In this video I’m working on a new minimal-music piece in 10/4. Tom, a good friend of mine and a classical composer, has been teaching me about minimal music and this piece is a result of that. The core of the piece is a quartet of STOs that I can really play by shaping envelopes, opening and closing filters, and working with reverb, delay, and low-pass gates to keep everything organic. Plaits runs through Multigrain and Sealegs to create a warm layer underneath. I’ll perform this piece live with Estroe this Friday as we open for Andrea Cichecki. If you’re in the Netherlands, come join us at Lab-1 in Eindhoven.
It would maybe be possible to examine this further, but it's not going to change the fact that your module is behaving strangley. It would indeed be interesting to hear from someone with the same module.
-- e_v_k
I'm guessing its not a very common or popular module ? No one with one has chipped in at all. I have sent a video to Erica Synths but not heard anything back on it so far.
It would maybe be possible to examine this further, but it's not going to change the fact that your module is behaving strangley. It would indeed be interesting to hear from someone with the same module.
Hi there!
Theres no "accusations" or concerns about me right now, but due to private and health reasons I was totally out of contact last days, which could consern some people that Ive had deals with!
Ive already contacted most of you and send trackings (those messages limits dont help)
but just wanted to post there, if someone will be impatient or worried (totally got it!)
On tiny voltages. precision, and irrational (non-terminating) decimal numbers
Zero volts is easy, but what does it give you for an E?
0.416666687 volts? 0.40? 0.4166666666666667?
If you feed the vco a known 0v input, or no input at all, and turn on it's quantize function,
does the oscillator jump from C to C# ? It should according to what you wrote.
If it does, maybe it is broken, or just wrong, or is off calibration.
not one of them produces the results the internal quantizer does
It's not data. There is no 'C' to be recognized on input.
It doesn't know, and all quantizers can do it differently.
Precision is a compromise that computers and we humans apply when choosing how many digits to represent.
The difference between semitones in 1v/oct is ~0.08333333 volts.
(with more ‘precision’ it’s closer to 0.08333333333333332871)
This is a non-terminating repeating decimal. It has an infinite number of digits,
so you could say it has infinite precision in its exact mathematical form, and internally in our voltages,
but that’s not how we talk about those numbers.
If we’re set up to play a C1 if fed 1.000000000 volts, when does the quantizer jump to C#1?
At 1.00100 volts? Or at the more correct 1.08200 volts?
Will it jump to B if it’s fed 0.999 volts?
It could, and in a very few case, that would be correct.
A quantizer rule that says:
‘only an exact 1.0000000v is a C1, anything below is a B0, anything above 1.0000000v is a C#1’
isn’t going to give you that C1 very often, if ever.
What are possible internal quantizer rules to play a C1?
Here's a jump-when-halfway-to-pitch quantizing design:
A 1v/oct quarter step would be ((1.0/12.0) / 2) = ~0.0417
So, if it is fed a voltage between 0.583v and 1.0417v it outputs 1.000 volt (our C1).
Below 0.583v, it’s a B0, so we round down and output (1.000 - 0.0833) = ~0.917 (our B0).
Above 1.0417, we round up to ~1.083333v (our C#1).
We spread this rule across a 10v range and we’ve got a workable chromatic scale quantizer.
But the start and end points of those threshold windows are arbitrary and implementation specific.
Maybe it’s a hard-coded table. Maybe it has to accommodate a slow or meh resolution A/D converter.
(Remember we’re dealing in differences of less than 1/12 of a volt). They all can (and will) do it differently.
If your feed device’s idea of start-end windows are different than your quantizer's, and they probably are,
you’ll get those semitone jump errors that you’re hearing.
Like I said, quantizing already quantized notes leads to a dark portal of mysteries and small voltage offsets.
noodle_hut,
Please stop now. I know how a quantizer works. I know you are trying to be helpful but you keep dismissing what I say and just plough on with the same repeated info. Just stop before you respond and think for one second about what I am telling you.
I feed into the GVCO 0.000V and it produces a C. Its internal tuner tells me its a C and my Peterson Strobe tells me its a C.
I turn on the internal Quantizer and the pitch changes to C Sharp. This is shown by the GVCO's inbuilt tuner and my Peterson.
Just forget everything else for now. There voltage is 0.oooV so its not near the cusp of where the quantizer wants to round up to the next semitone. We are not changing the voltage entering the GVCO at all. Just turning on its quantizer.
Are you telling me that this is a quantizer that is working as it should?
Anyway, as I said earlier. Lets draw a close to this now as we are not really getting anywhere other than arguing back and forth and I don't want to continue.
On tiny voltages. precision, and irrational (non-terminating) decimal numbers
Zero volts is easy, but what does it give you for an E?
0.416666687 volts? 0.40? 0.4166666666666667?
If you feed the vco a known 0v input, or no input at all, and turn on it's quantize function,
does the oscillator jump from C to C# ? It should according to what you wrote.
If it does, maybe it is broken, or just wrong, or is off calibration.
not one of them produces the results the internal quantizer does
It's not data. There is no 'C' to be recognized on input.
It doesn't know, and all quantizers can do it differently.
Precision is a compromise that computers and we humans apply when choosing how many digits to represent.
The difference between semitones in 1v/oct is ~0.08333333 volts.
(with more ‘precision’ it’s closer to 0.08333333333333332871)
This is a non-terminating repeating decimal. It has an infinite number of digits,
so you could say it has infinite precision in its exact mathematical form, and internally in our voltages, but that’s not how we talk about those numbers.
If we’re set up to play a C1 if fed 1.000000000 volts, when does the quantizer jump to C#1?
At 1.00100 volts? Or at the more correct 1.08200 volts?
Will it jump to B if it’s fed 0.999 volts?
It could, and in a very few case, that would be correct.
A quantizer rule that says:
‘only an exact 1.0000000v is a C1, anything below is a B0, anything above 1.0000000v is a C#1’
isn’t going to give you that C1 very often, if ever.
What are possible internal quantizer rules to play a C1?
Here's a jump-when-halfway-to-pitch quantizing design:
A 1v/oct quarter step would be ((1.0/12.0) / 2) = ~0.0417
So, if it is fed a voltage between 0.583v and 1.0417v it outputs 1.000 volt (our C1).
Below 0.583v, it’s a B0, so we round down and output (1.000 - 0.0833) = ~0.917 (our B0).
Above 1.0417, we round up to ~1.083333v (our C#1).
We spread this rule across a 10v range and we’ve got a workable chromatic scale quantizer.
But the start and end points of those threshold windows are arbitrary and implementation specific.
Maybe it’s a hard-coded table. Maybe it has to accommodate a slow or meh resolution A/D converter.
(Remember we’re dealing in differences of less than 1/12 of a volt). They all can (and will) do it differently.
If your feed device’s idea of start-end windows are different than your quantizer's, and they probably are,
you’ll get those semitone jump errors that you’re hearing.
Get an analog voltage source (not a digial one) and monitor it with a digital voltmeter, to at least hundreths precision.
Set your Erica to quantize and feed that voltage to it, from 0v to 5v.
Observe the voltage when the oscillator jumps to the next half step.
Is it when the input is just past ~((1volt / 12.0) * note), or just before?
Or does it flip when the to-be-quantized voltage is past half way between?
Round up or round down or mid-nearest. Or maybe some internal rules table or something.
I couldn't find the quantizer's rules in the vco manual, it just says how to turn it on and set it.
Anyway, now read the voltages from your digital sequencer as it runs a chromatic scale.
Are they each a 'precise' 0.0833333333333333333333 volts apart from each other?
Or 0.0830, or 0.0820, or 0.085?
Analog. Squishy.
There is an implied imprecision down in the 0.003333333s, especially when you're adding them together.
And so there is no "C", or 'in tune', just 'sounds in tune', even when it never really can be.
An analog quantizer can only approximate what your intent for 'C' is, and they all can do it differently.
It's a best guess, because your sequencer isn't sending 'A', it's generating ~0.8333333 volts. Give or take.
Now, knowing the vco's quantizing behaviour, you can see why it is doing what it does and when.
I still think your oscillator is working correctly.
Don't quantize already quantized CVs. You'll get stray semitone errors.
I never like it when someone asks for help, and the annoying reply is 'Why are you doing that'?
But, why are you doing that?
-- noodle_hut
Hello noodle_hut.
I have just measured ( for the last time ) the voltage coming from my sequencer for the first step ( the C ) and its 0.000V
So a precise voltage. I can send you a picture if you do not believe me. Its about as perfect a voltage as you could hope for.
The GVCO plays C when its given this voltage as I would expect it to. If I turn on the intermal quantizer the GVCO produces C sharp. I don't know why you are insisting that this is anything other than wrong.
I don't think we are getting anywhere with this so probably best I stop asking for help now.
Once again, thanks for your input.
"> What's the voltage range you're using? 0-1V or something higher? What about the result for several octaves, is it only the lowest note that's sharp?"
-- e_v_k
The range is 0V to +5V in this experimant. Transposing up tones, semitones or octaves yeilds the same result and just the first note is sharp.
In response to a question you asked earlier that I missed... When the eronious C sharp plays the GVCO tells me its playing C sharp. It doesn't think its playing C but outputting C Sharp.
I did some new experiments with the internal quantizer on this morning and here are the results please take it as read that with the quantizer off all sequences play back as expected as it does if I use an external quantizer.
If I send in a sequence that is C then C one octave up the two notes play back at the same pitch. If I increase the interval between the two Cs by another octave I get a one octave interval, this behaviour is the same when the quantizer is set to chromatic or octaves.
I also tried another experiment inspired by noodle_hut.
If I create a chromatic sequence by ignoring the voltages coming from the sequencer and just setting them by ear, I can get the GVCO to play back a chromatic scale ( with the internal quantizer on ) but every note is a semitone sharp above what the GVCO its tuned to when the quantizer is off. So in some ways one could argue it is, kinda, working.
But I have access to six other quantizers and not one of them produces the results the internal quantizer does. They all work as expected and what you put in you get out ( unless you put in a rouge voltage and then that gets corrected/adjusted so the resulting note is what was desired )
I have been building my own racks since I first fell in love with modular many years ago. During this time I experimented with different materials, electronics as well as with my own "hacks" for cable management.
This is my first case that is ready to be sold that contains all the lessons learned. Every screw, component and material have been carefully chosen to be of highest quality and if you hate cable spaghetti you will love the special features.
I hope it will bring you as much joy as it does to me.
3 x 126 hp with threaded inserts
Integrated power supply & bus boards (Konstant Lab):
HAMMR 100 Power Supply Unit
3x Bus Boards (16 connectors each)
Power Brick (Meanwell 120W) with Power Cable
Special features
Dust-proof Air Filters
Channels and Wormholes for Cable Management
Cable Connection Cogs
Shelf for Powerbrick and Patch Cables
Dimensions
Width: 700 mm
Height: 350 mm
Depth: 350 mm
Weight: 13 kg
All components are produced in EU. Each box is assembled by my hands :)
Professional Electronics
I want only the best for your modules. That is why I partenred with Konstant lab, the market leader in eurorack electronics. DRONEBox has a built-in HammerPWR, a whopping 100W power supply, which is plenty for even the most hungry modules. It comes with a 120W power brick (Meanwell GST120A-P1M) as well as three pocket bus boards for each row, so all you have to do is plug in your favourite modules.
Outputs: +12V / 5A (splited to two branches 2.5A + 2.5A), -12V / 2.5A, +5V / 2A
Input: 20V DC
Protections: Input filter, Input overvoltage. Input reverse polarity voltage protection. Output overvoltage. Output short circuit – automatic recovery. Output over current – automatic recovery. All output protections are independent for each rail.
Efficiency: 90%
Additional: Dual input common mode LC filter with high efficiency of canceling noise and interference from input connector. Additional input filter for each converter for minimal output noise and interferences. LEDs indicate present and drop of output voltage. +12V output is splited to two branches for modules separation and minimalize of voltage dropout.
For all other features (which there are many), visit my website drone-audio.com
And since Black is the color of DRONE AUDIO, there is a one-time limited offer for Black Friday!
We’ve always had a counter on the rack pages that shows how many users have viewed a rack.
This counter also recorded visits from people who were not logged in. Over the years, most of those turned out to be bots, AI spiders, and web crawlers. The table grew to around 150 million rows. We had no reliable way to distinguish real traffic from automated traffic, so we now only count visits from logged-in MG users. All visit entries from non-logged-in users have been deleted. Which is a drastic 95% decrease for most racks.
We never considered this statistic particularly important, but unfortunately some people cared about it and are upset about the change. There was no bad intent behind this change!
Don't know what kind of music you're making using the modules. Some general advice for a secondary rack. A nice modular sequencer would be a good choice, some of them have a distinct workflow that differences a lot from the normal standalone one. Good effects with modulation is also a good idea.
There's a sampler by 1010 music in the rack, but if you're interested in some hard music, dance music, try some analog kick and hihats.
Don't know what kind of music you're making using the modules. Some general advice for a secondary rack. A nice modular sequencer would be a good choice, some of them have a distinct workflow that differences a lot from the normal standalone one. Good effects with modulation is also a good idea.
There's a sampler by 1010 music in the rack, but if you're interested in some hard music, dance music, try some analog kick and hihats.
Behringer modules are good for beginners, and they're where I first started. The more you play you'll notice the differences in sounds of behringer products. Try to use the modulation and utilities stuff more in Behringer. For cheap oscilator modules and effects modules, there're lots of other options sounds better but only slightly expensive than behringer.
1010 sampler is good, but you might have to suffer from a lot of menu diving to use the details. Doesn't mean that it's not good, just a gentle reminder if you really care about this.
I'd recommend the new Bastl Citadel series, for any use. It now has three firmware, covering synthesizer, effects, and sampler. Good for a supplement and if you 're bored with one function, you could' switch another one easily. It has built in cv, pattern generator and midi support that makes it a nice utility in the system too.
I'm now using a 104hp 7U perfromance case and would want to limit all my useful, important modules for performance and travel inside. I wish to know are there any advice on disigning this size of rack and how to utilizt the space.
This is the rack I'm currently using (The third row is a 4ms 64pods, which I use for light travel and jam):
And this is my current plan:
I wish my main case could take charge of most techno and house performance and still provide me some space for doing ambient. The 4ms is mostly as a portable option for me to take some out and go to a park for a simple jam.
Some point I'm hestitating:
1. Shall I remove the BOC+SED and replace the combo with a doepfer 111-6 synth voice? The rides in the storm modules sound good but it just takes too much space in total (20hp, comparing with 10hp of the doepfer one).
2. Erica synth Black Hole DSP2 sounds good and I really like the knobs, but still it is a little big large. I'm thinking to change it with a Mimeophon, or a granular effect like Mojave or Beads. Which option might be better?
3. How many mixer is needed? One cockpit would not satisfy all the need. Can a VAC mixer solve the problem? or should I get another 1U small mixer? (I'm not gonna buy any large performance mixer until I have two intellijel case)
Feel free to ask the product I've owned if you're interested.
Yeah, the Space FX is basic and not great, however it's a super cheap option so I was able to get two inexpensive units to mess around with. I decided to do the Space FX full wet signal on one of them. I was playing around with it over the weekend of feeding the signal of one into the second one then back into the first one. Combined with a VCA I was able to get some pretty fun distortion, mostly combining the Ambience on the wet-dry signal one, then Echo on the full wet signal one. I had a lot of fun messing around with it for a while, but the sheer lack of CV control is the killer. That will make for a future DIY mod for me.
But at the end of the day I get better FX through my mixer / workstation (I picked up an old Yamaha AW16G for cheap and it's filling in a lot of gaps in my setup for the time being). I will probably pop out the Space FX when I can get something better, maybe have a little diy side unit for quick fx hits, we will see.
Get an analog voltage source (not a digial one) and monitor it with a digital voltmeter, to at least hundreths precision.
Set your Erica to quantize and feed that voltage to it, from 0v to 5v.
Observe the voltage when the oscillator jumps to the next half step.
Is it when the input is just past ~((1volt / 12.0) * note), or just before?
Or does it flip when the to-be-quantized voltage is past half way between?
Round up or round down or mid-nearest. Or maybe some internal rules table or something.
I couldn't find the quantizer's rules in the vco manual, it just says how to turn it on and set it.
Anyway, now read the voltages from your digital sequencer as it runs a chromatic scale.
Are they each a 'precise' 0.0833333333333333333333 volts apart from each other?
Or 0.0830, or 0.0820, or 0.085?
Analog. Squishy.
There is an implied imprecision down in the 0.003333333s, especially when you're adding them together.
And so there is no "C", or 'in tune', just 'sounds in tune', even when it never really can be.
An analog quantizer can only approximate what your intent for 'C' is, and they all can do it differently.
It's a best guess, because your sequencer isn't sending 'A', it's generating ~0.8333333 volts. Give or take.
Now, knowing the vco's quantizing behaviour, you can see why it is doing what it does and when.
I still think your oscillator is working correctly.
Don't quantize already quantized CVs. You'll get stray semitone errors.
I never like it when someone asks for help, and the annoying reply is 'Why are you doing that'?
But, why are you doing that?
So I tried a new experiment today and created a 5 step sequence that consists of C D E G A ( pentatonic major ).
Without the quantizer enabled I get that exact sequence played back. If I turn on the internal quantizer and set it to pentatonic major I get D D E G A. So the first note is now a whole tone sharp. If I change to quantizer to chromatic I get C Sharp as the first note followed by all the correct notes.
If I go back to me original sequence and play it back with the quantizer on and set to chromatic I can get the first note to play C by detuning the "tune" knob by about 48 cents but all the other notes that follow are now out of tune.
I'm still sctarching my head on this one.
What I really need is someone else that has a GVCO to try the same experiments and see what results they get.
Even already quantized control voltages should not be used as CV source for the module. In this case similar problems may occur if the voltage steps of the incoming signal are close to the voltage thresholds of the A-156.
I can't see how this is relevant in this context. If the module is correctly calibrated a voltage that isn't close to the thresholds should always be correctly quantized. It doesn't matter if it comes from another quantizer, a keyboard or a random S&H.
I don't have any experience with this VCO, but I see that it supports different scales. Do you have the same problem with all scales? Have you tried to give it controlled voltages around the level that should result in a C to see if you can get that C at all on how much it's off?
The calibration mode seems to be quite helpful. As I understand it, it will report the measured voltage. What's it saying about the C that's played as a C#?
OK, so far, I have updated all Buchla 100 series (Model 102 - 196) and clones of them. Now all of them have consistent titles, which means we can now (finally) sort all modules within this format after name.
I have tried to move all images to the correct version of each module. (Might have missed some.)
I have removed all pure duplicates, but kept various clones of each.
I’m pretty new to the Eurorack world, and at the moment I’m spending a lot of time playing and experimenting with my small 2×84hp case. But I’ve somehow become totally addicted to building case after case on that wonderful website and getting to know all those amazing modules in theory. It’s incredibly fun to get lost in it for hours.
I’d like to show you my current case and also a possible option for how it could look if I expanded the rack by another 2×84hp.
Since I’m still a beginner, I’d really appreciate your input…
Do you think this is a logical and solid next step? Am I missing any essential utility modules or structural elements? Could I continue in this direction, or is there something you would consider absolutely necessary?
I’m not looking for persuasion in any specific direction — every opinion is valuable to me.
It would also help me a lot if you think the case is fine but you personally would approach it differently. Please tell me that too, because that also helps me learn and see new perspectives.
I’d be really happy if you could share your thoughts and help me continue growing.
Hi,
With this size case, an FX-AID would be fine, although it's difficult to memorize and view the different settings... If you want a good addition to what you already have, something affordable and with low hp, the Erica Synths PICO DSP is a good option.
Space FX is basic, but if you already own it, have the hp, and it adds some no-fuss air to the mix, why not?
On the other hand, if I actually tried one, I might not say that.
I would change the FX module... the behringer space fx is in my opinion not a really great fx.. the sound quality is not so good, i would change it..maybe a Fx aid, or a desmodus versio, or something... but i would not have fun with the space fx
I really appreciate the vast esxplanation on how a quantizer works and I understand the principal. But I really think the point of what I'm saying is being missed. The Oscillator will play the scale perfectly without the internal quantizer being switched on.
So the voltages coming from the sequencer are precise enough to produce the correct pitch. Both the sequencer and the oscillator are digital as well. As I said in my previous post, I have tried putting an external quantizer in the signal path and it has zero impact. All the notes in the scale are played correctly. Only when I turn on the oscillators built in quantizser do I get the problem and its only the first not in the scale that is a semitone sharp. So adding offsets will just put everything else out. I know because I have tried it already. The only explanation I can think of is that that the internal quantizer is in some way faulty or incorrectly programmed.
I got bit by this once too. Your quantizer is working correctly.
It's analog, so what does 'precise' really mean?
You need a voltage to play a C2, so you request that precise 2.000 volts from the digital side.
But there's the D/A and wires and jacks and dusty pots and humidity and transistors drifting from heat.
By the time it arrives at the quantizer's A/D converter, maybe it's 2.01 volts, maybe it's 1.99 volts.
Only a 0.02 volt difference, but the quantizer wants to round them to two different semitones.
This behaviour also depends on your specific quantizer's rules for how it rounds to the nearest note.
It's analog, so precise is always relative and non-linear and squishy.
The non-linear part is important too.
What happens at 1.99 vs. 2.01 volts might be different than the response from 2.99 vs. 3.01 volts.
(only the low C went sharp, but not the higher ones)
Think squishy, not digital.
Dieter said it best:
General function and problems of quantizers
When the input CV of the A-156 changes the module converts the incoming voltage into a stepped voltage at the correspondig CV output. For this there the modules uses voltage thresholds in 1/12V steps. If the incoming CV is very close to a threshold value it may happen that this voltage is converted once to voltage 1 and later to voltage 2 (with voltage 2 = voltage 1 +/- one step or +/- 1/12V). The A-156 does not "know" that the voltage comes from the same source. It just converts an incoming non-stepped voltage into a stepped voltage.
Example: think about a sequence with N steps where the voltage of step #3 is close to a threshold. When the sequence is running it may happen that for step #3 two different voltages appear (+/-1 semitone) at different passes. To avoid this flaw the quantizer would have to "know" that it has to convert a sequence with N steps and that after N conversions the same CV as during the last run has to be generated - provided that the voltage is very close to the former value. He would have to memorize the "old" voltages of all N steps and compare them to the "new" voltages. When the difference between an "old" and "new" voltage is below a certain threshold (e.g. less than half a semitone or less than half of 1/12 V, i.e. about 40mV) the old output value is taken. But this job cannot do the A-156 as it does not "know" anything about a sequence structure but simply converts the incoming continuous voltage into a quantized voltage.
To avoid this the quantizer and the sequencer would require a common "supervisor". For example with our Dark Time stand-alone sequencer this would not happen as the quantizers "knows" the values of all controls during the last run because they are stored in an internal memory. When the advance to a new step is triggered the unit compares the new voltage to the stored voltage of the last run. There has to be a significant difference between the two values. Otherwise the same voltage is generated. Without storing the values of the former run this would be not possible. This problem occurs for all quantizers which are not embedded into the sequencer structure because they don't not "know" anything about a sequence but simply convert the incoming non-stepped voltages into stepped voltages.
Even already quantized control voltages should not be used as CV source for the module. In this case similar problems may occur if the voltage steps of the incoming signal are close to the voltage thresholds of the A-156. In this case it may help to add a small offset voltage to the incoming CV signal so that the voltage steps of the incoming signal are no longer close to the voltage thresholds of the A-156. But the general question is: why using a quantizer if the control voltages are already quantized.
Quantizing already quantized notes leads to a dark portal of mysteries and small voltage offsets.
Add a small +- voltage offset to your input cv and your half step off will be fixed, or migrate.
Depends on how your quantizer rounds up or down when the input is close to a note.
The notes from the sequencer are not already quantized. Its a digital sequencer so the voltages are just precise.
So the fact that just the first note is getting shifted up a semi tone really makes little sense to me.
But I don't build or design modules so thats not much of a surprise.
I have repeated the experiment but instead of using the built in quantizer I used an external one and the sequence plays as expected.
So it does appear to point to some issue with the internal quantizer to me.
Quantizing already quantized notes leads to a dark portal of mysteries and small voltage offsets.
Add a small +- voltage offset to your input cv and your half step off will be fixed, or migrate.
Depends on how your quantizer rounds up or down when the input is close to a note.
Buying a module carries much less responsibility than selling a module.
There are scam possibilities from both sides. I am dealing with lot's of requests to delete unjustified downvotes which is annoying because I don't want to interfere in private conversations so if someone comes up with a better, easy to implement idea I am all ears.
-- modulargrid
I've been thinking about a system to replace the current up/downvote options with and I think I have a pretty solid idea here. Besides being more reliable, I think this system will also reduce the amount of requests to remove negative feedback.
Whenever a user has bought or sold a module and decides to up/downvote to the other, the user on the receiving end is sent an automated request to return feedback to the user that initiated it. The catch is however, that only after both parties have submitted their feedback, the score is shown. Neither user can change their feedback after placing it.
This approach eliminates any worries about receiving retaliatory downvote simply because a user is dissatisfied with another user. At the same time, if a transaction didn't happen or if a user is being unreasonable, a user can decide to not leave feedback and thus not getting any in return either.
An optional one-time opportunity, in the form of a single non-editable comment, could be given to any user receiving the downvote as a way of explaining themselves. This comment would be shown as a comment on the users profile, for example when hovering over the username of someone who left the feedback. In any case, comments can not be replied to or edited after placing them. If a solution has been agreed upon by both users, there will be an opportunity to change the negative feedback into a neutral feedback and with that also removing the comment from the users profile. In no way however, will negative feedback be allowed to turn into a positive feedback unless submitted by mistake.
Since there are several aspects to this system, implementation can be as simple and straight forward, or as elaborate and complicated as desired. Simply withholding information about the type of feedback left by one user to another creates a far more reliable system than is currently in place and completely eliminates any fear of retaliatory feedback.
I know this system is not entirely fool-proof, but it would be very difficult to pull that off without enforcing transaction verification.
The current feedback score for users can be held in the form of a legacy score in order to smoothen the transition to a new system.
Thanks. Yes, I have started to group CBS and SFTMC with Buchla,
(I've only done a few so far) including images from those early panels when available. 👍
Duplicates and inconsistent listings are always a pain, especially with Buchla clones and obscure modules like CBS or San Francisco Tape Center gear. For those, maybe grouping them under “Buchla” but noting the manufacturer/clone in parentheses could work - keeps them searchable without losing the historical context. Overall, a consistent scheme like yours will make the database way more user-friendly.
I just want to leave a note here to say that dealing with @neuroloop75 has been an absolute pleasure.
He made me feel really comfortable throughout the whole process — and I’m not used to trading here with such high amounts, especially for something like the Morphagene I bought, which arrived practically as new, perfectly cared for, no marks, no smoke, nothing at all.
Thank you so much — you can trust this user completely. He does everything properly, and even if he sometimes takes a little longer to reply, he gives you all the confidence you need to complete the deal without any worries.
Thanks both.
I know my ay around the Buchla universe, yet I felt the need to hear other users opinions.
I'm a moderator and will do my best to make it better. It will move slowly though, with some changes every now and then.
I will concentrate on the original modules and the clones.
Cheers
Nothing wrong with running their modules
(though I've avoided getting a space fx, and have those "four" functions covered.).
I've used the Chaos Marbles clone often, way more than the Abacus. I'll never understand the popularity of Maths.
The 1050 mix sequencer would work great here as your output mixer or for getting a 24 note sequence from the 1027,
or just for switching signals. There's also the cable in the back to send the 1027's clock to the 1050, and a switch for it.
The behringer arp and roland clones are on discount now, I suspect that line will be discontinued soon.
I know there's a ton of them out there for the used market, but get 'em new while you can.
You could benefit from a good mult to share your hard-won generated signals.
I like the Synthrotek MST '07 Buffered Multiple @ 4HP. Best $99 you could spend here.
I think you can get lots out of what you've shown here already.
I've moved things around, mostly to help with using those little short yellow Doepfer patch cables.
So, if I feed a sequence into the volt/octave input that consists of the “C” major scale ie: C D E F G A B C
it will play that back just fine. However if I turn on the VCO’s built in quantiser, set to chromatic, it plays back C sharp D E F G A B C.
I have calibrated the VCO so it’s not that. I’m completely baffled as to why the first C in the scale is sharp.
Is my module faulty or are they all like this?
Don't hate me for being Behringer's b1tch at the moment... I'm a hobbyist dad on a budget.
Here's my rack so far. I don't have the Four Play module yet (awaiting resupply) and the 2HP Tune is in the mail. Excited to play with that when it comes. I also have a Dual VCA module I use for now but is not shown here.
I still have some HP left after those for some cool stuff in the future.
I've been playing with these modules combined with the Arturia MiniBrute 2 and Behringer Neutron and getting some really fun stuff out of it. I'm mostly doing horror drones, industrial and bass dub beats, trip hop and playing around building melodies here and there but there's so much to discover. I'm having a ton of fun putting a few odd songs together.
My big issue at the moment is I would like to sample and loop on the fly but I gotta save up for a more expensive module. Considering saving for a 1010music bitbox to cover that.
Cheers!
Similarly, I also wouldn't mind by default hiding the manufacturer info panel either ( which shows up above search results when the manufacturer is set in search criteria).
-- MPCman
This should already work. If you hide the manufacturer info panel it is saved in the user pref and should be restored even after a new login on a differen tcomputer.
-- modulargrid
That's a recent change right? Just checked and it indeed seems to work. Great, I used to literally always dismiss the manufacturer info.
