Thanks for checking it out @troux. I was sort of practicing restraint. My natural tendency is for "more". More drums, more transitions, more distortion, more abstract, more more lo-fi, more experimental, more, more, more... Haha.

Well done @farkas, I'm a big fan of exploratory jams and this turned out great.

So in love with this module. Tried a dub-style patch with it:

Full patch notes are in the description.

Growing pains are a real possibility, I'm very new to this.

It's pitch sequencing, I'm struggling to quickly create decent sounding melodies and bass lines. I definitely need more practice, but it feels like even if I were to put in the time to master Metron's Voltera expansion (which is what I've been using for pitch sequencing) I'd still really struggle to do it quickly and easily enough to keep the music satisfactorily interesting. Too many things to do to focus all my time on coming up with the next bit of pitch.

I'll keep playing with it. I'm already loads better off since the beginning of this thread, thanks to all these great suggestions.

Haven't done one of my "android jazz" videos in a while. I was just patching aimlessly this morning and thought I would record something in the vein of some of the recent posts regarding sequencers and live techno setups. This is a fully improvised modular minimal techno jam. No plan, no safety net, no direction home. Nothing groundbreaking, just pressed record to see what would happen. Actually turned out ok. Hope someone might enjoy a little Friday night dance party. Thanks for your time.

Audio only for those who don't want to stare at my twisted visage: https://ciernyvlk.bandcamp.com/track/brief-encounter

EDITED Aug 6th 2021, 18:46

I'm not really familiar with the Metron so I can't speak to it very well @CardiacTasty, but I can share at a high level that on my own journey here sometimes it's not the modules. It's possible that your rack can do a lot of what you want as is and there's some growing pains there? Certainly that has been the case for me at various points along the way. So I'm curious, what exactly are you finding clunky here? What's not working?

I'm using the clock on the Metron itself. It does have a clock in though, so I could possibly use a Polyend Poly 2 to send clock from an external drum machine to the Metron as I don't think the Digitakt or the Octatrack has a clock out port, only midi.

I've been eyeing the Metropolix @troux. It's a tremendously powerful pitch sequencer, and the two voice control is exactly what I'm going for. The issue I keep coming back to: I fail to see how it could interplay with the Metron. I absolutely adore the Metron's 'variations' capability; I love being able to flip to a new musical idea, and then flip back to the original before moving on to something else. With the Metropolix I kind of lose that ability, though it might be true that with this recent change to precision adders generating the pitch sequences I may have already lost that ability.

Though it pains me, maybe I should jump ship from the Metron sequencing nearly everything to an external drum machine sequencing drums while the Metropolix sequences pitch? I love my Metron, but it's definitely proving difficult to integrate certain aspects (in a tasty way).

Yes, there's a little GAS in the tank @farkas 🤣

I just bought a metropolix though I've not had the chance to use it yet, but it seems to be close to what you're looking for?
-- troux

Yay! @troux is back! :)

What are you using as a master clock now? Some drum machines have cv clock inputs and outputs (RD8 and RD9 for example, and I assume the Elektron stuff too).
I’m a bit more excited about modular drums than Ronin, but I agree that the expense and necessity are probably unnecessary for some. I really enjoy my hybrid setup. I have an MPC but don’t really use a lot of samples that I don’t create myself, so I like the versatility of a decent enough drum machine and modular options. I’m usually happy with standard 808/909 sounds but the BIA and WMD modules are fun. I’ve been building some percussion sounds from scratch too, so everyone will do it differently. The MPC One and RD8 also have trigger outputs to interface with the rack. There are a lot of different ways to do the same so just continue to do your research to find the right option for you.

I just bought a metropolix though I've not had the chance to use it yet, but it seems to be close to what you're looking for?

Oh, here's an update on the setup at the current moment. As always, this will change dramatically as I continue twiddling. I took a lot from that video you shared @farkas, particularly around live pitch sequencing. I'm feeling much, much better about generating melodies on the fly now.

EDITED Aug 6th 2021, 17:02

Those are great points about drums in modular @Ronin1973.

My main concern with an external drum machine is something that actually might not matter much (or might matter tremendously): desk space. I'm concerned with being able to fit both my modular case and a separate drum machine on whatever table is available, whether that's at some venue or at home while practicing. I'm also a little concerned with the portability aspects of packing the modular case as well as a case for the drum machine, but that's a more minor concern.

In trialing with the case I currently own (a 104 hp 9u beauty from Case From Lake), I now realize I might actually be able to rock a small drum machine to the right of the case when it's setup. Maybe I should sell my Octatrack and buy a Digitakt?

What do you guys think of mixing separate drum machines and drum machine modules? How would a person get the drum machine sequencing drum modules? Would the drum machine control the clock on the Metron?

...I'm realizing this is going to take more research, but that's nothing new. Thanks again.

EDITED Aug 6th 2021, 16:57

If you like getting deep I enjoy the NerdSeq, I also plan on adding a er-101 just because it looks interesting.

If you dig the classic face value eloquencer and Metron are cool.

-- spacewizardinspace

The NerdSeq is what's known as a "tracker" sequencer... made popular in the 1990s on computers like the Commodore Amiga. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trackers. But the workflow might stymie someone's creativity... depending on the individual.

Hi Ronin1973,

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

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

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

TipTop's Z4000NS gives you CV control of all four stages of the ADSR at a street price of $175US. I have a couple. They work as advertised. The Doepfer A-140 doesn't have CV control of parameters.

The Befaco is actually quite nice, as there is also a gate output that fires off for EACH stage of ADSR. That could be useful for triggering other modules, sequencers, or ADSRs.

I would want one or two "Gucci" ADSR units for complex envelope generation. Then less expensive BASIC ADSRs if I need more envelope generators that are just doing what's labeled on the tin, like the Doepfer... as they are half as expensive.

I'd buy at least one Befaco if I was doing it again. I find the extra gates per stage to be hella' useful.

There are very few good reasons to put drums in your case. Drum modules are more expensive than buying a drum machine. Those modules will also need additional modules to be cohesive. If you have 8 drum modules going, you're going to need a Eurorack mixer with at least 8 inputs. You will also need a sequencer with 8 triggers available. So it's a substantial investment for something that can be replaced with a $300-$400 external device. Your audience isn't going to care if all of your drums are coming from the case or a drum machine.

There ARE good reasons to have modular drums if modulation is something that's extremely important to your own personal sound in abstract music. But for 99% of people... it's JUST a drum sound.

The 1010 Music BitBox is a good compromise if you want to stay inside the case. It can also be triggered via MIDI if your sequencer supports MIDI OUT. It's possible to run one TRS cable from the sequencer's MIDI out to the BitBox's MIDI in. Without giving a full tutorial on MIDI there are caveats of course.

There are smaller sample playback units that will work just fine as well. I'm speaking of gear I know and I'm familiar with.

Hi dear
I'm googling about an adsr. I'm searching something with CV controller on all parameters.
I stuck in the doubt on: befaco Adsr, Danny sound looping VCADSR or the cheapest Doepfer a-140. Also if a-140 still the cheapest (thinking to DIY for befaco and Danny) how about function and quality?
What you think about this module? All advice is appreciate.

Thanks
Glitched0xff

I like it. Especially how the harsher, snare/snap type sound comes in very occasionally nearer the end of the track. Nice restraint.

Hi,
In the Hemisphere Suite firmware for Ornament and crime there is an app called Captain Midi.
With it the module become a 4 cv to midi and 4 midi to cv interface.

Have a nice day.

Thank you once again Garfield!

Here's what I'm up to:

I use an Antelope Orion32 for the 'heavy lifting' via USB. But I also use a MOTU 828 mkii for CV Tools via Firewire 400. You just have to set up the routings for these properly in whatever software your machine uses for audio multitrack routing.

But yeah, you can run multiple interfaces PROVIDED your DAW and audio routing software can deal with this properly. With Ableton, the DAW certainly doesn't have a problem with that. This is actually a bit similar to the issues one sees when adding an ADAT Lightpipe interface to another interface, then letting the machine know about the new/extra channels. And in fact, depending on what DAW interface you're using, that strategy might be the right one here; you could use one of Expert Sleepers' Lightpipe-equipped modules for that.

Hi Plragde,

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

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

Hi Nickgreenberg,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:
-- a bunch of the Expert Sleepers units might be candidates, but I'm not sure about the "1 at a time" interface issue noted above. Maybe what Expert Sleepers mean by "interface" is not the same as what live means when selecting my RME UFX as the single "interface"...
-- when it comes to trigger / gate to MIDI, it looks like there are some options including Doepfer, Ladik, VPME
-- CV to MIDI there are some other options. ADDAC 222/221 could be usable? Befaco VCMC and/or CV thing? Delptronics CV to MIDI ("coming soon")?

So those are some of the candidates I've seen so far. But as the note says above, I would LOVE to hear suggestions from people who have succeeded with this kind of connection into DAWs for songwriting (or similar) purposes. Obviously there's a lot that could go wrong, and anything less than a solid and low-latency connection would be a recipe for frustration.

Thanks for any suggestions you may have!

EDITED Aug 6th 2021, 05:34

Hi Ronin1973,

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

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

Hi Plragde,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDITED Aug 5th 2021, 23:48

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

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

In light of that great advice (go slow and buy another case)...what are thoughts on the add of CVilization? too much modulation stuff, should i ditch it in favor of another VCO or something else?

Hi Plragde,

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

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

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

Hi Ronin1973,

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

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

Hi Plragde,

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful input guys, thanks!!

@farkas that's a great suggestion for synching driven by PWN. As I already have a PWN your suggestion will be my go-to fixit should the need arise. I also have a Malekko Quad Gate Delay I could use if needed, but I'd rather keep that free for creative purposes; plus trying to get the sequencers to synch through manual adjustment sounds to me like a fiddly and potentially frustrating or failing effort.

If anyone else has suggestions to make via synching multiple sequencers (see above), feel free to chip in.

Thanks to the ideas above and the related "favorite seqeuncer" thread, I'm narrowing in on what could be a great multi-sequencer setup for me, which is ultimately in the interest of creating a "modular-based scoring system" which can spit out the backbone parts of a songwriting effort. I've not yet solved how to connect that to my specific DAW+PC down the line: I posted that query as a separate thread: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/10312

I feel somewhat embarrassed by posting what seem to me like several "dumb$ss newbie" questions in a row. Sigh... Modular is definitely deep, and I can use a hand here and there. Thanks again to everyone offering friendly pointers, advice and perspectives!

NG

Hello,

I started in modular ~Feb 2021. I'm now in the middle of planning a significant expansion to my already nice setup. Thanks to the many MG forum people who've shared such helpful advice along the way!!

Question: what are preferred modular to DAW solutions for sending CV and/or midi into a DAW? In my case, this is a Windows PC normally running Live 11 but with a few alternative DAW choices on hand (including Bitwig).

My ideal future use case would be as follows:
-- use my modular setup for a majority (70%+) of composition tasks on a song via some combination of complex sequencing plus jamming
-- send MIDI+CV into the DAW for recording to capture the foundational "score" parts of the song I'm writing
-- send select audio from modular into the DAW for recording to capture (a few but not all) key audio parts and performances
-- use what I've recorded into the DAW as the foundation of a song; use the DAW the rest of the way to finalize the composition / arrangement / production to the point of being mix-ready
-- throughout the process, being able to use my normal audio interface + monitor setup for monitoring
-- net net, this type of use case would get me away from the DAW-based compositional process which is very mouse and keyboard focused. I would love to be able to handle a lot of the scoring in the modular domain!

At this point, I DO know Expert Sleepers modules (such as ES-9 or ES-8) are regularly used for such tasks. What I DON'T know is what setups are preferred for Windows+DAW(Live) because to my knowledge I can use only one audio interface at a time in my DAW. What I'm concerned about is if I'm running an Expert Sleepers module, will I lose my ability to monitor audio across the entire DAW session (because ES would replace my normal interface in the "1 at a time" interface environment of Live on my PC)?

If you know of good modular-to-DAW solutions that will work on a PC please let me know! And again thanks for the many contributors who've offered me advice recently and over past months.

Much appreciated!

Nicholas

EDITED Aug 6th 2021, 01:21

Hi Shanewave,

Nice to see you are building up the system and start to create a great track :-)

Wow, that sound that starts to kick in at about 2:38 is beautifully done! You got some lovely sound creation here and it's interesting to see you "at work" :-) Thank you very much for sharing this with us and kind regards, Garfield.

Hi Gabor,

Oh that's a nice slowly progressing piece of music, nicccceeeee :-)

Ha, ha, and some quite nice and fun sounds you are providing us here too, lovely! Thanks a lot for sharing this with us and kind regards, Garfield.

@farkas, That is a fantastic video, exactly what I'm looking for. I'll give it a watch through (probably a couple times actually). Thanks for the input!

Hi @CardiacTasty. I've sort of built my rack around the idea of performing improvisational minimal techno mainly using an Arpitecht and Eloquencer switching with an Acid Rain Switchblade (though I have other sequencers and utilities, and record other types of music too). I chose the Eloquencer over the Metron for the exact reason that you are describing here. I've also added a Behringer RD8 808 clone to trigger additional modular drum voices via the three trigger outs, so an external X0X style drum machine is always valuable, but you already have that functionality with the Metron. I've found the Arpitecht to be fun but not precise in getting exactly what I want, so you could probably use two but I think you'll find it similarly clunky to what you are doing now. I would recommend doing a lot of research on sequencers to pick one that does exactly what you need it to do, and use the Arpitecht as a supplement.
As always, yes... get a bigger case. Haha.
Have fun and good luck.

Here's a good video for your consideration:

EDITED Aug 5th 2021, 19:14

Lead And Bassline == Two Arpitechts??

I know I'm crazy. This is crazy. If you can, please help me with my crazy.

The premise

I'm trying to build a setup for live improvisational dancy techno. I'm looking for a lead, a bassline, and drums. That's (technically) music, that's what people seem to expect, that's what (I think) will get people dancing.

My thinking is I'll have 2 lead voices and 2 bass line voices to be able to swap out a voice when I move to a new musical space. Throw in drums, delicious and weird voicing from the Loquelic, some basic effects, plenty of filtering to twiddle with, a few samples. Jam everything into a small enough case to be portable but large enough to accommodate not needing another piece of equipment (like a separate drum machine) and I'm off to the races.

The problem

In theory, I thought Metron's Voltera extension would allow me to throw together melodies and bass lines easily enough on the fly. In practice, it's proving somewhat clunky; I'd very much appreciate an easier way to generate said melodies and bass lines.

Enter the theoretically insane: double (2x!!) Arpitechts. One for the lead voices and one for the bass voices. It just feels bad, but what am I to do?

The question

How else could I improvisationally (on stage) generate two sequences of notes that, you know, get people dancing? I look at this current setup and just see problems. Do I need a bigger case? Should I accept defeat and move to an external drum machine? What think?

Thank you for watching!

Listened to track nr 1 and loved
every second of it.
Amazing work.

I’ve had good luck with clocking from Pamela’s New Workout. I have a Moffenzeef Mito trigger sequencer that is a little squirrelly with syncing so I just send a reset gate to it every four bars from either the Eloquencer or PNW. I’ve found workarounds for any issues I’ve come across.
*edit: Just a note regarding Ronin's important consideration of rising/falling clock pulses, Pamela's New Workout allows you to skew and offset gate/trigger signals per channel if you do find a synchronization issue between multiple sequencers. I have not found it necessary to do this, but the capability is there. PNW also serves as my master "start/stop" button. Cool module. It's definitely the one that glued my rack together for the first time early on while I was just getting started.

EDITED Aug 5th 2021, 11:44

So I’m wanting to sell one of my upeaks, but it’s a Pusherman / Jak Plugg board and panel. Now unless a brand such as Befaco sells diy versions of their modules you cannot find these on the marketplace. So what I see is that loads of sellers sell their diy modules under a certain brand (i.e. Mutable Instruments) which suggests the original, but isn’t, and I feel that can be annoying. Seeing there currently is no other way; should I in my case just go ahead and sell it under Michigan Synth Works as it’s CV input expandable?

Perhaps in future there would be an easy way for seller and buyer to add/identify whether it’s diy or not? Or perhaps add a diy version of certain modules under which all diy versions can be placed?

Be handy if the marketplace could remember my choice of region and whether to include results from Reverb

I always tend to drill down to UK and no-Reverb so would save me setting this each time

It was a couple of days ago that I finished reading the Infinite Jest. I spent 4 long months with the book so it’s had a lasting impact on me. This piece is my selfish hommage to the late author, David Foster Wallace. Some ambientish-drony-tribal downtempo or something. Basic patch info in the video description.

EDITED Aug 5th 2021, 07:52

Synching multiple sequencers: for you folks running 2+ sequencers, are you using any special modules or techniques to get perfect synchronization? Ronin (above) and some others have warned me about sync problems. Before I add more sequencing its worth considering if and how I can get the units all lining up rhythmically. Thanks for all the ideas!

If you like getting deep I enjoy the NerdSeq, I also plan on adding a er-101 just because it looks interesting.

If you dig the classic face value eloquencer and Metron are cool.