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.
Right...and the interesting thing is, people tend to neglect these sorts of modules because they're not quite as 'sexy' as others. True, LFOs, logic, comparators and the like don't tend to make sounds in of themselves, but what they can do in the process of using a modular as a fully-integrated instrument...that's where they get damned interesting, indeed! Many of my larger-scale test builds on here devote half or more of the instrument to these various control and modulation functions; you don't need a lot of noisemakers to...well, make noise, but if you want those noises to behave in elaborate and amazing ways, you have to deal with the 'unsexy' parts and build in accordingly massive scales. I've gone literally so far in this, myself, that I acquired many years back some salvaged analog computers. The idea with those is to modify them (they operate in the +/- 100v range, I'm planning to have that hardwire-attenuated down to +/- 10v at suitable outputs), then using all three, build a single fully-operational machine with two fully-restored 'program panels'. Even with just ten opamps, these should still be capable of rudimentary chaotic-function calculations such as Lorenz attractors, oscillator patterns such as Lotka-Volterra curves, and so forth. Technically, these can be done on a modular synth as well, but synth modules don't tend to have sufficiently open architecture to allow the user to directly get at the opamp internals on the same scale, so it's actually a bit more difficult there.
Right...let's say you have three separate LFOs, plus...oh, a Nonlinearcircuits Sloth and an adder. So...LFO 1 and the Sloth go into an adder so that the LFO's output is constantly subject to slow alterations. Adder feeds LFO 2's rate CV, then that LFO feeds into LFO 3's rate CV. There is pretty much NO WAY that LFO 3 can output anything steady and/or repeating with that sort of a control chain feeding it. Now, go nuts and feed that LFO into a quantizer that's set for something like a minor hexachord with A1 as the root. Then clock that quantizer with...ah, let's get stupid with a comparator that pulls its gates off of a triangle wave from LFO 2. So, each time that fires, it locks in a new voltage on the quantizer. Feed said quantizer into a shift register, clock that critter with another comparator from a triangle from LFO 1. Now, feed those shift register outs to different VCOs set with very different waveforms, mix this down, feed to a VCF of considerable weirdness with an ADSR gated from YET ANOTHER quantizer, this time off of LFO 3's ramp. Then...
...well, you get the point. It's possible to do some extremely crazy stuff of a generative nature like this, or even with simpler patching. And yes, a S&H can work as a quantizer's front end; the important aspect of a quantizer is that, once the incoming signal is sampled and locked-in (either via detecting CV changes or via a clock), its output CV derived from the sampled source is then constrained to a specified scalar tuning. So the S&H is a quantizer part...but not the whole thing.
There's a number of Arduino-based modules here on MG, also...looking around carefully should uncover them. If you're feeling secure in your coding, some even have ways of having their firmware rewritten by the adventuresome. Dangerous...but potentially fun!
Actually, that's not all that bad a current draw, given what it is. For comparison, have a look at some similar Metasonix designs. As long as you're using one of the beefier P/Ss that are out there these days, especially the honkers in the new Pittsburghs, that should be just fine.
Decisions, decisions...yep, welcome to EuroCrack. Seriously, tho...do the Morpheus since it can go off into some warped zones. At one set of sessions many years back, one of the guys I was working with had worked out a Max patch that allowed him to access a E-Mu Morpheus's Z-plane filter's multiple axis controls simultaneously (which E-Mu hadn't designed into the Morpheus because of how the Proteus line synths' UIs worked) and the results were completely INSANE. Given that Dave Rossum's redux of the Morpheus filter in Eurorack IS that filter, but now with total simultaneous control...yeah, I can imagine how bonkers that thing can get. I'd say leave that thing right where is it!
Would things have been different without Bob's input? Absolutely. After all, Bob took synthesizers in a direction that made them more recognizable as a 'proper instrument', such as the keyboard interface, keeping all signals (mostly) on the same level, exponential VCO/VCF response, and so on. Don's ideas were monumental, and we do have him to thank for things such as the sequencer in the end, but the Buchla 100s, back in the day, weren't anything like Bob's musician-friendly efforts. They used a weird CV scaling, they weren't as clear-cut with respect to their controls as the Moogs, and they were VERY counter-keyboard in the initial years. It's worth noting that Buchla actually tried mass-marketing his 100 series systems via CBS (who also controlled Fender et al back in the late 1960s) and they were a resounding flop at the same time that Moogs were selling hand-over-fist. These days, I think we've reached a point where the differences just don't matter, though; everything uses the same scaling for the most part (Korg as well as EMW's EML reissues notwithstanding), all signal levels are designed to interconnect (save for Buchla, still), and this has opened up things to a wild, infinite set of cross-hybridizations of synthesizers. It's not so much a "west coast/east coast" dichotomy anymore.
Right...consider this: you have an LFO cascade with irregular but very long periods. You then set up a comparator to view this, then send the LFO curve on to a filter cutoff, perhaps with some attenuation. The comparator's gate output then goes to the start/stop of a sequencer, so that the sequencer only runs when the LFO cascade's output voltage exceeds X amount. Then you also send the comparator on to a XOR gate, which has a clock on its other input. When both signals are present, the gate sends nothing. But when only the clock is there, it passes and then goes on to some other device, such as a Euclidean sequencer's clock input, so that when one sequencer is running, the rhythmic pattern generation of the Euclidean stops, and when it's stopped, the rhythms pick back up again. This is what's neat about having all of these digital control subprocesses going on behind the scenes; they allow for an incredible amount of complex control staging that can be just as generatively controlled as pitch CV processes are in a generative compositional system. In short: it'll drive ya NUTZ...but that's a good thing!
The big changes in recent years, which partly (I think) got kicked off by Don Buchla via the early 200e modules, is the whole 'digital in analog's clothing' paradigm, where you have analog control over a module which, behind the panel, is based around some sort of DSP setup, either via a dedicated DSP, or a cheap micro such as an Arduino or Raspberry Pi. The ability to seamlessly merge that sort of digital generation architecture in with all of the analog stuff is blowing things wide open right now.
Well, lessee...the Toppobrillo Quantimator does both quantizing and has an onboard shift register. Also, Mark Verbos's Random Sampling combines a lot of Buchla-esque random source capabilities with a shift register. Those would be an idea. Also, there's several quantizing modules that can also output chords based on incoming CVs, with one huge (and very complex) example being the Instruo Sinfonion, and those could be interesting in a generative situation. Using some separate modules might not be a bad idea, either, and would let you pair something quirky like Erica's microtonal quantizer with a couple of Elby analog shift registers for some real strangeness.
Another useful module would be a quantizer; several of these can extract gate/triggers from voltage curves and output a number of different control signals that could then be fed into logic to create even more complex rhythmic behavior. Joranalogue's Dual Window Comparator is especially neat, since it has several different ways of obtaining gates/triggers beyond the usual single crossing-point activation behavior. As for logic, ARC's Artificial Neural Network looks like it has a lot of 'abuse potential' beyond the typical Boolean gates. A couple of stochastic 'skippers' could be fun, too, and Ladik's are pretty cost-effective/
Plus, don't neglect some of the random sequential devices, most notably a Turing Machine. In its full-blown expanded version, it's a generative fun-house! And as for interesting random sourcing, Nonlinearcircuits' 'Sloth' variations offer a lot of slow-motion change across, in theory, several hours. One of those hooked into an LFO cascade as an extra modulation-variance source could get pretty entertaining.
The neat thing about where Eurorack's at at present is that there are SO MANY choices and possibilities, it ultimately makes creating most any sort of device a piece of cake...provided you're willing to wade through the gazillions of possible modules and combinations of modules. But what we have now is raw power on a scale I'd never envisioned when starting off in electronic media way back at the end of the 1970s. Pretty cool!
Nice! I like the way you handled the compression on that, too...it 'breathes' well. The middle part with just the sequencer part against the higher sound-mass kinda reminds me of a darker/weirder take on some of Robert Leiner's stuff, but crossed with a noisier sound...more Fennesz or Tim Hecker-ish. The processed guitar sample, also...that works. Definitely on the right track and sounded excellent on the (rather unforgiving) KRK 9000Bs here.
Looking at this, I'm not seeing a lot that can generate elaborate stochastic structures. As a synth, it's an excellent build, but I'm thinking it'll be rather limited for complex generative work, particularly something self-regulating. Have you perhaps considered a second cab to tandem with this one that can handle that level of complexity? Yes, less CAN = more...but for what you're envisioning, it seems a little TOO 'less'.
Consider something that adds some complex stochastic CV pattern generation, like a Catalyst Audio Time's Arrow, then tandem that with some methods for altering clocking behavior that includes both a stochastic element (such as a Euclidian sequencer) and logic functions that complicate potential trigger/gate patterns, which would work nicely with the Pamela's. Lastly, consider some sort of modulator 'cascade', in which you have some low-speed modulators that can continuously vary some downstream LFO or envelope sources, or a function generator such as a Maths, and maybe tandem this with a quantizer + shift register to 'grab' voltage curves for quasi-random arpeggiations. So that way, you'd have a top cab for 'voice' and the lower for 'control'. With something like that, you could also add some sound processing and also subject that to generative control.
Smart move! I've gotten really enamored of the new Minibrute/Rackbrute combo myself. It's cost-effective, portable and the form factor works. With the Minibrute handling the basics, having the Rackbrute to stock up on 'weird' to alter the Minibrute with is a super-attractive possibility. However, having seen the new holy terror that is the Roland TR-8S, I'm actually on a rethink about a Drumbrute for myself. It actually seems as if Roland came up with something new that ISN'T some sort of compromise like the original TR-8 was. Have a look and then you might be reconsidering the Tiptop section in the rack above!
Note that there's a few non-2hp things in here. First and most important, a Koma Strom+ power supply. This thing draws nearly a full amp on the +12v rail, so you HAVE to have a beefy p/s. Second, I had to go with two Erica Picos for an input and output stage, as 2hp doesn't make anything of the sort. No waveshapers or ring mods, either...so that's how the CFM rectifier and Circuit Abbey Twiggy got in there, although they fit the designated form factor.
Anyway, this resulted in a typical 84 hp cab stuffed with the above, plus six VCOs, MIDI interface, six VCAs, two LFOs, three VCFs (two multimode, one LP), four EGs (two AR, two ADSR), four 4-1 mixers, the usual clock, noise, random, S&H and a logic module, plus 16 step x 3 channels of sequencing, quantizer, a delay and stereo reverb. Came out to about $4200, minus the case of course as well as whatever power bussing might be on the inside...which will be very interesting given that you're going to have to figure out how to power up a system that requires 38 bus connections in an 84 hp cab! So, yeah...doable, but there's some interesting challenges that a system like this poses.
Not a bad start, actually...all the basics are there, although if it were me doing the build, I'd try to add a couple more VCAs, maybe a second EG to control the filter separately from the signal amplitude. Also, one or two more VCOs, plus a proper ring modulator to get those metallics and weirdness in the mix. Sparse tho it is, it's actually on the right track!
OK...picking up where we left off in the 1960s, let's start off looking at the beginnings of synthesizer music. Around 1964, both Bob Moog (in upstate New York) and Don Buchla (working with the San Francisco Tape Music Center) separately developed voltage-controlled synthesizers, beginning the development of what most people would recognize as 'electronic music'...despite the fact that that already existed for decades previous. The new technology, however, allowed for the instruments and the music made with them to be more readily encountered by the general public. Even synthesizers predated this, such as the RCA Mark II at the Columbia-Princeton Center for Electronic Music or Oskar Sala's Mixturtrautonium as deployed at WDR Cologne and elsewhere. These instruments, though, were anything but accessible; only a few Mixturtrautoniums were made (along with their East German counterpart, the Subharchord), and the gargantuan Mark II took up an entire room, bolted to the floor and not open to public access.
Moog and Buchla changed this. For starters, their respective systems were much smaller, even portable when compared to the Mark II or Mixturtrautonium. They actually felt more like playable instruments. Comparatively, the RCA Mark II required users to program the synth via numerous switches, mixers, cables, and unwieldy punch-roll contraptions that dictated that the instrument could never be used 'live'. It also looked user-hostile, like some sort of defense-contractor machinery cobbled into functioning as some mad sci-fi movie prop...and in fact, the defense-contractor part was rather accurate! Moog and Buchla housed their devices in organic wooden cabinets, in contrast, and what you were working with was clearly labelled and laid out.
We're only going to look at one RCA Mark II composition here for starters, since it was created around the same time as the inception of the voltage-controlled synth. And that piece is...
1) Charles Wuorinen: “Time's Encomium” (1968/69). By the time Wuorinen had completed this work on the RCA Mark II, the development of voltage-controlled synthesizers was ramping into high gear. A commission from Nonesuch Records (which also commissioned Morton Subotnick's “Silver Apples of the Moon” around the same time), this won the Pulitzer for music in 1970, becoming the first electronic work to win the prize. But even so, Wuorinen noted the Mark II's limitations in his notes on the work, pointing out that the piece had been limited to 12-tone structure and pitch-derived temporal relations by the Mark II's idiosyncracies. This would be one of the final works of note with the instrument, in fact, as Moog, Buchla, and their offshoots were creating electronic instruments at the same time that far surpassed the Mark II's capabilities.
Now, let's move on, and start into the lineage of works that involves synthesizers that we would recognize today...some of which, in fact, are still in active manufacture!
2) Morton Subotnick: “Silver Apples of the Moon” (1967). This work was actually the first electronic composition commissioned by a record label (Nonesuch) and slated for public release. Having moved to New York City, taking with him a sizable Buchla 100 system, Subotnick realized this work in a self-built studio designed by him specifically for synthesizer-based electronic composition. It's still an amazing listen, and I've even heard more adventuresome DJs spin Part II of the work into sets against a minimal track such as Maurizio's “M5”. It works. Subotnick's palette of sounds on this work and the following “The Wild Bull” did quite a bit to inform later electronic musicians of the timbral and rhythmic potential lurking in the Buchla's circuitry. But the one that grabbed everyone's attention was...
3) Walter Carlos: “Switched-on Bach” (1968). Released as part of a push by Columbia Records into newer musical territory, alongside Terry Riley's “In C” and a rather forgettable album entitled “Rock and Other Four-Letter Words”, Carlos's realization of Bach's works in fully-electronic media seized the public's attention that year, and still commands that attention decades later. It was a fixture at #1 in Billboard's classical charts from 1969 to 1972, in fact. While the album was derided by many traditional electronic composers of its day (Stockhausen referred to it as 'old wine in new bottles'), it introduced the wider public ear to the new electronic sound spectrum. It still remains influential to this day, and should be mandatory listening to anyone involving themselves in electronic music of any genre. Which is a little odd, because the Moog synthesizer which was critical to 'SOB' was featured prominently...but not obviously...on...
4) The Doors: “Strange Days” (1967). The second album by the LA quartet, this album gave them the luxury of expanding their level of studio experimentation, and during its production the West Coast reps for R.A. Moog, Paul Beaver and Bernie Krause, were often employed to open the magic of the Moog to the group. The title track, which opens the album, prominently features the Moog, but in use as a processor for Jim Morrison's vocals instead of its more typical role. There's a lot of Moog on this album, in fact, but more often than not used as a method of sonically-tampering with the band's sound. Brian Eno would later come to prominence with Roxy Music in a similar role, 'treating' the band's sound with EMS gear. But this was the first of that. The Moog finally came out of the studio woodwork on a bigger scale on...
5) The Beatles: “Abbey Road” (1969). Having acquired a Moog system and some tutelage from Bernie Krause, George Harrison added the Moog to the musical forces of the Beatles on this album, the last they were to record as a unit. And it's all over on this album, from the multitracked parts on “Here Comes the Sun” to the wind noise in the final minutes of “I Want You (She's So Heavy)”, the Moog was a critical part of the album's sound and was the first major, out-in-front pop usage of the new technology. The Beatles' use of the synthesizer cemented the instrument in the pop music industry's growing arsenal of important devices, and after this, the presence of electronics was more commonly-heard in popular music.
6) Popol Vuh: “Affenstunde” (1970). On the other hand, the growing presence of the new electronic instruments was to allow other musicians to explore much farther afield in their own efforts. On “Affenstunde”, Florian Fricke utilized the first Moog IIIp system purchased by a German musician to create two sides of music that, while it was released on a pop label, went so much farther beyond any boundary in 'pop' and forged the initial steps toward many future genres that rely on electronic instrumentation. While Fricke was to step back from the heavy use of electronic instrumentation on later Popol Vuh efforts, this initial release was an apt start-point for much of the trippier synth work that emerged from Europe.
7) The White Noise: “An Electric Storm” (1969). And this was very much the starting-point for a lot of the more extreme synth work. Teaming up with BBC Radiophonic Workshop veterans Delia Derbyshire and Brian Hodgson, American ex-pat David Vorhaus created this very strange album that alternates between novelty tracks, jarring sound-collages, eerie atmospherics, and outright noise that predicted much of what would later be termed 'industrial', especially on the album's title track. Vorhaus and company made extensive use of a very different synthesizer for their work, the then-new EMS VCS3, which can be heard everywhere in many forms on this release. If the Beatles paved the way for pop music groups such as ELP and Yes and Popol Vuh for much of the 'kosmische' scene in Germany, The White Noise set the stage for later innovators such as Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, and SPK.
Now, let's jump out of the pop realm for a bit. By the early 1970s, new music composers had finally accustomed themselves to the massive change in technology that synthesizers brought, and to entire new realms of composition that the equipment allowed. This actually opened the door for major aesthetic changes to enter into new music in the post-sixties period.
8) Eliane Radigue: “Adnos I – III” (1973-80). Radigue, a French composer previously associated with Pierre Henry and the Club d'Essai, worked in New York City for a period in the early 1970s, and first encountered a Buchla 100 system installed at NYU. Recognizing the potential for the new technology to create a music that was akin to a slow 'unfolding' of sound, she purchased an ARP 2500 system and returned to Paris to build a new personal studio around the new instrument. The resulting 'Adnos' works emerged from that, with an interval in between the first and second works where she intensively studied Tibetan Buddhism. These three works, all quite lengthy and concentrating on minimal, evolving drone textures, represent a major sea change in how electronic media would be approached in new music. The synthesizer, in these works, is of critical importance, since it allowed for the long-sustained tones and sound structures that are critical to them.
9) Brian Eno: “Discrete Music” (1975). Similarly, electronics allowed Eno, who was then well into his post-Roxy Music solo career, to create simplistic sonic textures that lent themselves to the development of what he termed 'ambient music'. But even moreso, “Discrete Music” was the beginning of his work with 'generative' processes, as the combination of a VCS3 with a sequencer plus a long-duration tape delay system allowed for the complex interaction of very simple musical structures to form very intricate formations, while at the same time never vectoring off into the more chaotic areas of other chance-based compositional techniques.
10) Mother Mallard's Portable Masterpiece Company: s/t (1970/73). Back in the USA, composer David Borden, who worked with Robert Moog on the development of the Minimoog as well as improvements to their modular systems, formed this ensemble in upstate New York, with the intention of creating a live performing ensemble based solely on electronic instrumentation. This album featured works by both Borden and fellow member Steve Drews, but in live performance the ensemble also performed music by minimalists Terry Riley, Philip Glass, and Steve Reich. MMPMC's efforts were critical to the future of electronic instrumentation, as they represented one of the very first efforts to utilize synthesizer technology in a live concert setting, thereby creating a 'proof of concept' that convinced Moog that synthesizers were not simply meant for studio settings, opening the door to Moog pursuing instrument development that would create the first performance-oriented synths such as the Minimoog, etc.
...and thus, the stage was set. Emerging from a purely experimental origin, the synthesizer was now a normally-encountered and often-used instrument. In the years following, further development of both electronic music and instruments blossomed. But in these notable efforts above, the idea that electronic instruments could be worth investing time and money into was first brought up and demonstrated aptly. It also marked the shift in the development of the synthesizer apart from the avant-garde musical realm, retargeting the R&D money and efforts toward the more typical music creators and performers, changing the course of electronic instruments from being an 'elite' spectrum of devices and toward a more democratized direction. Quite a few companies that emerged in the wake of these developments still exist to this day, having taken up the creation and development of electronic instruments after having seen that their purpose went far beyond that of major universities and studios. Also, many musicians were encouraged by these developments to also plunge into this new sonic dimension, with quite a few of these remaining influential to the present day.
The development of the synthesizer was a massive change in music, therefore, with repercussions that will likely continue for centuries in the future. Just as the development of the piano was directly related to the emergence of mechanized industry in the mid-1700s and altered music's direction to the present day, the emergence of electronic technology in the 20th century was a revolution that enabled a similar course of development, with the synthesizer emerging as the result. Really, we are very early-on into what these instruments are likely to do to music, and it's just as possible that someone reading these words here on Modulargrid in the present day may go on to be a part of that continuing change.
Ours is an interesting and storied heritage. Embrace it, enjoy it, and create what comes next!
Would it be possible to export the entire module database to a CSV or Excel compatible file? Sometimes I'd like to run a more complex search or filter than the website enables.
It's not a bad idea, except that some of the databases change so rapidly that by the time you'd got done with the offline work, there's a possibility that the export file might be obsolete. One thing I've noticed from doing the past two 'Kick Ass' reviews of selected Eurorack modules is that that pool of modules can grow by several dozen new entries a month...which makes it easy for me to highlight a dozen or so for the review bits, but the rapid degree of accumulation could be a problem for offline use. Especially around certain points in the year, such as NAMMs, Musik Messe/Superbooth, etc. Some of the new 'drops' at other times can be pretty significant, too; just the other day, Mutable pitched out the new iteration of their 'macro oscillator' and successor to Braids, the Plaits module.
Frankly, I'd also be curious if there were some spreadsheet export functions as well...but not anywhere near that magnitude.
The Frames clone is just perfect. This gives you eight VCAs, four audio-specific, and the other four to shuttle between linear and exponential duties as needed. Lots of nice modulation there, the Morpheus is a killer fit...damn, this is looking like a serious piece of circuitry! I think you're awfully close to a stop-point here; the only things at this point would be up to you, if there's something else you think has GOT to go in there. As for me, I don't see any potential major alterations...alongside your other stuff mentioned above, this is a boxful of raw power. I'd still go with the Minibrute 2s versus the Dreadboxes, though...mucho patchpoints, has the weird Brute VCOs, the yowling Steiner filter...yeah. I definitely see that, add the Keystep, screeching halt. Perfect.
Buchla...yes, very influential. I've used a very large 200/300 hybrid system way in the past and while the sound is...my gawd, it's that frickin' SOUND...it is more than a bit confusing to patch if you're not used to how Don started doing things with the 200 series, separating control and audio signals nearly totally. I've not had an opportunity to work with a 100, though, and that might be a happier experience given that you don't have to separate those signal paths; it's a lot more like Eurorack, with 3.5mms, everything connects (in theory) to everything. Another telling point about the difference between Moog and Buchla: the very first time I encountered a Moog system, waaaay back when, I couldn't get it to do diddly-squat. But the first time with the 200/300 (granted, that was later on), I had that thing emitting sonic havoc in pretty short order. Which is kind of funny...the Moog LOOKS simpler, but there's a lot of hidden ill engineering behavior there, whereas the Buchla was designed by a bunch of acidheads and could theoretically be worked even when the patch panels seemed to be melting! Ergo, it's actually a bit 'friendlier', especially the 100 Series according to a few people I knew who used one themselves.
As for them being 'outliers'...that was by design. Moog wanted something that was AN INSTRUMENT, by god...where Buchla was working with the San Francisco Tape Music Center's experimental music community firsthand in the early-mid 1960s, and there was more of an idea to replicate 'classic studio' techniques electronically with the first devices. As such, there wasn't an aim to make it 'traditional' in any way, while Moog was actually aiming his systems at a more orthodox clientele. I think it says it all in that Moog debuted his earliest system at an AES show, whereas Buchla's first big public outing was for one of the Merry Pranksters' 'Acid Test' events.
Frickin' excellent! All of the interconnectivity between the kb37 rig and this stack should keep you busy for some time. I take it you've got a proper outboard mixer, or at least a digital interface that has enough inputs to separate all of this onto their respective tracks? The DFAM is something I've certainly considered...not for drums, however, but more for its 2 x 8 step sequencer and to separate out the various submodules in it via the patchpanel to drop into other signal paths. Ultimately, I think that might be its best use, and for the price, that's a lot of module functions!
I think that, with the early Arturia stuff, there were some concerns. But they've got some excellent stuff out now, starting around the period where they introduced the Microbrute. I have one; I think it's built like a brick s**thouse, actually! Definitely an 'everyday user', not something I have to be delicate with. Same goes for my BSPs, and I'm digging using the Keystep with my modular these days. While I would've given them a pass back when they were coming out with things like the Origin, they've majorly stepped their hardware game up.
Braids is supplanted by Plaits now, so toss that and go with the V2 that it is. Also Clouds...but in that case, Mutable's not issued a revised version (yet?). So right off the bat, you have to rejigger the spacings...ha!
Anyway, yes, the modulation sources are kinda lacking here. I would suggest looking at something that gives you multiple loopable AD envelopes, since those can do double-duty as LFOs as well. Don't worry much about the panel size, because that's kinda compromised as it is because of the above issue. Better still, consider these as something to clear space for, and given there's some redundancies already, you might be better off with that. Check, of course, the ever-popular (and for good reason!) MATHS, but also Erogenous Tones' RADAR/BLIP combo...putting those two in gives you massive modulation power and also likely save some money because you could dispense with a lot of single-function modules (and their costs) in the process.
The last thing here that bugs me a bit is actually the sequencer. While Doepfer's A-154/155 combo is a workhorse, there's better alternatives that've come along since that was introduced many years ago. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Dieter was considering an update to it at some point, like he's done for some other modules in recent years. One that recently got put out that, frankly, I would (and have) look at is this new device from Golt!...the 'Red Light District'. The timing capabilities are much more extensive, as well as the pattern activity, amount of steps, etc etc etc. It also has internal CV quantizing, plus MIDI sync and can also output DIN sync for locking up classic Roland/Korg gear. Or perhaps go outboard altogether with several standalone options that're out right now that can do both MIDI and CV.
So now that I've totally rEKT! your system...heh...you might also think about how to increase the functional density of the overall setup. Devices like MATHS and Erogenous Tones' stuff allows for that, jamming maximum function into modules that, while they seem spendy, actually leave you coming out ahead on function vs price. Losing things like single-function VCA modules, for example; let's say you yanked the two single-function Doepfer VCAs, for example. That would leave you only 2 hp short on the space needed for an Erogenous Tones VC8...which is EIGHT linear VCAs, plus mixing functions, in that space + 2 more hp. That's one example, and there's likely to be bunches more if you take a look.
Actually, that's a lot closer than the starting rack! Another fairly complex filter would be a good idea, plus I'd just go ahead and swap the Mangroves with another Plaits, given what it is (Olivier's PERFECTED Braids...yeaaahhh!!!). Not bad, now...if you slapped this into a Rackbrute and then strapped that to a Minibrute 2s, that would be a king-hell impressive small rig. And the fact that that sort of solution isn't all that spendy...well...
As for the Moog 55...ahhh, it LOOKS impressive. But the sad fact is that, compared to even modern-day MU-format systems (and certainly Eurorack), the shortcomings become really apparent really fast! For starters, there's the old and awful S-trigger system, which Moog Music STILL insists on using in its modular reproduction systems. Bob had this idea to use a logical hi-state (+5v) to indicate 'off', and a drop below a certain threshold on down to 0v as 'on'. if there's only one or two devices in this arrangement, it's workable. But there's a certain point, which varied for each module and certainly for each system, where connecting too many S-trig bus connections leads to a voltage sag...and then your bus would send a spurious 'on', often when doing so would drive you up the wall! This is, in fact, why we use buffered mults these days when voltage levels are critical across numerous connections, such as in VCO CVs which need to be stable to maintain tuning. But Bob didn't consider adding any sort of regeneration for the S-trig bus, so...well, you get the idea. And that's just ONE issue among several annoying ones. Honestly, these days, we have it easy; many older modular systems contained idiosyncracies that often amounted to 'boobytraps', since the whole concept of what a synthesizer should/could be was being worked out in tandem with the process of 'what's a synthesizer in the first place?' Mistakes got made...and got entrenched!
Well, consider this idea: lose the Linix and put in two Intellijel Quad VCAs instead. Those have a variable response curve, so you can actually tailor the dynamic response to exponential for audio, but roll it back to linear for CV work, or hit any point in between, so that could allow you to back the curve down for your background parts, but let you go full-swing exponential for your leads and anything else that needs to jump out. Also, that'd take you to eight VCAs, plus both modules also work as mixers and have 6 dB boost circuits which will help in getting a little more saturation/crunch in the audio when that's kicked in. The Cold Mac is actually pretty interesting in of itself for screwy modulation tricks, so that might be a keeper. As for the Triatt...ahhh, look at Livestock's Felix...SIX attenuverters in the same space plus summing into a buffered mult, configurable as either 6 -> 1 or 3 -> 1 x 2, and it only costs a whopping $2 more than the Triatt!
As for the compression on the mix...you might benefit a little from looking into the issues surrounding the Fletcher-Munson curves. See here: https://ledgernote.com/columns/mixing-mastering/fletcher-munson-curve/ . Now, while this mainly deals with how we perceive 'loudness', it's worth noting that if a mix has a lot of signal build-up in the ranges where we don't perceive loudness as well as at other ranges, you start to get this...well, 'lump'. And to get things to cut through the 'lump', you have to have more aggressive changes in transients so that those important lines in the track stand out. With linear VCAs, what happens is that the VCA follows a linear mathematical relationship to its control signal. Up the signal by 2, the VCA's response is to increase level by 2. But with exponential response, up by 2 actually equals a response by the VCA of up by 4...which makes sense when you consider that exponential VCAs also get referred to as 'logarithmic' VCAs. The response curve follows a logarithmic scale: 1, 4, 9, 16, etc.
This does a few things, mixing-wise. First of all, the snappier transients tend to jump out better, since we tend toward experiencing changes in apparent loudness logarithmically. With variable-response VCAs, this actually is pretty cool...you can alter the response of the VCAs necessary to create an illusory 'foreground/background', giving a mix something approximating 'depth of field' easily. It also helps to break up a loudness 'lump', because at that point, everything can follow different transient behavior and it's not all stuck at the same level. As for the heavy compression...ahh, a little study of the 'literature' might be useful. Spend a little time listening to tracks that, although they might be 25+ years old, STILL have the power to blow a dancefloor the f**k up...I'm thinking things such as Chicago ghetto house, Detroit techno circa 1990-95, harder Euro tracks, and the like. Notice how the groove 'breathes', dynamically, in these cases. That amount of dynamic range and interplay is part of those tracks' secret to get people to go nuts...because it grabs them, feels animated, and such. A lot of the EDM these days is afflicted with the technical problems that arose with the 'loudness wars' issue which stemmed from trying to jam dynamic range into the tightest possible range while making the overall volume as loud as possible, and THAT actually came from radio, where the idea was that if you have a 'loud' signal, people will listen to your station more. For stuff for gettin' down, this doesn't work, because it kills all of the transient motion and contrast and makes the rhythmic feel really weak.
Anyway, consider the module changes as well as the notes above on compression...I think you'll find both pretty useful...
Had a listen...and yes, not only is the lack of exponential VCAs obvious in the build, it's also obvious on the track. All of the dynamics are really sort of flat; there's no actual 'hit' to them, which is sad because the track, musically, sounds good...but had the different transient material been able to 'punch' more, it'd really be banging. Linear VCAs aren't bad per se (and they're what you need for controlling CV levels), but to get amplitude changes that listeners perceive as being more hitting, that punch thru the mix better, you need the exponential VCAs to get those big amplitude swings. That way, the track would 'breathe' better, not sound so all-the-same in terms of dynamic ebb and flow.
The only other thing I would question is losing the Tides. Having something that can do the slower LFO curves for gradual changes of parameters is pretty useful for just about any sort of music...slow change is what makes music 'go somewhere' over extended periods of time. Adding the Xaoc phaser, in fact, would be a prime use for the Tides' slow modulation abilities to give a track a trippier overall vibe. The Batumi, though, makes good sense as a swap for the A-143-3, but also see if you can find a way to jam the Poti expander switch module in for it as well. Maybe consider not going with the Rings? I kinda think that, given what was on the sample track, you'd lose a lot of the resonant subtilty that it can bring...it would potentially get buried in the mix. OTOH, adding something that could bring a bit more 'grit' into the sound, especially on your more lead-ish parts...that could work better, since the leads would 'cut' more and stand out. Just a few observations...
I've got to agree with dinorrific's observation above that a patchable system might be a better next step, although I'm more inclined to suggest an Arturia Minibrute 2 over a Mother32. I like what Arturia's up to with their system integration...the Eurorack cases that fit together with the 2 or 2s, complete with handle and stand, and nothing being hideously expensive. Plus with the Eurobrute cases being 88 hp, you can pop the DFAM into that instead and still have room for some further augmentation. Have a look at that setup: https://www.arturia.com/minibrute-2/overview . The price on the Eurobrutes are also really nice; the 176 hp 6U version retails right now for $359, power included.
As for a good source of loopable ADs in a smaller space, have a look at the Intellijel Quadra. Four envelopes, linear or exponential curve, either AD, AR or looping. And as far as VCAs in a tight space go, see what Happy Nerding has with their 3x VCA...it's quite a nifty thing, with three DC-coupled VCAs with some switch-configurable mixing abilities. And with that at 6 hp and 12 for the Quadra, you've still got 2 hp to jam something else in, so...bonus!
Well, take note of the fact that you've overrun by 1 hp, but since that's with the Clouds and the Clouds is discontinued, that gives some more room. Now, if you also tossed the Erica module, that would open up a few more hp, enough to drop a Morphagene in...which is sort of Clouds-ish, but way more hands-on, control-wise. But then, there's another problem in that the 104 Moog case doesn't have the line-out that the Mother32 case itself does, so you're going to have to add an output module...which kills the Morphagene, space-wise. Hmmmmmm...
Ah! The SDS Reflex. 16 hp, all of the bells and whistles of the Clouds and more besides, and THAT will give you 4 hp for an output module, in stereo even. Maybe look at Happy Nerding's Isolator...transformer-isolated and balanced stereo outs with a ganged stereo level control. Nice...and a good combo with the Reflex. Should work just fine!
Yeah, losing the CMP-1 isn't that big a deal, I shouldn't think. That's one of those functions which, unless you're building a cab for drum modules, just doesn't click in all that well. May as well lose the Braids, since it's out of production and having two NW1s is going to be pretty killer, source-wise. As for additions, maybe consider one or two oscillators that can do double duty as LFOs for some extra modulation sources...always useful with wavetable souces. A couple more AD-type envelopes that can also loop would be useful too, I think, and maybe a couple more linear VCAs for modulation CV control...but that's not all that much, change-wise. This is going to sound quite cool, indeed...the architecture is not too dissimilar to a Blofeld, but in mono mode!
It's an admirable idea...there's a lot of interesting DIY out there, and these are pretty good choices. However, there's a couple of key bits missing here. First up, you're missing a multiple. Now, with something this small, you could just as well get away with stackable 3.5mms or inline mults...but the other thing missing is an output stage, and that could be problematic unless you've got something that can step the voltage level down from modular to line. My suggestion: toss out the 4-step sequencer and use something inexpensive and outboard for that task (like an SQ-1) that gets you more functionality while still keeping the cost down. That would give you ample room for something like an Elby ASM-306...and that not only gives you balanced stereo outs, it also has an onboard headphone amp, plus it, too, is DIY. Olitronik's PRO Out wouldn't be a bad choice, either...it also gives you some stereo metering for your output levels.
Other than that, I'd suggest changing the order of the modules to make the signal flow a bit more intuitive. Something such as:
...which gives you a clear left-to-right flow with a minimum of 'backward' patching. If you go with a multiple, also, that would be best to the far-left end of the case so you can branch out CVs to the oscillators.
Yeah, now...that new iteration is making a lot more sense...at this point, the only two things I'd do would be to add some more modulation sources, preferably something that can do double-duty as an envelope or an LFO, like a looping AD. I'd also consider adding some simple DC-coupled linear VCAs so that you'll have those for manipulating modulation signals. EMW's Triple VCA is about the right sort of thing for that, and as for the looping envelopes, either Intellijel's Quadra or Qu-bit's Contour would be a decent fit, and you've got the space for both. It's turning out pretty decent!
Yet again, it's another crazed month (right after NAMM...go figure) for new Eurorack toys. So let's dive in and have a look at some of the new entries here in Modulargrid that I find particularly jazzy and cool. Shall we...?
1) Antimatter Audio Crossfold. OK, this thing is just...well, if you're into timbral wavefolding, this thing just knocks it out of the park. It's amazingly capable, taking two audio signals and applying what Antimatter called 'crossfolding' to combine and distort their respective waveforms. It also has a limiter onboard for nice, nasty clipping. Go have a look at this thing; they say that this gives you West Coast-type complex oscillator behavior from any two VCOs, but the audio clips hint at this being even more nuts than that!
2) CaviSynth Bufflide. Simple and smart: put a buffered 1-3 mult on the same 4 hp panel as a basic slew limiter. It's cheap, it's convenient...so simple that you kinda wonder why you don't see more utility-type modules like this. Did I say cheap? Yeah... A one-stop for CV prep for multiple VCOs.
3) TAKAAB's at it again! I mentioned their LFO module last time, and now they've got some new and CHEAP basic things to tempt us with, such as a dual 1-3 buffered mult for $34, a THAT2180 VCA with dual inputs and dual attenuated Cvs for $62, and a basic 3 channel DC-coupled mixer for yet another $34. This is very cool, even though none of these are very 'sexy', because you still need plenty of basic devices like this and Siam Modular (that's who's behind these) is making 'em affordable enough to have in piles. And no, I didn't stutter...'Siam'...as in Chiang Mai, Thailand, which is where they're located. It's an interesting development; I'd always thought that if/when module design and manufacture made it to SE Asia, we'd start to see some meteoric price drops, and this does appear to be the case. I really wonder what they're going to drop next?!
4) Audiospektri HG-30. From Thailand to Finland now...no, it's not cheap, but given what they've managed to jam into 32 hp, you shouldn't expect it to be! Howsabout a 30-band additive spectrum generator that can double as a vocoder? And more besides? This thing is massively capable...go and see the material they have on their website at http://www.audiospektri.com and you'll agree that it's all that and a bag o' chips for about a grand.
5) Super Synthesis 2OPFM. OK, that last one was spendy...but this isn't, and it's neat. A 2-op digital FM voice with analog controls for $99? Huh...you can cram a DX7's worth of FM generators into your Eurorack for $297, you say? Why, yes, son...and just as cool and digital is...
6) DSP Synthesizers CZ1. Also $99 (assembled, I presume...the kit on their wordpress page is $75). It's what you think, a Casio CZ-type VCO using the wonderful phase-distortion synthesis method from the CZ-101 and others of that Casio line, but in this case it's here under analog control. In a very real sense, this thing can function as a self-contained voice jammed into a measly 3 hp.
7) Seismic Industries spink0. No price on this yet, but Ableton Live users are going to plotz over this. It's a 6 hp device that works with Ableton Live Link so that you can lock up clocks between your DAW and your modular, all based on Raspberry Pi so that tweaks to its firmware over time and further development are doable. Hopefully we'll see this module in a broader release before long...?
8) Malekko Drum. A 4-channel drum sequencer, this also links with their Varigate-based architecture, allowing data saves to that module as well as lockup and control functions. This is pretty smart; I like the ideas behind the Varigate and Voltage Block, and this just adds another blade to that Swiss Army Knife. Supposed to drop in April.
9) Golt! Red Light District. Ohhhh, yeah...now this is a piece of kit! A straightforward CV/gate sequencer, but with loads of clock mutability, plenty of hands-on performance control, MIDI and DINsync capabilities. Not cheap, but very much worth the $895. Capabilities are way too complex for this short blurb here...you need to check this out for yourself!
10) Erica Black Mute Mixer. Now, this is another of those 'why aren't there more of these'-type modules. It's a basic AC-coupled three-channel mixer...but Erica's gone a little further and added some nice convenience touches that make it more than just your average audio mixer. How about mutes on each channel? Or a three-out buffered mult at the output stage? And diode protection against reverse voltage oopses? It's got 'em. Simple, not sexy, but damned smart.
11) Ladik A-570. No price here yet (I tried, couldn't find one on Ladik's site) but it's worth keeping an eye on for when that comes up, because Ladik stuff is a great value for simple, useful tools. In this case, it's a little more than just that, though...it's an output module, but with some amazing twists, such as programmable metering, a separate 3.5mm out that can either be jumpered for line level or synth level voltages, and a balanced 1/4” TRS line out for pro-grade audio connection. Most output modules tend to fit in 4 or 6 hp, and while this is only a single channel in 4 hp, this is going to be an important piece of circuitry for synthesists using multichannel rigs for making sure your four (or more) channels are all symmetrically balanced. Buy 'em by the sackful!
So that's it for this month's installment. What...you say it's a day early? Well, sometimes good things are worth NOT waiting for!
Not really a question of too many voices, I don't think...but too many different audio sources. Consider why many modulars tend to have several of the same VCO; it's not a matter of being 'simple', but a matter of having something on which you have a level of programming ease that allows you to get back to sounds that have worked in the past. When you have a hodge-podge of sources, as in this rack, it becomes more difficult to program each different element in its different way to go back to a desired result. That's why I feel it's a better move to have several basic VCOs, a few different ones besides those, and then rely on waveshaping after mixing/crossmodulating these sources to get a result. Also, having all of these disparate sources carries a problem in that you can't exactly 'gang' them...so to get each signal path to perform properly, you have to have loads of envelopes, VCAs for both audio and CVs (the latter is apparently missing from this rack), and loads of filters, and this gets into a huge amount of panel space being overrun by the needs of all of these signal chains. I would suggest finding a way to simplify this, possibly losing a lot of the 'sexy' modules in deference to a number of more compact 'boring' ones...because once you start interconnecting them, they stop being so 'boring'.
Couple of other things: first off, too many final mixers. Both the Hot Glue and the A-138 set take up a good bit of space and, at the same time, they're pretty redundant. If the important factor with the MHG is the waveshaping, chuck it and get a waveshaper plus a little submixer for its input. But the A-138 also has some problems here, in that there's not any way to use that stereo compressor after the A-138o. That module does your final gain control, auxes, and final step-down to line level, and the MSCL will want to still see things at synth levels, ergo it won't work well at the very end of your signal path...and there's no way to insert it into the final stereo bus of the A-138 since that's bussed behind the panel and has no patchpoints.
Secondly, this is a real scrambly layout...and as a rule, it becomes harder to work with intuitively and less satisfying as an instrument. I'd suggest taking everything out of your build except the P/S inlets, then making a simple paper map of what functions go where in the open space (generators, modulators, modifiers, controllers) and then sticking to that map when laying it out again. It's a lot trickier, but the disciplined effort is worth it, especially when there's a huge chunk of change involved. Take some time to look at other builders' efforts that follow that method (a lot do) as well as some of the 'classic' prebuilt modulars and then rethink.
Actually, it could control them just fine...IF there was a quantizer. Otherwise, getting discrete scalar steps is a total pain. There's a much bigger issue with that sequencer, though: it's an Analogue Systems device. AS (not to be confused with Analogue SOLUTIONS) decided early on in the creation of the Eurorack format to adopt a weird rack spacing that results in their modules being 1 1/2 hp off of everything else that exists in Eurorack. Now, if one uses sliding nuts to rack up modules, this isn't a problem, except maybe at the row ends. But if you have tapped rails...ohmygawd...
Anyway, size-wise, I would say the rack is just fine. However, the critique about what's in it by the above poster stands. There's lots missing: VCAs, multiples, mixers, i/o, pretty much anything utility-wise that makes a modular function. Oh, and that Pittsburgh phase shifter is also discontinued, along with the other non-gettables.
My suggestion: start over, same size. Don't concentrate on the 'sexy' modules; instead, pay more attention to the boring bits, then fill in with the sexy stuff once you've got a good supporting architecture. And keep your module sizes down as much as possible, because 3 x 120 isn't as big as you might think. Also, the above poster's note that you might be trying to cram too many different functionalities into this build is pretty spot-on. Not saying it's not doable, mind you, but it'll take a considerable amount of care to get a full-on all-in-1 box into that sort of space. It's also distracting to try and build something like that without a great deal of experience...you may be better figuring out just a handful of things you want this to do, and sticking with those. Also, a good way to proceed is to partition out the empty rack, allocating specific areas for major functions and then trying to stick to that partition plan as best as possible. This way, you're thinking about the actual function blocks in terms of available space, and then you'll be more likely to go with smaller modules...and therefore, more potential in a smaller space.
There's always stuff to learn in electronic music, and there's always going to be stuff to learn. I'm fond of telling people that the minute you're sure you know everything, then call an undertaker...because you're probably dead. But seriously, a DJ colleague of mine once pointed out that since music is now so dependent on technology, music has become harnessed to Moore's Law just like everything else technological. And I have no reason whatsoever to dispute that. Consider for a moment how much synth you get for, say, $1000. For that much, you can get a Waldorf Blofeld keyboard. Now, consider that that instrument is based, way back in its ancestry, on the PPG Wave 2.3, which was PPG's final iteration of their digital/analog hybrids. Oh, and throw in the PPG Waveterm B as well, because you'll need that to do any decent programming of wavetable data, etc.
Now, I distinctly recall that the Wave 2.3 itself, back in the mid-1980s, was somewhere between $4 or 5 thousand. Waveterm B, that was actually about the same. So, to get the whole basic PPG setup circa 1984, you'd have to drop $9k-ish, perhaps a bit more. And for that, you got a synth with a single digital wavetable engine, analog VCF/VCA signal chain, and analog modulation (EGs, LFOs) over both, a huge thing with a green-screen and 5 1/4" floppy drives that had serious cooling issues to get at the insides of the synth, and the whole mess weighed about as much as two boxes of hernias! Believe me, I know that last factoid first hand!
Waldorf Blofeld: TWO of the same sort of digital wavetable engines, similar (albeit modelled, and very well) modulation and signal chain, NO ginormous rackmounted computer (you use your own PC or Mac, the synth has USB), and I can easily tuck the keyboard under one arm and carry it around like...well, not much more than my old-skool Kawai K1. And that's all due to Moore's Law and its creep into music tech. Same goes for modular synths. I've programmed full-scale Moogs, most notably a 55 with the sequencer expansion, and with those, you're talking about a wall of control panel, and it's not...well, 'user-friendly' doesn't exactly describe a Moog modular. I found it very funny that Arturia's Modular V (their Moog replication) is just as much of a pain to work with as the actual article. But who gives a rat's about a monster-size Moog when you can slap the requisite modules in a Eurorack case...and yes, some of them being shrunk-down copies of the original Moog circuits...and carry it all around like a piece of luggage? I know what I would go for, for convenience's sake! Thanks, Gordon Moore!
Anyway, back on track...yeah, always make serious considerations about how pieces of equipment can work together when shopping for electronic music gear. You sometimes hear talk about the 'studio as instrument' concept; I prefer to think of my studio as AN instrument, not a collection of them, and that seems to be a great way to proceed. I recall visiting Syracuse U. about 25 years back, where I saw their original studio, which was designed for them by Bob Moog. And I noted with great consideration that Bob had set the whole thing up so that there were NO preconfigured signal paths. None. Instead, everything routed to a few rackmounted patchbays, and everything could interconnect in any desired configuration from those. Soooo...these days, I can look to my right, several feet away, and see a 17U jackfield where this entire room can be reconfigured on the fly, depending on what I might want to do. Everything patchable to everything. So, yeah...the studio here IS an instrument, not an imitation of one. And that's not a bad way to make considerations when equipping ones' self with electronic music gear. Certainly, you want to know what something does, but as important a question is "how does this work with everything else?" And always consider a factor I call 'abuse potential'; case in point: I have a string synth that has a CV input so that an external CV can be fed to the master oscillator (it's a divide-down polysynth) to transpose the overall pitch. You're not really supposed to feed an envelope into that patchpoint...but if you DO...suddenly you get pulsing, polyphonic acid-type twitters. The manufacturer never intended that usage, but if it can be done and it works musically, what the hell? Gimme a patchcord...
Like comparators, also. Now, that's a circuit with abuse potential. Everything we do in electronic music with those qualifies as 'abuse', actually...because these were originally cooked up for scientific instrumentation, not music. Their original use was to derive a logic pulse or gate when a metered signal crossed a certain voltage threshold, and you see loads of Nuclear Instrumentation Modules from the 1950s and 60s that are the same basic thing as our synth comparator modules, save for some differences in the voltages involved. But because there's some crossover between early electronic instrument builders and various scientific disciplines (with the most notable example being Don Buchla), a lot of circuit ideas crept from that end of the usage spectrum and into this one. In fact, I seem to recall that the first primitive voltage sequencers were originally developed at Los Alamos as an arming and firing device for the first atomic bomb test. We just use them...well, differently.
But as far as comparators go, there's two types. One is the basic comparator, where the module emits a digital '1' of some sort when a metered voltage either exceeds or drops below a set voltage threshold. And the other, which we're just starting to see in Eurorack (Joranalogue released one) is the 'window comparator'. These are neat as hell! How they work is that you have two threshold levels, and between them is the 'window'. So from one of these, you can actually get THREE '1' signals...above the upper threshold, below the lower one, and when the voltage is between the thresholds. To say the least, they're a kickass way to derive all sorts of trigger and gate pulses from all sorts of continuously variable voltage curves. Feed an audio waveform in, and the output becomes a variable pulse wave. Feed it velocity CVs, and it'll fire when your keyboard velocity is above or below the threshold, caused by harder or softer velocity attacks. And you can port that digital signal to anything else that can be fired by one...clock start/stops, envelope triggers, sample & hold clocking, the list goes on...
That's just ONE example. You can also do things like using an LFO to modulate another LFO, which then modulates a third LFO, and the result becomes a more or less nonrepeating CV waveform outputted by the third LFO. Put that thru a DC-coupled linear VCA, and use an envelope to control it, and you can increase and decrease that nonrepeating CV value every time the envelope gets triggered by...well, most anything that sends a gate and/or trigger. So, why not send that to something else...maybe a filter cutoff, so you get this strange, nonlinear tremolo that gets wider and narrower as you play.
So, yeah...it's much more than 'throw stuff in box, attach patchcables'. Modular gives you the ability to literally design an instrument...or several instruments at once, if the system's big enough to support several signal paths. And as I noted, you don't have to stop that designing process at the edge of the box; coloring outside the lines is how you come up with interesting results!
But yeah...if generative's your thing, listen to a lot of it, and keep looking closely at what you see on MG to try and sort out how what you hear works...or might work...or could be done better, what the hell? Same goes for pretty much any sort of music, to be honest. Also, explore the treasure trove of racks built on here by experienced synthesists, and see how they're doing what THEY do. MG is amazing like that; it's a virtual Alladin's Cave of electronic music ideas, concepts, and methods for those willing to take the plunge deep into it.
As for some of my generative stuff, see https://daccrowell.bandcamp.com/album/beneath-puget . Now, what's going on in there is a very complex patch between my Digisound and an ARP 2600, plus a little back-and-forth flow with an MS-20 and a shortwave radio fed into the modular system via audio and two 1/10th-octave passbands into envelope followers to derive CVs based on signal amplitude. It's not a set-n-forget sort of piece, as I'm 'guiding' the modular patch with eight attenuverters on the Digisound. But each time I change one of those settings, it takes the synth (processed through a sizable processor cascade) quite some time to come back to a new state of voltage equilibrium and settle into a new activity. The only 'normal' controller use occurs before and after three theremin solos, when I drop the modular's general pitch-class way down to nearly subsonic range and then bring it back upward after the solo's done. But much of what's there is that complex, non-repeating CV-controlled patch doing whatever it wants in between attenuverter 'nudges'. Kinda nifty! I actually concocted this piece as a test-run of a 'sublayer' for a longer piece intended for live performance, so what you hear there is a 'live' take, also, because I needed a replicable and performable result for the performance version. Make sure you have an hour or so to kill to hear the whole thing, btw...it ain't short!
Lastly, have a look at this: Now, what that is is a generative concept sketch I was playing around with some time back. Note that there's only four audio sources in there, the four Weather Drones. The entire top row and the rest of the second are ALL modulation, and the third row is the output chain which eventually ends in quadrophonic output. Someone was asking me about what I'd do for a sound installation piece, and I toyed around with that design for a hot minute. But this illustrates what I was talking about nicely: not much in the way of complex sound, but the sources for that sound as well as the filtering and processing are operating with a LOT of CV modulation of varying frequencies ranging from low audio down to periods of a couple of hours. It's not a bad example-piece for something you can set in motion for, say, maybe a month or two at low ambient levels.
If you have a line on a built O&C, then yes, get one. Moreso than the Pamela's, that will allow for more in the way of generative work. Pamela's, ultimately, is more of a timing source-type of device, and while it can do some of that, the access to those functions thru the UI on it is a little clunky. A lot of the point of modular is to have the controls...ALL the controls...right there to grab, hence the ginormous control panel on these things. Modular synths are literally a gigantic control surface, so the better you can control the process you've patched, the more expressive and complex and such you can be with them. If you've worked with VCV, you get a bit of this idea, but VCV without a touchscreen (which I have) doesn't exactly get the point across fully.
Generative music, basically, is a subset of a compositional school of thought known as 'process music'. The idea is to create a structure that approximates a certain algorithm, and let that run, sometimes while making adjustments. I've actually worked with the earliest algorithmic electronic instrument created, the Sal-Mar Construction, which was a built-from-scratch device created by one of my composition teachers, Sal Martirano, back in the early-mid 1970s. In the case of that device, Sal used analog computing hardware to control the behavior and interactivity of the control surface and the synthesizer subsystems, and that analog computer had to be hardwire-patched. So what happens when patching a generative algorithm is that the synth patches in a modular synthesizer are behaving much like an analog computer, generating and reacting to various voltage curve functions. But the synth(s) of the Sal-Mar are actually pretty simplistic sound generators; the real 'meat' in the instrument is the control surface interaction, manipulating the algorithmic structure as time in a performance passes.
So, ultimately, doing generative music requires an effective layer of modulation control sets, in which the 'control' layer is being manipulated by a 'modulation' layer, which in turn gets manipulated by a 'sub-modulation' layer, and so on, with the idea being that the generative process is non-repeating and controls a fairly restricted set of sound generation as the listenable 'foreground'.
Perhaps the best example of this is Brian Eno's "Music for Airports"; while this work doesn't use synths that play as part of the work's audible layer, the audible elements are on tape loops. These loops are 'modulated' by the decisions Eno made in terms of loop length, cutting them so that they have a great deal of mathematical difference with respect to the loop duration, so that once started, the loops will never 'line up' again. Then the 'submodulation' comes from random factors involved with the playback machines themselves, since very few tape machines are 100% precisely the same, a factor Eno also took into account. And while this sounds like it has the potential to be very chaotic, it's actually anything but that, because Eno's choices of material which was recorded on the loops was highly restrictive. Any one layer will always correspond to any other layer's tonality, degree of activity, and so forth.
Now, with a modular synthesizer set up for generative work, one way to do this is to have several very simple sequencers which are running at speeds that also avoid 'lining up', with the clocks for each of these also having some degree of nonrepetitive behavior, and another layer that modulates that slightly and/or reacts to control signals coming in from the layer 'above' it. However, once having devised this time scheme, then you have to be careful that the sound sources being controlled by this system are simple enough that a sizable coincident layer's sounds 'mesh', either melodically, harmonically, or texturally. Otherwise, it tends to sound like meandering crap.
That's the tricky part, one which takes loads of experimentation and experience with generating and manipulating generative systems to get results which sound really, really spot-on.
Now, what I would suggest is to listen to a lot of generative music first-off. Take careful note of what seems to be going on, and then try and analyze how that might be done with a system of control signals. Think about how the time in these works passes and how the composer arranged the generative system to cause the events, across time, to occur. Not easy once you start diving into it, but over time you start getting the idea of what the generative process behind these works might be.
Once you start getting a feel for that, you're going to notice that modulation sources are the key...not so much sound sources. So that, actually, is where you want to start. Look at CV modulation sources, how you can make them interact, interfere, and so on. Then, how do you get the actual sound controls out of that continually-shifting process? Lots of ways: multipling out control voltage curves, using comparators to trigger events, altering timing signals feeding sequencers, etc. Be inventive. And study for some time how to extract control signals from the generative function layer...there's loads of ways that the can be done. THEN worry about the sounds. And you're likely to find that the simpler you can make the sounds, the more effective a composition generated in this way can be, because they won't get in the way of each other and will interweave nicely. To see if it's right, let the result play for a long time...as in, all day, possibly. Hell, some of La Monte Young's pieces ran for many YEARS, as in his 'Dream House' drone installations.
Also note: never consider electronic instruments as being separate devices. If there's some conceivable way to connect them, then what you actually have is somewhat 'modular' already. For example, consider setting up a couple of MATHS in a way that you get non-repetition. Off of this, use a few comparators (devices that send a trigger or gate pulse when a set voltage threshold gets crossed) to 'read' some of the process's voltage curves. Then send triggers from those to...oh, let's say, the Volca clocks, all separately. Now you'll have non-coincident timing signals syncing each Volca, and if they're pitched in such a way that it all sounds 'right'...well, there's another way to do it, and proof that an 'instrument' in electronic or electroacoustic media is only bound by the limitations of your own imagination, not by which things are in what cases.
So...four days in, well, maybe you'll want to study the idea more closely. And longer. And don't just do that on MG, but actually take some real time to STUDY the idea by listening, looking into various algorithmic processes, examining how related concepts like analog computing and how chaotic mathematical processes govern 'organic' processes. I've been tinkering with these concepts for about...ah, 40 years?...so there's a lot of possibilities to mess with here, and the only limit is really imagination and how broad you can make that imagination. Definitely not solely a matter of what equipment to use.
Oooooookay...further iterations of expanding the new Minibrutes. To the above, add four VCOs, four LFOs, two Steiner state-variables, four EGs, two sequencers...basically, all the stuff in the Arturias. I wouldn't consider the racks here to be 'complete' synths, so remember these are designed to tandem with the Minibrute 2 and 2s. Jettisoned the Moog subrack for the time being, also.
Have to say, this is looking more and more appealing as I tinker with it. Cost-wise, it's killer: about $8k with the Arturia gear + modules, and easily crosspatchable with my Digisound to push the rig out even further. Definitely cheaper in the long run than the 'in-one-box' ideas I've worked with for some time, and potentially more capable since the Arturias add way more to the combination for cheap than trying to replicate their functions in discrete module form. Pretty damn close to a final budgeting decision, I should think...definitely worth the long work toward a suitable goal.
Hm...well, first up, I'd discard the Erbe-verb in favor of using something outboard for reverb effects. This is a pretty small build, so keeping things as mission-critical as you can is a good idea. Chuck the scope and blind panel also. As for the Clouds, keep in mind that Mutable discontinued that module.
Next...and this would be a MAJOR sort of 'Oh, s**t!' moment if you did this as a physical build...how do you plan to get external audio in without an audio input module? You have to have that; line-level audio won't cut it, since all voltages (audio and CV) within most any synth environment are a lot hotter than either consumer or pro-level audio signals, and have to be preamped to get them to the proper level. Similarly, how do you intend on getting your audio back out? Yes, I see a output module...but no mixer. This is fine if you intend on cascading modules in series as an audio chain, but otherwise you'll have a problem separating the different processed signals without a lot of unnecessary knobtwisting. Your audio chain, to work well, needs to look like this:
[INPUT] -> [MULTIPLE (dividing audio to processing)] -> [PROCESSORS (in parallel)] -> [MIXER (summing paralleled audio)] -> [OUTPUT]
...and keep in mind that some of your devices are stereo and some aren't, so a mixer that has both stereo-ins and mono-ins with panning is a good idea.
Otherwise, yeah, this is a good idea...a lot of people don't think about using modular synthesizers as a sound processor, but the fact is that they've been useable like this since the start. In fact, one of the very first rock recording Moog usages was on The Doors' "Strange Days", on which Jim Morrison's vocal is being processed through Beaver and Krause's system which was used on those sessions. You maybe, possibly, might wanna consider a larger cab, though...
Hm...there's a lot of problems here. Let's dive in...
1) Envelopes. There's zero envelope generators in this build. And you really need those, since they create amplitude contours (via VCAs), timbral contours (applying envelopes to VCF cutoff, resonance), asymmetrical modulation (applying envelopes to VCO FM inputs), etc etc. This is going to be a serious stumbling block. Yes, you can apply LFO signals as a simple substitute for some of this, but you don't have the ability (as a rule) to specify the parameters of the modulation curve with them.
2) Buffered mult. You don't actually need that; a passive mult will do fine if there's only two oscillators in this. Buffered multiples are used to exactly replicate an inputted signal, often to avoid 'voltage droop' when controlling numerous devices with a single CV. There's not enough here to really justify it, so save some money.
3) Pamela's. Again, this doesn't seem necessary. The module is an eight-channel CV source under a single clock, with one of its main uses being to lock up behavior of/around a sequencer, and there's no sequencer here. Yes, it can output a lot of other things, but using it in that way means that you still won't have proper hands-on control over the parameters that it's outputting, and a big key in using a synth effectively is to have the actual controls at hand to manipulate, not hidden behind some sort of menu structure. If the idea is to use this for envelopes, etc...I wouldn't do that. It simply brings you back to the awful 1980s world of programming through a single data control (think DX7 here), and defeats the whole rationale for working with a modular.
4) Putting an O&C build on 'low priority'. Not a good idea. If you really want one of these, you have to act quickly when they pop up, because the people building these do so on pretty short build runs. The kit versions are not too difficult to come by, but an Ornament and Crime isn't a 'starter kit' build, so if you're not experienced with some complex electronics work, the kit option probably won't work out nicely.
5) Clouds. Doesn't exist anymore, so you'd have to either source a used module or find a third-party build. If the latter, refer to #4 above. Also, what Clouds does is somewhat similar to what the Morphagene does; are two devices of this sort necessary?
The best advice I can give is STOP. Sit back, take a few deep breaths, get the heady aroma of modular out of your head a bit. Modular synths are just as capable as the synths you mention in your post of being eventually uninspiring. Just because there's all these...THINGS...doesn't mean that that factor changes any, it just makes the fiscal outcome of being 'uninspired' way more expensive.
Now, first of all, I can tell you...from experience...that if you're getting bored by your synths, you're probably not spending enough time exploring their capabilities. Granted, Volcas are a bit limited, which is why they're mission-specific, but they still have a lot of abuse potential. Have you looked into any of the hardware hacks for them? Tried 'misapplying' what they do (which was key in the discovery of what the TB-303 could really do, c. 1987)? Also, those are relatively simple synths you're listing; have you considered a hardware synth that allows you to get further 'under the hood' first, something like a Waldorf Blofeld where you basically have a redone version of the PPG wavetable architecture, or something additive such as a Kawai K5000s? Neither are that expensive on the used market, certainly nowhere near the expense of a Eurorack system. Explore more. It's not a good idea at all to take a leap from a Toyota Corolla to a Koenigsegg for going from a first car to a second, and it's not a good idea to go from something very simple like a Minilogue to something that's totally complicated like a modular of any format. Best way you can see this point is if you have some way to access a modular synth for a little while, without assistance...which I recommend to anyone considering taking a flying leap into modular synthesis from an early point in working with electronic music in general. Modular synthesizers are A way of getting toward something new/different, but not THE way. Versteh'?
Solid as a rock! If you have 2 hp left there in that open bit, maybe a passive mult could go in...otherwise, button it up with a blank panel and have some inline mults handy. That's a serious piece of gear there...make sure to exploit the inserts on the A-106-1 and Chronoblob for even more mayhem.
Now you've even got me pondering what might work in a KB37...
Well, first off, you really need a serious input module with a proper envelope follower. That'll allow you to take foley-type audio and run it thru the machine, deriving both audio and envelope CVs from the signal. Given that this is something you'll likely want to use with both a proper mic and/or line inputs, have a look at Cwejman's AP-1. This also contains some compression and basic eq, plus line and mic (with phantom power) inputs. At $685, yeah, it's expensive for a Eurorack module, but the price is actually pretty comparable to pro-grade mic preamps. As for the Ears and the Detect...nah, probably won't work like you think. Ears is a contact mic built into a Eurorack module and usually works more like a controller, and the Detect is a bit too simplistic to give you the envelope control that manipulating foley really needs, to say nothing of tinkering with highly-amplified microsound-type sources.
Clouds: not available anymore, unless you get lucky or unless you can get a third-party version of it. Otherwise, it's a good choice, but you might want something more delay-like as well for sound looping/manipulation. Check out Make Noise's Phonogene or Morphagene, as well as possibly 4ms's Dual Looping Delay.
Filters are really lacking here, and that'll be a problem for making major timbral alterations. In this case, you'll want two different kinds: 1) a pretty complex, crosspatchable VCF (or several in one module) and 2) something more fixed, such as a filterbank, to use like a complex equalizer for basic spectral alterations. Doepfer is a good source for both; their A-128 filterbank can be gotten with a separate break-out expander to directly tap the individual passbands, and the A-127 Multitype Morphing Filter (along with its companion A-144 Morphing Controller) in conjunction with the MATHS will allow you to do a lot of complex, unexplainable sonic transformations. As for the LPG...mm...it's OK for instrument-type work, but sound design has a lot to do with complicated timbral alterations, and so more complex filtering would probably work better for you.
The lack of VCAs here will be a problem, as you don't have either a way to control amplitude of audio signals or control signals via a modulation source, and both are really important in any form of synthesis environment. Consider several, and you might look at Intellijel's Quad VCA as a possibility, since you have quite a bit of flexibility of VCA behavior in those plus the module also is capable of functioning as a 4-1 mixer.
Overall, the biggest problem here is one of scale. If you're trying to set up a sound design for SFX/foley device, that's one thing...but an instrument-type synth is somewhat different from that. It IS possible to do both, by having your sound manipulation/alteration paths in the same cab as an instrument-type path...but you might need a bigger cab. Also, go have a closer look at a classic SFX synth: the ARP 2600, which Ben Burtt made ample use of for sound design for the first 'Star Wars' movies. While there's certainly been some improvements in the gear since that synth's day, the basic design principles in that synthesizer are sufficiently open-ended for both SFX design AND musical work, and it's a good point of reference to work from. Doing a bit of research into Suzanne Ciani's work in the 1970s in sound logo work (using a custom Buchla system) might prove useful as well.
And sophiajoseph is a spam pattern for dumping spam into the forums. But besides that, Mat...you might want to have a look at http://www.happynerding.com/category/fm-aid/ . This is Happy Nerding's module that consists solely of the phase modulation circuit that's the TZFM part of the Schippmann CS-8 VCO, and as such, it might make more sense to approach Schippmann's module after looking at the HN FM Aid's docs. I note, also, that the Schippmann manual is a bit...ah...well, it needs some proofreading, to be sure. Not as bad as yr.typ. 1978 Roland manual, but still...
Some instructional listening. Well, the start of some of it. And where I'm going to start is back in the pre-synth era, since the first synthesizers were a technological answer to the difficulties of what are known as 'classical' electronic music and its limitations. For a very good look at the point of inception where this happened more or less simultaneously on both the east and west coasts, I point you to the very excellent book “Analog Days” by T.J. Pinch and Frank Trocco. Essential reading, truly; a must for anyone involved in electronic music, since everything we do and use now bases itself in these origination-points.
Pretty much everything on this list can be hunted down online, both in sound (sometimes even in filmed versions!) and text references. Those with a sense of both adventure and inquiry will likely find these examples pretty inspirational.
1) Paul Hindemith: “Concertino for Trautonium and Strings” (1931). A proper concerto-style work for string orchestra and the newly-invented Trautonium, an instrument created by Friedrich Trautwein which used a neon-tube relaxation oscillator and a continuous ribbon-type controller.
2) Edgard Varèse: “Ecuatorial” (1932-34). The original version of this work included two of the then-new theremins in its ensemble; later, Varèse rescored the work to use the more-controllable Ondes Martinot (see below).
3) Olivier Messiaen: “Fête des belles eaux” (1937). One of the very first purely-electronic works, scored for a sextet of Ondes Martinots, a fairly-complex and partly-keyboard electronic instrument created by Maurice Martenot in the mid-1930s. The work was intended for outdoor performance along the River Seine in Paris, so in a very real sense it also is an antecedent to ambient music and its development.
4) Pierre Schaeffer: “Cinq études de bruits” (Five Noise Studies) (1948). This series of five works of 'musique concrète', or music using existing sounds outside of those normally produced by instruments, is where much of the concept of tape music emerges. Although Schaeffer's initial works used disc lathes and turntables to composite and manipulate sounds, the emergence of commercially-available tape machines shortly after the time these works were created plus the concepts broached by Schaeffer and others in the French 'Club d'Essai' would combine to form the 'manipulation' side of 'classical' electronic music technique.
5) Pierre Henry & Pierre Schaeffer: “Symphonie pour un homme seul” (Symphony for one man alone) (1950-51/rev. 1966). This work could probably be considered the ultimate expression of the concrète techniques pioneered in Paris. However, it was nearly-impossible to perform in its original form, due to the limitations posed by the phonograph techniques still in use. Later revisions pared the work down considerably, followed by the restoration of one removed section in the 1966 version.
6) Karlheinz Stockhausen: “Gesang der Jünglinge” (Song of the Youths) (1955-56). Stockhausen pioneered the use of purely electronic sounds in music a few years previous to this in his two 'Studien', but this work is perhaps the best example of those concepts, assembled together with 'concrète' manipulation techniques of childrens' voices, to create something which is pretty much the start-point for what we now know as 'electronic music'.
7) Edgard Varèse: “Poème électronique” (Electronic Poem) (1958). This work, which only now exists in a stereo version, was originally intended for the Philips pavilion at the 1958 Brussels World Fair. In that venue, it was spatially-distributed over some 300+ loudspeakers, through which the audience moved. The work varies from concrete to purely electronic media, and would later be the model for the Japan track “Ghosts”.
8) Karlheinz Stockhausen: “Kontakte” (Contacts) (1958-60). Stockhausen's next step beyond the above work was to explore the continuum of sound that ranges from pitches, to rhythms, to periods of time. Using pulse generators as the primary sources for both sound generation and modulation, he created this work which aptly demonstrates the direct relationship of all time-based aspects in music.
9) Vladimir Ussachevsky: “Wireless Fantasy” (1960). This, one of Ussachevsky's early works at the newly-formed Columbia-Princeton Center for Electronic Music, more accurately belongs to the 'musique concrète' domain, but it too uses electronic sound sources, this time derived from shortwave radio.
10) Luciano Berio: “Visage” (1961) Created at RAI Milan's studio, Berio's piece subjects the word 'parole' ('words') to a mind-wrenching series of electronic and electroacoustic transformation processes. Cathy Berberian's voice in this work is made to go in directions that only electronic media would be capable of.
11) Milton Babbitt: “Philomel” (1964). Also created at the Columbia-Princeton Center, this work is perhaps one of the most famous compositions that makes use of the earliest instrument known as a 'synthesizer', the RCA Mark II, along with soprano voice.
12) Pauline Oliveros: “I of IV” (1966). Created during Oliveros' tenure at the University of Toronto, the work uses her methods of ultrasonic oscillator manipulation to synthesize elaborate sonic textures. She was also present at the birth of the Buchla synthesizer at the San Francisco Tape Music Center just before this, but hadn't yet made the leap to the new synthesizer technology when this work was composed. Nevertheless, those familiar with the sound of the early Buchlas will notice certain similarities between what she accomplishes here and the 'complex oscillator' behavior of those early synths.
13) Karlheinz Stockhausen: “Hymnen” (Anthems) (1966-68). This work is perhaps the crowning opus of pre-synthesizer electronic music. At two hours in length, “Hymnen” represents, in very real ways, the limit of the 'classical' studio techniques. During the composition and realization of this work, of course, the development of the Moog and Buchla systems was in full swing, and would soon become the focus of later electronic music development...but this four-movement work is, in a very real sense, the climactic creation of the pre-synthesizer era in electronic music.
FYI, while I point out the early instruments above, the later works also contain significant contributions. Schaeffer and his compatriot Pierre Henry worked on techniques that would go on to spawn sample-manipulation (in fact, the Make Noise 'Phonogene' and 'Morphagene' owe their existence to some of these methods, albeit translated into modern digital technology). And Ussachevsky was the first to establish the makeup of sonic dynamic envelopes as containing an Attack, a period of initial Decay, a level of Sustain, and an eventual Release. So while these pieces all seem distantly-located in comparison to what everyone here on MG is working with, they (as well as many others; these are really just 'cardinal examples') are in a very real sense antecedent to everything we're up to today. And because of that, they're very much works that anyone involved in electronic music should have at least a passing familiarity with.
Anyway, that's all for this pile of edumacationable material. Next list I post (after a while), I'll start looking at the early synth works, starting around the general time where this list leaves off.
OK, so I got to thinking that while I often note that users should study up on some of the classic monosynths that have stood the test of time, I haven't really given a lot in the way of examples to specifically look at. So this post is designed to correct that omission. All of this fun stuff can be found on and referred to at Vintage Synth Explorer (http://www.vintagesynth.com/#synth-models), which is a pretty good reference site for prebuilt synths, including some of the preconfigured modular gear of bygone times. You could kill hours on this site easily...but I guarantee you'll come back to MG with a head full of ideas as a result. Let's hit the high points, though...
These synthesizers are ones which I'd like to point out as being classic instruments which also go quite a way to explaining both how a proper synthesis signal path should flow. Also, their configuration gives some very good suggestions as to how to lay out a modular cabinet in such a way as to get the result to have an 'instrument feel'. There are very good reasons why some of these command big money prices on the used market and, in fact, why a few are still in production to this day. None of these are modulars per se, but a number are patchable and can be inserted into a modular setup. But again, the point here isn't the modular aspect, but how you can look at classics such as these as a 'roadmap' for your own modular efforts. The ones to pay attention to are:
1) ARP 2600. This is actually halfway in between a modular and a prebuilt, since the patchable architecture was always intended as a 'convenience', with some submodules not patched into that but easily configured via patchpoints. Also, it's worth noting that other devices were created that act essentially as 'modules' that connect to the 2600, such as ARP's 1604 sequencer and Tom Oberheim's initial synth effort, the SEM.
2) ARP Odyssey. Technically still in production thanks to Korg, this was probably the best non-patchable monosynth that ARP came up with. It had duophonic architecture, and the panel layout was (along with the Minimoog) influential in the designs of many monosynths that followed.
3) EML 101 'ElectroComp'. In some ways similar to the ARP 2600, this and its separate modular expander, the EML 200, are still devices that turn up in educational studios to teach the fundamentals of synthesis. The panel shows the flowpath exactly like a road map, so it's hard to misunderstand how the various subsystems go together...which also makes it a good example for the flowpath for present-day modular design as well.
4) Korg MS-10 and MS-20. The latter, of course, is another reissue in its 'mini' form by Korg...and rightfully so, since it's probably one of the most capable small monosynths ever made. These two monosynths, with the 10 being a simplified 20, also make use of patchpanels to override the built-in patch architecture as well as to patch in a number of other MS-line devices. And again, the way that Korg laid these synths out provides a great example of how 'flow' should work. After all, the MS-20 dates from the late 1970s, and it still sells bigtime given how it can be used for both very basic duty and very extreme uses. I would even go so far as to call it the 'Japanese ARP 2600', because in some very real senses, it's that.
5) Moog Minimoog. The first of the 'lead synths', really, this was originally derived by Moog engineer Bill Hemseth from Moog's modular line in its prototype form. Bob Moog actually didn't like the idea of this machine, but came to see the potential that it had in the end. The layout was derived as something of an extremely scaled-down signal flow version of the Moog IIc, with a reduction in VCOs but still retaining Moog's classic 904A low-pass filter. Numerous Moog monosynths begin their lineage from this synth, including the Micromoog, Multimoog, and Prodigy, as well as the more recent Voyager. And of course, it's worth noting that Moog has brought this specific 50 year old synth design back more recently still...because, simply put, it works.
6) Roland SH-1 (and its offshoots, the SH-09, SH-2a, and the later SH-101). Another line that will not die, the SH monosynths were a basic working tool of many a synthpop player in the late 1970s and up through the development of techno and on into the rave scene of the 1990s. And yet again, it's because they make simple, straightforward sense. You would have to really try hard to make a mistake programming these. And yes, they still linger on, with a VCM model version of the SH-1 available for Roland's present-day System synths, and the SH-01 being a redux of the venerable 101 with a bit of the related MC-202 thrown in for good measure.
7) Sequential Circuits Pro-One. A monosynth based on the Prophet-5's CEM-based architecture, this powerful monosynth yet again boasts an excellent and intuitive flowpath on its front panel, plus the complexity of the modulation matrix. This is something that I think everyone wishes Dave Smith would reissue just as it was, because it remains a very sought-after monosynth...great sound, intuitive programming environment.
8) Yamaha CS-monosynths (CS-5, 10, 15). These bear some basic resemblance to the Korg MS-series in sound and appearance, but not in implementation. These probably have some of the best road-mapping of monophonic synth architecture, especially the CS-15 with its flowpath showing how to use it in either monophonic or duophonic modes via a bit of extra patching. I would go so far as to say that the CS-10 or CS-15 might be some of the best 'explainers' as to how an analog synth signal path gets put together.
OK...so there's a few there that I think are perhaps the best 'study pieces' for anyone stepping up to the task of designing a modular in any format (well, except maybe a Buchla or Serge). And better still, if any of you reading about these can find some of the actual devices to check out, hands-on. Any of these serve as an excellent template to build up a rackful of modules, because following these fixed-build synths will help you to cook up a modular rig that both has what you need AND has a layout that is intuitive and possesses some of the same characteristics of playability that keep them in the 'very desireable' column for many electronic musicians. So...class dismissed! Study well, o my droogies...
MATHS is fine...it's probably the best bang-for-buck complex modulation source out there. The only concern I have here is about that MS-20, since it uses a different CV scaling and inverted gate/triggers, and usually that means a standard-changer module needs to be in the system...but only if you're needing to fully link this cab and the MS-20. But sending voltage curves from the MATHS directly into the '20s patch panel...that won't need that. Plus, there are a few 'creative' ways to fudge the MS-20 into some neat behavior by using its external processor section to do a little 'mistranslation' of incoming signals. Try feeding it some electronic percussion signals, for example, and then spreading the results out to both the '20 and the modular. Depending on how much early Aphex Twin you've heard, the results might seem...familiar.
I'll second that! That's a killer MIDI interface for the price, and it brings up a good point: don't always try and put all of the modular's devices IN the rack...sometimes outboard is the right way to go. Like here, apparently!
Other than that, this looks good...but again, I don't think you're going to need a buffered mult. A regular one would be fine, since you're not likely to need to branch one CV out to, say, seven or eight sources and keep them all on-scale. Also, having the other two percussion voices of the 'holy trinity' of kick/hat/snare might be a good swap-out for the Yarns if you go with the outboard MIDI, and you'd still have a bit more space to play with besides if you use small-hp snare and hat modules.
I'd actually think the 'minus VAT' price makes more sense, since it's a tax issue and not a 'list price' issue. In Erica's case, if they were shipping direct to a EU client, that client would have to factor their VAT on an overall basis against all their EU-purchased devices, but not something from the US or Canada unless it was purchased thru an EU retailer. Likewise, if someone walks into a shop in the USA to make a purchase, local taxes will apply, so an Erica module here would have a lower initial price, but the addition of sales tax (state and local, as a rule) changes that price differently. And, of course, you have the whole issue of import duty, etc etc. Gets messy and confusional...so going with a manufacturer's 'base price' seems right to me, with the onus being on the customer in question to factor their taxation situation as per where they are and how things get purchased.
So if a manufacturer posts a 'with VAT' price, actually those who don't have to deal with VAT come out ahead. Again, it's a 'worst-case' price in which the 'surprise' is the lower cash outlay, instead of the 'best-case' price that isn't realistic for the majority of users who wind up with sticker-shock on ordering.
It's pretty close, actually...you could lose the buffered mult in favor of a regular one, since you don't have enough going on to justify a buffered mult to make exact copies of CVs, etc. They're great for keeping a dozen or so VCOs in tune off of the same CV, but in here it's sort of superfluous.
Soundscaping often tends to call for more in the way of filtering and processing, btw. Maybe a couple of VCFs instead of the single Erica would be better; better still would be a filter with an insert point such as Doepfer's A-106-1, which allows you to put something into its resonance feedback path. A delay would work nicely there, or any sort of time-domain effect. Overall processing is important as well, which I figure the Disting is for, but you might want to consider another processor to feed it into to set up a 'processor cascade', which also works nicely thru adjusting the wet/dry balances, etc as you 'play' them. As for the leads and drones, this is on the right track, though...I think you might want to tinker with the layout, though, putting sources in one area, modifiers in the next, modulators, etc. Since this is supposed to live in a KB37, do some research on existing monosynths over history, paying attention to why some are 'classics' and others just didn't make it.
Well, for starters, the Braids is off the menu unless you have a line on a used one or one on hand already. Not sure about the need for the tuner module, either, especially at $175. If you want/need a strobetuner, just get one of the lower-end Petersons and run it outboard. The Roland 500 ADSR could go, as there's plenty of those out there and adding a VCLFO is simple enough.
Ahhh, what else...? OK, the stereo out; this rig doesn't seem to do anything in stereo...so shifting to any of a number of mono output modules would save some cash and space. This system also has the 'missing VCAs' problem...only one actual one, plus an LPG that really gets wasted just using it as a VCA alone. I would actually chuck the Ladik faders and the MFB VCA and go with an Intellijel Quad VCA, since you can break those up for CV modulation or audio as necessary, plus they can do some of the mixing. A six-channel mixer doesn't make sense here anyway, as there's not really six sources in the first place.
Hmm...the Buchla Timbre is not bad, but it really works best (or more typically) when used on a regular VCO. Using it with the Braids (which you'll have to find as a third-party build there days) sort of falls under the old adage of 'gilding a lily'. It might make more sense to use something more straightforward as a waveshaper, such as Tiptop's Fold. Definitely cheaper, too.
Overall, I would suggest the sort of thing I suggest quite a bit: more research. Use MG's resources to look at other peoples' racks who appear to be working in a direction similar to yours. Also, to get the prices under control, select your module type then use the 'price' view option to look at things in ascending (or with a second click on 'price', descending) order of cost. Last, if cost is a major factor, remember this simple formula: price / hp = cost per hp. The lower you can make that resultant figure, the cheaper things become overall. You can use that calculation on single modules, whole rows, or a whole cab. It works very well to keep overall costs under control since you're getting direct feedback on the prospective overall cost as the build takes place instead of at the very end when everything gets tallied. And redo constantly; there's really never any such thing as a 'finished' build, not even when you've physically built it.
Yeah, exactly...differentiate between things to control directly and things which can be left alone, and treat the array of 'control-required' modules as sort of a surrogate control surface. Always works. A lot of people don't think out the ergonomics of what makes a synth an actual instrument, but you seem to have the specifics of use down. Nicely done!
You're going to dig the Keystep with this...I used to control the Digisound with either the CV output from my ARP 2600's keyboard or, alternately, with an MC-202. But this thing is like mashing both of those together and then some! And UNlike those...it's dirt-cheap. Maybe consider something MIDI-ish down the road that can deal with USB MIDI (Expert Sleepers FH-1, for example) and get twice as busy with BOTH control signal sets...
