User Posts

Hmmm...probably better if I show you. Lemme bang on this for a hot minute...

EDIT: OK, here we go...

First off, I deleted the discontinued modules...notably Braids and the Stillson Hammer. Removed the drum voices, also, then I restructured the signal flow so that your "voice" is on top, "modulators" in the middle, and the sequencers, effects, and performance mixer on the bottom. Left to right flow, also. These tweaks make the general environment of the instrument a LOT easier to navigate.

Top row: buffered mult added, since we've got four oscillators here, plus the potential of VCF CV routing. Next to this is a little Doepfer multimodule that contains a sample and hold or track and hold, slew limiter, and a ring modulator. Oscillators next, with the Braids subbed out with a CalSynth clone. Then a four-in mixer with dual outs, which lets you sum the oscillators down...then you can feed them into the Tiptop Fold. Or you can send some oscillators into one of the Fold's inputs, and send another down to the #2 input on the Fold for extra wavespliced craziness. Lastly, Morgasmatron...why have two separate VCFs when you can jam 'em into the same module and make them cross-feed, right?

Middle row: Noise and random pulse gen, then the WMD/SSF Toolbox, which is one of the best jam-things-in-tiny-space utility modules I can think of. After that, a Stages...which can be either a multistage envelope gen OR a 6-step sequencer, depending on what you need. Maths next, then the Batumi and Zadar with their expanders. The Tiptop MISO then provides plenty of ways to screw around with the modulation signals, and next to that is a Happy Nerding 3x VCA, primarily for the use of the modulation row BUT since the module allows you to "split out" individual VCAs, you could also press them into service for audio.

Bottom row: Stillson's gone, so I put in a Squarp Hermod. Internal quantizing, MIDI interface (including a host connection for directly connecting USB devices, such as keyboards, etc), all the bells 'n' whistles across eight channels. Then for kicks, next to that is a Hikari Eucrhythm sequencer for creating crossrhythmic patterns with a touch of statistical randomness. It's also useful for doing random gate/trigs for other devices in the build. Mimeophon after that, then next to it is a Frequency Central module for reverb, tap delay, and chorus. The performance mixer here is Toppobrillo's revised 4-channel Stereomix mkii, which gives you your audio VCAs (four, one per channel) plus VC panning, VC AUX send, cue send, mutes, metering, and your phones preamp. This then connects to the Happy Nerding Isolator to convert synth to line level and to isolate the modular from any crud coming back thru the audio out lines, plus it has the master stereo level control, allowing you to kill the audio feed without having to change any mixer settings...very handy!

Yes, this IS different from your start point. But at the same time, it still has the same sound generation capabilities as the original version, the same modulation source, and a beefy sequencer like before. But in this case, this is what you get when you drop all of the "boring" modules in, which then tunes up the build and makes it into a ready-to-rip modular. Without these tweaks, synthesis is a big PITA...but WITH them, you wind up with a boxful of sonic trouble that I doubt you'll ever hit the bottom of. And yeah, no drums...trust me, you're much better off using the safety of a quality drum machine, because even if everything on the modular goes bonkers, you've still got that groove going and you can turn the modular catastrophe into a trippy and gnarly "improv" while you're busy fixing shit! And believe me...that happens more than you think!

EDITED Sep 2nd 2020, 04:34

You're not going to be able to use that external mixer for CVs and mod signals, though...and you NEED that functionality here.

This build has lots of sources, to be sure. BUUUUUUUUT...

...as usual, there's lots of utility stuff that should be here...which isn't. You got the "sexy" part...and ran a bit too far with it, seems like. Jim's advice is very good. I would also suggest removing the drum modules; fact is, you can probably get more cohesive results with a present-day drum machine than by trying to work with this in what's actually a rather sonically-crowded and not all that big build. You would be in a far better position and have a much better build if you did this, then reallocated the space as Jim (and I!) suggest.

Well, given that it's a variant on Ken Stone's revision of the Serge USG, looking first at THIS might be useful: https://www.elby-designs.com/webtek/euro-serge/es114-universal-slope-generator/es114.htm Also this, from Serge's original docs: https://serge.synth.net/documents/datasheet/DSG.jpg

Currently, I have two Pittsburgh Modular Structure EP-208 cases but when maxed-out with modules...
-- morphon

Given that this implies that BOTH cabs do this, my immediate reaction is that you're overtaxing the power supplies. But then, when I look at Pitt's site to check the current capacity, I can see that you've got 4A on the +12 and 3A on the -12. So, unless this thing's stacked with tube modules, you'd be hard-pressed to exceed that in 208 hp. The next thing to check, then, will be for flaky module behavior; it's a dirty little secret in modular that all modules are NOT quiet, well-behaved devices, and by unplugging/replugging each module one at a time from the busboards, you'll probably find a few "bad actors". The solution there is a little more...tricky, since the Pitt cabs also appear to have filtered busboards. This makes RF radiation more of a suspect issue here.

Now, the key to fixing stray RF is to isolate the problem component somehow. In a modular synth, this is going to be a major PITA, since there's nothing exactly "isolated" when it's in operation. It IS possible to add a ferrite across a ribbon (or two...one at the busboard end, the other at the module end) to keep this damped down...and if you're lucky, that might be all that's needed here. If NOT...OK, now it gets bonkers.

Also, check the power rails with an oscilloscope. No fooling. There could be power supply problems that, while you'll have the proper voltages on the rails, induce crud on the DC rails that can conceivably get past the busboard filtering. You want ruler-flat DC; if you see ripple or noise to an excessive degree, then the problem is the power supplies...and yeah, since they're OEM-type supplies, it IS conceivable that they could have the same circuit fault.

Lastly, and while I would be amazed if this was the case, how close are you to your current limits in each cab? It's worth noting that when you turn the system on, inrush current loads can be considerably higher for the fraction of a second when they happen than at any other time when the system is turned on. Best rule of thumb with current loading is to have at least 1/4th (and 1/3rd is better!) of your current max load "unused"...because the figures WE see in the MG specs are invariably for operational current, and NOT inrush values, and that headroom is needed for inrush. If you've exceeded 4 Amps in one of these...well, first of all, I'd be amazed...but if you're actually above 3A on your +12V rail, you're in that headroom area. Plus...the easier a load the P/S has to pull, the cooler it runs, and since heat is the enemy of electronic components, this helps lengthen the lifespan of the P/S itself.

Or in the end, you could just do what I do, and power your modulars with linear supplies. These are reliable, solid, noiseless as a rule, and while they're heavy and clunky, they ARE the sine qua non for powering modular synthesizers. I should note that I also do this with my amateur radio gear, and the results are worth it. Switching supplies are cheap, light, and simple, but even with decades of development, they're still just as capable of flaky behavior as they've always been.

My beef with all these YT celebrities who have millions of dollars of free modular gear that is gifted to them by sponsors and never admit they are paid to push product with the freebies.
-- benprusinski

Yeah, I know the set of people you're talking about. Their relationships are really suspect. Back during the Korg 2600 FS fiasco, it was interesting to see how these people had ZERO trouble getting one of these damn things, but the general public had pretty no chance to snag one. Why, if Korg liked you enough, you could even get TWO. Then there was this one interesting incident...one of the YT celebs got one, but the case (remember: the case is a big part of why this synth was "limited") had been busted up in transit. Which, when you think about it, is something WE MIGHT ALL NEED TO KNOW ABOUT, as it makes Korg's "limited edition" claim even more specious. Anyway, they shot an unboxing with this...then RAPIDLY took it down under some...odd...circumstances (involving Korg, apparently) and replaced it with a new demo vid that was very careful to NOT show the damage to the road case. I confronted them about this, and they got REAL salty about it...but also made an admission that, yes, they'd gotten their synth through "other means" and not as a retail purchase, and no, it wasn't a "loaner" for review purposes. Read that however you like.

And yes, the "LOOKATMYBIGASSSYNTHAINNITCOOL!?!?!?!" YT crowd. Pft. Yep, you're 100% spot on...these YT creators love to show off this NEWAMAZINGSHINYTHING...but do you ever see one of them giving a tutorial on how to use basic modules? Like VCAs? Y'know, the module that everyone IGNORES but that they NEED? Nah. I'd love to ask a couple specific ones about how they use LFO sync...and see if they even know how to do that!

I would like to point out that there are very good synth users on YouTube, though. Let's take loopop's reviews as an example...

OK, with loopop, you get perfect views of the device in question. No extraneous narrative; everything he's saying is germaine to what he's doing. You get scope views to see things like spectral purity of VCOs, VCF behavior, etc. There's even a "skip-to" timeline on screen! To me, THAT is what I expect in a review. The device gets a workout by a knowledgeable synthesist and we get a "fly on the wall" seat. They're not thrilling, not trendy...just purely informative, like they SHOULD BE.

Contrast that was someone telling you "YOU NEEDZ VCAZ! KAN NEVRR HAZ ENUF VCAAA!!!" and not explaining WHY you need them...OK, that's just plain sucks. Why do I need 'em, mo'fo? Hm? Buehler? Buehler? Or "demoing" a module that we can barely see behind a tangle of patchcords. OK...then, why are those patchcords there? What are you doing with this thing? What's it hooked up to? What's that knob you're turning while hiding the label behind your hand because you don't know how to stay out of the camera's way? In the end, this isn't constructive, and just confuses prospective modular users even more, which results in people getting onto MG and putting up these abortions of builds that seem like they're showcases for how much money the user in question feels like blowing...but which also won't make for anything resembling a proper synth. Great if you like to shop for deals on eBay and Reverb, I guess, but not so good for those people who bought into this under the wrongly-held mindset that they would be instantly K00L once they had that patchcord-dripper built and installed.

Basically, it's like this: YouTube, by its own design, has turned into the same sort of ugly creature as regular TV. Content gets tailored for ad revenue and max eyeballs, information suffers as a result because information in of itself doesn't sell [INSERT COMMODITY HERE]. That's not helpful.

Shepard tones (also called Risset tones, after J-C. Risset, the INA/GRM composer who used this quite a bit) are sort of weird. It sounds like the tone is continuously going up or down, but that's not what's up at all. The spectrograph above gives a few clues, tho...

You can see a continuous pattern of up-swept pitches that overlap. But you'll notice that you can't actually see the origin of the pitches, and that the amplitude reduces the higher the pitch goes. That's part of the trickery. The other part is purely psychoacoustic, and relies on how we perceive sonic foregrounds via amplitude.

OK...let's build one of these things. Take several VCOs, for starters. Set each one to the same low pitch, and mix them all together. Send this to a bandpass VCF so we can limit the passband we're listening to...this eliminates the obvious "bottom limit" and "top limit" pitches.

Now, here's the voodoo part: each VCO also receives a modulation signal from...oh, let's say we'll use several AD EGs. Long linear attack, pretty much no decay. The attack has to keep going while the signal is within the VCF's passband, but it starts moving the VCO's pitch up before the signal enters the passband, and keeps going until it's gone past the top limit. So now, we've got several VCOs and several individual ADs sending them pitch-rise modulation. Then the key to this is a trigger sequencer. Each EG gets triggered in turn; if you have six VCO/EG combos, use six steps. As each EG receives a trigger pulse, it starts to raise the VCOs pitch through the passband, then out the top where the decay kicks the pitch back down. Technically, you could stop there, as that right there gives you the continuous sweep illusion. But if you want to really make this perfect, you then use the EG triggers to trigger a second EG and then a VCA on each VCO, so that the VCA is only open for the time needed for the sweep, eliminating the possibility of the bottom pitch drone from bleeding through or the very rapid downsweep of each VCO being reset to the initial pitch.

So what WE hear now is that continuously-rising tone, with tones entering at the bottom, vanishing at the top, and yet it doesn't move...or so we think!

Yeah...G-Storm also nailed the sound of the ARP 4012 VCF, too. Dude's got it goin' on!

This: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/4ms-company-quad-pingable-lfo

Four LFOs in that thing, with periods ranging from 500 Hz down to a ridiculous .0002 Hz (ie: 70+ minutes). And another module in a similar timebase vein that you might find useful is: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/nonlinearcircuits-triple-sloths-v2

Nah, you're 100% spot on, 55550. I've said numerous times that I don't tend to recommend YT vids for learning about modular...and those examples you give are a huge reason why! I don't know how many "module demos" I've seen where there's no real demonstration of how the MODULE ITSELF sounds/functions, and I feel that a lot of these deceptive "demos" are leaving prospective synthesists with the wrong idea about what results they can achieve with the device(s) in question. And also, trying to demo something in ones' own huge rig just gets confusing once all of the wires and doodads are in place; if you're dedicated to BEING a modular demo Tuber, GET A PALETTE and use that for your demos. Stop burying the module(s) in the demo patches! And don't try and make some whiz-bang patch with the demo...at best, just hook the module in question into the simplest patch conceivable that'll show off what it does. For example, if demoing a VCF, just send a basic ol' square wave into it and sweep, because it would be nice to hear how it picks off the harmonics in the waveform. I can figure out what to do at that point.

Is this the expander for Dylan's 1000 VCO monstrosity? ;-)
-- Lugia

don't you mean Sam Battle (Look Mum No Computer)?
-- JimHowell1970

Duh...you're right. I think the part of my brain that deals with names and faces was sacrificed during my music theory studies...probably while trying to deal with the confusionality of secondary dominants!

Just an aside about this thing...it's the key component that makes the you-can't-get-one Synton Syrinx so damned amazing. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one's cloned it yet (despite it being complicated AF), but G-Storm is 100% the right builder to nail it.

You'll never find a Syrinx for $330...but this is, and it'll get right into that unobtainable sonic ballpark.

It's also definitely not a pedal. Fact is, this would fit better in with synth modules...except that it's not one of those, either.

Yeah, VCAs are super-duper important! In addition to controlling audio levels, you also use them for controlling modulation levels. Want a slowly-widening sinewave sweeper to modulate a VCO? You'll need a VCA after your mod source, and an EG to do the rise/fall of the waveform level, then send the result on to your VCO(s). You can also feed an audio signal into both the control and signal inputs and use a VCA as a very effective AM modulator. Or you can rig two up to work as an autopanner. And so on. Very much a bread-n-butter device.

As for the 2hp effects...if you're OK with not tweaking the controls on that module all the time, then sure. But something fitting into 2 hp of space doesn't lend itself to constant user manipulation. Keep that in mind...

Is this the expander for Dylan's 1000 VCO monstrosity? ;-)

Plus one more inexpensive cab solution: Erica. Their stuff has pretty good build quality, plus they don't skimp on current with their power supplies, which have a great on-the-busboard design. They also have extra optional end-cap hardware available for these, so it's possible to stack up a build that has the Moog 60 hp form factor, but which actually has some real space to spread out in AND which is already powered and ready to go.

Do you have these on hand already, or is this still speculative? The reason I ask is because the key to getting something more playable is going to be starting with a bigger case, something like a Tiptop Mantis. And this isn't simply because of the usual routine of "go bigger, then shrink your build", but because it sounds like you need more interactivity in the controls, and trying to do that with tight spacings and tiny controls won't be any fun.

If this is designed to complement the yangqin as something of a "sidecar", you should make the modular as playable as the yangqin is in the rig. The idea here is that the modular is supposed to function as part of that instrument, so you really won't like having to go from a really obvious musical environment (the yangqin) to a confined and twiddly one. Rather, everything should simply "flow", as if this were all one instrument...because technically, IT IS.

Now, as for the pickups...this is another place you need to be careful. Piezos tend to have low outputs, so it might be a better idea to boost the signal level BEFORE it arrives at the synth. Mission Engineering has a volume pedal, the VM-PRO, which has an option for piezo inputs with the proper impedance level (very important! piezos typically like to connect to something high impedance) and boost for those pickups. Plus, this will give you a few new playing methods by default, such as manually reshaping the envelopes while playing, or striking a large number of strings and then gradually bringing up the level of the resulting tonal wash, all by having the volume pedal between the yangqin and the synth's input. Plus, with the VM-PRO, that Doepfer A-199 will be a lot happier with the incoming levels, as this won't require the major level boost that a typical piezo pickup does. This is sort of familiar turf, as I've started (again) using guitar (dual-neck lapsteel...in this case, a fine 1952 National Dual-8) in a few things, and this seems to work better into a synth if the levels are already up near line-level at the synth's input module.

I came across the Pico System III Eurorack version and it seemed like it could be a great first module for a Eurorack system, however after searching around (including in this forum) I found very little evidence of ANYONE using this in a Eurorack.
-- hurphendale

There are reasons for this. First reason is that the Pico III isn't a "module". It's a full synth. It has modular architecture but it's not a true module, so it's a wee bit off-topic for MG. Also, most savvy users here don't wind up cab-mounting their Pico III or other cased-but-rackables because, well, it's a waste of money and space to rehouse and repower something that already has those things from the factory.

And the third reason only becomes a problem if you have fat, sausage-y fingers; when you space a pile of 3 hp modules all together as one like that, tweaking the controls is a BITCH...and things such as VCF cutoffs and the like BEG to be tweaked. 2 hp and 3 hp (and some denser 4 hp) modules are great for hole-filling, but they're best left to things that don't require constant attention, such as VCAs, etc.

I'm with Jim above on this...but to add one other salient point: unless you know how something like a modular (or anything else!) will fit into your workflow, and how it can enhance your music, you might want to go with a prepatched rig, or some of the more interesting tandemmed prebuilds that are starting to appear. More expensive, sure...but if I were about to dive into this, I'd rather spend a bit more money for something of a more complete system...something like a Make Noise 0-CTRL/0-Coast pair, Pittsburgh's Voltage Research Lab, a Kilpatrick Phenol, Soundmachines Modulor114, etc. Even one of Korg's new ARP 2600 FS would be optimal here (save for the fact that they're quite unobtainable, something which Korg deserves LOADS of flung poo over, still!) The Pico III is OK for what it has, but more $$$ does tend to equal a more comprehensive synth in most cases. But first, determine where this would fit in what you create. Otherwise, this can be a hella expensive Pandora's box to open!

What I find interesting is that the "problems" which the digital FOH/monitor desks mainly solve are generally related to transport. Digital desks are lighter, smaller, somewhat less fragile, and so on, so it's not a question of audio quality. And since a studio desk isn't likely to be dragged around all over the place, all of that becomes moot. My FIVE was something like $85k new, and that was only around 20-ish years ago, but I got it for $750...which might seem REALLY cheap, but then you need to factor in the need for a rental truck to get it home, gas, time on that, plus some movers to get it out and into your studio because this mo'fo is about 7 1/2 feet long and weighs in at 400 or so pounds. All totalled, that came to about $1200...but that's still FAR under the original list price.

But the search that got me to my FIVE was pretty mindblowing! If I'd felt like it, I could've gotten a 32-frame Mitsubishi/Quad Eight Westar desk for a smidge under $10k...again, that's an insane price, but those are far more difficult to maintain. Or a huge Harrison system that a TV station down in St. Louis was dumping for $9000 that I KNOW ran about $100k when new. The trick is to find something that configures nicely in a studio situation, that's relatively smashproof, easy to maintain, and that has killer audio quality for a good price, and not all desks out there fit that bill...so you have to be careful to make sure the desk in question "likes" being used in the studio. While the FIVE is great for this, not every mixing console out there is suitable for studio work, so that aspect requires some care to make sure the desk's configuration fits well.

I think my poor little mixer is giving up the ghost. 10 years of service for a cheap, consumer grade slab isn't too bad, I suppose. :-)
-- mowse

Big suggestion: when you start looking for a replacement mixer, don't start with the new stuff. Instead, hit Reverb, eBay, etc and look for live pro audio desks from roughly 1990-2005. Since the whole concept of digital audio for live work shrunk down the desks, etc used for FOH work, there's a lot of primo stuff for dimes on the dollar out there (he said, leaning on the end bolster of the cherry 54-frame Soundcraft FIVE he got for $800). Seriously, tho...here's just one example of a nice, smaller live desk that would work nicely in a small studio, only $495 + shipping: https://reverb.com/item/34531059-soundcraft-lx7ii-24-channel-mixer?bk=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJqdGkiOiI0NDlhYWQ0OC1mMTFmLTQ1ZTMtYTg4OC1kNTRmNjRhYjIwODciLCJpYXQiOjE1OTY5MzA4MzMsInVzZXJfaWQiOiIiLCJzZXNzaW9uX2lkIjoiIiwiY29va2llX2lkIjoiNGY3NTU5NjItMzc5Mi00NDQzLTk5YWMtYjZhZDk1MjlhOGNmIiwicHJvZHVjdF9pZCI6IjM0NTMxMDU5Iiwic291cmNlIjoiTk9ORSJ9.QkOVR7Sla-YqtL5diOo6MlAvL863pzXa4T6BtfJw10E Nice stuff...back when this was new (which it still IS...see this Sweetwater listing: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LX7ii-24--soundcraft-lx7ii-24-channel-mixer) it wasn't too cheap at about $1500. And this is just one example amongst loads...

The thing about that sandbox metaphor is that you can do literally ANYTHING in a "sandbox"...but that carries with it the problem of "what do you create in this totally-open environment?" And without a sense of discipline and a suitable background, the likely things that'll be created will be "bleeps", "blips", "drones" and/or "nothing". So the failings there aren't with the tools...but the user, which is sort of the corollary to another maxim: "Equipment doesn't create success...success is up to the musician alone".

And believe me, it is VERY easy to get lost in modular patchwork to a point where you've lost any creative momentum that might've been present before you busted out the patchcables. This gets right back to self-discipline and technical/musical knowledge, both of which I think are essential to cultivate before stepping into modular for that exact reason. Not saying that you need a music degree and all of that, but if you intend to pour several grand into a modular, you need to know why you think you need one in the first place. And that means that, yes, you know your work well enough to say where it needs to go AND you know the gamut of tools for that work well enough to make ample use of one. Otherwise...well, it's worth knowing what depth of the pool you're jumping into, as you don't want to swan-dive into the wading end, nor do you want to casually hop into the deep end and expect that bottom to be right there...when it's NOT. Most people know what to do in that situation...but when confronted with the "modular or not?" choice, the default seems to be to start chucking attractive (and expensive) modules into a box. And to quote Rocky J. Squirrel, "That trick never works!"

OK, I'll bite...how, exactly, is this supposed to work? No oscillators, no VCAs, no mixers, no attenuverters, and other things besides those are missing, too.

Well, you don't need to worry about either of these examples...because they won't work anyway. With no VCFs, VCAs (save for that lone Stereo VCA), only one modulation source and so on, these aren't anywhere close to being proper synthesizer builds. And if the idea was to route the audio back into the Subharmonicon, you're missing a rescaler (such as Erica's PICO MScale) to make sure this and the Moog will track together properly.

I'll explain something about why there's multiple rows in synth builds, also...a lot of people think this simply takes care of having lots of modules, and for some people, that's just fine. But that's not the point.

In order to make modular synthesizers more intuitive to use, many builders as well as many companies will put the "voicing" part on one row, and the "controlling" part on the other. And this makes perfect sense. If you want to tweak the VCF cutoff, you know where it is. And if you need to see what your sequencing is up to, you know where that is as well. Designs going all the way back to venerable synths such as the ARP 2600 use exactly this sort of flow pattern, and after a couple of minutes of working this way, the logic of it becomes VERY apparent. Signal is across the top, left-to-right, and the modulation, CVs, clocking, etc all come up to that row from below it, allowing you to put the modules that produce those signals in a logical pattern below the voicing modules that require them. So, it's not about making your build huge...but about making it more functional.

I'm not going to say DON'T get into modular synthesis...but I would strongly suggest that if you're going to, you need to study it a lot more carefully before proceeding. While it's true that there's quite a bit of pointless nonsense in there, there's far more things about modulars that are based in sensible electronic or musical design principles that need to be followed in order to arrive at something you'll want to use every day for perhaps decades...as opposed to wasting money on a closet-filler box that's eventually destined for eBay or Reverb. And it's VERY easy at the beginning to wind up with one of those closet-fillers unless you study and then proceed pragmatically.

Signal chain order support would be tight.
-- eablair

Wouldn't work in a modular synth context. With effect pedals, things are a bit more obvious, but with a modular synth, technically anything can go anywhere. For example, you would normally not use a VCO to control a VCA...UNLESS, of course, you're using the VCA to produce FM on the other signal that's being fed through it. Similarly, a VCF isn't supposed to be a sound source...but if you crank one into self-resonance, then it can be.

The whole point of modular synthesis is that as long as you're not connecting outputs to outputs or inputs to inputs, you can potentially get some sort of result. Not all of these will be useful...but some will be downright mindblowing.

Wow...hm, a lot of this needs to be a lot smaller. As in, your VCF and modulation source take up 42 hp in a 104 hp row, which means that two basic functions require over 1/3rd of that row. This makes no sense.

If you've got a Doepfer Monster Case, then yes, I could see justifying that sort of attitude toward panel space. But this is a build in a small cab, where you simply DO NOT have the luxury of spreading out like that if you're trying to make a very capable modular. Plus, some of this might not be the right sort of gear for what you want, which includes "Atmospheric sounds, experimentation"; the Fusion Modulator's trapezoid gens actually are fairly FAST for the sort of very slowly developing sounds that work as drifty, atmospheric bits. And with all of the tube circuitry...did you check your current draws? Do these work with a Mantis? While that cab has a 3A +12V rail, note that this is broken up into three 1A "zones", and those tubes are sucking up a lot of current.

And here's another "warning flag": "any you would recommend that aesthetically look nice". OK...go look at a saxophone for a hot minute. While we all know the shape and such, because it's easy to use as an iconic form...the network of keys, levers, pads, cams, shafts, etc etc all over this form isn't exactly very "aesthetically nice", no matter how the builder tries to nice it up. It still looks like some mechanical engineer's worst fever dream. But all of that IS what makes the sax work.

In short, don't worry about what the build LOOKS like. In all likelihood, that front panel will be smothered in multicolored patchcord wirebarf anyway. Focus on FUNCTION. Sure, an all-black modular might look snazzy...but when you record it, does the blackness of that front panel influence the sound? No? Then don't bother with that aspect. Optimize the sonic capabilities while, at the same time, reducing the cost. F'rinstance, the Fusion VCO2s...OK, fine, they're black, they have tubes. But they take up 28 hp between them, plus tubes in the VCO...ah...really, you want to introduce those nonlinearities further down the signal chain, and have rather precise waveforms at generation. And together, they're $672 for just two VCOs. But at the same time, you could drop $15 more and get three Pittsburgh Lifeforms Primarys...which are more capable in terms of waveform manipulation, modulation capabilities, etc. No, they're NOT black. No, they DON'T look like any of the other modules. But none of that really should matter; you're making a musical instrument, not a movie prop, and visual aspects really should NEVER be a prime concern in that process, especially if they force you into a poorer functionality choice. This is just one example here; there are others, if you start looking.

Honestly, I'd tear this down and chalk it up as a learning experience. Some useful things to remember with MG, btw...

1) Your initial builds will NEVER work. Nobody does one-shots and nails the result. Nobody. Creating a modular build you'll want to use and live with for years takes time and a significant refinement process; fast results only yield crap that we'll be seeing chopped up and put on Reverb/eBay in several months' time.

2) Don't define the case FIRST. Instead, start with a much larger cab. Either you'll...a: find that the case WASN'T "too big", or b: you'll be paring the build down to eventually arrive at your desired build size, with ample space in which to do that.

3) MG isn't a video game. There's no score here. It's not a timed exercise. Get used to the notion of exploring the site in deeper ways, studying modules, existing builds by knowledgeable users, and the concepts behind modular synthesis. Trying to rush this is a good recipe for wasting money.

4) Understand that a good result WILL involve certain amounts of technical compromises. You simply won't be able to cram in every single function you want, so it's important that you sort out how to arrive at those compromises within the "box" of how you work on your music.

5) The amount of f**ks given about what a build looks like should be precisely concomitant with the page count of that storied tome "Famous Antarctic Television Personalities of the 16th Century" (ie: zero). And...

6) The boring-looking stuff is what makes the sexy-looking stuff WORK. Add unlimited snazzy modules at your peril!

Got an SQ-1, also. However, the best cheap external sequencer I can think of (and which I have two of, plus a Keystep and Keystep Pro) would be the Beatstep Pro. Very ample control, especially in live situations. Plus, you get two analog sequencer channels plus the trigger sequencer and its individual outputs.

(dont know how i get the rack picture updated:))
-- Broken-Form

Go back to the rack's page, refresh it, then check in View: Screenshot to see if the screenshot pic matches what you see in the layout. If not, refresh again and check again. If it works, it should be possible to refresh this thread and see the new version.

Not too shabby. Although, there's some areas that could be whupped on a bit more...

First up, you might find that a Wasp VCF is a bit too aggressive for ambient. It's also kinda simplistic, which (given ambient's reliance on shifting timbres) could be a drawback. Instead, look at some more complex filters such as Doepfer's A-106-1 (has an insert in the feedback path, allowing you to majorly screw with this via delays, reverbs, etc etc), Limaflo's Motomouth (morphing formant filter), a Rossum Linnaeus (stereo SVF with thru-zero capability), or Intellijel's Morgasmatron (complex dual state-variable, pretty much a "Swiss Army Knife" filter).

As for the VCO situation, I disagree with the above poster. You should look into a VCO setup that has a lot of capability for strange modulation methods, like Intellijel's Rubicon3 or Xaoc's Odessa, plus also consider a simple VCO or two (like Noise Reap's interestingly screwy Bermuda or uBermuda) for AF modulation of either the Cloud Terrarium or whatever second source oscillator you choose. But you DO need more than just the Cloud Terrarium for the sake of sonic complexity/density.

Modulation sources...first of all, that version of Maths is long-discontinued. The 2019 one should be in here unless you have one of these early ones on hand. Batumi + Poti = good. No envelopes (I don't consider the Maths to be just an EG) = bad. A good choice there would be Intellijel's Quadrax, which sort of condenses their Quadra and the Quadra Expander into a single quad function generator. And yes, a Sloths would fit very well here, as might a VERY long EG such as 4ms's PEG.

Things to lose: Links (don't use a mult module in a small build...use inline mults instead), Kinks, and the Ladik mixer. As for the latter two, you need a more comprehensive random source module, with the pinnacle being something like the Verbos Random Sampling (offers many Buchla 265 SoU functions, plus has a shift register for canonic polyphony)...and you need a better mixer that can offer CV over functions such as panning, level, AUX send; the Qu-bit Mixology would be a better fit, and also allow the Erbeverb to be used in a proper AUX send/return fashion.

Now, as for the sequencing...this is where the definition of "ambient" comes into play. Are you trying to do something more determinate and/or "Berlin School"-ish, or do you need something more random or generative and stochastic-based? Or does this need to be more akin to a controller/sequencer, such as a Make Noise Rene/Tempi combo? And whichever one is needed will ALSO determine what ancillary modules are needed to go with it, so it's a bit of a "hole" until/unless you can define how you want that to work compositionally.

Lastly...make the cab bigger. Not that you'll actually wind up with a huge cab, but it helps to be able to create a fully overblown version of what you have in mind first, then pare this back down to something more workable...unless, of course, big is OK.

Right now, the only other piece of external gear I have besides the DFAM is the SOMA Labs Lyra-8. I figured that was the closest I could ever get to Fripp's guitar sound on No Pussyfooting. :)
-- farkas

Well, that, and maybe a couple of Revox B77s and a VERY sturdy table! :-)

Hmmm...it occurs to me that this build could use...NOTHING! You did this thing right, farkas. All of the study and slogging really hit the big payoff here.

One thing I would suggest as a tandem to that DFAM, though...and which would really shoot this monster up with some synth vitamins...would be the Subharmonicon. I got mine about a week and a half ago, and it is truly THA SHIZNIT, especially the very deceptively useful 2 x 4 sequencer and its wild subdividing/ratcheting capability. With the sequencing that's in here already, having that level of clock craziness would be the proverbial cherry on the cake. Think RYK-type subdivision, and make it crazier...that sort of thing.

But yeah, congrats! This thing looks like it's not only got plenty of potential in of itself, it also has lots of possible upgrade/expansion paths that are clearly suggested by the module selection and layout, and just goes to show that when you stick at this whole process of whittling at your build, keeping up with developments, and studying other builds and the theory behind this, you DO eventually arrive at something serious that'll give many years of use. And yeah, the plan changes over time...but it's changing with knowledge and understanding, and this shows that.

Yeah, this won't be any fun to work with. This build has loads of sources, modulators...but NO submixers, only two VCAs, very little in the way of other utilities/control devices, no proper EGs, and the like. Sexy Module Syndrome in overdrive.

Since the focus here seems to be in sound generation/modification, start being hypercritical about everything that's NOT that. You need to ask yourself if any of these things can be made smaller, or...probably more sensibly...whether they even need to be there in the first place. For example, why a double sample and hold? Would a simpler module make more sense here? Why use a CFM rectifier instead of a proper waveshaper? Do those sequential devices really belong in here? Why do you need a contact mic and not an audio input module? And so on...

Another suggestion prior to this, also...increase the size of the cab to much more than you think will work, THEN add all of the necessary utilities, VCAs, etc etc...and once that's done, start paring the whole mess back while maintaining the functionality. That's not easy, but it's a good way to proceed; you're likely to find that trying to do all of what you want in this small of a cab is NOT going to work, even after trying to remove all of the extra "fat".

Also, think simpler. This looks like there's so much going on in a tight space that working with the build will actually wind up being more difficult than you might realize; remember, what you see here will be dripping with patchcables when it's in use, and that obscures the already-tight control and marking layout. Again, this runs into the possibility of having to go to a bigger cab...but trading off size for playability is always worthwhile in the long run.

Yeah...the only way to mitigate the monitoring problem is with a monitoring setup, actually. Headphones are very bad for critical listening and mixing because the proximity effects caused by having the drivers so close to the ear give false impressions of timbral content, overall bandwidth weighting, and the like. Basically, they cause "lumps" in what should be a relatively flat listening curve, and this makes using EQ very deceptive. Worse still, once you've created the "lumps" for yourself, then listeners who ALSO use headphones, buds, etc will ALSO have to deal with the "lumps" their own systems cause, which is the other problem with mixing in headphones. What sounds right in the closed environment of the cans tends to sound awful on speakers in free space without some major (and often expensive) correction measures, and can sound even more wacky in headphones that are "hyped" differently from your own.

My suggestion here isn't more plug-ins, in the end. You need to spend some money and get a decent monitoring setup. All the VSTs in the world won't help you if you don't have an accurate sense of what they're doing. Even the prime picks I made above will be just as pointless without any way to know what they're exactly doing. Fortunately, you don't have to spend Genelec-type money to get a decent result...something like these will be more than sufficient: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ErisE8XT--presonus-eris-e8-xt-8-inch-powered-studio-monitor Easy-peasy stuff...just connect your left and right line audio outs to the inputs on the monitors, and there you are!

...kinda. You also need to place these properly, which means you'll want some stands (like these: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SMS6600P--on-stage-stands-sms6600-p-hex-base-studio-monitor-stands) to get the monitors off the desk, and up and behind it somewhat. Again, you don't want the speakers right in your face, but they need to be back from you and angled so that they "aim" toward a wide "sweet spot" that needs to be where you are when you mix. About 6 feet between them should work, but the rule of thumb is that you and the pair of speakers should form the points of an equilateral triangle, at least in a small desk rig. Lastly, add these: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MoPAD--auralex-mopad-monitor-speaker-isolation-pads as they are definitely NOT snake oil, but help to decouple the monitors from the surface they're sitting on so that they're not damped by the inertia of sitting on a solid surface. This really opens up the bass and low-mid, and I've used them for decades now because they work.

All of this should be more effective than simply chasing VSTs. Sure, it's more expensive...but the results bear out the costs.

Sonar's a bit of an "orphan" these days, really...after Gibson (aka "The place on Elm Hill Pike where good brands go to die") snarfed Cakewalk, the support for it went out the window (like I said...Gibson...) and it fell out of favor. Now that it's escaped the clutches of the Guitar Deathstar, it might see some comeback action; have a look at https://www.bandlab.com/products/cakewalk

Frankly, I recommend NO plugin here. At least, not for mixing. Rather, you might find it way more helpful to get an actual hardware mixer and use that if you've not used one before for multitrack production. Fact is, until you've done this and gotten used to what TINY changes in levels, EQ, etc can do, particularly with electronic sources, mixing "in the box" isn't going to work as well as you'd think.

Second, examine your monitoring setup. If you're tracking projects with a lot of heavy bass, you won't get too much that's useful there out of a pair of little desktop nearfields. Also, if your monitors aren't properly physically aligned so that you're in their "sweet spot", things will tend to be rather deceptive, soundwise. Plus, what does your workspace look like? Is it a "boxy" room, four corners, hard walls and floors, etc? If so, acoustic treatment might be very useful in the long run. And lastly, if you're using headphones to mix...don't use headphones to mix. Unless you have some expensive AF headphone amp such as an SPL Phonitor (that has spatial correction to fix having the drivers right in your ear), you can't get an accurate idea of how your mix works due to a whole pile of physics and such that I'm not about to uncork.

Now, as for plugins that'll help...these aren't the mixing suite variety. Instead, I would strongly suggest examining your mixbus instead. With some proper EQ, program compression, and maybe a touch of spatial trickery, you can use this to "glue" your mixes much more effectively than any mixing suite might do. First up, this: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/pteq-x-by-ignite-amps which is a really spot-on emulation of a stereo Pultec set. Another useful EQ for mixbus use: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/rs-w2395c-free-neo-classic-baxandall-eq-by-fuse-audio-labs which is more of a "tone control" sort of EQ for touch-up work.

Compression: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/mjuc-jr-by-klanghelm Yep, this is a "lite" version, but tbh, it's not very "lite" as far as performance goes. Set, forget, that's it. Also, this might be useful: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/signal-noise-sn05-g-brickwall-limiter-by-sender-spike which is a brickwall limiter, goes on the very end of the mixbus to deal with stray peaks.

Enhancement: try these... https://www.kvraudio.com/product/signal-noise-sn03-g-tape-recorder-by-sender-spike and https://www.kvraudio.com/product/rescue-mk2-by-variety-of-sound And then, for a bit of stereo enhancement, try https://www.kvraudio.com/product/a1stereocontrol-by-alex-hilton-a1audio

In all cases, these go on the stereo mixbus to do final tweaks to the mix itself, rather than tampering with the mixer itself. The latter idea is sort of a "can of worms" and can result in loads more confusion than simply coming up with a good stereo mixbus for the existing mixer. There's others out there along these lines that're worth exploring, and I'd suggest that before having a butcher's at the core of the DAW itself.

Upped the game on this slightly...

I scrunched the Plaits down in size by using Codex Modulex's 8 hp clone instead of the fullsized Mutable version. This then opened up four more hp...leading to adding the Nin expander for the Zadar and the extra hp for dropping in an Intellijel uVCF. Reordered the workflow, also...modulation left, voicing right, and this led to flipping the Quadratt and MIDI interface. It was SO close, I just thought a couple more tweaks could make it ready for a physical build.

Some good choices here for a microbuild, too...the uBermuda is a rather wacky little VCO, should add some strangeness to the Plaits palette, especially in tandem with the Tiptop folder.

First up, get those Moogs out of there. This might seem convenient, but in reality it's a big money-waster and space waster.

Second, having done that, remove two of those cabs. Condense the remaining PROPER modules down into the remaining cases. You might also consider removing those mults, since the build would now be small enough that you won't need them, and anything of that sort can be done with inline mults. Plus, you don't have enough destinations for your pitch CV to justify buffered multiples anyway...only use these if/when you're branching off a single CV to more than three (as a rule) destinations to avoid voltage sag.

Third...and this is KEY if you intend to use this for film scoring...you need this: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/expert-sleepers-fh-2-factotum And the reason for this is because you need to-frame sync for scoring, which means that your DAW will need to be SMPTE-capable, and it'll need to translate/lock the MIDI clock to/from that SMPTE clock so that your synchronization between film and sound is spot-on. The FH-2 is Expert Sleepers' clock-oriented MIDI-via-USB module, and you'll find it essential for locking up the Rene and the RCD to your visuals.

Oh, sure...it'll make sound. It just won't be nearly as controllable as you need or do what you have in mind. This has no VCAs, lots of modulation sources but little in the way of what's needed to properly control/attenuate them, no mixer, no no no no...not exactly a "useless brick", but not really anywhere near what you're looking for, either.

First up, delete this rack. Then, before proceeding again, spend a considerable amount of time in the forums (especially in "Racks") looking at threads which deal with generative systems. There's quite a few here. Get a good idea of what's REALLY necessary for this by observing the efforts of others who've created successful builds. And study what modular synthesis really requires; simply tossing modules into a cab is a great recipe for monetary loss and closet filler, and NOT a good synth. Also, if you're trying to do "generative", look into how that music is created...modular-wise, digitally via software such as Koan, Wotja, various Ableton setups, etc, and so on. If you don't understand the methods in play there, you won't be able to sort out how to implement them in hardware.

It's here, yep...although, the final design is dependent on a couple of modules that AE hasn't put out just yet. Which is fine, as the studio is also still not 100%, either. With luck, I'll hit both marks at the same time...

Well, before pulling the trigger on some of RS's stuff, you might consider snagging a Kilpatrick Phenol. Less expensive, to start with...plus the working paradigm there is right out of the Serge playbook: all bananas, no separate signal paths, and it'll connect perfectly to actual Serge, RS, Elby, etc, in addition to Eurorack provided you use an adapter module/box and establish that ground. Bananaland is a bit of a different take from "typical" modular, and the Phenol would be a perfect intro...plus it's got plenty of useful features that'll play nice with any Serge-ish additions.

EDITED Jun 28th 2020, 22:18

Nothing new about Elby/Ken Stone. Ken's been a module designer for decades now, and has a history of adapting Serge circuitry for Eurorack purposes, as well as Elby's own "Euroserge" variants. Even other manufacturers use Ken's designs, such as Doepfer on their A-171-2.

FYI, if you expect to get Serge results out of 3.5mm jacked Eurorack, you're likely to be underwhelmed. Part of the Serge's appeal was the ability to branch signals off of a single patchpoint, because all points were banana jacks and therefore stackable. Typical Serge patches would sometimes output the same signal to several different destinations, which contributed to the "magic" of the format. As for interconnecting Serge with Eurorack, this is really simple, as Eurorack offers numerous banana-to-3.5mm adapter modules, plus there's standalone adapter boxes for this. But...VERY important...you have to establish a common groundplane between the Eurorack and "proper" Serge format gear, since the Serge relies on its own internal groundplane, and the patchpoints only connect "hot" input and outputs over a single conductor. It's easy enough...but necessary, as the two formats don't play nice with each other UNLESS they have a common ground.

It's quite possible, but you don't need the A-177-2 for that. Just run a CV or mod signal directly from the source in the synth cab to the pedal's expression input. And if you're concerned about overvoltage, just run the signal through an attenuator first. In fact, running it through an attenuverter will allow you to rescale the expression range and even mess with inverse voltages (if the pedal can deal with them appropriately).

Doepfer A-132-4, A-132-2. The Malekko Quad VCA has some tandem CV functions. Mutable's Frames. Erica Black Quad VCA (with jumper adjustment). Bubblesound HexVCA (with jumper adjustment). Befaco Hexa VCA. Zlob VnIcursal VCA. Bastl Quattro Figaro (which actually gets more complicated than simply passing CV from one VCA to the next!) And I'm sure there's probably more, but that should be enough to start with.

If you can think of it, it exists somewhere...especially on Modulargrid.

DO NOT attempt to align or scale a VCO without appropriate test gear! Sure, you might be able to get the VCO in the ballpark as far as tracking goes, but unless you have access to a multimeter and a frequency counter (or its software equivalent), you're likely to have a very frustrating experience. You'll first need to make sure that a 1V step actually IS 1V by finding an initial reference voltage, then going up an octave; never discount the possibility that the A-111-2 is actually RIGHT and that other things are the mistracking culprits...make sure of this before doing anything else.

For the money, my bet would be on the Takaab 2Multi. $34-ish, dual 1-in/3-out. These are simple circuits, no need to pay a premium for them.

However, keep in mind that unless you're trying to feed a single CV to more than 3 or 4 modules, which has the potential to cause voltage sag and detuning, you can make do with a regular passive mult. Buffered mults are for correcting that sag issue when you're trying to get several VCOs, VCFs, etc under that single CV control, but if that's not an issue, they're just spendy.

Also, if the above is the case AND you're doing a smaller-sized build, you should probably avoid mults that take up panel space altogether, and use inline mults, stackcables, etc. In builds that range from 2 x 104hp and smaller, your panel space is better used for actual functions; anything you can remove from that will open up space for more active modules.

Actually, I went through all of that decades ago back in Nashville, when the whole "super-premium wire" thing got up to steam. Like a lot of other engineers down there, I did those A/B tests...and like a lot of other engineers down there, I didn't see a qualitative difference that would translate into something that would justify the prices. The problem is this: no matter how high-end your own stuff is, what you're creating will be pumped through lowest-common-denominator playback gear 99% of the time. So if you get a small incremental benefit, this then gets wiped out at the consumer end, or when it gets uploaded to a content aggregator that uses mediocre compression algorithms.

But with speaker cables, there IS a major difference that you gain from stepping up your wire gauges, having a higher amount of conductors in the cable, etc. Big wire = less resistance, which lets your amp loaf a little better, which means it's not being overtaxed by big transients. And lots of little conductors in the wire means that the higher frequencies have more "skin" to move along, since "skin effect" is gradually more important the higher you go in frequency. And this one is something you DO benefit from, since monitor clarity is critical to knowing what you're doing. But there's a BIG difference between a line level or synth level signal and the output of a power amp...higher voltages, more current, etc, so reducing the resistance has a payoff at the amplifier levels, but you lose some of that benefit at lower signal levels as you're not trying to pump a massive signal through a tiny wire there.

So while I do advocate cheaper cables for line level signals, I use 14 and 12ga fine-stranded speaker lines here, with the gauge depending on the amp power (the Crest FA601 gets the 12s...it has a VERY high slewing rate, and clearly prefers driving a load with the bigger conductors). No voodoo or hype there, though...just good ol' basic EE at work.

Still looking good there! As long as you maintain that "zoned" aspect to the rig, it'll keep a lot of "build discipline" in place. It's definitely the right way to build!

What does everyone think of Hosa patch cables?
-- SynthTalk

I have a huge amount of Hosa cables in my studio. As in most of the snakes, a bunch of the 1/4" patchcables, and so on. And while I keep getting pushed toward expensive AF Mogami and Gotham Audio stuff, I stick with Hosa. I've never noticed any sonic issues that would lead me to believe that they're inferior...but then, I think the "exotic gluten-free artisanal pure praesodymium with static-free hi-capacitance silk manufactured in low-G ISO5 clean containment" nonsense in cables is...well, nonsense. At audio frequencies, wire is wire. And while there ARE some differences, these really only manifest at RF frequencies, from my experience. Like, over 30 MHz frequencies...that sort of thing.

Now, one point where they're not 100% is in shielding. But this really only emerges as a problem in high-noise environments, like if your studio is located a few hundred yards from a 10 kW broadcast transmitter. Most ambient "electronic smog" issues encountered by the average user don't rise to that level of induced signal on a cable, and certainly not on a patchcable.

Sure...you're missing a lot of modules that you can easily work with in amongst a thicket of patchcords.

Yeah, you can build a system out of narrow modules, but the minute you try to use this live (unless you have fingers the diameter of toothpicks), you're going to find yourself getting VERY frustrated. Which gets to the principle of "start with a case that's too large" when building on MG; don't try and begin with a tiny case and then expect that to be capable of being filled with every necessary module. This is what results.

Trash this. Start over with a MUCH larger generic cab...then work backwards. Populate that with larger versions (when possible) of what you see here, then start scaling things down to a point where it's becoming obvious that the ergonomics of the build are starting to suffer. Also, be VERY careful to make sure and include necessary utility modules such as attenuverters, etc because those are what make the snazzier modules capable of doing things to their max potential. Thus far, you've done that here, but you need to be asking "are these going to see a lot of action?"...and if the answer is "yes", then don't have those controls on a 3 hp panel.

Is modularist community overwhelmingly a nation of music lovers or technicians?
-- Sweelinck

Yes, absolutely.

These days, music and technology are so intertwined that you can't exactly separate them. See that drum circle over there? OK...now, what they're doing might SEEM like getting back in touch with primitive whatever blahblah, but if you look at what they're playing, you start seeing synthetic drumheads, devices that (these days) are carefully researched to create the optimal thudding noises everyone likes (OR NOT!!!) in commercials for SUVs to get numnutz consumers to pay attention and fork out for something they don't need, etc. And if you RECORD that drum circle...well, then you're up to your chin in tech all of a sudden!

Conversely, if we didn't have that tech, we wouldn't be in such a musically-rich period right now. Not only does the presence of cheap and easily-available technology propel the creation of new music, it ALSO allows for everyone to be able to access musical styles, cultures, and periods that...prior to the emergence of proper electronic recording technology in the mid-1920s...would've been lost to time. Consider: there's long been arguments of how early music is supposed to be performed. But there are ZERO arguments of how, say, Stravinsky's music is supposed to be performed, because you had the tech to record how Stravinsky actually wanted it across several decades of his life.

Also, most music we hear now technically IS "electronic" by default. One of the original criteria for electronic music was that it could only be heard with loudspeakers. But then, what do you make of a recording of the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by George Szell? For one thing, Szell's death in 1970 pretty much assures that ONLY recordings of his performances now exist; I don't see any concert announcements that read "MAESTRO SZELL RETURNS FROM THE GRAVE!!! ONE NIGHT ONLY!!!" Secondly, the confluence of players in the orchestra, the hall used for the sessions, etc etc also implies a non-reproduceable live performance situation. So...you're stuck with what's coming out of the speakers, and arguably, that makes it fit that criteria. Plus, should you so desire, you can take those Szell recordings (with a dubious degree of legality) and repurpose them in the same DAW that takes in those raw synth waveforms and does...well, much the same thing there, too.

Not yet, it's not. The site lists the CV/gate/vel and clock I/Os as a stretch goal, not available in the present version. And this was probably a big mistake on the developers' parts, given the amount of similar devices available that have that connectivity already.

It's not that this wouldn't be a useful device, mind you...I just think that the developers should've considered that connectivity from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

At the moment I use Ableton and some Max-Plugins to create random melodies that I then feed into my Models:Samples or Cycles, but I would like something that doesn't require my PC. I've looked for standalone random melody boxes, that could simply send a midi-signal into my Model:Samples or Cycles, but such a thing does'nt exist.
-- jrs77

Sure it does: https://conductivelabs.com/ It's capable of that and a lot more besides; I have and use one myself.

toodee is spot on here. This is one of those examples where modular is NOT the solution.

While it seems like modular is the Royal Road to raw sonic power, it's often the case that one can cobble up something in modular that doesn't work as well as an off the shelf patchable and which also winds up costing considerably more than that not-as-sexy solution. Small systems are especially prone to this problem, notably ones in which users try and populate very small cabs. But the REAL use for those, tbh, is to allow for expanding existing systems with a few specific modules. Think a Maths might beef up your MS-20 mini? That's what those minicases are for. But when you house a voice module in one, add the cost of the cab, one or two possibly (or not) useful additional modules, you often find that all that's happened is that you've replicated the functionality of an existing off-the-shelf solution for sometimes twice the money. Not good.

Here's a suggestion...when doing a build on MG, I'll start off TOO big, then start reducing the setup until I've arrived at a minimum for what result I'm looking for. But at the same time, if you can keep reducing things to the point where you're arriving at a result that's comparable to (but more expensive than) an off the shelf device, go with the off-the-shelf device. You'll often find that the same amount of money spent on the modular will get you MORE power from those, since the cost of one modular solution can often come in at twice (or worse) the amount of similar patchables, etc.