Ooh, I like This Modular Rack...

[Stefken]

So what do you think about this?

full rack.jpg

I placed the modules for easy patching (close proximity).
I reckon i will often use the disting as a sampler/drum machine so i placed pam next to it for easy wiring. Pam is also close to other osc for all kinds of modulation or clocking. Maths somewhere in the middle where it can provide modulation to anything. Four play as final mixdown also in the middle where it will often receive the audio from the oscs on the left and (typically) the envelopes from the black sequencer on the right. If the audio goes to the filters or in a submix than it will not come directly from the oscs, but hey modular will always have some spaghetti .
Both maths and the behringer 121 can function as a mixer, so i have a little section for submixing stuff over there.

The filters are a bit the weak spot in the setup (they are the furthest away) and they are not necessarily the best around but i have a filter on the Grandmother and MS-20 to provide some extra color.

Although I m a bit cheating with the disting i have the following synthesis techniques covered:
* subtractive synthesis & classic oscs
* physical modelling
* west coast wave folding
* spectral synthesis
* additive synthesis
[disting cheating ahead]
* sampling
* granular
* wavetable
* polysynth

[elxsound]

I don’t think anything is too far away in practice

I ended up reorganizing once I received my rackbrutes because it was all closer than it seemed on Modular grid.

I’m saying for even my farthest modules occupying opposite corners of two 6u rackbrutes theyre still not too far apart.

[Stefken]

Well, implied is also the matter of cables covering modules when they go all over the place.

You can also comment on modules. Like you re low on envelopes and fx , you don t have an output module or whatever.

[justin3am]

I also tend to have sound sources and processors near the outside with modulators and utility modules near the center. The center will get pretty cable dense but on most of these modules, you have enough space between controls and jacks, that you may not notice.
Your module selection is diverse with a lot of multifunction modules which gives you a lot of functionality in a small space. One thing that you may find with Disting and Pam's is that you'll start wanting dedicated modules for the functions which you use a lot.

It looks like a fun setup!

[elxsound]

Well, implied is also the matter of cables covering modules when they go all over the place.

You can also comment on modules. Like you re low on envelopes and fx , you don t have an output module or whatever.

I think its a fun setup too... I really the Black Sequencer (but I'm trying to pretend I don't like it for another year or so).

I'm not familiar enough to comment on Disting. The same arguments against it are exactly what I've heard about Ornament & Crime, Hector (and Pam), that at some point you'll want dedicated modules. I don't think anything is wrong with that (especially since I added uO_c, Hector in addition to PNW) because it's a great way to see what utilities you use the most.

I think you can get by without dedicated envelopes using Maths. You'll know soon enough if that doesn't work, but it should.

I think this is a great jumping point. Is there anything that you are second guessing?

[vurt]

looks good
but it's all about how it plays together once you are set up.

it's easy to think ooh ill need this n that ...
then you rarely use them (im looking at you doepfer envelopes...) and the things you thought you'd hardly use are on every patch!!

[WatchTheGuitar]

The only thing that would stand out to me is the lack of an analog voice or a noise source, but it’s down to personal preference.

[vurt]

he has a moog grandma and korgms20 as well

[elxsound]

I think the biggest thing it’s missing… *if you want it, is sampling. I get that Disting can do that, but I would still prefer a dedicated module especially to use with Spectraphon.

Considering what you have already, I would think the two most expendable modules are the Behringer 121 and Behringer Brains.

My biggest issue with Brains is the size of it. It takes lots of space for something that doesn’t need the ergonomics. The two of those module take up 32hp, which is a lot to work with.

*Edited to change Expandable to Expendable. Spelling is close, but very different meanings. f**king meds. I always make errors, but now I make them with confidence.

[WatchTheGuitar]

he has a moog grandma and korgms20 as well

Ah didn’t see that, yes that’s that covered then.

[elxsound]

900 more posts to join the 10,000 club!

[SHall1000]

The filters are a bit the weak spot in the setup

I’m struggling with filters, torn between two or three slim character modules for variety of tone or one fully loaded with tweak ability. The Filter 8 is front runner ATM.

[Stefken]

Thx for the comments guys

I also tend to have sound sources and processors near the outside with modulators and utility modules near the center. The center will get pretty cable dense but on most of these modules, you have enough space between controls and jacks, that you may not notice.
Your module selection is diverse with a lot of multifunction modules which gives you a lot of functionality in a small space. One thing that you may find with Disting and Pam's is that you'll start wanting dedicated modules for the functions which you use a lot.

It looks like a fun setup!

Positive vibe i am sensing here

I think this is a great jumping point. Is there anything that you are second guessing?

Well, some of the things I mentioned.
* I doesn t have an output so it s not completely selfcontained. But i am a hobbyist, i will not be doing gigs. I m using the Moog out now. A simple standalone mixer will resolve that.

* Low on effects. Only effects on the disting and when that is in use, they re out.
I guess i ll be going for a standalone fx unit, as so many others.

* Envelopes might be an issue... or not. When using the Black sequencer, it can provide it s own envelopes. When e.g. using a random quantized pattern on Pam, I guess a constant or rhythmic pattern firing off envelopes will do too (which both pam and the black sequencer can pull off). And there is still maths too. Maybe i am in the clear.

looks good
but it's all about how it plays together once you are set up.

it's easy to think ooh ill need this n that ...
then you rarely use them (im looking at you doepfer envelopes...) and the things you thought you'd hardly use are on every patch!!

I guess so. I put a bunch of dimmers on my lights in my house, thinking it would be groovy to create these light ambiences and they get hardly used.
Things don t always turn out the way you plan it.

I think the biggest thing it’s missing… *if you want it, is sampling. I get that Disting can do that, but I would still prefer a dedicated module especially to use with Spectraphon.

Considering what you have already, I would think the two most expendable modules are the Behringer 121 and Behringer Brains.
My biggest issue with Brains is the size of it. It takes lots of space for something that doesn’t need the ergonomics. The two of those module take up 32hp, which is a lot to work with.

I ll see where the disting takes me, but yes, a dedicated sampler would be interesting, and as you mention, especially with the Spectraphon. (The bitbox has grabbed my attention but i did not look into samplers in detail yet).
I picked a few big modules with the Spectraphon and the Black sequencer.
Second rack or squeeze in a sampler? We ll see...

[Ex Machina]

Starting with a Juno 60 keyboard (that I still own) I've been playing synthesizers for over 40 years. But somehow I just never got into either hardware or software modular synthesis. The biggest issue for me with hardware modulars is the inability to save your setups. I started with synths that had patch storage and other than my Sequential Pro One that someone gave to me in the 90s, that's the way it's always been.

But I think I could create some crazy-ass sounds with a small hardware modular rig. I would then autosample my creations and play them back in HALion 7 or maybe TAL Sampler for a more lo-fi vibe. That's probably sacrilege to a true modular synthesist. But that's just how I roll.

However, I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start by reading all 54 pages of this thread and go from there. I do make it down to Los Angeles from time to time and I always make a point of visiting my favorite music store, Perfect Circuit in Burbank. They sell a lot of modular gear. And if you just stand around for a while there's always someone you can talk to about Eurorack modules.

[Stefken]

Starting with a Juno 60 keyboard (that I still own) I've been playing synthesizers for over 40 years. But somehow I just never got into either hardware or software modular synthesis. The biggest issue for me with hardware modulars is the inability to save your setups. I started with synths that had patch storage and other than my Sequential Pro One that someone gave to me in the 90s, that's the way it's always been.

But I think I could create some crazy-ass sounds with a small hardware modular rig. I would then autosample my creations and play them back in HALion 7 or maybe TAL Sampler for a more lo-fi vibe. That's probably sacrilege to a true modular synthesist. But that's just how I roll.

However, I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start by reading all 54 pages of this thread and go from there. I do make it down to Los Angeles from time to time and I always make a point of visiting my favorite music store, Perfect Circuit in Burbank. They sell a lot of modular gear. And if you just stand around for a while there's always someone you can talk to about Eurorack modules.

My adventures in eurorack/modular are fairly new.
So here is my take on it.

I think what sets hardware modular apart from other implementations (software, hardware 'premade' synths) is: tactile response, experimentation, modulation. And if you go into hardware modular I think these are the reasons to do it for.

And if you do it for other reasons, there are probably better alternatives.

Tactile response: I experimented with software modular, but the tactile response of putting in patch cables, turning knobs and just messing/experimenting about was not something I experienced with a software modular on screen.

Experimentation/modulation: I think there is a strong 'culture' in modular of ... what if i mix these signals and than modulate this with that and then ... and then... It s a lot about experimentation. And using basic tools in a university synthesizer kinda way to see what tonalities will emerge. Modular is in my view more of a sounddesign tool than a music production tool.
Sure, you can adopt groove box methodologies and i think it is important to retain a musical sauce in your rack so you get more out of it than quirky sounds and patterns. But imo it takes more work (and more money) to get that musical sauce in modular.
Do you want instant chords, do you want a fair amount of tracks? You might be better off with a groovebox or a premade synth where everything is ready to go for that very purpose.

Modular is a world of possibilities. I have a ton of different voices, filters, synthesis methods in one rack. No premade synth can offer this many choices. It is hardware. The filters are typically analog, the digital modules all have their own processor so you are sure they will not lock up. This is a very good basis for good sound quality and probably gives you an edge with regard to software.

Modular is also a world of limitations. Mono is mainly the name of the game, chords are the exception. You need a ton of modules just to get one voice going. Especially if you use basic components (think Doepfer) you will need a TON of stuff to get things going. Presets are pretty much not existing. Some modules are hyped of being the best thing since sliced bread. The physical modelling in Rings for example. It s very nice for sure, but I find there is physical modeling in software that is a lot more powerful than Rings.

As for your target of making awesome sounds, sampling them and then using them in a software sampler. I m not really sure if hardware modular is the best way to do it. Software like Zebra or software modular might do the trick already at a much lower pricepoint. But then again, as you progress in modular you might find that your targets change as well. Initially my target was also to create an awesome monosynth that combined several filters not present in any premade synth but along the way my target shifted as i learned new stuff.

Where to start? You can read this thread, sure. You will come across many modules that people discover.
A very interesting place is also Modulargrid. Have a look at the most popular modules for starters.
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/modules/b ... ection=asc
There is usually a reason why they are popular. Don t just put them in your rack without knowing why. But you will see that these modules often provide solutions towards the problems you will face or the 'gaps' that you need to fill to get something working.

You can start off with some cheap modules if you want to see if it is your thing. Behringer offers a lot of modules for around 100 dollar/euro. I started off with these but along the way, i abandoned money constraints, and focused on functionality instead.