After making some prototypes for this small 1U-only case, designed to be possibly used as a companion to the 4ms pods, a couple of questions hit the surface...
So if you feel like this is something you might want to add to your setup, please check the quick survey linked below. Thanks!
I'm interested. A wider, more HP, version would be neat too.
I have been toying with the idea of a 1u only rack for a while. And boy does it look cutesy. But let's face it: The bang for the buck in 1u is less compared to 3u so it's possibly not that good an idea.
But let's face it: The bang for the buck in 1u is less compared to 3u so it's possibly not that good an idea.
-- wiggler55550
While I agree with you given the current lineup of available 1u modules, I could see something like this prompting the creation of more unique and interesting 1u modules.
I like the idea of a 1u only rack for patch specific utilities that I don't always want taking up space in my main rack. Rather than use a 4ms pod or a pico case with a bunch of tiny 2hp modules, I would rather have just a row or two of 1u stuff.
Am I missing some glaring drawback of 1u? In other words, is there a concrete reason for the difference in "bang for the buck?"
With 1u the clearence for the rails is taken away from the long side of the module, e.g., you have less space to work with compared to a 3u, given the same size front plate. You cannot just give a 3u module a quarter turn and declare it a 1u, you will need a new layout to fit it in the narrow space. I guess that's why my 1u uO_C was so much more expensive than the 3u version. Moreover, the smaller the module the less functionality will fit in while much of the cost will not shrink accordingly.
I was thinking of a more or less self sufficient rack here. But given a special use case it does make sense, I can see that.
That makes sense to me. Thanks for your explanation.
With 1u the clearence for the rails is taken away from the long side of the module, e.g., you have less space to work with compared to a 3u, given the same size front plate.
-- wiggler55550
This also results in more space for your fingers! :)
More below...
You cannot just give a 3u module a quarter turn and declare it a 1u, you will need a new layout to fit it in the narrow space.
-- wiggler55550
Actually, if the module has been properly designed, you can. Be prepared to have quite a wide 1U module though.
Both 3U and 1U versions of my LB5 module use the same PCB, and only have different front panels, so the "lost" area needed for the rails virtually has no impact.
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/xodes-lb5-1u
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/xodes-lb5-3u
About whether a 1U only case makes sense / is a good idea or not (or if the 1U format makes sense at all), will only depend on how one would use it, so there's no universal answer, and it's not for everybody.
Even though the short demo used this case on its own, the idea was more to complement existing setups to add a couple 1U modules. Some are only available in 1U format, some interfaces (like the steppy) are more user friendly / natural with modules in the horizontal orientations, so there can be uses for such cases. And nobody will force anyone to buy one. :)
There were also some similar reactions when I released the 1U/3U adapters, and yet, I always need to make more. I understand that this solution too is not for everyone though.
Another thing to take into account is the type of modules to be used in 1U : the utilities I released earlier this year were originally designed as 1U modules only, and I finally decided to adapt these to 3U (using a specific PCB for each format this time). So far sales are slightly higher for the 1U format, and this was kind of expected, based on what happened with LB5 already. I do apply the same prices for both formats, and that's just the way it should be.
One could also argue about if hardware modular synthesizers in general make any sense in the 21st century when you can use VCVrack instead! ;)
I guess sane people just don't invest in modular synths. :)
On the behalf of totally insane modular synth users worldwide, I'd just like to.....
Nah. Actually, VCV and hardware have their uses. VCV has loads more modules that are ready to go, but you have pretty much ZERO tactile physical patching. And hardware is more limiting (until you crash VCV!) but has the advantage of getting your hands on the sound. But since VCV can be patched up so that it's using external signals, you can go from the physical modular to the virtual one, and take advantage of the best aspects (and worst to some extent...huge VCV patches can get a bit hairy as far as CPU load) of BOTH methods.
Plus there's a method that seems to ALWAYS get missed, and that's combining VCV and physical modulars on an equal basis. Oddly, in Eurorack everyone knows about the voodoo that Expert Sleepers do, but where CV/trig/gate control is concerned beyond their offerings, people know little else, it seems. But if you can snag a DC-coupled "obsolete" audio interface (I use a MOTU 828 mkii), you can use such things as Expert Sleepers' software, CV Tools in Ableton, Volta on the Mac, etc to integrate both system paradigms into one big, complicated and glorious MESS. Plus, yes, you CAN use both CV/g/t AND audio via this method. Just don't run out of channels!
Sure, it doesn't make any sense. But then, try and follow an explanation of Neapolitan 6ths sometimes.
