A modular platform

[Toets]

Modular is more popular then ever..
Not just in eurorack
But also in software..
Just look at all the offerings from Reaktor, Live(max), bitwig3, and many others..

Isn’t it time for an open standard for modular soft synths?
Where every developer can sell his own modules?

When done right.. there also should be a hardware controller for this..

[pljones]

I've not really looked yet but isn't VST3 meant to make this a lot easier? VST2 supports audio and event ins and outs but in fixed numbers, plus parameters for automation as input -- but no equivalent output.

MuTools' MuLab makes wiring existing plugins together really easy, of course, as do other modular hosts that support VST.

[pekbro]

Well, none of the existing systems are particularly compatible as it is. Porting is not too difficult
between VCV and Voltage Modular. All but VCV involve closed proprietary systems and licensing no doubt.
Until one of them comes out on top, not too much point in it imho. Mostly as the only people making
them are modular hardware developers looking for alternative income options, who will generally
go with VCV, Softube or Reason interestingly. I've seen a surprising effort in REs on the part of modular devs. E.g. Noise Engineering etc...

Personally, I prefer the modular hardware option...

[Toets]

Well, none of the existing systems are particularly compatible as it is. Porting is not too difficult
between VCV and Voltage Modular. All but VCV involve closed proprietary systems and licensing no doubt.
Until one of them comes out on top, not too much point in it imho. Mostly as the only people making
them are modular hardware developers looking for alternative income options, who will generally
go with VCV, Softube or Reason interestingly. I've seen a surprising effort in REs on the part of modular devs. E.g. Noise Engineering etc...

Personally, I prefer the modular hardware option...

While the hardware is so much fun to play with, i hate and can’t live with the fact that i can not save the patches i create.. thats the single reason i prefer software..

Been toying with the bitwig beta at a friends ths week, anthe new modular is so much fun, espescially since it allows you to visualise the signals so good in the inspector... the simple design/look works really well, yet the relatively small number of building blocks is quite limmiting.. there is no wave table osc for starters.. and there are only basic filters..

[deastman]

[generaldiomedes]

Deletedelete

[AnX]

Isn’t it time for an open standard for modular soft synths?

like vst?

[Toets]

Isn’t it time for an open standard for modular soft synths?

like vst?

Not exactly like VST..

A standard one level deeper.. where the specifications of the modules are defined...

Where in a VST the specifications for a whole instrument are defined..

Innhardware, there is one major standard, eurorack, and everyone builds modules for that..

In software there is no standard, so everyone ends up building modules dor their own standard.


The post, where someone indeed warns for the 15th standard.. is a real trap... it can only be overcome if the major players get to agree on a standard, much like midi was once developed..

The before mentioned VST standard, was not meant to be a standard, but became a standard because Steinberg opened up their system to the rest of the world..

Now platforms like reactor and Max for live are allready incredibly open... but you can not use your Reaktor blocks inside max. I think tough it might be possible to create reactor blocks with the full version of Max..


As said before i am a huge fan of how bitwig is doing things in the grid. So many things that spark my kindle. But i have no clue if bitwig will offer development tools dor new modules, or even open up the system... interested to see how this develops.

[lnikj]

What you are asking for is impossible. VM uses Java, VCV and Softube C++, Reaktor and Max are visual programming languages.

The best you can get to is to base things on voltage standards, eg -10v to +10v etc so it is easy to move conceptually between platforms.

Most of these tools can communicate with each other via CV as audio, Midi, OSC etc and it would be good if they all made the same interfaces available. Latency and the limited power of CPUs is an issue though.

[whyterabbyt]

This idea gets raised every year or two.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=452389

If it was gonna happen, it would have done by now, and you already know the reason it hasnt...

it can only be overcome if the major players get to agree on a standard

Just for the record

I think tough it might be possible to create reactor blocks with the full version of Max..

isnt true; there's no way to create anything for reaktor outside reaktor unless you're NI.

and

Innhardware, there is one major standard, eurorack, and everyone builds modules for that..

isnt entirely true. There are lots of digital modules that have IO limited to 5V, for example, and not every analogue module uses the various voltage levels Doepfer originally went with (which in themselves also vary a bit by purpose; as per Doepfer's tech info its 0-10V audio, +/- 2.5V for bipolar CV, 0-8V other CV, 0-5V for gate/trigger/clock)

[Toets]

What you are asking for is impossible. VM uses Java, VCV and Softube C++, Reaktor and Max are visual programming languages.

i know

The best you can get to is to base things on voltage standards, eg -10v to +10v etc so it is easy to move conceptually between platforms.

sounds like a great first step

Most of these tools can communicate with each other via CV as audio, Midi, OSC etc and it would be good if they all made the same interfaces available. Latency and the limited power of CPUs is an issue though.

With all the programming differences, a standard that just defines the different signals and voltage specifications would allow many of these to run in it... java, c++ and max(full version) all should allow the creation of stand alone modules..

[Toets]

This idea gets raised every year or two.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=452389

If it was gonna happen, it would have done by now, and you already know the reason it hasnt...

it can only be overcome if the major players get to agree on a standard

Just for the record

I think tough it might be possible to create reactor blocks with the full version of Max..

isnt true; there's no way to create anything for reaktor outside reaktor unless you're NI.

and

Innhardware, there is one major standard, eurorack, and everyone builds modules for that..

isnt entirely true. There are lots of digital modules that have IO limited to 5V, for example, and not every analogue module uses the various voltage levels Doepfer originally went with (which in themselves also vary a bit by purpose; as per Doepfer's tech info its 0-10V audio, +/- 2.5V for bipolar CV, 0-8V other CV, 0-5V for gate/trigger/clock)

Thank you for the insight.. and as soon as i read you comment that indeed my comment about max inside reaktor was utterly nonsense.. as reaktor at its base is its very own programming languag, just as max is...

[Teksonik]

Reason...Rack Extensions ?

[imrae]

as soon as i read you comment that indeed my comment about max inside reaktor was utterly nonsense.. as reaktor at its base is its very own programming languag, just as max is...

Well, in itself that's not a problem. Most programming languages are written/implemented using other programming languages, e.g. the standard Python interpreter is written in C. In principle you can implement any programming language in any other "complete" language. But Max and Reaktor aren't really intended for that sort of thing...

[lnikj]

What would theoretically be easier would be cross store agreements. With Rack extensions, the Voltage Modular Store, the VCV Plugin Manager and now Native Instruments getting in on the act, it would be nice to purchase modules from devs that will work across multiple modulars. Prices would have to go up to cover the listing fees on each platform of course.

Chances of that happening in reality are not much above zero unfortunately.