ModularGrid uses so-called cookies to ensure it's so-called functionality. We also use dubious tracking scripts. Find out more in the Privacy Policy. We use cookies and wanna let you know.
i have never played with eurorack before in my life. i decided to build a massive 4 case rig on here, just for fun, as the whole thing is way out of my budget. i only half know what most of the modules there do, but i wanted the biggest canvas to create really unique textures and performance. i tried for true greatness.
so, the question is: do you like this setup? do you think it makes any kind of sense all together? and, did i go way too overboard? any comments completely 100 welcome.
This is a fun way to brainstorm, but a system this size will never work exactly as you plan it, so judging it overall at this stage isn't going to do much. This will be a lot easier if you plan in chunks and adjust as you go along (as I assume you already know you'll be doing). Start with one bit at a time.
What are your favorite options here in terms of modules? If you could only start with 84hp, what would you pick?
i kind of think it is, mostly, a bit, in my head. i understand i would need way too many way too long cables and its totally possible i dont actually need a number of those, or the synergy isnt quite right, but i truly am working on a whole 4 x 4 3u h 100hp concept where each case can mostly work on its own, but together, can make live music like nothing else. i dont mind criticism about the racks, and specifically what wont work, etc. but i would really prefer if you would just try and buy into the big concept, first. plus, there are plenty of bigger systems out there, etc. id just like to hear, given that i can find the right cables, and given that i can wrap my brain around the individual modules, that the high concept design works. thanks for the comment anyway, tho. ☮
As a live setup, this is just too much. There is a pageantry to a big setup when you're onstage, but one 12U case (or, frankly, 6U case) is already quite a bit of stuff when you only have two hands. This is enough to keep 4 different people stressing out to keep track of everything.
As a studio hub for experimenting or just general production work, things obviously change a bit. However, the big systems that people like Red Means Recording use to make professional sounding and well-thought out music like you could get from a DAW (or at least be able to keep and use the results as if it werw that kind of music) are built piece by piece. If you're on a budget, not being too tied to a specific plan where every piece is interdependent is best - go where the deals are.
Let me ask you this: roughly speaking, if you had to describe each of these cases succinctly as "the (blank) case", what would each one be? For example, "the Buchla case", or "the sampling case", or "the techno case" (though, if this describes all four, maybe don't pick that).
edit: Sorry - I posted this without seeing your new post.
i was mostly just thinking about live streaming and 1 take dawless play. i dont have any intention of treking anything anywhere. id say the cases are "main case" which has a full synth unit, a full drum computer, chop sampling if i want it, nifty touch points, and pams + op ned for ease. "bass case" which lets me program a 8 oscillator 4 demon core complex bass tone on a nerdseq, or other patchs, plus some nice effects modules, too. "performance case" that has the tukra and a rene, and a plethora of cv, and some more voices. and lastly the "sampling case" that, i believe, should let me have total control over 5 samples, plus any mixing i missed on any other case, plus some more trigger and live patching options, plus a bluebox to make recording extra convenient. i have a whole concept that there are 9 albums there in that 1600hp, and i imagine i could even travel with it if i absolutely had to, but i see it as purely a studio rig. i hope that clears up what my vision is. are you purely convinced this is too much? everything is out of my budget now. i just like to design things for fun. dont you think, if i work out all the bugs, that a system like this could make one even more creative? do you have any specific complaints or do you just think its just too much? peace out.
im thinking: program the bass line 1h at a time on the nerdseq (plus whatever live options it has available, if any) then draw in a base drumline, then either use a keystep pro or any of the sequencing and arpeggiation options available to build the main melody, then add extra drums and melody on the tukra and rene, clocking everything to the tukra, then fill in a ton of extra cv mod texture, then build an effects chain, then have 5 pre loaded samples to trigger stretch or reverse at any time, then some 'extra magic', then record. now that you know the whole concept do you think it makes more sense now? peace.
If anything, I think your setup would be bigger if you had all these modules, because the real juice comes from modulating and manipulating voices and sounds with control voltage and routing the signals creatively more than methodically layering and combining lots of voices (which is kind of better left to non-Eurorack hardware). Think of a jazz trio - a bass, saxophone, and drums. Despite only two mostly monophonic melodic voices (with some opportunities to do chords or whatever) and and a few drum sounds, the possibilities are immense because of how much they can manipulate timbre with their playing. Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity is a pretty good way of demonstrating what I mean - that music is massive despite being basic instruments available in reasonably well-stocked high schools. That level of flexibility per voice is what makes modular special relative to other formats despite essentially making the same sounds as any other interface with the same circuits inside of it, but it comes from modulation and utilities. LFOs, envelopes, VCAs, mults, CV mixers, clock dividers, sample and hold, switches, etc. - the boring stuff that was pretty much already figured out by the 1970s.
For example, the small system you made has two sound sources (three if I'm being picky, but I won't count the Tukra). One does include its own support modules, but that will just get you to the point of making regular synth sounds. When you consider that the Tukra only sequences gates and you still have to get notes into the thing, you'd probably do well to stick to a general "one sound source per row" rule and go from there. Theoretically, if you said "I want to get a setup with at least two synth sources and some unique sequencing/drum options", I would recommend a Syntakt or Analog Rytm before this modular setup, and you'd make the same sounds better and more conveniently.
Instead, my advice for your first modular setup is to go the other way and just think "what is the most badass single voice I can come up with?", and maybe add that onto the Tukra for a cool start. You can even use the Pam's to quantize modulation from weird modules and create generative melodies, so maybe keep Pam's if you're going to start with a pure gate sequencer like this - it will help cover for it and integrate it into a less rigid framework well. After you have a full, tricked out single voice figured out, the setup ideas will just be flowing and it will be easier to make it more expansive and nebulous.
Also, if you need 104 HP for your first rack, go for it. I just kinda said 84, but a Mantis case could be wise if you know you want to do this stuff.
you are mistaken. the tukra is a fully featured drum machine, on top of the extra sequencing gates, and i just really want a crazy bass tone with possibly 4 octaves of demon cores all being modulated by 2 8 pase lfos, or something even more complicated. what i am going for is 'lots of options, big sound' so i can keep repatching and repatching and have almost a completely different instrument each time, so i can make 60+ hours of content and never get bored, etc. i will look into the album you mentioned, i just wish you would take some more time to try to apreciate the high concept. i was trying to make it 'too much', i just want to know if you think it is 'way too much', etc. peace out.
also, im not really sure i understand how a clock divider works, and i feel like i included enough random cv modules to sculpt some interesting stuff. please give my concept a little extra consideration for its concept. peace.
im thinking: program the bass line 1h at a time on the nerdseq (plus whatever live options it has available, if any) then draw in a base drumline, then either use a keystep pro or any of the sequencing and arpeggiation options available to build the main melody, then add extra drums and melody on the tukra and rene, clocking everything to the tukra, then fill in a ton of extra cv mod texture, then build an effects chain, then have 5 pre loaded samples to trigger stretch or reverse at any time, then some 'extra magic', then record. now that you know the whole concept do you think it makes more sense now? peace.
-- singular_sound
The one thing you'll learn in modular synthesis is that the line between bass, lead, drum, and pad is relatively arbitrary. The more you break down sounds to their base elements and the circuits that make them up, the more you'll have ideas that are just about sounds and how they're made. Theoretically, this is all fine, and what you're describing is a bit vague but definitely workable, but you'll be surprised at how differently you see these elements when you're working with them vs when you're imagining them from the perspective of a more typical workflow.
Also, the way you've talked about this leads me to believe that, if you plan to start with a voice and a sequencer, you should probably go with the Nerdseq first rather than the Tukra, because you'll be able to do a lot of the stuff you're describing in this big setup using just the Nerdseq and a few well-chosen modules for a voice. When I first got mine, I tested it with just a Moog Mavis, a 2hp MMF, and a power supply with a built-in mult, and I got a ton out of that. You don't need 8 voices to make it count - the outputs and inputs are freely assignable and the ungodly amount of features makes it good for supercharging a Eurorack voice or two. It is also more live-friendly than it seems, especially since it has extensive integration with Launchpads, allowing you to do a variety of fun things and basically turning it into something like an Ableton workflow, but in hardware. It will probably be the best way for you to determine if you want to manage and maintain a larger Eurorack environment as opposed to having the modular just be an instrument in a broader context or a solo instrument like violin or whatever. Obviously, I'm just one guy, though - be careful before you start throwing Nerdseq money around.
i just like to design things for fun. dont you think, if i work out all the bugs, that a system like this could make one even more creative? do you have any specific complaints or do you just think its just too much? peace out.
-- singular_sound
I think it's definitely too much to get at once... do remember that all plans fail as soon as the enemy is engaged - and that enemy is you!! and quite frankly you need it to...
as a one off purchase - it will likely be overwhelming and will almost definitely not work how you want it to in practice... plus if you haven't got the money for it in your hand right now, it's almost definite that some modules you've picked will go out of production and become like rockinghorse shit - and new ones that are (potentially) more interesting will appear...
I'm revisiting this after taking a look at the racks - they show a poor understanding of the necessities of modular synthesis - it's almost devoid of utilities (including some that you'd absolutely need in order to make tonal music - sequencers without quantizers & no dedicated quantizers, too few vcas and not a sub mixer or attenuverter/attenuator/offset to be found), no filters or waveshapers, not enough modulation, way too many sound sources with almost definitely not enough support modules to control them - the list could go on forever... and contains quite a few modules that are only available used and possibly difficult plus some modules that are near unuseable...
either start with vcv rack (or similar) and then start with a much smaller rack or just start with a much smaller rack with a few modules and expand slowly... this way you'll learn modules better and to a much deeper degree - and learn patching techniques - that you almost definitely won't do if you bought everything at once... and you won't need 1/2 the modules you have here to achieve what you want - but you'll NEED a good few other modules to achieve it...
a good starting point is: a sound source, a modulation source, a sound modifier, a way to play and a way to listen (I'd go for a quad cascading vca for this - it'll be mono, but it'll do the job) - and then expand that towards one of your goals and then start on another and then work out how to get them to co-operate...
4 12u cases are a multi year project - whether you go all in and buy everything at once or if you build up slowly... you still have to learn the modules and you need to learn how to patch them together and how to control them - and at this size of modular it's at multiple different levels - which generally requires multiple sets of things like vcas and mixers and envelope generators etc etc etc
if you bought all of this as is in one go - you'd need to buy at least another 2 cases the same size to add the modules you'd need to support the ones you'd have already bought...
take a look at my signature and think long and hard about what it says... and especially think about how it relates to the racks you have planned etc etc..
and this is coming from someone with a similar sized modular and a lot of expereience - I'd be looking at this and wondering how to get more than a thrird of it to work not because I don't understand the modules that are there or that I'm overwhelmed by the size of it - it'd be because I'd be missing the things that I'd need to have in order to get it to work - filters, waveshapers, enough modulation & primarily the utilities that glue all these things together...
"some of the best base-level info to remember can be found in Jim's sigfile" @Lugia
Utility modules are the dull polish that makes the shiny modules actually shine!!!
yeah, like i said, i just decided to design this for fun. i intended to go a bit overboard, ie using a whole nerdseq for just 1 bass tone. i want to be doing most of the performance on the tukra, so i want that to be the clock for most of it, as i like how its clock control works, but yes, i would program in the whole set into the nerdseq first. i think you dont fully understand how the tukra works. i checked out the albert ayler, but tbh i prefer snarky puppy and moondog. also, to the point about lugging it to gigs, if i had to, i could can a whole live performance, then do live visuals on a laptop and work the croud on stage. i really wish you would consider this design for its own merits rather than suggest i do things more the way other people typically do. i get that its a lot of units and a big price tag, but thats what i set out to do. i wanted to make a maximal system. i just want to know if you think its too maximal, or doesnt makr any sense. this is a 'dream system'. i just want to know if you even like it. peace. peace. peace.
Albert Ayler is certainly not everybody's thing, nor does he need to be. I'm glad you took a look and I hope you at least understood what I meant about how much comes from simple sounds being well modulated. In the end, these are just oscillators, samples, and drum machines like any other electronic instruments - it's the workflow and design for each voice that makes it.
I do understand how the Tukra works, but the fact that it's a sound source makes it more of a liability in the small rack you posted (unless you just ditch the other oscillators entirely until the case expands). In a bigger setup this changes, and it's not a bad start at all if it's what you really want, but when you've only got a bit of stuff at the beginning it won't be as much of a team player as it could be if there's also oscillators to manage (though the Doepfer mino synth does make a cool modulation hub if you abuse it like modular is meant to be abused). A modular drum machine setup focused solely on facilitating and manipulating the Tukra would be a great start and could probably get that first hour of music going pretty soon.
I'm not engaging with your concept because it's too theoretical. It's not that a big system like this is bad, but no one can know what it needs to be at this stage when you haven't yet explored what it is and what it accomplishes. Spend a month with something like that Taiga on its own and you'll find it can fill out entire tracks on its own. You'll probably get your 60+ hours of music a lot easier from thinking in terms of one thing at a time, spending time with each stage of your modular setup and using the little nooks and crannies in it to fuel your inspiration rather. If you somehow got rich and just got it all at once and had to sit with all the possibilities and decide where to start, I doubt it would be as productive. Your concept, aside from the idea of a big system, which is good but best done gradually and through trial and error, seems to just be "what if I could get the analysis paralysis of a DAW in physical hardware?" Staying focused is the only way to keep modular from being an expensive chore rather than good, useful fun.
i like the tukra as a performance instrument for drum sequencing, then i can have 2 clock divided arpeggiation voices, with seperate adsr, and then the chao can sum the two synths and feed the pure tukra out into something an mbox would take, by abusing it a tiny bit. if i wanted 'just 84hp' then, i cant think of anything less that would give me the options i want. the whole point is to give myself the right amounts of 'nooks and crannies' to really keep me intetested. i already have like 20+ patch element ideas that i would want to test out. i dont think i would get 'blank daw paralysis'. i think i would have a lot of fun trying 1,000+ things out, but, thats just my opinion because i dont have the physical thing. are you against maximalism? is that why you like albert ayler? j.c. peace. out.
i just want to know, zachsname, do you not like 4x 12u 100hp systems, or do you just not like my 4x 12u 100hp system. lets pretend i really know what im doing and have a lot of ideas, do you like my design, asthetically, or would you do a 4x 12u 100hp system completely differently? im thinking, like, this would be my one studio forever forever, if i had it. do you like it just for that concept? peace peace peace out out out.
im sorry if you think my system is to maximal, 'zachsname'. i like it, and, i think it really does make good use of modular sound modulation potential. i havent heard you take any issue with any module or how they might work together, only that i could do more with less, but, i am literally trying to d more with more. im sorry you dont like it. its just a concept. 'peace'.
a lot of cases seem to be 'only about 1 patch only' systems, to me. do you not like that i am trying to make a '1,000+ patch system', or do you really think i could get everything i want for less, seeing what is already there? tell me, zachsname, whats exactly the matter with trying to give myself a full daw in eurorack? is it that it would cost too much, or am i really making that fundamental of an error. do tell me. peace...
i re read your comment about layering vs modulating, zachsname, but what im really going for is multitude of melodic voices, many options for sequencing and arpeggiating, possibly with multiple melodic voices out of synch, an enormous bass line, lots of performance options, a canvas of vocal samples i can layer, and a record straight to disk workflow. do you think there are any modules that are not there that should be, or is it just too big. i basically want to never run out of a patch idea is the big concept. sorry if you dont like this. p e a c e . . . . . . . . . .
also, re: "building up one unit at a time", im pretty sure "junkie xl" just plopped down $100k all at once, and it worked out just fine for him. ... ... ... "p.e.a.c.e".
im sorry if i let this feel a little personal, zachsname, but what i really want to know is: would you enjoy patching and playing this rig, given that its intended to be maximal, or do you think its a bad design entirely and needs re-thinking, even if its intended for each performance to only use a subset? like, do you think there really is a cool 9 albums in there, or have i really left too many options off the table? like, think of it as a whole studio; is it workable, etc? just want to hear you critique it on its on terms, not on how the average case should be set up. like, the way the modules are set up, is it aesthetic? what specific might you do different? thats what i want to know. peace. out.
hey zachsname, i designed a 3u 84hp case like you asked me to, how about you design 4 tandem 12u 100ph cases, and then we can compare notes. should be really fun, i think, lol.
also, zachsname, you mentioned 'complex modulation', thats why i put the two maths there. im not sure exactly what they do, but i have a hunch they could do some pretty interesting things to two lfo signals.
also, zachsname, id really appreciate it if you would listen to 'snarky puppy - outlier' and 'moondog - moondog' if you havent heard them already and possibly reconsider the aesthetic of my maximal modular approach, etc.
a major inspiration was "datach'i - system". he made a whole album on 1 case. i wanted to try to make 9 albums on 4 cases. its a high concept design. i get it if its not your cup of tea, but id appreciate if we could focus on making it better or more functional, not: 'smaller and more ordinary'. nothing against you personally, zachsname, but like, you wouldnt tell slipknot: 'just get rid of one of your dudes. too maximal.'. im open to little tweaks or redesigns, but i will not compromise on the high concept. like i said, i designed this for fun.
i guess the real title of this thread should have been: "i tried to design a 4 case 12u 100hp full studio system. do you think i accomplished on this well? all comments welcome, except 'that is way too maximal, brah'.".
zachsname: re, the tukra. i like it, because it just does the drums and does them well, and then i also have the two simpler modules in the first case plus a sampler. i dont want my drum patch to be 1,000 modules. id condider doing things the more "datach'i" way, but to be perfectly honest i have zero idea how he produces his drum tones and triggers. whatever he does is way over my head, but if i could figure it out i could be convinced to do things more that way, if i could even make it all fit.
just tell me: what do you like, what dont you like, what seems interesting, what do you think doesnt work. just dont tell me: start smaller, too complicated, youll never figure it out, more clock multipliers. etcetera.
question, zachsname: if my setup is to maximal for you, then what do you think about datach'i s rig in this vid?
i want help making my 'ttest ssystem' as cohesive and well tuned as 'system'. i do not want to be told to make what i already did smaller.
the thread title should have already let you know i was trying to be as maximal as possible. i want advice on how it could all work better, not just to start from scratch again smaller. this is my dream system im trying to build. please, just accept its premise.
also, there are a few jokes in there: 2 maths, 2 matrix ii s... i know i could use them, somehow, but its mostly really just kind of a meta joke about being maximal. i really wish you would accept the premise more before doling out your advice...
also, zachsname, dont you like that it is 4 near perfect squares, and that i left no gaps anywhere? isnt that aesthetic? and i think you could really create some awesome and unique patches on it. i want you to critique it on quality of design, not say that its probably over my head or too complex. this is not a real system. its just a design i have in my head. please just critique the design. etc.
jimhowell1970, you almost slipped by me there, with all the monologue i was doing. i nearly intended this setup as a joke about being maximal. i really do think i could squeeze 9 albums out of it, if i really tried. i just built a smaller, more modest 4 3u 84ph case. do you like it better? im really looking more for feedback about the general design principal more than practicality. like i said, this is a bit of a joke. i just wanted to make some pretty designs. do you like 'ssecond ssystem' better? much more managable, id say, but i still say i could manage with all 1600hp.
I think the last rack is much better at least in the first instance although it is still (virtually) unplayable... and imnsho - there are still way too many sound sources, not enough sound modifiers or modulation sources and definitely no where near enough utilities...
this is partly due to layout... the sequencers are in places where they will be obscured by cables, so difficult to access, and the magneto, is as far away from what I imagine to be your end of chain mixer as possible - so unneccessarily long cable runs for no benefit whatsoever!!!
I'd rather have this in 2, 6u racks - for reasons of ergonomics... one near vertical primarily for voices, processing and modulation and one in front of it near horizontal for control, sequencing and mixing... for this I'd chhoose mantis cases as they can be fixed in this position...
there are also functions that are missing - which are needed to facilitate the usage of the synth...
how are you going to split the output of the sequencers to the sound sources? please explain...
also submixing voices before processing with filters and delays/reverbs before end of chain mixing is a very good idea!!
why only a single filter? you have a lot more voices than that (I kind of count 7) - I'd realistically want at least 5 or 6: assuming the pulsar generators are going to be kind of used as drones (not enough envelope generators) then one each for those, one for the sampler, at least one for the drum kit, one for the plasma voices and one for the sinc legios...
whilst I'm a big fan of the magneto - I have one and love it - I think it's not a good fit for a rack this size, especially with so many voices in it... you need the space for other modules... the same could be said of both the plasma voices & pulsar generators... slightly smaller modules that do similar things are undoubtedly available... and would free up space considerably...
why 4 sinc legios??? I'd expect that 2 would realistically be enough for a single bass voice - either slightly detuned or in combination with the warps clone... please explain your intended usage of 4 identical sound sources for a single bass voice, with no filter... reducing these from 4 to 2 would free up a lot of needed space...
to a large extent the rack still demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of modular synthesis and in particular patching modular synths - which is to be expected from a newbie... but arguing about how you know better with people who almost definitely have significantly more knowledge and experience of modular than you isn't exaclty charming is it??? at least som eof the people helping would, if modular synth forums were academic bodies, hold doctorates, based on the amount of research, practice and deep thought they have excerted on the subject, whilst you are effectively applying to an associates degree...
this almost always ends with people coming back and saying they should have listened!!!
maybe eat some humble pie!!
remember we are trying to help you... something that you have asked us to do & that we are doing freely!!!
plus the rack appears to be 85hp not 84hp... dfficult - the top row won't fit in 84hp... so maths/spatial awareness isn't a core skill either...
"some of the best base-level info to remember can be found in Jim's sigfile" @Lugia
Utility modules are the dull polish that makes the shiny modules actually shine!!!
jimhowell1970: so, a few things. im thinking of four equal generative or random sequenced triggered equal voices coming out of the pam pro into the zazou creating a basic tonal part, and that gets mixed at the bottom into a single zazou channel, then the pam also triggering 2 op ned clocks while the whole op ned is tuned by the step sequencer, with another step sequencer underneath, to maybe sequence the 2nd plasma voice maybe differently, both advanced by the pam, creating 2 more melodic points being mixed on the same rack, and then a filter just for those 2 voices. the drum rack i think explains itself, and i heard you can use the plumes as 2 lfos. the idea is that its driven by a pam pro working as a wacky clock divider and and op ned with a 1 cv step sequencer driving the melody forward, with 4 generative random-ish plonk-y melodic texture. maybe you might have to menu dive in the pam for 20min, first, but i dont think its unplayable. also, the drum sequencer would be the master clock, if that is possible. please do reply if this makes any sense. peace out.
jimhowell1970: i like to have the most performant part on the bottom left, and either all sequencing on bottom row, or one multi-voice per row, and i like the final mix to come out of the top right, when possible. its just whats most aesthetic to me. ... ... ...
in this rig, the pammelas pro workout is essentially sequencing everything through a minimal arpeggiator and step sequencer, with random trigger outputs, as well. im 90% sure the pam can do all that. im not an expert, but this is designed to be 100% pam driven, like you could create a 2 part harmony using a 'clock multiplier' and the op ned and 'sequence thing', plus some random goodness im pretty sure the pam has. maybe im wrong, in which case, somebody invent me a 'wacky clock divider', lol.
there, i stayed up all night, and designed a second completely self contained 12u 84hp system, just to make you happy, zachsname.
do you like it better? is it modular enough, now? too many oscillators, eh? eh? eh? eh?
just give me some honest feedback, on just the design.
(its more modest, now. better?)
peace.
peace.
peace.
-- singular_sound
there, i stayed up all night, and designed a second completely self contained 12u 84hp system, just to make you happy, zachsname.
do you like it better? is it modular enough, now? too many oscillators, eh? eh? eh? eh?
just give me some honest feedback, on just the design.
(its more modest, now. better?)
peace.
peace.
peace.
-- singular_sound
The third row is the closest thing to an effective and efficient instrument I've seen so far. If you waited on getting the filter and Opp Ned and replaced them with a Maths, you could start with that row and learn pretty much everything you need to make and plan a big system that makes sense. Two Plasma Voices is also a lot, but that is a much better idea of what kinds of maximalism are available, and they do have built-in synth tools that make them super helpful in a smaller space, so I say go for it on those.
I wouldn't start with Datach'i's hardware when looking at their work for inspiration. I would look at his history and productivity. He was a professional musician long before modern modular became big and these setups became possible. Richard Devine's setup that he used when I saw him live is another good example. I was able to find it on here (like I was able to do with Datach'i's setup), and they both have unique setups heavy on percussion and pings and short triggered sounds in ways that don't rely as much on modulation like envelopes. However, these people have workflows and styles unique to them from working with hardware and software over the years and delivering results according to their specific vision. Most of the stuff in their current Eurorack setups hasn't even been around for more half the time they've been working. They already knew what all this stuff was before it was even designed. It's not really fair to yourself to look at someone like Datach'i and think your system should be comparable now. You need to learn what you need before setting yourself up with those kinds of expectations, and starting with the basics so you know the parameters will help you design unique systems with greater efficiency and accuracy. Your music and what it needs to be is more important than any design.
I imagine the Junkie XL comment is a joke, but remember that his giant wall is a 5U setup and based very much on the kinds of standard modular stuff missing in this setup. I'm not exactly a huge fan of his style (nor do I need to be as long as he doesn't do anything so bad it ruins the movie for me), but he is extremely educated and practical when it comes to owning a giant wall of noise machines. Hans Zimmer is the same - when it's not softsynths, it's usually something fairly oldschool and simple in terms of design. Their big systems are rhe opposite of yours (and that may not be a bad thing - they are the opposite of Datach'i amd Devine as well).
If anything, this is what everyone is trying to get at here with you: the best path to a big modular setups is to find a place in your existing music making system that modular can contribute to and then see how much more modular infects your life from there. Let the virus spread naturally, and don't worry about "design" - worry about playing music.
I don't know where the joke begins and ends with this post exactly, so I'll just say that it's usually a bad sign for your joke when you are consistently telling people it's a joke. That might just be you telling yourself that it is a joke, which is probably not convincing for either of us.
pammelas pro work out plus op ned plus 1 sequenced cv is a concept im trying to explore, like, maybe you could even get pam to do random quantized gate triggers between 1-128 clocks average frequency gaps, just by menu diving, and then it wouldnt be unplayable, it would randomly play itself. i think im talking sense.
zachsname: i dont see the big harm in wanting an experimental maximal full studio equivalent dawless eurorack setup i think i can make work in ways you dont see, just to play with it. can i just not want a new toy if its too expensive? cant i just pretend on here as a 'fun joke'? i would bet 7 doll hairs that if i had those first four cases i posted, i could make 9 datach'i level albums. do ypu just not like me aiming that high, or do you have god like omnicient powers into my own creative process? i think the idea of 'ttest ssystem' is fun. i say there should be a new forum: 'fantasy cases'. here here.
zachsname: i dont think you understand how i am trying to use the pam pro, op ned, and 1cv step sequencer, either. its kind of hard to explain, but im pretty sure it would work. like 4 out of step clocks on 2 root note sequences, and 2 arpeggiated voices on that root, all being timed differently. does nobody even know how to use a pam? im leas to believe it can do a lot of things, or maybe i really do need to go out and invent a 'wacky clock multiplier'. ...
There's already a section for fantasy cases on Modulargrid. Just click the My Modular tab and design away. This is the forum. Here, your fantasy meets reality (or at least the fantasies of others).
would it make you two happier if i replaced the pam pro with two tempi s ? is that it ? because it only takes me like 20min to make updates...
zachsname: i already bought the first bit. a po-33 k.o. . its in the box since holidays. i have been uninspired. coming in here and designing fantasy systems was designed to unstick me.
