User Posts

Well, if that's the case, have a look at KOMA's Strom+ and Strom Passive instead. The active Strom+ supply gives you 1.5A @ +12V, 1A @ -12V, and 1.5A @ 5V, and then the Passive is simply a connector between the KOMA power jumper from the Strom+ and your busboard. So with that, you still only have one P/S generating heat; the skiff with the Passive doesn't have that issue. And then there's price: 2 x Row Power 40 = $310, this KOMA solution = $191. Cost-wise, much more effective.

Any Eurorack except for early Analogue Systems modules, which have a slightly different power connection setup. These can be made to work with an adapter power cable, but then you face the issue of their earlier modules not lining up with the mounting spacing. More recent Analogue Systems modules now have the proper connection for the Eurorack standard, plus these use oval mounting holes to allow them to line up with both AS-Euro cabs and more typical Eurorack cabs.

One thing I'd consider is that if you don't need the second Row Power 40, don't put it in. As long as your total current draw in the build is between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the rated amperage of a single Row Power 40's rails, you'd probably be better off running the single power supply to both busboards. This also means there'll be less heat buildup in the case...and lots of heat + analog circuits = generally not so good, so if that's avoidable, definitely avoid it.

Plus, the Chronoblobs all have a very unusual (for Eurorack delays) feature: an insert point in the feedback path. Lots of abuse potential...everything from filtering the echo returns to pitch-shift-whirl insanity ala the Butthole Surfers' "Creep In the Cellar", etc. Much fun.

One other device, sort of delay-ish, that might come in handy in there would be a Morphagene. This would allow for not only stereo delay-type actions, but quite a bit of on-the-fly sample looping/manipulation/damage.

EDITED Aug 2nd 2019, 05:27

Thats genius...The Ladik P-520 is exactly what i was thinking of I would need for my approach. Are the Outputs 6.3mm jacks?

3.5mm, but it's a simple matter to use 3.5mm to 1/4" cables between the Ladik and the mixer.

As for a mixer i am looking for one with built in USB Audio Interface. Don't need onboard effects since I would probably
never use them.

Smart move. Most onboard FX are sort of "cripply" when compared to a serious FX processor...either the quality is sub-par, or the controllability of the FX are poor, or both. My suggestion: an Allen & Heath ZED-18, which would give you plenty of inputs for your modular submix alongside a good amount for other incoming sources. This has 10 mono inputs with inserts (VERY useful for doing FX per channel via outboard processors!), four stereo ins, four AUXes, ample I/O for output and monitoring (and inserts on your stereo main out), no FX, and USB send/return. Might seem a bit big at first, but the fact is that you always want to overspec your mixer...you'll be surprised at how quickly you can go through channels when you've got everything hooked up!

That's because you're looking in the wrong place. Try under "Effect" instead. A number of the Spin FV-1-based modules are pitch-shift capable, and there are others in this category that have that capability. Also, some granular devices are capable of doing real-time pitchshifting, so you can't dismiss them outright...have a look in the module descriptions and you'll find a few.

Another possibility would be a Digitech Whammy pedal if you're set on that sound. To incorporate that into your rig, you'll need an effects-loop module that handles the appropriate level step-down/step-up to go from the modular to the pedal and back.

This won't be able to "auto generation" sounds at all...because there's nothing in it that can MAKE sounds!

If you're used to computer-based synthesis/control methods, I'd strongly suggest stopping right here, right now, and getting a copy of VCV Rack so that you can see how modular synthesis really works. This current build is totally unworkable.

Also, when you do get back around to working out a physical system after sorting out what has to go into one, I would strongly suggest keeping track of your module depths. For example, if this is in an Arturia Rackbrute case, the MIDI interface you've specced here will not fit. Your panel sizes also seem poorly thought out; why use a Doepfer A-145-3 in this small a space when an A-145-4 would make much more sense in terms of space occupied vs. function delivered?

Another rule of thumb: start with a MUCH larger cab than you think you need, then populate it and start "working backwards" by paring this down. A Rackbrute 6U is a really small thing, and if you're used to CSound and/or Max, you're going to feel massively restricted because this just isn't enough space to pull off the complexity you're used to OR what you're trying to do with this build.

Lastly, expect to be revising something like this for weeks, if not months. No one gets this right on their first try. It's not simply a case of "slap things in box and patch"...there is definitely a process to this, and there are definitely things that MUST be in a system that simply aren't in here at present. Again, try experimenting with VCV before you blow a wad of cash on something unusable like this.

I wouldn't be caught dead using a Behringer mixer, frankly. As much gear as I have, exactly ZERO percent of it is Uli's. As for the recent Yamaha stuff...eh. One line that I do know can handle these sorts of levels is Allen & Heath's ZED series mixers; these were tested out some years back by a user on Muffwiggler to be able to handle in excess of 10V peak to peak at maximum preamp attenuation. Even so...I still wouldn't do this, as all of that excess voltage has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is almost always in the form of heat. And heat shortens component life.

Another strategy, instead of mixing in the modular, would be to have several channels of level step-down in a small space. Have a look at Ladik's P-520, which offers four level converters from synth to line levels. Two of these would only occupy 8 hp, cost about $60-ish, fit easily (20mm depth) in any cab, and give you eight discrete outputs that are ready for mixer inputs without having to do anything with the input trims that might compromise sound quality or component integrity.

As for the best mixer for this...if you can source a first-gen Mackie 1202 that's in excellent shape, no abuse, that would be my choice. Sound quality is excellent and very colorless, there's no cheap FX added, the input preamps can handle big voltage swings (and this is from experience!), and they're pretty close to smashproof. A lot of the new small mixers are sort of cheaply-made, I think...but this isn't.

Mixing with an external mixer will only work well if you have a mixer that can handle the signal levels that are used within a modular synth...typically for Eurorack, that would be zero to +/- 8-10 volts. In contrast, mixers usually want to see either .775 volts (the "consumer" standard) or 1.2 volts (the "pro" standard). See here: https://www.kfs.oeaw.ac.at/manual/3.8/html/userguide/461.htm Neither of the "normal" level standards are anywhere near the much higher levels in modular synthesizer audio paths.

Since the idea here is to send the signal to the computer via USB anyway, you might find that something along the lines of the Expert Sleepers ES-8 would be better suited to this. Not only does this offer four CV/gate/audio inputs and A/D conversion, you also get eight outputs which can be CVs, gate/triggers, or audio, depending on your needs at the time. With this, and perhaps a stereo performance Eurorack mixer that offers CV control over levels, panning, AUX send/returns, etc, you would not only eliminate the need for an external mixer, you would be able to directly link your computer bidirectionally via USB for control AND audio. And also, eliminate the worry over level/impedance mismatching between an external mixer and the modular.

No such thing as a 2 hp wide power supply module exists at this time. There are some that were out a while back, but you'll notice that the manufacturers discontinued them due to revisions that made these modules larger. There's also a concept module from Endorphin.es, but it's not in production...nor does it have an on/off switch, which is unadvisable.

Another issue with the Moog cases are module depths. These don't have an even depth to them across the entire backplane, so there could be issues with modules not fitting. And with many of the 2hp modules coming in at 42mm depth, that's cutting it close.

Just leave the M32 in its own case, where it has its own power supply (which many Eurorack modules cannot use, btw, as it only provides +12V) and where its housing is already bought and paid for. Not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but housing something that already HAS a housing in a Eurorack case isn't cost-effective nor a good use of space.

Lastly...using teensy-weensy modules all jammed together with very little clearance between them and really tiny controls is pretty difficult unless you have fingers the size of toothpicks. Not fun. You may want to reconsider this "jam cab full of 2hp modules" idea...

Problem is, what you're saying you want to do on this modular you want is way too open-ended a description to work with. There's LOADS of possible modules that fit the criteria for that...as well as loads of other non-modular synths.

Trying to build straight-off is probably not the best place to start from zero, really. My suggestion would be to go and research what makes certain synths suitable for that sort of music. Once you've determined that, then you'll have a much better idea as to where you want to go. Also, look at other existing builds on here by experienced modular users, and see how they approach similar musical issues in their rigs. As you've probably noticed, this is a very complex topic, and one which doesn't have off-the-shelf answers. If you do your research and proceed carefully, you'll eventually wind up with a build that works, but it's worth noting that this could take months of exploration and rerererereREdoing builds on MG to arrive at something functional. But avoiding that level of diligence will almost certainly result in building an unworkable and expensive piece of crap that we'll eventually see on Reverb.

"Broke" and "Eurorack"...two terms that seem to go together an awful lot these days. I always thought Dieter's idea was to make modular synthesis more affordable and accessible...

I'll echo Ronin's point about the patchable synths in there. Removing a patchable from its case...that you've presumably already bought and paid for...isn't very economical. Not only have you paid for the case(s) these should be in, you're paying MORE to house them in a Eurorack cab, and this can often be quite a bit more. Assuming that these are Arturia Rackbrutes, each hp of space in them costs $2.04. So if we took the two patchables in here already and then worked out the cost for their space (130 hp), we arrive at a cost for space of $265.20 to house both, which already have housings and power, in the Rackbrutes. Not a good idea. Eurorack cabs really should be for actual Eurorack modules that don't have the convenience of OEM housings and power supplies.

I'm also not 100% sold on the Rackbrute these days, either. They're a GREAT match to a Minibrute 2 or 2s, true. But in practice, you actually lose 5 hp to each one's power supply, plus you're going to have to deal with depth limitations over the busboard. And they're not that big, so there's a tighter amount of room for expansion. Instead, you might look at something beefier like Erica's "Monster Case", which is 2 x 126 hp, with 2.5A of power on each 12V rail, and a max depth of 140mm. Yes, it's more expensive at $599, but the cost per hp is actually only about 30 cents more, and you get a much bigger cab, better P/S, and the ability to go to 4 x 126 by adding the appropriate end-bolsters and a second cab. That's a far more serious case, and also a more long-termable case as well.

Also, using a different browser just for MG might be a fix. I'm using...ugh...MS Edge on here now, and it's working like a champ, probably because Edge is just too feature-poor to be worried about JavaScript calls.

Continuous signals like modulation, or stepped, as in VCO CVs? If the latter, the device you want is an analog shift register. Basically, it's a set of seriesed sample and holds: the first register locks in a CV value on a timing pulse, then on the second pulse that CV gets passed to the second register and a new CV gets sampled into the first, and so on. And since this uses basic clock timing pulses, whatever time base you want to use to obtain your step times would allow for a lot of flexibility for delaying the pass-on process. This won't work for anything that's a continuous voltage curve, however.

A Hum-X could help if both the modular and the amp have 3-wire AC connections. However, this sounds suspiciously like leakage across the busboard, TBH. First thing I'd do is to check the bus connection to the module on both ends and check for pin problems, debris in the ribbon connectors, that sort of thing. Then carefully reconnect the ribbon to the bus and module, feeling carefully to see if there's any resistance that doesn't feel quite right. If that doesn't work, then try replacing the ribbon cable itself, as there might be a broken wire in there that could be forcing leakage in some way.

Also, this is a good reason for investing in filtered busboards. Issues like this usually get sorted out by the filtering on the DC rails, which can be very useful if a certain module or two have a tendency to leak, as some older designs might. But yeah, this is a bit weirder and definitely more Eurorack-centric in terms of problems than a simple ground loop.

This is sort of...odd. How could you be hearing the LFOs unless they're running at audio frequency rates? If the "LFO sound" is actually more like a constant hum, then the problem probably isn't the LFOs at all and you're dealing with a ground loop. The big clue here is the phrase "older, ungrounded electrical systems"; grounding is ESSENTIAL for electronic instruments, processors, and the like, and if it's absent, the equipment will seek a "ground" by whatever means it finds. In this case, it sounds like it's found your A-143-3...and that's not good for that module if that's really what's going on here, because it's passing leaking AC line voltage back thru the module, the cab's distro and PS, and the like.

The practical way to disengage a ground loop is to add isolation to your modular's outputs...which is something EVERYONE should be doing for exactly these reasons, particularly if you play live and you're plugging into power systems you know nothing about. The Lifeforms Outs you have doesn't appear to have this; I would strongly suggest looking into an output module that has proper balanced TRS mono outs, not TS. Furthermore, if you make sure and find an output that's specifically transformer-isolated, this will not only give you the isolation you need, it also puts some "iron" into your output signal path that you can saturate a bit with a touch of overloading that'll give you a warmer signal provided you don't go overboard with the levels.

I like the idea of the separate "control pod"...I'm assuming this goes next to/near a keyboard controller for any sort of "expression" activity that might come to mind...?

BTW, with that joystick there, you might want to have a peek at Ladik's Joystick Math. 4 hp, does arithmetical voltage operations based on the X-Y movements. Very useful for doing things like opposed modulations, etc.

EDITED Jul 11th 2019, 18:05

I'm with you on the menu diving issue...it's becoming a trend these days, it seems, to tack a little OLED display into a module and then expect users to memorize a catalog of menu locations and access procedures to get relatively basic functions to happen. It's OK if you have one or two of these things, but there's no way in hell I'd want a half-dozen or more of these sorts of modules in a rig. Modular synths tend to be a bit perplexing in of themselves, even for experienced users, and adding a load of "hidden" functions just seems to needlessly add to that issue. Sure, they allow you to shrink things down...but is that always a good thing? Not really.

I still prefer 1 function per control situations, especially live. And I'll re-emphasize that: especially live. Performing with a modular is even dicier than studio work, and everything's happening rapid-fire. There's no "undo" function on live, and if the objective is to get thru a set with a minimum of screwups, you absolutely want that "WYSIWYG" sort of interfacing with your instrument.

This is also why I'm not big on small rigs. Modular synths need panel space galore so that you can capitalize on playing the instrument. Stuff like the 2hp modules and Erica's Pico series are great space-fillers that allow you to add functionality into a tiny bit of leftover space...but I'd rather pull my own head off than try and use a modular made up purely of these, at least on a daily basis. Sure, going with bigger modules means bigger cases and so on...but it also means that when you need that crazy filter sweep at JUST the right time, your hand can go right for that VCF cutoff knob with no trepidation. You know where it is, and you know you can grab it with ease.

Well, you'll also need to replace the Clouds unless you have one on hand, since it was discontinued quite some time ago by Mutable Instruments. Several companies do smaller versions of this; you might look at Michigan Synth Works' Monsoon as a suitable replacement. As for the VCA count, no, six in a build like this...especially for music that has slow, gradual changes such as ambient...seems just fine. But if you insist on keeping this as 2 x 60 hp, you might want to lose all of the 2hp modules and then go with an Intellijel Quad VCA to handle audio, as this also lets you replace the mixer in the top row. And for CV/mod linear VCAs, a Happy Nerding 3x VCA would be a good choice, also allowing summing of CV/mod signals. Which brings this to seven VCAs, but you'll notice I'm not saying that's a problem!

Envelope generator...well, yes, you want that. Actually, more like "need," as that's essential to shaping the VCA and VCF behavior on each trigger from a note. Given the space limitations, you might consider Hikari's new Triple AD, which not only has a summing bus to all three of its AR generators for triggers, but each AR envelope can cycle, potentially adding three more continuous modulation sources to the build.

Last, an Optodist replacement...Antimatter Audio's Crossfold has a number of improvements over the Optodist in that you can literally "crossfold" two incoming waveforms, as well as have CV control over all of the wavefolding parameters. FYI, wavefolding works a bit better here, as you can be more subtle with timbral changes...and in ambient, "subtle" is important.

Total agreement, Ronin...danjas, I'd strongly suggest you consider a patchable synth first. Embarking on a course that leads into modular synths is the sort of thing that will turn into a pointless money pit very rapidly until/unless you understand the basics of synthesizers first.

First of all, THIS IS EXPENSIVE. Period. If you're going to mimic artists who have budgets to work with when you yourself don't, you're going to find all of this intensely frustrating. You're talking about an instrument which not only requires you to have the technical knowledge to configure it, but whose case alone will run you a minimum of $350-ish. And then, within that case, each row will run you between $1500-2500 (assuming 104 hp, which is the "best case" ultra-basic scenario with a Tiptop Mantis). You'll then need a pile of patchcords...so, another $150 or such, unless you're adept with wire strippers and a soldering iron. If you doubt these figures, then have a look at some preconfigured modular system (in the same general form factor as your cab above) prices: Make Noise Shared System = $4495, Pittsburgh Lifeforms Evo = $3799, Erica Techno System = $4399, Doepfer Basic System 2 = $2599, Doepfer Basic System 1 = $2549. And these are all rather basic systems, nothing really esoteric there.

Secondly, do you know your synth programming well enough to anticipate what will be necessary in addition to the "sexy" modules? In short, what will those modules need to make them work in a suitable manner...because they sure as hell won't turn sonic backflips without the other not so seemingly "important and irreplaceable modules". Ronin is spot-on when he says "...you're going to have to be comfortable in a modular environment first before you can make it applicable towards any kind of meaningful production", which brings us back to patchables. Many of us on here got our initial experiences on these, because a well-implemented patchable synth will give you the feel of a modular environment without the cost and with all of the necessary circuits to make it work as a modular synth should. Get some experience in with the basics...and then, later on, incorporate that patchable into a fully-modular setup (because that should be easy).

Third, do you know your modular environment dos, don't and whys? For example, what can happen if you patch two outputs into the same multiple? Why would that happen? How would you avoid that? This is ONE example of a myriad of examples that modular users just know, and it's also part of being "comfortable in a modular environment". Or, why do you need so many VCAs? What do you do with them? Why would you leave dedicated multiple modules out of a small build? Why would you loop an envelope? How can that be made to work like an oscillator? What's with all of these different waveforms? THESE are basics in modular (and pretty much every other) synthesis - along with lots more - that are pretty useful to have a grasp of prior to throwing out a stack o' cash. And this, again, goes back to exploring in a more sensible and less spendy manner with a patchable.

Last, why do you "need" a modular? Have you been doing music for a long enough period of time that you understand the sonic elements that are lacking in your current work, and which can only be dealt with via a modular synth? It's worth noting that techno...at its most basic...is a music that developed around what was cheap and available to musicians in American inner city environments. And as a result, this is why we have some instruments that used to be utter commercial disasters which now cost an arm and a leg (Roland TB-303, I'm lookin' right atcha!) but it's also how we know that other synths that were (and, stupidly, still sometimes are) dismissed as "toys" turned out to have massive potential, such as the Yamaha 4-op FM synths like the DX-9, 21, 27, and 100 or Casio's PDM synths in the CZ line. I have actually caused structural damage to a performance space thanks to a subbass patch I perfected on the CZ-101 (which is sitting 4 feet to my left as I type this) plus 25 kW of subs...and that synth cost me $40 at a pawn shop. Pretty effing cost-effective, if you ask me!

My advice: calm down. You probably don't totally require a modular synth, and while getting one seems like it might be a gateway to being a TEKKNO SUPAHSTAHH...the reality is that it's more likely to be a gateway to massive monetary outlay and considerable frustration. Especially with this idea that you can check out other peoples' gear and replicate it, ergo you will arrive at massive success. Nuh-uh. If that were the case, everyone who ever bought a 12-string Rickenbacker would instantly become yet another George Harrison clone...and we don't see that happening, not back in the 1960s, not now, and not ever. The real solutions here involve developing YOUR sound, YOUR abilities, YOUR knowledge base, and so on; talent, knowledge and creativity don't come in an economy-sized box on a music store shelf. Work on those first...then worry about where to go with those honed skills later!

Yesssss! The additional 1 hp gridding is SUPER useful, too! Thank you, MG Overlords!

Part of the problem is that you mention you want this for "techno production", but not which aspect of that, of which there are many. Is this for percussives? Bass? Leads and pads? All of it? If the latter, you're going to have quite a time of fitting something that versatile in that small a cab. NEVER start with a small cab like this...ALWAYS go with a cab that you think is too large. Invariably, you'll find that your "too large" cab is actually just fine or, if the goal is to create a unitized production device, it's STILL too small.

Second: "important" modules don't make a synthesizer work, if by "important" you actually mean "sexy". This is something I go over quite a bit on here. The ACTUAL things that make a synth a synth are the modules that seem UNimportant...VCAs, mixers, attenuation/inversion, and the like. Sure, it would be awesome if we could fill our cabs with nothing but edgy graphics, a bazillion blinkenlichts und twistenknobs, devices of arcane mystery and all of the rest of that marketing bullshit. But the truth is that you can spendspendspend on those sorts of modules and wind up with something utterly nonfunctional by neglecting the sleepy-looking modules that do all the scutwork.

Third: if the idea is to go from and to Ableton, you've got the wrong interface altogether. See the ES-8 (and expanders) from Expert Sleepers instead. These allow direct control via Ableton's internal CV tools and/or Silent Way or Volta, plus they have four return lines for audio, various timing signals to lock Ableton to the synth's clock, cues from your CV/gate/trig environment that can affect Live's operation, and so on. MIDI interfaces are all well and good, but there's other...and in this case, better...ways to do this.

Lastly, cost-effectiveness and function density are something any modular builder/user has to address. You need to define your necessary functions first (NOT the modules) and then sort out how you can make those happen in terms of modules and module combinations. That last bit is important, because a major aspect of modular synthesis comes from how the modules in your build work with each other, and not merely that you have X, Y, and Z modules. Plus, insisting on X, Y and Z modules before figuring out what they need to "play nicely together" can lead to some nasty cost and space surprises when you start factoring those actually-necessary modules into the mix.

I'd suggest tearing up the above and then going back and doing some basic research. What do the artists you mention use (that you know of)? How are they using those devices? How would you do that? Do you know your music well enough to understand how you would do that? Also, go and study some classic prebuilt synths and see how they generate the sounds they're known for, how their workflows optimize that process, and so forth. Plunging into this without the aid of extensive research will...well, just let us know when you put your money pit on Reverb, because that'll be where it winds up when you get frustrated at this little box that costs several grand but which can't accomplish jack-shit. Seriously.

EDITED Jun 26th 2019, 03:14

OK, I'll throw in for this as well...plus, it's not just the 4ms Pod series that has that look; you also have cases from Make Noise and Intellijel that have that "narrow edge" thing going on.

Also, part of the reason MG is able to be so comprehensive is because of the crowdsourcing of its data. Even though some companies understand MG's importance and create their own module listings, the majority of the info here comes from people who know synths and know when they're seeing something new, ergo they add the new data to the site even faster than a company might. For example, I came across listings on Schneider's Laden's site for the four new "N" series modules from Analogue Systems a few days ago, and added the information as per Schneider's.

Which brings up a salient point: if you're going to add information to MG's database, it needs to be from a reliable source. Manufacturers are certainly that, but so are retailers, as they need to properly represent the gear and its information to their customers. What's NOT on is pulling info from speculative sources such as blogs, forums, etc when the info isn't coming from manufacturers to those sites in the first place. There's a long trail of rumored devices, fakes, speculation and conjecture, etc in the synth world and a comprehensive and authoritative database such as Modulargrid isn't the place for that.

"Odd" sizes used to be pretty uncommon, but these days there's odd-sized panels from numerous companies. In fact, some have whole lines of odd sizes, such as Erica's Pico line (all 3 hp). Konstant Labs even makes an actual 1 hp module, their PWR Checker, which is super-useful for those who want (but don't have) rail status indicator lights.

Elby also does quite a few odd-sized panels in their Eurorack and Euroserge lines; the idea with these is probably that if you're planning to use Elby modules, you're apt to use several, and the "oddness" will get resolved in the build.

One other device in the "slo-mo" modulation realm comes to mind: the 4ms Pingable Envelope Gen. This is capable of rise/fall cycles of a half-hour plus, and has clock-based control over cycle times with either an incoming clock or an internal clock with tap tempo. Adding one of Nonlinearcircuits' low-speed chaotic sources might also be of some use here.

Obviously "inspired by" the Moog Grandmother...although, this is more like your grandmother's creepy neighbor with the overgrown yard, who always smells like mothballs and Kools.

One of the main jokes amongst Mac users when Safari was introduced was that its primary use was to connect to Firefox's site to download a REAL browser. Nice to see that Apple's not bothered to change that... :p

Oh...and you can't mix Intellijel and "original" format tiles in the same 1U row. They're not exactly the same, despite what they might look like.

EDITED Jun 18th 2019, 02:11

The A-135-2 isn't a bad choice, although if you go with Codex Modulex's u4xVCA, you get the ability to change the VCA response from linear (which is all the A-135-2 does) to exponential, which is better for audio. Linear VCAs are much better for CV and modulation level control, where you want something with linear proportions in your level changes for scalability.

Tuner: lose it. It occupies space in the cab with a function that's better left OUTside the cab. Plus, you can do better; this L-1 module costs $95, and while it's a Eurorack module, what it really is is a remounted guitar tuner...which you can easily see from the description: "Momentary press select tunning item: Chromatic, Guitar, Bass, Violin, Ukulele. Default position is Chromatic." This isn't the right tool for electronic music instruments. Instead, spend $45 more and get this: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/StroboPlusHD--peterson-sp-1-stroboplus-hd-chromatic-handheld-strobe-tuner Strobetuners have the ability to more clearly indicate tuning for microtones, they inherently function as chromatic tuners and in other temperaments (this Peterson model has 90 different tuning tables onboard). And it'll deal with a Concert A that can range from 390 - 490 Hz, as opposed to the 430 - 450 range of the L-1. I've used Strobetuners since back in my old middle school band days in the mid-1970s...they're definitely the right tool for the job here.

Now, let's actually consider how generative process composition works...

In order for this method to work well, you need to look at nested control sources. Basically, if you have some LFOs controlling pitches, then perhaps another LFO that slowly alters their rates would add to the complexity and self-regulatory aspect. And if you have that other LFO, why not add a couple of comparators to read its voltage curve levels, then the gates from those being tripped on or off can then allow other functions to be regulated...perhaps you can fire envelopes with them, or switch mixer mutes on or off, etc. We call these layers "orders of control"...the above example would actually have two orders of control, with the first being the basic LFO, then the second being both the other LFOs and comparators which then directly affect the sound production aspect of a patch.

When you start getting into third and fourth orders, especially when some of the control signals are recursive and can feed back into the lower layers, this is when you start developing a self-regulating patch. But mind you, that's A patch...not the whole thing, but just one voice. You'll want several. And some of these patches can affect others, or operate independently. When you get into this zone, then you're creating generative music. There would be no mathematical method for causing all of the layers to coincide at their respective start-points again, no matter how long the system runs. But at the same time, all of these processes are sufficiently constrained at the sound production layer so that any outcome has a specific desired sound, pitch center, mode, timbral gamut, etc.

What both Ronin and wiggler55550 appear to be getting at above is that this seems like it's a bit underequipped for serious, hardcore generative work. Trying to cram all of these self-regulated structures into a 6U RackBrute is not merely a challenge...it may in fact be nearly impossible to achieve the control density in that small a build to create these necessary orders of control. I won't say 100% impossible because there's always a way to do SOMETHING in Eurorack...but the panel density you'd have to approach would then make the whole thing a bitch-and-a-half to patch and control. You might be able to manage 1-2 of these control structures between the cab and the MB 2s, but then you'd probably have to deal with deficiencies in your sound production layer.

Ultimately, to do really effective self-regulating work like this, you need space. 2 x 88 hp just doesn't seem like enough.

More VCAs. You have plenty of modulation sources, but you only have VCAs that seem to be for your audio. Being able to put your LFOs, looping EGs, and so forth under VCA level control will add a lot of nuance to your modulation use. But go smaller, something along the lines of Happy Nerding's 3xVCA or Intellijel's uVCA II (half of a Quad VCA, basically) would work wonders in limited space...both are just 6 hp.

DO add the Zadar's expander module, the Nin. Given that the Zadar is intended for modulation uses, the Nin adds some basic functions that make it work nicer for that sort of thing.

So...that leaves 5 hp. Given that you've got loads of stompboxes at hand, perhaps a send/return module would be useful in that space. And with 5 hp, Bastl's Hendrikson seems like the right choice. It also gives you CV over your wet/dry mix level, can function as a feedback controller, has clip indicators for your I/O signals, and your external loop I/O points are proper 1/4" jacks for directly connecting typical guitar cables...no messing with fiddly 3.5mm adaptors here!

Output modules are yet another set of collective victims of "Sexy Module Syndrome". Frankly, they're just not sexy, as a rule. But they're pretty essential, IMHO. It's convenient to have your level step-down inside your cab, for one thing. And if the module has ganged attenuation for stereo level control...well, bonus! But the critical thing with these is to find ones that have isolation and/or balancing transformers. For one thing, these help you avoid ground loop hum and "dirty" power noise. But also, transformer isolation is a sure-fire avoidance for passing DC through your audio output...because transformers don't pass DC, period. And as an extra benefit, you can overdrive and saturate output transformers to add a little warm crunchiness to your sound.

Like anything else that doesn't fit into Sexy Module Syndrome...they're not sexy, but that doesn't mean they're useless!

Put a few VCAs back in. Right now, you have sort of 4 1/2-ish, and while these deal with the audio aspects nicely, you have no VCAs for dealing with modulation and/or CVs.

Lose the '07 Mult. If the O&C's quantizing is driving the VCOs across all four channels, you don't have enough modules on each channel to require the buffering.

The flow on this build is sort of odd, actually...there's things up near the VCOs that would probably work better by the mixer, and vice-versa. For example, the Mir...it seems like it would be optimal for controlling and summing levels from your four VCOs, but it's not located in a row that's convenient to the VCOs themselves. Whenever possible, try and keep your patchcord lengths short as longer ones can pick up electronic crud more easily.

As for filters...you might look at G-Storm's stuff, most notably his ARP 2600 4012 VCF clone. G-Storm's VCFs also usually have the convenience of dual input mixing...very convenient!

Ears is mainly a contact mic module. Its main point is its built-in contact mic for creating bonks, scrapes, etc. As an external input module, it's missing lower impedence settings (1 Mohm only), and requires jumper changes to change its preset attack/release times and input sensitivity level. Contrast that with something such as Doepfer's venerable A-119: variable levels and thresholds on the front panel with no presets, and two different inputs for either line-level signals or low-level instruments or microphones on appropriate jacks. As someone who prefers my contact mics on the other end of a cable, this seems to be the convenient option.

As for ES-3 vs ES-8...yes, you want USB and you definitely want the four return channels. USB is much easier to deal with in many settings, whereas a lightpipe-only interface like the ES-3 largely anchors your modular to a fixed position that has an ADAT lightpipe I/O somewhere. And those four returns aren't just for recording your system's output; they can also serve functions such as allowing the modular to work as your session clock, sending triggering signals from the modular back into the DAW to allow the synth to determine actions in software, sending modulation from the modular back into the software for use there, etc.

Last, cables. Get them. Get LOTS of them. If you think you have enough cables, you probably don't have enough cables. And use inline mults; 126 hp x 2 is still small enough that I'd recommend not using passive mult modules in the case in order to squeeze a little more function in. And buffered mults really serve their purpose when you've got to spread a CV/gate/trig out across 5, 6 etc modules; just splitting a CV between 2-3 VCOs, for example...that doesn't need a buffered mult with the vast majority of VCO modules these days.

Good points, Ronin...let me add that having a gate sequencer (determinate, random, etc) plus some things to tamper with timing opens up a whole new set of possibilities when paired with logic-type modules such as Boolean logic, comparators, discriminators and so forth. Like the above examples of pairing different sequencers, this is a gateway into a different sort of sequential control...this time, with the capability of complex rhythmic and timing results spiking up. So, yeah...the point about what you pair the sequencer(s) with is very important.

The AS Generator isn't something I'd choose. Sure, it LOOKS great and I do think it's an improvement over the Oberkorn. But it comes in its own cab (and you should NEVER put something that already has power into a case that's intended for things that DON'T), and I just think it's less business, more show. Rather, go smaller and cheaper...and you find more capable things such as Pittsburgh's Sequencer Designer 128, Make Noise's Rene mkii (which tandems with their Tempi), The Harvestman's Stillson Hammer mkii, Squarp's Hermod, Zetaohm's FLXS1, or the 1010 Music Toolbox. The Generator has that "sexy module syndrome" issue...great looks, lots of lights and colors, but there's boring-looking stuff that can kick the crap out of it in less space and for less money.

Go with the Batumi + Poti expander. Frankly, ANY signal with a vertical leading edge will function as a clock signal, and it doesn't really matter what happens after that leading edge. Where longer pulses matter is if you're trying to trigger sustains on envelopes, or if you're trying to create patterns with logic, which require proper pulses for combinatorial/exclusionary purposes. The only example above where I think that having a clock gen is critical would be in going with the Rene mkii, since it and Make Noise's Tempi are designed to work in tandem with some backplane connectivity. And in several others of these, they HAVE clocks already. Always try to add as much functionality as you can in single modules in a small build like this; if you can make the same 20 hp do 8 different things, why would you fill up that same space with something that can only do 2-3?

I would add a second (or even a third) VCO (something more "normal") to put against the Wavetable VCO to fatten up the sound somewhat. And then after these, use a mixer. Also, consider a proper stereo mixer and an output stage.

Don't build with just this one voice in mind, also. Work out a full-on final build first with the intention that you could land at that build's end-point and be happy, then if you have to make any adjustments, make those to conform with the ideal final build. Otherwise, you're just tossing modules into a box at this point, and that's not a good way to go at this. It's not "futureproof", so to speak.

Passing DC to your amp and speakers: this video should explain very quickly why you don't want that to happen. Ever.

My suggestion to all of this is to actually use a...yep...Eurorack stereo mixer with proper VCAs, CV control over panning, AUX send/returns, and so forth. Yes, they cost money and yes, they take up space. But they're the right choice inasmuch as, in this build, they're the right tool for the job. If the idea here is to control the shifting from sound to sound in an even manner via modulation, sure, you could kludge together a bunch of VCAs and attenuators and so forth. Or just do this, plus an isolating output module to both attenuate the synth-level stereo feed and to provide isolation to keep from passing DC, prevent ground loop and noise issues, etc.

Let's look at this...right now, you have a Rosie as a "mixer" (it technically isn't...it's a crossfader with a cue line and headphone amp) and you're considering using the Quad VCA and two A-183-1s as VCA + attenuation (which, I note, does ZERO for DC issues and noise/ground loops between your mixer and the modular). This, totalled in hp, is 30 hp altogether. And in monetary terms, all of those are $408.

Without chucking the Quad VCA (you need that!), let's see what we can do. My suggestion would be to look at the Qu-bit Mixology, which is one of the cheaper and smaller full-CV stereo output mixers at 28 hp and $399. This gives you full CV over levels, AUX sends, and panning over four channels, plus stereo AUX return, metering, mute and solo switches. Adding a suitable and well-featured stereo output for this leads to Bastl's Ciao!, which offers balanced TRS 1/4" outputs, two stereo input pairs (the second can be used for a second signal chain, or for paralleling another stereo effect), headphone amp, clip indicators, and so on in 5 hp at $122(ish). So, $113 higher in price but MUCH more extensive in terms of features. And only 3 hp bigger in terms of "footprint". Frankly, the price and size difference vs. benefit...for me, at least...would point me more in the direction of the Mixology/Ciao! pair. It does everything necessary for not much more in about the same space.

In reverse order...

Rings is the resonator section from Elements. So, yes...and more besides.

Using an ES interface as a VCA in conjunction with a DAW is...well, sort of a waste. For example, let's say you plan to do this anyway. So, what has to happen is that your signal has to go to the ES's input, go through the conversion routine, get transmitted back to the DAW, processed in some way by the DAW to control the level, go back out to the interface and get REconverted back to analog, then back into the patch. Which brings in all sorts of ugly factors such as latency, digital jitter, etc etc. Plus, you're using some expensive jacks there to do what a basic, inexpensive VCA module does. And even if you wind up controlling that VCA via Silent Way, you're still using only one output channel for that function, and there's no encode/decode/latency/jitter issues. That's really how the ES interfaces should work; the input channels really work best in a send-only method, for either audio to stripe to the DAW, or to send clocking, etc data.

In theory, you can send audio to the modular via an ES interface (basically, it's a DC-coupled audio interface) from your DAW. But if I remember right, you'll have to have Ableton address the interface as if it were an audio output, and Silent Way wouldn't enter into this part of communication. However, given the nature of analog modular synthesis, you might be better off using a proper audio input module that also has an envelope follower, as that last device there can be very useful in shaping other CVable factors (especially timbre and dynamics) by using the audio level of the input signal. Setting that sort of thing up in the computer might actually wind up being a lot more fussy and unintuitive than the few patches and knobtwiddles that the modular solution would allow.

Speaking of Sweetwater, I note they're offering the Behringer 104 hp Moog-a-like cabs now. No power, but the price is dirt cheap. After all, it's Behringer.

And yes, Ronin...their vapor-to-product ratio sucks, and I'll second that opinion about their hype methods. While they might have a Eurorack cab now, those sorts of skiffs are easy to make: extrude metal, cut to length, add ends and sliders. No brainer. Sooooo...where are all those $100 modules? Little more difficult to make those, ainnit, Uli?

It seems that all Uli needs to do to press that "play" button on the hype-o-phone is to post up some CGI mockups and then hop on Gearslutz to make everyone there go batshit crazy. "Ooooo...ULI BEHRINGER is listening to us!!!" Don't you be fooled...Uli's doing what he wants, and he knows that TROLLING (essentially, that's what I see this as) his user community results in a frenzy that's better than (and cheaper than!) a million-dollar ad campaign. Frankly, I think he needs to STFU and deliver on all of this much-hyped vaporware like the Pro-One clone, the 100M clones, his supposedly-coming-eventually polysynth clones, the 808 and 909 clones, etc.

Gear talks, bullshit walks. Uli needs to put up AND shut up.

Rings is technically a filter (yes, a physically-modelled resonator...but that's a very fancy DSP-ish filter, ultimately) and even if doing self-resonating things, you'll get a limited palette of Rings-generated sounds. I think you're thinking more of the Mutable Elements here...which is the Rings plus a modelled vibration source. Even so, without VCAs, modulation sources, etc, the results would be sort of meh. With the ES modules, you can have Silent Way generate modulation, which helps...but without similar audio signal control, you lose a lot.

Actually, only the 40X and 48X are 51mm deep. The 60 is the usual 34mm.

The nice thing about the depth figures on the 4ms Pods, though, is that when they say 34mm, they mean it. The power components are all hiding up under that rail area at the top, so there's no busboard, power supply, etc surprises that turn your 60mm deep cab into a 40mm deep cab. The only "extra" impediment would then be ribbons and making sure there's clearance for those.

OK...first of all, do you need this to have a quantizer for the incoming CV? Some harmony modules have this, others don't. If this is only ever going to see CV from MIDI or a keyboard or any other controller that outputs properly-quantized scalar CV, then you might not want this to have quantizing at the input. BUT...

...consider this: what if you want to use it without that controller's output? What if you want to take some voltage curves and then quantize these for chordal use? This could be quite useful. So unless you're absolutely, 100% sure that you won't ever use an input quantizer with this module, you might want that capability.

Second, you want memory. Something like this works much better if you have a way to store progressions and/or parameters for harmonic extrapolation. If I were you, I'd only be looking at modules of this type if they provide a storage method.

Third, you really should have a plan for using whatever you put into a modular system, particularly if the device in question costs a chunk and occupies a lot of panel space. Sure, these look like they solve a lot of issues. But then again, so would a laptop, the right software + an Expert Sleepers interface with an expander or two. Furthermore, you can use that ES interface for a zillion things, wheras a harmony module is great as...well, a harmony module. Can it record what you do on the modular? No, but the right ES interface can. Can it host a USB controller? Probably not, but the right ES interface can. Can it...well, you get the idea. Building a successful modular synth requires plans. Figure out what you want to achieve sonically FIRST...then start figuring out optimal ways of accomplishing this. Unless you have loads of space planned for your build, chucking in a one-trick module such as a chord generator may well be the exact wrong way to do what you're trying to accomplish here. Step back a bit until the G.A.S. rush dies off, THEN start trying to figure out how a system like this would fit into what you do. Do you even have a clear picture of what you want to accomplish musically? If not, then you might wind up building a very expensive thing that sucks in $$$ and only outputs annoyance.

I would think so...however, I'd also be concerned that there was a potential mismatch if the idea is to plug the modular right into the amp. While the A-138d is designed to be used with stompbox send/returns, plugging it directly into an instrument-level input might cause both some overloading and impedence mismatching. For that reason, you might want to look at a load-matching device such as Radial's Tonebone Dragster to correct any issues in that connection.

And admittedly, I'm not 100% sold on using the A-138d for that purpose anyway. It's not bad as a send/return, but I think there's better and, more importantly, smaller candidates for that out there (Malekko, Bastl, etc). As far as outputs go, though, get something that has some isolation on it (ground loop hum issues between synth and amp are a very real possibility!). But looking a little further, I do see something of a problem with using the Ears module as an input. For one thing, it has no direct input jack for a 1/4" plug. It's also intended as something of a contact mic module...not exactly what's called for here. My suggestion would be to look at Sputnik's EF/Preamp instead; this offers impedence matching for instruments, has a full-on envelope follower, decade-switched input preamp level control, and the proper sort of jack to hook in directly to the modular.

One thing worth noting: Pittsburgh Modular had a stompbox Eurorack cab until a few years ago. Here's the page: https://pittsburghmodular.com/patch-box/ It's discontinued, but if you look around in the usual used gear locations, you might turn one up. While it doesn't hold a lot of modules, it would make for an excellent foot controller for a bigger system.

Not sure why you'd use several ONEs when something like this would make a lot more sense and only cost slightly more: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/1010-music-bitbox-2-0
Granted, it occupies a bigger footprint, but you have far more simultaneous sample voices, plus a lot of capabilities that simply can't be crammed into a 4 hp module. Also, this allows full sample editing and manipulation to be done in the build and on the fly, along with SD card capabilities, interactivity with Ableton Live, etc.

Perhaps a controlled random source would work. Something that operates along the lines of the Buchla "Source of Uncertainty", such as Doepfer's A-149 modules, Mutable's Marbles, or the Frap Sapel. By using something like this, it's possible to constrain and direct the random variance into a specific "zone" of random activity. Within that zone, you'd still have varying degrees of randomness, but with the additional control functions, you get a more workable stochastic result.

There's a lot there you could switch out...or, for that matter, eliminate altogether. And that's what's crippling this right now. For example, how many sequential devices do you need when you actually have very little in the way of logic and other clocking modifiers?

Stop and look at this build carefully, asking yourself constantly "Will I need this in 18 months?" This seems awfully specialized...and if your musical direction changes, will this build still serve your needs, or just turn into a 12u money pit?

In another post I did today, I mentioned what I call the "sexy module syndrome". This build here is that in action. Lots of wild panel art (which will be loads of fun in a dimly-lit venue! as in, no fun AT ALL), very specialized modules, and not a whole lot in evidence that is "boring". And the "boring" stuff, in the end, is what makes these function. There's not too much in the way of general-purpose stuff, either...things that you can say "yes!" about when you ask that question in the last paragraph. Yes, eight Doepfer A-110-2s all in a row would look really bland. And they seem boring in of themselves...until you start adding other basics, and then you get to really unleash those VCOs with, yep, just as much capability as several complex oscillators (depending on what else you have on hand) but more importantly, less cost than several complex oscillators.

And about all of that jazzy panel art...

Here's an experiment: turn your display brightness down to about 10-15% of normal while looking at your build above. Can you still make perfect sense of what you're looking at? No, you can't cheat by getting your eyes a couple of inches from the patchpanel on the screen, because if you do that live, it'll look really derpy. Treat this as what it is: a simulation of light levels you may have to deal with in live performance. Does this build make sense in dim light? My bet is that it won't. And yes, I know a lot of module designers pride themselves on their "edgy" designs...but then, go have a look at Grayscale's listing, where there are LOADS of plain-layout redesigns of all of that "edgy" stuff because, basically, those "edgy" graphics ARE ANNOYING. And also, turn down the lights and "let's see what happens" comes into play; are you up for memorizing every single knob function, switch function, patchpoint function, etc when the patchpanel looks like total gibberish? That's where this leads.

Yeah, I know you have a lot of this gear on-hand already. But seriously...back up for a moment and look at some prebuilds, classic synths, etc. They work because they play into what the performer needs before they know they need it. Try removing some of those "can't part with" modules, decomplicating the build. Try coming up with an arrangement of modules that reflects the signal flow you require before you plug in that first patchcord. And how much did that Piston Honda cost? The one you can't use because of the "everything else" that you're supposedly so locked in over? Hate to tell you, but you're up to your navel in that proverbial money pit already, friend. Time to figure out some strategies to get out of it!

EDITED Jun 5th 2019, 03:41

Step 1: Take that Model D out of the cab. It has its own skiff with power...and Eurorack cabs, when you start looking at the cost per space they have, are things that should be filled with things that require being in there. As an example, let's look at this just in the math...

A Make Noise CV Bus case costs $660 at Perfect Circuit. Now, this has 208 3u spaces (I'm not counting the 1u row here, as Tony's already filled that for everyone). 660/208 = 3.17(ish). The Model D is 70 hp (if you don't add on any of several Model D expanders that're out there specifically for allowing access to the rest of the patchpoints once you case it). This means that if you put this synth (that comes with a free powered case) in your Eurorack cab, it will take a roughly $210 chunk out of that case, thereby making your Model D cost $509. Mmmmmm...nope. Bad idea all around.

Step 2: You should be able to add the middle 1u tier by editing this rack...and you want to, so that you can get a very clear idea of how signal flows in the build are going to work. Otherwise, you're missing out on one of the more useful aspects of MG.

Next...now, there's A LOT missing here. There's no VCAs outside of the HexMix, for starters; you'll need more of them, particularly for manipulating CV/mod levels instead of just audio. There's no output module to bring your levels down to line level after the HexMix. I don't see any modulation sources aside of one lonely LFO and the Peaks clone. There's no filtering in here, either. All of these are pretty crippling omissions.

Another problematic thing is the two rather sizeable drum modules taking up a 26 hp chunk of your upper row while only giving you the useful output of a kick and a hat. That's not a good use of space, especially given that there are loads of similar modules out there that take up far less room. But as someone who's been doing live electroacoustic performance work since the beginning of the 1980s, I frankly wouldn't put ANY drum machine stuff in the...well, the thing that's not a drum machine. If you want electronic percussion, then use a drum machine; the argument for doing so is rather similar to the point behind taking the Model D out of the case. If the two modules cost $478 (which they do in the USA) together, and an Arturia DrumBrute costs $449 (which then gives you many more percussion voices, onboard syncable sequencing, a dedicated VCF, etc etc)...well, the choice is pretty straightforward, I think.

Remember: you're building this in a case with two rows of 104 hp each. Given that you have very limited space, your first consideration in creating a build here on MG is to consider what does not belong in the case. Then after that, consider what must be in the case in order to have a workable instrument. My advice would be to trash this build, for starters, but not before making note of a few specific things that do work, such as having the Rene, Plaits clone, HexMix and the Clouds clone in the next iteration. Then after studying those four modules and what they work best with (and fyi, that's the original Rene...the mk.II version has the ability to integrate with the Make Noise Tempi, with the result being a far more capable sequencing environment, this being one example of what I'm getting at here), start branching out from there BUT not before doing some studies of other classic modular systems. See what the various engineers figured out some 40-50 years ago in terms of necessary capabilities, signal flow and module layout, and so on. And also keep in mind that you should not be trying to build this successfully in one shot. A good build that works for years on end is one that's actually honed-down and refined over many iterations; otherwise, you risk building a very expensive and incapable money pit instead of a musical instrument. Constantly question everything as you do this...is this the right module choice?, does this layout make things flow better?, can I fit the same function into a tighter space?...these should be firmly in your mind while working this out. And how do I connect what I plan to use outside of the cab with what's INside the cab? There's a Keystep there...now, are there things on MG that play nicely with that controller (hint: there are) and what it can output?

No, it's not easy. And part of that is because this isn't cheap. Another problem comes from what I call the "sexy module syndrome"...the idea that, hey, THAT looks cool! I want it!...that always results in people leaving necessary yet UNsexy modules out of the build (like here!). Try seeing how boring you can make the build look. Perhaps make a mockup with all one brand of modules, then start whittling away at this, making substitutions, etc. And always avoid putting anything in the cab that can be done outside of the cab...multiples, for example. Buffered mults (when needed! as in, if you have more than five VCOs or thereabouts to run off of the same CV source) belong in the case. Passive mults, however, only belong in the case when you have room to spread out, which means you'd be dealing with a rather sizable build, not one this small. This is why multiple widgets exist, and stackcables, also. Consider: put a 2 hp passive mult at each end of each 3u row in this. Now, try and do this when the system's been filled up already with "function", meaning you now have to remove a total of 8 hp of that functionality. Not a good compromise of space.

Anyway, these are the sorts of things you've got to have in mind to eventually get to a workable result. Modular synthesis is 100% NOT a "throw stuff in box, connect wires, twist knobs, win!" sort of situation. Remember: you're considering spending several thousand dollars on this. You're going to want to do it right.

First of all, a second VCO would probably be useful. One alone can sound a bit thin, but put two together and detune one slightly, and the sound gets real huge, real fast.

Consider replacing things that are large with the same things, but smaller. Such as: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/g-storm-electro-jp6-vcf or https://www.modulargrid.net/e/codex-modulex-%C2%B5motion . Keep in mind that in a restricted space such as this, you need to cram function in as best as you can, and the more functionality your build can have, the better. For instance, by doing those two replacements above, you then have room for the QCD's expander module, which really ups your clock modulation capabilities.

And speaking of clocking, given that you're dealing with two prebuilts that contain sequencing capabilities, you might want to look at modules that let you screw around with that aspect to a greater degree. In this case, I'm talking about Boolean logic, devices such as comparators and derivators, and gate/trigger delays. One example of this sort of function would be to use a comparator to fire off a gate when the Wogglebug's output crosses a certain voltage threshold, then feed that + a clock into an AND gate. That gate will then output a gate only when the comparator's and the clock's gates are both on; this is the sort of thing that can allow you to create a load of complex cross-rhythms between all of the parts of your patch setup...and potentially beyond, if you have other synths that can use those gate pulses.

One other thing that's lacking here is extra envelopes. Sure, the Maths can do those, but that's sort of like buying a Maserati then only using it to drive to the grocery store. Consider some sort of complex AR module, like Doepfer's A-143-1 or Sputnik's Quad Function & Trigger Source; with those, you can use the module as a bank of EGs, a complex function generator, or (in the case of the Doepfer) both at once. And this also dovetails with the clocking strategy above.

Try direct: https://www.facebook.com/purrtronicsmodular/

This:
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/purrtronics-purrvrrb
It's the spring reverb that has no spring. The Purrvrrb is a digital emulation of a mono-in, stereo-out spring, but without the actual spring itself it's not subject to the issues that can happen (ie: feedback, noises from movement or impact, etc) to a true spring reverb. At $130, the price is great, plus the architecture of the module allows you to also use it to "stereoize" a mono signal. Also, this has a regeneration control, which allows the module to feed back on itself...which can be quite interesting depending on what you're feeding into it as well.