playlists - it's like arranging patterns in any order, mixing them together...

they have everything in visual, while trackers have those numbers, numbers, numbers

So I guess the bottom line is that sequencers have different ideas behind organization. And these ideas may be to somebodies taste or not, but I think it won't be an exaggeration to say that if we lay down facts - sequencers are far more functional than trackers.

[LPChip]

I find it quite ironic how you say sequencers have... and then name FL specific features

Don't forget that a simple midi editor is also a sequencer, and they don't work with patterns.

[Louigi Verona]

FL Studio is a sequencer which I know very well. I compare it to FT2 or MPT, which I know very well too. I think this comparison is quite valid.
If you want to compare MPT to a simple midi editor - yeah, MPT is better. But it is more interesting to compare trackers to sequencers which are actually used.
As for the features I mentioned, they are not FL specific. CakeWalk has the same features, including the playlist and not including editing events.

[LPChip]

I use CakeWalk for midi stuff, but I don't recall it having the playlist with patterns as you call it.

Yeah, it has channels with a long track, which it automatically cuts in half, but thats not the playlist right?

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

they have everything in visual, while trackers have those numbers, numbers, numbers

this is imho the biggest and most important difference

values in numbers are far more precise than hand-drawn filter curves (fruity)
or mouse controlled, recorded knob turns (reason)

I think it won't be an exaggeration to say that if we lay down facts - sequencers are far more functional than trackers.

due to what i said before i think it's just the other way round

[speed-goddamn-focus]

values in numbers are far more precise than hand-drawn filter curves (fruity)
or mouse controlled, recorded knob turns (reason)

There are numbers behind every curve, and the fact that they're curves make them infinitely more precise than any series of discrete numbers.

I think it won't be an exaggeration to say that if we lay down facts - sequencers are far more functional than trackers.

due to what i said before i think it's just the other way round

Isn't functionality is decided more by purpose than by features? But modern sequencers will probably be more useful to more people.

[Relabsoluness]

values in numbers are far more precise than hand-drawn filter curves (fruity)
or mouse controlled, recorded knob turns (reason)

There are numbers behind every curve, and the fact that they're curves make them infinitely more precise than any series of discrete numbers.

Surely not quite infinitely  

[Sam_Zen]

If it was infinitely, it would be an analog curve, which it ain't. It's still bound to the resolution of the X-Y grid.
And I really dislike turning knobs with the mouse. It feels like poking around in the mud, hoping to get it right.

But modern sequencers will probably be more useful to more people.

Imho not a valid argument. I know, probably the majority of users wants to get a quick result with as less effort as possible. This is called modern too. Letting the program do the job of adjusting the proper loop-length of some sloppy sample for example.
Learning to track maybe takes more time, but this speed is more in balance with the time it takes to learn how to compose. The constructions that you want to make. Maybe the difference between a toolbox and a swiss knife.

2 Louigi Verona
What's against numbers ? Every action of a pc, no matter what, is a calculation of numbers using some formulae.

Electronically spoken a tracker module could be seen as a sequencer too. A pattern is a certain sequence with a length and content, which can be set in a loop. The complete patternrow also could be considered as a defined sequence on its own. Both not only can be looped, but skips and jumps are possible too.
Quite a difference maybe is, that a tracker pattern has N channels running, with a free choice of each content, while
a 'sequencer' runs N available modules, designed with a dedicated function, simultaneously.

[Louigi Verona]

2 Louigi Verona
What's against numbers ? Every action of a pc, no matter what, is a calculation of numbers using some formulae.

Because it's less visual.

Keep in mind that sequencers have numbers as well, but you have a choice there. Usually you do it that way - you draw an event by hand, then correct it, numerically.

As for the words

values in numbers are far more precise than hand-drawn filter curves (fruity)
or mouse controlled, recorded knob turns (reason)

I can tell you as a long time FL Studio user that this is not true. Such misconception comes from people who don't use sequencers with the edit events function. No offence here, of course, just facts.
You see, you can turn knobs and record that - and this way of doing things is bad, I agree with Sam_Zen here, it's like poking around in the mud. It is used during live performances.
But usually you won't do it that way. If you want to turn a knob, you'll be doing it in the Edit Events window, which has a canvas where you can draw a curve and a window which shows the value in numbers. You draw a curve and then correct it if you want. Or you can use different functions -like sine(cosine) and give it any values.
Anyway, not only it is more visual, the grid resolution is also very larger, much larger than in any tracker. Of course, you can use speed 1 and print in those numbers... but it is some damn hard work.
Another important thing is this - how much precision do you need? You draw a curve and you hear that if you make the parameter lower then this, it sounds bad, so you just don't and keep it on a level you want. Really, it is an illusion, similar to people who believe that a manual gear-box gives more control over a car (which it doesn't)
But!
Inspite of all said above I am not saying that sequencers are better than trackers or vice versa! Trackers are a specific software, software which was created to write specific music. They should not be really compared to sequencers in general. Plus - to many of us they have nostalgic charm.
However, if you want to try out something new, do it. Those sequencers are really thought out and nice to work with. I am not even beginning to point out the advantages of a piano roll over those pattern tables - it is all very comfortable.

[Louigi Verona]

I would like to add another thought - trackers are a certain style of writing music. I guess to some people they are the best choice. When I say piano roll is more comfotable from the pure facts point of view, I do think I could be right. But to some people all those comforts are unneccesary in their creative process.

[speed-goddamn-focus]

Surely not quite infinitely  

I assure you it's BEYOND infinitely!