Eurorack modular concept built into VST world

[Buka]

This is something I thought of too. But it would require some common framework and a willingness from the devs to expose the "wiring" of different aspects of their synths and plugins to allow for interconnection to and from separate sections, or even supply these different sections as independent modules. You'd need a common standard to transmit audio, sync and control signals from one module to another at a deeper level than CC control: it would be impossible to do without VST itself spelling out a more intimate interconnection reference for everyone to follow.

But as others have discussed, you can do some of this now using Bidule, MUX, and other hosts although it isn't very efficient. But for experiments and special uses, it can be very useful.

Maybe its time for VST 4.0 then!
I understand what u say and thought about it myself. This cant be done in todays VST standard but that doesnt mean it wont happen in the future. Maybe an entirely new platform for developers is needed but im sure we will see something like this in the future. Reason has something like this with developers like Korg and Rob Papen doing synths and modules for the modular enviroment.

I dont see why developers wouldnt wanna make modules like filters and oscillators that they can sell separetly and users can than install them like they install synths.

Example:
-u have Zebra, Waldorf Wave 3.v, Serum and Harmor synths installed
-u buy and install that great filter from GForce Imposcar
-filter module is now visible and u can use it inside all your synths

if i and others can imagine this great modular vision, than it can be done! Steve Jobs where are u?!

[Breeze]

Example:
-u have Zebra, Waldorf Wave 3.v, Serum and Harmor synths installed
-u buy and install that great filter from GForce Imposcar
-filter module is now visible and u can use it inside all your synths

That's actually a great idea: buy the synth which gives you access to the modules. But until Yamaha/Steinberg actually build it into the VST spec for their own devices, it's all a pipe dream. Maybe the value in this for them is that no other standard can do this; it sure would be a great selling point. Who knows?...

[arkmabat]

FL Studio got Minihost Modular

Effector is a fun VST. You reminded me that I wanted to try a hardware joystick with it.

[fmr]

Modular X framework, by Herwig Krass does exactly what you want (there are even third party modules available already). Modular X is designed to allow a classic modular approach (with connecting cables etc.) on screen for editing presets. It allows you to build your own modules for the framework.
In Herwig's own words: "MODULAR X is a framework to build several individual modular synthesizers in REAKTOR.
A modular synthesizer contains independent modules - i call them containers - which
can be connected on screen with wires. Examples can be found in the user library,
such as the RUHR ensemble."
There is an ensemble that uses all the modules already available - it's 93 modules:
http://www.native-instruments.com/en/co ... show/8091/

[Breeze]

Modular X looks like a lot of fun (what a beast Reaktor is!), but I think the point of the OP is to leverage the different approaches and strengths of the different commercial developers whose products are well recognized for their unique perspectives and prized for their sound quality; in order to make that commercially viable it would have to involve some form of financial buy in for the modules, and the suggested solution of having these modules available as addons when you purchase the VSTi they come from seems like a sound one they might be interested in adopting, given favorable conditions.

Again, IMO the modular network details needs to be implemented first by the authors of the VST spec (or some other "universal" spec). I'd say we're many years away from that.

[Buka]

Modular X looks like a lot of fun (what a beast Reaktor is!), but I think the point of the OP is to leverage the different approaches and strengths of the different commercial developers whose products are well recognized for their unique perspectives and prized for their sound quality; in order to make that commercially viable it would have to involve some form of financial buy in for the modules, and the suggested solution of having these modules available as addons when you purchase the VSTi they come from seems like a sound one they might be interested in adopting, given favorable conditions.

Again, IMO the modular network details needs to be implemented first by the authors of the VST spec (or some other "universal" spec). I'd say we're many years away from that.

Word! and hurry up Steinberg!

[fmr]

Modular X looks like a lot of fun (what a beast Reaktor is!), but I think the point of the OP is to leverage the different approaches and strengths of the different commercial developers whose products are well recognized for their unique perspectives and prized for their sound quality; in order to make that commercially viable it would have to involve some form of financial buy in for the modules, and the suggested solution of having these modules available as addons when you purchase the VSTi they come from seems like a sound one they might be interested in adopting, given favorable conditions.

Again, IMO the modular network details needs to be implemented first by the authors of the VST spec (or some other "universal" spec). I'd say we're many years away from that.

First, I have doubts that " leveraging the different approaches and strengths of the different commercial developers whose products are well recognized for their unique perspectives and prized for their sound quality" would be something interesting to have.

Second, considering that they (the creators of the different platform specs) would not take any benefit from this (deep) rewriting of the concept, it is unrealistic to expect that. Besides, Steinberg has even already discontinued VST2 platform, so, why would they come back to add such a deep add-on to it? And since many of the synths are still VST2 only, the start base is already undermined.

Anyway, the best VSTi instruments I know (as well as the best hardware synths I know) are more than a mere sum of the parts, therefore, I see little point in having, let's say, the filters of Zebra (which, isolated, are nothing we don't already have in several other synths). And let's pick the ImpOSCar v2. Do you really think that the filter is all that matters in the sound of that synth? I, for once, strongly disagree that the filter is all that takes to recreate that sound. That's why I don't think that the AM "leveraging" would be something interesting. In the end, I think it would be a loss, not a benefit (I'm in favour of differences and diversity, not standardization).

And there's another point - builders would have to agree in some kind of less common denominator in what concerns GUI, connections, parameters available for control and for automation, etc.). It would need A LOT of conversations, which would not guarantee a common platform would be reachable. Better awake.

For me, an approach such as Mux, Wusik 4000/8000 or the Modular X framework is much better, since they don't depend on third party platforms (except those that are already in the field, like Reaktor and VST), and the first two are even open (with the code base for creating new modules available). It's better to take advantage of what we have and can realistically expect than dream of impossibilities that even do not make sense from the business POV (and remember that, in the end, this is a business, not a hobby). Anyway, I am not even sure I would be willing that creators would spend their resources and energy in creating "modules" (subsets) of their synths. They would not create them for free, probably, since it means extra work hours and expenses, and in the end, we would have to pay more for something that is doubtfully useful.

[whyterabbyt]

Besides, Steinberg has even already discontinued VST2 platform, so, why would they come back to add such a deep add-on to it? And since many of the synths are still VST2 only, the start base is already undermined.

Bit of a strawman, that. Who said anything about VST2?

Anyway, the best VSTi instruments I know (as well as the best hardware synths I know) are more than a mere sum of the parts, therefore, I see little point in having, let's say, the filters of Zebra (which, isolated, are nothing we don't already have in several other synths). And let's pick the ImpOSCar v2. Do you really think that the filter is all that matters in the sound of that synth? I, for once, strongly disagree that the filter is all that takes to recreate that sound.

Bit more of a strawman. Who said anything about recreating anything? This is about doing complex synthesis architectures, not replicating existing synths. You get that the precedent is the fact that there are Eurorack implementations of parts from various fixed-architecture synths, dont you? Im not trying to replicate a Polivoks just because I have a Harvestman Polivoks VCF. Even if I had all the Harvestman Polivoks modules I wouldnt be trying to do that.

And who said this was just about implementing filters? That's another strawman. Clearly if this was happening, and impOSCar was an example, you'd think that its fairly unique oscillators would be implemented as well as the filters.

And in this envisioned modular, I would, for example, be able to create an architecture with three impOSCar oscillators, running into two parallel sets of impOSCar filters, but modulated by half a dozen multi-stage envelopes, instead of the two LFO/2EG setup of impOSCar. And layer it with an sfz oscillator. And then stick that through a combfilter from Zebra. Because options.
That's not about replicating something its about extending it. You know, like a regular eurorack modular offers, which is the whole point. Its why modular synths already exist. You're basically

And there's another point - builders would have to agree in some kind of less common denominator in what concerns GUI, connections, parameters available for control and for automation, etc.). It would need A LOT of conversations, which would not guarantee a common platform would be reachable

Yes, there'd be a lot of work in it. You're suggesting its intrinsically a bad idea because its not easy?

For me, an approach such as Mux, Wusik 4000/8000 or the Modular X framework is much better, since they don't depend on third party platforms (except those that are already in the field, like Reaktor and VST)

You basically just argued that a third party platform is better than a third-party platform.

and the first two are even open (with the code base for creating new modules available). It's better to take advantage of what we have and can realistically expect than dream of impossibilities that even do not make sense from the business POV (and remember that, in the end, this is a business, not a hobby).

Basically : 'We dont have it, so we shouldnt hope to have it'

Anyway, I am not even sure I would be willing that creators would spend their resources and energy in creating "modules" (subsets) of their synths. They would not create them for free, probably, since it means extra work hours and expenses,

Another strawman. Who said this was expected for free?

and in the end, we would have to pay more for something that is doubtfully useful.

Basically : 'I cant think of a use for it, so its not useful'. Even though we already have modular synths, and the only thing that's actually being proposed here is an open system rather than the closed ones we already have.

[fmr]

Anyway, I am not even sure I would be willing that creators would spend their resources and energy in creating "modules" (subsets) of their synths. They would not create them for free, probably, since it means extra work hours and expenses,

Another strawman. Who said this was expected for free?

and in the end, we would have to pay more for something that is doubtfully useful.

Basically : 'I cant think of a use for it, so its not useful'. Even though we already have modular synths, and the only thing that's actually being proposed here is an open system rather than the closed ones we already have.

Strawmen apart (I don't even know what a strawman is, and I am not in the mood of going online chasing for the meaning) I didn't say it's not useful, I said: We already have sort of what has been proposed, and I see little (if any) interest in developing for what is already available, so, I don't see big names investing on what clearly is not something that has many people interested (and if it goes to mean extra payments, well, then I think there is no need to argument further).

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't see an interesting point in this idea (otherwise I wouldn't be following the thread) and I even pointed some platforms that already allow something alike - although, and I repeat, there seems to be little if any interest from third parties.

[Breeze]

Wouldn't you just love to plunk Cytomic's The Drop's filters into your VSTi Modular Rack?

[knowix]

Arguably it's as much of a DAW routing issue as much as depending on devs altering their plugins.

There are synth plugins that allow you to route in external audio. There are also synth plugins that allow you to turn off the filters (or effectively so).

But how easy is it to make sure the oscillators from the second one are triggering at the right time to go through the filter and amp envelopes of the first?

[whyterabbyt]

Arguably it's as much of a DAW routing issue

well yes. because not a single daw out there supports polyphonic instancing of plugins, blockless per-sample output (so that, eg you can do audio-rate modulation), and routing of data to/from any part of the plugin structure including modulation sources.

and no. because that would all need the plugin API to change.

[Buka]

and here we have something like this 2 years later

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/mus ... gin-636757

[wagtunes]

and here we have something like this 2 years later

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/mus ... gin-636757

So if I'm understanding this correctly, for $99 you get a stock collection of modules. If you want additional osc's, lfos, etc, they're going to cost extra. This could, therefor, add up to a substantial investment.

[DJ Warmonger]

and here we have something like this 2 years later

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/mus ... gin-636757

So if I'm understanding this correctly, for $99 you get a stock collection of modules. If you want additional osc's, lfos, etc, they're going to cost extra. This could, therefor, add up to a substantial investment.

It's still dozens times cheaper than all these modules combines and you can instantiate unlimited number of them I suppose. As long as Eurorack is accurately modelled, it coudl rock.

Doepfer modules are somewhat boring as far as I know, but Intellijel makes quite interesting stuff. I can see many people will love this plugin.