ModularGrid uses so-called cookies to ensure it's so-called functionality. We also use dubious tracking scripts. Find out more in the Privacy Policy. We use cookies and wanna let you know.
You missed one contrapuntal aspect: canonic polyphony. This is easy, though...using a shift register (something like, say, Intellijel's Shifty) and some adept clocking mojo, you can easily offset a melodic line canonically by whatever amount of clock pulses you desire, depending on what you have on hand for clock pulse tampering. It's like the 2b example...but really is more of a "2d" since you can control the temporal shift and therefore the contrapuntal behavior.
There's a lot to play with in your post there...lemme think about the #4 issue for a bit...
Ooookay...I whipped up a "control build" to give something of an example of how a device like this could be configured. You'll notice the absence of sound generation/modification modules...this is PURELY a build for outputting various modulation, clocking, etc signals back to Ableton's VST environment with CV Tools. Also note that the interfacing is NOT part of the build; I was disappointed at the lack of inputs that the Expert Sleepers interfaces offer, so I opted instead to make this something that can work with an outboard A/D. This way, via expansions to that architecture, you can build up whatever you like as far as I/O, and all you'll need is a patchbay to get at the A/D conversion, with all of this being expandable as needs be. However, DO check this list before looking at A/D conversion, because CV Tools requires you to use a DC-coupled interface: https://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/siwacompatibility.html
I still used the Intellijel 7U here, as the tile row offers some useful utility aspects that fit in the context of this build. However, you'll note that I've inverted the cab, bringing the tile row to the front. Also, even though this might seem comprehensive, it's still lacking in a few things; for example, I'd have wanted to also put a matrix mixer in here, but the other devices crowded that out.
The top row gives a pair of Maths with a MISO for crossmodding/mixing each other, plus giving complex composite outputs from them. Then the right half there is a suite of Erogenous Tones devices...the BLIP is a sequential/memory/probably a few other things controller for their massive AR envelope gen bank, the RADAR. Then there are eight mixable VCAs after this, with their VC8.
Bottom row is a little more complicated. Everything from the left to the middle involves logic pulses and timing modifiers: dual pulse delay, CVable pulse divider/multiplier, a dual probabilistic skipper, Ladik's "Gatsby" which is a trig-to-gate generator, a pulse counter (1 to 7, "0" is the original pulse), and the main logic "guts" are ARC's Artificial Neural Network, which is Boolean taken to a "next level". After that are three "CV readers"...a Min/Max for manipulating CV levels, a Derivator for tracking CV movement, then a dual window comparator for picking gates off of modulation signals via CV thresholds. The Qx/Quadrax gives you a rather different take on the RADAR, as these are easily patchable envelope gens that can be cascaded, made to cross-signal other modules, and so on. Then another MISO (useful!) just before a Permutation + Variant random sequencer and a dual sample and hold to deal with random activity.
Tile row has a MIDI interface (the only thing using the 7U cab's external connectors, btw), then a Temps Utile for clocking and messing with clock behavior, a Noise Tools for another S&H, a master (maybe) clock, slew limiter and the like. After that, a QuadrATT provides manual attenuversion and mixing, then Intellijel's version of the Zeroscope because, with a rig like this, you WILL want some visual feedback to see what your patching is causing.
Again, this isn't a "proper synth", but a complex controller designed to make changes and actions that Ableton doesn't like to do nicely...or rather, that computers in general don't like to do nicely. By using CV Tools to link this control signal generating build to your VSTs and other Ableton architecture, you can make that stuff do things that, as mentioned, would likely cause the computer to have fits because smooth, linear curves are something that computers DON'T do well. Sure, they can MAKE them...but when you call on a computer to generate some really complicated behavior of this type while it's ALSO running Ableton itself, you're asking for trouble. This takes that away from the computer (to a sizable extent), which frees it up...and lets Ableton do a few things it's not exactly supposed to.
The other rationale for using Ableton is, if you get the Suite (or the add-on itself), you also get Max for Live. And that ain't no minor addition; in theory, you could use the internal Max implementation to rewrite THE ENTIRE DAW if you got a wild hair to do that. So, what that comes down to is a situation where if there's something missing that you think Live can work better with, you can cook up that "something" all on your own with Max's object-oriented programming. And you can cook up some major complexity in Max...I've seen a few of Carl Stone's (possibly the ultimate Max-fu practitioner!) Max patches, and they looked like spiders had gone bonkers inside the display with all of the object patching lines.
As for Pro Tools...ewwwwwwwww. My first digital editing platform was a Sound Tools II setup (yep, PRE-ProTools) and it had certain quirks that I learned to get around. But when they first dropped the Native version of PT, (back around V.5 or 6 or something like that), I gave it a shot since it (then, but not for long) could use the STII hardware.
I haven't gotten angrier at a piece of software since the horror that was Finale's 1.x iterations, back circa 1989-90. Yes, it could act like a studio multitrack...but not only that, it had all of the drawbacks of that paradigm AND was about as stable as nitroglycerine being handled by Bobcat Goldthwaite. And later Native iterations weren't any better, plus there was an apparent desire to "crippleware" it in deference to the more lucrative HD versions. And don't even get me started on Avid's "lease plan"...
I eventually realized what the problem was. Pro Tools was/is really well-coded...for coders. But if you're trying to do anything outside of the narrow strictures of commercial studio recording, it'll take the first opportunity it can find to utterly jack your creative thought processes. So for a composer, it's AWFUL...since so much of composition involves NOT thinking in one particular "lane" and exploring all sorts of not-commercial tangents, which is the sort of thing that makes PT act up. But with Ableton, you're dealing with a tool that was designed initially by musicians to solve certain problems that DAWs following the PT model couldn't do. And the same musicians still have plenty of input up to the present version.
The problem is in where each platform's developers aimed the DAW. PT is great if you're PURELY an engineer. It's very happy on that side of the glass, acting like an MCI JH-24 on bigtime 'roids. But don't ask it to do anything unusual. Live, on the other hand, can be a PITA for engineers, because it works much more like an instrument and less like a fridge-sized multitrack lurking in the tape room. It's just fine with "unusual", however, and functions far better as a creative tool than just a glorified software multitrack for composers and musicians.
The only reason I prefer manufacturers to register themselves is that they can get a manufacturer account and set the Approved by manufacturer lock which mostly improves the data.
-- modulargrid
Mostly. There's still issues, though, most notably when a manufacturer discontinues a module and they don't bother to come back and change that module's MG listing. Or when the manufacturer in question doesn't exactly "get" what MG is about and they don't complete module listings, etc because they're not 100% aware of the site's utility to a wider synthesist community. I like Jim's idea about a "form email", but I think it needs a bit more fleshing-out...something with a bit of an explanation of what MG is, why MG exists, MG's general traffic levels, what data MG wants, etc. If these companies know more about what Modulargrid is about, and the basic fact that being in this cited reference database is pretty critical to both them AND the MG users, this should result (hopefully!) in even better data that actually gets cleaned-up when the "Approved" lock is on.
Have you considered the possibility of freeing up space UNDER the modular?
No, that's not a joke or a suggestion that you should try and defy physics. Instead, if you have some vertical space above the cab, and we're not talking about a Doepfer Monster Case rig, you could put the modular up a bit higher by using a suitable desk riser. This is something I'm currently playing with, to get some desktop space back from the AE system.
Check these out: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F0OQ8VG/?coliid=I2GROX26I4EP7U&colid=23QL83O2QNTDT&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Each platform can handle up to 65 lbs, and uses a stacking block system to vary the height from 2 1/4" to 4 3/4"...and that latter amount is only 1/2" under the space needed for a vertical 3U space. With something angled like a DFAM, you should wind up with a perfect fit for that unit at the base of the stand. And if one isn't big enough, it's not like these cost too much to afford getting a second.
Actually, Ableton is probably your best bet here. Not only does it deal well with really insane production demands, Ableton also has CV Tools...its own built-in version of Volta/Silent Way. So if you've got the right interface module, it's a snap to send your CV/gate/trig/clock out one side and the modular audio back on the other.
However, while typing this up, I had one of those flashes...and checked the VCV Library pages. Sure enough, VCV now either has, or has paid access to, modules that will allow you to build up a DAW to your own specs. Definitely more fiddly than Ableton, but if you're willing to put the work in to build up a "DAW template" of a sort, this would ALSO be a viable possibility and could be made to be even more of a bespoke solution.
I wouldn't take the DFAM apart. For one thing, an empty 60 hp Moog skiff is only $89, then all you'd need is something that uses flying busses for your power and distro, such as an uZeus. Even better, the 104 hp version of the same skiff goes for a mere $10 more. Also, watch your module depths here...you only have an actual 48-ish mm to work with, even though the skiff seems deeper due to its angled construction.
+1 on Jim's idea here...not only does this more easily take care of the "other/unknown" issues, it also lets incoming manufacturers know better about what info MG and its users require.
Umm, maybe you ask Dannysound to register as manufacturer at MG?
-- wiggler55550
I already asked ModularGrid, because that's what we're supposed to do as users.
-- sibilant
Not how it works. While MG's info is very much user-sourced, adding manufacturers is something that manufacturers have to request themselves. And the reason for this is because if THAT were user-sourced, there would be nothing to stop spammers and other related jackasses from adding fake manufacturers or some such bullshit listings because...well, this IS the Internet, you know. The mods here have enough to deal with in keeping that off of the forums (and yes, there have been some HIDEOUS spam attacks there over the past few years, all thwarted by MG's excellent crew) and maintaining this amazingly-huge database already.
All well and good, but I think you'll find that if you remove the Neutron from the cab (especially since the Neutron already HAS a cab and power!), you'll get closer to a better result because you won't be trying to build around that "lump" that, tbh, shouldn't be in the Eurorack case to start with. It's an expensive luxury to do that, because it adds the cost of the occupied rack spaces to your Neutron. Very impractical.
Also, with that Neutron in there robbing space, you'll miss out on some of the better noise modules out right now...for example, have a look at the various sonic atrocities made by Schlappi Engineering. They're right up your alley...but as a rule, they're sizable as well, so if you want to implement some of them, you WILL need the extra space.
The case is going to be an immediate problem. While you could build something in 3U x 104 hp that would fulfill the basic needs here, you'll wind up with compromises due to the lack of space. The Maths, for example, takes up about 1/5th of the panel space...and when you have loads more to put in to result in a usable synth, that 20 hp chunk will probably wind up being a stumbling block.
Instead of this (assuming that the single 104 skiff is the "updated setup"), have a look at some cases that fix this problem. The Tiptop Mantis comes to mind right off, as does Intellijel's 7U x 104 case. Or if you want something beefier, see here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/CaseFromLake?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=687830767 and compare their prices vs. other similar cabs. I like what I see with them, plus I've not heard Complaint #1 about their work, and for what they're making, the prices are STOOPID-cheap!
Also, it's important to remember to do your initial MG builds with a "case" that's MUCH larger than you think you'll need...because, invariably, you'll think you need a smaller case than you actually DO. Work out a build that seems right, THEN pare it back to an available-to-buy size. Once you get this part sorted, THEN it'll be time to start examining possible builds.
Re: Scales + Vector -- "you can generate psuedorandom contrapuntal patterns from keying the extra quantizer." Yes, I've been thinking about interesting use cases for the Quantizer + Sequencer configuration. Auto / pseudorandom counterpoint is a very interesting possibility. What I've NOT yet got a bead on is how I might constrain motion in the counterpoint line; let's say for example, I want my counterpoint to be about 45% contrary motion, 20% oblique, 20% similar stepwise, 10% other (e.g. parallel or similar motion by leaps). I DON'T have a good idea of how to implement such a "contrapuntal motion constraint" in modular, other than i) manually programming in the sequences (boring and not fundamentally different than using keyboard / mouse) or ii) manually setting the "shapes" for the contrapuntal lines (such as ramp up for voice 1 and ramp down at .5x rate for voice 2) while letting other factors be psuedorandom. Any ideas for a control scheme in modular that "opts in" desired (contrary + oblique) motion while limiting undesired (parallel and similar by leap) motion? My early sense is it would require a chain with slope detection (rising / falling) or difference detection (greater / lesser) plus some logic to do "not" and "or" functions BUT I can't really imagine the modules needed for implementation, or how to get them to work instantaneously (e.g. without being ruined by lag) to drive a 2nd derived (and semi-constrained) line from a primary voice.
-- nickgreenberg
Well, the "instantaneous" part is easy enough once it's all patched up. And you're on the right track with the use of discriminators and logic to get the desired stochastic result.
Let's say for a minute that you've added a few Ladik modules here...a Min/Max discriminator (U-040), a Median discriminator (U-041), and their Derivator (J-110). Right there, you've got 12 hp that can...
1) Read incoming CVs for minimum and maximum values, then output those.
2) Read incoming CVs and then derive an average.
3) Read incoming CVs, then output a gate depending on the CV's action.
So far, so good. Now, we need some arithmetical processing. Shakmat has this little 2 hp thing, the SumDif, which does CV addition and subtraction. So, feed one "side" of that with one of your derived CVs, then the other "side" with some DC offsets sent from something like Michigan's F8R...which also has enough CV offset sliders to allow you to use some more as manual CV inputs to the other modules.
So, this results in a bunch of derived CVs with a degree of manual control. Then, you need switching...
Now, for THIS part...we have a key module that really opens all of this up to the sort of control you want, and that's Mutable's Branches...a dual A-B "switch" that changes depending on controlled stochastic parameters. With this, you can then use CV values to change routings, mute CV lanes, etc etc.
Now, the other side of the equation here is the pulse aspects...the "on/offs" needed. For starters, you want a WINDOW comparator. There's a difference in that a normal comparator will output a gate when an inputted signal rises above a given threshold. All well and good, but you want the window comparator because it's got several possible outputs from that single inputted signal. So you can set one of these up to output a gate for "under" the lowest threshold, "between" for when the CV value is between the upper and lower thresholds (the "window"), and "above" the top threshold. Input a sine wave, and you get a repeating pattern of gates. But input something that's got more randomness, and you'll get some elaborate gate patterning...potentially nonrepeating, if you prod the LFO in use toward that.
And then, this is where Logic enters the fray.
Once you've got all of these various derived CV and gate behaviors going, you can then use the modules in this that output gates to activate some Boolean gates by letting the gates "interfere" with each other via the Boolean logic. If you want long, sustained gates, then use some OR gates which will output a gate if both inputs are hot. Shorter? Try some NOR logic, which outputs when no gate signals are present, or AND, which outputs gates only when both Boolean gate inputs are hot. This can be as simple or as elaborate as you like...and believe me, it can be DAMNED elaborate! But by using those gates to activate some other switches, plus recombining those results with MORE logic, you can arrive at a result that can seem almost as if there's human input going on. It all depends on how crazy you make a control subsystem of this sort.
In the long run Im going to either have 2x intel 7u 104hp cases or a 15u 104hp case from Case From Lake possibly along with the intel 7u 104hp case that I already own. Im kind of on the fence here since the two intel cases would cost about the same as the CFL but are portable and shiny :)
-- adroc
Go with the CFL cab. While the Intellijel 7U cabs are metal, I do have to wonder if they can take a really hard hit if you're out gigging and they get smacked. The CFL cabs, however, are 1/2" (and then a bit more...15mm thickness) plywood, and you'd have to really work at it to wreck something like that. Sure, you can probably destroy one...but then, whatever would mess up a heavy wood cab would probably turn the 7U into mangled wreckage.
The other nice thing about CFL is that you CAN have them alter the base designs...so you could even have separate tile rows for Intellijel AND the original Pulplogic format modules if you wanted. Or you could go with a wider panel, or beefier power, or...well, you get the idea, plus these alterations are really nicely-priced...adding a tile row for EUR 45-? Yes, please!!!
the pittsburgh modular structure cases are ok but I know nothing about the quality of their power solutions
-- JimHowell1970
From what I know, they're actually Monorocket designs, and Monorocket was always keen on overspecced Meanwells. Pitt is obviously continuing in that vein. Lots of no-screwing-around design in evidence; for example, check https://pittsburghmodular.com/structure and have a look at the 344...and take note of the THICC bus wiring in use to send DC to the upper distros.
More spendy, to be sure...but they're majorly overbuilt, overspecced on current ratings, and so on. You get what you pay for there.
Went way further on this...and found some issues, most notably with the BBD module and a couple of others, all of which have depths of 60mm or worse. So instead of continuing with the same line of thought here, I opted to get a bit divergent and show what you can get to when you eliminate the Doepfer-primary constraint.
Yeah, pretty different, alright. For one thing, the layout is now properly consolidated, with audio on top (except for the FX send/return module) and control on the bottom.
Top row: This starts with the A-119. Then instead of the full-sized Plaits, I went with Antumbra's 6 hp clone. That then opened up more real estate, and so I chucked the Doepfer VCO in favor of a very satisfying double VCO from Noise Reap, their Paradox. This is sort of the "poor man's complex VCO"...the VCOs can influence each other via FM, internal regeneration, etc. Between that and the Plaits clone, I'd say that your sound generation is dealt with. I moved the Quad VCA/Mixer by these, which now lets you have CV over VCO levels going to the filters. And as for the filters, there's a neat complement there...the G-Storm Delta VCF is cloned from Korg's Delta (and Poly-61, plus a couple other Korg polysynths around that time) and gives you LP and BP functions with a smooth, paddy feel. The OTHER VCF, however, is a Nyle Steiner design, notorious for its strident and sometimes brutal lead voice capabilities. LxD is after that, meaning you could easily LPG the VCF outputs if desired, in addition to the "normal" LPG uses. Then I took this into full stereo via the Happy Nerding Panmix Jr., which then feeds to a Befaco OUT, providing isolated 1/4" outputs, headphone preamp (with a CUE input!) and master level control.
Bottom row: Disting, Doepfer Noise/S&H, and then Maths. After that, there's an Antumbra Dual VCA, a clone of 1/2 of a Veils, then a Shakmat Sumdif adder/subtractor, and a Tenderfoot 3-in attenuverting mixer...all three of these are intended to work together to alter/modify/mangle modulation signals, which makes much more out of the Maths and Quadrax than they have in of themselves. Next is the aforementioned Quadrax, with its Qx expander, and then Malekko's SND/RTN, which gives you CV over wet-dry balance to an external effects box.
The result is about $500-ish more, but also fixes your +12V rail issue by lowering the draw by about 140 mA. Plus, it has M0AR all over it...more VCOs, more VCAs, more filtering, more modulation, more manipulation potential. And compared to where this started, this is a HUGE upgrade in terms of functionality and sonic capability. All part of the fun that is Eurorack...there's ALWAYS other options out there!
If the point here is to have something that works with Ableton, this sounds like a capital reason to build a build that's actually a VST controller. No voicing, just various modulation and CV generation modules which use the ES-9 as the "front door" to CV Tools, from which you can use the various Suite widgets and voodoo to pipe the incoming signals to VSTis and VSTs. This will 100% result in something which can make those plugins do things that...well, they're not exactly meant to do. That way, you get the ease of having your voicing under Ableton, but the trickery that makes the voicing do all the odd flips and leaps is very hands-on, as wanted.
And of course, you can save the voicing and Ableton routings, while letting the analog end of this be the "wild card" instrument. Has potential, I think...
Yep, the Vector is HUGE...but then, it's clearly the "core" of the system, and even the build layout is set up to reflect this.
There's not much in the way of issues here. About the only thing I can suggest would be to lose the LINK2 and Links and use the space for a Happy Nerding 3xVCA, which would give you VCA control over the VCO mixing. Also, you could add VCA level control to the Doepfer A-138s by yanking the A-138n and replacing it with two 2hp VCAs, which would give you the requisite four VCAs as your mixer's "front end".
And I get it re: the quantizer...by having a second quantizer with definable scales, you can then feed it a clock from the sequencer AND modulation signals. By constraining the scales to match what the Vector's internal quantizers are set for, you can generate psuedorandom contrapuntal patterns from keying the extra quantizer via the Vector and feeding LFOs, envelopes, etc to the quantizer's CV input. A very sneaky and low-power method for complementing the Vector, to be sure!
"Dieter" = Dieter Doepfer, the grandpa of this Eurorack thing.
The B. 305 has no VCAs at all. It looks fairly feature-packed, but that's because Uli mashed two other 100M modules together to come up with it, then discontinued those two before the 100M stuff came out. However, it's worth noting that all of those gray things of his are copies of the Roland 100M modules, with a different form factor and retooled for Eurorack, with some results turning out better than others. As far as a decent output mixer goes, there's FAR better stuff out there...and definitely more capable stuff, too.
As for the cab size...good, you recognized the problem right off! This 100% needs more space. Have a look at these: https://reverb.com/brand/case-from-lake I've heard several people mentioning that the craftsmanship on these are spot-on, plus if you need to "adjust" a case for more size, amperage, ATA hardware, etc, they can do that. And the prices are KILLER. Also, the amazing thing about Case From Lake is that you can get a portable cab with INSANE amperage figures if that's what you need, as they definitely do that and many, many other optional things.
Yeah, this needs reworking. 100% agreement with Jim's take on this, plus there's some odd deficiencies here...most notably, it seems like filters got the short end of the stick, which is a shame because the SWN plays really nicely with a good, character-filled (and stereo) VCF.
Lots of utilities missing, also...plus, when you start looking at the module architectures that are prevalent here, this isn't all that well suited for the drone aspects or textural aspects. Sequencing, yeah, it's got that...but again, the ability to actually generate/sequence melodic parts isn't well implemented, because all of the timing/sequencing modules are robbing space from other functions.
Also, if you really want these large modules, you're simply going to have to go to a bigger case in order to have those AND all of the missing bits and pieces. For that matter, even if you went with smaller modules, you'd still benefit from a larger case. This is definitely where the adage about using "...a bigger case than you think you'll need, because you'll need it bigger in the end anyway" fits aptly.
Hmm...well, one thing that immediately comes to mind is that there's too many audio paths in there. I can see what you're trying to do here, and the problem is that the case(s) itself is just outgrown. There needs to be more VCAs, submixing, utilities, and so on...the "usual suspects", in other words...but the space is simply NOT there.
One possible fix, but one that would involve the addition of a small skiff, would be to pull the Metropolix and M303 out of this build altogether and then rehouse them in a small standalone cab...a 4ms 60hp powered pod would make a good fit there, plus you'd have an extra 10 hp for a delay. Those three modules together would make for a hellacious standalone 303 "variant", especially with a built-in delay line. But the other point is that, by pulling the M303 and Metropolix, you'd then regain 60 hp in the main cab, which is plenty of space for those missing bits and pieces. Thoughts?
Here's the fix: go back to your build's page, and hit "refresh", even if the rack looks right. Then go to the "Show" dropdown menu and select "Screenshot". You're likely to see the version above. If you do, hit "refresh" on your browser, and if the old layout persists, quit "Screenshot", refresh the layout page again, then re-select "Screenshot". Once these two images are the same, then go back to your post, delete the present link, save the edit, then edit it AGAIN with the "new" build page URL. Once you save that, then the proper screenshot will be linked to the Forum thread. But the important part is to make sure the screenshot matches the build page, as the Forum's images come from the screenshot and NOT the build itself.
First of all, that's a really expensive DFAM, and it wasn't when you put it in there. Let's look at the case itself...it costs $649 for 208 hp in 3U and 104 in 1U which, for the sake of this example, we'll say amounts to 35 hp if it were 3U. That gives 243 hp at $649, meaning that each hp = $2.67. $2.67 x 60 = $160.20, making the DFAM come in at $809.20. This is easy enough to fix: take the DFAM out of the expensive cab and put it back where it belongs. This then frees up 60 hp for modules that DON'T come with their own case and power...which is what you should be using the Eurorack cab for in the first place.
And secondly, watch your module sizes. There's several Erica modules in here, and while their Quad VCA2 makes sense in the space it occupies, using the same space for one single envelope generator is not very sensible at all. Try looking outside of one specific manufacturer, and you'll find far better EG options. But this problem can get rather pervasive pretty quickly, and this appears to be on that route.
For one thing, that DFAM is killing your ability to add more functionality. For example, all you have for modulation at present is that Erica EG and a Maths. Not quite enough, really. Or the Mimeophon would probably be better up with the audio path...but it won't fit there. And so on...
Makes sense...and the reason this won't work in analog is because that feedback loop is generating digital fullcode. Basically, all of that gain + feedback loop = massive digital overload, which is what that "noise" is. So it's a valid method, but only in an emulator such as VCV because you literally CANNOT make that happen in analog.
So everyone on here is a troll, got it!
-- Hellseeker
No, not really. But if you're going to post a build, and it's got clear and apparent issues, you're going to hear about it. And this one fits right in there...
For one thing, there is an excess of audio modules here. I see several possible audio chains...except for the fact that you've only got five VCAs for this entire build, and you need VCAs for both the audio AND modulation. Five won't cut it. Then there's the envelope generators...as in, there aren't any. Sure, you can use the Maths for that, but doing so is sort of like using your Ferrari Dino to pop around to the Circle-K for some jerky and a Monster tallboy. Also, I see no submixing possibilities (and I refuse to count the Erica Mix/Splits here...mixing implies control over incoming levels, not "jam everything in with no control") at all aside of the three inputs on the Fusion VCF.
Then there's all the tubes. Tubes draw more current than solid-state devices, and tend to require beefier power supplies to deliver it. So, at present this build has a "calculated" draw of 2.4A. Then, to avoid inrush (and tubes do current inrush like nothin' else!) issues affecting the power supply, you would need a supply to deliver 3.2A on the +12V rail alone. And that's going to COST...
But what's here costs already...and unnecessarily so, as well. ARE the tube modules necessary? Are they present from the idea that "tubes = loads of noise" (not really true)? Couldn't you do better (and cheaper [and with less current draw]) with some regular-ish VCOs, a PROPER submixer, and a wavefolder to deal with the distortive waveshaping? Do you have to have these large modules eating up your valuable panel space? Panel space that NEEDS to be filled with all of the various utility and modulation modules that are necessary...but not present here for the most part?
There's a term around here for the problem this build has: "Sexy Module Syndrome". This happens when someone gets all hot-n-bothered about slapping "feature" modules in, mesmerized by the blinkenlichts und tvistenknobs to the point that they neglect the fact that those "sexy" modules REQUIRE a proper complement of the "boring" ones so that they can be used to their fullest. That's what utilities DO. It's VERY easy to build a build like this...but all you get in the end is a very expensive noisemaker, and not a proper synthesizer.
I'd strongly suggest looking at the builds on here that are done by experienced synthesists. There's plenty of them here. Note how they deal with this primary issue. Then, if that's not sufficiently convincing, get a copy of VCV Rack and try putting together a mockup of the above (as best as possible in VCV...although, you can get pretty close). See what it does and doesn't do. Then apply whatever knowledge you can glean from those example builds to the VCV mockup...and you'll notice that, all of a sudden, that VCV build is really acting like a synthesizer.
Not too shabby...plus, plenty of "hole" in which to put M0AR!!!
Also, don't be fooled here, folks...that Doepfer rig, even with 1000+ hp, can STILL be put on a backseat of your basic car. Yes, both cabs. I wish they weren't so effin' expensive, tho...
You're not even close to a typical current overload situation. Let's look at the math involved here...
Here's a very useful page...so useful, in fact, you might want to bookmark it: https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/watt-volt-amp-calculator.html All you do is enter two known values, and the calculator fills in the rest according to basic electrical physics. So, in the case of the 1 kW PC PSU, you'd enter 117 V for the voltage, 1000 watts for the consumption in watts, and you get 8.5 amps (and change).
Now, armed with that website widget, start calculating your TOTAL amperage draw for your ENTIRE music rig. Then check your breaker panel and make sure that whatever circuit you use is capable of handling the amperage load. My bet is that you're just fine; solid-state electronics such as what's in music gear doesn't tend to have much of a current draw when compared to motorized devices, devices that involve high voltage step-ups, and the like. In fact, your biggest "amp hog" is probably going to be the main monitor amplifier.
Kel, you really need to calm down. There's no "there" there. And eexee is 100% spot-on; the term, as I used it, is American "carny speak" for precisely the sort of person who someone pushing a $5k QMMG is looking for, just like carny barkers looking for an easy mark among the midway crowd. Nothing "xenophobic" about it.
As for the $5k QMMG...clearly, this derp hasn't quite picked up on the fact that Make Noise's MMG is NOT discontinued
-- Lugia
Ah yes, but the CURRENTLY available ones don't have the ugly color scheme or the "good" vactrols.
-- eexee
Reminds me a bit of the snakeoil behind the idea that running a certain, specific green magic marker around the edge of your CDs will make them sound better. I tend to laugh my a$$ off when I run into someone these days who STILL believes this nonsense, especially after Wayne Green (W2NSD, the former editor of 73 Magazine and a shortlived sister high-end audio publication) finally told the story of how he and some of his other staffers cooked this total lie up to see how far everyone in the audiophile community would run with it.
This keeps coming up on here, so let's dive into it...
Many people think Brian Eno came up with this type of music. Not true, however. To really look at the origins of generative composition, we need to go back quite a bit and look at "process composition" and "stochastic composition".
Process music is a form of music in which a certain set of procedures gets done, with the musical output as a result. Probably the simplest version of this that comes to mind is Steve Reich's "Pendulum Music", a work which involves using microphones swinging back and forth over speakers, with variations in feedback responses being the musical "output". Then when all speakers are emitting a steady feedback tone, you cut the amps. (see here: ) But anything that works in this way...a series of given procedures (sometimes posing as the "score"), followed by a musical result from them, is referred to as this.
Stochastic composition is also sometimes referred to as "chance-based". And that's not exactly correct, as stochastics involves the odds that ONLY certain specific outcomes will occur, with the composer grading the level of probability as part of the compositional process. Actual chance-based music refers to a music that's assembled out of random sources of audio as a result of totally random processes. But stochastic composition only involves the element of chance as far as choices between specific states and/or outcomes.
Now, generative music involves BOTH of these. The setup of a generative system is essentially identical to the "process" part in process music, and that "process" involves numerous chance potentialities with distinct and only slightly random end-results.
If we go back and look at where generative begins, we'll also be going back to the early stages of synth technology...and also, Albany, New York.
Back circa 1970, the State University of New York at Albany premiered its newest piece of music tech, the Coordinated Electronic Music System (or CEMS for short). This huge modular was co-designed by the composer Joel Chadabe and Robert Moog, and included off-the-shelf Moog modules alongside a number of custom control bus modules specific to the CEMS. And one of the very first works realized on this monster modular was Chadabe's "Ideas of Motion at Bolton Landing" ( and yes, that's part of the CEMS on the cover art), which can probably lay claim to being the first generative electronic composition. The CEMS, once programmed, was simply allowed to play itself...and the tape just ran, and recorded the result. Other than those two things, there was no human input at all. And that definitely makes this work the start-point for generative music.
But how did it work? OK...the CEMS was built up around an array of Moog 960 sequencers, plus a bunch of logic functions to manipulate them. This would then send note info to the "voicing" racks while, at the same time, the "modulation" also could play a part in some of the stochastic determinations. In essence, this is very little-changed in many present-day generative systems. But what did change between then and now was computers...
When small computer systems started to become more commonplace, you started to see various types of "automata" applications that involved aspects of generative processes...but very few of these involved the direct generation of sound. Instead, you saw MIDI applications such as "M", which applies stochastic principles to the generation of MIDI data to be sent to synthesizers. But this situation would change rather quickly, mainly due to two developments.
The first was the development of sound hardware that could act directly under the computer's control. Prior to the first DAW systems, sound cards on computers were kinda "meh". But when Digidesign first put out the Samplecell hardware and the Sound Tools software to work with it, this then opened up a new vista on how the computer could address the synthesizer. Within a couple of years, this was sort of obsoleted by Digidesign...but a new version of some IRCAM software stepped into the gap, namely Max/MSP. Max was, of course, the object-oriented sound programming language developed by Miller Puckette during his tenure at IRCAM for use originally with the 4X machine, then a further iteration was part of the ISPW (IRCAM Sound Processing Workstation). But a couple of iterations later, and Max/MSP was created to directly address the DSP in the Macintosh architecture so that you had what basically was "ISPW, the Home Version". The doors had been flung open!
Around this same time, a startup called SSEYO started to figure out how to create a music composition "system". This eventually became Koan, which was more or less the first "all-in-1" generative package. It included a SoundFont-like system for its voicing, and various stochastic methods for creating various types of musical fragments, which were then combined in a final patch to generate new pieces of music. It was around this time (early 1990s) that Brian Eno began extensive experiments and use of Koan, as part of his interest in "self-regulating systems", such as the tape delay system + sequencer rig used for "Discrete Music". The best examples of this can probably be found on Eno's "The Drop", which is a collection of ambient works primarily programmed and realized in Koan.
BUT...
One of the things that Eno noticed (along with a lot of other people) is that computers don't necessarily deal as nicely with gradual changes as do analog systems. And this can be directly attributed to the fact that computers work in discrete steps, all the way back down to the basic 1 and 0 of their binary architecture. Now, there ARE analog computers...and, interestingly, it was discovered that these "obsolete devices" were capable of dealing with chaotic systems FAR better than their digital counterparts. A digital computer, for example, really, really, REALLY doesn't like dealing with such chaotic systems as Lorenz attractors...but to an analog computer, calculating that is a snap.
Now, synthesizers have an awful lot in common with analog computers. You have certain on-off digital functions...but the "heavy lifting" in an analog computer is done by linear interaction between a set of op-amps, as these can generate voltage curves and functions with NO stepping and NO binary logic. Similarly, synthesizers involve circuits that are generating sound based on linear, non-stepped voltages plus some digital functions...not much difference, really. And this is where we go back to devices such as the CEMS.
Back when the CEMS was built, there weren't a lot of possible choices regarding modules, circuit architecture, and the like. You had Moog, Buchla, and ARP had just popped up on the scene, plus EMS was in startup mode as well. And that was about it! Nowadays...well, just LOOK!!! Choices abound! And this simply makes generative even MORE attractive.
But the problem here is that many people think generative synth programming is pretty simple. You get one or two things, set up a patch that makes them boop and bleep in a relatively even manner, and that's it...right?
Uh-uh. REAL generative systems are capable of running for HOURS (or days, weeks, months, years...) on end, very rarely repeating anything, but still staying in a certain composer-defined "lane". This goes back to another thing that Eno explored while still working with tape loops, in that he found that you could create an essentially non-repeating result by mixing several inequally-long tape loops of homogenous musical material. The most famous use of this is, of course, Eno's "Music for Airports", which were actually deployed in several airports as sonic installation pieces. But you can see how well this can work if you just do a little math; let's say we have three loops, one is 34 seconds long, the next is 55 seconds, and the third is 107 seconds. These will line up again after 200,090 seconds, or 55.58-ish hours of continuous playback. For an installation in a place such as an airport, no one will likely perceive that the music contains these looped iterations provided that the sonic material on the loops gives little to no indication of obvious cadential signals. The piece will simply seem to go on forever.
And this is the sort of thing that should be aimed for in generative modular systems.
Now, HOW to get to this has numerous possibilities. But nearly all of them involve a larger amount of modules than you'd typically find in yr.typ monosynth. And they also involve what's known as "orders of control".
Play a note on a synth. That's "1st order"...your keypress causes two control signals to be generated, one for pitch information, the other for time. Shorter press, shorter note. Higher keypress = higher note. And so on...
But with generative music, this concept basically goes batshit insane!
So...here's our synth again, waiting for notes. But THIS time, we're not using the keyboard. Instead, you've got three LFOs and three quantizers. Set each LFO to a rather long period, use different waveforms. Then feed each LFO to a quantizer, and program the quantizer so that each "step" also causes a trigger to be sent to the EG, etc. As long as you've inputted the same scale/mode for each quantizer, you'll have a three-part result that keeps repeating notes based on the CVs generated from the LFO behavior. Now we're starting into generative turf!
Three lines = boring after a while, though. So, let's now take a fourth LFO and use that to control the rates of the other three...but with a twist, in that we're going to use a multi-attenuator module (think Intellijel's QuadrATT tile here) to change the voltage behavior sent to each LFO from the fourth one. So...one gets timing LFO signals at 2/3rds of the level, the next gets 1/2, and the last is on full...but inverted! This has us at 3rd order, with the "main" LFO controlling the three others, which in turn control note generation via the quantizers. At THIS point, you're getting into "nonrepeating" territory, and you have timing variation.
Is that as far as you can go? HELL, no!!! So...let's toss a comparator into the mayhem, and set it up so that it reads the "main" LFO's output and outputs its gate when the comparator voltage level gets crossed. So then you take THAT gate and invert it, then send it to a VCA that's controlling the output level of your "third voice" in our theoretical system. Now, when the "main" LFO goes over that voltage threshold, the comparator turns "voice 3" off by dropping that VCA's CV to zero (via the inverter). 4th order, and we're just getting going here...
So...a few MORE comparators and VCAs, and we're going to drop these into crossmodulation patches between our VCOs. Now, we not only have the system self-regulating on timing and note generation, plus the "tutti rest" on voice 3, we ALSO have a similar comparator-VCA setup controlling FM aspects between the VCOs. Even better, you could just as well use envelope generators before the VCAs, key THOSE, and get gradual changes of VCO timbre. You can even affect spatialization this way, by using LFOs and EGs to control panning circuits, and those can get as complex as you want (Ambisonics, anyone?).
Sequencers get fun like this, too. This is why you want 'em to have gate and/or trigger outs on each step, because you can use those to mess with things. F'rinstance, take a trigger out from step 11 on a 16-step sequencer. Then connect that sequencer's "reset" function to a Boolean logic AND gate's output...and input two of those comparators to the inputs of the AND gate. And as for that step 11 output, send it to...oh...the "sync" on one of the three LFOs. Now THAT gets wild...the LFO waveform will only reset if and when the sequencer gets to step 11, but with the sequencer's reset keyed to the combination of two LFO waveforms (via the AND gate), this might only happen every once in a while.
And on and on and ON...
So, if you think you can cram a "generative" system into an 84 hp skiff...forget it. To get a SERIOUS generative result requires quite a few modules, because you're creating a system that has to:
1) generate several musical parts
2) have massive order of control capabilities so that you arrive at that nonrepetitive goal.
If the output sounds like something NOT made by a machine, then you win every Internet made since 1896. And you'll have succeeded at building a generative system that really, honestly, ACTUALLY operates in self-regulatory generation. But as noted, this takes space, it takes a lot of "not so typical" modules, and it takes some understanding about how chaos-based systems of this sort work as well as knowledge of modules that can work in tandem toward this result. It ain't cheap. It IS a considerable hassle. But when it comes together and you get that stream of generative sound...yeah, it's worth it.
Do you really need stereo in a live show? Aren't pretty much all club sound systems mono anyway?
-- the-erc
Depends. If you're talking about a dance club, then yeah...most of those systems are summed-down to mono before hitting crossovers for the frequency division to the amps for the different driver sections, especially in the low end. However, if you're talking about a venue that primarily deals with live music, those DO tend to be stereo quite a bit of the time.
The +12V rail is the main one that modules use. Not everything requires the -12V rail, and these days the trend with the +5V rail is for some manufacturers to put the downconversion onboard the module that needs it. But the current headroom issue is per rail, since the two 12V and 5V rails are all powered by different circuits. And you can pop the +12V by overdrawing, but leave the -12 and +5 (unless the +5 requires the +12) more or less intact. So if you've got 1500 mA on the +12V rail, and the P/S feeding the rail is rated for 2A, you're fine. But getting too much further above that 1500 mA gets a bit dicey, particularly if the build is very module-dense as each module will have SOME inrush...and adding each of those up can get you into the trouble zone pretty quickly.
Just use any decent flying bus cable with the right amount of headers. However, DO keep an eye on your current draw figures...you don't want to exceed 3/4ths of the power supply's current capacity due to potential problems with power inrush, which can send your amperage draw OVER the design limit for the p/s for a small fraction of a second...which is enough to cause problems. Also, if there's a wide gap between potential supply and draw load, this means your p/s can run cooler...and given that heat is Public Enemy #1 for electronic components, that's something you want.
Step 1: jettison the idea of trying to build this with only one make of modules (and case as well, apparently). All you're going to accomplish is hamstringing yourself by being unable to add things that AREN'T Intellijel...and this is a pretty serious error!
Step 2: try a bigger case, especially if you're hell-bent on using W---I---D---E modules such as the Rainmaker, Metropolix, et al. Right now, those things aren't doing you any favors; the Rainmaker and Metropolix alone take up 70 hp, and that has just a touch more than 1/3rd of this cab's 3U rows being taken up by just TWO modules!
Step 3: don't take my word for it. Get a copy of VCV Rack if you don't have one already, then try setting this build up in there. It won't be 100% exact, but at this point it doesn't matter, because the idea here is to show that what you've got isn't adequate as far as sound generation is concerned. Jim is VERY correct; module redundancy is actually a thing that SHOULD happen in some cases (especially VCOs...you can't set up a fat, detuned sound without that second VCO) and trying to avoid this is not something either he or I would recommend.
NFTs...gah...I got excoriated over on Reddit's r/vaporwave forum by some "true believer" in that because I dared to point out that this is, in all likelihood, some fad-grade nonsense that's just ASKING to get punked by someone well-versed in culture jamming. True, there ARE artists making money via this method (one musical act that comes to mind here is Kings of Leon), but when that bubble pops, look out!
As for the $5k QMMG...clearly, this derp hasn't quite picked up on the fact that Make Noise's MMG is NOT discontinued, and that four of them tallies up to $940 street. Add a very basic mixer/attenuator module that lets you break out submixes (sorta like Intellijel's QuadrATT tile...but as a "proper" module) and you have a...QMMG! Sure, it's physically bigger, but you have the same basic function PLUS a lot more control capabilities over each MMG. And instead of a fixed mixing paradigm, you could just as easily swap the basic mixer out for a quad VCA instead. Given that, I 100% do NOT see the point in trying to shuck rubes over this "RAR vintage W0W!!!111!!1!" module that they want $5 grand for.
This behavior is something I've long despised. I didn't like it when synth-brokers were trying to use Usenet back in the day to run their commercial enterprises (in violation of the Usenet charter and, in one especially egregious case, the Usenet AUP for U Michigan), and I don't like it now. It's become a lot easier to spot, thankfully. But during that early Usenet period, you had all sorts of bottom-feeders trolling around, buying disused synths for pennies on the dollar and then flipping them for sometimes HUNDREDS of times more than they'd paid. And around that time, you also had the emerging concept of "synth collectors"...people who bought synths and DIDN'T play them, simply because they were "valuable". I'm sure that 90% of those instruments are now dead from disuse unless they were "rescued" somehow. Fools, money, etc etc.
I was planning on leaning quite heavily into the Disting modules for some of the things you've suggested (like wave folding and sampling, for example, since I generally don't use samplers that much and I already own a few of them). Do you find the Disting to be kind of anti-climactic when you start to use it for loads of different things?
Well, it's a bit of a problematic module. On the one hand, it DOES jam a lot of functions into a 4 hp space. But at the same time, it jams a lot of functions into a 4 hp space.
I'll explain...the Disting is intended as something of a "Swiss Army Knife", in that it can handle many different functions under a very basic control. And that control is where the problems start to creep in. Modules such as the Disting involve quite a bit of "menu diving"...and that with a rather minimal menu, to boot! It's a great fit if you need several different modules but simply DO NOT have the space for them. But when you start to rely on the Disting for specific functions, then things get a bit nebulous as to whether it's the right solution or not.
For example, let's say you're stuck on using the Disting's vocoder function. All well and good there; you're NOT going to find a vocoder that fits into 4 hp besides the Disting. But if the function in question is, say, the dual waveshaper...not so much, because there are more directly-playable waveshapers in that general size and price range that render the Disting version inferior. Take the Joranalogue Fold 6...also 4 hp, same sort of CV I/O arrangement overall...but with the Fold 6, you get a dedicated control for the wavefolding, waveshape, and waveform symmetry each. The Disting gives you only ONE control, and you have to menu around to get it onto the next function. If the idea behind modular synthesis is to make things MORE open-ended and MORE intuitive, the Disting is a bit of a fail on those fronts, even though it can be VERY useful for functions that you'll never cram into its 4 hp space and/or whose modules cost way more than the Disting. A tradeoff, basically.
Also, having midi capability (as opposed to usb-midi) is important for me to incorporate it into my current studio setup, so maybe I need to check out a third midi to cv module that is smaller than the Polyend but different from the one you've suggested.
Sure...you might have a look at Hexinverter's Mutant Brain, then. SYSEX-addressable, user configurable with 4 CV outs and 12 trigger/gate/clock outs, fits in 8 hp. This has a lot of flexibility, being user-definable in a similar manner to the FH-2, but you still get a 5-pin MIDI in.
I also wanted to ask about your experience with the shrunk-down Mutable clones. I haven't had time to look too closely at them but it seems like they might be more of a hassle to program than the name-brand ones (shrinking the face means hiding features?). Curious to know what your experiences have been.
It's worth remembering that these clones are different build variants on the open-source originals. As such, they have the original functions...but some "clones" take this to a higher level, such as the "Monsoon" variants on the original "Clouds" module. There's very much a school of thought that says you should get the original versions...but at the same time, if a build is really space-limited, the clones make sense inasmuch as you can get the same functionality into a tighter space, which then allows MORE functionality to get into the build. Even Mutable themselves have picked up on this, given the reconfiguration of their popular Veils module down from 12 to 10 hp, while adding slider controls for level and a DC offset for unipolar response (very useful with pulse waves to use them as clock pulses, or to keep a modulation signal out of negative voltages).
And another heard from on the rack size: it's too small. The 3U Rackbrute is better used to expand the Minibrute by adding a few things that it doesn't have. But to do a proper build, you'd need to start with the 6U version...and I'd even think that THAT was a bit small unless you're good at using alternatives to the full-sized modules.
These 3U builds simply DO NOT WORK unless you're designing something very specific that can fit into that small a space. Otherwise, you'll tend to run into that space limitation over and over. Yes, you see these on YouTube all the time. But those are either done by very experienced modular users OR they're unworkable pieces of crap cobbled together by someone who needs to stay the HELL off of YT and stop misleading people.
First, delete the original link out of your thread.
Next, go back to your build's page. Refresh it. Then open the "Screenshot" under the "Show" menu. If this doesn't show the right version of the build, refresh the screenshot. If it STILL doesn't show it, go back and check the build. Then refresh again, do the screenshot again.
Once the screenshot AND the build are identical, go back to your original post and put the link to the BUILD PAGE (and NOT the screenshot) back in. When you go back to the thread this time, you should see the image where the link was replaced in the post.
+1 on Behri, they’re pretty much the only corporate devil in euroland. Buying from any other brand is a way to support the community :)
-- LYFoulidis
Except for when you can't. I can think of several Uli things that aren't exactly duplicated elsewhere, most notably the 2600 reissue and the CAT. While these are replications of existing devices, in those cases...
2600: Korg screwed up. Massively. The only 1:1 between their 2600s and Uli's is that ONLY the "limited edition" 2600 FS has the 3620 module onboard. Korg's 2600M doesn't have this, ergo I think it's something along the lines of "crippleware" at three times B.'s price.
CAT: You'll probably never even SEE one of these out in the world. The original Octave-Plateau one, that is. ARP sued this and the similar Kitten off the market back in the 1970s, claiming that they were copies of the Odyssey and Axxe respectively. They aren't, though...so in this case, Uli's the only practical game in town.
No, I don't think much of Uli and his behavior. Fact is, I think their brand would be better off if Uli were shunted off to some position where he's just a figurehead and CERTAINLY NOT a public spokesperson for his brand. This doesn't necessarily mean that ALL of Behringer's stuff is crap; I think the brand would be thought of a lot better if he'd simply STFU and let people such as Rob Keeble et al drive the car.
The fix for DC crud: linear power supplies. Now, with the Intellijel cabs, you've got to deal with the internal switching supply, and there's not a lot you can do there. BUT...you might consider replacing the Meanwell "brick", which is ALSO a switching supply. Reason is, if you've already got crud coming into the cab from that brick, this can then screw majorly with the noise factor of the Intellijel TPS unit in the case.
With my AE system, I use a Tektronix PS281, but this is probably a bit underpowered for the Intellijel's needs. Instead, the next model up (the PS282, as shown here: g~gAAOSwTOxfoFD0" target="_blank">https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-PS282-DC-Power-Supply-5A-18V-TW10205/402528809979?epid=1117948359&hash=item5db89633fbg~gAAOSwTOxfoFD0 ) can deliver up to 18VDC at 5A. And if you need more current, you can parallel two of these easily, as they have tracking link connections that lets one supply control the second. Price on the one listed is a bit steep (you should be able to find these under $200), but they provide dead-quiet DC on output...very little junk on that DC feed to cause the TPS to get noisier.
Well, $2k won't cut it. For one thing, granular oscillators ain't cheap. Secondly, in order to get the modulation section to have "as many possibilities for a kind of 'controlled chaos' as possible", that required quite a bit of beef-up and some interesting modules that you don't normally encounter. And lastly, the 2 x 84 cab just wasn't cutting it as far as fulfilling either of those two points. So, I expanded the hell out of this by sticking the build into an Intellijel 7U x 104 cab, which then ALSO gave me a tile row for handling the end of the audio chain and putting in some extra attenuverters/mixing, their Noise Tools, plus a stereo audio in. The results:
OK, this thing kicks MASSIVE ass as far as stochastic-based work is concerned. And the audio chain...magnificent. Here's what's there...
Tiles: Stereo audio input (the jacks are on the case), Noise Tools, QuadrATT, two pair of VCAs, stereo submixer (allows you to fly the Beads or the Morphagene in over your stereo mix...very effective way to control that), then the stereo output.
Row 2: TWO Dust of Time oscillators, each paired with a dual VCA cloned from the Veils VCAs for their level control. 2xSAM then allows you to mix these two stereo feeds, or to control their levels manually without mixing. Then a Rossum Linnaeus stereo filter gives you thru-zero FM over your filter, plus loads of other modulation possibilities over the timbre. Beads is next, then a Morphagene allows you to loop segments of the audio at will, or under the stochastic control from the next row. The X-Pan then lets you mix all of your stereo sources in various ways, with CV over crossfading on the two stereo main inputs and CV over panning.
Row 3: This is where the magic happens. The Clank Chaos is at left for ease of access. Then a Modbox dual LFO gives you some basic modulation curves. Maths is next...then one key module, the 4ms SISM, which lets you reprocess and mix all of your modulation signals while having CV control over mixing, offsets, etc etc. After that is a Happy Nerding 3xVCA...DC-coupled VCAs for modulation level control. A Quadrax + Qx gives you four loopable envelope generators, with the Qx letting you cascade the entire EG complement if desired. The EOR/EOF trigger outs can also be used to trigger other modules. After that, a Dovemans Dual Window Comparator can pick off several gates from modulation curves as desired. Then a Klavis Caltrans quad quantizer lets you take modulation sources and, by using the various trigger/gate functions, pick off four different CVs from this. Lastly, there's a Greyscale Permutation stochastic sequencer with its Variant expander to allow the Permutation to generate two channels of CV along with its other duties.
So, no...it doesn't cost $2k. More like about $6k with the case. BUT...this is a super-comprehensive stochastic composition system with the granular synthesis you want, plus some audio extras to make the possibilities there go thru the roof! You won't (actually "can't") exhaust this, as there's so much potential in the modulation row to create endless variation and chaos-based activity that there's not really any way to create quite the same thing twice. And once patched, it'll roll right along with as much or as little input you want to utilize. More spendy...but with this, you 100% get what you're paying for.
168 hp was chosen as a limit for the non-Unicorn accounts mainly because the maximum width at that time was 168 hp, as seen in the Doepfer "monster cases". Since then, there's been some firms that have gone larger, most notably ADDAC System and their 197 hp (1 meter) cabs. Most starter cabs are below this width, so the higher width is really more of an "experienced user" requirement...hence why the widths beyond 168 hp are for the Unicorn users. But the Unicorn account is useful ALSO because you can create up to 60 separate builds...with that, you can build up multiple systems and then compare/contrast them to sort out the best approaches to your final desired result.
Clones make sense to me...but only from a space standpoint. For example, if you're putting together a build in a 2 x 84 hp cab, it's probably not the best idea to go with a full-sized version...space is at a premium, and you need to maximize functionality over space requirements. But if the build in question is huge, then you can either choose the bigger (and usually original) versions, or stick with the formula above and have more space for...well, more.
Now, as far as QC's concerned...checking the MG Marketplace as well as the "good/bad sellers" threads on the forum is very useful. If you see a builder that appears to be a "problem child", then don't buy their stuff. Keeping an eye on whatever Muff Wiggler's calling itself at present is also very useful, given the concentration of modular users there as well. Between here and there, you should be able to find out about issues, should they exist.
Also, some stuff just LOOKS like refried ass in general. This sometimes indicates that what's behind the panel is substandard...but certainly not always. Noise Reap's stuff, f'rinstance, does have a rough look to it and one might be tempted to give it a pass...but that would be a mistake, since Noise Reap's cooked up some amazingly useful (and sometimes amazingly twisted) circuitry that most anyone can get an excellent result out of. So as far as they're concerned...they're doing something right, so take what they give, ugly panels and all. I wouldn't want them to change ANYTHING. And there's plenty more examples of this out there...
Again, this all gets back to the old "caveat emptor" issue...if you're going to be a customer, be an INFORMED one. Do the research, see what others say and have experienced, THEN proceed.
I messed with it for a hot minute, then gave up. I think you might need to go back and research the way you want your MIDI signals dealt with, as there's an awful lot of MIDI-specific things going on here that seem superfluous (such as, if you have an ES-9, why ALSO have a separate CV-MIDI converter module?). Also, I don't get the excess external preamps...especially since I don't also see an envelope follower, something which you will 100% want for picking off dynamics as CVs. Basically, the "if this were..." argument seems moot to me, as this isn't how I would've started in the first place.
I strongly suggest going back to square one here. If you have these modules on hand already, especially the ES-9, go back and see how that one module alone supplants all of these unnecessary MIDI-based things. Given that I have something similar in my modular "sandbox" here (a MOTU 828 mkii + Ableton CV Tools) I can confidently tell you that you're piling a lot of unnecessary stuff into this build. And if you must use MIDI over the more precise and modular-friendly CV/gate/trig I/O of the ES-9, just use its MIDI expander, which is already in the build.
Well, if you want a "brain explode" moment...back when the initial work was getting done on VCV Rack, I'd DLed the package around the 0.5-ish version range. Install, fire it up, load modules, start screwing around, and...CRASH CRASH CRASH.
Naturally, I was a bit peeved, but it WAS still in beta after all. So, taking care to watch the widget that I use to track core use and load, I fired it up again. And yep...CRASH...but THIS time, I'd been watching the widget and was more than slightly horrified!
The app had ZERO multithreading capability. It was totally incapable of utilizing multicore architecture. I was a little dumbfounded, so I went over to the user forum and pointed out that it wasn't capable of being used in that way, which seriously crippled the capability of the app. What I got next was a snarky post along the lines of "you musicians don't understand programming...you don't know what's needed for multicore support"...etc etc etc. Huh.
Time passes, and finally VCV gets out of beta. And I had a fresh look...and sure enough, one of the first new features waaaaaas...
...multithreading. It's nice when you're right, even if it takes some time to prove the point. But had the developers stuck to their guns on this, VCV would be a footnote, and NOT a reliable workhorse. I didn't see the point in not supporting multithreading, given how much of a processor load the betas would put on the single core they'd have access to, and thankfully they got the point eventually, too.
Honestly, I won't really be satisfied with computers until I can finally have a room-temp quantum setup...whenever that happens. Even at 32 threads, I know I'm pushing the hell out of the Z620 on some of my Ableton productions, and eventually, there will be that need for MOAR!
Well, for starters, you could link the actual build instead of just putting the JPEG of it up. Go back to your original post, delete the current link, then link the actual build page's URL and reload the post. That way, others can have a go at it...otherwise, it's a bit of a pain to make alterations, etc.
The only question that comes to mind when looking at this is "why?" The layout is totally dysfunctional, for starters. Why would you slather this in blanks? Why use 6 x 168 hp for such a small module complement? Why are there several prepowered and precased synths in this when they should almost certainly be back in their own cabs, on their own DC rails? And why build it like this? I semi-sorta get that this is probably some sort of religious thing...but lemme explain something...
Years ago, back in Nashville, I did a couple of sessions for artists on Benson. And I don't think any of them would've been caught dead with something like this. Those were pro session guys and pro musicians, and they knew full well that you DIDN'T compromise your gear, no matter what sort of statement you're trying to make. And this build here is ridiculously compromised. It'll be a massive pain to cart around, patch, play...you name it. No session player I worked with back there...and that runs a gamut from contemporary Christian to hardcore punk...would do something to make their instruments that they depended on MORE DIFFICULT to use!
I strongly suggest that, if this isn't some kind of troll build or such, you delete this. Take the Moogs and the Strega out of the case. Shrink the case back down to a sensible size for the module complement. Then arrange the modules in a way that makes even 1% more sense than this...at least it would then be 1% sensible! Otherwise, I guarantee that you're on the road to having one VERY unplayable synth.
Well, I had a bash at this...probably good, too, as there were some discontinued and/or wrong versions of modules in the original build. Plus, there was a LOT missing...attenuverters, modulation utilities, and so on. Plus, in this sort of case, you've GOT to minimize space while maximizing function. Now, it might SEEM like a bunch of your modules are missing here, but what I've done is to replace everything that could be "shrunk" with their smaller counterparts in a number of cases. Plus, the AS modules were deep...as in, REAL deep, to the point that I had some concerns about the depth on them. In others, I just reworked things altogether, such as the drum modules (gone...and you'll see why in a bit). Anyway, the result I got was:
OK...so, what's going on here? Let's have a look...
Top row: Single Plaits: gone. Replacement: TWO Plaits clones. Two VCOs is always better...you can detune them for a huge, fat sound, or you can split 'em out as individual voice sources, or you can use one to FM the other, and so on. Added a wavefolder for even crazier timbral tampering under CV control. Quad VCA: also gone. Replacement: Codex Modulex's clone of the Mutable Veils, basically the same thing minus 4 hp. Then the VCFs...I tossed the earlier ones, and went with one very different one and one not so different one. The "very" is G-Storm's clone of the famous and wonderful Roland JP-6 filter, while the "not so" is the version of Happy Nerding's SVF which has the other modulation/control inputs, as opposed to the one that was there. Same core, better tricks. Also, the G-Storm filter has its own 2-in mixer, so if you want to bypass the VCAs altogether, you can send both Plaits clones directly. Elements got shrunk by a whole bunch, again thanks to Codex Modulex. And THIS allowed the next two modules...one is a stereo mixer, as you can see...and the OTHER is Squarp's Rample, a four-channel sampler/looper. Now, remember that thing about the drums? This not only fixes that (if you use it for drum samples), but gives you the ability to submix the entire sampling module and send it to...well, we'll get to that...
Middle row: Konstant Labs PWRchekr, because it's good to be able to keep an eye on your DC rail performance. Then Ladik's little gated slew limiter, for portamento and such. After that, I added one of Doepfer's useful utility modules, with this one having noise and random sources, and a sample and hold that can be switched to track-and-hold. Kept one Disting, and it's next...then the Tides got shrunk. Right after that, you'll find a 2hp attenuverter...very useful for inverting Tides outputs if desired. Maths is next (the right version), then a Frap 321 lets you mix, mangle, alter, and screw with in general your modulation sources. A 3xVCA is next so that you'll have some DC-coupled linear VCAs for modulation level control. Then FOUR envelope gens are hiding in the Zadar (which has its Nin expander here as well). And the last thing is more for the mixer below...or you can use it with the stereo mix from the Rample...a Make Noise Mimeophon stereo delay with loads of timbral options.
Bottom row: the original MIDI interface was just too clunky, so I chucked it in favor of an Expert Sleepers FH-2. This is not merely a MIDI-in interface, but also a class-compliant keyboard (via USB) interface, which will let you connect any keyboard that outputs MIDI over USB directly to the synth. MUCH more potent! Eloquencer's next...then next to it is another FX module, in this case a Purrtronics spring reverb emulator, which is a mono-in, stereo-out device, and you need that sort of I/O for the mixer. And that mixer is a Toppobrillo Stereomix2...which gives you VCAs on each input, plus CV over panning and AUX sends. You also have silent mutes, a CUE bus...and importantly, a mono AUX send and stereo AUX return. Then that last module is a Happy Nerding OUT...offering your main headphone preamp (the Stereomix2 has one as well, but you might find that one more useful for the CUE function) and a little surprise: TWO stereo inputs, one of which has its own input level (pre-fader...yep, you also have a ganged stereo level control) so that you can fly a stereo signal over the rest of the mix. Remember that thing about the Rample's submixer? That's one good use for the second stereo input. Another might be to split your AUX send, send one to the reverb, and the other to the Mimeophon, then you can mix the Mimeophon back in via the extra stereo in.
So...what happened? Basically, I made things smaller while pushing to INCREASE the functionality. Also, you'll notice that everything's been reordered so that you have cohesive function "groups", which function together as opposed to just a collection of modules. I added some very necessary utilities, also...and so on, until this was the result. And the fun part is that it's only a couple of hundred bucks (if that) more than the original once I put the Eloquencer back into it. This should be far more functional than the original, plus it offers some interesting NEW functions that you might not have thought of, like the JP-6 filter clone or the 4-channel sampler, some effects, full CV control over your main mixer, etc etc etc. Very beefed up.
