User Posts

If the goal here is to put together a sort of generative system that you can trigger with your drumkit, I'll warn you right now: you're probably starting too small. Just the amount of trigger and microphone inputs you're going to want (need, actually) and the interactivity from those is going to pass that little cab's space limitations very rapidly. Back up, start again, this time with something like a 6U or 7U (one tile row) x 104 or larger case. Otherwise, the only way this becomes doable is with buttloads of tiny 2 , 3 and 4 hp modules, and if you want to make an adjustment to any of that while playing the drums, you'll discover a whole new level of frustration.

My suggestion: go and look at some examples of the electronic kits from the beginning of that concept, such as the early Simmons kits. You'll find that these tend to be very easy to adjust on the fly because of how their control panels are laid out, basically becoming the template for what electronic controls for drummers (who tend to be QUITE busy with the actual drums themselves) evolved from. Teensy knobs and loads of patchcords doesn't lend themselves to the sort of adjustability and playability as, say, an SDS-8.

It's not a bad idea...it just all has to be done right, or you'll wind up with equipment that has an unusable form factor.

Honestly, I wouldn't put the Model D in the Rackbrute. First of all, it already has a cab and that cab takes care of its power needs. Secondly, it takes up a lot of room, and given the goal you're shooting for, the Model D gobbles up a lot of the rack space you'll need to make that work. Wanting to 'do it all' in 2 x 88 hp is a bit of a tall order...not wholly impossible, but if 70 hp is being used by what's basically a monosynth that can just as easily stay where it is, you probably won't be getting close to that notion.

Third: be extremely careful about which synths to sell. Consider that some of those, if you got them relatively cheaply, probably will not ever be at your disposal again. Case in point is sitting right behind me, and only cost $450 plus a couple of days driving when I got it, and while I could easily pull down a cool $18k for my Yamaha CS-80, I have been balking at it ever since the idea arose...because I will NEVER, EVER find one of these things at an affordable price again! Even if that revenue was 100% channeled into studio equipment, losing that particular synth would be a helluva hole in my equipment. In contrast, I was able to get another MS-20 (Mini), a few others I sold in recent times are redoable in more reliable forms (my PPG setup, for example...Waldorf's Blofeld Keyboard is just fine as a functional replacement, plus Wolfgang Palm's doing some wild stuff now with mobile devices), and one I regret selling can be regotten cheaply enough.

The 'Brute rig is one I've been working on as of late, although the eventual result will be a 2 and 2S with two 6Us (maybe), so this is pretty familiar turf. So, one caveat I would make is that it might be a good idea to get the Minibrute 2 first, pair it with the Model D, and then see what needs present themselves. As for me, I'm familiar with the Minibrute's architecture, so I know what needs to be paired with it to get it to go in the directions I want, but if you've not had a lot of experience with patch-overriding a synth's internals, I would really suggest doing that first before dropping a bunch of money on a Rackbrute 6U and a module compliment, then discovering that, wow, none of this does what I had in mind, so now what?

Also, having just discovered modular synthesizers, you might want to observe first. See what others are doing, research what the 'classics' had, then sort out the various strengths and weaknesses you're going to gradually notice. For example, why did Uli Behringer use (cough, cough, 'steal') the Minimoog's overall basics to come up with that Model D? On that one, if you know why the Minimoog was set up the way it was, you might see a couple of other reasons why I'm saying it doesn't go in the Rackbrute.

And remember: what you're contemplating here involves blowing several grand, ultimately...yes, even in that small a cab, if you want it set up correctly. Treat this more as building an instrument that you're likely to use for several years, not something you can toss like a Volca or some such.

Not trying to throw water on your enthusiasm, mind you...it's just that you're wandering into an area that's INFINITELY deep that makes a read through the Sweetwater catalog look like a cursory glance at a Hallmark card, and I'm just noting that you might want to slow a bit here and find out what all of this not-bought-yet gear can and should do before dropping a bushel of moolah on it. Make sense?

Oooh...be careful about how you're reading that Mantis power spec! Tiptop's site says it has 3 x 1A on the +12 rail only; the -12 rail is limited to 1100 mA, and if that's exceeded there'll be problems.

Eurorack power uses bipolar DC supplies for the 12V rails. One side is positive, the other negative, and the 'common' acts more like a 'neutral' line for the bipolar supply purposes. While the +12 rail handles the largest loads as a rule, the -12V rail can add up pretty quickly as well, and BOTH amperage criteria have to be watched to prevent overloading each of the 12V busses. My suggestion is to find powered case solutions where you have suitably large amperage potential on all rails to avoid overtaxing any parts of the power supply setup.

As for the output/mixer issue...if you're going to mix down to mono (which would be what the TriATT would allow), just get a mono output module. Stereo mixers would be better, though, because you're going to want to step up to a spatialized output signal eventually, so my suggestion would be to look into a small performance mixer that allows CV control over audio levels (via exponential VCAs in the mixer), panning, an AUX send/return for paralleling a global effect, and mutes to drop parts of a global patch out to immediately vary the sound. Qu-bit's Mixology is probably the best value in these at present...four channels, stereo, AUX send and return, and so forth, all under voltage control for $399 which is actually pretty cheap when you consider what's built into it. And if you already have a Clouds, running the Mixology output into it, then on from the Clouds (using the Clouds as a post-mix 'playable' processor) to a stereo output would be the way I'd go.

Input-wise, I've found that Doepfer's A-119 is probably the best feature-to-value module of that sort.

Also...when speccing modules, try this trick: divide the module's price by the hp width. The lower you can get the resulting number, the cheaper the overall space utilization becomes. One of Eurorack's little secrets is that when you have room to spread out and use larger-width modules, the price-per-hp tends to go DOWN, so staying in tightly-confined cabs can actually be more spendy with respect to space used than going with something where you can use bigger modules.

Hokay...let's get into this. Thus far, the equipment you have on hand makes sense, although using it in tandem with Reason where timing issues are critical might reveal some limitations. I've heard from a lot of professional types that Reason can have problems with timing and sync when dealing with external clocking. My best guess is that Reason varies its latency, so if you start with a fixed latency value and Reason opts to alter this on the fly without warning, your timings between in the box and outside of the box can slip and get a bit sloppy. I've also heard that FL can have issues of the same sort, but not to the magnitude of Reason. And yes, I've used Reason (quite some time back) along with several other DAWs over many years, and I eventually opted to stick with Ableton Live out of experience...which has largely been very positive. So if you notice timing 'slop' starting to ease into your work, suspect Reason first.

• The case : the TipTop Audio Mantis looks nice and not too expensive. I like the look of the Eowave 104HP studio case too. Any reasons why I should choose one over the other?

OK...with powered cases, you need to take several things into consideration. The most obvious is amperage...a sufficient supply should actually supply more than you need, because some modules can load-spike a bit on power-up, with some being worse than others. You want a lot of margin between your total module draw and the supply's rating...and not only because of this point, but also because letting the power supply 'loaf' will mean less component wear, and that spells better stability and reliability over the long-term. I personally like to overspec power supplies by 1/3rd, but that's an old habit from amateur radio work where amperage draws can sometimes fluctuate sizably and abruptly. +20%, however, is good enough.

Also, check what sort of supply you're dealing with. There's two kinds; in Eurorack, we almost always deal with switching-type supplies. These actually use high-frequency methods of regulating and rectifying incoming AC...and because of this, some of them can be noisy at the DC rail outputs. So if the case in question has a switching supply, you're going to want filtered power busboards...these not only knock down the HF crud from lesser-quality switchers, they also help to remove backplane crosstalk resulting from modules sending crud back down their DC supply lines and dirtying up the power rails. The other kind is linear supplies...the 'gold standard', really. Very clean and stable DC outputs, and usually beefy components are used in these that don't tend to fail from simply being a little touchy. Drawbacks: they're heavier, and they're more expensive. But those are really the only drawbacks; performance-wise, they're a big step up from switchers, and in big 5U systems, you tend to see them much more than switching supplies. Honestly, these days I've been looking a bit more seriously at Erica's powered 126 hp x 2 cabs; sure, they're 200 EUR more than the Eowave, but those Latvians build those things for serious work, with 2.5A on each 12V rail via an internal linear supply. And also, this is a good example of getting what you pay for...with hefty linear-supplied DC being well worth the price!

• I'd like to interface my current setup with the modules, hence the Pico INPUT to get the sounds of my synths eventually. Any opinions on this module? Will it keep the signal clean?

As noted above, Erica builds serious stuff. The sole flaw I see with the INPUT, though, is that it lacks either an envelope follower (to derive CV from the incoming signal's dynamics...very useful, actually) or a gate/trigger comparator (to send one of those when the incoming audio's dynamics cross a certain amplitude level...again, quite useful as a control source). But if the idea is to just send audio in without deriving any control functions, it'll work well for that.

• My audio interface is a Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 that should be able to handle modular levels. Do you advice nevertheless some kind of attenuator / mixer before plugging the outputs of the modular? If yes, why? :-)

Here's why: first of all, modular synths can be a bit touchy and unpredictable with signal levels...these can jump around a LOT, from very low, barely audible to (potentially without warning!) 10V RMS or more! If you want to be 100% certain that you can protect the Focusrite (which is a fairly low-end device, not something particularly rugged) from input overvoltage, you WILL need something to step the synth levels down to normal line-levels.

Second: the Focusrite probably has balanced inputs. The patchpoints within a modular are 99.999% UNbalanced (there's a couple of exceptions). These have different impedances, and depending on how touchy the Focusrite is about incoming impedance, it might not like something other than a 600 Ohm balanced incoming signal, resulting in several sorts of irritating outcomes like weird frequency responses, distortion, or even potentially component harm.

Third: ground loops. These are frickin' annoying hums and noises that creep into audio when a signal source is on one ground, but the device it's connected to is on another, and the ground plane tries to establish itself via your audio line. Avoiding this is done in two ways: ground lifts at the connected device (potentially less effective) and balanced and isolated outputs at the source (the 'correct' way). Now, you might argue that if the synth is connected via a DC line from a 'brick' supply, this won't be a problem; if so, you may be in for some annoying surprises, because the ground plane will ALSO try to establish itself via the DC rails under certain conditions, which will destabilize the synth altogether due to AC 'ripple' on the DC supply.

Last: DC offset. You DO NOT want this coming out of your outputs! DC, when fed to amplifiers and speakers in sufficiently high voltages, can cause everything from the infamous 'DC thump' (best known from the ARP 2600, which had DC-coupled outputs) when a signal is present to, under extreme cases, actual electronic damage to amplifiers and PHYSICAL damage to speakers. I've seen this, btw...it's a definite 'oh shit!!!' moment that you don't want to experience!

The solution to all of this is to have an output module that offers some sort of audio isolation, certainly DC isolation, and preferably balanced TRS or XLR output jacks. Best of all are isolator/outputs that offer transformer isolation, as having a little 'iron' in your signal creates very small euphonic harmonic emphases due to transformers' having hysteresis...which is a complex thing I'm not going to explain here (I don't have the time, space, or desire for carpal tunnel syndrome!), but which slightly emphasizes even harmonics in a way that 'warms' the audio and tightens it up without imposing apparent distortion. This, plus attenuation to get the synth-level signals under control, is 100% necessary at a modular synth's output. If you're serious about how your instrument can and should sound, something of this sort is absolutely essential!

• I plan first to get to the "basics" (VCO-VCF-VCA-Envelope...) with the Black Wavetable VCO and the Polivoks VCF, the Z4000 and the Veils. Any opinions on this?

See https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/3015 I don't write these things for lulz, after all.

• Any good suggestions to fill the gaps are heartily welcomed :-) Still looking for some nice effects modules that could also be used with my actual synths.

Well, yeah...but it seems like you need to get to a more concrete stage in build development first. You're missing the Clouds yet assuming Mutable's replacement will be the same form factor (which wasn't the case with the Plaits, which replaced the Braids), and that's not the best way to proceed. Remember: this isn't a race...you're not trying to crash-build something for a gig this coming weekend. Consider carefully...and do some research. Look at others' racks and look at classic modulars to see why they were built the way they were, and with what. Back up first and build several 'sketches'...if one or two look promising, hone in on what makes them promising. And don't be afraid to screw up, because MG has a 'delete' function whereas physical devices and the costs associated with them definitely don't. Good luck!

EDITED Apr 10th 2018, 01:25

In a recent MG forum thread, I tossed out some examples of synthesizers and other devices...the prebuilt variety...that I felt 'played nice' in a modular setup. The key there is 'connectivity' – do these synths have useful I/O that lends them to integration in a modular setup, or at least a setup that has a large modular contingent? And it occurred to me: since we tend to concentrate here on MG on true modulars and, to some extent, patchable synths from modular manufacturers, a list of currently-available synthesizers as well as some past gems that can fit well in that instrument set might be useful. After all, a lot of users here may benefit from adding some of these in amongst their modular gear, or users of these could potentially benefit from tossing a rack or two of modules into the fray. Henceforth...

Oh, mind you, patchables from manufacturers that also make lines of modules aren't heavily represented in here. For the most part, MG's users know most of these, so I scaled that back except for some notable examples. Henceforth again...

AKAI: No, no, NO...I'm not going to discuss the 'Wolves', perhaps some of the worst analog implementations in recent history. They were an anomaly, really...but just before those atrocities, Akai did a couple of very analog-friendly keyboard controllers, the MAX49 and 25. But they discontinued these before the modular boom went totally berserk and then came out with...well, yeah. Not everyone in big business is a genius, obviously. But these two keyboard controllers are worth tracking down, actually.

ARTURIA: Lots of stuff works. Synth-wise, all of the 'Brutes' interface well with a typical (ie: 1V/8va scaling, positive gate/triggers) modular setup, with the Micro and the redone Mini 2 and 2S being really obvious examples, but the Matrixbrute also has loads of connectivity. Can't discount their controllers, either...I use a Keystep with my Digisound 80 these days, plus the BeatStep and BeatStep Pro are great controllers for sequencing or drum-triggering. No surprise here that Arturia's stepping into the Eurorack market with their Rackbrute setups...it seems like their next logical step.

BEHRINGER: Their recent synth, the Model D, has proper connectivity, and the supposedly-coming-soon Neutron has extensive patchability. Presumably, Behringer is reissuing a lot of older gear with certain makeovers and form-factor shrinkage, so it's likely there'll be more that fit the criteria. As to when...ahh, who knows?

ELEKTRON: Their Analog Keys keyboard can output CV/gate for all four of its voices, and even more twisted is the fact that the four CV/gate outputs all have their own dedicated track on the device's built-in multitimbral sequencer. It even speaks both dialects of DINsync and knows how to 'talk' to analog Korg and Yamaha gear, and if you get deep into it, it can even control EML's crazy-ass 1/12V-step synths! To be quite honest, those of you on MG looking for a proper master controller that can handle both the MIDI and modular environments might need to take a serious look at one of these! The Analog Four sequencer/synth also has a similar CV/gate implementation...but, perhaps a bit annoyingly, the Octatrack has no such per-voice outputs. Woulda been nice...also, woulda been nice to have that sort of connectivity in their other stuff, too, since they obviously knew how it should work for the Analog Keys, but MIDI only...ah, well...

FUTURE RETRO: They did the 777 right, I thought...and the XS is a nice patchable monosynth with MIDI-CV/gate conversion and a few extra tricks up its sleeve, a worthy alternative to some of the more mass-market patchables out there these days. But some of the other ideas are just sort of...why? The Revolution seems just obtuse and more for looks than function, and the Mobius is pretty out of the loop (pun intended!) as far as hardware sequencers go these days. Really, if they'd concentrate more or player ergonomics and less on trying to look trippy or whatever, I'm sure they could whip out some killer devices. They have before, after all.

KEITH McMILLEN: It's possible to forget, I suppose, that KMM offers the QuNexus, since they don't do synths. Damn shame, too...because the QuNexus is basically the 'poor man's Roli Seaboard'. It has very similar pressure/position sensing and multiple CV/gate ports, yet it's a mere $179. I suppose most people get these and hook them up to a laptop or tablet, but there's more going on to these than might be suspected.

KORG: Korg has used, since forever, the same Hz/V linear scaling and negative gate/triggers that we all are familiar with in the modern-day MS-20 Mini. But more recently, their gear which has 'sync' I/O uses a very compatible positive clock pulse. So while connecting a Korg up to interface with a current modular might be a PITA without a standard-change module like The Harvestman's English Tear, the sync in many of their recent offerings can link up with sequencer clocks without a hitch. A few Korg devices from way back, though, used something that looks like Roland's DINsync...but isn't, as it wants to see and/or output a 48 ppqn pulse signal. Interestingly, Korg also made a MIDI/DIN sync box that could convert this bidirectionally, and which also could switch between 24 (Roland) and 48 (Korg) ppqn sync signals. Good luck finding one of those rare critters, tho...thankfully, you can get an Elektron Analog Keys as well as a few current modules that can handle this duty.

Also, while on the subject of Korg, it's worth pointing out that their ARP Odyssey reissues behave normally, since they're replications of the original ARP circuits which are, in fact, the origin of our beloved 1V/8va + positive trigger/gate standard. Plus, the SQ-1 (aka 'the best sequencer value out there') can work in Hz/V and negative gate/trig as well as 1V/8va and positive, making it suitable for just about anything you can get your mitts on! I can even hook mine up to my weird Crumar that has 1V scaling but negative gating. Pretty damn sweet for $100!

MOOG: Modern Moogs (except for the modular reissues, weirdly) all use the same CV and gate/trig response we all know. However, it's worth noting that earlier Moog gear often used that weird 'S-Trig' system that Moog was so enamored with (plus some of their modulars also did some nonstandard CV scaling). If you come across one of these, you'll recognize that it has this because of the oddball 2-pin 'Jones' jack on the patch panel. This is usable, but only by devices that can output inverted gate/trigger responses. But that aside, Moog also makes a lot of things with proper CV control besides synths, such as their various effects boxes, and their expression pedal is sort of the 'gold standard' for modular synth pedal controllers. Oh, and not to be forgotten is the fact that two of their theremin models (Theremini and Etherwave+) also output CV, which I've always thought was a neat touch. Lots going on there with Bob's legacy in Asheville...

NOVATION: Most recent Novation stuff is purely MIDI for control...except for one item: the Circuit Mono Station, which can output a channel of CV/gate and also has clocking I/O. And this is an odd little box, given its complicated voice architecture but no proper readout for the sequencer and some other functions. Thankfully, there are third-party solutions to this, but you'd think they could've put SOME kind of little OLED 'postage stamp' on this. Sort of a shame that they don't do more with analog control; back in the day, the BassStation Rack and SuperBassStation both had MIDI-CV/gate conversion as well as CV/gate control and were pretty handy for that in addition to being pretty decent monosynths.

OBERHEIM: Yes, the reissued SEMs in their various flavors are not only interconnectable, they're virtually tiny modulars in of themselves! But get Tom Oberheim near Dave Smith, and the analog flame seems to fade, as their collaboration, the OB-6, has the same not-really analog implementation as the rest of the DSI offerings. Kinda annoying of Doug...after all, Sequential's late lamented Pro-One had loads of connectivity, and they were around back when MIDI was just a French word for 'noon'. But Uli Behringer seems to be floating around this, so...meh.

ROLAND: Roland, actually, has always stuck to the same interfacing format that present-day modulars use. So anything Roland that has CV and gate/trig connections can interconnect 1:1 with your modules; quite some time back, I would use an MC-202 with various other modulars and patchables as a controller/sequencer, and the only thing it wasn't friendly with was, of course, my MS-20...for obvious reasons. However, their idea of sync for a long time was the DINsync standard, a 24 ppqn pulse signal that interfaced via 5-pin DIN sockets, so interfacing a Roland's clock only works with something that can translate DIN to clock pulses, or vice-versa. Note that this DINsync isn't Korg's idea of what that was (see above). Some of their recent VCM-type modelers also offer CV/gate outputs, such as the two channels of that found on the JD-XA. I would think that a modular synth might get a bit creeped out by being hooked up to one of these not-really-analog things they do now, tho...anyway, it was also nice to note the trig-out connection on the TR-8S as it really needs that to be a proper successor to the 808 and 909 (and everything else hiding inside it).

(FYI: an SH-01A + the K-25m = pretty much ½ of an MC-202, since the MC-202 was based on the SH-101, which the SH-01A is meant to be a clone of. All that's missing is 'channel 2' on the sequencer and, natch, the annoying 'chiclet' keyboard. Useful info to remember to avoid forking over buttload$ of ca$h on a vintage '202.)

WALDORF: Everything Waldorf does these days keyboard-wise doesn't interconnect directly to a modular environment, but they've got some boxes that fit into the world 'o patchcords just fine. The Pulse 2 can actually function as a monophonic MIDI-CV/gate converter in addition to being a pretty excellent monosynth desktop module. Definitely something to keep in mind if you need an extra monophonic voice AND a MIDI converter. Another weird thing, connectivity-wise, can be found on their Rocket monosynth box...a filter input, allowing you to use it as a sort-of-a-2pole. And, yes...the 2-pole itself, offspring of the 4-pole and X-pole filter boxes, and a fine sound-processing thing in of itself.

YAMAHA: Actually, the early monophonic CS synths have CV and gate I/O...but with these, you run into the same issues as with the Korg MS synths: Hz/V scaling and inverse gate/trigger response. But this also means that if you have a module (or two) that can translate to that, these will work just the same as the present-day MS-20 Mini. I only mention Yamaha in passing, though, because as far as analog, that's it, no analog connectivity for many years now, not even in the CS version of their Reface line; remember, they gave the world the DX-7, the anti-analog synth bar none and a big part of why lots of synthesists jettisoned their analog gear in the first part of the 1980s. After all, the FYOOCHUR WUZ HEER!!!!...yeah right. Dumb.

Anyway, as far as present-day and recent offerings go (plus a few antiques!) from the MI end of synthesizers and the like, that's about it. Thankfully, these are by no means the only game in town, since quite a few names familiar to those of us on MG are perfectly capable and willing to crank out patchables, sequencers, and control devices that have the modular landscape in mind at all times. But everything above offers interesting possibilities, too, and are worth looking over when building out beyond the modular case.

I think, given what's out there right now, your solution is actually going to be in two modules...

Said two modules are in this build: the Erica Drum Sequencer and the 1010 Music Bitbox 2. This setup allows you to change patterns, sequences, etc on the fly with the Erica, and the Bitbox also allows you to trigger things manually by tapping its touchscreen, in addition to its 16 trigger-ins which matches the Erica's 16 trigger-outs.

Also, since the Bitbox can sample, I placed a Ladik stereo input in front of it. Then, since drums like 'punch', I added a WMD MSCL stereo compressor for the Bitbox's output. Handy metering device next, then a Happy Nerding Isolator, which gives you not only a stereo output at line level, but also transformer-isolates the rig's audio outs to help avoid ground loop and noise problems. The Erica Drum Sequencer isn't priced on here, but if you check their website, it's actually 600 EUR. Slap this mess in a suitably-powered 84 hp cab and it's done for about $2k, maybe a bit less. Should be the sort of thing you're looking for...plenty of on-the-fly playability, buttloads of storage for samples, kits, patterns, and sequences, and compact enough to stick in a backpack, more or less.

Careful...if you sell items, make sure and consider possible future functionality first. In the case of the Sub37, that has a lot that can function well in the direction you're heading. But the Microkorg....not so much so, as it doesn't have the level of connectivity (either physical or sonic) with this new 'universe' as the Moog does. Plus, if the concern is desk space, then it's time to think about a small keyboard stand to move devices onto if they belong there.

But at the same time, there's a sneaky lesson in here as to how a rig starts to grow in size. So also consider the physical expansion factor. You may well wind up beyond the 'all-in-one-bag' result...but the thing to do if that happens (by necessity) is not to try and retrench in the small form factor, but how to grow sensibly into the larger one.

Also, this is the start of where inventiveness plays a big part in a rig's ergonomics. How do you make system growth result in an easier-to-use result, rather than something that's just...well, bigger? For that, I would consider looking at some concepts related to larger UI design and operation; airplane cockpits are a good analogy, as they also consist of numerous indicators and controls, all of which may come into use at any given time. And frankly, this just keeps expanding in scale from that 'seed', since an electronic music studio isn't necessarily as bound to acoustic isolation, massive mix positions, etc as a commercial studio would be. My studio, at this point in time, sort of looks like some sort of industrial process control room, albeit with a mixer and studio monitoring...but then, that makes perfect sense, since composing and performing electronic music on a larger scale is very much like 'process control'.

Don't look at this as 'work', though....just consider it as another part of a 'creative jigsaw puzzle'.

I'm not all that convinced that the Transient+ has a point to it. FR touts it as a 'drum module', but it can obviously do more. But the 'more' that it can do is hampered by an underpowered user interface, a storage maximum of a mere 16 gig, and too much going on behind too few controls. So I'm left thinking that it doesn't make sense at all, and it's another example of FutureRetro having the right concept, but the wrong execution.

Consider: if it's a drum module only, then why should it be so big? Most dedicated drum modules are pretty small. So that screws the Transient+ on that front. Seriously...Erica has a pre-sampled drum module with quite a few drum sound options that fits in just 3 hp. You could cram four of those in the Transient+'s space.

But then, if it's a sampler module, then why is the user interface so hampering and why the limited data ceiling on the microSD? That's not exactly what you'd want to see. Plus, in the same general price range you already have other sampler modules that can kick this thing's butt up one wall and down the other.

Or...if it can do all these functions, how exactly do you make sense of this? True, it's got a menu-driven method which makes use of its OLED 'stamp' screen...but consider what a bitch it'd be to jump around between needed parameters in a live performance situation. This sort of UI might work in the studio, but when you're 'under the gun' before an audience...perhaps not so well, then.

Jared Flickinger just hasn't really managed to nail a lot of his company's recent offerings, IMHO. Take the Zillion. Now, here's something with a lot of promise: an algorithmic sequence generator based on the concepts used in the legendary Triadex Muse. Done right, this would be a required buy for a HUGE segment of the electronic music userbase. But it wasn't done right; the user interface wasn't intuitive (unlike the actual Triadex Muse, amazingly) and certain parts of the operation were hampered by a reliance on external MIDI cues...again, unlike the Triadex Muse, which was self-regulating once its parameters had been set. In the end, you got a product that was a niche-type curiosity when compared to what it was initially claiming to be. And ultimately, why would I (or anyone) do this with hardware, anyway? In Ableton Live, there's tons of tools that can do what the Zillion was supposed to...and they fit in the same computer as part of the same DAW being used to create works using both internal software and external hardware. And they're already paid for when you bought the DAW in the first place.

So, frankly, I wouldn't go with any version of this. Look either at more upscale at offerings such as the Orthagonal ER-301 or the 1010 Bitbox+ if you're trying to get at what the Transient+ is supposed to be about...or, as you noted, just assemble the various necessary functions from more basic modules. Either way, you get more to work with.

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.

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!

EDITED Apr 7th 2018, 04:54

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

EDITED Apr 3rd 2018, 23:29

Looks excellent to me, too...and as someone who's worked with builds incorporating the MB2, damn convenient, too! Kudos!

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!

EDITED Apr 3rd 2018, 23:02

Whupped on it...

There was some stuff in there that was superfluous, I though; the Metropolis internally quantizes, there were a couple of unnecessary buffered mults, the Mixups seemed a bit much alongside the QuadrATT (they're not all that stereo...more like glorified TriATTs, really), and the layout was kinda hodge-podged.

The result I came up with is above, natch. The ordering is clearer now (audio on upper 3U row, control/modulation on the lower, and the output section and processing modules are now all together on the right). I also reoriented the Rings so that it can also be in position as a second 'filter', added a quad VCA/mixer (with switchable log/lin response), and jammed in more envelopes as there was only that single Function. Control section flows better, too...Pamela's left to act as the 'master clock/modulator', then the Marbles and Kinks as those pair nicely, and the Metropolis. Also, I tinkered with the tile row, reordering that so that the reverb is right by the I/O now, and the headphone jack is far-right to help keep the headphone cable out of the pile of patchcabling all over everything else.

The idea now is that you'd want to use the QuadrATT to submix as well as to split off individual attenuators as needed, plus the quad VCA module can be dealt with in the same way. The Magneto and Clouds are more or less reversable; they can be switched around to whatever order plays better, but at the same time this places them to output directly to the I/O, chaining one into the other; I like the 'mangle-then-delay' configuration, but you might find the other way around works better for you. Seems a bit more cohesive now, tho...

...instead of a DIY kit, which means that you build the module yourself from directions, a bare PC board, individual electronic components, a panel and controls, and wire the whole mess up yourself with lots of soldering. Right. That's more what 'DIY' means 'round these parts, pilgrim.

OK, enough John Wayne for one day there...basics for under $1000, if possible, and definitely sub-$2000. Can it be done? Mmmmaybe. The initial stumbling block there involves the case and power supply, and while you can 'low-ball' a case, trying to go cheap on power components is a BAD idea. Power components can cause lots of damage if they fail, depending on how they fail. And current capacity is important, because you want to exceed the draw caused by the modules by enough headroom to assure that the power supply isn't overtaxed, which can lead to component failure and such. Also, one neglected bit here are power distro boards. Having filtering on the distribution rails is critical, as it helps reduce induced crud and noise on the rails as well as potential crosstalk between modules connected to it.

Right now, the best start-up case value is probably Arturia's Rackbrute 3U, which gives you a nice one-row cab with 88 hp (83 after their power supply goes in) and a consistently well-built power supply with ample amperage capacity for that single row. So, let's build with that.

Next, you'll need sources. These are the various 'generators' that output raw audio signals at the head of the chain. One is OK...but two is better, because there's a lot that can be done by syncing, crossmodulating, and detuning them against each other to achieve useful results beyond what most single VCOs can do. However, what I suggest is a fairly complex VCO as one, and something simpler as the other; this gives you a 'voice' VCO and a 'modulation' VCO, which works well in the way I mentioned above. Follow this with a mixer to combine the signals, but also add in a ring modulator so that the VCOs can be combined to create complex sum-and-difference sideband FM, if desired (if? hell, you'll desire it, no doubt!). That's the 'generator' stage.

Then we head into 'modifiers', things which alter timbral complexity and impose amplitude changes. Namely, filters, waveshapers, and VCAs. For a starting cab, one VCF with some interesting tricks is fine, as is a simple waveshaper. As for VCAs, though...this will find you wanting multiple VCAs, because some of these have uses for controlling control amplitudes as well as audio. Plus, if you can throw in a mixer, bonus. All easily done, as you'll see...

Next comes modulation sources, the 'controllers': LFOs and envelopes, plus a few other bits of trickery. Not many of these are needed for something this simple, but they're definitely key to making this work. And after that, 'processors', which includes any effects and the final mixer and output stage.

Basically, that's the block arrangement for ANY synthesizer: generator feeds modifier, both controlled by controllers and the results sent to the final processor. Any synth built along the 'classic' lines follows this simple four-part scheme. Granted, there's variations...but at the most basic level, these are the four parts that makes a synth a synth. For now, I'm going to leave drums and sequencing (sources and controllers respectively, fyi) out of this little build just to make the point clear and give you a good basic suggestion that follows the above narrative...so bear with me whilst I put my builder hat on...

Voila! Now, this is really basic, and while I couldn't bring it under $1000, it does come in at just under $2000 ($1923, to be exact, at normal retail prices).

If you look, this one-row synth is laid out exactly like the above example, with a couple of extra bits, those being a slew limiter (to allow glide-type effects for the VCO, VCF, or whatever shifting voltage you might want to smooth. It also only has an output stage, since the intent of the Quad VCA is to split the unit up into a couple of individual VCAs for control purposes, and a couple of others as a 2-channel VCA mixer, which then feeds directly to the output at the far right. This build here is a prime example of a very simple monosynth in Eurorack form: 2 VCOs, ring mod, waveshaper, VCF, 4 VCAs, 2 LFOs, 2 envelope generators (loopable), an output and a slew limiter, plus necessary mixing and attenuation for manipulating signal combinatins and levels. All you'd need to play this would be a keyboard that outputs CV and gate/trigger, such as Arturia's $119 Keystep, which also gives you a sequencer.

So, this is how a beginning one-row should look: these 'blocks', this sort of signal-flow (which happens when you follow a cohesive build pattern, instead of dropping modules in aimlessly), and so on. Your results may vary, of course, likely depending on which case size you opt to go with and what power supply seems right for it. My suggestion with those, however, would be to not do what I did here, and jam the rack out tightly from end to end. Instead, you should start with a bigger rack, because as you accumulate modules, ideas will present themselves as to how to expand those modules' capabilities, and then you'll need that extra room to expand these new modules into, as suggested by those ideas.

Also...take your time. More time spent with a resource like MG will allow you to examine all possibilities and refine your build before spending a cent, and that'll help when it does come time to drop some cash. Study other users' racks. See what works...and what clearly doesn't. Get your idea clearly fixed before you take the plunge with the Magic Plastic.

EDITED Apr 3rd 2018, 02:39

Hmm...a question: by DIY, if you don't mean a full kit (PCB, parts, panel), are you just looking for the PC boards themselves, or...? Or not DIY at all?

Hey, kids...insomnia is fun! It probably played a part in this piece of crazy:

Basically, I got thinking about the above and, coupled with the general inability to sleep that's been something of a plague over the past few months, I got inspired. This build is sort of 'West Coast gone horribly wrong'...the architecture is similar, but this incorporates the core idea you had about cross-wiring the Morphagene and Telharmonic. The notion proved too attractive to not play with.

So, yeah...there's an external in with an envelope follower, so you can derive CVs from amplitude. Then there's this composite oscillator-fiasco-thing: a TZFM VCO, a Mysterion (MakeNoise's waveguide modeler), and a Telharmonic. And between each, a DC-coupled mixer and a VCable dual polarizer, which allows both attenuation and inversion under voltage control. The idea here is to interconnect all of these things and create a composite not-exactly-oscillator-device, a sound source way more complex, crazed, and full of potential than any typical Buchla or Serge complex oscillator setup. Madness!

Triple VCA/mixer after this 'generator' section gets us into 'modifier' territory. And first up is Happy Nerding's utterly-bonkers FM Aid, a diabolical little thing that allows something akin to through-zero modulation with any audio source, which is simply nuts! The Doepfer uVCO next to it is there to provide a carrier signal for the FM Aid and can be used in either VCO or LFO mode. Then there's this filter-atrocity...a Doepfer A-106-1 (Sallen-Key Korg MS-20-style pair), which has an insert point in its resonance loop. Then there's a Chronoblob. Now, that thing is for the A-106-1's insert, to add a 'time lag' into the resonance path. BUT WAIT! There's MORE...the state-variable filter next to that is for the Chronoblob's insert point, this time allowing a VCF into the delay's feedback path. So these three modules are actually intended, in this very irresponsible and totally mad build, to work as a single unit, just like the whole 'generator' section. Again, this is way beyond normal West Coast, even though the cross-modulation idea is present here, too...albeit in a very insane way! Last up is very West Coast, though: a MakeNoise Optomix, two low-pass gates which mix the top row's voicing results together into one very out-there mono signal.

Then the bottom row. A noise gen and sample-and-hold sit next to Mutable Instruments newest chaotic device, the Marbles...you'll just have to read up on this one; it makes the Buchla Source of Uncertainty seem as predictable as DB's train schedule! Three VC Slope gens next, for sort of a Maths-and-a-half of that sort of thing, and then the quad LFOs of the Batumi. A Dual VCA rounds the 'modulator' section out, allowing modulation sources to alter other modulation signals' amplitudes.

And the 'processor' stage. Now, this has MakeNoise's triumvirate of processors, in a specific order. First, the Phonogene allows weird loop/screw-with/delay/sample behavior in mono. This gets handed off to the Erbe-verb, which not only allows addition of reverb (and a lot of tinkering with it!), it also provides a stereo image from the Phonogene's mono signal, so that the Morphagene has a full stereo signal to chew up and spit out through its granular/scrambly methods. I put these all down below the latter half of the voicing row so that that part's signal can go directly in, and having them up front means you have a better ability to play the processors (and modulators) manually without having to address the voice row specifically to alter things...but at the same time, the key VCF controls are directly above this, and these would be the most likely-to-be-messed-with controls besides the processors'. The whole thing goes directly to a stereo out, which provides a convenient headphone amp and also a second stereo input in case you want/need to parallel the Erbe-verb and Morphagene and mix one in and out of the other.

No, no multiples. I went jam-packed on this mutha, so my suggestion there would be to make use of either inline mults, stackable 3.5mm cables, or both when you need to multiple off of an output. Naturally, never mult outs together. Very bad. May make module go boom. Spendy. Bad burnt electronic smell. Ick. Also, no power supply on the panel; this was done with an Erica 126 x 6U cab in mind, which has built-in serious power, plus even with that and the big size, still only comes in at 480 EUR.

The idea? Make an instrument specific to that initial idea of yours. Not merely a modular synth; this build/bit of craziness contains segments intended to work as integral elements in four specific blocks, as I mentioned. I tried here to optimize the initial concept, throw together some crucial West Coast architecture concepts along with a little graveyard dust and black cat bones for the hoodoo factor, and see what emerged. And this was it, and damned if it doesn't seem like a SERIOUSLY interesting concept. Frankly, this was one of those things that I wouldn't mind building one of for myself...and I think I could guarantee that what I did with it would be totally personal and unlike anyone else's music realized on it.

Anyway, to answer that question above: no, not a founder. Just a long-time user of electronics for musical purposes. Of the around 50 years I've been involved in music in my lifetime, 40 of those have involved electronic or electroacoustic devices of some sort or another, sort of in conjunction with my time spent as a composer. It's...well, kinda what I do. Except while asleep...which, as I noted, I'm not right now.

EDITED Apr 2nd 2018, 10:23

Hmmm...speaking of 'bad manners'....

Here's an idea: take out the SSF noise source and replace it with a Ladik A-530 dual line input preamp. Then remove the 2hp sample and hold and replace it with a Zlob Entropy, which gives you a S&H circuit plus three noise colors in just 2 hp. Nails it! You definitely want an output module; the signal levels coming out of the modular need to be stepped down to line level from the higher levels in the synth itself. Plus that Ladik output has the plus feature of MOAR BLINKKY LITEZ!!!

As for the power starvation...no, don't do that. The idea behind it is that the lower voltage level (such as from a worn-out battery) will result in some interesting sound characteristics, and while that works well with more robust circuitry like stompboxes (especially fuzz, overdrive and the like), my concern would be that the more twiddly circuitry of a typical Eurorack module might not be too happy with the lowered voltages, and the results could potentially be tragic. Some modules, obviously, would be a good candidate for this, but pretty much nothing in my version of the build would fall into that category. In fact, even in your version, only the Optodist comes to mind as something that the ADDAC 300 would play nice with.

Basically, if the power specs say +12 and -12, make sure you're feeding those voltages to your modules. They (and you) will be happier in the long run if you give them what they want.

Actually, think about it a LOT more. Even back in the days when you'd only have a couple dozen modules from the manufacturer you'd opted to build a system from, getting that end-result right tended to take a lot of time, study, crumpled-up paper wads, hair-pulling, and confusing e.e.-type considerations that most musicians were ill-prepared for. Now, in the wild and wacky days of Eurorack, there's about 6,000 modules, it doesn't matter who made them because they all work together, and you have an unlimited choice of cabs from tiny to room-filling. Technically, that should make matters MORE confusing, but since you also have the awesomeness of a huge user-base, resources like MG here, and firms making stuff that's light-years improved from the bad ol' days of early analog, the confusion level seems about the same (if not a little less, actually). But there's no substitute for putting an initial version together, then whittling the hell out of it to come up with a well-optimized result!

Also, I really suggest looking closely at the great monosynths of history, and seeing why it is, exactly, that they're still coveted items. People crave things like ARP 2600s and Odysseys, Minimoogs, Pro-Ones and the like not merely for their sound; these synths also 'got it right'...their ergonomics, playability, rational layouts and so forth are a big part of why users still pay big bucks for them.

Take your time. Research things. The care you put into creating any instrument will reward you years on after you finally assemble it.

I took it out back 'n' beat 'er with an ugly stick!

OK, this seems better. All of the voicing is up top, control and modulation is down. I yanked a few things you didn't have already for some improvements:

The Sub Ring. This thing gives you a few more options for mixing, plus it can provide suboctaves and act as a second ring mod source. The suboctaves are the important part, though; if you're doing heavy bass work, nothing punches the crap out of it like an octave-down or two.

VCAs. Yep, there they are. Your problem with them was kind of obvious: no exponential VCAs, plus no actual envelopes. Put those two together, and that's what gives you that 'THWACK' that only a good, snappy attack thru an exponential VCA can get. Why? Well, a linear VCA changes gain based on a linear mathematical relationship with the control signal. But an exponential works on a 'law of squares'-type model, resulting in more abrupt dynamic changes. So a typical sharp envelope attack into a linear VCA is sort of 'sound turns on', but into an exponential it's more like 'sound punches WAY UP'. The Quad VCA has the extra plus of being able to vary its VCAs behaviors between these two, so with a little creativity you can have a whole continuum of 'smooth' to 'OW!'

Power. Try the Row Power 40 instead. Having more current headroom is a good thing, because the farther you can get from maximum load capacity on your p/s, the less thermal wear you'll have. Result: more reliability over time. Never use a supply where your supply capacity is anywhere near the current draw on any rail. ALWAYS leave plenty of headroom for unexpected current issues, such as switch-on inrush loads, etc. The uZeus is great for single skiff builds, but if you've got something more on this size, go big or go home is the rule of the day.

Yes, envelopes. Erica's kickass dual EG/LFO gives you a pair of ADSRs (which you'll want for audio and filter cutoffs, to be sure), plus if needed, these envelope curves can cycle, giving you two more modulation sources in addition to the Maths. And in order to make that fit better, I scrunched the output down to a 4 hp Ladik that also gives you metering on your output level. You'll need to watch your input level to that, as it has no attenuation, but if you need that feature, Ladik has other output modules (as do other makers) that fit the slot that provide an attenuator.

Flow now makes loads more sense. Left to right on audio chain, control/modulation upwards into that. Power next to MIDI, to avoid placement near any audio hardware, in case (not likely, but still...) of any power-line crud that might try and creep into your audio. All input and output is on the bottom, at the ends. Looks more playable as an instrument now. Howzzat?

EDITED Apr 2nd 2018, 04:29

Actually, when loading images I always use what might seem to be a crappy format: 72 dpi .jpg. However, you have to remember that MG processes the image itself to fit whichever rack format and width it needs, so large files could actually be more problematic for MG itself, resulting in the rescaled image looking off while the module page looks better. Try giving the site something smaller to chew on and see if that works.

Counter-intuitive, yeah...but it seems to do the trick.

Nice work there...as for that final 18hp hole, my suggestion would be a Chronoblob delay and, provided it fits, a Doepfer A-199 spring reverb. And, of course, you can tie those two together by patching the reverb into the Chronoblob's insert in its feedback path, yielding some interesting results.

But also, I'd chop up that output into two other possibilities, both from Erica: their DSP, which is a mono-in/stereo-out effects processor to 'stereoize' your overall sound, and their Out, because you (of course) need that output stage to step your levels down. Doesn't have the nifty dual 1/4" jacks, but still does the job.

As for reliable, top-shelf kitwork, several firms come to mind: Elby, Synthrotek, Random*Source, and Erica again. It's also worth a plunge into Synthcube to see what's in there, as a lot of tiny DIY firms work through them.

Yep...the 'no price' stuff comes first. Next is modules which have a price derived from currency conversion. And the last are ones which have a 'solid' price depending on which currency you're using.

Hmmm...OK, the idea of modulating with the Batumi would work if the Batumi could tune to the whole audio range. But I don't think that's the case; it's definitely more of a quad LFO. I'm gonna tinker with something here...hang on...

Classic West Coast architecture. I used a 126 hp Erica skiff which has a depth of only 60mm (45, effectively), so a couple of these exceed the depth spec. Basically, this is just for example purposes...

Left: this is the random/noise/sample and hold part. Don Buchla came up with this amazing randomness-redistribution module called the 'Source of Uncertainty', and the Doepfer A-149-1 is a Eurorack version of this. It allows stochastic distribution of randomness, instead of the unweighted sort you get from noise alone. Of course, we also have noise (a few different 'colors') and a normal S&H as well to interact with this and create a fairly comprehensive random function source altogether.

VCOs next. Now, the two main ones, as you can see, have a polarizing mixer between them. This can also output offset voltages, and it's key to how to make the two main VCOs interact. By combining modulating signals between the VCOs at either audio OR low frequencies (which all of these oscillators can do), you arrive at the complex sound spectra that's key to Buchla and other West Coast-type sound. A dual VCA plus a third oscillator is there, also, in order to intertwine those devices into the crossmod functionality, plus the third, simpler VCO can serve as a third modulation source when needed.

After that, of course, a waveshaper. This does the final spectral shaping prior to the low-pass gates. The next few modules are all transient generators. There's three of the classic Serge-derived A-171-2s; these are CVable slope generators, and can act as slews, oscillators, LFOs, or EGs, depending on how they're programmed and being used. After that, four AD envelopes. Buchla actually didn't utilize the now-common ADSR envelopes, preferring to rely on the LPG's vactrols (or, back in the early days, lamps-and-photocells) to create the release response. The harder the LPG would get 'hit', the longer the release, and also the higher the low-pass filter's cutoff would go upon attack. And natch, after those comes the lowpass gates...two Optomixes, MakeNoise's take on Don's classic circuit. A CVable panner/mixer follows to merge the two Optomixes into a mono signal, or to take one Optomix and CV-pan it between two stereo channels.

Then reverb, of course. Have to have that. It was key to the Buchla 100 sound, in fact. And then into an output stage, which also has a pair of AUX outs to allow something from the final part of the audio chain to be sent back to some other point to, yep, use as a modulation source. All of these modulation possibilities are key to the whole idea behind Buchla's sound, especially in the 100 series and the beginnings of the 200 series.

Now, if you notice something missing here...yep, you're right, there's several things missing! Most glaringly, no VCF! That's also a Buchla thing; Don really didn't want to do the subtractive method of synthesis that VCFs are key to. Instead, his idea...and the underpinning of West Coast methods...was to create complex spectra by crossmodulation and then shape that result into a final signal. If this were a proper West Coast synth, in fact, you wouldn't even have the audio connectable to the control signal path. This was only really a thing on the early Buchla 100 modules, and Don abandoned this gradually so that he could keep audio at normal line levels and have only the control signals at the higher, synth-level voltages.

No mults, either. After Buchla went over to banana connections, these weren't necessary. And on the Serge, they never existed at all, because the whole thing used stackable bananas, with all paths at the same signal levels.

If this seems...odd, well, you're right. It is, compared to the more common 'East Coast' subtractive method, which relies on many mixers, VCFs, loads of control devices such as dedicated LFOs or complex envelope generators to gradually 'pare down' sounds to the desired result. But these days, thankfully, Eurorack gives us ways to combine both ideas; Tony Rolando certainly nailed it when he called MakeNoise's patchable the '0-coast', because once you start combining these two working paradigms, you really do get this 'not exactly either one' result that's, well, really interesting.

But yeah...that thing at the top of this post is pretty much classic West Coast, albeit built with a lot of modules that don't connect together like yr.typ. West Coast stuff. But that's how it should work, basically.

EDITED Apr 2nd 2018, 00:01

Starting with a minimally-sized rack isn't useful. Trust me. It's always better to have room to grow into, because what will invariably happen is that you'll realize something about your first build that could be improved on by the addition of a few other modules. But without open space for those to fit into...well, you'd be kinda stuck. If you come up with a build that fits into, say, one row of 104 hp, then have two rows of that space, because you'll find all sorts of ways to expand that first 104 hp row's capabilities and without a way to act on those ideas, you'll be shortchanging yourself creatively. Versteh?

And here, we're going to run headlong into that limitation...

OK, if the idea here is to work along West Coast lines, you need to keep in mind that that method entails crossmodulating things at audio frequencies to get very complex spectra. Don Buchla's methods involved taking really simple oscillators and providing a number of different ways that they could modulate each other. Have a look at some obviously West Coast oscillators, for example: the MakeNoise DPO, Sputnik's Dual Oscillator, Radical Frequencies' Dual Precision Oscillator, or Verbos' Complex Oscillator. In all cases, the module contains both the oscillators and a lot of options to crossmodulate these under differing types of control. While the Cloud Terrarium is an awesome oscillator, it's not exactly set up like that; that module is more of a wavetable-scanning type of oscillator, which is cool in of itself (just ask Wolfgang Palm and the folks at Waldorf) but not exactly suited to 'pure' West Coast. You could include it alongside that sort of synth architecture as an incoming source, but as the sole source in this sort of synth, it's not exactly right.

Next up, West Coast derives a lot of its sound from the use of low-pass gates to shape the final amplitude and timbre. These are circuits that combine a low-pass filter and a VCA under the same modulation control signal. The idea behind these was to create a circuit that behaved how an acoustic source did when a sound decays: higher partials fall out faster than lower, and by the use of a vactrol, the decay gets shaped in a similar way as a resonating object in which vibrations decay over time. In theory. But in actuality, there's loads of ways to make totally unnatural sounds with LPGs, especially more recent ones that offer some controls that Don Buchla didn't either consider or have access to back in his day.

Maths definitely fits the West Coast scheme as a modulation source. It's actually a derivation of a Serge module, the Dual Universal Slope Generator; the Serge was a follow-on to Buchla's 100 and 200 series ideas, with a lot of rethinking of how signal flow should work and a stronger reliance on filtering for spectral shaping than in Don's earlier systems. In a way, the Buchla is the 'San Francisco' synth and the Serge is the 'Los Angeles' synth: similar, but definitely different. The Batumi, though...that's more akin to a typical LFO, albeit in a four-pack module. To get closer to a West Coast method for envelopes and modulators, you'll want a bunch of AD, AR, or ASR-type envelopes in which you can vary the 'rise' and 'fall' times, plus have a lot of triggering and cycling options. By combining these with the low-pass gates I mentioned above, then you get right into that West Coast 'pocket', sound-wise.

As for the Erbe-verb...the key to a lot of the early Buchla sounds, especially in the 100 series, was reverb. Back then, Don used a spring, because that's what fit into the space of the 100 cabs of the day. The Erbe-verb is actually an extremely complex digital device, but not at all out of line for the sound in a modern-day context. It allows the modulation schemes found in West Coast methods to also affect the reverb parameters to the same sort of complexity as other devices in a typical West Coast signal chain.

The Morphagene, though...that's a whole different thing. With that and the Phonogene, Tony Rolando is offering a modular take on concrete-type sound manipulation, either of sounds in the synth or ones coming in from outside. It's neither East nor West, but more like Paris, where Pierre Schaeffer first envisioned his Phonogene device for altering sounds as they travelled along a tape loop, to allow a more 'playable' aspect to tape methods, which are normally anything BUT playable. As for the Morphagene, it combines ideas from that plus granular methods from digital source manipulation, so it's a bit less Schaeffer and more Francois Bayle or Jean-Claude Risset in that aspect. It's not really West Coast, therefore, but it fits really well into the experimentally-oriented sound of the West Coast methods.

So...how to proceed? I suggest taking a bit of a stop to study the different modules on MG, but also having a look at Buchla's present-day website (https://buchla.com) as well as the outside-maintained site for Serge (http://serge-fans.com) so you can get a better handle on the contexts behind the whole West Coast thing. Eventually, you'll see the connection between the 'originals' and the Eurorack derivations of those, and that should result in a better-informed position from where to start.

Then start with a bigger case.

EDITED Mar 31st 2018, 22:52

Yerwelcome! For me, this is working from experience; having been working with different types of electronic instrumentation for about 40 years now, ranging from cobbled-together breadboards and bits up to drool-worthy modular systems, I'm just real used to how these things should work. But there's a few things I routinely do:

1) Cluster the functions. I always try to get the different module functions in the same general areas. That way, you know where the thing you're looking for in general is going to be, and you can move around and patch very rapidly once the layout's learned...which, again, this clustering makes easy.

2) Follow a model that works. As a rule, my overall layouts follow a distinct order of function placement, which is actually based on a still-coveted classic that I've used off and on since 1980: the ARP 2600. When you get a chance, have a look at one, then compare this build to that. The ARP 2600 is such a desirable synth because not only does it sound great, it has an easily-navigable layout. You know where the VCOs are (upper left), the filter is (dead-center), and the VCA and reverb is (right end), with various modifying things on the lower tier of submodules. I recall a quote in Mark Vail's 'Vintage Synthesizers' book: "It's the only synth I can play when I'm drunk."...and there's very good reasons for that! Also, I find it a bit telling that two companies that built huge modular systems (namely, Moog and ARP) first then wound up going with much the same layout in their first portables (Minimoog and 2600, respectively): VCO->VCF->VCA, left to right, and control placed convenient to all of these.

3) Build to scale. These days, it's possible to get teensy modules with massive functions, and they're great when you're building in a tight space. On the other hand, if you're doing a big studio rig, go big with the modules. But make sure your form factors always fit the cab they're being chosen for. You want as much function as you can jam into the space you've specced out.

It also helps, probably, that ambient is what I've concentrated on musically in one way or another since the early 1980s. So I have a good idea of what'll function properly for that, and can choose accordingly.

As for the mixers in the tile row: yep, you got it. The Mix-A is DC-coupled, and a linear DC-coupled VCA is next to it. But the Mix-B is AC-coupled, and needed an exponential, AC-coupled VCA for its audio-only path. But that being said, you can easily use the two different VCAs as percussive amplitude control for differently-weighted noise types off of that Zlob module, with the linear one giving you a softer transient response and the exponential being perfect for hard, fast 'snaps'. And then, you just play the FSR's like teensy-weensy bongos!

Tinkered with it a little:

The original had pretty much everything necessary, mission-wise, but there were a few issues, which I tried to clear up here. The layout was...confusing. Made my head hurt. Everything was all over the place and it looked downright confusing as to signal paths, patch flow, etc, so I reordered everything with a few things getting changed in the course. All of the synth voicing is on top now (with the needed buffered mult), then the next row has the modulation sources and playable effects, plus a stereo 6-channel VCA mixer, giving you ten total VCAs. Note also that I kinda 'shrunk' the Linix into a Doepfer A-132-2, which does much the same thing but which saved a good chunk of space. The mult got changed, too; this SSSR passive can be switched between 2x4 and 1x8, which is actually a handy function if you're doing a lot of sequencing and bouncing around a lot of modulation for which you need a 1x8, but can be changed back to a more typical 2x4 with a switch-flip instead of losing a pair of mult points when you need the whole thing on one signal. Also, the Clouds went away because, unless you've already got one, it's not gettable except either used or as a third-party build, plus there's plenty of playable FX there to go nuts with already.

Sequencing and drums on the bottom, clustered appropriately. The drums now also have a submixer, which can be inputted to the second stereo in on the HN output module. And the power supplies are now contiguous, to allow an easy jumper from the lower to the upper. Definitely makes more sense now; you can easily see how the patch flow should work, which is a real plus if you're going to gig out with this build. Buttloads of VCAs now, too...aside of the onboards on the Atlantis and M303, the system now has ten, with four being purely for CVs under a tandemmed CV control (like the Linix) and six more on the stereo mixer for audio. Makes this a doable build for both studio AND live now!

EDITED Mar 30th 2018, 23:29

Yuppers...ALL rails need to be inside whatever safety window you choose, not just the +12 or whatever. The triple-output supplies used in Eurorack aren't capable of pulling the 'extra' from another rail that's not being used. Treat a Eurorack supply as three discrete supplies, and it makes more sense. In fact, some large-scale builders will actually use just that: three separate supplies dedicated to each rail, each one massively overspecced for the current draws found in really large systems.

OK, back to modules...we've got 7U x 84 to play with here, and the Magneto and Lo-Fi are 'givens'. Lemme screw around with this for a hot minute...

Easy-peasy. Now, this thing is set up for two discrete voices, both with the same general signal chain: Plaits + Doepfer A-111-3, so two VCOs per voice. The Quad VCA allows you to mix/amplitude control them by splitting the module by outputting from Out 2 and Out 4. Waveshaper and ring mod after that, then two Ripples to match the VCO compliment with identical VCFs. Then we have a 3xVCA and a 3xMIA for various expanded mixing/control methods. The 3xMIA also can serve as an inverter, offset source, and so on.

Next row. I put in the FH-1 I'd mentioned before as a USB host module for the Digitakt, but it can also work with other devices needing a USB host, or a computer with an adapter that allows that to connect to the FH-1. Also from Expert Sleepers is the Disting mk4, a fantastic Swiss Army Knife device, great in a small build for multifunctions. The little blue thing is a Zlob module that contains a noise source as well as the always-useful sample and hold. Then modulation sources: Batumi (4 LFOs in 10 hp) and a Quadra (4 AD or AR envelopes with looping). You know the next two, of course, and then a Mixup for a stereo out (to make proper use of the Magneto's stereo capabilities). And, oh yeah...the Row Power 40, which gives you 300 mA of extra current headroom on the +12v rail and 250 mA on the -12. A little tight for my tastes, but quite within m1sterlurk's suggested current tolerances.

The tile row is where I got artful, tho...first up is an insert module, like I'd talked about above for putting a stompbox into the signal chain, but it can also be used as an external preamp for outside signals. Then there's the neat stuff. You'll note the mixer tiles, first up...CV on left, audio on right. Now, beside those I placed the appropriate VCA, then FSRs, and last, an AR envelope.

How that works is that it gives you a force-sensor-controlled VCA for a group of summed control voltages on the left, and for the same in audio signals on the right. BUT WAIT! There's MORE...since the FSRs also output a gate, I added the AR envelopes so that you can also trigger those from the FSR's gate to send elsewhere...or even to the VCAs along with the FSRs, since the VCA tiles have dual CV inputs. This gives you an interesting control option that wasn't there before, but there was very much a hint at in the original build, and it also provides a tactile percussion interface, since you can also use the FSR/VCA/AR combo with a very short envelope and some noise, etc to tap out little noise-burst percussion bits.

And of course, your stereo output tile pair closes it out. Lots of possible patch-in for the Model-D here, plays nice with the Digitakt, and loads of sound potential in an itsy-bitsy cab. Works?

EDITED Mar 30th 2018, 22:15

Well, we've just about reached the end of March and I'm killing time waiting for Ableton to get done munching on a huge multitrack set. Soooo...you know what it's time for: KICK ASS! March 2018 edition, in which I round up the best of the promising new modules on ModularGrid. So let's jump right into the fray, shall we?

1) Schlappi Engineering Interstellar Radio. The name's a little misleading; for those of you expecting something like the Radio Music or Evaton's shortwave receiver...nope, this ain't that. What it is, though, is this hideous, sound-ruining monstrosity that should be a must-have for anyone doing harsh noise, power electronics, old-school industrial, glitch or no-fi, and anything else musically harmful along those lines! I saw all of the demos of this, and it is apparently totally incapable of behaving nicely. It's 14 hp of sonic HATE...and if you're the sort that loves to attack listeners' hearing and sensibilities, you have GOT TO have one of these. “Merzbow, the home game version” in a module? Spot-frickin-ON! Strap one of these onto a chain of Gristleizer modules, and expect Homeland Security to come knockin' PDQ.

2) Mutable Instruments Plaits. Braids is back...and BETTER! More functions, smaller size, and cheaper to boot. Olivier Gillet has given us what he feels is the 'perfected' version of Mutable's much-loved digital VCO. I'm not disagreeing! A total redesign of the original, adding new operation modes and 100% LFO capability. Not much explaining necessary here; you all know what this is. Give 'em your money NOW!

3) Alchemical Audio Touch Plate Controller. Presumably designed for Moog's Eurorack offerings, this control surface clearly has more possible uses than that. And it has its own 12V input, too, meaning you can use it separately in a specially-designed case. Not a lot of info, either on MG or their Facebook page, but the functionality appears pretty obvious, and for only $150. Yeah, touch controllers on this scale are usually spendy things, but this blows that trend. Knowing the general inventiveness of the Eurorack crowd, I just know that some of you are going to latch onto one of these and take it off in a whole new direction. And it even OUTPUTS MIDI...which, to me, feels like an excuse to bust out Max for Live and build something interesting for it.

4) Aemit EVC Filter. EVC stands for 'Everything Voltage Controlled'. They ain't lyin'! Plus, this is kind of unusual in that it's a 4-pole state-variable; you usually see 2-pole versions of this, so that one detail ups the sonic game. Plus, two of these can be tandem-controlled by Aemit's EVC+ expander, making the possible uses and results even wilder. This demands a second look from anyone looking to get a really new filter sound from their build. A little spendy, perhaps, but I get the impression that you'd be getting what you're paying for here.

5) Klavis Mixwitch. This is a strange one. Is it a mixer? Yes. Is it a signal switch? Yes again. Is it a CV processor? Yup. Is it a randomizer? Yeah, it's that as well. Basically, if you do a lot of tinkering with elaborate modulation schemes, you're going to want one of these puppies. It's another one of those 'Swiss Army Knives', this time for tampering with loads of control applications. Also, those into the generative sequencing thing will find oodles of uses for this, due to its random control signal switching ability. So odd, but so brilliant!

6) Gibbon Digital ALAK. One of the stranger and smaller pattern sequencers I've seen. The ALAK uses geometrical shapes across four tracks, rotating the shapes in a circular pattern on its circular sequencing matrix to get the triggers to fire. Plus, you can alter the shapes on the fly via a phase-change adjustment to skew the geometrically-based behavior. It looks simple enough...but it's got functionality hidden in it in spades! Again, the generative-school folks should have a look into this one!

7) SOMA Synths LYRA-8 FX. OK, stop right here. Go and find a demo video for the LYRA-8. Watch what the effect section does to/for the sound. Amazing, right? The LYRA-8 is one of the very best drone synths around right now, and this module is the 'voodoo' behind it, now for use anywhere in a Eurorack system. If you watched the LYRA-8's videos, I really shouldn't have to explain much more what this module's capable of. Downright amazing...a 'gotta-get' for the drone or ambient crowds, or anyone else who likes the lo-fi delay-warp sound of the LYRA-8.

8) Tinrs Wobbler. Good lord...the tricks this thing has up its sleeve! Calling this just an LFO really doesn't scratch the surface of the modulation mojo this thing's about. There's some modulation models in this that people are going to drool over, such as the 'twang' curves, the double-pendulum mode, and all of the other trickery that it's capable of using to create modulation behavior, some of which would take several modules to pull off otherwise. And it also does random functions, too...and way more. The real shock, though, is that this all fits in only 12 hp! What...the...HELL!? So, basically, if you're designing something small and portable, this might well be THE complex modulation source, but it's got abuse potential in a large rig, too. Another 'you gotta see it to believe it' module, this.

9) 2hp Pluck. OK, we all know that the point of 2hp's stuff is that it fits into...well, 2 hp. But many of their devices work nicely in large-scale builds, too, to add a dash of extra capabilities in a teensy space. This, however, is way beyond anything I'd expect in 2 hp: a Karplus-Strong modeled voice in, yep, 2 hp. Totally amazing, really. Most physical modelers are much larger affairs, but this tiny little thing pulls it off in the absolute minimum (OK, yeah, it's not 1 hp, but what do you seriously expect?) of space and makes exploring this synthesis mode a 'why not?' sort of situation. So...why not?

10) G-Storm Electro DC571. Brilliant! A two-channel, 80s-style compressor in just 8 hp. The modular drum crowd's going to eat these up, I should think, because it's a small-space solution for making drum sounds really pound, adding both some distortion (if you overdrive it) and 'glue' for whatever it's used on to punch the dynamics way up. No pricing yet (they promise 'soon' on that), but even though this is a limited run device (sadly!), I'm gonna bet that it'll be worth the ca$h for those doing live work who need sounds that cut thru the mix, or, again, the drum module userbase.

OK...that's pretty much it for March. Kind of a short list, but that's expected with Superbooth coming up soon. We should see a veritable deluge of mind-boggling stuff in the weeks following that event. Definitely going to be worth the wait to see what pops up if this is what we see in an 'off' month!

The right time I will ever have that won't stop? Gee...I hardly think you could make that work. After all, Robert Fripp has to change the tape reels on his Revoxes eventually, plus he's going to get really tired of playing that Les Paul of his for weeks on end.

Should still be possible to do a load-in in one shot...look into some cases/bags that'll allow all of the gear to be in one package. In theory, you're still in a size range that would still work as a carry-on, if we're talking a Digitakt, Model D, modular, and a mixer and laptop. The whole mess should more or less fit something in that size, depending on what you find and how creative you get with it. A good friend and colleague of mine gigs with about the same amount of gear (perhaps a little more, actually) and he's still able to fit the whole live rig into a carry-on.

Also, do pay attention to m1sterlurk's notes about the current draw above. That Model D alone draws a full amp on the +12 V rail...and the same span of panel (70 hp), with typical modules, really shouldn't draw much more than a couple hundred mA, at the very worst. Yet another reason for leaving the Model D in its own cab, I think. My rule of thumb says that as long as I can keep the current draw below 2/3rds of the maximum rating for the power supply, I'm pretty much assured that no operational state (such as power-ups, which can sometimes be more than the operating current load for tiny intervals) can jump beyond the supply's rated capacity.

Clocking...hm...there's several ways to do that. First method would be what you'd suspected: using the MIDI interface's clock out and clocking everything off of either a laptop or the Digitakt. Annoying that the Digitakt doesn't have a dedicated clock out, tho. Method #2 would be to clock everything from something a little...different. Have a look at Expert Sleepers' FH-1. Now, that would allow hosting of the Digitakt directly to/from the modular, and it can do the same thing for anything else that requires a MIDI host. It's much more complex than a regular MIDI interface as well, allowing a lot of user-definable functions to be implemented along with the MIDI conversion. DO, however, power the Digitakt via its own adapter; while the FH-1 can technically supply power via USB, you don't want to be right back in the same mess as having the Model-D in there with respect to current draw.

As for the tiles: good move. There's a lot of stuff in 1U out there from several makers that won't/can't fit in an Intellijel case, and sticking with the 'normal' tile format seems wiser. And yes, that includes a nice audio interface from Pulplogic, plus gobs of other toys.

Now for the modules themselves. I advise you to think small. ANYTHING that can be reduced in size should be if we're talking about a small travelling rig like this. Take stock of the functions you already have there (excepting the Model D, of course) and see just how small you can go with the same/similar/better functions. Take the Magneto, for example. Awesome delay. Frickin' huge, though...great for a large-scale rig, a real space-hog in this. But...consider what you'd get if you used a Chronoblob, and then used that delay's insert point to drop a few little 2hp processors into the delay feedback circuit. Quite entertaining...and smaller, too. Or the Quad VCA, which is good, but the 1U tile row lets you add a couple more VCAs, potentially for controlling mixer output dynamics, ergo no need for a second one (and VCAs for CVs can be very useful things! consider mixing a bunch of CVs, then controlling their summed level via a VCA at the Mix-A's output...nuts!).

Last thing: effects in a modular that can also be done by a stompbox should probably be done with a stompbox to save space. But this doesn't mean you have to be conventional about that, either. F'rinstance...the Zvex module could be replaced with two other I/O modules for send/return work to outboard FX boxes, one of which could be the selfsame box, or even a better/crazier lo-fi looper. And by replacing that with typical I/Os, which tend to be 4 hp, you get back 2 hp to use for something else (like half of yet another FX I/O, maybe?). And given that stompboxes are small things, they're easily jammed into the aforementioned gig bag with everything else.

Anyway, that should give you a bit to think about for a hot minute or two...

Hate to break it to you, but the Intellijel tiles will not fit in a Synthrotek 1U row. You have to go either with an Intellijel cab, and then use only the Intellijel tiles, or go with the 'normal' tile format, which opens up a lot more options but won't allow for the Intellijels. Also, unless you have a Clouds or know you can definitely source one on the used market, you'll have to use a third-party build of that module, since Mutable discontinued in in the last couple of months.

Next up: the RCD requires a clock. While there's things here that might double as one, you're not guaranteed that the RCD will properly 'read' them to derive its divisions. You'll definitely want a proper clock outputting proper trigger pulses to make sure that modules like that work 100% properly.

Definitely some problems here...you might consider stepping back to square one given that the case issue poses a significant stumbling-block to the tile row, and since some of that is critical to the overall function, much of that needs rethinking. Also, consider keeping the Model D in its own case; you'll be glad to have the extra space for modules later on, and it'll work just fine with the modular setup whether it's in the Eurorack cab or not.

Oh, always keep expansion in mind, and be as fluid as possible about expansion...you never know what mind-warping new module might be about to drop that'll change your whole paradigm up! And frankly, the best way to prepare for later expansion is to admit from square 1 that it's going to happen. This is why I'll often tell users that starting with a larger cab than seems necessary is a must. After you get a taste of modular work, expansion is pretty much a given as the initial build suggests possible new directions, and having the open space on hand already makes exploring those ideas very easy. If there's anything you should keep in mind, it's that; consider going with 6U x 104, or maybe even a 6U x 126 such as the cost-effective offerings from Erica. "Go big or go home" definitely applies to selecting a first case!

EDITED Mar 29th 2018, 00:36

One of the reasons I tend toward putting drum modules in a different build is because, in the end, you probably don't want to treat the drum sounds in the same way in a mix than you would the rest of a typical modular's sound sources. True, you could set up a separate sub-chain for the drum signals within a large build, with separate sources, processing, mixing, and outputs...but it's always seemed more logical to treat drums as 'another instrument' and put its devices separate (but always patchable to the main modular in some way, of course).

As for the 'drum modules are anti-modular' idea...I say that's bunk. Optimally, ALL electronic instruments should interconnect in some way, and that approach in of itself is basically a modular-type approach to the 'studio-as-instrument' concept. Drum modules, machines, controllers are just as valid as anything else as something that should interconnect, and since that interconnectivity includes with a modular...well, there you are!

Now, that being said, I would suggest to the original poster that you might be in better shape at this point in time just concentrating on the synth basics, instead of trying to figure out how two ideas at the same time can be jammed into one 9U x 84 (I presume that's what's meant by '3x84') cab that's actually a starting point for working with modular. Technically, you could jam a percussion synth into a single 84 hp row (see this thread for an example I did recently: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/2828 ), but then that might shortchange space for sequencing and clocking. A better idea, though, would be to follow the other poster's lead in that thread, and use a dedicated drum sequencer (such as an Arturia BeatStep Pro) to control the drums while still either taking clocking from or sending clocking to the main modular. Saves space, avoids certain hassles of adapting non-drum things to drum usage, and so on. It's also hard to beat what it can do for just $249 street, and it's ready to go for both drum triggers (8 channels of those) plus synth sequencing (two full CV/gate outs).

Anyway, just a few ideas...

On the whole, it's not bad. But given that your plan is to directly interface the Rackbrute 3U to these other sources, I'm kinda of the opinion that creating something less audio-oriented might be a better idea. There's a lot of modulation and ancillary modules that could populate the case and having that as a 'nexus' for the other patchables seems sensible, especially since this would be part of a rig where there's already three patchable synths specced out. Plus, if you used the Keybrute direct into the Rackbrute cab, that could serve to branch and reprocess the control signals coming from that. To start with, go and have a look at the Expert Sleepers FH-1. That module is a USB host-to-CV/gate...which would allow you to directly interface the Keybrute into the modular setup, and from THAT you could process and branch (with polyphony, in theory!) to all of the other synths.

Remember: just because it uses synthesizer modules doesn't necessarily mean that it has to make sound itself!

Actually, I have to do the exact same thing for the more promising large-scale builds that I've been whittling on. But I don't exactly see how this might be cleanly done; it seems like you'd have to probably specify the power system's architecture during case creation, and then going back to make corrections after the fact, which may or may not work out neatly, depending on what went into the module spec.

But also, sometimes when cobbling together the amperage-check racks, I'll notice something that maybe could've been handled better. So I'm not at all averse to that method of checking current loading. To me, it's just another aspect of the refinement processes of a given build.

Well, I know that the name originates in a poem by W.B. Yeats, "The Song of Wandering Aengus"...which then brings in a third musical connection, because there was a very famous studio in Boston, MA that also played a part in equipment design and manufacture. For more on that point, see here: http://mmone.org/aengus-studios/

But aside of that, there isn't a connection beyond the poem. According to Wikipedia, there's no mention of a connection between the band and the Subotnick work, nor does the band's official website mention one. However...

Subotnick: "...I'd been staging multimedia performances with dance companies using projections and coloured oils since the early 60s, which was several years before psychedelia is supposed to have started." (The Guardian, 6 Mar 2014)

Now, this is interesting. While I couldn't find a 1:1 connection, it's worth noting that by the time Subotnick composed his work, he was in NYC, which is the same scene that the band developed in. And the band did have some avant-garde music connections, as cellist Charlotte Moorman worked with them a few times, and Moorman was a veteran of the avant-garde scene, working most notably with the composer/video art pioneer Nam June Paik. If Subotnick was still into the psychedelic scene after arriving in New York, their paths very likely crossed, either directly or indirectly.

So, while neither says anything about the origin of one thing in another's work, it's probably best to say that there is a connection, but one that came through similar ideas in the mutual scene...sort of a product of the zeitgeist, if you will. And given the fascination with the mystical back in that period on all sides of the art scene, it's not surprising that Yeats' poetry might've been a touchstone for both Simeon and Subotnick. So, my vote goes for 'crazy cosmic significance'.

EDITED Mar 27th 2018, 21:22

Yeah, this is actually not bad as you're going to expand it. As for that second 84 hp skiff, I'd actually suggest using that plus a nice clocking/trigger sequencer for the drum modules. It'd give you more room in what would be the 'main' cab, and turn the skiff into something 'mission-specific', namely a bespoke drum machine. If using the BSP is the idea, then I'd say load that skiff up with drums and some mixing (stereo, natch) plus a little bit of FX to make a beefy little drum box when the BSP's in use as the controller. (looking at one of my BSPs) Hm...yeah, this is really a doable idea. Here's what I'd do:

This is probably totally irresponsible as far as drum skiff designs go. Much of it is 808/909, but there's some weird crap added, such as the screwy dual tom module and all the crap on the left side, which allows you to build two more drum 'voices', one using external signals and the other with chipnoise racket, and both gated by a dual AR controlling a dual LPG. Two mixers down on the end allow direct-output in stereo, with four pannable voices and the rest in some variation on mono/center. I have a distinct feeling that this might be capable of hurting people.

EDITED Mar 27th 2018, 00:54