ModularGrid uses so-called cookies to ensure it's so-called functionality. We also use dubious tracking scripts. Find out more in the Privacy Policy. We use cookies and wanna let you know.
Nice yeah I think I want to pick up the Dreadbox Erebus and Ants as my next modular purchases along with the two Bastl devices. I probably want to sell my Moog Sub 37 and Microkorg as these are taking up a lot of desktop space and I need more portable gear. That should fund these items.
It's damn close...you're making the right choices, but you just need to go smaller on some things to cram more in. The Pittsburgh ADSR, for example...you could just as easily jam in three 2hp ADSRs, and up the functionality in the same space. Or better still, divide that between 2hp ADSRs and EGsin some way. Also, with two Moddemixes in here, you could afford to drop one and go with more VCA-type mixing, such as a Happy Nerding 3X VCA; those would work in either Moddemix spot.
RCD w/ Breakout: smart move. With the Rene and Brains/Pressure Points, in addition to other devices that like clocks, that one module pair now gives you loads of timing options to spread out across the whole rig. But again, even if you start getting into this scale of synth, you're probably still in 'dedicated function' territory as far as drums are concerned. You only really get to the area where you can go 'inclusive function' when the cabs get particularly big, because you'll have ample space to establish several signal chains in their own right without having drums, etc stealing space that those module chains need. So really, I think this is going the right way as it is, and as I noted earlier, outboarding the drums may well work better.
Although, I should note, my take on drums in a modular is that they're better done in dedicated devices, and not in the modular at all. True, you can do that...but I think the current gamut of drum machines, sequencers, etc do such a better dedicated job that unless you're building a percussion-specific modular, you're better off using an external device.
Dreadbox does some interesting stuff...their Greek-lettered modules are amazing, sort of akin to the Roland Aira Eurorack modules done correctly, all inherent flaws fixed. I also like their cab design for their bigger prebuilt systems, with utility modules included as an integral part of the cab itself. Reminds me a bit of what Synthesizers.com came up with with the Box11 5U cases that include built-in mults and power harnesses, or the 1U row in the middle of MakeNoise's Shared System. I wouldn't mind seeing more of this idea, actually...having basics such as mults, attenuators, basic mixers, etc as integral modules provided in some cabs (small portables, especially!).
Werkstatt? Yeah...remember, it's got that infamous Moog ladder LPF in it, and that alone is worth the price of admission. Even if you just used the Werkstatt as a processing filter, you'd still be getting your money's worth of use.
Hi electro-heads!
Italy calling here. I was thinking about getting the Future Retro Transient module. From what I've heard it sounds powerful and interesting. I love and produce IDM. Love to experiment with noisy sounds. I see there is a new version (called plus) of this module, which has new specific funcions (here: http://www.future-retro.com/products.html#!/Transient-Plus/p/84467820/category=0).
I don't like to have modules that come in a sort of all -in-one solution. I love to modify the sound with patches, so I prefer to go simple regarding single module's functions.
That's why I'd rather go fro the first version.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Cool thanks for the tip as always Lugia! Yeah I will check these out. Right now I think with the new Elektron Octatrack and Make Noise O-Coast gear I should be busy for a while getting both these sorted out. Heck tonite, I made new discoveries on the Moog Sub 37 that I've been using for a while
The filter one knob makes a world of difference in crafting sounds and effects on a synth! Incredible such a simple thing is critical to sound production. I also learned how valuable LFOs are to sound engineering. One reason I want to learn modular and build a Eurorack system is to better develop my real synthesis skills and knowledge. I also find the two tabletop analog semi modular units
from Dreadbox- the Erebus and NYX fascinating. What are your thoughts on the Dreadbox gear?
In any case, do you still think the Moog Werkstatt self assembly item is worth getting? It looks cool for under $200.
Mmm...if you're going to spend Birdkids-type money, check the Soundmachines Modulor 114. That + Ants! = trouble! You could have that going nuts, then have the Dupont-pin setup freaking out, run it all off of a hardware sequencer and when you're done for the night, the whole mes could still fit into a suitably-portable roadcase with a mixer. That, plus a modular cab that can be sealed up case-like, and you've got a whole arsenal of problematic sound to go with one case for one hand and the other for another. Not too shabby!
OK...not long back, I did an explanation of what a synthesizer is made up of in the course of a series of posts. So rather than sorting around to find that, I figured it might make sense to do a better essay on the concept. Ergo...
Synthesizers, for as long as they've been around, really only consist of four 'parts'. In fact, you could extend this concept to even some of the early electronic instruments through a little bit of conceptual stretching.
Those parts? 'Generators', 'Modifiers', 'Controllers', and 'Processors'. Now, yes, in a few cases there's devices that overlap a couple of categories, but by and large everything in a synthesizer fits into these basic types. So, what this essay is about is explaining a few things about these four parts, why they have to be there, and how to use them effectively.
'Generators'
Anything that creates an initial audio signal goes into this category. Obviously, modules such as oscillators fit here, but so do noise sources, samplers, dedicated modules like drums or drone modules, and various exotic widgets like physical modelers and such. If you get some sort of sound from it, it fits here.
Now, one thing that people neglect is that, in order to really make these sources cook, certain ones need doubling, in particular simpler VCOs. This is because when you double a sound, you bring a fairly complicated set of circumstances into play, all of which relates to a desirable level of imperfection...with the end-result being described by a familiar term: 'chorusing'.
Usually, when we talk about chorusing, we're going to be discussing the electronic effect, which isn't quite the same thing. In that case, a sound goes into a circuit where there's a bypass circuit (the 'dry' channel) and a very short modulated delay (the 'wet' channel). The delay for this purpose tends to be too short for us to hear it as a typical delay effect, but when its time is modulated in various amounts and varying frequencies, we seem to hear a 'thicker' sound. Why this happens is because the modulated delay creates the necessary imperfection to the sound.
But in the case of multiple instruments or voices, the imperfection arises from the fact that these sources are never identical from one to the other, nor can they be played precisely the same. That is, in fact, where the term originates; in vocal music, having a single voice or a scant few voices on a part doesn't sound the same as what results when you have, say, a chorus of 20-30 voices on the same part. Certainly, it's not a case of increasing the volume, since the aim of the conductor is to maintain the dynamic level that a given score calls for. What actually gets increased is a certain indeterminacy; no ones' attack is precisely identical, different voices have slightly different timbral spectra, infinitesimal mistunings always happen, and so on, and none of this is ever 100% predictable. Anything with a simple waveform compliment, simple transient compliment, and the like works the same.
Like VCOs, for instance. When you read accounts of early synth designers, you always find them musing on what made their synth so 'musical', and invariably they wind up talking about tiny imperfections...component mismatches, design compromises and so on...that they pin down as the reason. And there's a lot of truth to this; back when the Minimoog was still in its initial production run up into the early 1980s, devotees of these synths discussed how certain serial number runs sounded 'better' than others (in fact, they still talk about this!) and a lot of that came down to tiny 'mistakes' that, in the end-analysis, weren't all that 'mistaken' after all!
But even if you make these things to precise tolerances (such as the Curtis and SSM chipsets), you still have to contend with 'operator error', from which you can still get plenty of accidental (or deliberate) misadjustments that result in that same voice-doubling outcome. And this is why, if you have one VCO in a build, having two or three...even of the same model...is even better. We all have heard that super-fat Moog bass sound (you know the one) that you get from a tiny amount of detuning of one VCO against the others...or more recently, the Roland 'Supersaw', which is a circuit that reliably emulates the 'problem' that would be the actual cause of that huge, sweeping sound.
But note: this will not work with anything that has a complex and constantly-changing timbral component, numerous transient elements, etc. You can't 'chorus' noise, for example, in this way, because noise consists of differently-weighted spectra in a constant, rapid state of change and, as a result, there's nothing there to 'line up' so that proper doubling can happen. Or a sample, because there's too much going on altogether to get a cohesive doubled result. No, in those cases you actually should be using a time-based chorus effect to achieve the desired doubling result by using the modulated delay to cause the sound to act against a 1:1 copy of itself with a tiny time offset.
One more point: generators that output most anything beyond noise (as well as a few noise generators, in fact) have several ways to be controlled. Either a control voltage at a steady voltage level is used for this, or control voltages of changing levels of various sorts, the latter being what we refer to as 'modulation'. In generators, this tends to be something related to pitch, but can also involve synchronization of waveform start-points and, in the case of a number of more elaborate sound sources, the actual spectra of the generator itself. Plus, with samplers, dedicated drum modules, and the like, you also have the on-off digital gates and triggers that make the sound itself start (and/or stop). Even modulating one generator with another at audio frequencies is fair game and, actually, that method of cross-modulative synthesis is a big part of the 'West Coast' sound as pioneered by Don Buchla all the way back at the beginning of synthesizers as we know them.
'Modifiers'
Now that you have that audio signal, you're going to want to screw around with it. And anything that alters the different parts of an audio signal fits into this category. Even something as dirt-simple as a ring modulator, which has been around for decades and actually originates in radio technology from decades prior to the creation of electronic music, is a modifier. In this circuit's case, two signals get combined to generate a set of 'sum' and 'difference' frequencies derived from the sounds' fundamentals and harmonics. And yeah, this sounds reeeeeally modified!
Then there's filters and waveshapers, which are two sides of the same coin. Waveshaping involves all sorts of methods of altering the incoming waveform; since the harmonic content of a waveform determines its waveshape and, hence, its sound, the methods of altering the shape of the waveform tend to increase or restructure the harmonic content we hear. Folding the waveform creates various types of timbral shifts, or you can use various methods of 'degrading' the purer waveform to create clipping, waveform stepping, and so on which usually result in distortive timbral changes. On the other hand, filters work by removing parts of the incoming waveform, often also increasing the amplitude of a certain harmonic or set of harmonics in that signal by electronically forcing the filter into 'resonance' at a given frequency and by a given amount. But filters do the inverse of waveshapers, and are key to 'subtractive' synthesis, or what we tend to term 'East Coast'. And the 'West Coast' method tended to emphasize waveshaping, of course, since Buchla et al's methods of synthesis were based on building up very complex spectra and then 'gating' these without resonance playing much of a part.
Speaking of which, that main West Coast device is known as the 'timbral gate'. With these, you classically have a voltage-controlled amplifier and a non-resonant filter (low-pass, as a rule) controlled in tandem. With this strange modifier, the amplitude AND timbre falls under the same control signal; the idea here is that this would emulate the decay of a sound if it were produced by a physical instrument. In physical devices, as the overall amplitude of a sound diminishes, so does the higher harmonic content along a similar decay curve. Don Buchla's idea here was to create a way to electronically mimic that behavior and to make his timbral gates have a somewhat-familiar sort of sonic behavior; to this day, people still refer to vactrol-based lowpass gates as having a certain 'woody' sound, like tuned percussion, or describe them as having a classic 'plook'-type character to their behavior on incoming sounds.
And about VCAs...yes, these are also modifiers. But instead of altering timbre, they alter amplitude. In a way, you could view them as 'level filters'...controlling the amplitude of an incoming signal according to a certain control signal, in much the same way as a filter controls the passage of a signal's frequency bandwidth according to the control over its cutoff frequency. In fact, both VCFs and VCAs are the prime 'customers' for what envelope generators output as their control signals, and LFO modulation of a VCA changes amplitude in the same way as timbre changes when a VCF is modulated in the same way...or, just as well, VCO frequencies (and so forth) from the selfsame LFO (or envelope generator). This is also what makes VCAs invaluable for modifying control signal amplitudes, such as LFO amplitudes so that vibrato or tremolo modulation signals can build or drop in intensity when passed through a VCA controlled by another LFO or EG.
But it's important to remember that there are two distinct types of VCAs, and you really can't use one in place of the other!
Linear VCAs are optimal for controlling the amplitude of control voltages, such as modulation signals from an LFO or the height of an envelope. These VCAs treat their control signals in a linear fashion: if you want the throughput amplitude to increase by 10%, just feed 10% more voltage to the VCA's control input. This tends to make sense when you want a 1:1 degree of modulation signal control. And since these are more optimal for control signal modification, most linear VCAs are also DC-coupled, meaning that they can pass signals whose frequencies extend all the way down to DC, as well as anything else of a lower frequency than audio. But these can also be used with audio, especially for basic mixing processes before signals reach the final processing stage.
For that stage, you have to have exponential VCAs. These tend to react to control signals in a 'law of squares'-type of manner; the resulting curve of amplification is shaped exponentially, hence the name. Now, why these are a must-have for the final parts of the signal chain has to do with how we perceive loudness. Our hearing processes are set up so that we also perceive changes in apparent volume, or loudness, as an exponential psychoacoustic function. So when an envelope decays that's controlling an exponential VCA, the passthrough signal's level appears to our ears to change in volume in a 'more correct' manner. Loud sounds are clearly loud, while soft sounds are clearly soft, and so forth. Yes, you can also use a linear VCA there...but if you do, then you have to use an exponential control source to get it to behave in the same way. Otherwise, output sounds passed through a linear VCA, controlled with a linear EG, lack a lot of 'punch' and the end-result is that your synthesizer sounds...well, pretty lame, without a lot of loudness differentiation to the listener's perspective. Because of this important usage, exponential VCAs tend to NOT pass DC or much of anything below 1-2 Hz, because DC in an audio signal results in an annoying issue known as 'DC offset'. This issue can damage amps, speakers, give false level readings when recording, and so on, and it's very much NOT desirable. Note also that this 'DC offset' is not the same as a 'DC offset voltage' coming from some sort of control module. In THAT case, you want that extra DC amount to define a certain level or tuning or whatever. But outside of the synth...nuh-uh. Not good. Also, this is why a goodly number of output modules incorporate some sort of DC isolation, to prevent stray DC from escaping into your audio chain outside of the synth. So, make sure your VCAs are exponential and AC-coupled (usually, they are) if they're going to be at the very end of your synth's signal chain!
'Controllers'
This is a huge category of devices of different sorts, and not everything that seems like a 'control' module actually is that. In fact, anything that involves logic actually belongs as part of the 'modifier' group, although what they modify are gate/trigger timing signals and not audio (although you can use logic devices as a type of audio waveshaper, too). Actual controllers are the devices in a synthesizer that make the other three main components do what it is that they do. And actually, this group can be split even further into three significant subcategories. We'll treat each one in turn...
First, there are things that are really, actually, controllers. Devices such as sequencers, keyboards, photocell controls, FSRs...and a whole host of other things that output control signals under more or less manual control, these make up this group. The idea with all of these is that a determinate output, under the synthesist's control, is being generated by these devices. But also, indeterminate control devices fit here, too; the whole gamut of randomness modules go in this slot because, while that behavior isn't usually directly under the synthesist's control, the synthesist has made the programming choice to include control via whatever sort of random factor that they know the module tends to be capable of, ergo it's just as much a 'control option' as using a keyboard, joystick, etc. A Euclidean sequencer is a good example of this: while the output of such a module has a randomness to it, it's a 'gamed' randomization under a certain degree of control by the synthesist by their choice of control functions applied to or within it. Even sample-and-hold modules fed by totally random, indeterminate signals such as white noise still have a given behavior by how the synthesist chooses to control the randomness generated by the noise generator through the 'psuedorandomness' of the S&H. So, if you make 'setting A' on a device and know it'll do 'action B' every time (more or less, in the case of random devices), you're dealing with a controller. One other key controller is the quantizer; a quantizer is actually a type of sample-and-hold circuit with a very determinant pitch-scaled output which can transform incoming changing voltages of any type to held voltages to control other modules that require fixed control voltages, such as VCOs. But if you feed white noise to a quantizer...well, you still get scalar steps, although the distribution of those will be random albeit specifically pitched, and not the same 'psuedorandom' output of an unscaled sample-and-hold.
Then we have modulation sources. In this class, you find modules that run on their own or via a control signal of another sort, and which output control voltage signals as a result. LFOs, envelope generators, function generators, sample-and-holds fed by determinate signals (such as repeating LFO waveforms, envelopes, etc) to create 'stepped' curves...all of these are modulation sources, along with a few other specialized examples which behave in much the same way.
Last, there's timing sources. This gamut of devices is comprised of everything in a modular synth that outputs the various on-off gates or triggers in some way for the use of modules that require these to do what they do. Envelope generators, for example, require triggers or gates to fire (and gates specifically to deal with 'hold' behavior) and 'one-shot' through their envelope parameters. Clock generators and modulators create and alter timing signals for all sorts of actions, ranging from synchronization of larger processes, clocking sequencer or sample and hold stepping, and to generate pulses for logic. But again, logic circuits are NOT controllers. Instead, the various gates, combiners, etc actually operate in much the same way as the varying modifier devices in the audio chain, to alter the fundamental behavior of inputted timing pulses. Case in point: the AND gate. In this case, you have two inputs for timing pulses and one output that generate a pulse only when the logic case for the gate is met. If there's a timing signal at either the A or B input, nothing happens; only when A AND B see a pulse does the gate output its pulse. Because logic gates and their relatives all function in this manner, they are actually something akin to a 'timing filter'...and, as such, they're modifier devices.
This isn't the only example of how modifiers can exist in the controller 'gamut'. Control signals, especially periodically-repeating ones, can be waveshaped in various ways not unlike how the same processes work in the audio chain. A good example is rectification, which results in very distorted audio results by altering the waveform's polarization to shift all of the waveform above the DC level. But in control waveforms, such as from an LFO, the result actually alters the waveshape in the same way, but the result when this is used as a modulation signal is actually quite different, since the signal has been 'half-waved' to create an 'above-zero-set-point' modulation signal. It's also possible to invert this (another modifier...and in this case, usable in audio to cause phase cancellation effects by combining a 'normal' and 'inverted' signal) and cause all of the modulation curve behavior to happen downward, below the zero-set. And of course, the example mentioned above of linear VCAs and their uses on modulation signal amplitudes.
People seem to ignore quite a bit about controller modules. And that's a mistake; controller modules are an important part of the 'dark arts' behind making sounds that behave with incredible complexity. By creating multiple control layers, it's possible to generate elaborate control methods that can result in sounds that, by themselves, qualify as whole compositions. For instance...take three LFOs that have voltage control capability. Feed the first one into the CV input of the second, then that into the CV input of the third. The output from the third will then behave in a very non-repetitive curve...or perhaps more repetitive...depending on how the various LFO frequencies were set. Now, feed that last output into a multiple (we'll get to those), and split it to three comparators, which generate a timing signal when a voltage threshold gets crossed. Set each one to a different threshold, feed their gate/trigger outputs to three different EGs. Then have those EGs control the amplitude of three exponential VCAs that are being fed by different and complex audio signals. Voila! You're starting off into the domain of 'generative music'...albeit, a rather simple part of that. But this illustrates why it's important to NOT neglect the wide range of controller possibilities. They bring the fun into your modular's _fun_ctionality!
'Processors'
Now, these also don't get a lot of respect. Processors are the 'everything else' that takes signals from the audio or control chains and makes them into something...else. These are different from modifiers in that they don't actually impart any change to the signal, but that they change the way the signal(s) behaves. The simplest one is, yep, the multiple. A multiple actually replicates a signal fed into it and sends copies back out. Buffered multiples, of course, are active devices which contain circuits that precisely duplicate and regenerate signals fed into them...but even a passive multiple, which has no active circuitry at all, still fits into the definition of a 'processor' because of what it does.
Mixers, also...these do the opposite by combining signals into a single signal, either monophonic, stereophonic, or even crazier sorts of spatializations. But these don't change the signals fed into them, optimally...the signals are all still there, still audible, just in a composite form at the mixer's output. Anything that works this way fit here. Also, anything that works in the context of signal mixing, such as panning, crossfading, muting, auxiliary signal send/return actions, group level control...all of these functions fit the criteria of processing since, again, the signals' character isn't being changed...only how they behave in the signal chain. And this works for both control signals and audio, since the objective doesn't involve changing what's present, only combining it, even if the resultant combination might appear different on its face value.
Also, anything that is a time-based processor, such as a delay, reverb, or chorus counts as a processor. The signal inputted to these devices is still technically intact beneath the process imposed on them by the module; even super-deep reverbs, while smearing out the sound's transients, are still outputting the original sound even though the overall temporal contour has been altered by generating hundreds or thousands of early and late-reflection copies. And delays, of course, just create singular copies of the signal and repeat them at given intervals for a given period of time.
But processors that actually alter the timbral character of a signal...in short, devices that could just as well be placed into the 'modifier' category...these aren't processors per se, but modifiers, albeit modifiers that are more appropriate at the end of a signal chain. This would include phase shifters, flangers, equalizers, and the like. And that's where this gets a little touchy, because some devices that should be pure processors DO alter the character of a sound. Spring reverbs, for example, are more akin to modifiers than a nice, clean, high-bit-resolution digital reverb because they impart coloration, whereas the digital reverb can alter the temporal factors without 'true' change to the sonic character of the inputted signal. Tape delays, also, when used to impart a tape saturation character in addition to their time-based use, fit here.
Then there's the last...and first...bits of the synth: external modules. Again, these fit in the category of 'processors' because their job isn't to alter the character of the sound, just to either get it into or out of the synthesizer environment. In the case of input modules, they step the signal's level up, and in some cases also derive some control signals from, either through envelope followers that track...to some degree...the incoming signal's amplitude and generate a control voltage from that, pitch-to-voltage converters that turn the incoming signal's pitch into a control voltage, or comparators that fire a gate or trigger when the signal crosses a certain amplitude threshold. In all of these cases, the incoming signal isn't being changed sonically, just used as a source from which the signals can be derived. Output modules are simpler still: they just step the signal level back down to the 'real world' line-level standard, maybe with the addition of a level control or maybe an auxiliary input.
But in actuality, anything that gets a signal of some sort in or out of a modular synthesizer environment is a processor. MIDI, for example, has to be turned into the requisite CV and gate/trigger signals for the synth to be able to make any sense of the incoming MIDI control signal. As such, MIDI usually isn't part of the modular environment (although a few cases do seem to exist, they themselves also do MIDI processing internally to effect the necessary signal compatibility) and has to be turned into the proper signal. In essence, this is a second sort of 'processor'; while processing in the audio chain tries to NOT affect the signal character, MIDI, OSC, etc has to be processed into something a synthesizer can use in the first place. As such, the function of these devices is more akin to a 'translator', even though they 'process' their respective incoming signals into something else as far as signal format. Despite that, the information being 'processed' isn't actually being changed informationally, just as processors in an audio change also avoid changing the audio's 'information'. So, ultimately, they're both a 'controller' and a 'processor' all at the same time, falling into that tiny category of 'a few different things at the same time' which I mentioned back at the beginning.
So, aside of how to power all of this crap and what to put it in, that's the four parts of the synthesizer. And yes, this even applies to synthesizers that are purely digital confabulations, because while the physical devices might be absent, the coding still contains data which contains these four functionalities. So, by keeping this in mind, and knowing what you need to do in terms of where YOU want to go with your instrument, hopefully this pile of info can help you in properly allocating what needs to be in a modular system, how to potentially assemble it into something that works like an instrument, and how to 'get gud' when you're staring down that panel of knobs, wires, lights, and patchcords. Yeah, long essay, I know...but useful, hopefully!
Lugia, Here's my idea for the 3rd row. How would you go about making the most out of this space? How would you construct a drum source using the extra space here? Thanks in advance!
Couple of ways you could approach that Werkstatt, also...either you'll also need the add-on 3.5mm jack expander to connect it into the Eurorack environment...
...or, more sick and twistedly, have a peek at two Bastl devices, neither of which are too expensive considering their capabilities: the bitRanger and the SoftPop. Now, these use the same Dupont pin connectivity as a stock Werkstatt, but when combined with the Moog, you get this frightening yowl/screech/growl monster...perfect for industrial!
-- Lugia
Gosh darnit Lugia, quit helping me spend my cash :-) just kidding.
Yeah! Those Bastl devices look amazing for a portable modular rig. Very tempting indeed! Pair two of these with the Birdkids and Ant and have a night of mayhem. I need to hit Perfect Circle Audio in LA to try out a bunch of this cool gear since the stores in San Diego suck bad and never have any modular gear.
Another item that looks neat is the portable Birdkids the Bateleur modular rig! The Plankton ANTS! modular looks pretty interesting as well. I think that would give me portable modular to learn more patching before spending 5-10k on a full blown 7-9U 200HP setup.
Couple of ways you could approach that Werkstatt, also...either you'll also need the add-on 3.5mm jack expander to connect it into the Eurorack environment...
...or, more sick and twistedly, have a peek at two Bastl devices, neither of which are too expensive considering their capabilities: the bitRanger and the SoftPop. Now, these use the same Dupont pin connectivity as a stock Werkstatt, but when combined with the Moog, you get this frightening yowl/screech/growl monster...perfect for industrial!
Quite true...plus, with more space in the 3U, you can even construct a drum source or two. Just trigger an EG set for a really quick envelope, feed that to a filter which is filtering a noise source. By rapidly modulating the filter with an exponential envelope with a very short duration, you get those 'filter snap' sounds ala 'Computer World'-period Kraftwerk that sound so GOOOOOOD!
That won't work. While the Ears has an envelope follower, it and the rest of the module is designed around the contact microphone built into the module itself, so that the module works as a 'tappable' controller. You're trying to use a proper microphone setup on a drum kit instead. What you actually need is a proper external input module with a mic preamp and envelope follower...or better yet, a multichannel input module and some separate envelope follower modules. But as an indication of what's required to do this, have a look at a Doepfer A-119; this module is sort of the standard for the group, with a balanced/unbalanced input preamp with the proper impedance for external sources, envelope follower, audio output at synth levels, and a comparator to set a level for a gate. That's what needs to be used.
As for the MPC...why not just use it as a proper MIDI controller/sequencer, instead of a more difficult, roundabout and potentially glitchy (not in a good way) method such as audio triggering? Notice, also, that the Ladik module has only one adjustment for its comparator level to generate triggers as a desired audio level. Really, what the Ladik module is better designed for is for use with drum trigger pickups...which are basically insensitive microphones designed to be drum-mounted so that when the drum is struck, it outputs an audio signal (albeit not a very good one) that can be converted by circuits like the ones in that Ladik module. This isn't the right use for either the MPC or the Ladik module; just get a MIDI-to-trigger interface and connect the MPC to that directly via the MPC's MIDI OUT.
Anyway, those need fixing first. There's other problems in this build, but you need to correct the premise behind it first.
I am reading the Make Noise Manual and it helps understand the 0coast much easier. I did order one today along with Volca Beats and an Elektron Octatrack to sequence and sample all my gear without a laptop and DAW. Thanks for the tips as always Lugia!
Thinking of the Werkstatt Moog next as it is under $200 and a fun kit and some good training with bare minimals of VCA, VCO, filter and envelope generators. I think a combo setup with Moog Mother 32 and the mini 60HP rack would be great way to dig into modular on a budget after I learn the Elektron and 0Coast.
Thanks! I am trying to keep everything in one case for convenience. That said, That 42hp case is really cool! Looks like it could even be run off a battery pack, which is awesome. I'm getting a 3rd row Rackbrute 3U in a few months, so that'll work great, I think for drums/sequencing..
Personally, I'm not too worried about the Lucha Libre figures...far as I know, all of the ones that were available for modular use were formatted for Technosaurus's defunct 9U format. And the only Manekineko I know of was an obscure third-party accessory specifically for Korg's PS-series, mainly because you'd need the Manekineko's money-luck capabilities to afford the synth it was supposed to connect to.
Have to admit, I find the MakeNoise panel art confusing and hard to follow as well. Fortunately, you can get panels from Grayscale that precisely replace the MakeNoise ones and which provide a much clearer user interface. Yep, they have the 0-coast, too. While you will have to do the replacement yourself (unless you have access to a tech who can do the swap for you), Grayscale's directions are quite clear.
Also, two other 'brains' you might want to look at are the Squarp Pyramid mkii and Kilpatrick's Carbon. Similar in style to the Elektron stuff, but way more powerful. Squarp also has a Eurorack variant of the Pyramid, the Hermod. Neither do sampling, however...but as sequencers that are capable of storing and running multiple sets, they're excellent.
Plus, there's a really cool device that Elektron came up with recently for audio wreckage, the Analog Heat. Like typical Elektron stuff, it's a bit spendy...but for 'grit factor', it's more than capable of getting the nastier industrial sounds right.
...something like...THIS?
Just an example here...this is built into a $200 powered Zissou Pulplogic case, but I have to admit that I'm nervous about the power draw in this, as my spec came out to 324 mA on the +12 rail, and the cab's maxes are 350 mA on each rail. But the point is, it's possible to concoct a tiny little case strictly for drums and just sequence the whole thing off of a BeatStep Pro. Like that sequencer, there's eight drum modules here, although you'll likely want to not use one along with the others at any given time because the HATS909 module needs triggers for 'open' and 'closed' to get the sound right.
But yeah...stereo mixer + a 4-1 mono mixer for all your mono/center sources like kick, etc, drums, a mult to split a trigger to double a drum pair, and a stereo out. Very simplistic and small, but also pretty powerful. Stepping up to, say, 60 hp would probably yield more room, but I opted for the Zissou because it's super-portable for the example.
Not a bad idea. I am planning a 3rd row after I get the majority of these modules and use that for drums/sequencing. I really want the whole thing in one unit for portability.
Seems better at first, but losing the Optomix means you lose the audio VCAs. I agree with the Sinc Iter move, tho...
But, another idea: since you need some percussives, why not use a small, separate cab for just percussion modules and put those under the control of something like, say, a BeatStep Pro? By removing drums to that, you'll be able to open up the space for the output module as well as bring back the Optomix. And also, jamming something like 6-8 percussion voices into a 42 hp powered cab is relatively easy. Something like...
It won't work well because outside of the rack, modules don't stay in place after a page reload.
The database is modules only. I see that it is a nice touch to track your cable hangers and such, but if we open up the db for things other than modules the database will be full of dreamcatchers, Lucha Libre action figures, japanese maneki-neko and what not.
I 100% feel you. I was just trying to avoid becoming a "blank panel" manufacturer just to get on your site.
Not quite... Looking at the block diagram from the DFAM manual, I count 6 VCA and at least 4 mixers. Envelopes should also have cv inputs for decay time for 1:1 functionality.
Just bought the Mutable Instruments - Rings from @yochwired - very good and friendly communication and super fast shipping - (I got it the next day..!!!) I can only recommend this seller!
Yeah I am planning to try these out and see what works best for me. I like the packaged
deal for 1k that includes the Arturia Minibrute 2s plus a Eurorack 6u case and power supply along with plenty of patch cables.
That said, the ultra portable Erica Synths PICO II looks cool but it is expensive for a tiny
modular synth and having microscopic knobs with patch cables would be messy so I'd
probably want a full system with some Erica components.
Make Noise- I am thinking of getting the desktop semi modular 0-Coast synth to see
if I like the way they do things. My only complaint is how difficult it is to read their
routing and non traditional way of doing things. Before I commit to a bunch of their modules
I'd want to see if I can work with their funky way of doing things compared to other
Eurorack modular companies.
The Mutable Instrument stuff looks cool as well and lot of folks have some of their items.
Same can be said for Intellijel.
My goal is a darker sound that has elements of hardcore industrial, house and psy-trance
as that is the voice I am looking for in the music I create.
For sequencing/sampling purposes, I am looking also at getting something like
an Elektron Octatrack or Arturia Beatstep. Elektron gear is expensive but superb.
I have some time using a friend's Machine Drum and love the workflow.
I think having an external portable master brain that can serve as a mobile DJ type device
as well as sample and manage the modular gear would be cool.
Let's see if I can finish this without accidentally closing the wrong tab this time...
Anyway, it can be a help to have everything by the same company...except for that moment when you see something done by another firm that's improved on the functionality that's only dealt with in basic terms by your 'primary' firm. That's why the 'mix-n-match' method works and is so prevalent. But there's nothing wrong with keeping most of your modules under one firm's label. In fact, if you opt for companies that have long track records, extensive lines of products, and a big user base, that tends to be a good indicator of a firm that's suitable for being a 'primary'
But at the same time, there's also excellent companies that have small lines because they work along certain specialties. Take Shakmat Modular, for example; most of their very short line deals with clock-based issues, and that's a great indicator of a company that knows their stuff about that particular peculiarity of modular synthesis. Another example: Audio Damage, who concentrates mainly in audio processing modules...same idea. When you see a concentration like that, again, you tend to be dealing with a company that knows their stuff and which opts to specialize instead of going full-spectrum on their product line. Also, look for 'discontinued' modules that have been replaced with majorly-improved version; when you see a lot of that, again, that's a company that keeps pushing what they can accomplish with their products and also, a company that's both likely to be listening to its user base and striving to push the hardware envelope as components and technology improve. Mutable Instruments, with their discontinuation of the much-used Braids to give us the majorly upgraded and downsized/downpriced Plaits, is a great example of this in action.
As for Erica, they're truly the Latvian Voodoo Masters of the Black Art (hence the module color scheme? hmmmm...) of International Air Shipping. Their stuff is bang-up, especially their Pico 3 hp modules, the frequent tube models, and their powered cabs. MakeNoise's Tony Rolando's probably got Don Buchla tied up in his basement, too...the obituary was just a cover story, natch...because he's pushing many of those classic West Coast ideas off into wild zones. Either are kickass places to start with a prebuild, because you'll be getting something from firms with great support, and people running the show who know their stuff. But if I were going to go with a patchable...oh, wait, I probably AM...to match with a small modular expander cab, I'm gonna have to go with an Arturia rig. After all, they've got Yves Usson giving them a leg-up, and the form factor they cooked up with the Minibrute 2 + Rackbrute, with its portability...it's hard to argue against that! Plus, aside of the (cough, cough) Origin, Arturia gets things right and they're available at your local Circle-K (well...almost) like Roland, et al. The stuff I have from them gets used here, and it doesn't screw up. I like that.
It's close...but if it were me, I'd drop one of those Optomixes, because there's plenty LPG processing for audio in just two with this few audio sources. Instead, you really need an output module as well as some sort of final mixer to bring the drums in with the other signals. A mono mixer would work fine, but you're going to want a 2-channel output module so you can take advantage of the Pico DSP's ability to 'stereoize' your mixer signal. Otherwise, the compliment looks right; you can 'steal' the extra VCA on the Lifeforms if needed for CV work, because the Optimixes will work fine for that patchable's final VCA instead. Maybe a couple of qualms about the lack of 'proper' envelope gens here aside of the one ADSR, but if you tinker the Maths just the right way, that ought to work out.
Yeah I love the sounds of the Make Noise and Erica Synths gear. Plus Erika customer support is great they replied with answers to my questions on how to order gear as most of it is not even available in the USA since they are based in Latvia! I am leaning toward getting started with a MN 0coast, Dreadbox Erebus, or Moog Mother 32 table top semi modular to learn how patching works and avoid spending a small fortune to learn the basics. Then thinking of stepping up to a kit that has the basic modules from Erica Synths like their cool Fusion Drone or Black Polivoks modular system that has the case, power and core modules all ready to go. That would save me headaches learning as a newbie and not go broke. I priced out the Erica Synths package at about 2k USD and the Make Noise package also has one at 2k and a bigger setup the Black and Gold at 4500 so if I was to put a kit together as a newbie probably would go this route to make things easier. I read that having all the same type and brand of a setup as a beginner is wise in terms of troubleshooting issues and support.
Mixxalot: Yep, when you're talking about a small build like this, put in a more complex source as the 'primary' generator and then something simpler as a 'secondary', so that it can both serve as an LF-thru-audio modulation source for the primary as well as a second source to mix with the primary to fatten up the signal. Interestingly, since the Titan outputs an appropriate waveform from both outputs for sync use, you could theoretically use it for both a signal source AND as a modulation component for the Plaits simultaneously. True, the Plaits doesn't have sync as such, but there are functions on it that can make use of that audio-frequency sharp-rise waveform for some interesting results. But another crazy-as-hell VCO that fits that slot and which CAN use sync is Doepfer's A-110-6, which is their full-featured TZFM VCO, and that would make for an excellent and purely analog 'primary' as well.
And yeah, this stuff costs real money. But at the same time, that money buys you the ability to step out of normal sound creation methods, which tends to be worth the cash outlay. When you start getting up into the bigger builds, also, you gradually enter into areas where prebuilt synths simply don't go...again, quite worth the money.
As for interesting cabs out there that combine solid builds, good power supplies, and decent pricing, Arturia, MakeNoise, Tiptop and Erica are putting out cabs that're killing it on all fronts, IMHO. In fact, Erica's 126 hp cabs have become a recent fave for larger builds I'm speculating about, along with the Arturia Rackbrute 6U for tandemming with their revised Microbrutes. Either are super choices, with the Erica being awesome for standalone, and the Arturia combo really kicking ass if going with a patchable + modular. Either one seems to be a good choice, it just depends on where you want to go with this craziness! And actually, Velocipede808...you might benefit from something like the latter; have a look at the Minibrute 2S, then consider a Rackbrute 6U on top of that as a unitized and portable setup. It's cost-effective (the 2S is only $649 street!) and seems like it might be where you're aiming for.
Actually, the Hermod might well be the better move. The Metropolis is based on the RYK-185 sequencer, which was originally designed for the Roland System-100m way back in the early 1980s. The idea behind it was primarily to allow sequencing that included ratcheting behavior, ala TD's late 1970s work, and while Intellijel did a lot of updating, it still has its roots in that older device. The Hermod, though, is an offshoot of the much more complicated Pyramid, Squarp's standalone sequencer, which was more of a 'ground-up' creation. It also helps that the Hermod can provide MIDI support, plus USB hosting, which would allow you to connect something like an Arturia Keystep directly to provide keyboard control (and an extra sequencer, too).
Still, consider that Bubblesound 8 hp quad VCA/mixer...it gives you back 4 hp, and would open that last space on the bottom tier to 8 hp, allowing that second Function to go in. And once the ONE goes back up top, you'd still have 2 hp, which is plenty for a little 4-in submixer after your source modules and before the VCF if you want to sum-down a couple of sources to a single signal. Overall, this is looking way-snazzier!
Yeah a simple tabletop modular unit like the Moog Mother 32, Erica Synths Pico II, or Make Noise 0-COAST Semi-modular Analog Synthesizer paired up with a Keystep would be the easiest low coast journey into modular to learn how to create patches before dropping large amounts of cash. Also try out Softube a good idea paired with VCV Rack. For me, since I am not independently wealthy will probably head down that route at first.
I know guys that have 20-50k in a few Eurorack modules! And I thought that Elektron gear was expensive.
I left one of the Mixups in, since I think I'll still want to be able to sub-mix pre-Clouds or Magneto.
The TT-One should be on the top rack, but I have it on the bottom at the moment just to show potential available space (6hp).
Thanks for the feedback.
Now that I'm looking at it - you're right. I did have everything arbitrarily slotted into place without a thought for workflow, and it seems much better with that layout. Also, the addition of more envelope & VCA is a wiser choice in the end. I do have some personal thoughts on it though...
So I understand your removal of the uScale, since the Metropolis does it's own quantizing, but now I'm beginning to think I should forego the Metropolis altogether for something that's more of a brain / control centre, like a Hermod -- hear me out. What I enjoy and find most exciting about the uScale is using the shift function to switch between my pre-programmed scales and emulate 'chord' changes, and from what I've read, this is something the Metropolis doesn't do well without feeling clunky and rigid. Hermod might not be any better (I'm still reading about it), but my first impression tells me that it would facilitate those changes a lot easier.
