Note offset +/- 50% - is it ever going to happen?


I can’t really speak for the „quiet“ user base but it seems like it’s a big one for most of us who contribute here. It sure is for me, I can’t count how many times I had to manually fix my steps because of that 2% early hitting. (It especially happens when I play with others. I guess it’s like the drummer‘s syndrome.)

The solve with Math.round instead of Math.floor almost sounds too easy to be true. But only Squarp knows…


whaaat??? when I wanted to put a sliiiightly negative offset and the note landed on the step on the left I thought it was a bug! I was going to report it. This is not a bug??!
youre kidding
it cant be like that. this is not serious.
what is the point having a sequencer designed for musicians (real time signatures, polymeters etc.) but can’t be reliable on the very basic stuff (namely the position of the notes)?
you have to admit: this is a joke


yeah I forgot that it is also a problem in step-by-step anyway
since we want to be able to slightly advance a note, even in the editing proces

it’s a fact: in music, a note that occurs a little before the beat is as common as a note that occurs a little after.


Fortunately with v3 it is very simple to correct, have you guys fully explored yet? I did a test where I purposely played in a beat with bad timing in live mode, sure enough a beat that I wanted on the 1 landed on the 16, it took less than 1 second to get it where I wanted it, by using rotate and offset. Quantize also seems to be improved and in my brief tests also often brought the note to where I wanted it.

You can select multiple notes or multiple steps in step mode and move them easily, you can filter, zoom and view easily, I do not know of any other hardware sequencer which makes it so easy to do this, and I’ve been using midi sequencers for 30 years.

I agree that the current note display position behaviour is not ideal, but as it has been stated a few times by Squarp now it won’t be changing. I feel your frustrations at this but sometimes you just have to accept it and get on with it or decide that you can’t live with it and find another device that works how you want it to.

Gear is always a compromise there isn’t and never will be one box that does everything you want, I am not trying to stir the pot here, but hoping that rather than focusing on what it doesn’t do we focus on what it does do, and does very well, and discuss workarounds, tips, share definitions and still continue to suggest features and improvements but not keep flogging a dead horse.


great news!
what is your workaround if we want a note stays on the correct step (normal) but be heard a little earlier?


Use -offset.


I guess you are talking about the step display?


Why didn’t we think of that?

yes I was talking about the step display
on the pads AND on the screen

the thing is, there is no workaround
that’s the problem


You are talking about where the note is displayed on the grid on touchpads and screen, I was talking about how to move notes incorrectly placed during live recording.


It doesn’t really matter once you are aware of it does it? As long as you can get the note to play where you want it.

For example on Elektron sequencers using micro timing it is possible to shift a note +/- 1/16th note, lets say you place a hit on step 7, now you could use micro timing to shift it to what is step 6 or step 8, but the display on the grid would indicate that it was still on step 7. But once you understand how it works it isn’t an issue.

Like I said I agree that it isn’t ideal, and neither is the Elektron way, but it is just a quirk that once you know about isn’t such a big deal.

You mentioned that you no longer use live mode because of the way Pyramid handles note display, I suggested a way to work around it which is very simple, if not ideal.


In this case I’d go into step mode, select the note and use rotate to move it to the first step.


Rotate allows notes to move by 100% of a step in either direction, offset allows -50% to +95%

Notes are always displayed on the previous step if a negative offset is used, when a positive offset is used notes are displayed on the correct step.


@darenager, I don’t know what you are trying to prove, I think we are all on the same page how it currently works, how we can work around the limitations etc.

People are just to saying how it should be (in their humble opinion). I respect yours, but I’m of the opinion that it just is more complicated than it could be. I hope that squarp is considering looking into it, when times are more quiet.

I think it will be worth it!


Not trying to prove anything?

Like I said I think the proposed idea is good, but Squarp said not possible. Then a user said he doesn’t use live mode because notes were being put on the wrong step, so I told him how to correct it. Another user also said that notes were appearing at the end of a page when he wanted it at the start, I told him how to correct it.

Then when reading another users comment I noticed some slight errors in the wording so I corrected it to avoid confusion to other users who may be reading the topic.

It seems that some people are unwilling to accept that it won’t happen, and seem hostile when someone tries to offer help, also seems that some people are getting confused over where a note is displayed to where it is played and how to correct it.


Yeah… precisely the problem!

I get what you’re saying - the UI will never be perfect for everybody’s needs. maybe for your purposes this is not a problem, but for many other people it clearly is an issue.

Yes, I can live with it if it doesn’t get fixed, but I’ll have wasted countless hours chasing down and nudging notes that are falling on the wrong step when I could just be on to the next track. You seem to be invested in discounting other user’s suggestions. This is not the flogging of a dead horse. If it’s not an issue for you, then move along.

Every time I input a sequence live, I have to deal with this. And in step mode, if I want it to push things a little before the beat, then suddenly my steps move around in an unintutive way. I think we all just want the pyramid to have a smoother workflow, because while it is pretty damn close, there’s still a few snags here and there.

now’s the time - while it’s still being developed (because there will soon be a day when they stop updating.


I agree and I don’t think it is ideal either, but I just work around it, if Squarp had not directly said that it won’t happen then I would of course be continuing to want it, but there comes a time when we have to take NO for an answer, regardless of how much we don’t want to. In one of the many threads about it Squarp gave a clear response and reason why it won’t happen, so I accept it.

If Squarp turned around and said ok we will change it I’d be as happy as everyone else.


I hope I didn’t come across hostile in any way, because it was not meant that way.
I just learned that a “no” is not always a no.
So I choose not to take no for an answer.
It’s a fundamental flaw in an awesome sequencer and has been since many versions.

Maybe you remember:

No major updates anymore. No more user requests.

But then all of a sudden this awesome v3.0 and a new way of showing interest/communication.
Awesome! Kind of proves it was possible after all.

“No!” as in: “No, not right now.”? Sure, I’m happy to wait :slight_smile:
There might be a way. There have been many before.
That’s all I’m saying.


No you didn’t come across as hostile :+1:

I would never expect that if someone didn’t understand my intentions to not question them anyway, similarly if I put something incorrect then it doesn’t bother me if someone corrects me.

I was surprised when v3 was announced too, and maybe you are right that something might come later.

I think I made the mistake of believing I was being helpful, suggesting workarounds to people who (from their posts) did not seem to understand how to find and move notes quickly. But I now know not to waste my time doing that :wink:


Everyone knows these workarounds. Thats our daily bread and butter.
This topic was created simply because people are tired of working around the Pyramid in this regard. Add to this that Squarp actually promised this feature a long time ago, but now are backing down. Which really fuels some frustration as users were expecting it.


Ok maybe I read it wrong, but one guy is complaining of how hard it is to find notes recorded in live (which it isn’t) to correct them (which you would STILL have to do if it was -/+50 anyway) so it led me to believe that he did not fully understand what he was doing, and that he was so invested and obsessed in asking for a feature (that may never come) without actually realising that it wasn’t going to help him in that particular case anyway.

Would you say that was an incorrect assessment?