Review reports of Eurorack modules

Hello All,

I am still not sure about this, looking at the tremendous work that it costs... the idea of starting to review modules and writing a review report about it and publishing it in PDF format and not the usual video way by the even more usual YouTube, started around early 2020.

I then used about a half year to create the template for this review report and since end of last year I started to create review reports themselves. They are not the usual way of reviewing stuff, I took here a little different road if I may put it like that.

Since the enormous amount of work that goes into a review, I have so far only completed 5 review reports but I hope over the months and years this will grow. I know against over 8000 modules 5 review reports is not much... close to zero ;-) On the long run I hope to be able to do 10 review reports on average per year. So after 10 years that would still be only 100 review reports. On the other hand, if you never start, never something will happen.

Not sure if this crazy idea makes any sense, I might stop after a few years, let's see how it goes. Meanwhile if you are interested in a review report, they are in PDF format, nothing fancy really. You can download the reports from my website:

https://garfieldmodular.net/

Naturally, if you have feedback, see mistakes, missing important information or whatsoever, you are welcome to fill in the contact form on the above website and let me know about it.

Thank you very much in advance and kind regards, Garfield.

Edit: Removed typo.

EDITED Feb 1st 2021, 01:40

Thorough reviews in a written format is an excellent idea @GarfieldModular. Just looking over your Waldorf review (wow!), I can see that this is a labor of love. I have always been an avid reader, and as much as I love DivKid and some of the other reviewers, I process things much differently when they are in-depth and written.
Thanks for doing this. Please share each new review.

I tried to keep up a monthly look at some of the more interesting modules coming out...until about a year-ish ago, when the DELUGE of new Eurorack modules just got to the point where it became untenable. Fact is, there's quite a bit of really intriguing modules and such hitting the sales floors now...I don't really know WHAT to compare it to, either. Some have referred to this as the "modular renaissance", but that seems more characteristic of 20-ish years ago, when Dieter had started putting out the A-100 system, and you started to see third-party firms building for the format. What we have NOW...well, damn...it's as if the entire rulebook on Things You Create Music With has been tossed in the shredder to make confetti! ANYONE can have one of these machines, and unlike the first huge period of modular (1968-80), they don't take up the same amount of room as the car you'd have to purchase in order to spend an equivalent amount of money.

Couple that with the continuing explosion of computer power available to Joe Average, the development of software suites such as Ableton Live or Reason and software instruments such as the ones from Arturia (and LOADS of others), and this situation actually starts to resemble 1977 and the punk scene's democratization of music making...albeit in a sustained manner, with little indication of this flaming out anytime soon. Plus, lines of demarcation that used to be there around what/how to make music are dissolving; it's not unusual now to see the likes of, say, Daniel Lopatin doing film scores, working as Oneotrix Point Never to do pop, or transforming into Chuck Person to become one of the founding vaporwave luminaries. Strange and interesting times, indeed!

Hello Farkas and Lugia,

Farkas: Thank you very much :-)

So far following review reports are ready for download from my website:

Doepfer - A-110-1 VCO
Doepfer - A-124 SE Wasp filter
Erica Synths - Pico Switch
Make Noise - Mult(-iple)
Waldorf - DVCA1 (dual VCA) but you found that one already ;-)

For this coming month February I hope to be able to produce the review reports of Doepfer - A-140-1 ADSR and A-145-1 LFO modules. Perhaps once a month I will mention it, I don't want to become known as a "spammer" ;-)

Lugia: Thank you very much for your kind post as well as your thoughts and views. I only can agree with you on how crazy Eurorack became and still becomes, the variety of modules is so immense that one can't keep a real overview of all of "what's out there"...

You mention you don't know how to compare it to or with, and I know you meant this in another context, just stealing here the subject ;-) In future review reports if I have reviewed more modules of the same function, let's say a few VCAs, then in paragraph 5.5 - Comparing this VCA module with other VCA modules I will start to compare in this example the VCAs I have already reviewed so one can (finally) start to compare... but for the moment that's the (hopefully near) future. I first need to get more reviews done of several functions and then more reviews of the same function so the comparing can get started... For the moment a long way to go.

Both: Thank you very much for your kind support and kind regards, Garfield.

Looking forward to giving these a read @GarfieldModular, and I've had my eye on a Waldorf Dual VCA, colorful VCAs being very exciting. One thing that stands out to me in Eurorack is the love and good energy so many people have for the field and for the people working in it. There are exceptions of course, but the community is something special and this will be a nice addition to it. Thanks for sharing.

Hi Steve,

Thank you very much for your kind words :-)

You are welcome and if everybody in his/her way contributes to (modular) synthesizers one way or another then we all benefit of that somehow.

Regarding the Waldorf Eurorack modules in general, I just read an article about it that Waldorf seem to have stopped producing these modules, so if you consider one, you should hurry before it's getting sold out.

I wish you lots of modular fun and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Farkas, All,

As promised, I managed to create two new review reports for the Doepfer modules A-145-1 LFO and the A-140-1 ADSR EG; ready for download.

Just a very general and summarised view on my review reports, especially handy for those who don't want to read the entire approximately 70+ pages review report :-)

After the first head page, the contents tables and the introduction in chapter 1. The interesting reading straight away starts with chapter 2 - The module summarised. So if you don't have much time but just want to have a quick glance, you only have to checkout chapter 2.

In case that might have interested you into knowing more about the module, chapters 3 up till 6 can be read, and that's it. Chapter 7 is a large and extensive explanation of all the tables, parameters and characteristics used and mentioned in the previous chapters. Chapter 8 is the glossary. So it's actually only about chapters 2 up till 6, which are about twenty pages. So compared to 70+ pages, twenty isn't too bad, right? ;-)

Updated overview of the ready reviews for download:

Doepfer - A-110-1 VCO
Doepfer - A-124 SE Wasp filter
Doepfer - A-140-1 ADSR EG
Doepfer - A-145-1 LFO
Erica Synths - Pico Switch
Make Noise - Mult(-iple)
Waldorf - DVCA1 (dual VCA)

Reports planned for March are the Warna - II from Xaoc Devices and the Quad Switch from Hikari Instruments.

Thank you and kind regards, Garfield.

Excellent. Going to look through the A140-1 review today.
You must be in the academic world in another life. Your reviews have all the signifiers of a dissertation. :)
On a related note, Garfield, I need to get your thoughts on the Doepfer monster cases. Will be upgrading soon and not sure which configuration I need. I know you are a Doepfer fan, so I’ll post a new thread soon with more context.
Thanks for your attention to detail in your reviews!

Hi Farkas,

Ha, ha, thank you :-) Well... I wouldn't go as far as calling it a dissertation however... yes indeed besides (in my other life) my usual architect role in IT & telecommunication industry, usually large, solutions and setups, I am a technical document writer as well, hence that kind of setup of the review reports ;-)

What exactly would you like to know about the Doepfer monster cases? I mean, if I am going to write a review report about that you have to read another 20 pages ;-) Just kidding, I am not going to write a review report about cases... oh ooooh... having just said that... perhaps in the far future but not for now.

Roughly there are two types of Doepfer monster cases, the "cheap" series or "economy" monster cases, meaning the case has been made of simple but, at least that's how I experience it, still nice plywood or the "suitcase" style and better looking monster racks/cases.

The simple ones are the A-100 LMB(V) and A-100 LMS9(V) and the better looking ones (suitcase + cover) are the A-100 PMB, A-100PMS6, A-100PMS9 and A-100PMS12. I have myself a set of A-100 LMB and A-100 LMS9 whereby the LMS9 stands on top of the LMB and that's just a great set together. It's very economically as well, at least here in Europe, it's the most economical rack available, at least the LMS9 that is, the lowest price per HP.

The LMS9 has 3 rows of each 168 HP. The 9 stands for 9 U. The B stands for base; I guess but I might have read it somewhere as well. The V indicates a black painted plywood case (I have the non-V variant though, that's just plain and not painted plywood version). From a power supply point of view you have to be a little bit careful if you have power-hungry modules however if you have the combination of LMB (relatively more power per HP) and the LMS9 (relatively less power per HP) then you should be fine, you can then put the more power-hungry modules in the LMB rack and the less power consuming modules in the LMS9. In that way, I haven't faced any power consumption issue yet. Easy for me to say because...

For my own usage, I made a spreadsheet that contains a list of all the Euro rack modules I have with tons of information in it, power consumption on all power rails are parts of that. I then created names for the Euro racks I have and add a name of such rack behind the module I own. Then with some spreadsheet calculations it's easy to see your power consumption on a per PSU (Power Supply Unit) basis of each rack. So for example that LMS9 has two PSUs, so I call that rack LMS9-1 (for the left PSU in that LMS9 rack) and LMS9-2 (for the right PSU in that LMS9 rack) for example and the LMB-1 and LMB-2 in that way you can keep track of the power consumption of all PSUs (and of course in combination with the racks).

But I am drifting off the subject of Doepfer monster cases ;-) So back to that subject:

I also own one of those more fancy looking monster cases. If I have to be honest, they look great but I wouldn't easily use them as a way of transporting my modules to another location and have there a jam with it. These PMS cases weight a ton (almost) and since I am not a bodybuilder or otherwise strong person, I will face difficulties in carrying such a case around the globe for fun ;-) I still might do it after the Covid but that would be rather the exceptional case than a regular and default solution. Perhaps on the long term I might consider an Intellijel 7U case for visiting people to jam together.

Coming back to that power consumption topic. The bases (i.e. A-100PMB and A-100LMB) have each two PSUs and for just two rows per case, that's really sufficient. However if you take the LMS9 it has 3 rows (of 168 HP) with also just two PSUs and that can be in certain cases a bit limiting. But as I already mentioned, if you combine an LMS9 with an LMB, you really should be fine, in my opinion.

The A-100PMS6 also has 2 PSUs, so again one PSU per row, thus fine and the PMS12 even got 4 PSUs, again one PSU per row, so totally fine. It's just that LMS9 case where you have to keep an eye on the power consumption, hence the interesting price for such rack.

At the backside per monster case you just have one power cable connection, no matter if you have a case with 2 or 4 PSUs, so you only have one power cable. The rubber feet under those monster cases are seriously stable and of course you can cause the case to tumble backwards but with some respectful handling of the case it stands actually very stable on those rubber feet.

For this LMB and LMS9 set I also bought the A-100MVG set of very thick iron (I guess it is iron) black painted plates. These plates are actually meant for the PMB and PMS racks and though it doesn't fit perfectly it still can be used for the LMB & LMS9 combination as well; which is what I am doing. Doepfer didn't really perfectly designed the LMB and LMS9 (in context with the A-100MVG set and yes I know this set was meant to be used for PMS series but still), on each of the cases one small screw is going to be covered a bit by those plates making it not perfect but it suits its purpose to keep the racks bundled together :-)

For my LMB & LMS9 set, I use those A-100MVG plates at the back side of the cases and at the more towards the front of the sides of those cases I added myself on each side one smaller plate to keep there the cases together as well. It's plywood so it's easy to drill a few small holes in there and tighten those metal plates with a few screws and nuts and then you got a rock-solid set of LMB & LMS9 and then those rubber feet of the LMB are sufficient enough to keep that rack-set into place without worrying that it might tumble unless you put your entire body weight against it, of course then it will :-)

Anything else that comes to my mind...? Not for the moment, I am really happy with this LMB & LMS9 set, so giving me 5 rows of each 168 HP = 840 HP. Plenty of space!

If you don't live in a Hobbit house hence your ceiling is not too low ;-) You can add even one more LMS9 rack on top of that giving you 8 rows * 168 = 1344 HP, even more space ;-)

The "only problem" I have with this LMB & LMS9 set isn't really Doepfer's mistake, it's rather my own caused "problem". That problem is...

That set of LMB & LMS9 is already near fully packed with modules :-( and of course ;-) It's so nice to use this combination of LMB & LMS9 and you might think: "Oh plenty of space", indeed but even then, there comes a time that even those racks are going to be fully packed with modules...

But yes, I can, without any hesitation, recommend the Doepfer monster racks, I really like them, especially those LMB & LMS9 ones since they are more affordable than those expensive (but nice looking) PMB & PMS racks.

Not sure if I covered everything, otherwise just let me know what you would like to know.

Edit: Oh yes, I forgot, another huge benefit of Doepfer cases is... I really don't bother to check the depth of modules because most likely it's going to fit ;-) Well I actually do check it most of the times but what I am trying to say is... if it doesn't fit in a Doepfer case it most likely isn't going to fit in any other case either ;-)

Kind regards, Garfield.

EDITED Feb 27th 2021, 00:51

Thank you so much for your thoughts on these cases. Your setup (LMB & LMS9) is exactly the combination I am considering. They are incredibly economical and available at one of the modular shops I usually order from. I definitely do need to go through my planned rack to break down the power consumption per row. Thanks for the reminder and details about the LMS9 power supplies.
I'll probably invest in these new cases in May, so I'll let you know if I have any more questions in the meantime.
I know what you mean about packing the racks with modules so quickly. After looking through your module reviews, I'll probably buy a few more. ;)
Thanks again for all of your input, and for making the modular community a welcoming place.

Hi Farkas,

You are welcome! :-)

Kind regards and have a good weekend, Garfield.

Hi Farkas, All,

An update on the available review reports from my website:

• Doepfer: A-110-1 VCO, A-124 Wasp Filter, A-140-1 ADSR, A-145-1 LFO and just recently A-180-3 Dual Buffered Multiple
• Erica Synths: Pico Switch
• Hikari Instruments: Quad Switch
• Make Noise: Multiple and recently STO (just uploaded version 1.01)
• Waldorf: DVCA1

More to come in the next few months, if all goes well.

Farkas: did you bought your new (Doepfer) rack already? Hope all is good with your racks and you have enough space for your upcoming modules :-)

Thank you very much for checking out my website and kind regards, Garfield.

Nice writeup on the STO @GarfieldModular, I've been wanting one for awhile and you've got me thinking about it again :) I'm going to give the Hikari doc a read too, so keep em coming!

Hi Troux,

Thank you :-) I can recommend the STO without any hesitation, it's really worth it in my opinion. So go for it :-)

Kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Farkas, All,

An update on the available review reports from my website (see below my signature for the link):

ADDAC: 200b Buffered Multiples
Doepfer: A-110-1 VCO, A-124 Wasp Filter, A-130-1 Linear VCA, A-131-1 Exp. VCA, A-140-1 ADSR, A-145-1 LFO and A-180-3 Dual Buffered Multiple
Erica Synths: Pico Switch
Hikari Instruments: Quad Switch
Make Noise: Multiple and STO
Waldorf: DVCA1
Xaoc Devices: Tallin and Warna II

More to come in the next few months, if all goes well. Kind regards, Garfield.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing Garfield.
I don't suppose you are working on a report for the Doepfer A-103 filter (the 303 clone)? Was just thinking about picking one up.
Have a great weekend.

Hi Farkas,

Thank you. Well... I do have the A-103 so it is a possibility :-) It's just that I am still busy working on my new studio setup, so for the moment I can't test the module. I bought this module recently because there was a special offer however because of the new studio setup I had no time yet to test it at all. I don't mind to make a review report of it however I want to have played with it first before "creating or building" an opinion on it.

So how much time do you have? Could you wait till end of September or October with buying? If yes, then I don't mind to make a review report of the A-103, I am quite curious myself too :-) Thanks, you have a good weekend too! Kind regards, Garfield.

Somehow I knew that you would have the A-103. :) Don't worry about going to the trouble of writing up a report. It's inexpensive enough that I may just pick one up to experiment with.
Good luck with your new setup. I'm sure it will be a lot of fun once you get everything settled.

Hi Farkas,

No worries about the trouble part, writing a review report is no trouble to me, that's what I want anyway. Every month I have to think of one or two more modules of which I shall write a review report. So I will write a review report of the A-103 anyway, you made me curious :-)

Ha, ha, thanks regarding the new setup. Just only today, being almost ready with cabling the new setup, I realised that I totally forgot to connect my Vermona DRM-1 to my mixer... and I don't have cables enough so I need to get some more cables before I can continue :-( I was hoping I was ready with the cabling... anyway, hopefully in August I am ready with my new setup.

Thank you and kind regards, Garfield.

60 pages on a VCA is quite extensive. I think it might be information overload. You're basically writing the instruction manual we wished came with the module.

The work looks to be top-notch but an overkill for most people looking for reviews.

In no means am I denigrating the sheer volume of time and experience put into the docs. But someone who will read 60 pages on one module would seem to be rare.

Hi Ronin1973,

Ha, ha, thank you very much for your honest opinion and feedback on this matter. This gives me valuable feedback, realising that my idea didn't work very well, since I thought when I explain in chapter 1 how to use the review report, readers don't have to read the entire review report...

The idea is, that if you don't have time, that you just check out chapter 2, which is a short summarise of the (entire) review report.

In case you have a bit more time, then you only need to read chapters 2 up till 6, which is less or just at 20 pages (without contents and the bla-bla stuff).

If you yet still have more time you can go through chapter 7 which explains every parameter or characteristic that has been used or indicated for in the review report, but you don't have to read chapter 7. If you read it once, it's valid for all the review reports. The version number of chapter 7 provides you an idea if you might want/need to reread chapter 7 in another year time if the version number is too far of from when you read it for the last time but even that isn't a must to understand the rest of the review report.

By the way, the review reports are not a replacement for a user manual, I refer explicitly in the review report to the manufacturer's manual (if one available).

To summarise: For those who really have less time only read chapter 2. For those who have a bit more time read chapter 2 up till chapter 6, around 20 or less pages.

I hope this explanation helps :-) Thanks a lot for your feedback and if you have suggestions for improvements, add-ons, or what-so-ever, please do let me know. Kind regards, Garfield.

A few suggestions for possible reorganization. You don't have to have everything in one massive document. You can have a short summary, a longer report, and technical appendices in separate documents. You can have a paragraph or two on the Web site to motivate the reader, or maintain all the short summaries of all modules in one document with version numbers and a changelog. You can take all the meta-information (explaining what the purpose is of each section and subsection) out into a "Overview of Report Structure" document so it appears only in one place. You can cross-reference all these with clickable links in the PDF. I don't work with MS Word unless forced to do so, but I'm sure it can handle appendices without giving them chapter numbers. Just a few suggestions. This is obviously a labour of love for you, so do what you think is best for your readers.

In the summary, for the quick read, I'd like to know if the module conforms to the Eurorack power standards, or not, or if the power leads are agnostic to which direction the red stripe goes.

Hi Plragde,

Thanks a lot for your feedback and ideas. Not all of them but quite a few of your ideas, I was playing around with that as well. Not so long ago, I also came to the idea of splitting the document into more parts, something similar you are suggesting. That has in a way certainly some pros... however...

I see some serious cons with that as well. I do for my profession quite some documentation as well and what I observe for large document-setup systems is that it can be come easily and fast quite non-logically, i.e. one might loose easily an overview of the entire structure. What might seems logic to you and me, perhaps because of our work or because the way we think, doesn't mean that it is easy to understand for others, or even if it would be, the danger is still there that people might be no longer interested in it, i.e. dis-encourage them and that's something I would like to avoid.

I do believe that if I would split it into more documents that it becomes for the majority of the readers even more difficult "to look through it" and to understand it. I take the feedback of Ronin1973 to my heart about 60+ pages is an overkill. Yes, he is most probably right, then by splitting this documents in several parts, I do think that makes things worse rather than better. I might be wrong of course and I am open for discussion if you like. Another important point is and must be that the amount of work should be decreasing or staying the same for me, it shouldn't become even more, this what I am doing now is already close to insane ;-)

Things from your feedback that I will take back and chew on it for a while is a change log, I was already playing with that idea but not so sure if I should do that, that would cause even more pages, and your feedback about the non-chapter number of an appendix. I only have Word as a tool and I hate it but since I have no other better tool available and I don't want to spend too much time in getting to know other tools that might be better, I need to somehow learn to live with the dreadful tool called... Word ;-) Anyway, it's the tool I usually use for my work too, so it's "easy" to stay with the same documentation tool. Once I am in a good mood (towards Word) then I will check out that chapter number regarding the appendix :-)

Thank you very much for your open feedback and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Ronin1973,

What exactly do you mean by what you just wrote? That the module is diode-protected against connecting the power cable the wrong way? I had played with the idea of that to add that indeed as one of the many parameters to the review report however not all manufacturers mention that in their manual and/or on their website, so would it be clever to add this parameter? Please do let me know and I will seriously consider this.

Or if you meant something else, please let me know in more details what exactly do you mean? Thank you very much in advance and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Plragde,

I had a look into the appendix/chapter numbering, yes it is possible within Word to do "Appendix numbering" instead of chapter numbering, I manage to get that work. That would be heading 1 (in style format section). Then Heading 2, i.e. for paragraph numbers, I managed to get that to work to, so I was quite happy at that level. Say Appendix A then paragraph would be A.1 however then the further levels, I got stuck at heading 3 level, there seems to be no way within Word (at least I couldn't figure it out, even not with googling it on the Internet) to make that work, Word forces you then to use the format 1.1.1 instead of A.1.1 :-( I need to keep the formatting accurate since chapter 7 (Appendix A) is in a way a copy of the paragraph numbers of the rest of the document, only a 7 has been put in front. So let's say in the report you want to check something about paragraph 3.8 - PCB details, then in chapter 7 that would be 7.3.8 - PCB details where you can find the entire explanation of paragraph 3.8.

But somehow if I switch over to Appendix only numbering, it doesn't work beyond heading level 2 :-(
And it doesn't help to switch on Legal style numbering as suggested by someone on the Internet.

So if you know how to get that work, please do let me know otherwise I am sorry to let you know that chapter 7 will stay as chapter 7 - Appendix A. It reminds me why I hate Word ;-)

Thank you very much for your feedback and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Ronin1973,

Could you please let me know in details what you meant with your previous post? I will then check if and how I can adapt that in future review reports.

Thank you very much in advance and kind regards, Garfield.

As I said above, I use Word only under duress, and certainly not for documents of the length and complexity you are creating. I can well believe that there are limits on how appendices can be structured, under the design criterion that they tend to be simpler and more focussed in nature than the main body of the document. This, to me, is further incentive to split the technical appendices out into a separate document.

Hi Plragde,

Okay fair enough. Regarding the split of the documents, yes I certainly get your point. Actually here local on my computer I have split the things but that's rather to make my life easier when creating the review report or rather the preparation of it. Please do also refer to my above/earlier comments about splitting the document in several parts, it certainly has pros however, pity enough, also cons. That's my concern. Anyway, I will continue to chew on that idea :-)

So which program are you using for the more complicated documents? Thank you very much and kind regards, Garfield.

I'm afraid that my own solutions won't be of much use to you, but I will describe them briefly. For technical papers, the standard in my field is the open-source program TeX/LaTeX. It is not "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) like Word; rather, a LaTeX document is plain text where formatting code is interspersed with content, and the document is then rendered to PDF. There are apps which facilitate this or even render incrementally so you can regain some of the WYSIWYG benefits. It is the standard because it can be used relatively quickly at a high level, if one is banging out a letter, but offers complete control down to a very low level if you want (computer scientists love this) and because its handling of mathematics is unbeatable.

But I also use straight LaTeX only under duress, and prefer these days to work at a higher level, using Scribble, the documentation language for an open-source programming language called Racket (a dialect of Scheme, or LISP). Scribble is built on top of Racket and so has elegant ways to handle much automation. It renders not only to PDF (through LaTeX) but to HTML for webpages. So I use it to build course Web pages, and all associated documents, including course notes and proto-textbooks. If you are curious, and do a Web search on my handle, you will find my university home page with links to my materials.

@GarfieldModular, I had a look at one of your reports (Waldorf) and it is very extensive and well done. It would be nice if that info was available for most modules!

Given your comments above such as "enormous amount of work," "5 modules of 8000," etc. I may respectfully suggest an alternative including:
-- how about a significantly shorter report that uses the key parts of your template and key features of the module, but is much quicker for you to produce and quicker for the reader to read?
-- how about a short-ish companion video that goes over the key features and findings listed in your report, and links to the report?
-- if you do get to a format that is faster for you to complete, how about spending dedicated chunk of time trying to cover the more interesting modules available in one segment (e.g. sequencers, complex oscillators, etc.)? Then your detailed work would basically line up with and support a bunch of the summary findings given in lists like Doudoroff's (https://doudoroff.com/sequencers/). And after you cover one "cluster" of interesting modules, then you could move to a next interesting cluster. If out of ~8000 modules there are 10-20 interesting subgroups and you cover 5-10 most interesting modules in a group, then its possible your sample of modules could become pretty representative, even if a small % of the total.

Personally when I am researching modules, I am thankful if there is a Divkid or Loopop video as those tend to be excellent, whereas a lot of other videos are not so helpful to me. Also the range of manuals in the modular domain I find from great to poor to non-existent. Hence, IMO if you were doing short strong videos + documentation I think that could be very helpful for some viewers / readers.

FYI I find in general I'm willing to normally spend up to 15 minutes of my time looking at a module I might buy, maybe 1-3 hours if it is a particularly deep module, important module for my setup, or unusually expensive. Then for modules I do buy, I'm looking to get up to speed as fast as possible, and again, only do a lot of manual reading or internet search if there's a big particular need for that specific module. So in almost all cases, I'm looking for a review on a module that is good, but also as fast as possible for me to get the info I need. I tend to prefer Divkid videos above all else because they efficiently cover the technical details of the module then really help me understand and hear some of the musical possibilities of the module.

I must say also, I am left wondering "what's in it for you?" with this effort: is it a labor of love, a way to generate (web) traffic, a way to get comp modules, a way to generate $s somehow, some or none of these? I might have additional feedback if I knew more about the broader context / direction / priorities of these efforts for you.

Feel free to use or ignore any of my comments above. I hope at least some of this is helpful to you!

EDITED Aug 5th 2021, 23:48

Hi Plragde,

Thank you very much for your extensive reply and information! I have heard of LaTeX indeed, and the way you describe it for your usage it seems indeed the (much) better choice than Word. In my very old days I had done once or twice programming in LISP but that's so long ago that I don't remember much of it.

I think, if I am honest here, I am more the kind of person that wants or "needs" WYSIWYG program rather than a programming program to create documentation ;-) I used to work with a fantastic WYSIWYG program back in the days that Windows and Mac barely had decent graphic cards, using an Acorn RISC computer (doesn't exist any more), however that's long ago and never came across a WYSIWYG program that was that nice to use, so I am afraid I got stuck with Word... though I just discover that Apple offers Pages, perhaps I try that one and see if that works less frustrating...

I still will keep LaTeX in mind though because if I understand that well it can automate the process of making (parts of the) documentation and that would be perhaps interesting to me, hmmm... I need more time to have this investigated till then I am stuck with Word I am afraid.

Thank you very much for this interesting chat and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Ronin1973,

Meanwhile I have added a parameter called: "Reverse power protection" in the general functionality table in paragraph 5.1. I have reflected that in the summarise overview picture too in chapter 2. This will applicable for all review reports with appendix A version 1.11 and higher.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but that has now been implemented ;-) Thank you very much for your feedback and kind regards, Garfield.

I understand the appeal of WYSIWYG, and in fact I was comfortable with Word 5.0 on a Mac, before they stuffed it full of features without regard to the overall design. It is a bit disappointing that there are no really good modern solutions (TeX was created in the early '80s). I think Markdown and its derivatives are a small step away from WYSIWYG that is acceptable to most people. Using underscores to delimit italics, asterisks to delimit bold, etc. You can go a long way with that, and there are various translators and pre/post-processors. I wish I didn't have to fear everything breaking when an OS upgrade is released, but that is modern life, I guess.

The one module you have reviewed that I own and use is the Xaoc Warna II. The manufacturer's user manual is two pages long. Your report is 68 pages. It simply doesn't merit that much space. The useful information is swamped in boilerplate. I won't say that there are useless parts but I think there are a lot of parts that only a very few people will ever bother with. The trick is to stagger or structure the flow of information so that the reader can bail or dive as they see fit, and get what they came for without too much surplus. Not easy. The fact that you yourself are splitting things up is telling. Please try to see how your readers can benefit from that also.

Hi Nickgreenberg,

Wow, thank you very much for your extensive feedback and post! That's very kind of you :-) It's getting late here. I need more time to process your information and give it some thoughts where and how it can help me.

To some of the general information and questions you provide, I can give already some information:

Well... the entire idea of mine to come up with a text-only (but including figures, diagrams, etc.) review report had a good reason, at least to start with like I do it now. I didn't wanted to be the one-thousandth-and-one Youtube reviewer of module X or Y. There are already so many reviewers doing videos that I don't think it would make much sense that I would be just one more person adding videos to Youtube. I still might do that in the mid/far future however it's not planned for the next few years (I think/guess but you never know).

I mean, look at what you already concluded and which I agree with, there are two or three good reviewers, check their Youtube videos and then you have already a certain impression (good or bad) about a certain module. And I was hoping here is where I come in then ;-) Once you are interested in a certain module that you then would check if I would have written a review report about it to check those details that interest you, you don't have to read the entire review report (if you don't like to spend too much time), just those bits and bytes that might interest you or where you want to know more specific/technical information about. Check at least chapter 2 and then whatever parts of the document depending on what kind of information you are looking for. If you miss certain things please do let me know.

There are at least two reasons why I do... let's say the less fancy modules... One is, there are less reviews of those modules on Youtube as well, the other reason and that one is perhaps "what's in it for me" is that I learn from it as well. Creating review reports is for me a kind of way to force myself to go deeper into one particular module, trying to completely understand it, hence only then I am able to create in Visio a flow diagram for paragraph 5.4 and some other stuff that I otherwise wouldn't know or at least not for sure. I also want to start rather with easy and not too complicated functionality because I have to build up experience and I don't want straight away to start with complicated modules. The chance that I would overlook important facts or even would write something that might not be correct at all is then much higher and that's what I want to avoid. If I write a review report of a module, I want and I have to:
- completely understand that module, even if it's only then when I get started with writing the review report
- it needs to be based as much as possible on facts, not emotional feelings or whatsoever, as "clean" and "neutral" as possible, with the exception of course of chapter 2 where I give my own opinion (and a few other paragraphs, see the review report for such exceptions; I mention that clearly so the reader know if it's just my opinion or something fact-base)
- I need to kind of like the module or at least I want to stand behind it what I am writing in the review report
- I want to have used the module for quite some time before getting to start to write a review report

The last reason, is the reason why I asked Farkas (in the here above posts) if he can wait a bit. Yes, I do have that A-103 filter module but because of my new studio setup I had no time at all yet to start use that module. So, I want to build up some experience first before I start to write a review report about it. Now is this module a bit similar (but not the same of course) to the A-124 module of which I already wrote a review report, so I am quite confident that I can write a review report in a rather short time about A-103 as well; hence the reason why I will write one about A-103.

So if I today decide to start writing a review report about the Sinfonion, one of the most complex modules I know then this review report would be from my point of view most likely not going to be complete nor fully correct because that module is so complex you need some serious experience with it before you can analyse a module like that. Naturally there are a bit less complicated modules as well however even a Vector (Five12), a great sequencer but before I am able to write a review report on that one, I need much more experience too. What I am writing in the review reports, as already mentioned, I want to mean that from my heart and I should be able to completely stand behind that what I am writing.

So what's there in for me? To be honest, for the moment not much; close to nothing actually. The above mentioned second reason that it's a learning curve for me too, is most likely the most that there's in for me.

Thus yes, this is mainly labour of love that I am putting in here :-)

Please allow me to read more carefully the details of your detailed feedback, process that and then I will try to come back to you about that. Please do note that I very much appreciate it, I just need more time to reply :-) Thank you very much and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Plragde,

Thank you very much for your honest opinion. Just while I was reading your reply, some idea of splitting the document came up to my mind. Let me give that idea some more time to grow and I need to chew on that a bit longer, I just might have found a way to reduce the review report, just looking at the number of pages; roughly reducing it by half. The contents will stay for the moment the same, I guess but I might need to work on that too.

Thanks again, I need to catch some sleep, kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Ronin1973,

What exactly do you mean by what you just wrote? That the module is diode-protected against connecting the power cable the wrong way? I had played with the idea of that to add that indeed as one of the many parameters to the review report however not all manufacturers mention that in their manual and/or on their website, so would it be clever to add this parameter? Please do let me know and I will seriously consider this.

Or if you meant something else, please let me know in more details what exactly do you mean? Thank you very much in advance and kind regards, Garfield.
-- GarfieldModular

Sorry for the late reply. Yes. Diode protected. Having this information for multiple modules formatted the same way makes looking up information faster and convenient. I think that's a plus for having this sort of documentation. If I can look up basic electronic values... even volt ranges of jacks, all in the same format, your guides become much more useful (assuming that there are enough entries to cover the most popular of modules, etc.).

Garfield, glad my post above gives some helpful input / food for thought.

Sounds to me like you're doing the reports mainly for your own learning process. Makes sense to me.

Yes, lots to chew on, we can pick it up later.

Cheers, NG

Hi Ronin1973,

Thanks a lot for your reply. As already mentioned in my previous post to you, I added the "Reverse power protection" parameter, you might have missed it :-)

Those voltage ranges for each output and/or input, is actually a good one. The part that disturbs me a bit here is that for this kind of information most manufacturers even don't bother to provide such information neither on their websites nor in their manuals. Yes, I know there are a few manufacturers who provide this information, then again not consequently over all their modules...

That makes it even more difficult for me to provide a consequent stream of "equal information" (as that's what it seems to me you are looking for, and I actually do look for that too) regarding that matter. I added the reverse power protection parameter since I do think that's indeed good to have that information quickly available, you got a good point there and thank you very much for that.

Regarding the voltage ranges for the jacks, yes it's a very valid and good point too however for the moment I do see a practical issue about that (since the manufacturers barely provide this information, i.e. as explained above) that I am not going to include that as part of the parameters in chapter 3 however the little good news for you is, for those modules where this information is provided, I usually add that in the flow diagram in paragraph 5.4. So what you could do for the time being till the manufacturers will provide more regularly this information, is to check out paragraph 5.4, if a module has been provided with this information then you can find it in the flow diagram.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, have a good weekend and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Nickgreenberg,

Sorry about my rushed-off reply from yesterday night, I was about to go to bed but I wanted to give you a first reply. Thanks again for your feedback as well as for your kind remarks, much appreciated :-)

Regarding your first point about shortening the report, indeed that seems to be the good way forward, similar feedback received already and together with Plragde looking into this. I think I follow up here on the advice from Plragde to split the document; I still need to work out that idea a bit more and I might need to update my website for that a bit but I think I will go that road yes. Still the contents of it I will leave for the moment about the same, naturally feedbacks that I receive and those that I consider worthwhile to implement, I will do so accordingly.

Then about the speed... hmm yes, what I did is, I made a very extensive template for my review reports. So the large "text" work has already been done, so that part is mostly copy/paste however for every module I have to check the about 200+ parameters that might be different for each module. Then the functionality (chapter 5) is different for each module or might be different and that needs to be fine tuned to the functionality of the module that I am reviewing. Similar for chapters 4 and 6 and of course the summarise chapter 2.

About your second point, I explained that already yesterday to you. Yes, if I would have more time I could do a video as well. On the other hand, as already explained, I do think there are already enough videos available on Youtube ;-) But perhaps in the far future I might change my mind about this matter. Let's see.

Your third point, has some overlap with the speed matter from your first point; so for that please refer to my reply to your above first point. About more interesting modules, ha, ha, yes I certainly understand your point here, as also already explained yesterday, over time I will build up my experience (I hope at least I will) and then slowly and step by step I will look into the more interesting and complicated modules, however that will take its time.

Yes, that list of Doudoroff's sequencers is great, isn't it? Very good point :-) That's in the future "already covered" in my review reports in paragraph 5.5 - Comparing this module with other modules; currently marked as a placeholder only. Once I have more time, I am going to look into that and come up with a template for that paragraph as well as I need to have enough modules with one and the same functionality to be able to compare them with each other. This is something I definitely want to work on, not sure how soon but that's one of my priorities! Thanks a lot for pointing this out :-)

He, he, 15 minutes to check out a module? :-) Isn't that a bit (too) short? :-) Not that I want you to force into anything else other than what you prefer to do of course. For a simple module like a Doepfer A-140 ADSR or Doepfer A-145 LFO I might indeed also look only an hour or so into it, however for me at least, the other extreme is the Vector (Five12) sequencer over more than a year-and-a-half time span I think I spend certainly a month perhaps even two months (in total and let's say a few hours per day) time to investigate sequencers, checked that Doudoroff's list and checked almost all interesting sequencers. For me choosing a good sequencer was so far the most intensive research and most difficult decision. Luckily the Vector plus expander doesn't let me down, it's a great sequencer by the way.

Don't get me wrong here, point taken from you, this is very valuable information for me to understand the reader better. So lesson learnt for me: I need to focus on keeping the review report as compact as possible, so a quicker check for the reader is easier and better possible. In that sense, thanks a lot for your input :-)

The "what's in it for me" I answered already, to summarise that, this is for me a fantastic hobby and for a fantastic hobby I don't mind to spend tons of time :-)

Thank you very much, I hope with my style of answering I don't frighting you off and I hope you keep coming with your feedback in the future if you notice anything that's worth letting me know. Till then, I wish you a good weekend, enjoy modular and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Farkas,

I have some "sad" news, I am afraid my Doepfer - A-103 module doesn't work :-( There barely comes any sound out of it, if I unnaturally high amplify the output then I hear a bit however when I then turn the frequency knob I don't get much results other than a bit of a cracking sound. Sounds to me that this module doesn't work... So I need more time to investigate this properly.

Since I saw you also mentioned the SEM filter from Doepfer in another post, instead of reviewing the A-103, I will make a review report of the Doepfer - A-106-5 SE SEM filter module. I hope to have that ready by (end of) September. Kind regards, Garfield.

I'm sorry to hear about your A103, Garfield. That has to be a disappointment.
The SEM filter does interest me more than the A103. I can't believe I haven't gotten one yet. I'll look forward to checking out your report.
Have a great week.

Hi Farkas,

The Doepfer A-106-5 SE SEM filter review report is ready for download:

https://garfieldmodular.net/index.php/doepfer/doepfer-a-106-5-se-sem-filter/

In chapter 6 you can find two links to Soundcloud for some demos of this SEM filter.

I hope you will like the A-106-5 as much as I do :-) Kind regards, Garfield.

Hello Plragde, hello All,

Plragde: Thank you very much again for your previous feedback. Regarding splitting the document into several parts, I have given that some thoughts and came up with the idea to keep the contents the same in the review report however I have removed the appendices from the review reports and created a separate document for the appendices for those who want to read the rest :-)

Your idea of adding a change log, I have adapted that as well, appendix C in that separate document that is available here for download:

https://garfieldmodular.net/index.php/other-documents/

All: The new style review reports will be, instead of just under 70 pages previously, nowadays just under 30 pages. Still a lot but at least less than half of what it had been before. For those who still don't like to read so much, just read chapter 2 that should do it.

The first new "style" review report, is the above-mentioned SEM filter report from Doepfer about the A-106-5.

Thank you very much, have a nice day and kind regards, Garfield.

Glad my comments were of some use to you!

Thanks for putting so much effort into this @GarfieldModular. I read the full report for the SEM and listened to the sound examples. I have been interested in this filter since I first discovered eurorack. I'll definitely add this filter to my collection before the end of the year. The Moog Ladder Filter and the SEM are exactly what I consider perfect examples of what a synth should sound like.
Thanks again for all of your work.

Hi Farkas,

No problem and you are welcome :-)

By the way, did you ever had a look at the Erica Synths - Black Dual VCF module? Great filter too! Kind regards, Garfield.

I have looked into the Erica Dual VCF. Sounds great. Finally just ordered a Doepfer SEM. Thanks again!

Hi Farkas,

Oh that's great, I am glad I could be of some help. I hope you will like the SEM filter from Doepfer and I look forward in hearing a demo from you about it :-) Kind regards, Garfield.

Edit: Removed typo.

EDITED Oct 3rd 2021, 22:42

Good Sunday afternoon,

An update on the available review reports from my website (see below my signature for the link):

ACL: Multi II
ADDAC: 200b Buffered Multiples
Doepfer: A-106-5 SEM filter, A-110-1 VCO, A-124 Wasp filter, A-130-1 Linear VCA, A-131-1 Exp. VCA, A-140-1 ADSR, A-145-1 LFO and A-180-3 Dual Buffered Multiple
Erica Synths: Black 8 Mult, Pico Multi v1.2 and Pico Switch
Hikari Instruments: Quad Switch
Intellijel: Audio I/O
Make Noise: Multiple and STO
Waldorf: DVCA1
Xaoc Devices: Tallin and Warna II

Quick guide: Read chapter 2, that's all you need to know if you suffer from TL;DR symptoms ;-) Or read the entire report if you don't. For those who want more detailled information on the parameters and characteristics used in these review reports you can go to my website and at the top right click on "Other documents" then click on the latest Review_report_appendices_version link to download the Appendices, the Glossary and the Change Log that goes with the above mentioned review reports.

That's it for this year. I am going to take a small break from writing review reports for a few months and will continue next year, 2022, with adding hopefully another 10 more review reports. Kind regards, Garfield.