Aline: a hardware step sequencer built over five years

Oct 19, 2026 Last reply: 44 seconds ago 2 Replies
Jump to replies (2)

The whole thing grew out of a plain, generous idea: the maker simply enjoys building things and followed that enjoyment wherever it led. What came out of it is Aline, a hardware music sequencer that runs as an electronic step sequencer, shaped across a five-year iterative process. Five years is a serious commitment, and to me that duration is the real cost of a project like this.



The path from idea to object covers a lot of ground. Design work happens in 3D CAD on a desktop monitor. Fabrication relies on a CNC milling spindle and an industrial sheet-metal laser cutter, the electronics get assembled with a soldering iron and solder, and development happens in a code editor on a vertical monitor. Having every stage of a hardware project handled by the same person is rare, and that range is a big part of why this build stands out to me.



The hardware itself is tidy: a custom printed circuit board, mechanical keyboard switches alongside rotary potentiometers or encoders, an OLED display panel, and a finished metal enclosure powered by a USB-C cable. Even the small habits are good, like keeping screws sorted in plastic organizer trays. While the unit runs, red indicator LEDs advance the position, and parameter values refresh on screen as the knobs turn, with readouts such as STEP, GATE, VEL, OCT and CV.



On the musical side there are multiple engines and modes for creating a sequence. A first sequence can come from a euclidean generator, a second from an arpeggiator, and the second can transpose the first to form a progression. On top of that, one sequence can modulate another. Layering engines this way gives the device a depth that a single-mode design would not have, at least in my view.



If there is a trade-off to note, it is time: five years of iteration is a long runway for a personal hardware project. Whether the maker keeps iterating or calls Aline finished is an open question worth asking.


Choosing a euclidean generator for the first sequence and an arpeggiator for the second strikes me as a clever pairing. Each engine handles a different musical job, and letting the second transpose the first turns two generators into a full progression. The trade-off, as I see it, is that a player has to learn two systems rather than one to get the most out of it.

One concrete variation I would suggest: a dedicated control for transposition amount between the two sequences. Given that the arpeggiator sequence can transpose the euclidean one to build a progression, hands-on control over how far it transposes would make shaping progressions quicker than adjusting values through the screen, and it would suit the knob-heavy layout the build already has.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required