Ooh, I like This Modular Rack...

[Stefken]

@ghettosynth I guess Behringer just goes for a copy of the experience with quirks and all that included.

But Tim Shoebridge said pretty much the same thing as you do. The B Moog modules are big and unpractical. The S triggers are a pain in the ass and you need a lot of modules, patch cables and space to get the job done. In his words, Bob Moog was a engineer, not a musician and it shows in these early designs. One of these designs actually uses the term 'regeneration' instead of resonance.
Behringer copied everything as it is, faults and quirks included.

As for me, for Moog equipment, I went for the real thing with the Grandmother and I really like it.
High quality production, spacious and logical interface and pretty awesome sound.

As for the 2500 series, I bought the envelopes just because they were very cheap and i needed envelopes. I do like the 1047 so I might get that next. ( Yet another filter ). But i do like the 1004 oscillator too. The 2500 oscillators have a weight to them that i like and i like the feature where you can mingle the primitive waveforms into a complex one for both usage as an oscillator and an lfo. I do need another lfo so I guess i ll go for a mini 2500 config with the osc, filter and the envelopes.

As for sequencers, the modular sequencers still haven t convinced me. You typically need a lot of space with two big modules combined and you are typically stuck in a 8 step sequencer. The SQ-1 is convincing me a lot more, is cheap and saves me the space in my case. (The Grandmother has a sequencer too which I could use together with the SQ-1. I m still chewing on sequencers... ).


Here are some interesting reviews from Tim Shoebridge on the Behringer 2500, 55 and 100.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8tx8BXed0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VqdMoeSmcM



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgmhmvIZ8qk

[ghettosynth]

I've heard other people say that about the 1004 and, to me, it's a lot like when people talk about mic-pres. What exactly does a "lot of weight" mean? One thing that interests me is very low distortion on the sine wave oscillators as this leads to superior rejection of unwanted harmonics when used as a carrier for ring modulation. In other words, you get clearer tones. Another thing that is interesting is through zero FM and linear FM. As far as I know, the B.ARP 2500 does not have linear FM inputs.

As far as creating complex waves, I get it, but, unless switching is a part of the performance, or you just want it for convenience, I think that you get better value out of individual outputs and an attenuverting mixer.

Now, as much as I've ben beating up on the B.Moog stuff. The 921 (not B) is actually a cool oscillator. It has individual outputs as well as a switched output. It also has switchable ranges for the frequency control and an octave switch. The clamping input is useful as an LFO but also as a source for detuned bass sounds. I very much doubt that the sine wave is low distortion and I'm certain that there aren't any linear FM inputs. I wish that the clamping input had CV control, but, at least there's a V-trig input.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWWQ4HZX0To

I may eventually add one or two 921Bs to my rack, but, right now, I have way too many oscillators to be buying new ones and way too many projects to finish, both music and otherwise, before I start drooling over more oscillators.

[Stefken]

Well, i guess we all have different priorities. That s how it goes.

Ring modulation is very low on my list. I find it an uninteresting effect. I ll take it if it is included in a module along with other features (why not) but i m not on the lookout for it.

As for the clamping point. One thing I absolute love in the analog synths used by my synthpop heroes is how every instance of a note (even if it is the same note) sounds different. The clamping point brings us closer to the machine gun effect of a sampler, so again, not what i am personally looking for.
(It s funny how B Moog was looking for more stability and I go the other way but i was 'brought up' with samplers. )

As for weight. Yeah, ....weight, beef, scream, cream, ... i guess people tend to use common words to describe sensations ( like also warm colors and sharp pain).
Nick Batt from Sonic Lab tends to use the word "weight" quite a lot. Right before he says something like : I don t know if you can hear this at home but right now the room is almost shaking from it.
In the Elenia Radigue video on the 2500 (interesting stuff by the way) , I believe they were also talking about a 'wall of sound' at a certain moment. Maybe that clears things a bit up regarding the meaning of weight.

[ghettosynth]

Well, i guess we all have different priorities. That s how it goes.

Ring modulation is very low on my list. I find it an uninteresting effect. I ll take it if it is included in a module along with other features (why not) but i m not on the lookout for it.

As for the clamping point. One thing I absolute love in the analog synths used by my synthpop heroes is how every instance of a note (even if it is the same note) sounds different. The clamping point brings us closer to the machine gun effect of a sampler, so again, not what i am personally looking for.
(It s funny how B Moog was looking for more stability and I go the other way but i was 'brought up' with samplers. )

As for weight. Yeah, ....weight, beef, scream, cream, ... i guess people tend to use common words to describe sensations ( like also warm colors and sharp pain).
Nick Batt from Sonic Lab tends to use the word "weight" quite a lot. Right before he says something like : I don t know if you can hear this at home but right now the room is almost shaking from it.
In the Elenia Radigue video on the 2500 (interesting stuff by the way) , I believe they were also talking about a 'wall of sound' at a certain moment. Maybe that clears things a bit up regarding the meaning of weight.

I've seen Nick use that, I think that he also uses "heft." It's always about the fundamental or low harmonic strength. I just want it quantified before I spend some money. I think that it's too easy to be fooled by your brain. I have monitors that go down quite low and by the measure that he describes, I'd say that all of my analog oscillators, in fact, even many of the digital ones, have heft. If I had to put money on what often happens it's that some harmonic that is more present is, in some way, interfering with room modes or speaker resonances.

True story, my first live PA gig with analog gear on a large system I had my Roland 102 expander and as soon as I started the sequencer triggering it I thought that I had a huge 60Hz problem. I started looking around for cables not plugged in for a few seconds. Then it dawned on me, the huge bass was just the Roland 102 rocking the shit out of the stupid bass heavy rave speakers.

I have a small handful of ua726 ICs ad I've thought about building a true System 100 VCO, but I'm willing to bet that it won't sound that much more hefty than what I already have. My experience was almost certainly the combination of sound-system and room. It was in a church basement with stone walls. I should probably just sell the ua726's since they're going for about $150 each.

As far as the 921, the driving bass is just a secondary aspect of it. Tim covers that in the video above. It's not a sound that you want all of the time. The real win is for use as an LFO where you can basically decide where in the waveform the LFO resets to using the clamping control. You mentioned wanting a controllable LFO and I think that the 921 is cool in that sense.

Also, back to sequencers for a second. They are useful in the rack if you are doing stuff like what's at sixteen minutes in to the B.ARP video that you posted. I think that there's something to sequencing in the rack, but for pure note sequencing, I don't want to use sequencers like the 960 or the ARP most of the time. They're tedious for that. One exception is glitchy drum beats where the knobs are controlling either the sound or properties of the sound.

[Shabdahbriah]

[...] I think that there's something to sequencing in the rack, but for pure note sequencing, I don't want to use sequencers like the 960 or the ARP most of the time. They're tedious for that. One exception is glitchy drum beats where the knobs are controlling either the sound or properties of the sound.

Agreed. To that end, though the 960 is appealing for a number of reasons, I've been seriously entertaining getting a couple of the Behringer 962 Sequential Switches to use with what I already have... a trio of SQ-1's, and a trio of these :

Pittsburgh Modular Sequencer.jpg

https://pittsburghmodular.com/sequencer

[Stefken]

Anyone put Make Noise Maths against After Later Peaks/Rainier with the Dead Man's Catch firmware.

This is pretty deep as well (Maths can t actually master a full ADSR)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtohg893is

[ghettosynth]

Anyone put Make Noise Maths against After Later Peaks/Rainier with the Dead Man's Catch firmware.

This is pretty deep as well (Maths can t actually master a full ADSR)

I haven't use Peaks at all. I missed the core of the MI craze. I have to say though, watching that, It's not really immediate enough for me to be a Maths replacement. I'm not a Make Noise fanboi, at all, I think that they are very overrated. However, Maths is really accessible and useful, I will probably get a second one at some point.

Now, what I want at the moment is not a second Maths, but just an AD/AR EG with variable expo/linear control like on Maths. I use Maths too often when this is the only feature I want and I'd rather have the feature in a smaller module in a couple of different rows.

It seems ripe for DIY though, especially since I don't really need all of the CV inputs. Just trigger in, e.g., out, maybe one time modulation input, or an input for the linear/expo blend. I suppose having an attenuverter on the output may be useful as well.

[ghettosynth]

Something else that the B.921 clamping input would be good for is kick drum synthesis. If you drive the trigger input with your VCA EG you should get a fairly smooth adjustment of the click as the waveform starts in a different place on each trigger.

[ghettosynth]

[...] I think that there's something to sequencing in the rack, but for pure note sequencing, I don't want to use sequencers like the 960 or the ARP most of the time. They're tedious for that. One exception is glitchy drum beats where the knobs are controlling either the sound or properties of the sound.

Agreed. To that end, though the 960 is appealing for a number of reasons, I've been seriously entertaining getting a couple of the Behringer 962 Sequential Switches to use with what I already have... a trio of SQ-1's, and a trio of these :


Pittsburgh Modular Sequencer.jpg


https://pittsburghmodular.com/sequencer

With the price reduction it's a little better value now.

[imrae]

Now, what I want at the moment is not a second Maths, but just an AD/AR EG with variable expo/linear control like on Maths. I use Maths too often when this is the only feature I want and I'd rather have the feature in a smaller module in a couple of different rows.

It seems ripe for DIY though, especially since I don't really need all of the CV inputs. Just trigger in, e.g., out, maybe one time modulation input, or an input for the linear/expo blend. I suppose having an attenuverter on the output may be useful as well.

It's not exactly to your spec but Valmorification comes to mind: https://www.nonlinearcircuits.com/modul ... rification

To get various envelope shapes you need to feed the output to the frequency CV, and to get an A/D mode you need a gate->trigger converter. Those are both easily arranged, though.

[foosnark]

Anyone put Make Noise Maths against After Later Peaks/Rainier with the Dead Man's Catch firmware.

This is pretty deep as well (Maths can t actually master a full ADSR)

I like Mutable Instruments a lot in general, but to me using Peaks was pretty miserable. Unless you keep it in the simplest of modes, the knob meaning changes when you select a different channel and to me that's the absolute worst UI design for synth gear. Dead Man's Catch added more stuff to try to remember, which wasn't fun at all.

Maths is one of the top selling Eurorack modules for good reasons. There are also some choices that offer similar functionality and good ergonomics but also with ARSR envelopes (similar to Moog "Contour" envelopes) or ADSR. Or, use both the function generators on Maths together to create envelopes that go beyond ADSR in their flexibility -- that's part of why it was designed the way it was.

[ghettosynth]

Now, what I want at the moment is not a second Maths, but just an AD/AR EG with variable expo/linear control like on Maths. I use Maths too often when this is the only feature I want and I'd rather have the feature in a smaller module in a couple of different rows.

It seems ripe for DIY though, especially since I don't really need all of the CV inputs. Just trigger in, e.g., out, maybe one time modulation input, or an input for the linear/expo blend. I suppose having an attenuverter on the output may be useful as well.

It's not exactly to your spec but Valmorification comes to mind: https://www.nonlinearcircuits.com/modul ... rification

To get various envelope shapes you need to feed the output to the frequency CV, and to get an A/D mode you need a gate->trigger converter. Those are both easily arranged, though.

Yes! Right after posting I thought about the Serge/CGS circuits and went and studied the schematic. I realized that I could use that and DIY it myself as there's quite a bit that's unnecessary for what I want.

I think that I'd rather pure DIY this on a delptronics board. That way I can exclude the feedback op-amp, which I don't need, and I can include some other features. If I'm going to have to build a kit that's not exactly right, and the circuit is also simple, then pure DIY seems the way to go.

I've been patching my 281t to experiment to see what features are most useful for the purpose.

[Stefken]

I pretty much decided on a dedicated module for lfo's since that is a thing you always need.

In my search for an affordable lfo, i stumbled on this one, which is probably not very well known.
Looks like great stuff at 165 euro.

I does 3 lfo's of which you can alter the relative speed, waveform and phase.
But it has more tricks up its sleeve. It is also a 3x random generator, quantiser, euclidian rhythm generator, chord generator, ..

Is that a contradiction of my first sentence. I think not. The lfo mode has dedicated knobs for all functions and makes a lot of sense....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFp82j6yoA




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wYXe7pGmgI

[vurt]

ooh i like the display

[ghettosynth]

Love the display, like some of the modes, but, how on earth is that a "dedicated LFO?"

Speaking of dedicated LFOs, the B.921 really is a fantastic oscillator. I suppose I view it as more of a dedicated percussion oscillator with side duty as an LFO in my rack, but it's pretty nice.

One LFO that I really like in my rack is the Neutron LFO. The waveform blending is really useful in a "live" lfo.