I vote AGAINST Pam's as a sequencer. One knob + 2 buttons (counting knob-push as a button) just isn't enough control for a decent workflow on a sequencer IMO*. I've used it as a srquencer with mild success, but it's just an annoying workflow and makes an otherwise-great module frustrating to work with.

*Well...Turing Machine only has 1 knob and zero buttons and I don't have a problem with that XD. But it's a fundamentally different workflow from Pam's as a sequencer.

Bloom isn't exactly small, but for what it gives you (3x quantized pitch, 3x gate, 3x mod sequences) it's awfully compact. Main issue I see is that if we're talking about a "Small case" then channels 2-3 may not serve much purpose. That might also just be my GAS talking after seeing it in two different threads today XD

EDITED Jul 9th, 13:54

Thanks for the link.

IMO, Pam's is a great module, but a poor sequencer. It's pretty much a set-and-forget module to me, as making changes to it mid-jam is awfully menu-divey and can be hard to stay in the flow. I like it as a master clock, as a eucliedean trigger source, and as a tempo-synced LFO source. I have used it as a (quantized) random pitch sequencer, but it's a high-friction workflow.

Haven't used Bloom myself, but it has a good reputation from what I've seen, and it seems like it'd fit very well in a generative ambient case.

There's a lot of stuff in the rack so my first thought is "Step back and make one interesting voice first". You have four noise sources: Dixie, BIA, Rings (or Resonate, as it were), Ensemble Oscillator. Dixie is a good general-purpose VCO. Rings is great at what it does, but borderline stereotypical with how often people fall into the same handful of patches with it. BIA is a great module, but I usually think of it as a more aggressive industrial sound than that I think you're describing. If I were to pare this selection down to just one, whether as an academic exercise or for budget reasons, I'd go with the Dixie. It's the most basic, but also the most flexible of the lot. Even if you expand to a "Fancier" noise source later on, it can be good to have a "normal" VCO on hand for audio-rate FM.

VCOs want a VCF, 1-2 VCAs, and 1-2 envelopes. You've got that with the Dual Dagger, Intellijel Quad VCA, and Zadar. I lust after the Zadar myself, but I've heard mixed reviews about it as a "primary" envelope generator. That is, it's harder to make a standard ADSR envelope with separate control over each of the 4 stages. That may or may not matter for the sounds you're planning to make, just be aware.

What's a modular synth without extra modulation sources? You've got 4x LFOs from the Batumi, 2x extra envelopes from the Zadar, S+H Noise from the 1U Noise Tools, and 1-2 signals from Maths. Awesome. However, you only have those 4 channels of VCA for those 11 modulation sources. You've got 4 channels of passive attenuator with the 1U Quadratt, so that can help "turn down" the modulation from these sources, but more actual VCA channels would open more doors for complex modulation. I'd also suggest a DC-coupled mixer or two for combining CV sources (The Quadratt can serve this role).

I'm not intimately familiar with Monsoon or Arbhar, but they seem to fill pretty similar niches. They're both granular processors. Mimeophon is slightly different but still a pretty close cousin to those two. How do you intend to use them, is there a reason for having all three of them?

I think if you already have the Mother-32, making a single Euro voice, sequencing that + M32 from the Bloom, then playing around with modulation sources and utilities, will give you a LOT of options to work with. Once you have that going, you can start exploring what next steps to pursue. Maybe another voice, maybe more effects, maybe CV sources, maybe utilities for your existing CVs.

For starters, it'd be good to link the case rather than just a picture of it. I recognize ~half of these modules by the front panel alone, but linking the case itself makes it easier to get a closer look at the ones I don't know or even just kinda-know in order to give better advice.

What is your plan? How you you intend to control/sequence the synth? Are you looking to make washy generative soundscapes, crafted melodies, or techno beats?

Are you using this with any external equipment besides the M32?

EDITED Jul 6th, 20:20

Welcome!

The most common eurorack beginner mistake is "Oops, all oscillators" and you're in today's lucky 10,000. 2x uPlaits, nRings, a percussion synthesizer, and an integrated synth voice. That's a lot going on all at once, and you don't even have all the utilities to use all of them (1x filter and no VCAs).

Step one is to walk back to a single voice and figure out what you need to make that work. You could just stick with that Doepfer synth voice module, nothing wrong with that, but if you want to part one out yourself, you need:

• VCO
• VCF
• VCA (1x per voice minimum, 2x is pretty close to necessary though)
• Envelope Generators (1x per voice is enough, 2x is pretty common)
• Modulation Sources to keep the sound interesting (somewhere between 1 and 1,000 of these ;) )
• Utilities to adjust those modulation sources (read: More VCAs)

With you being from Germany, you might be able to get a full Doepfer system for cheaper than most, on account of lower shipping prices. Doepfer doesn't make the flashiest modules, but they make extremely solid building blocks. Being fundamentally good but not so flashy means that it's on YOU to learn how to patch interesting. Were I to live vicariously through your wallet, I might recommend something like

• Doepfer A-110-2 (Basic VCO)
• Doepfer A-120, A-124, A106-5...Lots of options for the filter.
• Doepfer A-130-2 (Dual VCA)
• Doepfer A-140-2 (Dual ADSR)

Doepfer has fancier VCOs than the A-110-2, I chose it because it's the cheapest while still being something that can prove useful if you expand to a flashier VCO in the future (a basic VCO feeding the FM input to a fancier VCO is always nice to have). Like I said, there are a lot of opitons for the filter and it's hard to go wrong with your choice here. Your rack has an A-106-5, which is a clone of the Oberheim Synthesizer Expender Module's filter. Did you choose that deliberately because you like the Oberheim SEM, or music made with it? It's not a bad choice, just a curious choice for a first filter. The A-130-2 is a dual VCA, so you can dedicate 1 to your volume envelope and 1 to your VCF envelope. I'm not a huge fan of the A-130-4, because it has a shared gain control for all 4 channels, while the 2 channel version gives each channel its own knob and CV. Sometimes (cough-very often-cough) you wanna turn up the filter envelope amount without changing the volume of the signal. A-140-2 lets you define a separate envelope for volume and filter contours. Only thing I don't like about it is the lack of voltage control, but the A-141-2 (VC ADSR) only has one output for a whole lotta rack space. You can certainly use the same emvelope for amplitude and filter, many classic synths have done that. Or you can get 2x of the 141-2. Or you could break the completely arbitrary "all Doepfer" boundary I've imposed for no reason ;)

For modulation sources, the sky is the limit. THIS is what makes modular synths shine. All of those input ports can have something wiggling the knobs for you, so make sure you have lots of things to do that automatic wiggling! The most common modulation sources are LFOs and envelopes. You've already put 2 envelopes on your Amplitude and Filter. What other inputs might be interesting to wiggle around right at the start of the sound? If you go with a more complex VCO like Plaits, you could put an envelope on one of the timbre inputs. You could modulate pitch to give a little "scoop" or "drop" at the attack of the note. You could modulate your modulation sources! I love putting a high-rate LFO on the filter cutoff frequency, it gives the filter a certain "growl". What if you put that LFO through a VCA, and put an envelope on the CV? Now you get that "VCF Growl" on the attack, but it cleans up for the sustain phase! As you get more modulation sources, you need more utilities to handle them, though. You'll need a good colleciton of VCAs and Mixers to make the full use of them (Note that mixers for CV are often DC-coupled, as opposed to mixers for audio which are usually AC-coupled. Most mixer modules have some way to switch between these two modes, but it may require a little soldering).

EDITED Jul 6th, 20:15

So...8 voices, with a handful of LFOs as your only modulation?

I'd say there's very little to play with.

I haven't heard a comparison IRL, only over the internet, but they really do sound the same. Front panel is slightly upgraded on Alia with the new Envelope output (plus, I'm not a huge fan of the original cluttered panel artwork). Alia implements the same synthesis engine as Alter, just on a different chip. So it will react to your various inputs in pretty much the same way. It has the added bonus of being re-configurable to any other Alia module.

I haven't seen or heard any evidence that any part of the Alia is a downgrade from the Alter. Looks like every change is either lateral or unambiguously an upgrade.

Maybe someday BIAlter will have some kind of "collector's item/original version" cool, but it was already so widespread before Alia came out, I don't think it's rare enough to be that unique.

So many modules, so few VCAs...

Personally, I'd lean more towards removing a sound source than a modulation source, given you already have a good collection of synths to begin with.

Plaits is an all-time great VCO. One could argue for days, months, years about the greatest [type of module] out there, but Plaits is a name you'll see constantly in such arguments about VCOs. So I'd say keep that. Between the Surface and Ensemble Oscillator, I'd say the surface is "more unlike" Plaits, so keeping it would allow for the greatest variety. The Ensemble does do things that Plaits doesn't, but Plaits has ways of achieving pretty similar sounds (as fundamentally, they're both oscillators). Surface works on a different principle: electrical emulation of a physical resonant cavity, so it's going to achieve sounds in a pretty different space than a more "normal" VCO.

3x MIA is a great utility module. Mixer, Attenuverter, DC-Biaser. It'll find its way into many a patch in this rack.

I'm not familiar with the 3DVCA. It's certainly interesting, and sometimes modular synth can be all about embracing the journey and seeing what esoteric lands your modules lead you into. But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how to actually use it. 4 Inputs/Outputs and 3 CVs...I get that it's somehow related to 3D space, but I'm just not sure how I'd operate it besides "put CVs in and get something different out". It's also pretty lacking in manual controls: only a shared "Level, Pan, Crossfade" for the entire module. If you've studied this module and think it can provide an interesting workflow for you, go for it. When I was recommending new VCAs, I was picturing something more like Mutable Instruments Blinds (a Ring Modulator) or a clone thereof (After Later Audio's Monocole is a 2-channel clone). Ring Modulators are basically VCAs that can go to negative gain. A "normal" VCA will just stick at 0V if the CV is negative, but a ring mod will invert the input signal.

EDITED Apr 14th, 20:19

You've mostly dodged the #1 newbie mistake of "5 voices and no modulation sources" so that's good. Looooooots of modulation to be found here.

The main thing that stands out as missing is utilities: You have the one quad VCA, one mixer (though it's exponential so better for mixing audio than CV), and Maths which is a hybrid CV source/utility. Utilities let your modulation sources intermingle, giving you sounds that evolve in far more complex ways that any of those sources would give you on their own.

I'd look for what you're willing to sacrifice in order to put in another VCA module (perhaps a ring mod, so it's not just the same as the VCA you already have) and a DC-coupled mixer (for your CVs). It's a common refrain in modular synth: You can never have too many VCAs or Mixers. Some other utilities that may prove useful: Mults (Buffered Mults for pitch CV, passive mults can be replaced with stackable cables but sometimes it's nice to have an actula module for it). Logic modules. Attenuverters.

Consider replacing that RackBrute module with a powered case, or a backplane power supply. Power modules can sometimes be a little anemic (your setup is fine: only uses ~75% of the +12V rail), or sometimes couple power noise into the other modules.

Consider a "control surface" module. Something that lets you play the synth in a way other than "turn knob, push button". Joysticks, lightstrips, contact mics, ribbon controllers...Sometimes it's nice to take these very abstract instruments and make something about them a little more tactile. (A more complex MIDI-CV controller could inherit some of this from MIDI CCs, but that Behringer one pretty much only does CV-Gate)

Overall, it does look like a fun system to explore. Just giving you some ideas to chew on.

EDITED Apr 13th, 20:39

All sequencers use digital electronics to move between each step of the sequence, does that make an analog synth with a sequencer "digital"? One of the most common modular synth tricks is putting audio-rate signals into inputs not "meant for" audio rate inputs, so does putting an audio-rate (or higher) square wave into the Clock In of a sequencer fundamentally change what the synth is?

And just to clarify: I've given a lot of long-winded feelings and advice, but that Doepfer VCA is the only thing that I'd caution you as being an actual mistake. You won't be able to separately control your audio and filter envelopes, nor can you use the extra VCA channels for "general utility" purposes since they're locked into your articulaiton curve.

One option would be to replace that Doepfer A-135-3 with an A-135-2. This sacrifices the stereo capability of the -3, but gives you individual CV for each channel, individual VCA outputs, "Sum" output (ie the mix of all 4 VCAs), and "Select" outputs (ie the mix of all VCAs where you didn't directly patch the output).

Other option would be a more full-featured VCA like the Intellijel Quad VCA, ALA Cloaks (a clone of MI Veils), or Behringer Four Play (a clone of IJ's Quad VCA, if you're not opposed to Behringer). Or, the Doepfer A-135-2 alongside the A-135-3 as your output mixer. All of these have each of these features per individual VCA:
* Mono Input
* Mono Output
* CV In
* CV Attenuator
* CV Offset (not crucial but nice to have)
* Linear/Exponential CV response (not Doepfer) (not crucial but nice to have)
* +6dB boost (IJ/Behringer only) (not crucial but nice to have)

Plus, they normal their output to the next output, allowing them to work as a pseudo-mixer in addition to as a VCA.

EDITED Mar 27th, 17:01

I'll say from my experience with Pam's: It's obviously great for clocks, it's great for tempo-synced LFOs, and it's good for ostinado rhythms. The deeper you get into "Pam's as a sequencer" the worse the user experience gets, though. It's super powerful, but with only one button and one encoder, navigating the module is pretty uncomfortable in any kind of live scenario (whether that's performance or just jamming in your practice space). It works best as a "set and forget" module. You can set it to something very complex, but making changes to it is slooooooooow and hard to do in a way that matches the musical structure. Like, I can sweep a filter or a VCA gain knob slowly and end the sweep right on the downbeat, it's harder to pull similar tricks with Pam's.

All that said: Pam's is a great module, I sure as hell am not getting rid of mine. Just warning you about some of the areas where it falls short for me. I have mine set up with 4 clocks and 4 LFOs that I rarely change, and never change mid-performance, and it's great for that role.

At the moment, there is no intention to expand...

Buying a modular synth is like buying a boat. It's a never-ending hole in the bottom of your wallet. Good luck not expanding XD

You've got the basics: VCO, VCF, VCA, Envelope Gen, Mixer, a couple mod sources, and a couple FX.

Some thoughts:

That Doepfer Quad VCO is nice and compact, but lacks a lot of control. Notably: It shares the same gain (manual and CV) across all 4 channels. There are situations where this can be useful, but as a first VCA I'd strongly recommend one where all 4 channels are totally independent. MI Veils (or a clone thereof) and Intellijel Quad VCA are great.

You set this up as a 6U case with only 3U full. Is your intent to add mroe modules as you learn more? If so, you may want to invest in a backplane power supply rather than a power module. That one will be fine for the setup you have right now, but if you add many more modules with high power draw, you could exceed its abilities. Plus, flying bus power turns into spaghetti (albeit, hidden spaghetti) fast. I like the Intellijel TPS (Triple Power Supply) boards, they use the 80W version for their 7U 104HP performance cases.

You have one main voice (Plaits) with two main FX modules (FX Aid and Granulita Versio). This is a great use case for a Matrix mixer. Horizontal rows: Voice, FX1, FX2. Vertical columns: FX1 Send, FX2 Send, Mixer Send. This gives you a lot of control over the wet/dry mix, and also gives you the ability to "cross pollinate" the FX. Matrix mixers can be a little arcane, but they're a great tool for the kind of patching that modular synths do better than standalone synths. It may be a little beyond the scope of "My first rack" but I'd at least consider it as an early add-on.

3x MIA is a very cool module. I wonder what your goal for it is? I normally think of it as "a way to combine modulation sources" but you don't have a ton of sources to combine here (Maths and Dixie in LFO mode). There are also ways to patch Maths to do the same job (albeit, Maths only has the equivalent of 1 channel of 3x MIA). Unless you have a specific idea for this module, it may be a good "eventual add-on" with Maths serving the purpose in the meantime.

What is Pam's doing? Again: Great module, but what's the point? If you have a Keystep Pro controlling this setup, I'm not sure what Pam's is adding.

You're still not really clarifying anything about your use case...Yeah, if you want to make music you want rhythm and melody. That doesn't get us any closer to recommendations that meet your intended workflow.

Are you intending to play this alongside other instruments? Do you have any kind of controller you wan to use with it (eg MIDI keyboard, drum pad, ribbon controller, etc)? Are you trying to make something that you'll live-interact with, or something more generative that you more or less set up and let it run itself? Do you want to program in a melody, or "discover" melodies from a random source?

The Plasma Voice module doesn't need an external EG, it has one built in. It's a voice, not an oscillator, so it has its own EG and filter.

It can be controlled by CV or MIDI, so it's on you which of those routes you want to pursue.

You haven't really described what you want to do with this, other than plug it into an external FX processor. Hard to make any recommendations if you don't have a defined use case. What works well for one setup may not work well in another.

Keep in mind: sequencers don't have to sequence pitch. Especially given the fact that you don't appear to have a quantizer in this rack, that behringer sequencer might be better suited to more timbral modulation in your rack.

Use one output of Pam's to provide the Clock In to the Beatstep (it probably wants 24 PPQ), the rest can provide either temo-synced LFOs or "weird clocks" using euclidean rythms and/or logic combinations between outputs. You can use those "weird clocks" to drive your in-rack sequencer, so that it's twiddling knobs in a way not directly related to what the Beatstep is doing.

EDITED Feb 18th, 17:17

I'm enjoying my Bopp and Steve. It's a "Deconstructed Reverb" with parameterized control over 3 different stages that add up to the final reverb effect. And you can insert a pitch shift into any of those stages (or a handful of other places: pitch shift in the delay path can do pretty crazy things).

It's not the most straightforward reverb out there, there's a little learning curve, but it's not a terribly complex module either. The manual is more like a poster than a book, no menus to navigate, very tactile interaction.

It would probably sound like a synth kick drum.

A common technique for making a kick is to take a low-frequency sine wave and apply a short envelope (with zero or near-zero attack) to both frequency and volume. So you start out with a high pitch that rapidly goes back down again. Most envelope generators have an exponential decay shape rather than a 1/x shape, but they're pretty similar (1/x in red, exp decay in blue):

!

EDITED Jan 29th, 16:20

It's a fun noise maker and experimental machine. But you have to go on the instrument's journey, rather than take the instrument on your journey. If you have a musical idea in your head and want to make it come out of a speaker, the subharmonicon has a pretty difficult workflow to make that happen.

You can get a really thick tone of out it, due to the architecture of its sub-oscillators, but like mentioned already, it takes a little bit of math and music theory (or just a lot of tinkering) to find the proper ratios for a properly harmonious stack of subharmonics. I also like that it has separate VCA and VCF envelopes, it'd be nice if the Mother-32 had that (not sure how they'd fit the controls on that panel though).

It has 2x 4-step sequencers. That's limiting in a way that can be creativity-inducing, but the fact that they're only controllable by liiiiiittle tiny potentiometers makes it difficult to dial in or perform live. The quantization options don't help either: You've got chromatic (reasonable, but it means you need to be careful for dissonant out-of-scale notes if your other instruments are tuned to a diatonic scale), and a few different xenharmonic scales (which can be cool but are really hard to play with other instruments unless you've gone all-in to microtonal world).

The rhythm/gate generation aspect of it is very cool. It's a great polyrhythm machine, just an awful lot of HP for that job :P

That's super cool.

Plaits is a great place to start in modular.

Super versatile and playable sound source. MI closed up shop a few years ago, but all of their designs and firmware are open source so several companies offer a clone of it.

This is a dead thread but because the question was never properly answered:

Each power bus/ribbon cable on the uZeus (or any Eurorack power supply) contains wires carrying all of 0V/GND, 5V, 12V, and -12V. This is what TipTop meant when you asked which bus to use: Either one, because both buses contain all of these voltages. There isn't a "positive" and "negative" bus in that way. Sometimes people may refer to any one of the voltage supplies within the ribbon cable as a bus, which is reasonable if you're drawing up a schematic for a single module, but less so if you're connecting multiple modules in a case. Personally, I'd use "Power Bus" to refer to the entire ribbon cable's worth of power supplies.

It is important to always connect your modules to the ribbon cable correctly: There should be some indication which side of the module's power connector lines up with the red wire on the ribbon cable (which indicates the -12V side of the ribbon). If not, call the manufacturer and chastise them for not making that clear.

A common use case for the -12V supply is amplifiers: if you want to amplify a signal that goes below 0V, it's helpful to have a negative-voltage power supply to make that happen. This could mean VCA modules, or just op-amp components (which appear in almost any analog circuitry).

EDITED Sep 26th 2025, 14:57