Moog-Behringer System 55 modules question

This is my very first Eurorack project and although it probably sounds insane, I'd like to to build a fairly accurate clone based on the Moog System 55 using mostly Behringer modules & whatever else needed to obtain as a substitute for a few mystery modules that Moog lists in their nomenclature but didn't clearly translate to Behringer terminology. I am hoping somebody would be willing to share some of this knowledge of which correct modules can be used in place of these following units:

Moog 993 "Trigger & Envelopes Voltages Panel" (This one, I haven't a bloody clue what would substitute here)
Moog "Console Panel #2" (I'm wondering if the Behringer CP35 is the substitute here)
Moog "Console Panel #3" (I'm guessing that the Behringer CP3A-M is the substitute in this case)
Moog "Console Panel #8" (I haven't a bloody clue on this one either)

When you consider the actual Moog System 55's are in very limited production of 55 worldwide if at all, for a cost of $35,000 usd. In view of this, a mere $4k is a drop in the bucket if the Behringer clone system works reasonably close. Sounds too good to be true, eh. Anyway, your feedback, comments or advice will be very much appreciated.

Regards,
Rockasaurus

OK...let's see here...

CP8 = unnecessary. This is simply the power supply, and given that B. is working in Eurorack here, fitting a 1:1 for the CP8 would be pointless...and also, a real space-waste. Just use the B. CP-1A and feel the warm fuzzies that result from saving valuable panel space. Or, better still, if this is being built into B.'s 2 x 140 cabs, just use the onboard P/S.

CP3 = Behringer equivalent would be to pair the CP3A-0 and CP3A-M. This, however, is only a thing if you're opting to use the backside bussing for your control signals; if not, all you'll need is the mixer.

CP2 = No real substitute. The filters of the B. 923 would work here (albeit without the preset detented filter values...which, actually, is an improvement), and the rest of the module you REALLY want nothing to do with, as it's part of the original Moog "S-Trig" setup, and we don't use this because 1) it's Eurorack, and we don't use S-Trig there and 2) S-Trig SUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!! If you've ever used a modular Moog, it's the first thing you come to hate on the system, because if you put too much of a load on the S-Trig bus, the lack of input buffering will cause a voltage sag that'll have it triggering randomly and annoyingly. A hangover from the very beginnings of the Moog that almost no one adopted back then because the engineering shortcomings were even glaringly fubar in the 1960s. In fact, compare the Moog 961CP with the B. 961...the arrangement of V-Trig and S-Trig outputs is pretty much reversed, with the Moog having the ability to convert V-Trig to loads of S-Trig outs, and the B. doing the exact opposite, and that really only for a certain degree of "historical accuracy".

993 = Again, this has to do with the bussing system Moog used to "simplify" patching. In this case, it's a way to "backplane" the triggers and envelopes between a pair of EGs and the two VCAs. Not something essential, and in fact it's something potentially confusional. Frankly, the bussing on the expanded IIIc (the 55's predecessor) I've used in the past was something I found really pointless, as I prefer being able to patch ALL of the signals and not rely on "cheats".

Hi Lugia,
Thank you so very much for taking the time to answer my inquiry. You most definitely sound like you have some serious expertise in modular synth engineering & design for sure. Even though I have been involved in synthesizers since 1971 I tend to be more of an appliance operator rather than an engineer as I don’t have the academic background. Back in the day I used to occasionally hang out at Moog Music when they were on Academy Street in Williamsville, NY which was close to my home at the time and it was then that I purchased my 1st synth, a Moog Sonic-6. Over the course of time, I met Dr. Bob Moog, Dave VanKoevering, Dr. Tom Rhea and Tom Lamb who were some of the big dogs at Moog back then. Two years later my synth needed service so my Dad took it in for me as was stationed at Shaw AFB, Sc. It was then, my Dad was introduced to Keith Emerson who was at Moog doing some work with Bob Moog. My Dad told Emerson that his son (that would be me) was a huge fan and he was my inspiration. Emerson grabbed a mini Moog patch layout sheet and wrote a note to me and autographed it. Ok back to business. I will finish refining my System 55 and make it public. If you care to review it, I’d be very receptive to feedback & suggestions. The case I’m planning to use is a Pittsburgh Modular Structure EP-420 with 3 powered 140 hp rows of beautiful eurorack.
Best regards, Walt a/k/a Rockasaurus.

Cool story! Much of my synth background comes from having grown up around music tech in Nashville. That's actually a hotbed of prototype development, because Nashville's studios are sufficiently laid-back that engineers and producers love to screw around with these things. So I got to see and/or use some crazy things, such as...

An ARP-badged Chroma (only 50 of those came out prior to the CBS buyout)
A DX-1
Peabody College's big Moog system (the one Gil Trythall used)
A McLeyvier (no shit! Valley People were a dealer for those!)
A 360 Systems synth that was actually the rebadged Basyn Minstrel (also at Valley People)
A few Vako Orchestrons (mainly because Vako was in Nashville...explaining Kraftwerk's own Music City connection!)
An Alpha Syntauri (I implemented that thing when it was in MTSU's electronic studio, added a Soundchaser later)
Woodland's prototype Jeep Harned pre-MCI archtop fader desk (it was at a different studio by then)
Monument's bespoke Flickinger desk
The prototype 1U version of the Quantech Room Simulator

And several devices that had been cooked up by engineers there. One that I learned much from was Jim Gilmore, who actually built his own desk from scratch in the early 1980s because he couldn't get a desk that would fit his workflow (advertising and voiceover work). Lots of gear was also modified, with Scully decks being prime devices for that. Definitely a very strange environment for a young musician to grow up in!

Lugia, Many of the systems that you mentioned, i.e. 360 systems, the very famous DX-1 definitely ring a bell here. The Vako Orchestron, Wow! That one made even more famous by Patrick Moraz.At the time I thought that one was going to sweep the world but for some reason, it kinda ended up being a flash in the pan though. Digital was where it was all going at that time but I remember when Vako came out with that beast articulating sound using laser optics on a disc. Very much state of the art technology for that period and it supposedly was to blow the Mellotron away. Yes, Nashville is quite THE place for anybody with aspirations that fall under any of the many facets of music production/performance for sure. What I find uncanny is how monophonic and duophonic analog technology gave way to super polyphonic devices with massive storage and easy programming interfaces, digital and wavetable as well as FM synthesis technology and it just kept getting better every release of gear at NAMM. Now it seems that folks are realizing the merits of the deep analog and want to return to the retro or vintage thing, hence the reentrance of the modular systems by the newly reformed and rebuilt company, Moog Music, Inc. as well as companies like Behringer that are resurrecting the good old classic dinosaur rigs like the Moog modulars, ARP Odyssey and 2600 as well as some of the early Korg stuff. Seems like its going full circle and I like it.

I know exactly how that explosion in development happened. Originally, electronic music was viewed as a purely academic thing, and the majority of the R&D was being done by/for academic musicians and composers. One example that I can think of is the scanning polyphony method that E-Mu licensed to Sequential for the P5...the initial stab at that was done right across town in Urbana by Jim Beauchamp back in 1964. From that sort of research, it made its way to E-Mu in the early 1970s, was refined further, etc.

But what happened is that the focus for synthesizers changed from academia to pop. When it was obvious where the money was, synth companies changed their developmental paths from the academically-driven aspects to ones that were more aligned with working musicians. The annoying thing, though, is that while some academic studios were able to incorporate new developments alongside the older ones, many hide-bound academic music departments remained hopelessly stuck in their grant-writing cycles. This isn't where you want to be looking for new ideas if the objective is to create instruments for working stiffs, so by the mid-1970s, academia was just about DONE in terms of relevance.

In fact, I can cite a first-hand experience with this. Back during my undergrad, both I and my comp/theory prof "got it"...he was adamant that the future would be software-defined instruments, and I was working on adding relevant tech to the electronic music studio at MTSU (I opted to add a Memorymoog for starters...VERY smart move at that time). So when I got to Illinois and profs and grads were jizzing all over the creation of the hardware-dependent Kyma system...I knew in a flash that this was some VERY loud barking up the wrong tree! And while Symbolic Systems still puts out their DSP farm-reliant Kyma system for thousands and thousands of dollars, any one of us can go and buy an iteration of Arturia's spot-on Synclavier VST (no, really...it's PERFECT now that it has the resynthesis function), load it into the DAW of our choice, and wind up with what's essentially a bespoke Synclav Post-Pro system for a few hundred smackers! Would this have happened if, say, Michael Jackson hadn't made the original Synclav's sound an iconic part of "Thriller"? Probably not!