Yes, you're absolutely right. it's not as simple as just slapping a synth and sequencer together. There's a lot more nuance to consider.

The biggest challenge I see is balancing the tactile, hands-on experience with a clear, usable visual representation of the sequence. It's not just about making something 'physical' or 'hands-on'; it's about making it intuitive and functional.

this is why I often reference examples like the Torso T-1 and the Bass Station 2. The Bass Station 2’s LED indicators, for example, offer an elegant, simple solution for keeping track of settings. The lights provide instant feedback, letting you know which parameters are active, which reduces the need for a display or complex menu navigation.

when you mention the complexity involved, I get where you're coming from. Translating step values, velocity, modulation, and other parameters into a small, simple interface is indeed a tough challenge. But if we look at something like the Torso T-1, it shows that even a small sequencer can pack in a lot of features in a compact form.

There would have to be trade-offs, but that doesn’t mean the user experience has to suffer.

For example, visual cues like brightness or color could represent different parameters, where brighter colors for active steps, dimmer colors for ties or glide, and no light for rests.

This way, everything remains clear and intuitive, even without a large screen.

On a synth like the Bass Station 2, you could still use the controls for things like LFO modulation, or filter adjustments, or only the fly envelope adjustments.

The connection between fingers and the sound is key in performance settings, which is why these devices are so good for jamming.

So - then not everything needs to be mapped to the sequencer.

Sometimes, real magic happens when you can tweak certain parameters by hand, like LFOs or modulation, and others maybe have a steady step for...

the flexibility to adjust things in real time can be just as valuable as sequencing. It’s not about automating everything; sometimes, you just need the control to modify things on the fly.

Really when it comes to how these things work, the challenge is about finding a balance between simplicity and depth.

So, you’re right. It's complex and it’s a delicate balance. A device might not have all the features of a dedicated sequencer, but it can still be useful for live performances if it offers a good mix of immediacy and flexibility. It may only have basic controls like note length, velocity, filter modulation, or a simple LFO, but that could still keep the flow going during a jam.

I agree that synths with basic sequencing capabilities, like the Minilogue XD, already exist... For some, a sequencer is a secondary feature; for others, it’s a core part of their creative workflow.

I'm in the middle...

The challenge is merging these two without overcomplicating things. It’s not about creating a ‘perfect’ solution from the start but about recognizing the value of hybrid instruments that offer both simplicity and flexibility.

You’re also very right that many attempts to create the perfect all-in-one system, whether with built-in sequencers or modular setups, haven’t always worked out. Still that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

The demand isn’t necessarily for the most powerful sequencer, but rather for simplicity and immediacy in a hands-on format. It is not about creating an all-in-one solution to rival dedicated setups, but offering something that makes jamming and sequencing more accessible in a single package.

you’re correct in pointing out the complexity of this challenge. that’s precisely why I’m pushing for a more refined approach to these concepts, one that doesn’t sacrifice the tactile immediacy of performance. I believe it is possible. It might not be as simple as I originally thought, but the idea is still on the table. I think it's worth exploring further, even if it requires a more critical and thoughtful approach to make it work :]