A bit of history on Maths: the basic circuit is West Coast...but NOT Buchla. It's actually based on the Serge Universal Slope Generator and some revisions to that made by Ken Stone. Tony apparently decided that having just ONE Serge DUSG wasn't enough, so the Maths actually jams two in there...which means you have FOUR USG variants with a bunch of extra voodoo to get them pinging off of each other more easily.
I'll second that last bit from Ronin: split out your sequencing and control (and performance mixer...which you don't have YET) to open space for the stuff you missed. The present build has some good toys in it, but it's missing the "basics" that will allow them to really cut loose. Also, yeah, the module ordering/layout is really a mess; try grouping your functions together...generators, modifiers, modulators, controllers...and that will make for a more cohesive result, much easier to navigate.
BTW, this tale is a really good example of why I tell people to avoid the majority of synth videos on YouTube...at least, as a source of authoritative info. Remember: a lot of those are nothing more than commercials and the person waving the module at you and screeching about how AWESOME and INDISPENSABLE and [insert imperative adjective here] it is...well, they probably got the one they're waving around as an "accommodation", hence the added enthusiasm. But those things are designed to suck you in just as effectively as anything you'd see on TV for detergent or cars or deodorant or soda or or or...
Agreed on the "module porn"...this has a long way to go before being properly functional. Also, putting a cased/powered synth into yet another case with power is an expensive mistake. If you take the cost of the Doepfer 3 x 168 ($1218 at Sweetwater currently), each hp space costs about $2.40...meaning that your 60 hp M32 costs an extra $145-ish to house in the Doepfer cab. Now, the current street price for the M32 is $649...which, once you add it up, means you'd be paying $794 en toto for it. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me...
Ronin is also quite spot-on on the size of this thing. True, it's convenient to have about 500 hp to build into, but try to NOT fill it up immediately. Fill one row, maybe two, but leave the third (or such) open for expansion, because as you start to work with a "reduced" version of this, you WILL get new/different ideas that need that space. And try and up your functionality per space; for instance, the Erica Black VCA v.2 is 10 hp wide, with one VCA. But if you can move up to a 12 hp space, then you can put in an Intellijel Quad VCA...and four VCAs are MUCH better than one! Especially with a mixer as part of the module. Another example: three buffered mults, but only two VCOs. You really only need one of those, and then only when you're trying to drive more than four (ish) modules with the same CV. Jettison those, and you get back 12 hp. And so on...
I'd suggest stepping back for a hot minute, taking a few deep breaths, and collecting your wits before getting DEEP into some study of similar builds by experienced synthesists on here. You'll know which ones I mean, as they tend to have less in the way of "sexy" modules and a bunch of things that seem boring and pointless (but which aren't!) like attenuators, VCAs, basic mixers, etc. In other words, they're INSTRUMENTS...not light shows. If you're going to drop a wad on something like the above, it's best to know how to drop that wad effectively.
My votes here go for Superbooth and Knobcon...basically, the synth Big Shows for Europe and N. America. They tend to be both trade shows and huge meets for the enthusiasts, whereas NAMM is purely a trade show. Synthplex is a bit more of an enthusiast gathering, but they also have a lot of vendor/manufacturer sales at the event as well.
To expand a bit on Ronin...this is a situation where a suitable mixer is pretty essential. Instead of looking at them as a way to combine audio together, look at a performance mixer as a control point where you have several "instrument" patches like the above already prepatched and ready to shift from one to another by bringing channels in and out. This avoids your having to repatch constantly, makes the above concept work for both studio AND live.
However, I have some concerns about the size of the build. To get the above idea to work really well, you'll need to have space for a proper performance mixer, for a few extra modules (notably attenuverters...you can wring a lot of control power out of 'em, even if they're boring and unsexy) to assist in controlling activity in the subpatches, logic and timing modules to complicate the trigger/gate situation, and so on. It's an ambitious idea...but the fact is that 2 x 104 cabs are easy to get and cheap (often as cheap as some higher-end 1 x 104s), or you can add a bit more potential with a 7U cab that gives you some tiles and, potentially, cab integration if you go with Intellijel's 7U 104 hp case.
One last warning...don't think you'll be able to send the Moog's line output back into the Eurorack mixer directly, because you likely won't get a usable result due to the major voltage differences. It either has to be preamped first...or just don't do that, and mix it as per usual along with the modular on a typical small mixer. The latter is cheaper, fyi.
OK, let's answer the easy bits first...no, you can't control the response curve with a modulation signal. But then, that's not a really common musical usage, so you're not likely to need all four of the VCAs implemented in that way. But the response curves DO control response rate...
The difference between linear and exponential, math-wise, is the difference between 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 1, 4, 9, 16, 25. Very related (the second is simply the squares of the first) but not the same, function-wise. When translated to loudness, attack/decay values in linear VCAs rise and fall with a direct, linear relationship to the CV. Go up a volt with your CV, the output of the VCA goes up a volt. But with exponential VCAs, attacks and decays occur more abruptly...at least, as far as a voltmeter is concerned. Since we're talking human hearing here, though, the exponential response of the VCA is a closer match to how our hearing perceives the attack and decay of acoustical instruments, while the linear VCA would just sound like turning a knob up and down UNLESS it's fed with an exponential modulation signal source, such as an exponential envelope gen. So, when you change the response, you're adjusting this factor from the linear relationship to an exponential one, and thence everything in between. Now, why you would adjust this...OK, consider percussion instruments for a sec...
Take a drum...any drum is fine. Hit it with a stick, which gives you the hardest attack. Now a rubber mallet. Then a yarn one. And after that, a soft mallet (the fluffy sort). This is the sort of result you get from turning the response on a VCA from exponential (hard attack, fast decay) to linear (soft attack, easier decay). It's an odd effect, and while some VCAs can do that under CV, most don't. But if you really need this effect, it's actually simpler to send the VCA a modulation signal from a mod source that allows you to shape ITS curve.
Now, as for the Intellijel module...yes, it can act as a mixer. Or two mixers. Or a mixer and a VCA (or two). Or four VCAs. It all depends on how the OUTPUT is patched.
Since the Quad VCA uses an normalized but interruptible mixbus, you can patch an output from OUT 2 and also 4/MIX, and this would give you a pair of 2-input mixers. Or if you need just a single VCA for a certain function, you can take VCA 1's output alone, and then use the 4/MIX output for the sum of the other three VCAs. This is VERY useful if, for example, you have only a couple of audio sources that need summing, but you want some interesting modulation behavior that goes to some other parts of the rig. For that, you'd split out the first two VCAs via their dedicated OUTs, then use 4/MIX as a sum for the audio coming into IN 3 and IN 4. And, since you can change the VCA response, VCAs 1 and 2 in that example can be set to function linearly, while the audio in 3 and 4 can have the necessary exponential response. Versteh'?
It's also worth noting that the Quad VCAs CV inputs work in a similar manner. You have a normalized mult behind the panel (of sorts), so sending a single CV to the top of the input bus will affect all four VCAs simultaneously. But you can also patch different CV/mod signals in with the same sort of arrangement as you find on the module's mixbus. Just remember that these patchpoints have a "priority" to their mult behavior: bottom to top on the CV inputs, right to left on the mix, and any patchcord inserted at the lower/leftmost points will split the mult. Want the same CV on 3 and 4, but not 1 and 2? Simple...send 1 and 2 their own CVs, and send the paired 3/4 a single CV via VCA 3's CV in. Done!
Oh...also, keep in mind you don't have to mix ONLY audio with this (or any other DC-coupled mixer). You can also create complex, composited modulation curves by mixing mod and/or CV signals, and yes, these can also be under VCA control to gradually change voltage levels at the output. This is where the fun starts...
Better?
Well, if there's no brick-and-mortar dealers where you are, there's still ample ways to see what a module does aside of VCV.
First up, many of the MG listings have links to manufacturers, and they have rather detailed info a bit beyond what MG can do, plus some also have VIDEOS via YouTube. These are videos I 100% endorse, as you'll have the designers explaining the functions, tricks, etc of particular modules.
Also, check major dealers such as Perfect Circuit, Schneider's, et al as they also offer content on modules and systems that can be very useful. Stick with the modular-specific dealers, though; while "big guns" such as Sweetwater, Thomann, etc do carry modular gear, informationally you're better off with specialist dealers who know modular first.
A third possibility is to just ask manufacturers a question or two outright if the above two methods aren't getting you the info you want. But before doing this step, check their sites to see if they have user manuals available online. Many manufacturers do provide these in various forms, so it's worth taking a look.
VCV is good for explaining functions in modular synthesis and there's a few modules that DO emulate hardware there, but for the most part VCV isn't the best reference for hardware shopping. It'll give you an idea of what might work for you, but there ARE dissimilarities.
Now, as for VCAs...it's important to remember that there are TWO different kinds of VCAs, and they have two different purposes...
Linear VCAs, which are usually DC-coupled to allow CVs and modulation signals to pass, are for controlling/automating levels of those two types of signals. You CAN use linear VCAs for audio as well, but keep in mind that our hearing perceives apparent loudness as an exponential factor, so linear VCAs will just give a basic up and down to audio voltage levels but not an accurate volume increase/decrease.
To get accurate shifts in VOLUME...you use exponential VCAs. These have a response curve that fits how we hear sound better, because that curve tends to track our Fletcher-Munson responses whereas the linear VCAs are...well, linear in response. Also, exponential VCAs tend to be AC-coupled to prevent DC signals (such as modulation, CVs, etc) from passing. And this is important, as DC sent to an amplifier is not a good thing, and can lead to damage to the amp, your monitors, or both!
Now, there IS a "third" type of VCA, and it's those which can switch between these modes of operation. Some are simpler to use, like Malekko's Dual VCAs, where you have a switch between the two types. But others are more subtle, like the Mutable Veils or the Intellijel Quad VCA, both of which have a circuit that allows you to "tune" the VCA response to any sort of curve between pure linear and fully-exponential. These are useful...but it's important to remember that these modules are designed for both audio AND CV/mod use, ergo there won't be AC-coupling there.
BUT...it IS possible to block DC in other ways, with the very best being transformer isolation and balancing on your outputs. This not only stops DC at the very end of the modular signal chain, but it also isolates the modular from garbage that might be INcoming on your output lines, such as AC ground looping, RF crud, and other types of noise which, yes, can get in via the OUTput and be problematic. Lastly, these modules also drop your modular voltage levels back down to line-level which helps prevent overloading issues at the mixer. Happy Nerding's Isolator is a good choice here...it's small and cheap, but provides all the above plus ground lifts per channel and a master stereo level for your output. Very, VERY useful. And, also, a good example of how you can deal with one module's shortcomings with another strategically-placed module elsewhere in the system.
Buffered mults are more like "insurance" these days. They exist because, in past designs, there could be a certain amount of "voltage sag". Much of this was due to bad exponential converter design and/or lower-quality components, but these days many designers have front ends on their fixed CV conversion that minimizes this issue. But notice I said "minimizes"...it doesn't 100% fix it, as you can pile enough destinations for CVs onto the same CV bus that the destination modules will mistrack just like the "bad old days".
Rule of thumb: if you're splitting a CV with a mult that then goes to more than four other modules, you're probably better off using a buffered mult. Even if all of the modules on that bus have really good CV sag figures, if you stack enough of them on that one CV, you'll still be subject to sag eventually.
As for the VCAs...OK, sure, that one user in their YT video doesn't really have them in evidence. And while that approach might work for THEM, it's probably not a good idea. It sounds fine in this example, but let's say you wanted to do something that required both VCA control over audio levels AND over modulation levels. Now you have a problem. It might be nice for some synthesists to have a dedicated cab for a specific sound production method, but the vast majority of us don't have that luxury, and so we recognize that you have to have bread-and-butter modules such as VCAs for the times you might want them. And they are QUITE necessary...boring, yes, but essential. Building a rig without VCAs because they're "boring" and nowhere as snazzy as all those other modules with the blinkylights is sort of akin to building a car without a radiator. Radiators are boring, they just dissipate heat...but just try driving a car that doesn't have one but which does have a water cooled engine. You won't be going very far.
And a word about YouTube as a method of learning modular synthesis...
It needs to be said that there are a few synthesists on YT who absolutely know what they're doing. 100%. But like any other source of information on the Internet, there's also a lot of utter BS and nonsense out there, plus a lot of stuff that's sort of misleading. And this is a case of the latter; clearly, whoever is in the clip is experienced...and what they're using works for their purposes. But this DOES NOT mean that a copy of their rig will be something usable in the hands of someone beginning with modular synths. They have an approach that works, but it's not one that will result in a modular rig that's usable across a wide range of uses.
So, unless you like blowing through a lot of money and experiencing plenty of frustration, it's essential to be very careful about what sources of info are ones that'll work for your specific situation. A much better approach would be to look at a number of builds by a lot of different synthesists and see what elements you encounter that work for you and those which are dead-ends. And one of the biggest dead-ends is to copy a user's bespoke device, built for their techniques and methods alone. Those builds might make for showy YT clips, but they don't help beginning modular users.
This is why I never buy used gear online without some sort of intermediary agency, such as eBay or Reverb. In those cases, if you wind up dealing with a "bad actor", the company in the middle can (usually!) sort things out.
Frankly, I don't see why...other than monetary reasons...people want to use these little skiffs. Sure, they're portable and toteable and all that...but without the ability to sprawl out some and have lots of surprising potentials and opportunities built into your system, you're shortchanging yourself as to what modular can be.
You can still carry around a 3 x 84 or 2 x 104 easily enough. So it doesn't fit into a backpack stealthily...so? Frankly, if people want "convenient" instruments, maybe they should look at anything BUT modular synthesizers!
You actually get quite a bit of time, but if you're typing for 10 minutes or more on the forum, it's a good rule of thumb to do a quick CTRL-C of the post in the delay window before pushing it on out to the forum proper. Not the reCAPTCHA doing it, either...MG's forum has had that timeout feature for quite some time.
Right...they're called comparators, and there's several types...
The simplest comparators look for incoming CV levels which cross a reference voltage level, and when the incoming voltage is either over or under the reference (depending on how you have it programmed), it can send either a gate or trigger. The trigger types tend to fire when the reference is crossed (and this can be upward or downward...but this sort of comparator is also known as a discriminator, as it can also tell whether an incoming voltage is moving upward, downward, or sometimes steady when the reference gets crossed), and gates tend to hold as long as the incoming CV is in the voltage range the comparator was programmed to look for.
But then...there are WINDOW comparators. Now, these are whole 'nother level of fun. What these do is to have (at least) TWO reference levels, so that you can fire a gate in ALL voltage ranges...above the top, between the two (or more) references, or below the bottom. You can also tandem these with triggering-type comparators that also send a trigger on reference crossings, too. For things such as generative music, these are super-useful for reading long voltage curves to change the "state" of the piece with the differing trigger/gate outputs.
But those are a little much for this sort of application. Let's see if I can insert a pic here...
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/emw-voltage-comparators
Did it work? If not, just go there. Anyway, this is a bank of four ultra-simple comparators...input, reference level set by a knob, and gate output. You'd then just patch channel 3 out of the 2s to this via a mult, then have it read for anything above X voltage, so that when your pitch exceeds a certain frequency, you get a gate. Easy-peasy.
Incidentally, I don't use ANY Eurorack comparators. I have something far more killer...biomed dual window comparators, with two voltage crossing triggers, three voltage-dependent gates, and one duration-dependent gate per channel, all outputted on Dupont pins, plus a four channel MUX. When you know your "abuse potentials", you can find crap like that...
Filters aren't the only way to affect timbre, and you could probably get more mileage with just that JP-6 filter (having an actual Jupiter-6 for the past 30 years lets me be pretty confident with that statement) and some type of CVable waveshaper, such as Tiptop's Fold Processor. That would give you the same timbral flexibility as the distorter in the Dystopia...and then some! But as for having three VCFs in that small a build...well, that just makes no sense. You don't have the luxury of massive panel space. The ideas here are on the right track, but you need to keep your space constraints in mind in this small a cab.
One other point about having a quantizer: you don't have to use it with a sequencer.
If your quantizer is capable of loading different scalar patterns, you can restrict it to only the specific pitches you want to appear psuedorandomly, and then you can feed it things like complex voltage curves, sample-and-hold CVs, LFOs, etc, and you'll get randomish behavior each time the quantizer is stepped by the clock or gate/trig sequencer. Plus, a few quantizers take up less space than most full-on CV sequencers, so if the goal is to create these sorts of stochastic patterns, you can use a few of them to create shifting polyphonic harmonic structures off of various psuedorandom inputs. Think of this as being sort of like using a sample and hold, but with discrete pitch results as opposed to the randomness offered by noise signals.
One other useful point: you can also use quantizers as analog shift register stages. For example, if you wanted a four-note arpeggiation, you would patch quant #1's CV out to #2's CV in, then #2's CV out to #3's input. Quantizer #1, of course, would be your controller CV. So by multing that controller CV out separately, plus all of the quantizer CV outs separately, then "clocking" the quantizers with a multed trigger from your controller, you'd then have four CVs with canonically-related pitch outputs, and the "canon" would step each time a note on the controller was played.
Any time you get into your cases and start to move things around, there are risks. Anything from bent connector pins to broken assemblies to random bits of metal junk getting into the case can result in serious problems. It's best to decide on a configuration and then stick with it, from the standpoint of wear and tear on components. Even something as basic as a stripped-out rail hole or nut can prove to be a major annoyance over time. And as for random metal bits...it doesn't take much of a little shred of metal to cause a major disaster in any electronic device, particularly one where you have DC at a rather hefty amperage. I have not-fond memories of my father totally destroying a TV many years back when a tiny, broken-off bit of antenna wire not more than 1/4" long fell into the set's back and blew up something high-powered and important. Given that much of the circuitry inside a Eurorack system is exposed, including (quite often) the DC rails, this is a very real hazard. Also, keep in mind that everything behind that panel is interconnected through the bus boards; a failure at one point in a system can easily cascade into other modules, the power supply hardware, or even get out of the system via any number of connections to cause havoc elsewhere, depending on what failed and how.
So, yeah...economics again. Blowing up a build, though, is a disaster of proportions far worse than simply wasting money recasing something that's already cased.
OK, let's start from the basics here...first of all, the Neutron (and anything else that already has a powered case) doesn't belong in the Eurorack cab. Let's assume that we're looking at a typical 2 x 104 case here; I'll use the Tiptop Mantis as an example...
A Behringer Neutron currently streets for $290, and comes in a case with power already. A Mantis streets for $335.
Since a Mantis has 208 hp total in space, now we'll divide 335 by that 208 hp figure...and get 1.61. This is how much each hp in the case costs. Multiply times 80, and you get 128.85 (rounded). This means your Neutron, when in the Mantis, doesn't cost $290...it ACTUALLY costs $418.85, because you're now using expensive Eurorack cab space to house and power something that's already housed and powered. Any time you decase something that's already housed and powered, this happens, and it's necessary to tally up an ACTUAL cost per hp to see what an action like that really costs! In the end, while it might be convenient to put something like that in with the rest of the modules, it's a spendy solution to something that technically isn't a problem in the first place.
So...before anything else gets decided, you need to sort out whether you MUST have the Neutron in the Eurorack cab, or whether sensible economics is going to prevail here and there's a free 80 hp all of a sudden.
In the case of the stompboxes, MG doesn't autosize these the same way as it does with synth modules. Instead, you have to have the exact dimensions as viewed from top-down in mm. When posting stompboxes, it's probably a good idea to check the manufacturer's site for these, as retailers don't always get those right.
That being said, it's always possible to adjust the listing(s) when you find errors, provided the listing(s) in question weren't locked by the manufacturer.
Also, images need to be cleanly cropped...some of these boxes in the build definitely don't have that going on...
Definitely go with the larger pod cases. Not only do you make a good point about the prototyping space, having ample extra space would allow you to have some "swap-in" space to check out modules you're thinking of adding into the main build.
That's the general idea...modulars are at their best when they're being used as "discovery machines". Yank out the cords, change the settings, patch again...and a whole new vista unfolds.
REX50 isn't a bad choice, actually. While it's not anywhere near being a state of the art reverb processor these days, as a "module" that's accessed through something like a SND/RTN it seems like a good fit within a modular patch. You get that lower bit-rate "dirt" with older FX units like this, and that's a really good additional character to add to a sound when you can tamper with it further.
You might also look into Make Noise's TEMPI module. This is designed to tandem with the Rene2 via a backplane connection, and majorly ups the game on timing and clocking capabilities with that sequencer.
Basically, your music will only come out as good as your monitoring system will allow. It often amazes me how people are perfectly willing to drop thousands on modules but continue to monitor what they're doing with them on a $300 pair of powered crackerboxes. Or worse, headphones, which have proximity effect issues with low frequency sounds...mainly because they're not exactly suited for repro below about 300 Hz without some circuitry and/or physical design elements that will color up your results. Back many years ago, I was told to never, ever, EVER mix through headphones, and having experimented with that to see the reasons for myself, I know that that's something you shouldn't do.
But if you have a good set of monitors, set up correctly...then you'll know exactly what you're doing and can avoid all of these coloration issues you're noting. 98% of problems of this sort get fixed that way. Better still, if you have the ability to use multiple monitors, you can use one pair for uncolored, critical applications such as mixing, and then have a set of "crackerboxes" as well to use as "check" monitors, to see how the mix behaves in typical real-world situations. But you'd never want to actually MIX on the latter ones, instead just checking to see if something's glaringly wrong that needs correction.
Note that by "set up correctly", I'm including any acoustical treatments needed at your mixpoint or in your studio space in general. This especially goes for bass traps, which correct deceptive low-end buildup that results in a room with parallel walls that reinforce resonances known as "room nodes". If you don't know about these, go in a bathroom stall and start humming in the lower frequency range...and at some point, the stall will "ring" because you've hit a harmonic node of the space enclosed by the stall's walls. Just transfer what's going on with this experiment to your studio space, and you can easily see why treating studio spaces is just as critical as having a proper monitoring setup in it.
Secondly, this sort of problem is why program equalizers exist. These aren't the same as the more typical parametric or graphic EQs, but include such things as the Pultec EQP-1A which are designed for making broad coloration changes. They also tend to work differently, accentuating more than just the indicated frequencies on the controls. Along with a suitable compressor to merely ride gain, one of these belongs on your mixbus at all times, precisely to make large-scale timbral adjustments. I should also note that, when you're using ANY equalizer, the rule of thumb is to cut levels of objectionable sonic elements...not to boost everything to swamp them. And if the real deal here is too pricey (which it is!), try a good VST emulation such as Ignite Amps' PTEq-X...which is FREE (and on KVR Audio).
But again, without proper monitoring, you can have all the knobs for tweaks in the world and you'll STILL not have a good idea of what you're doing. Just like how you wouldn't drive around at night while wearing a smudged and scratched pair of sunglasses, you shouldn't be trying to mix on something not suited for the task. But 99 times out of 100, when people mention how all of their mixes are [INSERT PROBLEM HERE], the blame invariably comes back to the monitoring being used. Instead of looking for a synth-specific fix, or trying mixing techniques that're putatively for electronic sound (which, IMHO, don't work as advertised...I just mix electronic-based audio the same as any other large-scale multichannel mixdown), examine your monitors, how they're set up, what your workspace's room might be doing, and the like. In the long run, this will yield better, lasting, and consistent results.
OK...when Intellijel came up with their slightly-different 1U tile format, I was a bit displeased...as I knew this would lead to some level of confusion over which 1U is the "right" 1U...but what we got in the end was both 1Us existing side by side. Here on MG, they look more or less identical, and in a build, they behave on the grid in the same way. But they are not the same! Not only are the form factors slightly different, the Intellijel tiles use a typical 10-pin power/bus connector, while the original version of the format uses a 3-pin.
Sooo...annoying! But I think I have a relatively simple idea, and this will also help out companies making both versions, such as Plum Audio.
What I propose is that, when posting new 1U Eurorack modules, posters should add a [i] or [p] at the end of the module name. The [i] is for Intellijel, of course, and the [p] stands for Pulplogic, who was the big original innovator in the tile scene along with Erthenvar. By tagging each module like this, it becomes far easier to sort out whether your tiles belong where you think they should go. It should also help curb the mistake of new users not knowing that you can't mix these tile formats in the same row or put them in cases not capable of housing them.
Also, if you know you're looking at an Intellijel or Pulplogic format tile while browsing around MG, please take advantage of the user-editable listing capabilities and make that little addition (when possible) to make things easier for loads of other MG users. Pay it forward, folks!
Examples of using both:
Inverter: Let's say you have a pair of mono phase shifters, and you'd like to use these to create a signal that pans its phasing. To do this, you would mult your audio to both phase shifter inputs so that each one has the same signal to process. But when feeding the phase shifters with a single LFO for modulation, you'd first split these as well, but then one LFO split goes through an inverter before the phase shifter, while the other goes in to modulate the other phase shifter as normal. The result will be that when the first phase shifter is at the top of its sweep, the other is 180 degrees opposed and is at the bottom of its sweep. Also, in audio inverters can have a very neat use with effects; you can use a mono reverb to put a typical reverb effect on an audio signal, but before the reverb you'd mult the audio. One mult goes on to the reverb, and the other to an inverter, and both signals come back together in a mono mixer. In this usage, the inverted audio will cancel the "dry" part of the reverbed signal...but will also partially cancel similar waveforms in the reverb's output. As opposed to cranking the reverb to 100% wet, this method creates more of a "ghosted" signal, with the cancellation of the similar waveforms in the resulting mixer output becoming less and less as the reverb processes the zero degree signal with a certain degree of imprecision.
Adder: These are the reliable method for adding offset voltages to CVs. Let's say you have several VCOs fed from the same CV. This goes through an adder before splitting. Then, you have a sequencer, and you want to transpose all of these VCOs identically with it. The messy way would be to feed the VCOs directly. But the right method would be to use a precision adder to combine the incoming CV with the sequencer CV, then split the adder's output, as this gives you a lot more control, a simpler signal path, and as long as your sequencer CV out has quantizing, you can transpose the VCOs in exact steps to anything you prefer while at the same time maintaining proper CV control from your own local controller, MIDI, etc. Simple, straightforward. That example is one of what's probably countless uses for these.
Lastly, line level audio in Eurorack. Yes, you need a preamp. Audio signals within the modular environment are several times higher than typical line level signals, plus the impedence difference between your external source and the modular can also be a detriment that a good input module can correct. Another reason for having an input module is that many of these also have envelope followers, which allow you to take the dynamic information in an incoming signal and extract that to a CV, and these prove invaluable when using the modular as an external signal processor...such as in using the incoming dynamics to sweep a VCF in tandem with the external signal's peaks. Plus, a good preamp with isolation helps keep ground loops out of the synth; conversely, this is also why you should have output isolation, in addition to stepping the synth levels back down to line level.
One missing thing: a dual mult. You need to send the same signals (input and modulation) to the VCAs to get a smooth L-R panning action. But there's an issue here in how the panning itself would sound...
Stereo panners are set up (usually) with what's called an "Equal Power" crossfade. What this means is that as each audio signal approaches the center of the stereo platform, it starts to drop so that when the signal is at dead center, each VCA would be outputting a 3 dB lower signal than the actual peak...that, in truth, would be from the extreme hard-panned direction to about 35-40% of the way to center. But you need to do this because if both VCAs were outputting an unattenuated signal, the center 10-20% of the stereo field would be abnormally loud. By lowering the VCA outputs at each VCA approaches the center, the summed level comes out to be pretty much the same as a single unattenuated VCA's. The result is a smooth motion across the stereo field without a big over-level "lump" in the middle. This is also how you'd want to do this if the VCAs were panning a control signal; again, you don't want this "zone" in the middle of the pan where the CV levels go waaaaay up, as that same, smooth equal power crossfade is also useful in keeping control signals from driving other modules into difficult to control areas.
Now, as to how to do that...well, that depends on the VCA in question, plus your own patching methods.
No, it's not a mistake...this is presumably a B. clone of the Moog 923. I saw this in a vid from them about a day ago along with teases of some other black-face B. modules that were clones of original Moog modules while they were hyping the new cab.
How the 923 is used: basically, it's NOT a filter module. It's a noise module. You have a white and a pink noise source, then the filters are there to adjust the noise color. Those are, if I recall correctly, Baxandall-type filters...non-resonant and more akin to "tone" controls albeit with a selectable corner frequency; as such, you wouldn't be using them like a VCF anyway. Some Moog users also like them for similar reasons as to why some engineers like to put Baxandalls on their mixbusses to do a bit of spectral tilting.
Google doesn't know how to distinguish search terms unless you tell it specifically. If you enter 'MIDI to CV', it will find everything it can that contains 'MIDI', 'CV' and 'to'. You have to enclose the whole thing in quotes (ie: ' "MIDI to CV" ') to get it to return that specific set of results. As for why there's a MIDI in on the A-192-2, it's so you can merge the data coming out of the module with another MIDI stream if desired.
Have a look at the Expert Sleepers stuff instead. There's several options there for converting CV/gate/trigger data into MIDI, or even sending it "raw" to Ableton's CV Tools via USB or ADAT optical, as well as several controller connection options, and expandability.
Yes, but keep in mind that it takes two clock pulses for nearly every divider/multiplier to calculate the incoming clock period that it's going to operate on. So if you're multiplying from a very divided-down pulse, well, it might take a hot minute for the multiplier to lock in. A much more sensible method would be to simply drive the multiplier from your 1:1 clock pulses.
Another pair of modules you might want a look at are 4ms's Quad Clock Divider and its expansion module. In this case, you have CV over your four clock divider/multipliers, so if you suddenly need a rapid-fire burst of pulses, you can simply send a CV (say, from a CV sequencer) at the right time to get that one output to jump way up in rate. Connect the same control signal so that it activates a start/stop on another sequencer, and there you are.
...and my calculator sits right to the left of my Push2. Welcome to the wonderful world of TIMING!
You might actually look into driving a trigger/gate sequencer with a clock multiplier. In fact, this has more potential IMHO; if you want to have your pulse sequence timed in some strange tuplets, this would definitely be a solution. Taking, say, an output at x7 would give you seven timing pulses per "main" clock pulse, or what you'd call a "septuplet". Use that to drive a sequencer...and if you have trig/gate sequences longer or shorter than 7 beats, then the crossrhythms will start to get quite complicated.
Now that's actually a pretty sharp design...sort of a sample-based cracklebox, really. I'd suggest one addition: drop a Konstant Labs PWR Checker into the open 1 hp slot. Having some power rail monitoring would be a useful thing in a "bug out" lunchbox designed for live use to make sure your power requirements are being properly met.
Well, I think I can phrase it just fine...
There's an awful lot of people who're sick and damn tired of this pathological NEED that some people on the Internet have to interject themselves into something when they feel they can "police" the conversation. This isn't a right-wing or a left-wing opinion, either...it's quite widespread. And don't go making political assumptions about the posters, either; you're quite apt to be incredibly wrong about those.
Much of the work that I and others have been doing on here to proctor new users into making sensible instrument choices, ones which will result in well-rounded systems that these new users will enjoy and build upon for years to come, was getting done JUST FINE before you and Hazel opted to come in here and shit-mist everything. You hear about how the whole PC stance "chills" open conversation? Well, this is a fine example of exactly that in action. Did you two bother to check to see how this would fly with the MG admins before opening up the stinkburger? I would surmise that the answer is "no".
If you don't like the way we discuss things, fine. But you can keep your psuedocultural policing impulses to yourselves, and go find some other books to burn elsewhere. Music is simply too important for PC clowns to use it as a doormat for espousing their personal greivances about other peoples' language usage, and MG itself is too important and broadbased a resource for you to try and resteer it into some narrower lane of communication and expression.
TBH, the only pitch-to-voltage converter I've seen that really behaved nicely was the 1970s Gentle Electric unit, which was also available as a (very coveted!) Serge module for a while. They're not common things; tracking pitch of anything that's not outputting a nice, well-behaved sine wave was not easy to do until more recent digital analysis components (like what one finds into the Electro-Harmonix "9" series synth pedals) emerged in recent years. As an example, there's the F-V converter on the Korg MS-20...inaccurate and glitchy, but then those glitches and inaccuracies proved to be musically useful (thanks, RDJ!); those are more like the "norm".
Well, normally a PM to one of the mods tends to work...it's important info, actually, since MG has had issues with spammers that've required site filter adjustments.
However...have you considered the "abuse potential" here? Try messaging them back with loads of technical gibberish, such as inquiries about the CV interfacing for the webcam so that you can sonify your websex and possibly make some money off of their own scam. Or ask them if their websex "providers" respond to all MIDI sysex messages, including poly-aftertouch, because...quality websex should have poly-aftertouch. Etc etc etc...
Or just have the mods block 'em.
Well, if you think you can do better, Hazel, then jump right on in. If you don't like how some of us do this, then you're perfectly welcome to give it a shot yourself.
Seriously. You're complaining a lot about style here...why not show us some substance?
While I can see how this could conceivably be mounted in a Eurorack case, the rest of it doesn't seem to fit the criteria of being a proper "module". You only have outs for the VCOs, and an input for the VCF/VCA. There are NO patchpoints for any of the CVs/gate/trigs involved unless someone's coming up with a breakout module. And the audio outs aren't synth-level, but line or headphone.
Doesn't exactly seem like it belongs here...
Thanks for the post. Ann Annie is pretty famous in modular. The rack you're looking at works. But I seriously doubt that this rack is all of Ann Annie's modules. This rack was probably specifically built for this piece by someone with some serious knowledge and talent. If you want to reproduce this song with those sounds... perfect. But we're discussing what usually turns out to be someone's full kit that has to be more than a one-trick-pony.
-- Ronin1973
Exactly. While I certainly detect the sound of some axe-grinding here, the poster of that bad noise doesn't seem to be taking that last part into account.
The vast majority of beginners putting racks up on the MG Forum might be trying to create rigs for what they think is a specific purpose, but much of that "purpose" comes from a misreading of seeing others using purpose-built systems (like Ann Annie's here) to create specific works that that rig was built for. And I don't think anyone on here would realistically believe that it's a good idea to optimize a rig for a beginner that's purpose-built for a very narrow range of work, nor would any modular synth beginner be happy with one of these systems that only does a few things, albeit amazingly well.
I'm very much reminded of the TB-303 here. Yes, it's this much-worshipped synth. Originals still go for a couple of grand. But the cold, hard reality of the 303 is that it really only makes about 6-7 different noises really well, barring modifications. So if someone were to come up to me, or Ronin, et al with one of these little plastic boxes and ask if they could get a good "Blade Runner" Vangelis sound out of it...well, they probably need some "splainin", not merely about the difference between a CS-80 and a TB-303, but about what criteria is needed for a proper synth that can handle A LOT of different possibilities. Some of us might be a bit rough around the edges about this, true...but when you consider that we're trying to help bedazzled kids in a candy store of epic proportions avoid the awful feeling of realizing they've spent several grand on a modular rig that only does a handful of things correctly, well, sometimes a "reality brick" thru the "fascination window" is an expedient way to get those people to realize that what they're planning might not only be a money pit, but a potential experience so dissatisfying that they're apt to bail on music (especially if they're really just starting out). It might seem less "triggery" to nice up what we're trying to say, but I'd much rather get someone triggered and thinking instead of coddling them in platitudes, lies about their build, etc and then letting them discover on their own that they've blown several grand on The Machine That Goes "Ping!". The latter isn't a responsible stance at all.
Well, first off...it's really...ah...BLACK. But that's not good. Invariably, if you're creating a Eurorack along a certain look, then all you'll wind up with is a decorative prop. You've done a little bit better than that, but at the same time there's weird flaws here. A 4 x 84 rig with only four VCAs is definitely a flaw...especially if you're trying to do lots of percussive work, because you need LOTS of VCAs for that sort of thing unless you're using percussion-specific modules (Tiptop et al).
The MIDI implementation is frankly lousy. You're running two of these mBranes to get 8 channels; why not dump BOTH and go with something from Expert Sleepers that fits in a similar space but which can be expanded AND provide a return channel for timing, digital audio return, etc?
There's an Elements...and a Rings? OK with the Department of Redundancy Department, perhaps, but a waste of space otherwise. Lose one or the other.
I could go on, but really, I think you've poured waaaaay too much effort into creating the synth version of the 2001 Monolith here and not enough in basic, practical modular design. All of these Mutable and clone modules might look awesome, but by ignoring very basic, boring-as-hell utilities and basic practicalities in favor of optics, well, it's a nice prop, and you'll continue to be frustrated. For example, your modulation source issue...you actually DO have ample modulation here, but because you've omitted utility stuff such as attenuverters or CV/mod VCAs, it seems like there's not enough when the real fact is you've just not got ways to implement what you have already. And having some of these huge, sexy modules means you're ignoring much better options in your "junk" rack; for example, I would think that using the Doepfer Wasp and Yusynth Synthacon VCFs would provide way more timbral character than the two resonant filters on the Shelves. And so on.
Musical instruments might seem like a fashion statement, but consider: is it important that Ornette Coleman plays a plastic sax, or is it more important that it's Ornette playing said plastic sax? Don't worry about looks...but be a lot more concerned about the music.
Unusable. This contains no VCAs whatsoever. No proper envelope gens, either. Lots of snarrrrrrrzy modules there...but none of the ones needed to make this work. Small builds require smaller modules, and this one's got only one (Manhattan's CP3 clone). And if you've gone to the trouble of cramming 4ms's STS in there, why isn't the final mixer stereo? Or at least, why no stereo output?
Two options, both beginning with scrapping this build and starting over...
1) Start with a larger cab. If you want to use these honkin' big modules, well, bigger = more hp needed. Plus, if you want to use these honkin' big modules (notice I keep dinging on that point where this smaller build is concerned), you will need more space (as in twice as much, most likely) for the necessary modules you've omitted as well as other modules that will make this much easier to use. Seriously. Try assembling something like your original in VCV Rack and see how UNsatisfying it is to use a synth with next to zero control capabilities.
2) Start with a larger cab (again...yes, there's a pattern there), but only somewhat larger. Then scrap ALL of these big modules and try and reduce your panel sizes to something that makes more sense in a smaller build.
Actually, your best bet is to do both. But before that, get a copy of VCV Rack and examine why all of these "boring" modules are actually 100% necessary, and then spend some time studying other experienced builders' MG rigs. From both exercises, you'll notice a pattern that emerges regarding necessary modules, module combinations, setup and signal flow, and so on. But at the very least, do not drop a pile of $$$ on the above build. I can guarantee that you'll be extremely disappointed if you do.
OK...after checking the edit above and the PM, some suggestions...
First up, given your sight issues, I wouldn't lose the Elements. That's a very useful device, inasmuch as you have the modelling generator and the resonator (aka Rings) in one package here, and it's bigger and clearer to use than the 3rd party builds. The Contour should definitely stay as well...not only does it have the ability to work as four AD envelopes, you can loop these and use each section as an LFO with CV-controllable rise and fall. And the Penrose quantizer + dual S&H actually give you the rudiments of an analog shift register, so those need to be there. Basically, the module compliment (aside of the DATA) is fine...you just need to fill the hole with the right toys.
If you need the larger panel space (yeah...my near vision is totally shot, too) for VCAs, your best bet is probably Intellijel's Quad VCA. Basically the same thing as the Mutable Veils, $10 cheaper. Then you can use the Blinds as a quad CVable attenuverter, which should really help that OTA VCF sing as you can then feed it inverse envelopes and/or complex mixed modulation. As for a second filter, try something more exotic; the OTA VCF has your basics covered. Maybe Dave Rossum's Linnaeus would be a good fit there.
As for the next 104 hp you're thinking about, consider dedicating that largely to sequencing and timing. The quant setup there could make use of a good sequencer, which also means a decent clock and clock-mod setup. Definitely consider adding some logic gates at that point; logic + things like comparators, skippers, divide/multipliers, etc add lots of potential rhythmic complexity. As for which sequencer, that depends more on the sort of music you tend to create, as some sequencers do certain things better than others.
Did some checking, and the VRL cab's 5V line has 1A available. My concern was that the Nebulae v2 would draw too much for that, but Qu-bit's own data shows it as having a draw of 47 mA on +12, 7 mA on -12, and 271 mA on the 5V bus. If you can get your +12V bus draw down to 700 mA-ish, you should be in the right current ballpark. But again, check the manufacturer websites for the data here, since everything's getting close to those P/S limits.
The other thing I'd consider changing would be the mixer. A better choice would actually be the Happy Nerding 3x Stereo Mixer, I think...while it draws more than the JPSynth one and has one less stereo input, it's also 2 hp smaller and because it has an onboard TRS out that can be used for headphones, it eliminates the need for the HPO, and that opens up another 2 hp. The Nebulae should then fit into the space occupied by the Catalyst (move that to the other row), and this puts your free 4 hp in the other row for use by another module.
First up, unless you have a Clouds onhand, you can delete that module as it's been discontinued for quite some time now. Not a bad thing, actually, as you could go with a 3rd-party build that'll be a lot smaller.
Mordax's DATA...hm...I sort of think it's more of a toy, eye-candy. Consider: how much do you need the o-scope and FFT analyzer functions? The other things it does, you either have already (Octocontroller, which handles all of the DATA's timing tricks and then some) or would do better getting in individual modules (the VCO capabilities). Remember: this is a very space-limited build, and the smaller you can make everything (within reason) the more functionality you can cram in. So that would also preclude losing the Elements and Blinds as well and also going with 3rd-party builds of those in order to save panel space.
VCAs? Yeah...this thing desperately needs them. Codex Modulex's version of the Mutable Veils would be a good pick. Right now, this doesn't have any proper VCAs at all, and that's a pretty serious problem as it leaves you incapable of controlling audio and/or CV/mod levels with your modulation sources.
As for the rest...get the initial build here reconfigured with smaller versions of the Mutable stuff, lose the Clouds and probably the DATA, then it'll be easier to see where to take things.
Rule #1: never assume that the MG amperage figures are correct. ALWAYS overestimate your current needs.
Rule #2: Since there's a spike in current draws when you turn a device on, even if your operating current is 822 mA, that doesn't mean your inrush current is also 822 mA. And it only takes a fraction of a second for certain components in an overtaxed power supply to go "pop!".
Rule #3: When speccing power supply current figures, take your MG module amperage sum, then add 1/3rd as much more to that figure. Then add more besides that. You DO NOT want to push a power supply; instead, you want that power supply to loaf along like its not got much to do. This adds up as lower operating temps in the case, more stability across the system, and less component stress.
So, given the 1140 mA figure (I don't recommend using 5V unless necessary...keep things simple), you really need something with about 1.5A to get bulletproof operation. 1A with that = BOOM! or something similarly unpleasant along those lines. And if you do go the 5V route, you're still not 100% guaranteed that that'll work...1.25A for 822 mA is more sensible.
Admittedly I'm impressed you are all so willing to put the effort. I won't get into the nitty gritty of the matter, but I do feel impressed about how strongly some people feel about helping newcomers to the format of modular.
-- ParanormalPatroler
There's a lot that can go wrong with modular. Not the hardware, mind you, but the user. It is ridiculously easy to get all bug-eyed when viewing MG and then conceive of a Deadmau5-level wall of blinkenlichts und tvistenknobs that appears like it might be a badass synth rig...until you blow $20k on it and realize that what you've created is an unworkable mess.
And a lot of us just don't like seeing that happen. Modular synthesizers have loads of possibilities as long as they're not thwarted by bad planning. But given that there's not really any decent books on modular synth architecture, and the Internet has a lot of really crappy info foisted off by people who know how to make a good presentation but who ultimately don't know jack-shit about the subject, about 80-90% of the info I at least run across (other than that by manufacturers and/or most retailers) is utter rubbish. And that doesn't help at all...in fact, it more or less UNhelps, leading to systems sitting in closets and so forth when they should be out making wonderful noises.
Ultimately, I think those of us trying to put this effort forward are simply wanting people to make music, and to make it with instruments that work and that are a joy to play.
This rig won't work. Period. You only have a VC8 as a mixer, which it can do but which isn't necessarily its best suit. Plus, the VC8 contains linear VCAs...not the best for audio, especially in the output mix stage, and you've got it way overtaxed with all of the signal sources in this. I see NO intermediate/submixers, NO attenuverters, NO adders, NO logic, NO buffered mults...there's "sexy module syndrome" all over the place here. If you've already bought all of this, congrats...you've built a Money Pit! I hope you haven't, though, because this is one hellaciously expensive fail if you did.
Utility modules are NOT an option. They're a necessity. Without them, you'll have a costly box of modules that really won't work well...or at all, tbh. Spend some time with VCV Rack, or checking out experienced builders' rigs here on MG, or studying "classic" modular systems from the past to see why they're "classics". You'll wind up saving a lot of time and, potentially, a lot of money that way.
See my initial comments in this thread: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/8207
Actually, this is pretty well thought-out. Given that it's in Cre8's new skiff, that deals with your MIDI, power, and audio outs right off the bat. But with the Chipz + the Klavis, is the DixieII+ really all that necessary? My instinct would be to remove that and put in a potent 8 hp audio processor...such as the several 8 hp clones of Mutable's Clouds.
You don't need that mult, btw. This build is too small for it; try using inline mults or stackcables instead. Plus, you can pull it and put in a Circuit Abbey Twiggy...which gives you a pair of ring mods. With two VCOs in the Klavis and two in the Chipz, this would make loads of sense.
The last swap I'd make would be to pull the Dual EG/LFO, which only has two loopable EGs...and substitute in a Xaoc Zadar, which gives you four EGs with an awful lot of additional control, looping, etc. It would be nice to cram in its expander, too...but that woud require repurposing the mult with that and finding one more hp to fit the 3 hp Nin module. However, if you went with Michigan's Twist (Mutable Warps clone) in the slot currently occupied by the DixieII+, you'd then get some interesting processing, plus ring mod capability, plus two more hp that would then allow you to drop the Nin in with the Zadar. Jam a Konstant Labs power monitor 1 hp module in the gap, and there you go!
I should note that buffered mults really only have a specific use, that being to maintain scaling-critical CV voltages when a single CV is being used to drive four or more (as a rule) VCOs, VCFs, etc. If you're splitting a CV between two or three of these, you can probably make do with passives. Also, if you're talking about multiples for a build that's 2 x 104hp or smaller, the better thing to do is to use no multiple modules and instead use inline mults or stackcables, since builds like that are so small that every bit of panel needs to be dedicated to functional modules. Three 2 hp mult modules could just as easily be one 6 hp multiple VCA module...and believe me, you'll make far better use of the VCAs!
It's...OK, I suppose. The problem is that you haven't explained which industrial music you're trying to do; EBM will have rather different requirements than traditional, old-school Industrial.
If it's the line supply (they're usually switching types, and this sort of crap is indicative of a low-quality switching power supply), then you might want to consider adding another ferrite to the DC line to the RackBrute. Mouser has a good selection of clamp-ons at https://www.mouser.com/Passive-Components/EMI-Filters-EMI-Suppression/Ferrites/Ferrite-Clamp-On-Cores Also, try adding an inline EMI filter to the AC side, as the AC supply might also be sending the 1.5k crud back down the AC line and from there it's getting into other components. Mouser has these at "https://www.mouser.com/Passive-Components/EMI-Filters-EMI-Suppression/EMI-Feedthrough-Filters (edit: the forum's formatting is screwing with these URLs, but they should give you a good idea of where to look on Mouser's site)
And if all else fails, dump the Arturia AC supply altogether. Personally, I really don't think a lot of switching-type supplies in audio-critical or RF-critical applications unless they're specifically engineered for them. Changing to a linear supply might be a bit inconvenient, but the stability of linear supplies plus their working method ensures not only much lower noise figures but also better stability. Plenty of suitable linear supplies from the likes of Tektronix, Hewlett-Packard, et al can be found on eBay...just make sure to overspec the current capacity by at least 1/3rd (if not more) to deal with inrush currents on switch-on, and choose something that's in good, calibrated working order.
You're going to need more than 6 hp of free space, for starters. What's happened here is that you're trying to cram too much function into too small a case. It might seem cheaper...but when you arrive at a basically-unworkable result like this, you start to see how things get unnecessarily expensive or annoyingly tiny...or both.
If this is still a MG build, scrap it and start over in something that has a more practical amount of room. Things like the Pods really exist to house "orphan" modules alongside other rigs; they're not a nice solution to making a small modular.
