ModularGrid uses so-called cookies to ensure it's so-called functionality. We also use dubious tracking scripts. Find out more in the Privacy Policy. We use cookies and wanna let you know.
I don’t know of options in the modular domain, but an interesting VST option is Infinite Pro http://wolfgangpalm.com/infinitepro.html
I believe all the Palm VSTs are being transitioned over to Plugin Alliance / Brainworx
(Later) ... so I went back and watched that video. Very interesting and also well done. Personally if I was to work musically in the directions implied by the video I would do that in software with supporting Excel calculations (like the video author) for precision and confidence in nonstandard tunings that complement a given timbre. I finding getting tuning and timbre stability in modular hard enough with conventional tunings; I can’t imagine trying to pull off what’s done in the video in modular. But of course that’s my view only.
-- if you stick the modules above in a case with considerable extra room for a few more adds (like you mentioned) then I think the modules you've picked so far are reasonable. That said, I have the same reservations about QPAS as mentioned previously, I'm not sure it's the strongest choice for a primary filter.
-- regarding utilities, I learned a lot about these by scanning the full module lists for Doepfer, Ladik, Intellijel, Joranalogue and ADDAC. I looked for anything that wasn't a sound source, sound shaper (filter, waveshaper) or CV source, figuring those "other" modules would be mostly utilities. That gave me a good idea of other module types, and helped me think concretely about what utilities might play well in my setup.
-- when you're ready, why don't you update your draft rack IN the intended (larger) case size, make any module adds / deletes you're considering, and ask the forum for feedback what might be beneficially added / changed? Trying to leave ~25% or more empty space in your next draft rack would be advisable, if possible.
@visakhv16, glad you are getting some useful input!
A couple additional comments:
-- "I was kinda overwhelmed with all the possibilities and fear of picking the wrong modules or missing out on the "better" ones." ... Yes, there's a huge expanse of possibilities in modular. The way I dealt with this when starting was i) set a basic design architecture (e.g. type of modules and # of modules) that would execute the type of instrument I'm interested in ii) get forum help to troubleshoot the design iii) pick some modules I thought were "no regrets" (e.g. well reviewed, well known, well loved) plus a couple "innovative" modules that interest me, from what is in stock at my preferred vendors iv) iterate with forum folks a bit more to help polish the subsequent rack design, and all along the way v) lots and lots of looking at modules' webpages, manuals and videos. BTW don't expect a rack to necessarily ever be finished, there will always be things you could change or add if you wanted to.
-- re: "I have a tendency of being overambitious without giving it a thought whether I would be able to truly understand and use them as I wanted." I was in that kind of head space about 2 months ago. I got a BUNCH of modular stuff all at once. On the positive side, I got a lot of good input from the forum, did some research, and was thoughtful, SO I do have a setup that strikes me as a full instrument and is very inspiring to me, which is great. On the negative side, several of the modules I have are crazy deep on their own, let alone in combination, and I'm now like "f(*&, am I ever really going to understand the timbral possibilities of my complex oscillators, etc. etc.?"
-- I bought a lot of stuff from Patchwerks in Seattle. One of the people there helping me choose modules said "everybody I know who's really good at modular, they really pound hours into their setup until they know every module inside and out." That has stuck with me as a good (and somewhat haunting) piece of reflection. SO I'm expecting somewhat the same of my rig: I'll start to really get good juice out of it reliably only after I have a pretty solid command on all the major module. From there, it's simple math: more modules--> more study / practice time to get command of. I've stopped buying additional modules because the "homework" I have left to do to learn my current modules remains very considerable, and I'm satisfied that what I have is a great platform for sound design and exploration.
-- FYI Lugia posted somewhere else that he's at his rack limit and will be deleting stuff. That being the case, I'd recommend you make a copy/duplicate of Lugia's draft rig above, and also copy the comments from this thread and email to yourself (or otherwise archive them). It is super helpful input from JimH, Lugia etc. above, and if you're still chewing on these topics weeks / months from now, its worth taking a moment to preserve what's been said so far.
Everyone else, yes copy your favorite Lugia racks (and related posts?) before that stuff disappears. Totally agree with "while these were done for different individual users, they're still super-useful as studies on how successful basic builds are put together." I've copied 13 of my favorite Lugia builds / examples.
Do we happen to know, as Lugia deletes older racks, will those disappear from forum threads? There are a lot of useful threads with racks posted as examples + some discussion. I haven't been on the forum long enough to know if the in-thread rack graphics get deleted if the original rack poster makes a rack change or deletion.
-- @ffsimpson, on the topic of "understanding utilities," practically, if you spend some time scanning the Doepfer and Ladik modules, and read about anything you don't immediately understand, that will give concrete examples of a TON of various modular functions, including lots of utilities.
-- the case size you picked is good, IMO big enough to be interesting, small enough to be portable, not cost a fortune, and not be completely baffling. I personally like Doepfer cases, and you can surely find those in a size similar to above.
-- regarding your goal "I'm trying to create a system which could act as a complex, evolving rhythm-generator/sequencer." IMO this is one of the harder things to pull off with some understanding and control of what's going on. SO I would say if that's what you want, patience and doing some "homework" will be very rewarding. See this post, the 3 links mentioned at the top https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9906 and also this post https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9928 ... those will have a lot of ideas and draft racks for you to explore!
-- your draft rack above has about as many complex modules put together as I've ever seen. I can tell you, as a 37 year musician and 15 year synthesist working with VSTs, getting into modular was still tough for me! It is hard enough to really understand a "basic" module, or function generator like Stages, let alone other modules which can be far far deeper and mysterious. This is not to say "avoid complex modules" -- but to point out it takes some real time, manual reading, experimentation, and practice to start to get some control over their behavior. Jim's advice (above) to do "minimum viable" or core system, then 1-2 modules at a time is good; that said, the urge to dive in (and maybe go overboard), I get it!
@timmy373, I can't tell how this 2nd rack is different than your first rack. I pulled up your prior post (1st rack) and the rack there and here look the same.
A few comments on what's above presently:
-- I've heard good things about Erica Black Sequencer BUT it is not quite for me. I find sequencers very deep and personal in fit (e.g. down to personal workflow and control preferences) SO I would urge anyone looking for a sequencer to shop carefully, watch some videos, browse manuals, and really consider workflow preferences. Personally I'm a huge fan of Five12 Vector sequencer.
-- I own QPAS and like it as a choice for filter to use, but I probably wouldn't go with it as my main or only filter. If I had only one "power-filter" I would choose from Morgasmatron, Rossum Linneaus, or SSF Stereo Dipole. Again, a matter of personal preference. Just wanted to highlight that there may be better "workhorse" filter choices if you're only having one in your rig.
-- Scanning the rest of the rack, I think you have a lot of good picks there. PNW, Maths, Links, Kinks, Triplatt, Battumi -- hard to go wrong with those! The 3HP expander for Batumi is nice, if you have the 3HP to spare. Bifold is great.
-- I'm not sold on MiniMod and ADDAC703 for you in this setup, though I'm not super familiar with those modules. Instead of those what about: i) something like 4ms SISM or Tiptop MISO for attenuating / offsetting CV ii) a stereo mixer like one from Doepfer (A-138s) iii) more VCAs? I see your comment above you end up using triplatt / tangle quartet more as mixers -- just adding more VCAs could give you some of what you want plus flexibility plus CV control. Intellijel Quad VCA remains a fav of mine on that front. Food for thought.
-- my biggest response / question re: above is "where's the room for future growth?" Have you considered a bigger case? If you had the exact same modules above, but in a bigger case with say 30-50% room left open (but IRL covered with blank panels to avoid accidents), then I would think "that's a pretty reasonable set of modules, he can add a few more in a couple weeks / months after he has a better idea what's underrepresented in his rig." BUT if you're committed to this size case above, then IMO it warrants a bit more scrutiny (on module selection) to get the most fun and function out of that much HP.
-- A couple last comments: as a rack, it still seems relatively heavy on sound sources, and light on utilities. Again, if you had HP left over to add modules over time, no big deal. Layout is rather scattered, but you can update that any time; I would tend to group together voicing (OSC, filters, waveshapers), CV, utilities, fx, then last line out.
So those are a few of my personal reactions to the build above. Hope to see some other forum folks chime in here soon. Good luck!
@sacguy71, any key recent learnings or techniques you're running with Vector?
I got mine (plus expander) a few weeks ago and am still learning it (for a while still). But overall very impressed, and happy with the purchase. It is my favorite sequencer of any kind on any unit, hardware or VST.
BTW I have found the Loopop and Ferry Collider videos on Vector to be well done and helpful.
@troux, good idea. I do tend to see similar feedback in a lot of the "rack feedback" requests.
In addition to the ideas above, how about adding in some of the following:
a) write out your vision for your modular synth. What do you want it to be great at? It's okay if this is vague to begin with, but the clearer the vision, the more coherent the modular design will be (e.g. more fun, more good sounds, less frustration and waste).
b) consider how big a modular case you would likely get. Next, consider a larger case! Ideally, plan to leave 25-50% open space in your first case so you can add additional modules as you learn your needs and interests better.
c) consider your $s budget for modular. Is modular a better option for you versus other music items (e.g. software or hardware synths, grooveboxes, etc.)? While modular is great at many things, it can be an inferior alternative in some situations.
d) plan your first (or next) modular rig. Start by thinking about proportions of modules: a useful guideline (courtesy of JimHowell1970) is "sound sources < sound modifiers < modulation sources < utilities." A rig with good proportions of modules will tend to seem balanced and deep (for its size); a rig with skewed proportions will tend to seem unbalanced and limited (for its size).
e) pick some modules! A balance to keep in mind is "inspiration / working instrument / going slow". Something has led you to modular -- make sure at least some modules embodying that "inspiration" appear in your rig. "Complete working instrument" -- if you buy a hardware or software synth, most of the time it arrives as a fulling working instrument, essentially complete on its own for some musical task. With modular, there is a risk of missing an important module type, and severely limiting the rig so that it is not as much a complete working instrument as a VST or hardware counterpart may be. Consider all the modular functions you need to accomplish your main musical tasks, and include those in your draft rig. Lastly, there is the longstanding advice among modular synthesists to "go slow," namely get modules one or few at a time and learn them very very well before adding new modules. Keeping inspiration in your rig, designing a rig that is a working instrument, and going slow enough to learn your incremental new module are somewhat contrary guidelines -- with some consideration, you can find the balance right for your rig.
f) consider some "no regrets" or "tried and true" modules if you're a beginner. These can include [to insert list from across thread above].
g) use tools like Modular Grid and/or VCVrack to test your rack designs. There is a large modular community and other modular users routinely help each other start or extend their modular journey!
h) dive in, take time to learn and explore your rig, and enjoy!
IMO maybe some of the above is helpful broader advice to include in a primer for new folks. Feel free to keep / toss / update / recombine any of it as you see fit.
-- Jim's advice "sound sources < sound modifiers < modulation sources < utilities" is very useful. As a rough example, my medium-sized rig is 3 rows of 84HP totaling 252HP. In that I do about 1/3 of the space for voicing (oscillators, filters and waveshapers), 1/3 for CV (sequencing, LFOs and evelopes), 2/9 for utilities (Quad VCA, 4ms SISM, Links, Kinks, Triplatt, plus some additional buffered mults), and 1/9 for some finishing FX and audio out. It doesn't follow Jim's guidelines exactly, but close enough to give a good well-rounded and balanced rig. SO, thinking about proportions of modules can help you get a good, balanced rig.
-- have you considered a significantly bigger case? In your draft build above, I'm seeing a bunch of big-ish modules in a not so big case. If you can leave 20-50% of your case empty with your initial build, that will give you good open space to fill in later as you get a better idea of what you need. BTW if you do that, it is worth getting some blank panels to cover open spots, to avoid loose or dropped items accidentally shorting the power bus and really causing damage.
-- if you do want to stick with that sized case, you may have some better options for function with lesser HP. The large delay unit could be exchanged for a smaller multi-FX unit (many to choose from, incl. FX from Happy Nerding). The Roland unit is good but pretty big. For core CV, I like Stages, Tides and Batumi; Tides you can find clones of in smaller HP. For multiple free-running LFOs, Instruo Ochd is great and a small HP footprint. Maths is a classic, but it is pretty big and you maybe don't need the whole thing; Joranalogue Contour 1 is an option if you want slew but in a smaller package. The Doepfer stereo mixer is good; but what I'm not immediately seeing in your setup is audio out, like one of the 4MS Listen variants. Do consider if you're going into headphones, into your interface + DAW etc., and get an appropriate audio out as needed (btw many mixer modules will have audio outs). All considered, the smaller the case, the more planning and research (probably) needed to get a good result.
-- IMO utilities are somewhat hard to understand at first, at least relative to other modules. But, if you leave room in your case and budget, you can get a good starter set of "no regrets" modules, then make some more adds as you come to understand modular and your specific needs better.
I hadn’t thought about it from a recording perspective.
The demonstration scenario I saw for this technique is literally all in a DAW (Live) with a VST sine as the source and sub, and a copy of that source/sub then routed to literally anything one might imagine usable as a distortion / waveshaper. They illustrate it with IZotope Trash2 which is certainly a distortion unit, but also with compressors super overdriven to become nonlinear and distorting. Actually that’s kind of the magic of this technique, is that with enough input gain into the subsequent processor you can get all kinds of grit and nonlinearity from processors you would never really expect to use as distortion. Then on the back end you use filtering and level to get just as much sizzle bright or harsh as you want. And all of it it very dynamic/playable and all of it tracks the source pitch perfectly. It’s an exciting and bottomless technique IMO, one I need to keep remembering and practicing.
Glad it’s of interest to you. Yes check it out!! Cheers, NG
Question: why not just tune it lower vs. have derived suboctaves (as discussed above)?
BTW from producerdojo.com I learned an interesting technique which is basically distorted sine sub bass. Step 1: have a pure sine tuned to your sub frequency, which gives you a very controlled and very powerful fundamental. Step 2: mult that to another pathway, distort the hell out of it to taste, highpass filter it so you can add it on top of your pure sub without problems, and do other filtering plus leveling for control to taste. The results are i) you get a powerful controled sub ii) you get a fizzy or nasty top you can mix in to taste iii) you can CV or otherwise change the top for lots of expression / variety iv) everything tracks pitch, gliss and dives perfectly. I've done this in VSTs but not yet my eurorack setup, should work fine in eurorack.
If the clock divider technique (from above) works well, I'll need to add that to my box of tricks and try it in eurorack soon!
@Sound_trace, welcome to modular and Modular Grid!
A few comments:
-- re: modules, yes, Ladik and Doepfer have a lot of interesting modules you might look at. You have Genie from Non Linear Circuits in the rack above, have you looked at their other modules? They have a ton of interesting stuff IMO, I don't own any yet but I will be adding some of their Chaos and other modules in the next year. Metabolic Devices Coherence is interesting and also on my wish list -- I would call it an "esoteric comparator" basically. ADDAC has a lot of good and interesting modules, too many to name here. Erogenous Tones (which you already have in your rack) -- their Radar and Blip could give you a lot of additional fun, Radar is more than just 8 more envelope / lfos (as if that wasn't enough).
-- quickly eyeballing your setup, I'm not seeing a lot of logic or derivator modules. IMO that's a category you could beef up on especially given your experimental interests. Doepfer, Ladik, NLC have a lot in these regards. https://www.analogueresearch.com/product-page/artificial-neural-network when it is back in stock later this year is an interesting option.
-- I know you mentioned you sequence from the DAW. If you ever want to change that, Five12 Vector is something new for me I'm loving. A great sequencer with a big expander unit -- lots of firepower.
-- I'm very interested in eurorack control schemes, this TLDR post of mine interests me a lot and has gotten a whopping zero replies. BUT if you check out the 3 threads referenced near its top, you'll find a lot of interesting discussion, suggestions, and demo rack builds especially some generative rack builds by Lugia, see here: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9906
-- beyond the question "what additional modules" I would suggest you consider "what proportions of what module types" as an interesting and helpful guide. I know JimH has many times said something like "sources < modifiers < control signals < utilities" -- that is not verbatim what Jim said, but kind of close. Some of your text above tells me you're probably already considering in a similar manner? Anyway, I think its a good suggestion from Jim and bear repeating; it has helped me to think of classes and #s of various modules first, then of "what specific next module do I need?" second. This helps build a coherent setup and have real synergies with the modules one already has.
The ideas above are not linear or exhaustive, just a bunch of responses that came to mind when I saw your setup and inquiry.
BTW the build you have above is already something I would be excited about. Good luck with your future explorations!
@troux, that's a fair response. And I would agree, that it doesn't take so much to get "some cool sounds and get a more intuitive and more grounded understanding of synthesis with an instrument that has some open ended possibilities."
And of course @Camposoriol and other folks getting into modular (or considering it) are free to take whatever path seems good.
-- I personally could not justify a modular setup this small or this small budget. Why? IMO a small modular setup will tend to underperform versus VST options a fraction of the price, or standalone options for lower price, such as standalone groove boxes (MPC, Tempest, Analog Rytm MkII, etc.) and/or standalone synths (from Sequential, Moog, etc.). IMO it takes a significant sized modular rig to start to have interesting capabilities beyond what you'd find in a good VST or standalone hardware. I can't yet design a modular rig that interests me (or justifies itself capabilities wise vs. alternatives) for under $5k.
-- keep in mind, modular is probably one of the most expensive (conventional) ways to make synthesized sound / music, and it takes some real iteration, knowledge accumulation and feedback to get a coherent, useful modular rig. Modular can be really awesome, but it takes a real investment of time, and a significant investment of $s compared to other alternatives.
-- SORRY if this is a bummer to hear, and it is only my opinion. But I do recommend you spend some time thinking why modular vs. other alternatives. Then, I'd recommend looking at a considerably bigger case, and carefully consider how much $ and time you might really put towards modular in the next 2-3 years.
-- and btw, the alternatives are still very good. An Analog Rytm or MPC plus a nice hardware synth -- killer!
Just wanted to share some perspective so if you do get into modular, its a good fit for you and it works out well.
Hi, I agree with @troux, that your above build already appears to have a good balance.
As far as your future / aspirational builds go, my (highly subjective) suggestions would include:
-- yes, of course, bigger case. Maybe considerably bigger (like Doepfer Monster) so you have good room to grow? Personally I've gone with stackable Doepfer cases because i) power supplies are robust ii) I figure if I need another similar case in a few years, there's a good chance Doepfer will still be offering cases. I want to avoid a bunch of odd size cases from different manufacturers -- instead trying to standardize my case setup(s). In any event, if you think you'll be into modular for a good long while, I'd recommend playing the "long game" with cases
-- complex oscillators: I've spent a lot of time with softsynths. IMO complex oscillators like MN DPO and Instruo C-sl are a lot of fun, a lot of (for me) the joy of modular (compared to VSTs). Also, these make me think more in terms of "west coast" synthesis, which is something modular is great at, and most VSTs relatively bad at.
-- waveshapers: again, for me, these are part of the joy of modular, and something modular excels at. Intellijel Bifold, Instruo wavefolders, Joranalogue. There are a lot of solid choices.
-- I think you could benefit from some more FILTER firepower in the rig, add some interesting items like the higher end filters from Rossum, Intellijel, Joranalogue, etc. These go way beyond what a VST filter can normally do. I'm trying to think of filters not only in the normal VST (frequency removal / accentuation) way but also in a more "west coast" way of adding / mangling frequencies, which is again something modular is better at (IMO) than VSTs. Rossum Linnaeus is a great example of a module that has a huge and unusual sonic range for a filter.
-- when you want more CV or more complex CV, I can suggest: Stages, which I love; 4MS SISM for shift, invert, scale, mix etc; a matrix mixer of some kind (CV-able or not); some of the ADDAC modules like Sum/Diff, etc. You already have a good bunch of CV, so probably add more CV-control modules like SISM, matrices etc before going too far with more CV.
-- more other utilities, various. Don't underestimate what more "humble" and perhaps non-obvious modules can add to your system in capabilities. This is kind of a bottomless pit topic. If you haven't seen these websites already, I would suggest searching on the Ladik and NonLinearCircuits websites will be very mind opening on just what "other" modules might be capable of adding to your rig. Additionally, searching a lot of Lugia's rigs and posts on this forum are a great way to consider other modules, setups, etc. I've learned a lot from studying his (and some other power-user's) setups and comments.
What's really good is it looks like you already have a solid setup and an idea of your focus and direction. SO you can just add and explore from there.
Again my suggestions above are very subjective / personal. Hope these give you some interesting ideas to explore!
Glad my post & rack help. Suggest you ALSO look at some other racks (esp Lugia's) to get some other ideas of what coherent builds look like. I mention Lugia's because he's very experienced, has a ton of draft racks, and has posted a lot of "here's the thinking behind this rack" type comments.
Regarding some of your specific comments:
-- Triplatt? Yes it is good and useful BUT I find if I'm using it at all, I'm using the whole thing to do a task that could be done in 1 of 4 lanes in the 4ms Shifting Inverting Signal Mingler (SISM). Hence I'd suggest you take a close look at SISM and Triplatt, and pick which might be a better first step for your intended use cases. FYI Tiptop MISO is very similar to SISM and another good alternative. IMO a SISM or MISO adds a lot of power / depth to a rack with a small cost of HP and $s.
-- Links and Kinks are solid choices. I NEED something like Links right away; I don't need Kinks right away. So you might inspect the sub-functions of each of those and see what you think you need right away. If Mutable Instruments stuff is not easy to get, Links is basically a convenient combo of other easy to find things. Tons of manufacturers offer active mults; I definitely need active mults. If I wanted Links but couldn't get it, I would probably get Joranalogue Link2 and Add2 as a substitute. I do own those Joranalogue utilities and like them; Add2 can be an adder or averager and is a great small unit for some of my needs.
-- re: VCAs and QuadVCA vs TangleQuartet? I have no real opinion here other than I really like my QuadVCAs. You can check around online more for what people's favorites and recommendations are regarding VCAs. DO check out the Erogenous Tones modules--if you need a ton of VCAs or Attenuverters or Envelopes, there are some really good options there. On the tinier side would be the 2HP VCA. It really depends how many VCAs you think you'll actually use, do you need linear vs exponential, etc. For me QuadVCA is currently great fit. I own more than one of those.
-- wavefolders: I love these. The Joranalogue one is good, the Intellijel one is great, the Instruo one is interesting. Just depends what you like and how much $s and HP you want to put to it.
-- quantizers: to think about these, think about your sequencer too, and how you'll be managing pitch values in your system. In most smaller setups, it probably only makes sense to have a sequencer OR a quantizer. For example, run a few LFOs at different rates through SISM, run that output into Scales, and that gives you pitch and gate outs. On the other hand, if a sequencer is driving most of the pitch and gate info, what good would a quantizer be? For me, I wanted both, partly just from a perspective of having fun, having options, and learning both as control systems. That said, there are some interesting patch options that would use both sequencer and quantizing. That topic "goes off the deep end" into another thread me and Lugia have running... IMO the simplest approach here is having a sequencer you really like to use, learning that in depth, then getting a sense of what if anything else you need for managing pitch and gates.
-- additionally, MORDAX DATA is something I'd recommend to almost anyone. Hard to get one, but worth the wait. It helps me a ton when trying to understand "what does this module / control actually do?" DATA shows me things I would have never understood from manuals or my ears alone.
I think you're heading in a good direction. I'd suggest you keep up with more web research, and consider a larger case (as mentioned by others above) to leave you some growth / wiggle room. When you come up with a next rack revision, you can post it and we'll help you troubleshoot.
"Mainly I think I need more utilities but there are so many that I honestly do not know where to start."
@timmy373, I empathize with your situation! I got into modular a few months ago and felt similarly.
After a few months and several design iterations, I've ended up with this:
As that design reflects several iterations and a lot of input from various MG forum people, I suggest you spend a bit of time reviewing that rack and the KINDS & PROPORTIONS of modules in it. The main point is one of proportions:
-- it is about 30% (of HP) on voicing, e.g. things that make sound, plus sound modifiers like filters and wavefolders
-- it is about 30% of HP on CV sources, in this case a large sequencer (Vector) plus envelope and lfo sources
-- it is about 30% of HP on utilities including VCAs, mults, links/kinks, mixers, attenuverters, sum/diff, etc. What of that I'd really suggest for you is 4+ channels of VCA, 4MS SISM or similar (to combine / control CV), and enough mults / Links for your setup
-- the last ~10-15% of HP is effects and line out (for my headphones in particular)
IMO any small to mid-size setup needs careful balance of proportions of modules, otherwise it will be too "unbalanced" to perform well. My first rack was exciting, but too focused on sound sources; patching it I thought "all voicing, no score;" I had to up the proportion of CV and utilities to balance out and ultimately make a "deeper" rack.
For other ideas, you could look up Lugia's draft racks and postings, plus some other MG folks who you think have good rack designs. Reviewing good rack designs, thinking "why are they using that" and "what would suit me" will help you answer your questions.
I also agree with points from Troux and Jim above. All considered, I would suggest you add a couple "no regrets" utilities modules, spend a bunch of time with your rig, and let that process answer what else you feel you need.
I'm still newer to modular than a lot of other folks on the forum, so don't take the above as "final" or better than other people's points. But IMO I've recently been through a lot of the questions you're asking. Thought I'd share some ideas, hope this helps!
Thanks for the detailed response above. I CAN see the patching now (after I click on your rig).
Do you have video, Soundcloud, or something similar where it's possible to see / hear the results of your approach? I kind of imagine running this setup myself. But would be very interested to see / hear the results.
BTW when Aristotle is ready for purchase, do let us know!
I'll continue to think on this topic and will come back with a longer post if more interesting questions / comments pop up.
I see this less as a "forever" rig then as a mobile rig with a solid core to it. That is to say, I plan on keeping 80-90% of the design somewhat stable over time, and just subbing in/out a module when there's one I want to learn in depth. So yes, the OSC2 is not the permanent big OSC, and something more like C-sl may very well take its spot.
I should take a closer look at the mixer/VCA situation as you suggested. My intention with the mixers was to do some parallel voicing chains plus some panning for stereo. But maybe there's a more efficient setup to do that than the current above.
BTW, if you're not already familiar with the following modules, they may be very interesting for you. I've been looking at logic and semi-random CV lately, this stuff has piqued my interest:
@the-erc, thanks for the technical ideas above. Yes, some switching + logic may work. I've also been considering if some combination of latching or latching switches plus logic would work. All told, I probably have to just mock up some draft patches IRL (when possible module-wise) or on VCVrack and test what I can get to actually work. Part of it is getting clear on the logic / signal aspects of it, which I could maybe work out with pen & paper (& beer & cats).
@Lugia, yes, the little Fux book is alongside a few prized others in the counterpoint section of my music library. I hadn't really thought about pedal point seriously for a while as it is not an obvious fit with my focus genres. But yes, not to be ignored. And I love it in the Bach and Hindemith organ works.... BTW, any other technical ideas / responses to my longer ("step 1-5") post above? I know you a day or two ago said you were mulling it over. Your ideas & draft rigs are always interesting food for thought.
-- Wavefolders: Intellijel Bifold is super IMO. A little more HP but worth it. 4HP solid options IMO include Joranalogue Fold6 and Instruo Athru. I own all of those (I'm into wavefolders). Still logging time on them and getting to know them, but think they're all good!
-- more vs. less sound sources you ask? Generally, in a medium sized rig, less sound sources, and percussion handled elsewhere (as with your Rytm) as possible. Modular requires a lot of "supporting modules" and in a small to medium sized rack, too many sound sources will crowd out the "supporting modules" and lead to an underperforming total rig design.
-- case? Your build above is mostly full. Best if you can start a build leaving some room to add / grow. But tempting to fill the case early on (which I'm also guilty of). For consideration: your setup is likely to change / grow over time. Investing in a case that that leaves you room to grow is usually a good idea.
-- Panharmonium: I got one of these recently, haven't had time to soak with it yet. IMO it's a super cool idea, and one my shop guys say isn't replicated by anything else identifiable (e.g. there aren't a lot of good alternatives). My sense is it is maybe not a great now or soon install for you because i) you're still getting into your first build ii) your current rack design is already full. My suggestion would be spend some time with your developing modular rig the next several weeks, then build a list of potential adds.
-- Mordax DATA: not in your build, but I really recommend this for almost anybody. Super useful for helping learn what the modules are actually doing. Stages and Tides would have been permanently baffling to me without the visualization from DATA. Bad news is DATA modules are hard to get. If you want one, get on a waitlist with your preferred vendor.
-- overall I recommend, to the degree you are continuing to edit your design, to focus more on a few priority uses. The idea is of course to have a setup that is great at 1 or a few key things, and avoids the danger of being diluted in purpose to mediocrity across most uses. This is not easy to pull off in a small to mid-sized design. I haven't really thought through your design module by module, but need to offer this "design pointer" for any new-ish person building a small to mid-sized rack. That said, your design (above) does seem to have taken several positive steps vs. your prior drafts.
You will have many more concrete ideas and responses once your initial modules show up and you start patching.
Lol, you're right about "canonic." I never write in canon so I don't often think of this. But it's worth remembering... and maybe trying my hand at some canon now and again. And more broadly, sequence offset, delay, temporal divide / multiply, retrigger, invert, retrograde -- all those and more to do with "sequencing sequencers" is in my queue of items to study further.
Speaking of canon and other complex counterpoint, it reminds me of a few years back, trying reading Taneyev's "Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style." Barf! I will tolerate a lot of weird and thorny musical / theoretical writing, but that was pressing too far for me. Maybe I should return to that book as it might have more interest / implications now that I'm into modular and trying to push my game on compositional control schemes.
Regarding #4 above, maybe I'm making too much of having a continuous pitch signal available for the counterpoint voice. Maybe it would be fine to just use the rhythmic-value gates to drive the presentation of pitch information (e.g. substitute the rhythmic gates for step 4 above). In other words, a non-continuous pitch signal would be workable too, so long as the pitch information is available during all "note on" time spans.
Well that's interesting... gives me a bunch more modules to look up, lol!
BTW for those following Lugia's recent posts on control rigs (as I am), the new / different modules above vs. his other recent-ish posts (in reply to me and Manbearpig) are: Gatsby, Artificial Neural Network, and Permutation / Variant. Which is to say, the rest of the rig is matching themes previously presented. Maybe that means Lugia has a consistent "core control rig" vision in mind? In any event, IMO this is all helpful, to repeatedly see the types and proportions of modules that appear in these control designs.
@Lugia, thanks (again) for above post and comments. Question: if you're "disappointed at the lack of inputs that the Expert Sleepers interfaces," what would be you're preferred setup for getting control inforation from modular to DAW (and vice versa)? Just "any old" DC-coupled interface, or one from a select set of "stars"?
@Lugia, thanks for that detailed and interesting breakdown re: making derived counterpoint.
I'm following a bunch of what you laid out, but there are parts I'm not able to envision, mostly around creating & controlling the contrapuntal pitch control. HERE is how I would do it based on what I know today:
Step 1: create a "model" sequence of pitch and timing information (as possible using most sequencers, including Vector). Here the nomenclature I'm using is the "model" is the primary line; the "counterpoint voice" is derived from or fit to the "model." Basically Hindemith's terminology from his spectacular books, but a bit more vernacular.
Step 2: create multiple counterpoint voices that can later be selected from or switched, with substeps as follow
2a contrary motion: the contrary motion counterpoint can be derived from the INVERSION of the model. Scaling, DC offset, and quantization are applied to move this voice to the desired range (above or below the model), constrain its movement to an acceptable pitch max / min, and quantize the results within a PC set complementing the active "model" note (and driven by Intellijel Scale's shift function)
2b oblique (held) motion: uses a sample and hold function to maintain the pitch level of the prior actual counterpoint voice. Quantized the same as 2a above
2c similar motion: is derived from the actual model pitch values (since they move in the same direction). Scaling, DC offset, and quantization can be applied in manners similar to 2a above
Step 3: psuedo-random selection of the counterpoint pitch information (2a,2b,2c above). Route the total gate information (logical "or") to be used for contrapuntal rhythms into a dual Bernouli gate like Branches. Use top gate as "contrary vs. other motion selector" and set at say 50%. Chain the "other motion" output from BernouliA to the input of BernouliB and split that to "oblique vs similar motion" and set the oblique side to 60% and the similar side to 40%. That would give a total weighting from the 3 Bernouli gate outputs as 50% contrary, 30% oblique, 20% similar.
Step 4: here's where I start getting into territory I really don't have a grasp of yet. Take the gate results from Step 3 and route them to what? IMO it needs to some type of "triggered gate" with at least 3 channels, such that if it receives a trigger on channel 1, it opens a gate and holds it open until a trigger is received on a different channel. I don't yet know of any modules that do this type of thing. Any ideas here folks?
Step 5: the pitch info from steps 2a,2b,2c and the three-channel gate on/off info from step 4 would go into a multi-channel summing VCA. I think Intellijel Quad VCA would be fine for this. The 3 pieces of pitch info (2a,2b,2c) enter the VCA and are turned on/off by the 3-channel gate info from step 4. The summing VCA sums the results and outputs A SINGLE CONTINUOUS PITCH VALUE which can be used to drive the counterpoint voice's pitch.
Voila! Those steps 1-5, if implemented adequately, would yield psuedo-random counterpoint pitch information.
Here are the issues I see with this signal chain:
1) I don't have a candidate module ID'd for step 4
2) it seems this approach might require 3 copies of Scales, which seems somewhat wasteful of $s and HP if not absolutely required
3) I'm thinking there should be a more efficient way to design this control scheme, but I haven't ID'd it yet, above is the best I can spell out so far
In fairness, this is a "someday" patch for future IRL, not a tomorrow patch. BUT with the Ladik store seemingly open again, it will be possible (and not so costly in $s or HP) for me to add some key logic modules I'm missing. AND as I'm super interested in advancing my working command of compositional control schemes in modular and their DAW-based equivalents, I want to press ahead on this and related challenges, even if the results are only "paper solutions" (not IRL) for the time being.
@flaminggarlic, thanks for sharing this, this is very interesting and not something I had previously considered.
Btw I can read your post but do not see the patch. The post is description enough for me to have an idea of what you're doing.
I have to ask, why use the method above vs more conventional sequencing or other combined CV (like multiple lfos mixed) driving the quantizer?
IMO the technique above has the advantage of temporal quantizing / grid "snap". In other words, this makes it easy to get pitch values exactly when you want them. But maybe it is harder to get a certain pitch or pitch pattern when you want? I'm trying to think through what might be the pros and cons of this technique versus others.
Great to hear "there's not much in the way of issues here." Your recommendations to swap in 3xVCA and/or 2hp VCAs I will keep in mind going forward.
Re: Scales + Vector -- "you can generate psuedorandom contrapuntal patterns from keying the extra quantizer." Yes, I've been thinking about interesting use cases for the Quantizer + Sequencer configuration. Auto / pseudorandom counterpoint is a very interesting possibility. What I've NOT yet got a bead on is how I might constrain motion in the counterpoint line; let's say for example, I want my counterpoint to be about 45% contrary motion, 20% oblique, 20% similar stepwise, 10% other (e.g. parallel or similar motion by leaps). I DON'T have a good idea of how to implement such a "contrapuntal motion constraint" in modular, other than i) manually programming in the sequences (boring and not fundamentally different than using keyboard / mouse) or ii) manually setting the "shapes" for the contrapuntal lines (such as ramp up for voice 1 and ramp down at .5x rate for voice 2) while letting other factors be psuedorandom. Any ideas for a control scheme in modular that "opts in" desired (contrary + oblique) motion while limiting undesired (parallel and similar by leap) motion? My early sense is it would require a chain with slope detection (rising / falling) or difference detection (greater / lesser) plus some logic to do "not" and "or" functions BUT I can't really imagine the modules needed for implementation, or how to get them to work instantaneously (e.g. without being ruined by lag) to drive a 2nd derived (and semi-constrained) line from a primary voice.
More broadly ... I will do a little dance! February = modular newbie, April = solid working mid-size rack (above). A lot of online research, patching, and friendly advice from MG forum have helped me cover a lot of ground fast. Thanks all!!!!
Scales is in there mainly because I love it. I've got a long way to go to learn Vector thoroughly... I'll keep in mind I might remove Scales later on if I get to covering all related functions with Vector.
Layout: yes indeed, cables everywhere. Swapping some of Row 2&3 -- a good idea for my next case rearrangement.
Jim, you're right, SWN can do multiple voices and would pair decently with Harmonaig from that standpoint.
That said, (and in line with my comments above) I'm personally underwhelmed with SWN vs. alternatives, esp. for a small to mid-size build. Hence, for anyone interested in that specific module, I recommend taking a close look at SWN via its supporting software and manual before committing to it.
IMO in a larger modular rig the SWN may make sense and play well with other modules; in a smaller modular rig, SWN would generally not beat my wavetable software. If I'm way off base about SWN and it is truly "the bees knees," I would love to see some videos of people getting it to smoke! It is a module I wanted to love, but I'm not there yet.
BTW Vector, newly installed, is a beast. Takes up a lot of HP for this build BUT is very powerful and shockingly easy to use, at least it justifies the HP expenditure IMO.
This layout creates a lot of cables crossing my sequencer; how did I not catch that ahead of time? Not ideal but not terrible either, not so much a problem I want to rearrange without a much better layout idea to replace it.
This 3rd rack design seems pretty decent to me BUT I wanted to check around for a few other opinions. Thanks!
-- what's the focus (e.g. most desired use case) for your Eurorack? The draft above, I see drums, I see complex sequencing, I see sample manipulation, I see multi-voice harmony (Harmonaig), I see a digital wavetable oscillator (SWN, which may not be too much an advantage over software wavetable, depending on the use case). A big, expensive, well designed rack can do several things BUT smaller case, less experience makes it hard to do several things well. Hence I suggest you get more clear what role you most want your Eurorack to play, and focus on that first.
-- there are a couple "no regrets" modules I see in your build: IMO those include Pamela's NW, Stages, Quadra, Ochd, FX Aid XL. Those will give you clocking, a good range of CV, and a small but powerful FX unit. Of course you need something that makes a sound, just pick your preferred sound source. Then MOST of the other units I suggest you put in a "next / later" category after you log a good # of hours on your base rig.
-- I look at SWN and Harmonaig and think "hmm..." as in you may have much better options. I own SWN and it is one of my least favorite modules. I had high hopes for it, BUT just don't love it. It does not navigate arbitrarily in 3 dimensions -- much to my surprise, and confirmed by email with 4ms support; it does navigate in 2 dimensions, but instead of the 3rd dimension being freely controllable, you have to index through all waves end to end. So its not really x/y/z control, it is x/y/all control, if that makes sense. Also the included wavetables with SWN are not stellar for my taste; I would need to make my own wavetables. All told, if you're really interested in SWN, I suggest you download the free wavetable editor software for SWN and play around in that, it will give you a very good idea of the kinds of sounds you can get. SWN is also not cheap. SO there's a ton of other very interesting OSCs you could get instead (or before) such as DPO, Cs-L, FSS OSC2, etc. Harmonaig I've looked at, it is not for me, AND since it drives 4 voices, I can't personally make sense of having it in a small rack.
-- last, I do think it's important to have instruments that are inspiring and deep. If we don't think XYZ instrument is cool, fascinating, beautiful, challenging, etc., we won't come back to it again and again, won't put in hours to learn it. So as you edit what your rack plan is, consider what is the inspiring direction for it to go, do have a couple of those key modules included, and get those enough support modules (utilities etc.) so they can really "shine".
Modular is super deep, relatively expensive, and IMO there's probably no way to get into it without making some mistakes, wasting some $s and time, and going down some rabbit holes. Asking questions on MG, and taking the feedback into consideration, is a great way make the pathway a bit smoother. Jim, Lugia and others here give really helpful pointers. If, after some more thought, you put up a 2nd version rack, I'm sure you'll get some feedback to help assess if your design has improved or not.
@re-touch, this is interesting. Some brief replies:
-- IRL, a full rectifier should give the absolute value function you're speaking of (unless I'm misunderstanding)
-- do you use VCV rack? (https://vcvrack.com/Host) That would give you another (and deeper than Softube) software platform to play in and test the above hypothesis, though it is still software
-- while I'm still pretty new to hardware modular, I find my "more unique" filters REALLY surprise me if I go beyond "routine" settings. So the response per the settings you mention above MAY vary meaningfully depending on the filter unit.
That said, a more experienced modular user or electrical engineer could maybe give you a definitive answer. Maybe baseline unit noise, with feedback, gained into overdrive (with gain varying the spectrum or "color" or results) would produce similar results across filter types.
There @AudioResearch I've given you a response based on my current best perspective, and also included by link the several related threads / comments from @Lugia
A prior thread I posted has evolved into a discussion of modular control schemes and DAW equivalents. I'm starting a new thread here to split the discussion so its easier to add / search etc.
NOW to respond to @AudioResearch's question (from thread 9673): "What are some M4L devices you'd recommend??" to do generative-like control in Live.
My current response to this is:
-- I own Live 11 full version, recently installed, and just finished an audit of all included devices that might be good for layered / nested control schemes, approaching a generative approach in the DAW (Live). I have not cracked the code on this, but do feel there's some good progress, which I'll share.
-- I count well over 40 devices in the full version of Live that could be useful for this. They are in the folders Audio Effects, Max Audio Effects and Max Midi Effects. I find Live's MIDI effects not so useful. Of the 40+ devices I ID'd that do seem useful, these include a lot of "usual suspects" of LFOs, envelope generators, sequencers, etc. In general, these "map" in Live to 1 or more parameter to be controlled. Pretty simple on the face of it. BUT since Live allows for drawing in automation and modulation curves on a clip by clip basis, it's not clear to me what if any actual advantage control devices present vs. arbitrarily definable automation / modulation lanes.
-- IMO the more important question in Live is "what are the ROUTINGS / MAPPINGS that enable complex or hierarchical or generative control schemes?" THIS I think is the critical question, and the answers / techniques applicable in Live may be different than the best answers / techniques in Bitwig, Cubase or Logic, for example. I work most in Live, and am frustrated a bit by its less obviously flexible / powerful routing scheme (compared to Bitwig). BUT what I do think is one important component is to work with Instrument Racks and/or Effect Racks. Setting up a macro and pointing it to the "chain" control in a rack with more than one device chain allows for very interesting control / automation over active devices (e.g. allowing for easy or automated activation / deactivation).
-- in the earlier thread, @Lugia said "Live works admirably here, as long as it's the FULL version with Max for Live. That one addition unlocks a lot of the hidden power under Ableton's hood, and since you can define LOTS of possible operations/routings/etc via Max, it's sort of a unique situation. But it's VERY easy to set up all sorts of "sneaky" send/return signal paths with M4L objects. With that, I can set up lots of actions that are basically nonrepeating, yet which follow clear musical patterns as a work plays." Note that this is more a comment about routings and pathways than it is about specific devices. I do not have great ideas of how to do this in Live; my best current suggestion is "dig in, create some hierarchical control schemes in Live, and see what happens." In Bitwig I feel I have more success with this as its easier to send MIDI from anywhere to anywhere; still most of my work is in Live so I'm looking for good solutions there too.
SOOOO... let me invite anyone who's interested to jump in here with additional suggestions / questions / etc. I TOTALLY want to up my game on generative / hierarchical control schemes both in modular and in DAWS so I'm happy to listen to and trade ideas with anybody else who finds this interesting.
What I would LOVE to develop good command of are answers to the following points:
what are good "recipe" or "archetype" generative and/or hierarchical control schemes to use in a modular format? These could be thought of as "building blocks" that could be used alone or in conjunction with one another. These would be "core curriculum" for generative patching; I would be surprised if there hasn't been a university class or book written on this, but I haven't found anything deep on this yet. Of course, one of our friendly forum experts Lugia has given many examples of this type of patching (see threads noted above).
what are specific DAW (esp. Live) devices, routings & setups that parallel (#1 above) the "recipe" or "archetype" generative and/or hierarchical control schemes to use in a modular format? We've scratched the surface on that point above, BUT at least for me, there remains a long way to go before my capabilities catch up to my imagination on this. In particular I want to be able to:
2a. do one to many, many to one, and several to many control routings in Live. The example would be have 3 LFOs running with different rates and shapes, and those feeding several tracks / devices.
2b. sequence nearly EVERYTHING. For example, have 5 separate midi tracks all with sequence information, running say an ABAC structural pattern but at different rates. Then feed that information to pitch, rhythm, duration, filter cutoff and timbre controls, on a differential basis, to multiple instruments, for example covering the bass, tenor, alto, soprano ranges. That would be a "several to several" routing scheme, where the sequences are in-DAW equivalents to CV signal in a modular AND these sequencer lanes plus any down-chain control devices essentially drive 90%+ of the composition's score. What IS awesome and gets me part of the way on this front is Kameleono (https://www.midimood.com/product/kameleono/), the most useful MIDI tool I know of, and a good value at $49 if you don't already have it! Kameleono plus some thoughtful routing lets me control at least pitch and rhythm independently.
3a. what is the hybrid setup (e.g. modular + DAW) that will allow creating a generative / hierarchical control system in modular and interface that well with the DAW and vice versa? Is only a sufficiently big Expert Sleepers module required for doing this?
Wrapping up this extreme TLDR post -- anyone who would like to add some constructive questions, pointers, tips, references, etc. please feel free to pile on below.
-- the "big rack / small rack" setup IMO works really well. Big rack gives big possibilities; small rack is portable and helps focus. I've heard a bunch of other people (incl. working musicians) take a similar approach. So you have a lot of company in this line of thinking.
-- that said, the 104hp setup above MAY be too confining? For me a 9U 84HP setup (Deopfer case) is very portable, small enough to be focused, but big enough to give some room for a variety of modules. Your question about Sarajewo and "hard to justify the space in such a tight setup" may indicate your build would be better served with a bigger case? Hence if you haven't already committed to a case, I suggest you view more other small to mid-size builds to try to zero in on sizing that gives the right balance of small yet inspiring for you.
For others interested in this, you might check out these threads:
-- https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9673 ... see esp. middle of the post where, in response to some questions from me, Lugia posted a 9U 84HP rack and discussion of its generative capabilities
-- https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9516 ... see esp Farkas's posted video on Generative, and Lugia's larger proposed rack build with comments
I'm interested in continuing to learn about generative modular / hierarchical musical control systems SO if anyone else knows of good threads, vids etc. on this topic, please do add in Replies below.
Here is my current "midsize rack" design. It is intended for i) EDM lead / bass tones ii) learning modular iii) fun and exploration.
This is the round 3 design, after "just ideas" in February, and an earlier build mockup in March.
The basic design logic:
-- Row 1 is "voicing" with 2 oscillators, 2 filters, a wavefolder, and a little bit of mult utilities in the middle
-- Row 2 middle is "brains" with Vector Sequencer and Scales (quantizer) to the left. I did choose to keep a quantizer (in addition to the sequencer) in the design as I wanted an independent chain to sequence pitch class sets. And I went with Scales over a couple other suggestions as Scales better fits my thinking and workflow.
-- Row 3 is CV (Stages through Batumi) followed by VCA, effects, and signal out
-- tucked in a few other places are attenuator / logic modules (4MS SISM, ADDAC Sum&Diff, Triplatt) to control / mix CV signals; Doepfer narrow mix and steroe mix to let me have a couple chains through the OSC, filters, Wavefolder; and Kinks
-- modules are selected by i) what's inspiring to me ii) what modules will complement others iii) what is in stock (vs. having to wait forever) iv) to keep some "easier to learn" modules involved (vs. having huge manuals for everything)
Regarding layout:
-- I wanted Voicing on top row, the Sequencer in a nicely centered position, effects and signal out in the lower right
-- other items are arranged thinking how I might normally patch them, and where the HP is a good fit
I'm curious:
-- what do you think of this build?
-- would you consider this a deep / fun rack? If yes, why, if not, what changes would improve it?
-- are there clear ways to improve the layout?
Thanks to anyone willing to have a look & kick around some ideas on this. And thanks for the many helpful comments on my earlier posts!
As I'm getting into modular, I'm struck by an overall question: are there bad modules / brands / clones to avoid?
I've scanned the "most used" and "best reviewed" modules on MG. Also done some Google searches for best / favorite modules; those generally align with the MG rankings. I see a handful of brands bubble to the top of the "best reviewed, most used" modules lists. But as I scan Modular Grid and read posts / racks posted by much more experienced modular synthesists, I see a TON of various modules and brands being used, and quite a lot of clones, which provide some advantage on $, HP or availability.
I'm hoping to avoid "bad" modules -- "bad" might mean: i) unwanted noise ii) lacking important performance precision (e.g. poor pitch tracking, etc.) iii) poor durability / build quality / prone to failure iv) and maybe some other demerits.
So, what would you say to me and other newbies:
-- are there obvious brands to stay away from?
-- are most clones as good as originals?
-- or does a buyer really need to check every module for user ratings and press reviews?
Of course there is "bad" in terms of less-than optimal in $, performance, HP, or for a given use for specific purposes, but I expect I'll need to continue to research / evaluate modules for "strong fit."
I hear you! I'm also stepping into modular because:
-- my VSTs sound great, but it is hard (or at least not very fun) to try to get really dynamic and evolving sounds out of them
-- I do want to do stuff with my hands, not always a mouse
-- the modular VSTs are a crazy pain in the a$$ to work with IMO. Yes their powerful and sound good, but the combination of needing to mouse everything, the latency / lag, being only able to touch one control at a time, etc. etc. etc. Some time cursing at my "preferred" VST modular is what convinced me to get into analog modular! Maybe I'm just not patient enough with these.
-- I do think analog modular can do some compelling things VSTs and non-modular hardware can't
As such, I'm trying to focus my modular builds / experience on what can't be achieved well in other formats, or isn't fun in other formats. IMO that includes:
-- complex oscillators esp. those with audio rate modulation. Instruo Cs-L, Make Noise DPO, Steady State Fate ZPO, Rossum Trident, Future Sound Systems OSC2... those and a few others I think are super interesting, and to my knowledge, have no great VST alternative.
-- complex filters and waveshapers: Make Noiose QPAS, SSF Stereo Dipole, Rossum Linnaus, Intellijel Bifold, etc. IMO unique analog filters and waveshapers, that can be modulated deeply (and/or at audio rate), this is super interesting and another domain of sound design not well handled in formats outside of analog modular
-- complex control signals and "generative" audio. A search for "generative" on this forum yields a lot of interesting posts. To my knowledge, the generative work you can do in analog modular is beyond what's presently possible (or easy / fun) to do in other formats.
-- experimentation: I got a super disgusting (great) sound out of a resonant filter driven to distortion "struck" by a short envelope. Sonic and technical experimentation, I really dig, and modular is a great playground to do that
-- happy accidents: a modular system has all kinds of surprises and non-linearities in it. My Sylenth1 (which I love) will always sound the same with the same patch; my modular system, I could hardly get to sound exactly the same twice to save my life.
My basic idea is to try to build a rack that fits my tastes and excels at what modular is good at (hopefully avoiding creating an expensive and cumbersome unit that can be outperformed by general VSTs)
So that's a little of what brings me to modular, and a few (module) ideas that may be interesting to you. Relatedly, I can suggest you check out this thread by Farkas: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/9756
Last, I should point you to VCVrack; if you don't already know it, this is the "Eurorack simulator" software, which carries emulations of most modules. It looks like they will have a VST version coming out, but presently it is a standalone. My understanding is this is widely used to trial modules, rigs, and patches.
Good luck with this. I'm a modular newbie (so not a lot of direct advice to give on modular) but a longtime musician. I'll be interested to see where you land with this inquiry and build, as I'm in a somewhat similar position.
I am curious, what are you hoping to get from modular that you can't from software & standalone hardware?
Hearing about your "retro" focus, I would think you could be very well served with some non-modular options such as:
-- Roland software, Roland emulations, Roland hardware (like Jupiter Xm). IMO this stuff sounds great and is a joy to use. If I worked in retro like you do, I would definitely have an "Ultimate" Roland Cloud subscription
-- Sequential's current lineup: Dave Smith is still making beautiful instruments that mix the classic vibe (and presets) with modern capabilities. Any of those analogue boards could give you a real boost in great retro sound
-- less completely retro but very awesome is Native Instruments Komplete + their Komplete controllers. The hands-on integration for these is now very strong, and the NI library is so vast. I love the browsing and sound manipulation that can be done here without a mouse now. IMO this is also a great value, compared to equivalent spend on hardware / modular.
-- the Arturia software suite is also great for retro. The sheer # of retro instruments and presets is huge. The "modular" VSTs in that suite could give you a lot of the retro modular sounds, if that's what you're after.
I assume you know about most if not all of those above already. BUT, hearing your situation and objectives, I thought I would mention these as possible alternatives for you; to me they really stand out as potentially useful for your situation.
Having recently entered the modular domain, I can say: i) it is expensive ii) its very deep in terms of variety of modules, module designs, etc. iii) there's a vast amount of learning to be able to buy or run a decent rig iv) it does beat software and standalone synths for some uses, but not all. I AM enjoying modular learning and sounds a lot, and it also helps me understand and me appreciate my VSTs and hardware drum machines even more!
I went in a similar direction workstation-wise, a year ago, updating my main music PC to a Threadripper 3rd Gen 32-core 64 thread build. The current mobo would host the 64 core Threadripper if needed, but I'm nowhere close to bottoming out the current hardware. Tasks that used to cripple my old old old workstation now barely move the needle on my new workstation. Some software will overload a single core and cause the machine to bog down; I'm not an engineer, but in this instance I would say "the software is slow" or at least not built to leverage the power of a multi-core machine. For example MAAT's TheEQ Orange, which sounds gorgeous, will slow down even my beast machine, which I attribute to mainly to inherent latency in the plugin.
All considered, the musical tasks that used to make me want to blow my brains out screaming at my computer, now these barely register, if at all. That means there's still a lot of "I used to try to do X" I have to get back to, all while learning new capabilities in latest Live and Bitwig versions, not to mention I've now dipped into analog modular!
Oh, how music continues to teach me humility! Out of the vast expanse of what I want to do in music--facing the limits of my current abilities, my capacity to learn, and my time--I get just a taste.
Hmm, I do have the full version of Live 11 and Bitwig Studio.
I had kind of given up on the complex control scheme / complex routings in Live and Bitwig; when I tried that seriously ~2 years ago, it was so klunky, I couldn't get it to work smoothly in a way that wasn't a nightmare for me.
But NOW I have a much faster computer and the more recent Live / Bitwig suites may have better utilities / performance on this front. AND you say you are getting interesting / easy results on this front. I will have to go back to the DAWs to try again. Thanks for the pointer re Live + Max!
Okay, "complex control orders" or a hierarchy of controls with, for example, background / midground / foreground cycles plus one or more "lens" or "reader" cycles that selects (promotes) events from the total control hierarchy. In scheme, this makes sense. In practice, I'm sure I'd have a lot of details to work out!
Curiously, this intersects a lot of my favorite ideas from various music / compositional theorists. While I would like to explore this in modular, that will likely take a good chunk of future time and $s.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A GOOD IN-DAW CONTROL EVQUIVALENTS to this kind of hierarchical / generative CV scheme? That is something I'd like to dig into further immediately. I'VE REALLY looked for a way to implement this before, but the best I could come up with is some nested MIDI chains and routings in Bitwig (Bitwig, unlike Live 10 and prior, will do many to one or one to many MIDI send / receive configuirations). That works so so, but is pretty fussy to implement and leaves much to be desired. I tried Symbolic Composer (SCOM) but found that a miss for my purposes and tastes. The one-to-one (one finger, one keyboard key; one mouse click, one DAW sequencer cell) control relationship in composing is something I'd really like to break in my workflow, moving towards many to one and one to many control schemes (e.g. hierarchical schemes). It does sound like there's a pathway to do this in analog modular BUT I would love also working DAW-based approach if possible!
This is a significant tangent -- maybe enough to start a new thread on. But let's see if some interesting responses flow in here.
BTW the Four Tet New Energy sounds great to me!! Really cool.
@Lugia I'm again reviewing your very interesting rack and comments above. I've had to look up most modules as they were not already familiar to me.
The general architecture of this rack, I've used as inspiration for my latest rack design (in a thread posted earlier today).
What I'm still not understanding about the rack above is how i might use the bottom row units left of Echoz in a rig that I'm mainly using as a mono synth for EDM style pitched (no percussion) parts. Specifically, I'm not easily imagining use cases for significant clocking plus clock division / skipping / clock delay.
What I CAN sort of imagine is getting a complex mix of gates and voltage into the quantizer, and having that drive note events instead of a standard sequencer. Maybe that is what is considered "generative" or "complex sequencing?" That is not how I normally think about about composition BUT it has some very intersting implications which remind me of my favorite works by Schillinger. May be fun and rewarding for me to explore in modular!
In any event, the demo build you offered above is very interesting and I wanted to ask what are your likely use cases for those bottom row modules that are still rather mysterious to me.
Thanks again for your very interesting comments and ideas!
