User Posts

I just hate seeing people make mistakes that'll cost them both money and their enjoyment of music. That doesn't further things at all...it just results in gear sitting in closets and frustrated musicians, and I don't like the idea of either. And since I've got some 40-ish years of synth experience, it would be irresponsible as hell for me to NOT pay what I know forward.

Pam's IS a good choice, don't get me wrong there...but my concern is the lack of both LFOs and EGs. Your best bet is something which can combine these functions; as of late, a lot of people have been gravitating to the Xaoc Zadar, but Intellijel's new Quadrax + Qx expander might be a better choice from the standpoint that there's no menu diving involved, plus there's a lot of interesting functions there. At the same time, though, the Zadar has crazy-long cycle times that run up into the tens of minutes, plus it also fits into 13 hp with its Nin expander, while the Intellijel requires 18 for the Quadrax + its expander. More or less a "what feels better" sort of issue. Do keep the Pam's, though...as a clocking device and trigger sequencer, it's superb.

That stereo VCA...hm...you tend to see those for dynamic control on outputs, but in a rig like this, I'm wondering how useful it really is. There's other things that could be in there, especially if you swap that buffered mult (yep, there's enough CV destinations that you NEED it here) down to a 3U row and make it fit in 2 hp, which you already have open. With that gone, and after pulling the Stereo VCA and the 2 hp blank, you have 24 hp in the tile row to play with. If it were me, I'd have that row look like this:

Stereo Line In / uMIDI / Transient Modules u4R / Noise Tools / QuadrATT / Stereo Line Out

Now, what's that new u4R thing? Ahhh...another bit to go in between timing and logic. Have a look at it...makes lots of sense.

And speaking of logic, while the Plog is a really nicely-featured module, it's just the gates. You'll need a few more toys, such as comparators (which can generate gate info from CV/mod voltage curves), a diode OR for combining gates (see the Doepfer A-186-1 for an example), pulse counters which allow you to specify a trigger/gate to fire on a specific beat, maybe a derivator (something like Ladik's J-110, which fires pulses based on CV movement direction...crazy useful for tracking EGs and LFOs) or something probabilistic to screw with clocking, like Ladik's S-090. As regards the comparators, though...there's a specific type of these called a window comparator, and these allow you to output several different pulse signals as a voltage curve moves through a user-defined "window" of upper and lower thresholds. Dovemans' SHFT is a good example of these. Basically, the point of logic is to take the timing and sequential info moving around as pulsetrains, and screw with it all, while also generating more pulsetrains via comparators and the like, and then mashing all of these through a Boolean module like the Plog, et al to "smooth" the behavior between pulsetrains. Boolean logic takes a pair of incoming pulses, then subjects them to a logical test to arrive at a pulse output that happens on four specific pulse states: OR, AND, NAND, NOR. Or, more clearly...

OR: Pulses present at either input result in an output gate when both inputs do NOT concur.
AND: Pulses present at either input result in an output gate when both inputs DO concur.

...and the N states are these, but inverse. NOR (also known as XOR), for example, outputs a pulse when neither input has a high state. These tricks can be used to alter sequencer behavior, fire other events within a patch, screw with ongoing activities, etc etc etc. They open the lid on timing within a modular environment. Now, one other not-logic-but-really-it-is thing that fits here would be ratcheting, which is a triggered repetition of a pulse, usually via a sequencer. But with that pulse counter I mentioned previously, you can patch out a single clock step to fire the ratchet/clock multiplier (have a look at Doepfer's A-160-5 for reference) and get a rapid-fire pulse train with X number of pulses in subdivided time whenever that 7th beat gets fired. This is how Tangerine Dream gets those rapid repeated sequencer notes...albeit a bit simpler than you'd have to do it on Moog hardware. And it's also how you wring every bit of timing functionality out of your build!

Good thing you're already down with removing the System-1m. Devices that have their own cabs and power don't belong in a case that's intended for things which don't have them. It also sneakily increases the cost of your System-1m, as you're now housing and powering it twice.

I've spent a hot minute here looking at this build, sorting out what bugs me about it. And then it hit me...that 303 sequencer. First of all, it takes up about 1/4th of the entire build. Second, it's sort of an anachronism...it's something from the period where there were no decent TB-303 emulations or reissues, and while the voicing had been sorted out by that point in time, the sequencer was still defying redesign. And third, it costs half a grand, which I suppose is cheap when compared to a $3k original Roland 303, but which is dumb as hell when you can get Cyclone Analogic's TT-303 mkii for $300-350 street, brand new. And yeah, it emulates the original device almost perfectly. It would make a lot more sense to me to outboard one of those, then have a suitable MIDI interface in a smaller build overall (maybe as small as 1 x 104, even) so that you can pass note data from the TT-303 to the modular. Want to filter it further? Then add a Doepfer A-119 for an input pre + envelope follower. And THIS way, you can build a more general-purpose modular that 1) costs less, 2) isn't so huge because of huge modules, and 3) dovetails nicely with anything laying around the studio, instead of being mission-specific.

Np...feel free to PM me if you'd like a little assist in the search. After all, I just dropped a huge 48-frame Soundcraft into my own studio back in January, and that sucker only ran me $750 + whatever it took to transport and move it from Indy to here.

I'd have to disagree about the MG06X here...it has effects, and as a rule you're better off using higher-quality outboard effects or doing your processing in your DAW. Also, it's missing the big draw for the Yamaha mixers: the one-knob compressor. Normally, these are useless for music...but for voiceover, now, that's different. You'll want your voice levels to stay in place against your background...and while the real device needed here is a ducker, compression on the voiceover goes some of the way to fixing your mix. Instead of the MG06X, I'd suggest the MG10...it doesn't have the onboard effects, but like I said, you're better off using something else, plus great rack processors are dimes on the dollar right now on the used market. And the '10 DOES have the compressors on two inputs for voiceovers, plus it's only $40 more than the 06.

Now, how to implement this...step one, get a decent ducker. Again, cheap rackmount stuff on the likes of Reverb or eBay are your best bets here, and something like a Symetrix 522 would run you $100-125. You'd sidechain this from your AUX off of the mic ins, and this would be able to lower your music bed if you run it through the ducker before the mixer. Perfect voiceovers! Then, if you want to add a bit more dynamic control, you could send your stereo output through a second stereo comp/limiter and smooth out the dynamics further, which also works nicely to keep your sound for picture nice and hot while not getting too punchy.

You have to have the Audio I/O, yes. The reason there is because your incoming audio signals need to be boosted up from line-level to synth-level, and then back down again at the output. It's a decent interface for this sort of use, but you need to keep in mind that its inputs don't have envelope followers, so if you wanted to patch up something dynamics-dependant, you either have to add a couple of these or jettison the Audio I/O and go with separate inputs that have the envelope follower (the Doepfer A-119 is sort of the bog standard here) and then a stereo output with transformer isolation. That last bit is useful to keep noise and crud from passing from the synth to your mixer and vice-versa.
-- Lugia

Thanks for this advise Lugia! Hadn’t even considered that so very much appreciated. Is it possible to add a module that does this specifically after the Audio I / O?

-- TMR1984

Do you mean the output isolation or the envelope follower? If the former, there's no point...you'd be feeding an output module into yet another output module. No point to that whatsoever, as it wastes space and adds nothing.

Now, as for the envelope follower...yes, there ARE separate envelope follower modules, and you'll find them in their pulldown category. But the issue there gets back to "real estate"...would it make more sense to have a dedicated input module with the envelope follower in 8 hp, or to take another 4-8 hp for an extra module whose function would be covered by the former example? As long as you're in a smaller build scale like this, panel space needs to be treated like it was made of platinum.

The problem I see isn't with a lack of processing. Rather, this build is really short on modulation sources. You only have the Maths, Contour, and Benjolin here, which makes up one complex LFO, one envelope source (really?), and the randomness that is a Benjolin. No VCAs here, either; I'm not counting the Optomix, as that's really a pair of lowpass gates, and neither a proper VCA nor mixer. Your observation about excess audio sources is spot-on, actually, but the excess is really cramping you here.

Things to lose immediately: the DPO and the very discontinued Cyclebox and its expander. You have a full WMD Synchrodyne setup here, which makes both of those rather superfluous. That's pretty much a modular in of itself...but it DOES need more modulation sources to really do what it's capable of. Even so, it's powerful enough that it would admirably make for this build's "core". Also, given that this module pair is 36 hp, you need as much free space as you can snag, since that's quite a chunk of real estate...so delete whatever is possible, and shrink whatever's left. The Contour, for example...one ADSR in 8 hp, and you desperately need more EGs. While you might have that module on hand, it's not space-efficient here; you could drop in a Doepfer A-141-4 and have four ADSRs under common CVs in the same space, which strikes me as more effective for experimentation purposes. Again, scrunch EVERYTHING down as best you can. Even if you have modules on hand, they're not going to be useful if they take up huge amounts of space when you're in need of other functions that have to be addressed to optimize this.

There are a lot of VSTs that emulate the behavior of tape machines, transformers, etc. But keep in mind that these are going to have a certain degree of inaccuracy to them...miniscule, in the case of the best plugs...because modeling hysteresis behavior is a bitch-and-a-half in digital coding. You can get VERY close...but never spot-on, since hysteresis curves are far better modeled in continuous analog voltage curves and not discrete digital steps. And it's a fussy enough principle that a little difference like that WILL make an audible difference, if done badly.

Funny...I still remember back in the 1970s and 80s when console makers touted the superiority of their transformerless circuits, especially the mic pres. But those were SO clean and SO exacting that they sounded dead as hell. Fact is, we LIKE a little bit of dirt in our sound; it's like ghost peppers, though...you only need a TINY amount.

Now, early digital...that's a bit different. Not only did you have different sample rates, you also had different bit depths AND you had a lot of different codec schemes besides PCM, and a lot of that early digital "character" comes from all of those things together. While we have the ability to easily sample-crush these days, we don't have any plug-ins that can emulate the different codec schemes to get that last ingredient in there. At least, none I'm aware of...

You have to have the Audio I/O, yes. The reason there is because your incoming audio signals need to be boosted up from line-level to synth-level, and then back down again at the output. It's a decent interface for this sort of use, but you need to keep in mind that its inputs don't have envelope followers, so if you wanted to patch up something dynamics-dependant, you either have to add a couple of these or jettison the Audio I/O and go with separate inputs that have the envelope follower (the Doepfer A-119 is sort of the bog standard here) and then a stereo output with transformer isolation. That last bit is useful to keep noise and crud from passing from the synth to your mixer and vice-versa.

Yeah, the sound is a real throwback to the classic 1970s analogs. It's got the character and grit that you'd expect out of some of the better modulars/patchables of the time. Fact is, some of what I hear there reminds me a lot of that dirty, weird, and alien sound you'd find with EML gear...although their "NYLE" VCF really nails the Synthacon sound. It's dirty as sin, it'll scream at you, and makes for leads that rip thru a mix like Jason Voorhees with a Poulan. They did that filter redux right. It's everything I remember about my own Steiner, too.

Also...if you read my long post/rant below, you'll note that I'm very fussy about what makes for a decent teaching synth. And since the AE distills everything down to the straightforward basics, it might actually be the best teaching system out right now. No superfluous functions, no excess. Just sound production all the day long, and everything makes perfect sense...Bauhaus-simple graphics, no bizarre decorations, etc. Just the facts, like Sgt. Friday asks for...

EDITED Mar 10th 2020, 03:25

You also might want to have a look at this: https://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/usamocompatibility.html This page shows interface compatibilities for their USAMO interface...basically, interfaces that are DC-coupled. I use an older MOTU 828 mkii myself, with Live's CV Tools.

Considerably more sense, yes. The choice of the Noise Reap Loafers is especially interesting, since it has all sorts of odd interaction possibilities between its LFOs. Tandemmed with a Maths, that'll be a killer modulation solution.

Not too jazzed on the STO here, though...it strikes me as too spendy, given that you're trying to drop costs. So, let's do several things at once by eliminating both the STO and the Plaits, and adding a Plaits clone by Codex Modulex (saves about $50) and a Braids clone from them as well, which is only $3 more than the STO. This then gives you two VCOs with similar characteristics, which works better for doubling VCOs to fatten up your sound. Then, to hit that Buchla-esque zone, add a Tiptop Fold Processor and use its two inputs as the VCO "mixer", which would put the two Codex clones into a configuration more akin to a complex oscillator. It's a cheap date, too...$135 for a killer wavefolder.

A delay. You absolutely want one now, so that you can properly (ab)use the resonance insert in the A-106-1's resonance path. By doing that, you can create echoes which degrade over time in ways which you control to some extent. A reverb would be really interesting here as well.

The last suggestion here would be to divide paths. Put your audio path in the top row (as best as possible) and the modulation in the lower one, along with the power supply. You want to keep that last thing away from any audio modules to avoid noise leakage. Plus, dividing your functions up like that makes the synth easier to program in the long run, since everything should have a specific place based on function. Going to a 2 x 104 is loads more sensible, too...

[WARNING: DEVIL'S ADVOCACY FOLLOWS]

I'm going to venture a guess that about half of you reading this right now DO NOT need a modular synthesizer.

No, really. While you see these instruments quite a bit these days, especially on YouTube and other Interwebz outlets, and while they look really intriguing, there are some points about them that you might want to consider.

First of all, what ARE modular synthesizers? Some people think that any synth with patchpoints is a modular, and this is simply wrong. Devices such as the Korg MS-20, ARP 2600, etc are often called “modular”, but these are better described as “patchable” since they have a prepatched voice path, and the patchpoints are actually override points for this. A true modular synthesizer DOES NOT have a prepatched voice; instead, ALL connections must be made by hand between individual circuit modules (hence the name), and the instruments are made up of collections of these.

But also, one has to keep in mind what a synthesizer IS. And that would be an instrument in which sound is generated and manipulated through electronic means AND which consists of four basic parts:
generators, modifiers, modulators, and controllers. So, in the case of a modular synthesizer, it must have those four primary components in the proper ratios so that you actually arrive at a usable instrument. But IS there some hard and fast rule there?

Well...no. And this is where the trouble starts.

Clearly, there are devices that must be in any synthesizer. But when that's predetermined by another engineer or designer, it lets you off the hook. You don't have to worry about putting the right stuff in the case, as that's already done for you.

...but not in a modular synthesizer, however, unless you get a prebuilt system. Aside of those, you're on your own. So if that's the case, then how well do you know how synthesis works? Well? Really well? Not really at all?

Modular synthesizers ARE NOT a good starting-point to learn synthesis. In fact, they're quite terrible! There is so much to them that can be gotten wrong that they actually have better odds of misinforming new users than giving them the keys to the sonic kingdom. Patchables are better for this, because when your tinkering outright fails, you can always fall back on the prepatched path. In fact, I often state that the best teaching synth of all time has to be the ARP 2600. If you can't sort out how the process works on one of THOSE...well, pianos don't have knobs, and you might feel more comfortable with one. Maybe if Korg pulls its collective head out of its collective ass and decides to ACTUALLY reissue these (instead of dicking everyone over with 500 units only, worldwide), you'll get a chance to see what I mean.

But I digress...anyway, the reason why these are easier and why they're what I would recommend is because of that default path. You're never left with a “useless” box of widgets. OTOH, a modular will do EXACTLY THAT to you if you don't know what you're doing. Or worse, you'll have a box that fights you at every turn!

“But why does [INSERT “INFLUENCER” HERE] have one,” you ask? Hm...they look good, for one thing. One would expect that, if there's that wall of knobs and wires and blinkylites, this guy on the screen must know what they're going on about...right? Right? TELL ME I'M RIGHT!!!

No, you're not right. A lot of these people just have them around as set decorations, really. Do you see them messing around with it for more than just the span of the video? Or sillier, do you see them with moooooooood lighting (yes, that many “o”s are needed) and such, like the whole effin' studio has Bond Villain lighting? Yeah...uh...that's probably a good indicator that they don't, and furthermore, that they probably don't do anything aside of YouTube, because that's what you'd call a “set” and NOT a “studio”. The musicians I respect and pay attention to on that platform, frankly, don't have any of that BS; their studios look like they see constant use and they don't bother with trying to make their workspaces look like an IKEA showroom. Want to have some fun? Watch one of these “fashionable” YouTubers for a hot minute and count the technical mistakes...you'll either be laughing hysterically or throwing up. Maybe both.

The real purpose of a modular synthesizer in the 2020s is that they serve as bespoke devices for musicians who have gone beyond the typical limitations of off-the-shelf synths. But even there, there's a caveat waiting, since “off-the-shelf” these days implies a metric buttload of power for the most part. Case in point: the Waldorf Quantum. It costs about as much as a decently-populated Eurorack modular. And for the average synthesist, it's WAY more than enough synthesizer. But if you have a very specific idea that goes beyond what a synth like that is capable of...well, that's why modulars exist. But you would have to know what exhausting those possibilities is like FIRST, and it takes quite a bit of work and time to outgrow some of the more complex instruments out there these days.

So, let's go back a bit. Sure, you saw a lot of people using them early on in the 1960s and 70s. But remember: the monosynth as we know it didn't happen until around 1970 (the Minimoog), there was no such thing as a “polysynth” although very limited instruments using divide-down polyphony existed, and pop music was also a great deal less timbrally complicated. So back then, modulars were the logical next step. But once the Sequential Prophet 5 came out, that started changing. That synth provided memory over all parameters, five voices of TRUE polyphony, and loads of knobs for tweakage plus a really good keybed. And it kicked butt sonically.

Where polysynths get a bad rep is actually from a slightly later period, the mid-1980s. At that point, a number of cheap digital synths appeared and everyone figured, OK, these are the way to go. And while some of these sounded great, they were totally crap to program. You had one of either two ways to go here: either you had the dreaded “data slider”, which actually started on the ARP (later Rhodes) Chroma but which everyone UNfondly remembers from the Yamaha DX series. Or if not that, then you got the “programming cheap-out” from firms like Roland, where you had to buy a “programmer” as a separate accessory, and which in some cases would require this device to hog your MIDI ports, if you didn't want to get stuck with a bunch of factory presets and maybe (if you were lucky) a few global controls to vary things.

Certainly, these synthesizers sucked massively for various reasons, which also included some very real issues with audio capability. And they were the yardstick on which the resurgence of modular was measured...a resurgence that, in its day, was very necessary! When we hit the nadir of digital, with the avalanche of “rompler” synths that began at the end of the 1980s, it was time to get back to knobs and jacks.

But the situation NOW is not the situation THEN.

Right now, it's possible to drop $5k on a Eurorack system, easily. It's also possible to drop LESS on a very capable prebuilt synth and get much the same sorts of sonic results. Things changed. A lot. We finally got digital synthesis that was easy to program, for one thing; for example, the raw power that was at the heart of the DX-7 could now be got as a cheap mini-keyboard with an interface that, at long last, FINALLY made sense (even though there's knob programmers for it, just like back in the day with Jellinghausen's). We also got polysynths that could be toted around without any need for having your hernia surgeon on speed-dial. And others that can make former monsters like the Synclavier look like a 1954 Philco black-and-white TV, technologically speaking. And terrifyingly-potent monosynths with all the features of a suitable modular can now be got off the shelf...such as the Matrixbrute, the Pro-3, the Subsequent 37, et al. Clearly, the points of the late 1980s through Dieter's introduction of the Eurorack format were listened to, eventually. And not only that, but you can now easily GET a Synclavier...or Fairlight...or a lot of other things in software versions that carefully and exactingly emulate the originals. I mean, hell, I've used Synclaviers, even HAD one in the 1990s...and the Arturia SynclavierV is pretty much indistinguishable now that it has the resynthesis function. You don't even need to BUY it...just steal a cracked copy, which is far easier than heisting the huge processor cab, terminal, keyboard controller, two floppys, pedals, and the various hefty cables of the real device, not to mention the huge binder of manuals and all the necessary floppy disks.

So...what is the whole point of modular NOW? I mean, really, if you can do that...

Modular still has a point to it. It's NOT an entry point, though, like I mentioned. Instead, modular synthesizers are a DESTINATION. They are where you go when you have a certain musical vision at hand, and what you need isn't an off the shelf solution. Unlike the old days, they aren't where you start. They were that only back in synthesizers' first decade or two and haven't been that since! And this is because we DO have better solutions for the average electronic musicians out there.

“That's bullsh*t! I know I need one!” Is this sort of like how, back in the 1990s, everyone was convinced that you couldn't make techno without having a TB-303 onhand and you knew you needed one of those? Well...yeah. And this hype really does modular synthesis no good.

When you have a situation like this, what actually results is:

1) lots of stuff getting sold that will wind up in the back of a closet in a couple of years. And...

2) lots of frustrated modular purchasers who fell into this trap and bought expensive gear they didn't understand, hence #1 above.

Makes for a great used market, I guess, but it's not constructive.

So...if you're looking at ModularGrid right now with this grand idea that you're going to drop $5k on a modular that, once you have it mastered (because, by your admission, you're still “learning synthesis”), it will make you into the second coming of Wendy Carlos, Keith Emerson, Brian Eno and Aphex Twin all at the same time...ahhhh, you might want to dial that enthusiasm back. A lot. First up, the ability to be that person has nothing to do with gear; see The Shaggs' “Philosophy of the World” for a prime example of how equipment won't save your ass musically. Secondly, if you're still learning, you're either going to have a long slog up that learning curve or, more likely, you'll start questioning your sanity as regards buying that monstrosity and find yourself clearing closet space. If you don't know what you're doing with synthesizer programming prior to buying a modular synth, you will be horrified to find that what you DO know is nowhere near what's needed to grapple with one.

How to get there, though? OK...since Korg opted to be total jackasses with the (only available for one day or so) ARP 2600 reissue, your next best option is their MS-20. You can patch around its fixed voice path, check. Externally or internally controllable, check. All the usual circuits, check. Panel that's straightforward enough to understand while trashed, check. Self-containment, check. Perfectly utilitarian design, check. Decent price that's NOT $5k, check; in fact, while the Mini is still around, it would cost a bit more than 1/10th of that. If you're still learning synthesis, THAT is the right tool to learn ON. And NOT a modular synth that costs several times that. Get the MS-20 down first, then proceed. And yeah, you can patch it into the later modular gear, although you'll have to deal with the inverse gate/trig and Hz/V CV issues. No biggie if you know what you're doing by that point.

“But what do I get NEEEEEEXXXTTTT?!?!?!” Ahhh... how'bout that brand-new Yamland STFU? Until and unless you can get something on the level of the above example down, stay well away from modular. Otherwise, you risk digging a monetary hole the likes of which you've never likely experienced, and climbing out of it will be the most unfun thing of your life.

BUT...if you can get super-cozy with an MS-20, and you find you can expand it in useful ways via its patch panel, and maybe you'd like to add a little something like a skiff with a Maths in it...maybe a third VCO...or some other filter...or... Now, THAT is how to proceed, and how to do so sensibly AND in a way that does let you learn synthesis. And I know this because it's how I started progressing, albeit with an ARP 2600 since we're talking 1981 here, otherwise, same diff.

Patchables are really the proper starting point, for all of these reasons. And something like a Plankton ANTS!, which is just a single box, is a great way to expand and yet still have the prepatch paradigm for when things go haywire. Dreadbox makes a few that fit here, too. And if you want to go bananas, there's Kilpatrick's Phenol. And in all of these cases, it's obvious what you're doing, and what you're doing that with. About the only thing you're guaranteed of learning by getting tossed into the deep end of the pool is drowning, really; start somewhere where you can still touch the pool bottom if you've got any sense and any budgeting capabilities.

Anyway, this isn't meant to dissuade anyone from exploring their options in modular. Rather, it's a plea for new synthesists to use some basic pragmatism when approaching modular for the first time. If you know where you're trying to get to sonically, then by all means give modular a shot. But understand that if you DON'T...it's gonna hurt either your brain or your bank account. Maybe both. Consider your options carefully...

The forums will time out. This was done in order to deal with some issues with spamming some time ago, and while it's an inconvenience, eventually you learn to copy your post before dropping it just in case.

Again, why do this with a modular? You could go nuts on eBay if the objective is effects processing; the same amount that would get you a modular system could ALSO allow you to fully populate a 12U rack with amazing processing gear and a small desktop mixer to control the whole mess, with beer money left over at the end. And while Eurorack modules go for no-joke money, studio-grade processors are getting blown out on the used market for dimes on the dollar.

Modular synths ARE NOT a necessary device. NOT. NECESSARY. They exist these days because 1) there are some of us out here who need them to get into sonic territory that's very uncharted or 2) a sizable contingent of people have become convinced that they ARE necessary...until they get hold of one, and then you lose about 2/3rds+ of that crowd when they discover that a modular is neither a "magic box" nor "easy". Naturally, this'll make for a very interesting used synth market in a decade or so...but I'm pretty sure that wasn't an intended outcome.

A good 75% of prospective modular synth buyers would probably be far better off, more productive, and less frustrated by something other than a modular synth. Trust me on this. I know they look cool and all that, but unless you're VERY certain about both the direction of your music AND your hardware capabilities, you're apt to find yourself in the deep end of the pool very quickly, to say nothing of the smoking hole in your Magic Plastic.

OK...a couple of things jump right out. First up, aside of the Dual FX, you don't have anything in here that's stereo. Yes, I know the Mixup seems to be stereo...but look closely: there's no panning on that. It's more of a "summing mixer", not something that can actually allow you to spatially-locate sound. Then, by extension, the Audio IO becomes pointless as well. Taken together, that's $350-ish, and it doesn't quite accomplish what it needs to. So...look instead at Doepfer's A-138s, which IS a four-in stereo mixer, and then at Happy Nerding's OUT, which gives you transformer isolation, a parallel stereo bus input, and master level controls...plus a headphone pre, 1/4" outs, and metering. Total: $270. Every bit counts, after all...

Then, I'd remove the drums. Seriously...you're probably better off with a dedicated drum machine, as this rig here doesn't really have the sequencing needed to support drum programming. And also, since there's no sequencing here, why is there a quantizer in there? Certainly not for the MIDI CVs...that's already quantized.

Filters...sort of redundant, really. The Forbidden Planet and the uVCF are rather similar designs. If you're going to have two VCFs in here, make them pretty divergent in sound...that way, you can put one out front as a "lead" voice and the rest of the sound can go thru the other.

Envelopes...the Quadra is decent as a two-stage EG, three if you use the ASR mode. But there's nothing here that can really make the filter(s) shine; for that, you'll probably need a couple of proper ADSRs...something like Doepfer's A-140-2. And then, with that in place, you can scale your AR envelopes back a bit.

TBH, the best way to reduce the budget here might be to make the build larger. That might sound counterintuitive, but the fact is that smaller modules tend to cost more in the long run than ones that take up more space, mainly because you can cram loads of them in. By moving up to a 2 x 104 hp cab, you can then put in a larger module that can cost the same (or less) that also gives you more functionality. For instance, let's say you were able to swap that 2hp LFO for a Noise Reap uLoaf. Same price. BUT...the uLoaf gives you a second LFO, more functions, some random capabilities in only 4 hp more space. But wait, there's more!...

Let's look at the cost of the spaces each module takes up! Now, $99 / 2 = $49.50 per space covered. But the Noise Reap comes in at $16.50 for each. So what's going on here? Simple...as you build up a row, make note of each module's cost per hp like that, then average this out when the row is populated so that you can see what a row costs per hp. This is a good indicator of your build costs; the lower that cost per hp number goes, the more cost-effective the build is. Filling a row out that comes in at an average of $17/hp is better than $21/hp, cost-wise...and by using that little formula, you can account for a single module that jacks up the row cost across the entire row's cost profile.

One last warning: this isn't a video game. You don't have a "win" here, there's no timer, no score. Don't EVEN try and get things right on your first build on MG; at this point, you're just sorting out that there's this many modules. It's NOT necessary to get the first build right...basically, NO ONE gets the first build right. Ever. Period. Even if you have decades of experience. Instead, whittle at this for a while...several weeks, maybe a few months...while researching what will get you a sound that's your sound. Proceed at a pace that works for designing something you'll live with for literally YEARS and which costs a sizable chunk of money. Speed, basically, is NOT of the essence here.

Dupont leads really aren't all that problematic. One colleague of mine is using a Starter 2 extensively for live work, and he reports that the new pin sockets on the modules are considerably more stable than typical protoboard connectors. It's also possible that Korg skimped on those and got ones that're very shallow to better fit the Volca form factor; the deeper connectors I have on my Mescaline and my Bastl devices don't drop leads.

Nope, Ronin's quite right here. Eurorack isn't the right thing for basic pads and the like. First of all, pads get you into the polyphonic end of the pool, and that's one area where Eurorack (or any other modular system) gets VERY spendy. You would need...

1) at least two VCOs per voice

2) a VCF per voice

3) a VCA per voice

4) a mixer module that can handle this properly

5) a polyphonic MIDI controller and a Eurorack MIDI interface that supports your needed voice count

6) all of the other stuff you'd need in the cab to support this.

Potentially, a few thousand dollars AT BEST for a very simple modular poly. Compare this with something like a Modal Argon 8, which comes in at $750 street and which is a far more capable polysynth than anything you could concoct in Eurorack without spending close to $10k or worse. Unless you have this sort of cash laying around in a collection of laundry hampers and bushel baskets, this isn't your best solution. Oh...and the space for this honker, too. Can't forget that...

A better solution for you, since you're clearly more accustomed to the software environment, would be VCV Rack. In it, you can actually assemble a modular polysynth (IF you have enough speed and processor capability!) and see what I'm talking about here. And ultimately, you're probably best tinkering with this QUITE a bit before pulling the trigger on any hardware; know your problem before trying to solve it!

A few other points, also...first up, you don't have enough sources that require stabilized CV for pitch, so the buffered mult is pretty useless here. Rule of thumb is that once you get beyond feeding three sources with the same CV, you'll want to buffer that to avoid CV sag and resulting tuning problems...but with what you have here, you won't need this. Just mult things out with inline mults or stackcables, and you'll be golden.

Now, having removed the buffered mult, you now have an 8 hp hole. So...try this: remove one of the Quad VCAs altogether. Then into the hole, put a Happy Nerding 3xVCA, and use this in THAT position for your CV/mod level control, and the remaining Quad VCA for your audio + mix to mono. This leaves a free 2 hp there in the second row (2hp DC-coupled mixer for CV/mod combination?), and 12 up top. My next move there would be to add one more device, something you can use as a doubler for one (or both) of the audio samplers. Like this: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/flight-of-harmony-sound-of-shadows which is a delay line that would work great for doubling, plus it also offers an insert loop in the delay's feedback path for even more fun. It's sorta gritty, too...adds character, done right. That way, you don't have to tie up the Mimeophon for simple delays, making it more useful for global delays/loops.

Oooo...you might add something like this: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/ladik-s-186-dual-delay or this: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/ladik-s-090-dual-probability-skipper Both could be fun...the first would allow you to offset the timing of whatever was being clocked through it, letting you "slip" the other sequential parts. And the other would allow the sequencer to actually skip a pulse (or three) to let the sequencer fall off of whatever primary beat was underpinning things. Toss a delay line into this for audio strangeness, and you'd have something pretty nifty...and not for a whole lot, given how cheap the Ladik modules are.

...I fear people might start listing modules at unrealistic prices in order to game such a guide. Both inflated and undervalued scenarios are plausible.
-- senor-bling

Actually, a problem like this exists on eBay, and he's known as the "Flower Pot Guy". Infamous. The user posts up pro audio gear at prices which are sometimes twice the normal average, and charges "normal" prices for stuff that's broken. The name comes from his habit of putting the gear in front of some cheap clay flowerpots before photographing it, and its been going on for literally years.

The problem arises when you have non-online dealers that might be trying to price some obscure device, and they use this bastard's inflated prices as their own, because...hey, HE asked that, so WE should ask that too! I've actually run into this once or twice, and dissuading dealers from following this jackass's prices is like pulling teeth...until/unless they recognize that they might not sell the device in question at those insane prices of his. But his antics have caused considerable problems on that platform for pro audio shoppers for the precise reason you mention here. MOST...but not all...have learned to ignore him, but his "au-thor-i-tay" is still occasionally cited by non-eBayers for their own psychotic used gear prices.

Mmmm...except...there's some things missing here: phantom power and impedence settings. Very important...

If you're planning to use a high-end condenser mic for your horn, this might prove to be a problem. A better idea would be to go with something like this: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MixingLink--eventide-mixing-link-preamp-and-fx-loop and then take the line out from this (or the AUX port) and go to a more conventional input preamp such as a Doepfer A-119 for your boost to synth level and the envelope follower/gate result. A box like this also allows for a separate FX loop besides the modular. As for modules WITH phantom power...ahh, you're utterly screwed unless you hold an AMEX Black Card, because then you're looking at Cwejman stuff, and that ain't cheap! Even at $300 for the Eventide box and $100 for the A-119, you're STILL a few hundred ahead of that.

However, if your horn has a piezo pickup (most wind pickups these days are), then you'll need a module that doesn't have phantom power, but a suitable hi-Z input setting so that the piezo sounds natural. In this case, no external box would be needed, but you'd want to look into something like Sputnik's EF/Preamp, which has the necessary impedence adjustments for this.

The Erica module IS NEAT, no doubt...but it's not out yet. These other solutions are, and they should work just fine.

.pngs might scale a bit better, but MG accepts JPEG just fine as well. It's pretty forgiving about image quality. However, I avoid the autocrop function, and crop everything before loading. That way, there's less for MG to chew on, which is more efficient.

Still seeing some flaky behavior with screenshot functions, such as linking in rack images in forum posts. When attempting to load just the screenshot of a project from last night, the shot wouldn't load at all in its window...I got an error message instead. And in the forum post in question, it will only put up a generic link to the build's page, probably due to the screenshot function being linked to the forum's image display capabilities.

Good choice. The Pittsburgh Structure cabs are built like a brick s**thouse, too, which means all of these widgets will have a very sturdy home. Plus with the +12V rail total PLUS inrush figures coming in at around 2.5A, it's got the P/S that can handle that...and then some! Should be a killer rig once it's built...

OK...MG's screenshot function seems to be smokin' rocks again, so let's see if this sucker posts properly...

Yeeeahhhh...it's being pretty hateful. At least there IS a link there...

OK, what I did here was to trash a lot of redundancies and whittle the functionality a bit from your prior iteration so that I could drop more RAW POWER into my redux. MIDI interface and sequencer were dropped in favor of a Squarp Hermod, which has both and which does way more. Tempi was dropped in favor of a Pam's; you might want the extra two channels of trig sequencing. Zadar instead of the dual ADSR and the Erica EG/LFO, Quad VCA instead of the discrete dual VCAs...you lose two, but gain some extra mixing capability for either audio or CV (or both, given that you can split out VCAs in it).

Listen I/O was scrapped, and I separated the audio in and outs into separate modules, both located where they should be. You'll also notice that the Happy Nerding OUT has a separate stereo input, which you can use to put the Mimeophon in parallel routing, instead of having to route everything thru it and control the result with the wet/dry control. The Doepfer A-119 also now gives you an envelope follower...very useful for incoming audio, as you can now use the incoming amplitude as a dynamic contour (or most anything else CV-wise). Buffered mult, yep...normally, I'd say keep this OUT, but in this case the build IS moving into the turf where this is needed. And WHY...well, that's next to it: Squarp's new 4-channel sample player module. Then the other new device is a 6-in stereo mixer, with CV over either level (your dedicated audio VCAs) or panning.

Layout was regrouped, and the functions were split between rows: audio UP, CV/mod DOWN.

...and the cherry on the cake: I managed to mash it down another $300, even with all of the hi-octane additions. :-) So, how's that?

EDITED Mar 3rd 2020, 02:59

Kind of hard to go wrong with Arturia's various sequencers, really. There's a bunch of that laying around in my studio: Microbrute, Microfreak, a pair of BSPs, Keystep, and a Keystep Pro which should be here in a couple of months. They do those things RIGHT.

It's not bad, but I'd suggest looking into some modules that can "read" CV states and output gates...comparators, discriminators, that sort of thing. Along with that, you'd probably want to expand the Boolean logic capabilities to make better use of those new gate signals...would allow for a lot of "conditional state" behavior within the generative process, adding to the potential complexity. Also, add a few more linear VCAs so that you can better automate the CV/mod level processes.

So far, so good...now, how would you do this in stereo? Spatial activity is also a very useful thing to have going on in generative processes.

Fixing the screenshots: the transfer of your rack data into a pure graphic file can be a little dicey on MG. What's necessary is to pull up a screenshot of the rack in question, then refresh it. For some reason, MG likes to "lock" on certain build stages, and by hitting reload you can "thwack" it into putting the proper result in place. Once refreshed (and this really should be a "must do" every time you're prepping a screenshot), then everything displays as it should.

As for the speed, it's probably yet more Chinese and/or Indonesian spammers trying to get into MG. There was a massive problem with that until the REcaptcha was implemented, but my bet is that MG's still on a list of "sites you can use as a text-based toilet for your bullshit" in the spam community, ergo sometimes you might see something like an accidental DDOS attack going on occasionally. Just wait...it'll ease up.

Well, it doesn't look great and make a lot of sense to ME! How do you expect to control amplitudes with no VCAs? True, the Quintet has them...but that module's probably going to be quite busy with audio duties, leaving no linear, DC-coupled VCAs to control amplitudes over mod signals via envelopes, LFOs, etc.

Definitely a "sexy" build...but in my book, that's not a good thing. Frankly, I would start over with your basic essentials, but the second time around, add more utility things...VCAs, more envelopes (I tend to view the Maths as an insanely-complex LFO, which is the sort of thing it does very well), and simpler things that are overcomplicated here (like using a $500 mixer as your audio VCAs when the fact is that it can't output stereo, ergo no real need for a stereo out even with the Mimeophon, etc). Really, really ask yourself "Do I truly need this in here?" and don't be afraid to be utterly brutal when making these considerations. Fact is, you could probably cut about $1500-2000 OUT of the cost on this by avoiding the bells-n-whistles modules and simply patching what you want out of "primitives".

Here's a nice rule of thumb to follow: price of module / hp count of module = cost per hp of a given module. Keeping this simple formula in mind when choosing modules, along with the other criteria in use, will go a long way to avoiding superfluous stuff in a build. Try and keep that figure under $25/hp, and you're golden...but when you look at some of what's here, well...the ADDAC 802, f'rinstance, comes in at $41.58/hp. Unless there's a very specific reason for including modules that are that costly, this is something you might want to keep in check, as it leads to both "sexy module syndrome" and the horror of cost-spiraling.

Remember: this is a process. Creating a build like this takes time and diligent pruning at the setup, which MG makes easier and relatively painless. But it still doesn't erase the fact that coming up with an effective modular that'll be usable for years actually takes quite a long time and a lot of work. And a lot of study; don't be fooled by the snazzy looks, what you need to be concerned with is BEHIND the panels.

Actually, anything that outputs a constant beat can be used as a clock if you have something which can extract that audio and convert it into clock pulses. All you'd need is a very tight bandpass filter (as in 1/10th octave or tighter) and the conversion tool of choice (I use a Truetone Time Bandit myself), and you could lock your DAW (or most anything else) to some ancient 1960s drum machine or even beats on prerecorded audio. Been doing variations on this for years, and it works pretty well.

As for an additional clock or modules to modify clocking, yeah, you DO want those. Let's say, for example, that you want an event to hit every other measure on beat 3. Your track is in 4/4, you can easily get a quarter-note pulse, your sequencer has 16 steps, and your loops are 4 measures. You COULD tie up a sequencer channel to do this, true...but the more efficient solution would be to use something like an EMW Pulse Counter. Send the quarter-note pulses in, send a pulse from steps 1 and 9 to the Reset function, and take your specific trigger pulse out of step 7 for...well, most anything. Or send your clock gates into one side of an AND gate, and then the output of a comparator to the other, and set the comparator so that as long as the note CV coming out of the sequencer is over a certain pitch, the AND gate will pass your pulses on to another sequencer ONLY when the "high state" is present both from the comparator AND clock. Neat way to add a tessitura line on your sequence line AND have the machine do it so you can twiddle with something else.

...and so on....

First up, unless you intended to spend a total of $750+ on the DFAM, take it out of the cab. Yes, that difference IS an average of the cost of the Eurorack recasing versus keeping it in its already-existing and already-powered case. Convenience is good, yes, but that's some expensive convenience. Also...if you put it back, you could theoretically go to a smaller/more portable Eurorack case for the remaining purposes. And given what Eurorack cases COST...

Next, Clouds. No. Discontinued years ago...so if you have to have the original, your only bet is the used market. A much better choice would be any of the Clouds clone versions built by third parties such as Codex Modulex, Michigan Synth Works, Tall Dog, et al. These also tend to be smaller, have expanded functions (see the Monsoon), or both.

Magneto. Not a bad choice, but it's big, and this build is small. If you go to a smaller Clouds clone, though, this might not be a problem. 4ms's Dual Looping Delay might be a better fit, however, at 20 hp and a few different tricks up its sleeve. Note also that both the Magneto and the DLD have insert points in their feedback paths, which allow you to add [INSERT FUN DEVICE HERE] into the feedback loop to alter subsequent repeats. So you might consider a VCF for this purpose. Even wackier, you could choose a VCF that also has an insert, this time in the resonance path...Doepfer's A-106-1 (a variant of the Korg MS-20 VCF set) comes to mind here. Then you can add another something into ITS insert...maybe a reverb...which screws with how the resonance behavior performs.

You need an input with an envelope follower for the Rhodes input to get the level up to modular levels and to provide amplitude tracking for anything else that might want it; Doepfer's A-119 would be perfect here, as would Sputnik's EF-Preamp (which also allows different input impedances). Then you'll also want modulation sources (another reason to remove the DFAM!) to screw around with the behavior of all of this. Lastly, you might consider some clock modulation modules/Boolean logic to mess with timing behavior between everything that needs a clock, such as the DFAM.

One other point: the reissued Model D has only instrument and line level audio I/O, so this will also have to be boosted/cut in order to get the levels from these up/down. Check Ladik's listings for suitable and cost-effective level conversion preamps.

Since you're looking for a CP3 clone, is this for MU or Eurorack?

NP...just use stackcables or inline mults, and you're golden.

Except...there ARE some "rare birds" in pedal-land that are definitely pedals, but they don't have the footswitches. One is sitting just a foot away from me right now, in fact: the Korg X-911 "guitar synth". I've seen it used like that, with a guitar or other instrument played monophonically...and I've also seen (and used) it as a patchable processing device, with numerous patchpoints for synth functions AND additional footswitches.

My take on the pedals is that if it's supposed to fit on a pedalboard, and if it's used for processing like a pedal, then it's a pedal. But if it's obviously NOT supposed to be there, then it's not one. F'rinstance, the Alesis IODock...the idea there is that you can load up FX chains in the iPad that it's supposed to dock with, but I'm pretty such the last place you want an iPad sitting would be where your feet are poking around at other switches and pedals. "Recipe for disaster"-sort of scenario, y'know? Similarly, things like a DFAM or a Field Kit are also NOT supposed to sit where your feet are swinging around, unless you like broken knobs, scratched-up graphics, and dented panels. A good case for that would be Pittsburgh's Patch Box...very beefy pedal enclosure, but if you're putting crunchable modules IN it, well...

I agree, there's stuff in there that's not supposed to be. But it takes a bit of care to pull things out of MG that people have in use in their builds. Even so, the pedals category could use a tad of careful cleaning.

EDITED Feb 28th 2020, 22:59

Not bad! The only thing I'd suggest here is to lose the buffered mult, since you only have the Lifeforms VCO and the Joranalogue GENERATE 3 (PiLLs notwithstanding) that needs to be driven by CV. Everything else isn't necessarily "tuning critical", so voltage sag due to overpatching won't be an issue. But conveniently, you could swap that with Intellijel's Digiverb 1U tile, giving you a nice mono reverb in the cab...very useful for percussives.

Should make a nice complement to the 2s!

Yes, it's its own format, very simplistic and basic, no fancy superfluous nonsense. And $1300 would allow you to build up a rather sizable system. There are some drawbacks, however...for one thing, the AE system only uses positive CVs in a 0 - 5V range. This is very much compatible with other synth gates/triggers, but the CVs and mod signals do require some range constraints. Fortunately, there are two solutions: 1) the AE system has the 4I/O module, which not only handles audio input/output, but also handles voltage constraint, or 2) a Soundmachines' Nanobridge, a small $30+ board which gives you 14 channels of CV/gate/trig I/O with constraining reference voltage from the AE itself. The other drawback...if you're not used to working with them...are the Dupont patchwires. These are typically what you'd find in circuit prototyping work (one reason the AE gets used as a DIY development bed: the direct interconnectability with prototyping boards) although a few synths do use them...a number of Bastl devices, various Folktek modules and their Mescaline device, the Korg Volca Modular, etc. But one also has to keep in mind that, unlike 3.5mm or 1/4" patchcables, Dupont wires do not have a ground connection, so like you'd encounter with a Serge system, Kilpatrick Phenol, etc, you'll have to establish a ground-plane connection to any other devices you'd be patching the AE to.

Best thing I could suggest would be to go to https://www.tangiblewaves.com/ and have a better look. The forum there also has quite a few users (myself included) that range from players all the way up to module designers.

T-Rex did a really nice tape delay module some time back: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/other-unknown-t-rex-replicator- Basically, it's a Euro version of their Replicator tape delay box with a few extra tricks. Don't hold your breath waiting for Boss, though; Roland's had this long-running (and very, VERY dumb!) semi-policy of not revisiting their older designs unless they can do their meh-grade circuit modeling on them. Even right now, the Roland 500 series isn't made by Roland...it's actually all Malekko's design and build-work. As opposed to Korg (who I still say f**ked up massively on their ARP 2600 reissue nonsense!) who have no problem bringing back older stuff that worked, Roland is so far up this digital modeling bunghole that even their major new synths are pretty questionable, IMHO.

True about Fulltone, tho...I have one of their original Supa-Trem2 boxes, and I think it's one of the finer examples of that sort of thing, well worth having in Eurorack, but they don't even have that as an active model right now. They just have the redone version. I'd love to have that sort of stereo modulation in a synth, but like many guitar stompbox makers, they're still fascinated with that market. Sorta sad, really, when you consider how many Eurorack makers (and which ones!) came out of the stompbox arena.

VCOs in my first modular? Four...all Digisound Series 80. Three of the regular VCOs and one VCDO, a wavetable VCO with stepable table and index scanning. Not something you can necessarily get these days, unless you're talking about Pharmasonic's Eurorack clones.

...which brings up a point. These are VERY simple VCOs, even the VCDO. The designs are all from the early 1980s. And I still use them. And while some of the more high-end VCOs out there have new and interesting features, you can still get a buttload of use out of simple modules. Sure, having a complex VCO might be convenient, but I can patch that configuration up PDQ and get the same results, so...uhh...why are these $750 again? Refresh my memory here...

Let's face it: some of what's on the market these days is either unjustifiably complex and/or expensive. Accent on expensive. And unless it's an accident (such as something being Euro-capable, like my Field Kits), there's not much in the way of Eurorack in here in my studio.

WHAT!?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!! Nah. Look...like any other musician, I have to be practical in my gear choices. And while Eurorack was quite practical in the several years after Dieter cooked up the format, it's turned into a swamp of expensive items that bamboozle beginning synthesists on a per-minute basis, misleading rubbish, overpriced bulls**t...I mean, hell, where else can you buy an effing BOX for $300? C'mon...

So, while I own a few Eurorack devices just as a coincidence...and of course, I definitely understand the tech and how it's used and all that...my actual modulars are a 22-module Digisound and a soon-to-arrive AE system...the latter being the largest system to come out of their factory thus far. Something like, oh, 20+ VCOs and so on...BUT IT DIDN'T COST ME AN EXTRA KIDNEY! Gargantua (as the monster is known by Tangible Waves and the AE community) is being boxed up right now over in Murnau and all totalled, it should come out to about...ahh, don't get upset now...$5k.

Now, $5,000 can get you a decent Eurorack rig...IF you stay away from the "sexy" stuff and opt to construct module subsystems out of "primitives", such as cobbling together the sort of thing you find with a Buchla 258. But you still have to put it in an expensive case with power, and that'll eat a big (and questionably-expensive) chunk right off the top. But it's plausible to put a $5k pricetag on a decent, portable Eurorack build. However, it won't be anywhere as sizable and/or capable as this 160-space monster that's also been custom-drilled to allow access to all trimpots and which I'll be powering with a lab-grade Tektronix switching supply (also cheap!). But as an example...

Gargantua contains six identical arrays of modules: two VCOs, one 2OSC/D (dual digital VCO), a WAVEFOLDER, a 2VCA (sorta obvious, that), and a 4-channel mono mixer. Each one of these can act as something similar to a dual Buchla 258, but with the addition of the VCAs which allow me to alter modulation amounts with LFO or EG signals. Now, Sputnik's clone of this, the 25S, will run you $900. Two, $1800. A dozen, though...$10,800!!!

As a working stiff composer, I haven't got that kind of scratch. I like the functionality...I have fond memories of the times I've used Buchla stuff...but I'm not about to pay that for it. Instead, each one of those AE module arrays runs 172 EUR, or just a bit under $187. I have no illusions that the AE is on par with Don's designs, true, but when you start factoring price versus function, Don's designs start to lose a lot of their luster.

True, the AE system is pretty devoid of snazzy graphics and the usual cosmetic stuff, but that's because it's focused on the circuits, not how jazzy the front panel can be. But like I've been saying on MG's forum, "sexy" isn't what makes a good modular system. 90% of the people who listen to your music won't ever see what you made it on, which instantly reduces things down to purely practical terms if you opt to look at the problem that way. And sure, there's some great Eurorack gear out there...but it almost seems to me these days that Eurorack is engendering its own problems. When Dieter came up with this, the idea was to create a simple, practical, and affordable pathway into modular synthesizer tech. What we have now is only that if you're willing to do the study and careful vetting to weed out the gimmicky aspects. And there is a BUTTLOAD of those these days. Instead, you get people coming in and, first up, thinking that a modular synth is a necessity (it's not!) and that they have to go all in on something with as many knobs, lights, and nonsense as possible. And then they build totally untenable rigs and wonder why people pounce on these when they get posted. Or, worse, they DON'T post them on MG and go out and buy them without any input...sort of like the early 1990s nonsense about how a TB-303 was essential for techno and, without one, you would never succeed, never ever ever ever never ever. The result there, natch, is a cantankerous and barely-usable box of expensive BS that's missing everything needed to make it work. The blinky lights might look cool and all, but if the result sounds and plays like denatured ASS...well, was that a good idea?

The point: ultimately, if you can get the right result...and by that, I mean having a synth that functions as expected and which has all of the basic functions in their proper proportions...it really doesn't matter too much WHAT you're using. But getting that functionality right is where much of this fails. When you're taking up 30 hp with something that does a function that could just as easily be done with 4-5 other smaller modules for less...but which has AWWSUM graphics on the panel...well, that's what we call a "massive f**kup". Or if you're convinced you can achieve the sort of control that you hear other composers and/or performers achieving, but without all of the "boring" modules they have...again, that's not going to be happening.

So when we talk about awesome VCOs...yeah, my "awesome" VCOs are all quite boring. But then, modular is about what happens when these things all get hooked up together; what they're like as singular objects is sort of pointless. I've heard great stuff done on Buchlas and Serges and the like...and, for the polar opposite, I've also heard what Noise Reap's cheap Bermuda VCO is capable of...and in the end, it's not the device, it's what YOU can do with it!

VCAs...? Attenuators? Submixing for mod/CV signals? Sample and Hold? Clock modulators? Uhmmmm...OSCILLATORS??

OK, no. What you have here isn't a modular synth, but a prime example of "Sexy Module Syndrome". You have the snazzy stuff, but the synth is missing critical parts that are what makes it work. And yes, they're boring and all...but so are tires; try driving your car without them. But the upshot is that this is nowhere near complete. Your best option here is to delete this and start over altogether to avoid repeating something like this. Try and work in "blocks"...the "voicing", the "filtering" etc, and make sure those blocks have all of their necessary modules before going on to the next.

Also, given what it sounds like you're trying to do here, I think you're going to have a lot of trouble trying to cram that amount of functions into 2 x 104 + 1U. You are probably looking at something bigger for the real solution.

1) No, it's not only for Intellijel tiles. There are other companies (Plum Audio comes to mind) that do modules in Intellijel's 1U format. You just have to be careful when checking listings and, also, pretty much all of Pulplogic's tiles are out of the question.

2) It's not that modules are "efficient". Fact is, a modular synth is about the most INefficient musical instrument there is. Most of what's inside the case is air, every connection has to be handpatched as a rule, patches require constant adjustment, and nothing works as you'd expect if you happen to look at your rig wrong. If you want "efficient", you're looking at the wrong thing altogether! That being said, the Intellijel tiles are USEFUL (this is the word I think you're looking for) in that they can replace 3U module functions, which then opens up more room in the 3U rows.

3) Garfield is correct: if you're not comfortable with a 1U row, get a different case. That being said, tiles are very useful, especially for utility functions, and the panoply of original format tiles shows this. But given that 1U tiles are just shrinky synth modules, it gives me some pause that if you're having trouble sorting out the usefulness of those 1U modules, there's quite probably some "gaps" in overall synth knowledge here.

4) DO NOT jump into this feet-first at top speed, with full money in evidence. Judging from the questions you've posed above, it could well be that you'd be better off learning the basics of this with a patchable synth, not a full-on modular. That way, you can sort out how this all works and have a device that can form the core of a larger system later on, once you've gotten more chops and more comprehension about the subject. Mind you, you can get well into modular turf with a patchable; something like Pittsburgh's Voltage Lab might make a useful start here, and if you were to pair that with something like a Plankton Ants! or Make Noise's 0-Coast, then you'd have a fairly powerful system that would allow you to work out where you want to go with this without spending the massive pile of cash that a full modular would entail.

Remember: modular synthesizers are really neat and cool looking and all that...but they have the potential to be the most hideous money sink you've ever encountered if you go into this without the requisite knowledge. Not everyone needs one, either. Really, they're best in the hands of musicians and sound designers who've exhausted all conventional sonic possibilities and who now need to go "off the map"; they're not an essential, despite what loads of YouTube videos might lead one to think.

EDITED Feb 24th 2020, 03:21

The problem is that Omnisphere is Omnisphere...attempting to replicate what software can do is pretty pointless when you're talking about something on that level of complexity. I mean, I have Iris2 myself...but I would never try to make hardware behave like it, because it just won't.

Anyway, this build sure does look expensive. As in, some parts are pointlessly so. And there's loads missing; how do you expect to use the Doepfer A-155 without its companion controller module, for example? Where are the attenuverters? The submixers? Where are the modules that make these expensive ones actually usable? Oh, they're boring? Tough. They're also necessary.

First of all, take your ten most expensive modules in this build and find suitable replacements at a more sensible price. That alone will drop the cost of this down, potentially by over a grand. And make things SMALLER...84 hp is a lot tighter than you think!

Second, you seem to have some ideas of how modulars function...but the ideas still seem to have flaws (like thinking you'll be fine with only an external mixer...and if you think so, then how do you intend to mix any of your modulation signals?). Prior to blowing money on an expensive rig like this with limited functionality due to uninformed choices, I would strongly suggest getting a copy of VCV Rack and exploring how things work in that virtual Eurorack environment. Some things are different, true, but the BASICS remain the same and it's from that that one learns what parts must be in a synth build for proper functionality.

Definitely keep working...but not on this version.

Ahhh...see, when I ran into the Academic Crapwall by the time I hit grad studies, my view on music had been so firmly formed that when I started dealing with the typical overinflated academic composition egos, I was ready to swing and not cringe. A lot of my formative work prepared me for that...constructive undergrad influences, the Nashville (my original hometown) proximity, numerous personal experiences, and a strong musical compass that took a lot of work to forge (still ongoing, tbh). I can recall switching studios after handing in a killer electronic work, informing them that I was changing because no one had the right to tell me how my music was to be composed. Besides, I'd done a number of "don'ts" in the work that this sooper-geenyuss electronic music prof could not detect... and that was very much an "emperor has no clothes" moment. If he couldn't hear what I'd done, then he had no business telling me how to do what I did in the first damn place!

Similarly, I ran into another "sooper-geenyuss" at Illinois that barged into my studio work (something which, in Nashville, could find one on the receiving end of an airborne ashtray if the engineer was in a particularly foul mood) and started asking me a bunch of "why the f**k are you asking me this right now?" questions, notably "What are your influences?". When I mentioned the Berlin School aspects to him, he huffed and looked down his nose (no shit! like in a cartoon!) and stated imperiously "we don't deal with such things here." Yeah? Well, eff that. He also tried to explain to me why I "didn't know" how a pair of Symetrix gates (the same model I have two of to my immediate right in my own studio) in the Moog lab were used...yeah, ok, sure, they're not the more complicated Valley People Dyna-mites I was so fond of at the time, but it's not like there's anything complicated there. Used 'em anyway in a repeat of the above trick...and the prof failed. Why the hell would I study with someone who didn't have the expertise to sort out when their own rules were being run over roughshod?

Some years later, I was on a festival bill with Terry Riley, and during some downtime, Terry asked me about my background. Note that...NOT "influences", but "what did you actually do?" So, I mentioned my early industrial and ambient stuff and the point that I'd been majorly deep in the punk scene at the very end of the 1970s when it finally hit Nashvegas. And at that, Terry interrupted me...and said "That. That's important stuff, that punk aspect. NEVER lose it!" Well...ok, then! But thinking about it, I'd not lost it, and it had successfully kept me from being cowed by diddly-crap morons who had the benefit of the right papers on the walls of their offices. Thanks, Terry!

But anyway...now, hold up here...you work with custom designs in wood. And you get what's needed for housing modular synths. It would seem to me that there's a rather interesting opportunity here. No, modular cases aren't the same as fishing tackle, but there's a line there to pursue, it seems like. And there IS a "hole" right now in intermediate-sized cabs, the 120hp+ and 3-4 row range. True, you have Doepfer's Monster cases and Behringer's teasing some 2 x 140 hp stuff that may or may not ever be released, but for the most part there's nothing happening in that 140-ish hp range. And there should be, because some builds really would benefit from having that much room to spread into. Something to think about, perhaps...

Certainly not any of them. The only one in the list there that does anything directly related to synths is Electro-Harmonix, with their Clockworks clock gen/divider box.

If I were to look at stompbox makers who could do interesting modules for synth use, I'd be holding out for Chase Bliss, Rainger FX, or Glou-Glou and certainly not any of the mainstream MI companies. They already have their markets sewn up with the guitar market.

Oh, I know quite well about what happens when you go off your chops. My instrument of study was voice during my undergrad, since this was the 1980s and the school I was at was not keen on having electronics as an instrument. Soooo...many years of vocal training, solo and ensemble work, studio stuff on occasion, etc etc, but when I got into graduate studies in composition, I finally got to deal with electronic instruments on the level I'd wanted. But I quit singing. Mind you, I can still sing, and that vocal training was the sh*t for the sort of exacting ear training that electronics require. But like any other set of muscles, they lose tone, and these days I can choke at the drop of a hat after some 30+ years off of that training.

But at the same time, I fight constantly with chronic physical pain, and I don't have stamina, and etc etc alla that. And yet I still mess with electronic instruments, some of which I can barely move these days. Do I contemplate quitting? Oh, hell no! If anything, it gives me the determination to push this effing envelope as far as I possibly can before some total physical epic fail happens. I've even considered picking up low clarinets again after many years to add THEM to the fray, although I'm still looking for just the right bass and alto to live with (and get fitted for piezos) for the next couple of decades. But me, I just work at this until the body says "ENOUGH!!!" then I fall over and wait for the pain to roll back...then I dive right back in again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If I worried about the past, and how my abilities since then have been impacted, I probably would wind up living in a refrigerator box. But this studio I'm in doesn't look like any refrigerator box I know. The only thing I concern myself with is to continue with my music and everything that goes along with that. Since it's not possible to predict anything in the arts (for the most part), I prefer to defy limitations and be ready to go 100% full-on anytime...instead of imposing limitations on myself or (especially!) my music. Might get painful; don't care. Physical things are transitory. Music is not.

Anyway, getting back to tech here...no, 1 x 104 hp is way too small for what you're envisioning. In order to get some interesting results out of time/phase-based cellular forms (ie: "minimalism") you're going to need quite a few modules to screw with the timing behavior: comparators, discriminators, Boolean logic, clock divider/multipliers, Euclidean sequencers, etc. Done right, you can wring loads of power out of these. As for a suitable case, ample power, etc...look at Pittsburgh Modular's Structure EP-360 instead. 3 x 120 hp there, power supply is super-beefy, form factor is like a large briefcase, and its wood case is built like a brick s**thouse. And with 360 hp, you'll have ample room for the various timing toys and sequential thingys that minimal/process stuff needs. Seems like much more of a realistic start.

Hmmm...have you considered an approach halfway between the two? Sure, the sound of a sax is sort of basic, but I can think of a few reed players who've pushed that via electronics, one being the amazing David Jackson, formerly of Van der Graaf Generator. Jackson used saxes (and a flute) fitted with ligature pickups, and fed these through various devices including a Maestro W2, octave dividers, etc. But while Jackson developed these techniques in the pre-synth 1960s and 70s, there's no reason why you couldn't put a modular synth after the pickup(s). You'd need to have an input preamp that can handle the pickup impedance as well as an envelope follower, for starters. Then if you wanted to track the sax's pitch, something like Elby's ED-102 can handle that for both V/8va and Hz/V scalings.

Ultimately, something of this sort would give you the playability you're accustomed to on your axe while opening up a lot of different sonic possibilities that it normally could NEVER have!

Well, that "another guy on saxophone" is actually a veteran on Philip Glass' ensemble; I have Richard Landry playing on some of Glass's early works such as "Music in Fifths".

Process music...yeah, that's a strange topic. I think you can trace back to the point where it forks off of minimalism if you look at La Monte Young's "Compositions 1960", although the inspiration for this goes back to John Cage and his own procedural methods. Young managed to strip down the idea of "process" to simple, koan-like fragments that delineate the framed procedure for the work.

It's interesting that this set of pieces came about after Young's studies with Karlheinz Stockhausen in 1959, because they're not exactly "Stockhausen-esque"...at least, not yet. Instead, Young was inspired to investigate Cage's procedures by Stockhausen, who was quite taken with Cage's methods and results at that time. Stockhausen himself wouldn't hit this stride until 1968 and "Aus den Sieben Tagen" after his own process-based methods grew to a massive level of complexity with "Kurzwellen".

Random is the most important kind of modulation for granular.
-- richc90

No. You need smooth, SLOW modulation waveforms to make scanning through granules easier. Do it too fast, and you don't get the right sorts of textures.

My choice here would be the 4ms QPLFO, actually...since that gives you LFO periods that can exceed an hour in length. Plus, this can be backplane-patched to a 4ms SISM for CV-controlled mixing/inversion/etc which also makes patching simpler, definitely a plus if this is intended for pedalboard use.

Even when working in polyphonic or multitimbral patches, this layout method works...because it has the built-in asset of, if something sounds wrong, you can be very sure just by listening as to where the wrongness is. So it actually tends to make complex patches easier to sort out and use. Yes, the patchcord jungle is fairly daunting...but if you're talking about complex orders of control, several layers of patching, etc, it's going to get that way anyway, so adopting a method that's worked for decades (I based it on the ARP 2600 layout, basically) you get the complexity AND a method for controlling it that makes a bit more sense.

Don't replicate the actual module layouts...just the signal flow!

If you look at the ARP 2600, you'll see a pattern: sources are up and leftward, VCF and VCA up and more middle, mixer up and right. MOST modulation sources are down, with the exception of the two EGs.

Now, what this does is to set up a signal flow in which modulation and CVs come UP to the sources and modifiers. Then the audio from these goes ACROSS from left to right. Now, this is where it stops as the output on the 2600 is right above the mixer...but in a Eurorack build, it's possible to make the flow even clearer by following the ARP 2600 pattern and THEN "correcting" for the different format. So, in Eurorack, you'd want your sources (VCOs, external in, etc) in the upper row and left then toward the center. Sum these (and waveshape them, ring mod, etc etc) at the right end and send the audio DOWN to row 2, where you have your filters and effects, then DOWN once more to a performance mixer and out. Meanwhile, your control/timing should be in the lower row, next to the mixer (which is technically also a controller when you think about it!) and its signals should feed UP. Above that row are modulation sources...LFOs, EGs, noise and S&H, etc...so that they can "branch" out from that area to affect the surrounding modules as well as tamper with the upward-moving CV/mod signals heading to the sources above them.

Now THAT is how you lay one of these out. Everything is in "blocks", so that when you need to adjust something which you hear is wrong, you can more instinctively go to the area where the problem is coming from. And the flow makes sense: up-left, down-right.