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, but that arrangement works if you have the volume loop aerial on the right. With just one, though, the key is to simply get it away from wherever your hand might be while using the rest of the controls. Interestingly, Moog's present-day theremins are backwards from the original RCA ones, which are pitch on the right, volume left.
Only the order. If it were up to me, I'd put the M32 on the bottom because of its chiclet-type keyboard controller, then the DFAM above. Top row (great choices, btw) really should be (left to right) ES-8, Mother's Helper, uScale, Maths, Disting, A-178. That puts your control functions all in one area, CV stuff down the middle, and then the theremin controller all the way on the end to keep the aerial away from the synth so that you don't have to deal with random pickup issues while tweaking the other knobs. By putting it over the Moogs' patchpoints, you're pretty assured that working with the rest of the synth doesn't cause the A-178 to pick up on random hand motions near it.
Hmmm...well, under those circumstances, you could do with one more simple VCO to beef up the sound out of the Rubicon II or to do audio-range modulation. Doepfer has their A-143-9, a quadrature LFO that can work well up into the audio range, plus it outputs four different phase angles of its sine waveform, so that if you wanted to use it as an LFO instead of a VCO, it can have the original phase curve modulating one thing, but your choice of 90, 180, or 270 degrees out of phase to do identical-but-offset modulation elsewhere. Small and cheap, too.
VCAs. None in evidence in your build, and you very much need them. Get something like Intellijel's Quad VCA so you have several in a smaller space that can also function in either linear (for CVs) or exponential (for audio dynamics) modes.
Rings should be fine as a resonator. However, there's a lot of CV-hungry things in there, and you're definitely going to need at least one (maybe two) buffered mult to prevent voltage sag/detuning across either the VCO or VCF CV inputs. Another thing clearly missing is some sort of random source...you definitely need a noise source, plus some variety of random signal source such as Doepfer's A-149-1 that can derive random CVs from the noise source. Otherwise, this is coming together nicely.
Hm...not a bad implementation of the Doepfer DIY, actually. Tandemmed with the M32, DFAM, and the hopefully-coming-soon Subharmonicon (I hope it's not a Moogfest-only thing!), you'd sort of have the four horsemen of the 60hp apocalypse!
Rack in the image is a little misleading; good thing I checked the module listings for hp instead of going by 'eyeball', because that's not 84 hp wide.
OK...top row has 14 hp left (5, 45, 20 present), and if the goal here is a lot of weird crossmod and strange behavior, my suggestion would be some sort of module that can be a 'hub' for all of the in-cab voices at the same time: Abstract Data's ADE-32 Octocontroller. Check the listing...I think it would make for a good 'hub of weird behavior' for something along these lines. On the bottom, you've got 2 hp left, and my suggestion there would actually be two extra linear VCAs (by, who else, 2hp) to tandem with the Octocontroller to add some further levelling oddness to some control paths. Careful with the external mixer, btw...make sure its line inputs have both the extra headroom AND attenuation to deal with the synth-level signals.
Hey, gang...saw the listing for the Mystic Circuits external modules in the Eurorack section, and while they don't exactly fit there (after all, you could use them for much more than Eurorack; think, say, VCA-based AM of some other appropriate-level device signal or something similar), they're still
1) frickin' brilliant, both in idea and execution, and
2) they DO fit under the whole umbrella of what MG's about.
The problem, it seems, is how do you treat them? They're not 'stomp boxes', since they're designed to go into in-line functionality as a single module circuit and they're not a 'whole device', such as a delay line, etc. But they're still synth modules, albeit highly-mobile ones and not fixed into a rack architecture. Definitely a confusional set of little boxes...but, when looking at the video for one, I was reminded that there are a lot of other 'externals' in synth usage, such as various multiples, control devices, pickups, reverb tanks, etc etc.
So why not put together, sort of in the same way the stomp box section exists, a subsection specifically for external synth devices? This, of course, wouldn't be layout-based like the other sections; my thought is that the user could build something of a 'bag of tricks', picking, choosing, and listing external devices to build up an ancillary lineup of things usable along with their builds in the other sections of MG. This is also where the Shopping List function (currently hidden) could come back into play, if users were allowed to merge shopping lists for different builds across all formats into a 'master list' that could show total cost outlay for that user's specific picks.
This could also be a way to integrate racks into the process on MG, with listings in this same section for racks for different formats so that, when the shopping lists are all merged, one could have EVERY cost in-hand. And, in theory, anything that's not a module could be made to fit into this by making the resulting 'bag of tricks' lists more spreadsheet-ish, allowing for multiple amounts of items to be picked. Something of this sort could actually 'close the circle' on MG, making it quite literally the reference destination for ALL aspects of modular synthesis, modular processing (500 series, stomp boxes, etc) and such. Granted, yes, it sounds like a total pain in the ass to code, but my bet is that the rewards...for MG, its user base, and the myriad companies whose data it houses...would be worth it.
As a rule, the module depths are listed with the current draws on the module listings themselves. The depths also appear in the 'mouse-over' popups, plus the maximum depth in a given rack gets shown, again, down by the current draws.
Unfortunately, some companies and/or users posting modules are a bit slack when it comes to this measurement...annoyingly so, in fact, because (as you point out) it's a rather critical factor when dealing with typical cabs these days, which tend to be shallower. Cab makers aren't much help at times, either; I had to nag on Arturia earlier this week, in fact, when I couldn't find any listing of the internal depths in their Rackbrute cases (ie: over the busboard and over the empty space). To date, they've still not provided that updated info on their site. grrr......
Well, with Superbooth out of the way, the deluge of mindwrenchingly-amazing modules has abated a bit, but Eurorack being what it is nowadays, that by no means says that the interesting stuff's not still popping up. And this past month, there's also been some relative bargains showing up. So, let's dig through the last month in Eurorack and see what looks particularly tasty, shall we?
1) Bastl Instruments TIMBER. OK...now this is interesting. Combine an overdrive/distorter with a wavefolder, add a crossfading VCA between 'em, and you get...THIS. Bastl definitely has some peculiar ideas, and this is one of them...in all the right ways. The TIMBER even incorporates a feedback circuit for added chaotic behavior, and does all of this in a convenient 7 hp package. Given that this sort of waveshaping morphing behavior would've previously required several modules and a good bit more panel space, this module is a killer timbral alteration device for smaller builds.
2) Instruo Cs-L. (Yeah, there's some different characters that's supposed to be there, but I'm a lazy bastard.) There's several companies offering their takes on the Buchla complex oscillator, and this is yet another one. But Instruo's iteration offers a compact size and some unique quirks that makes it skew more toward that Buchla-like complexity than some others. As you'd expect from that term 'complex'...yeah, what it's got is complex, to be sure, so my suggestion would be to get over to its listing and check it for yourselves. It'll be worth your time!
3) (and 4 and 5) Ladik U-041 Median, E-480 Contour Generator, and C-410 Clock Source. Holy crap...they must've gotten something in the water supply over at Ladik's place! In one month, here's THREE killer devices out of the same company. The 'Median' is a very interesting device, somewhat related to the more familiar minimum/maximum modules from a few firms. But in this case, Ladik added upper and lower constraining voltage adjustments that also give the module the ability to function as a very interesting clipping audio waveshaper, in addition to the more traditional CV selection processing/control. The Clock Source offers a stop/start/resume/reset arcade button control in addition to an onboard clock divider, plus there's a lot of jumper functions there that beg for an additional switch panel to play with for some outright strangeness. But the best is the Contour Generator...wow! Eight stages of up/hold/down voltage movement, timing-per-step clocking, integrators for voltage behavior, yet more jumpers that can configure this as one-shot (envelope gen style) or looping (think: really, really complex LFO). And this all in 8 hp and for a measly $83-ish US! This creature has massive use AND abuse potential and it's dirt cheap, to boot! Those looking for compact and cheap modulation sources need to look into this one.
6) Mordax GXN. Granular hardware is getting hotter and wilder as of late, and with the GXN, it also gets smaller. Here's all the usual functions you've come to expect from a granular synth, plus loads of CV modulation possibilities, all usable as either a live polyphonic sampler, live granulator, or for the usual 'let's mangle the sample!'-sort of granular purposes, but mashed down to a small-build-friendly 20 hp and, according to Mordax, an expected MSRP of no more than $600 when it launches in a couple of months or so. For those who can't leave sound intact but work in tight spaces, here's a potential solution to what you've been needing.
7) Pittsburgh Modular Lifeforms Primary Oscillator. Yeah, you KNEW this had to be in here...how can you say 'no' to this level of timbral VCO control for a paltry $229? This might be the next 'you use this or else' VCO, really. And why not? For the price, in this size (12 hp), about the only other thing that approaches it in sonic 'holy crap'-ness is Mutable's Plaits, which this would make a great pairing with, to be honest. The sole flaw might be the current draws, but if you're running a more up to date rig with a suitably-hefty power supply, that might not be a major issue unless you go bug-nuts and want a whole row of these things. Which, frankly, would be damn interesting!
And that's it for May! Like I said, not a huge pile-up, but definitely some paradigm-shifters in there.
Yeah, I can see that working well...anything with a lot of hard, fast transients tends to benefit from compression. If you're looping the DFAM with that Morphagene or something similar, the CMP-1 could well wind up being invaluable.
Both are clearly labelled as clock inputs, and Dieter's really clear about that on the Doepfer website. Also, noise doesn't have pitch, per se; you use filters to skew the frequency range of the incoming noise signal to get weightings that are 'pitch-like', or in the case of digital noise, you use a clock signal to alter the rate of state-change...which also doesn't exactly equal pitch.
It sounds to me like you needed to do a lot more research before doing an actual physical build. I'm not sure, from the several comments you've made, that you 'get' how this equipment functions either as individual modules or grouped in a build. And it also doesn't exactly seem like you 'get' what MG's for; you use this site to preplan builds and work out issues related to them with the information provided on here, from which you should be learning that first bit above.
Wow...that is one seriously expensive ADSR. That's actually where I'd start: get rid of it. Instead (and keeping with the preponderance of Erica stuff here), replace it with Erica's Black Dual EG/LFO. It's cheaper, for starters (so you can sell the AJH cheaply and still afford this module), and doubles up on its functions. And you do want that...having separate envelopes for filter and amplitude is actually pretty useful, hence why Bob put both in the Minimoog.
Mixer? Sure, why not? It's kind of in the wrong position, though; instead, swap it and the quad VCA so that you can control the oscillator mix with the VCAs, then the Stereo Mixer can work with some sidechaining-type patchwork (you need stackable cables for this, fyi) to send the filter to both the mixer and the Pico DSP, then return the DSP back to a stereo pair on the mixer in sort of a cobbled-up AUX send/return fashion. Also, if/when this gets expanded, you'll want that mixer to add in the signal from whatever expansion skiff you put together, so it's a good plan for the future to have that.
Well, it seems to lack some complex random-type functions, so 18 of those 20 hp maybe oughta be a Marbles, especially if you're out on the experimental end of the spectrum. Ultra Random is...OK, but Mutable's new take on random is just plain nuts!
It's sort of hard to describe. Depending on which partial has had phase changes, there can be obvious timbral changes...or nothing noticeable at all. The phase-change effects get more apparent as the partials get closer together in frequency, and ultimately wind up affecting each other more than the fundamental at that point.
Of course, this is only referring to fixed phase changes. If the phase changes are modulated, then a lot of timbral evolution/alteration becomes apparent, since human hearing has problems with hearing phase in of itself, but if phase of a frequency is shifting against something else, we perceive it much more readily.
In general, I think that using actual bus boards is preferable to using flying bus cables except in smaller builds. A handful of modules on a single flying bus isn't going to create the draw issues and potential interference that loading a flying bus out totally might cause. Plus, bus boards can be had which incorporate filtering which improves noise factors, reduces interference leakage across the DC busses, and so forth. That's just not possible with a simple length of ribbon cable with some clipped-on connectors.
As for the tiles, check here: http://syinsi.com/Shop/other/ Power connections for tiles, on boards with filtering, which is pretty snazzy and definitely an improvement over the splitter-cable-off-a-16-pin previous methods.
Much more scrunching:
This is a little more like it. Notice that this comes in at a hair under $10k, where your original build was $17k+. Two harmonic oscillators, two complex oscillators, both the Fumana and Koma mixer. Ample modulation sources of the right sort, four LPGs with four matched EGs. Clocking and sequencing are a lot more complex, plus the Serge TKB clone was added as a pretty much 1:1 replacement for the similar Buchla touchplate sequential controller. Signal input with envelope follower and, yes, quad outputs. One note, though: the fixed filter bank in the top row could be subbed out for a multimode VCF of the right size; I felt, however, that since West Coast is about waveshaping and since the Instruos have wavefolders onboard already, some sort of fixed equalization-type filter was more in line with the timbral alteration idea.
While it's not exactly Buchla appearance-wise, believe me, this is in the right ballpark without spending an arm and a leg. Cases, btw, are a pair of Erica 126 hp powered cases, optimally housed in one of their dual case end-panel sets. Very ample power supplies in these, so the draw I came up with is nowhere close to their limits.
While on the MU format subject, given that some other firms beside COTK are now doing half-height modules, might it be time to add a half-tier option to MU? Something similar to how 1U tiles work in Eurorack...much the same row selection method could be employed in the rack creation interface, I should think.
A clarification: given that VCV is an open-source project with respect to the module developers, it's apt to fall victim to the open-source issues that tend to dictate that those developers don't necessarily coordinate their efforts on resource utilization amongst themselves. And this was where my issues were arising; adding certain modules, notably FFT-heavy ones, were causing glitches to appear in timing and control signals to the point that, eventually, the patch would either become unusable and/or VCV itself would crash. This could be avoided, to my way of thinking, in a couple of ways:
1) Establish clear resource-management standards amongst the module developers. This isn't unusual; Dieter Doepfer's de facto establishment of the hardware Eurorack standard early on, with clear form-factor and bus connection standardization being the goal, is one of the things that makes Eurorack work. And yes, there's been attempts to buck that, most notably Analogue Systems' adoption of a physical form-factor that wasn't in line with what other companies (piggybacking on Dieter's work, which was in turn based on existing process control hardware form factors) were doing at the time. Result: Analogue Systems makes some pretty hardware that doesn't see nearly the usage that it could, because it doesn't physically 'work'. Now, in a virtual device, the physical form factor issues are minimized, but processing resources become the 'elephant in the room' if several developers can't follow some sort of programming methodology that allows all modules to exist happily with the same resource utilization standard. And this was what seemed to be part of the issue I ran across; adding modules that were FFT-heavy with respect to their needs would bog all modules in a given patch, some worse than others. It strikes me that what has to be done, therefore, is to give developers a map they must stick to in terms of resource management, or to employ some sort of reallocation within VCV itself to force things to work more seamlessly. And knowing what I know about computing, the latter method seems as if it would be very wasteful and ultimately detrimental to the whole under the present circumstances.
2) Reconsider VCV's core. Yes, this gets into that last bit above, but if a very robust memory/process management routine set could be added that could do this fairly seamlessly, it would go quite a ways to solve issues of this sort. This would also be the logical point around which multiprocess/multithread support could be dealt with more effectively. VCV needs some way of becoming 'machine-aware', gauging what resources it has at its disposal, and then allocating those resources effectively to the myriad plugins. And no, I'm not under some illusion that this would be an easy task...in fact, I think it would be difficult on a number of levels...but it's an effort that would make the difference that could keep VCV around for many years, which is what I think we all would like to see. I'm not under an illusion that hardware is better than software, as each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but more that there's room for both, and if both can be the best they can, then they definitely should be. It's not, to my way of thinking, a situation where anyone should be saying "it has to be like this because...", but more one of "why can't it be that way, given enough effort?" Some of what you state above tells me that there are some solutions that don't get into the really headachy aspects of sample-rate sync et al, so it strikes me that taking steps to have VCV's core process do some sort of processing reallocation that dodges the nastier digital audio issues could be feasible. And any bump in 'horsepower' in the end would be worth the effort.
Yes, I do see this as a developer vs. user issue...but one in which there's potentially a lot of common ground that could be very fertile. After all, had Bob Moog not been listening to his musician userbase and, instead, approaching his hardware development strictly as an E.E exercise, we'd likely not be having this discussion right now. The inherent problem is that those of us who approach VCV from a purely musical standpoint are apt to run across issues due to working methodologies that diverge from what developers tend to see as issues of importance. But also, musicians can vote with their feet, so to speak. For example, I myself have a rabid hate for ProTools. For many iterations, it didn't work in a way that a composer like myself, making intuitive decisions and trying to think outside the box, could feel comfortable in. Then along comes Ableton Live...developed by musicians, basically. It does what PT can do, but a lot more, and its workflow functions in a more 'musicianly' manner (if that makes sense).
So, when coding a musical device such as VCV, approaching it from a bit of a less-rational standpoint might seem like a recipe for disaster from a coding standpoint...but it winds up becoming something that doesn't impose itself on how musicians tend to think. It's a very weird tightrope-walk...but an invaluable one.
A few things...first up, the mixing really needs to be internal. Buchla's mixers also did quite a bit with CV over spatialization and weren't merely level controls. Have a look at https://www.modulargrid.net/u/buchla-system-interface-model-227 , which is the original 200/300 mixer I'm familiar with. Note that you have control not merely over stereo panning, but quadrophonic spatialization, in addition to a bunch of other functions that, to be honest, really bring a level of convenience to a synth mixer that you mostly don't see now. The closest thing to this would probably be Koma's quad performance mixer, which would make a decent stand-in for something like the 227.
Filters...if we're not talking LPGs but actual, typical VCFs, you can probably do with less. Buchla's gear was more about wave combination/shaping, so typical subtractive methods didn't happen much. But note that: 'much'. There were still a few filters that made it into typical Buchla architecture that we'd recognize, and of course there's all of the spectral-type filtering that was a lot more common starting in the 200 series. The Bark filters definitely satisfy that need. Also, there's only one thing I can think of that's like a critically-significant Buchla 'filter', the 296 (see https://www.modulargrid.net/u/buchla-296), and that would be the Frap Fumana. Not cheap, but definitely in a similar vein to the 296 in function and usage methods.
Lastly, the controller. If you're not going to use touchplates, you're not going to get the same...ah, hard to describe...'behavior' out of an iPad. The iPad (or any other tablet) will correct a lot of the weirdnesses that the various touchplate controllers brought to playing the Buchla. For example, one thing I was warned about is that setting certain touchplate voltages before spending some time settling into the studio will likely later result in values that aren't what you had in mind. Yes, these things could be that biologically sensitive! They literally bring you into the instrument circuits themselves, if that makes sense.
Also lastly (yeah, yeah...), it could be smaller. Yes, big 200/300 systems were hulking things, but Don built those modules in a larger format (4U-ish), and you'll notice that present-day 200e setups are pretty small, physically. Even the System 200e we see Marton Subotnick using in "IDOW" is a smallish affair when compared to his original 100 rig. You can do more with less in a typical West Coast setup, to be honest, so it shouldn't be too necessary to go quite so big here.
Mind you, Buchla stuff is getting cheaper if you go outside of Buchla itself. Northern Light, Roman Filippov, et al are gradually getting the Buchla-format pricing under a modicum of control, so one could make do with a few of the nosebleed-pricey Buchla modules augmented by a lot of other not-Buchla that doesn't cost so much.
Yes, I have...however, the fact still remains that VCV doesn't have the ability to fully utilize the given resources in a typical pro-level DAW machine. Once you've hit the limit on the one core it's using, you're done. Period. While this might not be as severe an issue in a quad-core Intel running at a fast clock speed, if you're working with a major multicore setup for the sort of brute force it offers, VCV is pretty sad stuff when you start getting into sizable module counts, such as what you'd see with complex generative patching, etc. And I know quite a few pro-level users who've gone with the big multicore Xeon, etc setups because when you use something that is multicore-aware, that software becomes screamingly powerful and tends to outstrip quad-core much of the time.
Unless you run VCV. And with no clear indication if multiprocessing will ever be added (as is the case with pretty much ALL other pro-grade audio software), I'll stick with considering it to be a 'toy'.
Processing rack, hm? Check this out:
Contains stereo phaser (fully patchable), Intellijel Rainmaker stereo delay line, the Erbeverb, an attenuating buffered mult for splitting incoming signals for parallel processing, then two channels of a KILLER combo between two Eventide EuroDDLs and two frequency shifters (think dual Eventide H949 or 969s, but way crazier) and last, the Dual Looping Delay. Toss in a couple of passive mults, and that's got it!
If you want to screw around with VCV, that is; see my thread on my experiences and conclusions regarding it.
As for digital generation raw power in Eurorack, my suggestion would be to wait until Xaoc Devices gets the Odessa on the market, supposedly this summer. Basically, as I noted in this past month's 'KICK ASS!!!' column, this module is more or less akin to having a monophonic iteration of the BellLabs Alles engine (ala Crumar GDS, DK Synergy) in a Eurorack module. You don't need many of these, but in order to get them to really shine, you do need quite a few modulation sources (LFOs, envelopes) to get the elaborate additive spectra moving in all the ways the Odessa allows for.
And as far as filters are concerned, honestly, I think Dave Rossum's Evolution is...ok...but the Morpheus filter would be very suitable with an Odessa or two. Again, modulation sources would be needed, but you can also use some mults/attentuators to split existing ones up to tandem modulation curves to both the oscillator(s) and filter.
OK, in starting here, I'd like to point out that I haven't upgraded to VCV 0.6.x. There are reasons for this which should be apparent as I go on.
There's been a sizable amount of hype around VCV Rack being a be-all/end-all open source Eurorack emulation system. In theory, the idea seems like a good one, allowing users to experience the concepts behind modular programming in a very cost-effective way. And in a real sense, this is a very good use for VCV Rack. It's a nice set of...ah...introductory tools. But getting beyond that, there's some very real problems.
VCV's developers would like us to think that their creation is a just-as-valid item as the hardware. And this is where I part company with their aims and goals. As I've worked with the system, starting in 0.3.x and moving up to the final 0.5.x iteration, a lot of very irritating points have made their presence known, ones which are very much NOT part of the actual hardware modular experience. So, let's have a look at these:
1) VCV Rack is not a pro-grade tool. This shouldn't be too surprising at this point, especially noting the 'working-beta' status of the software. But even beyond that, there are issues with VCV that I've encountered that rise above simple beta-era growing pains. One of these is the automatic breaking of ALL modules upon each new iteration of the software. No, I kid you not. Every time a new beta appears, every plug-in developer is required to scamper back to the drawing board and recode their module sets for the new iteration. To me, this is the most egregious part of the unprofessional aspect. Consider what would happen to software plugin development if, every time a new version of the VST standard appeared via Steinberg, ALL plug-in developers would be faced with a scenario without backward compatibility. It would certainly stifle development, and moreso, stifle the value of the format. Do that, and the money goes away, then the platform falls flat on its face. In a professional-user environment, this sort of thing is totally untenable.
There's also no basic standardization of how the OS should work. Some knobs work one way, others in some other method, so you have to keep what works how memorized as you're also trying to do music. This eventually becomes a point of frustration and I for one don't appreciate being made to feel frustrated by the very tool I'm trying to create with. Certainly, this comes from the open source concept's somewhat anarchic way of dealing with its plugin developers...but at the same time, it's extremely annoying for those who don't see any functionality in allowing this degree of freedom in emulating a hardware environment where, yes, knobs work the same way, switches all perform the same way, and you can intuitively grab any of these and work them without having to remember how to turn or switch them.
These are just a couple of points. There's a lot more that I and I'm sure others have run across, and that list just gets too long to slap up here.
2) VCV Rack's developer seems to have a disconnect with its end-users. I encountered an issue in 0.5.x where the process I was working on was bogging as I added sampling modules, gradually wrecking all of the patch's internal timing. I examined what was happening, and quickly noticed that VCV wasn't multiprocessor-savvy; all of the work was being done on just one of my multitrack machine's 16 cores. leaving the rest to just idle while one single Xeon core was repeatedly being taxed beyond its limits. So, I did the logical thing one would do with open source software: I got on GitHub, searched amongst the loads of issues and bug reports, found little-to-nothing on what I was encountering after 45 minutes of searching, then posted about what I was running across, also inquiring about the possibility of multiprocessor support at some point down the line. What I got back was a rather prickly, snarky email from the developer that my thread was closed as my issue had already been raised (somewhere), then noting that multiprocessor support wasn't some idly-addable feature that, clearly, 'laypersons' woudn't understand the requirements of.
Ummmm...excuse me? Are you aware of who your user base is? It's not coders, for the most part, it's musicians. To dismiss the primary segment of a user base as 'laypersons' is not only rather tone-deaf, it seems to imply that VCV Rack isn't really about the musician end-users, but to satisfy some segment of the coder community. As such, that revelatory email cast a lot of doubts in my mind as to the long-term usability of VCV Rack; there didn't seem to be a sense that, once the application reached its initial full-release stage, the developer wouldn't move on to some other coding curiosity, basically orphaning VCV Rack in the process.
3) VCV Rack doesn't work like the actual thing. Yes, the module emulations are stellar for the most part. But it has a serious flaw in its single-core operation. It's sort of analogous to what happens when we hit power supply limits in hardware...but unlike hardware, you can't go out and get a bigger power supply. So when processor bogdown starts and things begin to go awry, there's basically no fix. None. You simply can't do what you'd envisioned, period, end of story. And for something that is to emulate simple builds, that's not a problem. But to do massive, complex work, you either need to have some sort of howling-fast CPU so that the sole working core for VCV can max it out...or you need multiprocessor support, which is the real answer, but one which isn't tenable from what I gather. And also, when VCV glitches, it's not pretty! Things we might find musically useful in hardware translate into hangs and freezes of all sorts of things, ranging from parts of a patch all the way up to the computer's entire OS. Hardware doesn't do that, either!
So, for those wanting to merely explore modular synthesis...yes, VCV Rack is a nice...toy, ultimately. But I'm totally put off of using it seriously, which I'd had high hopes of doing and, apparently, a lot of plugin developers would like to see as well. It won't replace hardware; I don't even find it to be an acceptable substitute.
Yep...go to your rack's page and then select 'Screenshot' under the 'Show' menu. If the screenshot view doesn't coincide with the actual page, refresh the screenshot. At that point, you should be able to refresh the forum post and see that it now matches the current state of the build. This isn't foolproof, though...sometimes it takes a bit more prodding, putting the forum post into 'edit' and back out again, etc. But the main problem comes from the rack's screenshot not matching the rack's actual page, so when posting racks always remember to make sure the screenshot is in sync before putting the post with the rack in question up.
Fine, I know...it's already May when I'm posting this. I got busy; for those wondering on what, exactly, see
[There's supposed to be a SoundCloud embed here. You'll notice that there isn't one. I really don't know why, aside of the fact that SoundCloud's embedded player process is an obtuse load of crap, IMHO. To my reckoning, I should just be able to paste the URL for the project in, but no...that won't work. So you'll all just have to continue to wonder what I was doing. Thanks, SoundCloud!]
But the wait is worth it, I suppose. There's been another big uptick in amazing stuff popping up as we get toward the summer months. To start with, there's the jaw-dropping pair of...
1) Mutable Instruments Stages and Marbles. Oh...holy...crap! Stages is a transient-shaping/mod-generating one-stop module. I'm not even about to go into depth about everything Olivier tossed into this stunner! Just check it. Same goes for the Marbles, an insanely-complex randomness/sample-and-hold/quantizing/sequencing thing that clearly says that, if you can't find a use for it, you are tragic! Both of these demand serious consideration on the order of modules such as the Make Noise Maths et al.
2) Arcus Audio Buff Mult with Attenuators. Y'know, this is one of those 'it's so simple, why didn't someone come up with this sooner?'-sort of modules. Very, very simple...the description says it all, but the functionality is actually a bit more elegant than that implies. It combines a lot of ideas all behind a 6 hp panel very smartly; I'm thinking a lot of users have been looking for something like this for a while.
3) Erica Synths Black Code Source. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Stereo noise. Rewindable randomness. Polynomially-generated signals. And an expander that provides AR envelopes, pitchbend (yes, pitchbend on NOISE) in order to help the main module come up with all sort of chiptune-type craziness in addition to what it already does, which is a veritable buttload. Noise redefined, quite possibly.
4) Malekko Heavy Industry Quad Envelope and LFO. Wow...more hyper-versatile modulation sources, with multichannel capability and – surprise, surprise – the ability to store multiple presets when used with Malekko's Varigate modules. Live performance heaven, these...Malekko's really building on their quad architecture and coming up with some special stuff that might be a major solution for anyone taking a modular onstage, or for users who need a library of certain modulation behaviors for on-the-fly recall. I hope this trend continues...
5) Monde Synthesizer Ribbonz. A real ribbon controller setup, on the order of the discontinued Doepfer A-198, with a proper-sized ribbon controller. For those wanting to work out their Keith Emerson-isms or experimenting with all sorts of microtunings, this thing is a godsend. The controller looks quite serious, too, with a lot of extra performance controls present on it besides the sizable ribbon itself and what looks to be some beefy build quality. This would work great as either an expression controller or, for the intrepid, a master controller in of itself.
6) The Space Case TE-2. This one makes my head swim from the possibilities. On first glance, it looks like a cassette deck in Eurorack format. Which it is...on the most basic of levels. But the massive addition of CVable controls, multiple presets and on and on and ON belie the fact that this is more than just some tape delay effect. Again, this is yet another function-packed device that should be looked at to be believed. The website (http://spacecasetapeecho.com/) states a release date of April 3, 2018 and contains a massive amount of info on the module, which can also function as a stand-alone in its own skiff. It's not cheap, not by a long shot at $1250. But damn....
7) Pittsburgh Modular Electronic Sequence Designer 128. Uhhhh...wow. Sort of like nearly half of a Koma Komplex in a 48 hp module. Mad complexity and feature set. Onboard quantizing, too. Internal Euclidean pattern generator on each channel, ratcheting, just too much to detail here. Again, check the MG listing on this one for the rundown.
8) Behringgggg...no.
8) Kitsch-Bent PISSbox. Hey, it's a golden shower of noise reduction! OK, fine...I couldn't resist that one. But seriously, that's what this is about, plus a bit more. The PISSbox uses a transformer circuit to invert half of a stereo signal, then recombine it to a summed A-minus-B output. If you put your desired signal into A and the noise only into B, the result...kindasorta...will be phase cancellation of the noise, plus a little bit of (in theory) artifacting. But also, since Kitsch-Bent used a little iron in the audio path here, you can also take advantage of that in mono with a bit of overdriving to create nice, euphonic transformer-saturation harmonic distortion. So...a tad more useful than it might seem, plus it's cheap enough to warrant tossing one into most anything if you've got the 6 hp for it.
9) Dreadbox Lil' Erebus. Need an extra voice module for cheap? This could be it! Basic little monosynth with a delay, very patchable, in 42 hp for a measly $200. Not much to say, aside of this being a killer value, done right.
10) Hexinverter Mutant Brain. I was somewhat upset when Hex discontinued their previous small, versatile, and well-done MIDI-CV interface. I'm not upset now, booooyeee...because this is that, times 4 and then some! Reconfigurable via SysEx messages, this again is one of those devices that live performers are going to be drooling over. It's still in prototype phase, apparently, but this is one to wait for.
11) Happy Nerding PanMix Jr. Damn...the simple stuff keeps rolling out, too! Same form factor as the other triple HN modules, but in this case we get three channels of manually-pannable stereo mixing for the dirt-cheap price of $100! And you can use it as a 3-channel attenuator/distributor, too. This is another of those “it's soooo simple...” devices that fix so much in so little space for so cheap. A no-brainer.
12) Xaoc Devices Zadar and Odessa. Superbooth 18 prototypes both, these are not exactly what they might seem to be. Very much digital-in-analog clothing for all the RIGHT reasons, the Zadar offers four very complex EG/LFOs under a massive amount of user control, with a planned expander for CV patching. But the Odessa...oh...my god. FPGA-based additive. In a Eurorack module. On the scale of something like a single Crumar GDS generator. Done right. I...uh...think I'm having a stroke or something. Literally, I cannot believe what I'm looking at, but knowing Xaoc, it's not a prank. Just read the MG page on it. This changes so much in terms of VCO architecture possibilities. It is definitely THE NEXT STEP in VCOs. And for me, one of those 'warm fuzzy moments' when I know I'm looking at where the future should go!
13) Synthrotek Fold. And for the last, another simple, small, inexpensive, and super-useful tool. A six-stage wavefolder plus ring modulator in a tiny 4 hp package for a paltry $125. West Coasters, take note...this is a toy you won't want to live without! Also, those doing small builds who want big sound altering capabilities need one of these. Or, for that matter, anyone else!
Like I said, the month of April(ish) was a wild one, and there's some things in here that are going to be game-changers. It's a good time to be doing electronic music, folks!
A question: if this is a two-voice build, why are there not two of the entire signal chain needed to make up a voice? There's two complex VCOs -- check. Two VCAs(-ish; not how I'd do this) -- check. One VCF...ah, that might be a problem. Basically, this isn't how two-voice polyphony works. You've instead arrived at something referred to (not very well, I think) called 'paraphony', where two independent sources get funneled into the same modifier chain. By default, you lose the separation you're referring to when that happens. Plus, once you mash it all into the single VCF, there's no point in having two of the Noise Engineering EG/VCAs anymore. You're just dynamically modifying the same sound in two different ways.
For reference, go have a close look at an Oberheim Two-Voice. These have been around since the early 1970s, still made today with some modern upgrades, and for very good reasons. You'll notice that, since it uses the SEM-based Oberheim architecture, you actually have two discrete signal paths with their controllers, modulation sources, etc. That's what you're trying to do here.
From the prebuilt synths you're describing, I think it might be possible that you're painting yourself into a corner by limiting the budget on these. The M32, small Phattys, original Minibrute...all of these are pretty limited solely by the fact that they're inexpensive and therefore don't contain the complexity of higher-end prebuilts. But when you start getting into the more complex monosynths, or going away from the analog (which is another 'too trendy for its own good' thing) end of synths to explore good digital synths, you get back into the sort of sonic complexity I think you're aiming toward.
Again...back up and do some research. The solution to doing things over long-term is to never act quickly, but consider where you want to go in the long-term. And this takes time. Hell, you might find you can get sounds out of an old Casio CZ-101 that are just what you've been thinking of, but without a lot of research into where you should go with your musical ideas, you'll never figure an intuitive leap like that out.
Another bonkers suggestion would be abusing a few of the Doepfer A-144 Morph Controllers in conjunction with the output VCA patchpoints, plus a few syncable (or not!) LFOs.
Scariest. Polymod. Filter. Ever.
That Fumana has abuse potential coming out the ying-yang, believe me.
My own JP-6 is sitting to my left, about six feet away. Trust me, you want accuracy here. The VCF arrangement in the actual synth is utterly amazing, not exactly like anything else Roland did before or since. It has its own particular sound, but it's very chameleon-like...it's capable of going in a lot of other directions than the obvious.
As for the Klavis Dual VCOs...note that. They're dual VCOs...each module contains two VCOs, plus quantizing and several other tricks. So what you see there isn't two VCOs, it's two modules that contain four VCOs. The Roland/Malekko stuff can't get you in that ballpark for Klavis's price, believe me. Demos, though...look, modular is very open-ended. If someone does a shit demo video, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to be your result when you program it alongside your modules. Anyway, yeah...four VCOs, which means you can do a lot of different potential directions, such as two-voice paraphonic, using all four in a stack, or using some elaborate crossmod or sync schemes.
At the same time, however, modular is, by default, 'deep'. And, annoyingly, trendy. That's a bad combo; you have people thinking that 'wow...these modules will solve everything in my music!', and that's NEVER the case. Consequently, I keep hearing of people diving into this, making a lot of wrong assumptions, getting hosed on money, and still wondering why their music isn't clicking...and the fact is that they could've saved a lot of money by just looking in a mirror to find the problem instead of dropping several large and discovering it the hard way.
Going into modular synth work isn't a casual decision. It requires a sizable amount of background information, research, and outright scutwork to sort out whether or not this really is a viable direction (for starters) and then, if so, what next? My advice: the rack above will work, but if the concepts seem somewhat beyond your comfort area, step back before massive cash gets thrown around and dig a lot deeper into this first. Figure out why things sound the way they do, both on recordings you're familiar with, instruments you're familiar with, and relate that to the modules you're not familiar with. Do get the M32, maybe another patchable or so first before a headlong, thousands-of-dollars dive into the deeper end of the pool. You'll likely be a lot happier and more satisfied in the long run.
Done...and I think I hit all three targets:
Moog: obvious.
Roland-ish synth part: OK...in this case, I went with two Klavis Dual VCOs, because to get that sound right, you need some oscillator detuning and, potentially, sources for sync and/or suboctaves. Filter is a G-Storm JP-6 clone...doesn't get much better than that for the Roland analog polysynth sound in modular format, I think. Then it gets interesting; the mixer allows you to do some inversion of VCO waveforms, which can also cause some nice phasing results, done right. The Klavises, also, have the plus of being internally-quantized, so running them right off of the M32's sequencer is easy. Two EG + VCAs, two VCS...not a bad modulation section. But the last triple LFO, that's specifically for the triple bandpass filter...and this gives you that counter-swept-ish resonating behavior common to some really great divide-downs such as the Polymoog, Korg PS-series, et al. Closed that up with a delay, because...well, a delay. Just puts the cherry on that late 70s-type string synth process w/o wasting an external box.
Rings is still there, natch. Then there's a 3x VCA for CV-controlled mixing to mono, and a metered Ladik mono out.
Note that I swapped the P/S...like I often say, overspec that part. It puts less load on the P/S, reduces heat and component strain, and makes for a more reliable build. Added a mult, too...necessary if you're going to do your MIDI-CV conversion in the M32, then send that upwards to the upper row's module compliment.
Not too shabby...yes, a bit spendy in some areas, but I managed to avoid some areas you were heading toward that might've spelled some sizable expenditures while still coming up with major capability.
Nicely done...and a good move, getting compression on the input for your modulator signal. You'll find that'll make the Fumana (like most any other vocoder) more responsive to vocal transients once you get it dialed in properly for your voice and mic. You might even consider another input (non-compressed) module to input an external carrier signal.
One tip: the Fumana is brilliantly set up, and can do some EMS Vocoder 5000-like reroutings between the modulator's envelope followers and the output analysis bandpass filter/VCAs. I advise major exploration of those patchpoints; having them is one of the huge plusses of that particular vocoder module!
Kraftwerk also used modular gear starting in the late 1990s, mainly Doepfer stuff. But really, not until then.
If you want to talk about who was the heaviest modular user in the Krautrock scene during its most significant period, that would have to be Klaus Schulze. Klaus's setups during the latter part of the 1970s would find EMS AKS, Korg PS3300, ARP 2600s alongside a huge hybrid Moog/PPG modular plus a bunch of other prebuilds, all in use at the same time, especially live.
TD: anything Moog-like. Basically, 5U-type stuff, or Eurorack gear that uses typical 1970s subtractive methods. The fact is that a lot of Tangerine Dream's sound was not due to the modulars...these mainly dealt with the sequencing layers. More typical gear would be devices such as Oberheim SEM polysynths, Elka Rhapsody, and later the initial PPG Wave series, starting with the 340/380 and going on from there. And Edgar's guitar work.
Kraftwerk: none. Much of what they did during their classic period between "Autobahn" and "Computer World" was on off-the-rack devices as well as some custom gear, but none of this was modular. The spacier parts of their work often made use of an instrument that I can guarantee you will NEVER, EVER get your hands on called a Vako Orchestron., which was something like a 'pro-grade' Mattel Optigan. I might be one of the very few users on MG to have ever played one, perhaps, since both Vako and I are products of Nashville, and I got to have a bit of time with one c. 1979. After "Computer World", a lot of what you hear up until "TDF Soundtracks" was Synclavier.
Ahhh, but since I insist on automatic convenience, the interior 'wiring' is designed so that you don't even need the extra switch. Just turn it on...and IT EXPLODES! Which, in a sense, is the answer to many synthesists' prayers: auto-programming in a modular. It's a technical innovation that is guaranteed to be groundbreaking...probably for your funeral if you're standing over it when you power it up, actually.
It's also auto-tuning and totally drift-free. I guarantee that whatever extremely momentary noise this emits will be perfectly cent-accurate compliant to some sort of scale in some way or another. Yet another horrible and long-vexing technical issue SOLVED!
I was just commenting in email to an old collaborator of mine that these days have blown the doors wide open. If you can imagine something, it can probably be realized somehow, and in the course of doing so, six more ideas are likely to appear. I would've never envisioned something like the electronic music environment that exists today; there were certainly indications of it decades ago, but the combination of inexpensive and powerful tech combined with decades of gear from which to pick and choose, and the ability to link it all up like is possible now...we'd never really envisioned that back when I was way back in undergrad studies and so much of this was unobtainable or didn't exist at all.
I can hardly believe what I can do now, sometimes.
You'll notice that I changed a few things (as in most of it):
OK...only the Akemie's and M32 remain from the original. Everything else is different; here's why...
The Akemie's Castle is an algorithmic FM setup. As such, it wants envelopes. Lots. Chowning FM eats envelopes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So I fixed the modulation section to accomodate that. There's now ten AD envelopes, plus the two Doepfer VCS modules (each is more or less the same thing as half of the Maths, but this frees up 4 hp) and a triple VCA. All of this is supposed to be used together! This takes care of the complex modulation that will make the Akemie's really open up and go.
Lower tier had me removing the Endorphin Shuttle Control in favor of an Expert Sleepers FH-1. Same idea, but perhaps a bit more flexible and definitely smaller. You'll want to use two MIDI channels here: one feeds the FH-1 via USB, and the other goes to the Moog via the usual DIN.
The two VCFs after the Moog are for the Akemie's outputs. Optimally, you'd want to feed these to the L and R inputs on the Mixup (ie: 1 and 2), then you can feed the Moog to the L #3 input for mono. Result at the output: your Akemie's is in stereo with the Moog bringing up the background in mono.
Power was added, also, just in case this was an unpowered cab.
This should work a lot better. It gives you a true two-voice rig in stereo, with the ability to put the FM CVs and a lot of the triggering under the FH-1's control, with some clocking tie-in from the Moog (which can send its clock back down the FH-1 to lock up your main sync, allowing you master tempo control from the Moog's internal sequencer). The modulation is very capable, also; not only do you have the twelve mod generators, you also have three VCAs (summable) which can be used to obtain modulation amplitude control, which will make the FM programming really nuanced and complex-sounding. Definitely an improved version!
Those first two were actually sort of in a transitional period in synths. KMFDM used both analog but also quite a bit of digital. SP, however, seemed to use anything you could plug into a wall socket as long as it spat noise out the other end. I still have fond memories of grad study back at the University of TN, cruising up to Gatlinburg on my downtime and blasting Puppy's early racket (ie: 'Bites', 'Remission', 'Mind') out of the car to the apparent dismay of tourists. "Why...that doesn't sound like mountain music..." Heh...no sh*t, Sherlock.
The Percussa SSP can also be found on here, while the GR-1 is more of a stand-alone instrument. Also, the Percussa SSP appears to be part of a larger system that Percussa has further parts of, such as the SoundCubes, etc.
The basic PPG signal chain is a digital wavetable oscillator into an analog VCF (lowpass) to an analog VCA, with analog control over the whole thing. Very simple. That right there would be more or less a PPG Wave Carrier, save that the bit depth/sample rate of a present-day wavetable oscillator would be a lot higher than the original, which was rather gritty and aliased like crazy at high frequencies (which, in truth, was an asset as you could work that aliasing into patches in interesting ways).
As for FM...that can be as complicated or as simple as you want. An Akemie's would work, or a couple of Doepfer's TZFM VCOs, or just combining basic sine VCOs with arrays of EGs and VCAs to build the operator chains yourself to get the classic Chowning methodology in analog. That can be a bitch to program, however. Plus, as Yamaha found, having some sort of filter after that generation section helps that sound out a lot.
The other 'got done a lot in digital' method is, of course, additive. But that's sort of nightmarish in analog: you'd need a sine VCO for each partial with the proper offsetting on each so that all of the VCOs track properly, then a VCA for each with its own DADSR (yes, you want a delayed envelope in all cases) to control the VCA amplitudes, with all VCAs summing into a mixer with individual level controls. On the other hand, doing additive this way allows a lot of inharmonic partial settings, possible phase-shifting of various partials...but also, a potential brain hemorrhage from trying to keep the whole mess programmed!
All Eurorack modules use the same bus. If there's enough current from the power supply present on the supply rails to support both, then the answer would be yes.
