First Modular build - feedback please!

Hello, I've been spending a lot time on modulargrid.net and slowly putting together what I think is an ideal first time eurorack with modules that accomplish what I'd like to do. I've been watching tones of videos on these modules and trying to get as good a sense of each of them as I can, but at this point wanted to get feedback from people more experienced.
I plan to use this rack with my DAW quite heavily. I work on TV promos and movie trailers, so a lot of my song structure will start in the computer. I'd also like to have a workflow that allows me to send audio out of the DAW into the rack quite easily. I've added the I/O and MIDI modules to help with these workflow concerns. My goal is to spark new ideas while I work and have some fun learning modular at the same time. I'll need to make some accessible sounds, but also want tons of room for experimenting. Sonically if I could get some heavy bass lines, interesting synths and process drums and other sounds out of the DAW...i'd be very happy!
Most of the modules are fairly obvious as they seem to be quite popular options for their functions. I'm on the fence about both Clouds and Braids as they are now discontinued, but they seem to be big favorites in the community. I'd like to process audio through the rack and Clouds seems like a fun option for that. I was trying to work in the DPO, but rack space became an issue so I went with a combination of Braids and SPO...any suggestions or opinions on that would be awesome. Maths seems like a no brainer. Everything else is mostly for modulating and effects. It's hard for me not to envision wanting some reverb/delay/distortion etc...so again if anyone has an opinion on how I could better accomplish having that in this rack, I'm open to other modules. I had a few HP left and snuck in the Buff Mult and Pico VCF-1. Without much experience I'm not totally positive how much I'd need the Buff Mult, but it felt like a utility like that module would be useful...or no?
And lastly I was hoping to get feedback on the layout. Does anything seem oddly placed in the rack? Should I switch anything around for a more convenient layout?
Thanks in advance for any help on this. Really excited about building this out and getting started!

Well, first up: if this is a rig that'll be spending a lot of its time processing external audio, I would reconsider that input stage in favor of getting something that has an envelope follower. That way, you can use dynamic levels from your incoming sounds as yet another modulation source, plus if the input also has a trigger/gate comparator with a settable threshold level on that incoming signal, that can have a number of uses for starting envelopes, sequencing, etc etc etc. While it's mono, still have a look at the venerable Doepfer A-119; Dieter got that thing right the first time, and that's why it's been around since around the beginnings of Eurorack.

Annoying that Mutable's chucking out some of their best and most prized module designs, yep...but like the Braids, look around for some of the open-source builds of the Clouds which have started popping up. What I've seen of these also give you some space-savings, so adding more functionality is possible if you go that route.

Also, this rack contains the typical 'if it's not sexy-looking, why do I need it?' issues...VCAs, mixers, panners, etc just aren't there. Again, if the task is processing, you definitely want things that can process dynamics in addition to timbre and so forth. Mults are missing, too; they're a must if you're going to branch process-control signals to several audio processing-type modules so that you can get some sort of parallel behavior going. Probably the best thing here is that, given this is MG, you don't have to drop the $$$ then have that 'oh, sh*t' moment when you realize you left things out that you needed. What I would suggest is that now that you have an initial idea of what might work for some of your tasks, toss this rack entirely while making note of these things (ie: print a spec sheet) then start over in a much bigger rack, perhaps twice this size or more. This tactic of 'build something bigger than _you think you need_' is important, because it lets you easily slip in all the 'unsexy' modules along with your previous specs...and then you start to realize that, hey presto, that _was_ what you needed!

Also, as processing goes, look for things that offer loads of modulation and strange routing possibilities. F'rinstance, have a look at the boring-appearing Doepfer A-106-1. Just looks like a filter, right? Ahhh...not so. There's a lot of weirdness there, such as an insert point into the resonance circuit, adjustments for tinkering with the paralleling of the two filters (yeaaaah!) there, a polarizing CV input. No, not a lot of flashy lights and zazzy graphics, but that module has lots of what I like to call 'abuse potential'. So it looks boring? That 'boredom' is only skin-deep. But this points out that stepping back and looking at other options, and by looking I mean not at what it looks like (the 'twistenknobs und blinkenlights' factor), but looking at the functionality indicated by the panel markings and control capabilities, is key to creating a system that clicks from the first power-up which'll avoid lots of module-swapping and the like. Might be a bit more tedious, but careful work where Eurorack's concerned yields definite results!

Lastly, module layout. Step back in time a bit, and look at some classic patchables that're still coveted to this day, and observe how their signal flows proceed across the patch panel. You tend to find designs which gather primary functions into specific areas...modulators in their area, oscillators all together, filters and then VCAs, etc. I still say the best example of how 'flow' works can be found on the ARP 2600; you always know where signals start and where they go to eventually, and when going outside the prepatched configuration and using the patchpoints, the resulting patches still tend to flow the way the prepatch does. Your above rack is going to be a pain in the ass to make decisions at a glance on, since patching is going to be all sorts of back-and-forth from and back to the audio interface, which will wind up with signals flowing both ways across the panel. Not fun!...and certainly not 'intuitive', which is what a good musical instrument should be.

So...step back, think bigger and more carefully. First attempts in an environment as possibility-rich as Eurorack NEVER come out right, but as I pointed out, careful work yields big gains and definite results. Good luck!

Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to reply. I posted this in r/modular as well and pretty much got a lot of the same feedback...although in less detail than you have laid out here. It's a bit daunting to begin with Eurorack, but I'm slowly chipping away at it...and getting pieces of info like this from people with more experience is priceless. I am super thankful for modulargrid.net and have started to build out a larger case just as you recommended. And thanks for the ARP 2600 reference, just glancing at it online and that signal flow makes a ton of sense. Hopefully I'll have a more thought out case to post up here sometime soon!

Eurorack can be a daunting thing, true. If it weren't for MG, however, it would be a LOT worse. I can remember quite a few years back, working all of this crap out on quadrille paper, and even though at the time there were a lot less choices, it was brain-scrambling to sort out even a basic layout. MG's ability to sort by primary categories simplifies a lot; in fact, that one feature makes coming up with proper apportionments of necessary modules a snap! Plus, it keeps you thinking along the lines of 'ok, now I need x, y, & z devices' while you're working a few steps back from those stages where x, y, & z would come into play.

Looking at tried-and-true designs definitely helps prior to using MG, too. There are a lot of modular and patchable synths that have been made over the years, and while some designs don't work as well as they could, others are timeless and their design is part of the reason why they command the prices they do these days. Instruments like the ARP 2600, Moog IIIc, Korg MS-series, EML 101 and 200, Aries III, EMS VCS3 etc all possess qualities to their layout and signal flow that make them instruments, as opposed to designs that are more confusional and specialized. True, some of those command huge prices today too, but given the choice between a Steiner-Parker Synthacon and an ARP 2600, I'll take the latter...and DID, since that was a trade I made a couple of decades back. The Synthacon may be rarer, sure, but the ARP is just as sonically capable AND, as someone pointed out in Mark Vail's book, it's 'the only synth I can program while drunk'.

I tend to stick with a rule of thumb that goes: 'up-left; down-right'. Control signals go upward on the left side, through the section of modulation sources. They then get to the top rows where the audio generation happens, then flow back down through the right side through waveshaping, filtering, processors, and to the final mixer at the bottom right. This places the waveshaping and filtering contiguous to the modulation sources, processors are close at hand to the mixing, and to the left of this are the initial control signal manipulators for CVs, clocks, and so on. Stick a controller of your preferred flavor in front of the bottom row, and you're good to go! And this has the added plus of letting you see how each subsection is filling out and what preferable interactions you can have as each section fills up. About the only recent time I've violated this, in fact, is in the 'DAMN YOU, ARTURIA!' rack (see the forum under 'racks') where the primary 'heavy lifting' is done with a pair of Arturia Minibrute 2s and a pair of Moogs (Mother32 and DFAM) and this necessitated a strategy where the flow goes toward the center-bottom where the main mixer is located, allowing me to take advantage of the gaps between the Minibrute 2s and the Rackbrute cabs for cable routing. But even there, you still see a gathering of functions into 'blocks' so that there's a particular cohesiveness to the signal flow pattern.

So, really it only looks like rocket science. Kinda-sorta. Eventually, it gets pretty easy. Just takes practice and experience, and some judicious research and an eye for finding those atypical bits in modules that open possibilities up in interesting and unexpected directions. Take the Doepfer A-132-4. This is the most dishwater-dull-looking module, really. But when you look at the raw power hidden under that snoozefest of a panel, all sorts of ideas should be popping into your head. It's four exponential VCAs. Or it's a 4-1 audio mixer. Or you can screw around with the jumpers in the back and have a couple of free-floating VCAs and a 2-channel audio combiner. Use CV1 for level and CV2 for signal vibrato. And so on. Not bad for a boring-looking thing like that. Plus, it's pretty tiny (6 hp), so you get bang for your space-expenditure buck. These are the sort of things you should keep an eye out for. Even tiny little things can equal big crazy when paired with something else. Going back to the rack I mentioned above, you'll note a quad LFO next to a little Malekko DC-coupled mixer. The LFOs alone aren't quite so capable, since they have no CVs nor an onboard mix output. But by adding that little 3hp mixer, I can combine the outputs and then manually 'play' all sorts of variations in LFO curves which can then be fed...well, who knows where? At that point, the quad LFO and mixer stop being what they are alone and become something of a 'variable manual modulation controller' as a combination, hence why they're near the middle where the core of Moogs and the WMD Performance Mixer are. And while each on their own is sort of meh, combining them skyrockets their 'abuse potential'.

Again, it takes a while of exploring and practice to get to a point where ideas like this come naturally as you're doing a layout, but it's achievable with time and practice and, as noted, some research. You'll get there...