Advice starting in hardware modular

[j wazza]

But why not just buy a fixed architecture analog synth with FM at that point and save yourself some money? Get yourself a GRP A2 for about the same amount.

I like modulars and use software modulars a lot for the freedom of patching, audio rate modulating anything etc. I really like the sound of intellijel dixies so built my rig around that, with some other vcos, ringmod etc. I like experimenting with the hardware too but usually test out ideas in software first.

[ghettosynth]

Yes, you're not going to get the same kind of happy accidents with a menu-divy desktop synth that you are going to get with a modular. I don't think that most people who think that they want modular really do, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a point to it because it can't be made general at low cost. There's a reason the P12 desktop is cheap, jacks, pots, and knobs are expensive. So are analog oscillators, at least in terms of calibration when compared to digital. So you stick an analog filter and vca on the back of a digital front end and you can sell a high voice count synth for low cost. That's fine, but it's not a modular synth and doesn't have the benefits of a modular synth. It has other benefits, sure, if that's what has value to you.

There can still be a point to a small rig like mine and there are a lot of different ways to patch a few modules together, but there is an economies of scale to it, each module you add multiplies the number of possibilities for what you can do with it. If you just want 1 vco, vca, adsr and filter it would usually not be worth getting modular

For the most part, sure, but not even that's completely true. Modular synths are the only way that most people can, in essence, DIY their own design. So, if you want a synth with some particular filter and maybe a strange oscillator, there still may be some reasonable justification. When I first started down this road, adding just one CGS Steinger Parker filter to my PAIA modular was amazing. At that time you couldn't buy a synth with a synthacon filter for any sensible amount of money.

Further, it takes very little beyond that to have fun with modular that you can't with fixed architecture synths. Today there are a lot of choices with semi-modular, and that's probably the way to go, but it hasn't always been that way and there's still the customization factor.

Having just a few patch points on a simple synth can make it much more interesting. The Roland System 100 (the original, not the 100m) comes to mind. The Matriarch is an amazing synth but those few patch-points add a lot. The 0-coast would be boring without the patch points.

There are endless videos on youtube of people exploring small modular setups.



Here's another video that addresses this a bit and does some nice stuff with an 0-coast and a pico-modular. At the end he says "this made me feel like a kid again." Sorry, as much as I would say that it's expensive, it's a bottomless pit, you should have a focus, you should try software first, there is still something to patching an instrument in terms of workflow and the tactile experience of making music in terms of value, even for very small instruments.



I'm not crazy about the tiny it's not really a knob knobs, but, the Erica pico stuff sounds good. I have a pico-dsp and I don't mind one or two of those narrow modules stuck here and there.

These videos almost make me want to think about modular a bit differently. Instead of, or in addition to, building a larger system with most/all of the modules, maybe a good collection of modules and some small cases to build constantly changing small instruments that you use for a while, make some music with them, and then move on to something else might be a more interesting approach.

Maybe this is how I'll finally explore those noise-engineering modules that I never use and can't be assed to sell?

[whyterabbyt]

Here’s my take. Go big, or go home. A small Eurorack rig is sort of useless.

define 'big'.

this is a 1-row rack i have, for something 'portable.'

niftydreads.JPG

with case, it was under £750, has MIDI-CV, sequencer/keypad, 3 oscillators, flexible noise generator, 2 dual (hp+lp) filters, 2 adsr/lfo modulators, 3 more lfos, 2 mixers, 4 attenuvertors, bitcrusher, and delay.
its pretty far from 'sort of useless' imo.

[Stefken]

There's very little that's analog, hence, there's very little that isn't about the same in a virtual modular. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm currently going all-in on disting-ex + Befaco lich *k for some similar aspects, but, I have a focus on why I want that in hardware as opposed to just in Reaktor/VCV. There is definitively something to the physicality of patching wrt discovery that's not always the same in software, but personally, I wouldn't start there without playing with the virtual versions of those modules for a long time.

This remark stuck with me. Makes sense aspecially since a lot of my favorite modules are Mutable Instruments, which are basically running code.

[Stefken]

Here’s my take. Go big, or go home. A small Eurorack rig is sort of useless.

define 'big'.

this is a 1-row rack i have, for something 'portable.'

niftydreads.JPG


with case, it was under £750, has MIDI-CV, sequencer/keypad, 3 oscillators, flexible noise generator, 2 dual (hp+lp) filters, 2 adsr/lfo modulators, 3 more lfos, 2 mixers, 4 attenuvertors, bitcrusher, and delay.
its pretty far from 'sort of useless' imo.

Interesting. I have saved it for future reference.

[Stefken]

For people thinking i m jumping all over the place. Maybe i am, but i m letting it all sink in.
I get from this that focus is important and that you can experiments a lot virtual before taking the plunge.

Don t know if i will actually go hardware.

It s sometimes also interesting to explore a world through other people s eyes without necessarily buying in bigtime. Interesting to see what them have come up with.
In my photography days, when digital sensors were still evolving, i also enjoyed reading up about sensor designs and lens designs without actually owning them all.

I guess all we do on this forum is talk about it anyway.

[vurt]

i got lost in a patch for well over an hour last night, just little tweaks here n there, then bask in the sounds, repeat ...
so much fun.

[n9research]

OP: I know you've mentioned that you're not quite sure of the specific use you would put a hardware modular to, but I would say that this is a critically important thing to figure out, as that's mostly the point of modular setups - user-designed composite devices that have specific capabilities and behaviours, as defined by the user. They don't even have to be synths - you could have a Eurorack that just contains compressors, or FX units.

Of course you can go and buy pre-assembled systems that act in a commonly-used, "general-purpose" way, but people who start with those almost inevitably start making changes, removing and adding components (and upgrading to bigger cases etc) to suit their needs. Having a better idea at the outset can prevent some of that from happening (and this learning process can get very expensive, of course)

I'd suggest that one question you should answer before others is this; How much do you want your modular to be integrated with your DAW?

For example, my modular system is tightly integrated with my DAW computer to the point where it is almost completely dependent. This means that I have 168HP of analog oscillators and filters, and virtually no sequencing, modulation, CV generators, or digital modules like wavetables, sample players or FX. Instead I have multiple Expert Sleepers ES modules, hooked up to my computer via ADAT. The computer handles all CV, envelope generation, LFOs, sequencing via software tools like VCV Rack, Bitwig etc, sends audio/CV to and receives the outputs from the modules for processing in the DAW.

Now, if I were to take my modular onto a stage on its own, it would be mostly useless. But that's not what I need it for. Other people, in fact the vast majority of people wouldn't want that, they'd like a standalone system that can do everything required. So the level of integration you can accomodate is something you'd do well to consider before starting out as this can save you a lot of money and rack space by using the computer for things that it's good at.

[pdxindy]

For people thinking i m jumping all over the place. Maybe i am, but i m letting it all sink in.
I get from this that focus is important and that you can experiments a lot virtual before taking the plunge.

Don t know if i will actually go hardware.

It s sometimes also interesting to explore a world through other people s eyes without necessarily buying in bigtime. Interesting to see what them have come up with.
In my photography days, when digital sensors were still evolving, i also enjoyed reading up about sensor designs and lens designs without actually owning them all.

I guess all we do on this forum is talk about it anyway.

One of the things about modular... just accept that you will buy modules that you end up selling. It is a big learning process.

Here are some things I've learned along the way. At first I bought too many complex modules with too many options, button presses etc. I discovered I prefer most modules be simpler wysiwyg.

I started off with all the modules in a big case. Then I realized I preferred small cases with individual 'voices'.

All the recommendations for software have their points... but software misses the hands on, mad scientist feeling! It's fun connecting physical cables. What's not so fun is how small eurorack is. I wish all my euro modules were twice the size for ease of use.

Hardware modular also just sounds better than software. Even some digital modules... maybe they have a higher internal sample rate than the software modular equivalent. It also converts to audio instead of staying digital throughout. Software modulars can also crush ones CPU. I never have to think about that with hardware.

Over time I have discovered that I have some preferences. In software, I prefer semi-modular synths like Bazille. For true modular, I prefer hardware.

[vurt]

the real problems with software, they don't have limits beyond cpu.
there's no making you think differently, you just add the next module.
with a limited set of options, you find interesting ways to do things, leading to things you might never have found soundwise as you now have new techniques to play with.

some don't enjoy that, which i understand, but if you were the kind of kid who never built the lego model on the box, but went your own way, it's there for the taking!

[pdxindy]

the real problems with software, they don't have limits beyond cpu.
there's no making you think differently, you just add the next module.

That's kinda true... but there is a practical (not absolute) screen space limitation. It gets really tedious scrolling around. It also gets unwieldy trying to see and understand a patch that isn't all visible at once.

With my hardware, I just need longer cables

[imrae]

You should think carefully about what aspects of modular inspire you, and focus on supporting those.

For me, they are

• Audio-rate modulation and mashing together audio and CV - so I lean towards analogue modules with DC-coupled inputs
• Generating deterministic sequences; I mostly avoid random sources in favour of clocks, logic and sequencers that can be combined for more complex results.
• Chaos and other esoteric stuff that won't be found in a mass-market synth. This in turn pushes me to DIY as some cool stuff is mostly distributed as PCB/Panel. Knowing that I would be doing some DIY, I started with some high-quality factory modules so that I could have a clean signal path and test signals when troubleshooting.

By contrast, I see some live performers gravitate towards compact self-contained voices, versatile sequencers, and end-of-chain FX - but they go light on utilities as they won't be going crazy with modulation and feedback patching.

[ghettosynth]

Here’s my take. Go big, or go home. A small Eurorack rig is sort of useless.

define 'big'.

this is a 1-row rack i have, for something 'portable.'

niftydreads.JPG


with case, it was under £750, has MIDI-CV, sequencer/keypad, 3 oscillators, flexible noise generator, 2 dual (hp+lp) filters, 2 adsr/lfo modulators, 3 more lfos, 2 mixers, 4 attenuvertors, bitcrusher, and delay.
its pretty far from 'sort of useless' imo.

We bought the same case LOL! That chip tunes module though. It's the module you love to hate and hate to love. It sounds like shit, and sometimes that's ok, but damn if it isn't useful in a patch sometimes. I feel like it would pair great with a a drum module with built in sequencer and 70s style organ drum machine beats. No programming, per se, you can have Disco, or Rock -n- Roll, or Samba, with a few modern additions like Grunge, Techno, and Boy Band. You should be able to select two beats and crossfade between them.

Now, feed all of that into one of the cheapest import "studio mixer with effects" that you can get from Amazon, max price $50, and you have a lo-fi live rig.

Here you go, the Bomge, the stereo channel has no effects, perfect for that dry drum sound.

[ghettosynth]

For people thinking i m jumping all over the place. Maybe i am, but i m letting it all sink in.
I get from this that focus is important and that you can experiments a lot virtual before taking the plunge.

Don t know if i will actually go hardware.

It s sometimes also interesting to explore a world through other people s eyes without necessarily buying in bigtime. Interesting to see what them have come up with.
In my photography days, when digital sensors were still evolving, i also enjoyed reading up about sensor designs and lens designs without actually owning them all.

I guess all we do on this forum is talk about it anyway.

Yeah, it's ok. I was serious about going all in on this discussion. There are a lot of different perspectives here and, in some ways, I think that KVR is a better place to discuss this broadly then the more modular focused channels. We haven't all got drunk on the koolaid here and many/most of us see modular as something that enriches music* making and isn't the end-all and be-all of music* making.



*For some definition of music.

[Shabdahbriah]

You should think carefully about what aspects of modular inspire you, and focus on supporting those.

Indeed.

For me, they are

• Audio-rate modulation and mashing together audio and CV - so I lean towards analogue modules with DC-coupled inputs
• Generating deterministic sequences; I mostly avoid random sources in favour of clocks, logic and sequencers that can be combined for more complex results.
• Chaos and other esoteric stuff that won't be found in a mass-market synth.

Good breakdown. {Op} DC-coupled inputs is something to really pay attention to, btw.

By contrast, I see some live performers gravitate towards compact self-contained voices, versatile sequencers, and end-of-chain FX - but they go light on utilities as they won't be going crazy with modulation and feedback patching.

A lot of that 'down-scaling' is obviously just the impracticality of transport and set-up/break-down. Considering airport carry-on regs as well. And making/having a 'set' that doesn't go sideways with one knob turn or cable mishap. Then too, there are sooo many amazingly cool (yet) complex and programmable (with saving presets/banks, etc) sequencers now, that those who can cope (let alone enjoy) that degree of complexity with LED screens are having a hay day.
I tend to avoid screens/menu's when/where-ever possible. (avoiding Dx-7 flashbacks)

i got lost in a patch for well over an hour last night, just little tweaks here n there, then bask in the sounds, repeat ...
so much fun.

THAT's what it's all about!

Don t know if i will actually go hardware.

It s sometimes also interesting to explore a world through other people s eyes without necessarily buying in bigtime. Interesting to see what the{y} have come up with.

Modular certainly has a plethora the user examples, how-to's, tips-n-tricks, pit-falls, adaptations, etc, etc, that are hopefully at least informative and perhaps even inspiring. Avoiding/cutting-through the 'hype' to find the bits that speak to you will prove worthwhile, even though time consuming... that is considerably less 'time' and money, than others have invested in their successes and failures, and lessons... what brings Joy, and not-so-much.

What's not so fun is how small eurorack is. I wish all my euro modules were twice the size for ease of use.

Seriously! THIS entire 9Ux126hp set-up is barely 16" tall, and 25" wide:

3Ux126hp.png

the real problems with software, they don't have limits beyond cpu.
there's no making you think differently, you just add the next module.
with a limited set of options, you find interesting ways to do things, leading to things you might never have found soundwise as you now have new techniques to play with.

Really good/valid points!

[...] but there is a practical (not absolute) screen space limitation. It gets really tedious scrolling around. It also gets unwieldy trying to see and understand a patch that isn't all visible at once.

Yeah, I purposely limit Reaktor/Voltage Modular/VCV sessions to what can be visible on screen all at once... a momentary up/down arrow hit is doable, but any more 'scrolling' (particularly sideways) will simply not do at all.