Synthesizers (and other pro audio stuff)

[faetal]

Yeah. I just wanted to chat about synths with other nerds, but it morphed into something way cooler.

[qolelis]

Especially for those of you using hardware modular synthesis: I have a question or two regarding software versus hardware:

1. In VCV, as far as I know, each input and output can be used either for control signals or audio signals (it's all just a matter of voltage levels), so I can draw cables any way I want and use modules for whatever I want and still get a useful signal (with the exception of polyphonic versus monophonic). In Reason (which isn't truly modular, although it borrows from that world too), they differentiate between control signals and audio signals, so the two cannot be mixed. How does this work in hardware (or, more specifically, the hardware you are using)?
2. What would you say the advantage of hardware is (compared to software)? I can imagine a couple, but I'd rather hear it from someone with practical experience.
3. How easy is it to find and add new modules?

For me, as a beginner, software in general has the advantage of not taking up any extra space, and VCV in particular has the advantage of making it very easy to find and add new modules, with many of them also being free (just like VCV is), so I can try things out without spending a lot of money. Also, as someone with more programming experience, creating my own plugin would be easier than having to build the hardware for it (not that I would mind getting into that as well, but it would take a lot more effort (and beginner mistakes might have more severe consequences)).

The disadvantage of software is that it's clearly not as hands-on as hardware; turning a hardware knob is an experience that is hard to emulate. VCV in particular lacks a method of labeling a module, while Reason can do it (in hardware, it's easy with just a pen and some tape).

***

Today I have experimented solely with different methods of calculating an average in VCV:

1. It turns out that the Unity module can be set to use either 6 or all 12 inputs for one average, so that made it easier to calculate an average for 8 inputs. This method can be expanded to work also for higher number of inputs (see below).
2. Use two mixer modules to sum together all 8 channels. Then use a third mixer module to divide the result by 8, which requires a bit of extra math. I started by looking up the definition for dB (which is what the mixer module use for setting the level of an input):
   dB = 10*log10(fP), where fP is the factor we want to multiply the power level with. For the mixer module, we instead need the change in amplitude:
   fA = sqrt(fP) => dB = 10*log10(fA^2) => dB = 20*log10(fA)
   fA = 1/n (n is the number of channels) => dB = 20*log10(1/n) = -20*log10(n)
   So, with 8 channels, we must set the input level to dB = -20*log10(8) ~ -18.062 in order to calculate the average (to be certain I had calculated everything correctly, I used a Scope module to compare the result with that from method #1). This method can be extended if more channels are needed, but there will be lots of mixers (one per every fourth channel plus one more). We can also have some fun by routing the note gate values to each cv input on the channel mixers. This means that a channel will be counted as having a level of zero as soon as its note key is released, ignoring the release value of the volume envelope -- although the usefulness of this can be debated.
3. Use a sum module to add all channels together and then an attenuator model (VCA) to calculate the average. The attenuation factor is measured in percent, so it's easy to calculate its value in order to divide by 8 (i.e. 100%/8 = 12.5%). Easy to adapt for more channels and requires only two modules.

Averaging all channels, currently 8, solves the problem of clipping, but all channels are counted, not only those that are currently in use, so if only one channel is in use, the volume of it will still be divided by eight, so the fewer channels in use, the quieter the result (and vice versa). This could be considered an artistic choice, but it would be interesting to also be able to average only used channels. I can calculate the number of used channels by adding together all note gate voltages and then divide the sum by 10 (a gate is either 0 or 10 volts), but I haven't yet figured out how to divide something with an arbitrary number (i.e. the number of used channels). Counting only channels with active gates will ignore the release value of the volume envelope (as for method #3 above), so that would have to be solved as well (if we want a tone to fade out instead of ending abruptly).

***

And to answer my own question from earlier:

Is there a way to calculate an average using a function taking fewer inputs than you need?

Yes, with a few exceptions: factorize the number of inputs and then use lower order average functions for each of these factors. This means that it's not possible if the number of inputs is a prime number (higher than the number of existing inputs), or if a lower order function doesn't exist for a given factor.

Example: Calculate the average for six inputs.
6 is the product of 2 and 3, so we use either 2 average functions of order 3 and one of order 2, or 3 of order 2 and one of order 3:
g(a, b, c, d, e, f) = g(g(a, b, c), g(d, e, f)) = g(g(a, b), g(c, d), g(e, f))

***

[demagogue]

Really quickly, there is a label module by Stoermelder called Glue that allows you to add a label to any module and knob. You drop it anywhere in your rack, click the "Label" button, the little LED light will light up, and you left-click on any module and a label will pop up on the module and you can drag it where you want it. Then right click the label and you can change the text and any parameter (the color, size, font, etc.).

Another useful labeling module to have is Submarine's TD-202, which you just add text on directly so it can effectively label a whole area of your patch.

If you want to have hands-on performance, not just using switches and LFOs, you really need a physical knob.

The thing is that VCV allows you to map other synth and keyboard controllers to control VCV parameters. The standard VCV module Midi Map is the one that does that. So you can hook your computer up to your controller with a Midi to USB (or I think just a plain USB) cable, and then map one of their knobs or buttons to any knob or button on any VCV module. You still need a physical controller, but you can get a really cheap one and use it to control VCV Rack. It also allows you to integrate VCV Rack with actual Eurorack modules, and if you search, you can see lots of people that freely mix Eurorack modules with VCV Rack modules in the same patch.

[Aja]

So much to catch up on here.

Dema, I actually really like the lonely pyramids tone; it's maybe not as rich as the others, but it sounds like it would sit well in a mix. The clear waters track is great, too. Can't help but think of Mario 64.

I agree with everyone that your piano patch is great, too, and could see it working in a track with a bit of reverb. I like the snappy attack, but it still somehow sounds soft, like halfway between an acoustic and tine piano. Your steel guitar is a bit general-midi sounding but in an endearing way ; ) I meant to add steel guitar to the list, too, and just forgot.

Qolelis I like your polyphonic drone best. I could see it as the base of an ambient or soundtrack piece.

Pig, I feel like your musical white noise is basically what I was going to do, so I guess I'll have to think of something else.

Here's my entry for airy. I let it record for five minutes because I was enjoying it, but the actual sequence is only 8 notes long. I probably should've high-passed it more to make it airier, but EQ after the fact seems to go against the spirit of this.

[Aja]

Especially for those of you using hardware modular synthesis: I have a question or two regarding software versus hardware:

1. In VCV, as far as I know, each input and output can be used either for control signals or audio signals (it's all just a matter of voltage levels), so I can draw cables any way I want and use modules for whatever I want and still get a useful signal (with the exception of polyphonic versus monophonic). In Reason (which isn't truly modular, although it borrows from that world too), they differentiate between control signals and audio signals, so the two cannot be mixed. How does this work in hardware (or, more specifically, the hardware you are using)?
2. What would you say the advantage of hardware is (compared to software)? I can imagine a couple, but I'd rather hear it from someone with practical experience.
3. How easy is it to find and add new modules?

For me, as a beginner, software in general has the advantage of not taking up any extra space, and VCV in particular has the advantage of making it very easy to find and add new modules, with many of them also being free (just like VCV is), so I can try things out without spending a lot of money. Also, as someone with more programming experience, creating my own plugin would be easier than having to build the hardware for it (not that I would mind getting into that as well, but it would take a lot more effort (and beginner mistakes might have more severe consequences)).

With hardware modular synths you can generally patch any voltage out to any voltage in, but not all inputs on all modules are designed to work with both. If an input is AC coupled, it means it filters out signals below a certain frequency, which means control voltages will do nothing. Conversely, some inputs that expect slow-moving control signals will accept audio-rate signals, but they won't necessarily respond in a useful way. Some will work with both, and those are usually the most fun to play with, in my opinion.

As for the advantage of hardware, for me it's mostly about the interface. Personally I don't feel as inspired making music with a mouse and keyboard than a dedicated hardware interface, but it's more psychological than anything. As far as sound quality, analog synthesizers tend to have elements of unpredictability, instability, and imperfection that for me makes them more engaging and interesting to play with. Good software can definitely have these qualities, too, though.

[Aja]

And, much to the dismay of everyone on the forum who doesn't care about synthesizers, the thread goes back to to the top.
Here is my cold.

[PigLick]

I like the airy one but particularly liked your cold patch, very icy but also percussive kinda like high speed javanese percussion

[demagogue]

So off and on I've been working on a synth concept for a while. I thought you guys might like to see one of the rough drafts of it that kind of looks cool at least.

It's built around an algorithmic sequencer/arpeggiator on which you build really long and evolving sequences, although you can program it as a normal sequencer/arpeggiator or a whole song if you want. Then there are two oscillators (each with a sub-oscillator) and two noise generators for percussion, and then it's got a clock, LFOs, envelopes, four effects, a mixer where you can bring voices in and out. The colored keyboard triples-up as the sequencer (48 parts, 48 steps showing), the notes the sequncer/arpeggiator is playing, and you can just play it as a normal 4 octave keyboard (or 2 split keyboards). There's some things that this is fudging or are placeholders for now, so don't take the details too seriously.

The way you patch it, basically the dials all have a circle of lights on the inside and outside. The outside lights are the levels. The inside lights (or just the lit up colors of the whole knob) are the "patch index". If you have an "out arrow" and an "in arrow" dial set to the same "patch index" light, that means they're patched together as if a cable were connecting them. If you push a knob in, then it and the connected knobs will start flashing so they're easy to find. Except the "levels" for "Filter No.", "Env. No." and "LFO No." would be the Filter, Envelope, & LFO numbers (up to 16 or whatever), each one having its own individual levels and patch index linking it to something else.

Edit: I worked on it some more and this version is more reasonable.



You can still see the original one I posted here: https://i.imgur.com/kfjnpNz.png
I'll periodically edit in a link to the latest version too: https://i.imgur.com/P26ZrvY.png

[PigLick]

that looks very cool, imagine a physical version of that.

also I was thinking Iwould like to keep this thread but is it possible to have a sticky post at the top with all links to all our patches? rather than scrolling through to fiind them.

[qolelis]

Really quickly, there is a label module by Stoermelder [...] Another useful labeling module to have is Submarine's TD-202, which you just add text on directly so it can effectively label a whole area of your patch.

Thanks for the tips (I should have known there was a module for that (and probably one for anything I can think of)). I'm not quite ready yet, though; I'm still squeezing out as much as I can from what I have. Once I get to it, I'll start by trying out those labelling modules, a couple for basic arithmetics and boolean logic, and probably a couple more (I'm making mental notes of things I would like to start with).

With hardware modular synths you can generally patch any voltage out to any voltage in, but not all inputs on all modules are designed to work with both. If an input is AC coupled, it means it filters out signals below a certain frequency, which means control voltages will do nothing. Conversely, some inputs that expect slow-moving control signals will accept audio-rate signals, but they won't necessarily respond in a useful way. Some will work with both, and those are usually the most fun to play with, in my opinion.

Thanks for answering. Is there ever a risk of damaging equipment by making weird unexpected connections?

The same thing can probably be said about VCV. I have started to look at the source code, which is freely available, for some of the modules and there is, for example, clamping going on here and there, so some types of input are probably more useful in those cases, even if anything can be connected to anything. At the same time, it's a new way of thinking for me that I'm still getting accustomed to, so I haven't seen even half of it yet.

Another thing VCV has opened me up for (more) is the need -- or want -- for at least some kind of controller hardware. I know what I want most from it, like something with a piano keyboard and something with lots of buttons and knobs etc -- possibly as two separate items, while drumpads aren't a priority right now. "Stand-alone" synths aren't a priority yet either; for starters I just want something I can control software with and see how that feels. There's so much to choose from, though, but at this time, when reading reviews is kind of not really helping any more, it might be time to just take the plunge and choose the one I "vibe with the most by just looking at it". I could write more, but I don't want to fill up the whole thread with my confused ramblings (I guess there's enough of that already).

As for the advantage of hardware, for me it's mostly about the interface. Personally I don't feel as inspired making music with a mouse and keyboard than a dedicated hardware interface, but it's more psychological than anything. As far as sound quality, analog synthesizers tend to have elements of unpredictability, instability, and imperfection that for me makes them more engaging and interesting to play with. Good software can definitely have these qualities, too, though.

Software is how I started, so I'm really used to it by now. With the introduction of VCV, though, my standard keyboard is starting to feel awkward, as VCV more naturally asks of me to "perform" something rather than program it (setting up a sequencer environment for programmed input takes more effort than setting things up for "performed" input, and I haven't even done the former yet (there is probably a plug-in to help with that, though). Reason's sequencer, on the other hand, is more immediately available (even though it leaves much to wish for), so getting hardware hasn't felt as pressing until now.

So off and on I've been working on a synth concept for a while. I thought you guys might like to see one of the rough drafts of it that kind of looks cool at least.

"It's full of knobs."

Are you using the VCV API or is it stand-alone? Can you do anything with it yet?

It's built around an algorithmic sequencer/arpeggiator on which you build really long and evolving sequences

Does that in any way suggest self-evolving or self-generating sequences?

Edit:
I forgot to ramble confusedly about my latest experiments in VCV (and how many times can I mention VCV in the same post? I can apparently mention VCV many times in the same post):
I've been playing around with the standard sequencer module for different things -- except, of course, for actual sequencing:

1. Storing constants: I needed to trigger something on note key release, which meant checking if the note key gate value was zero. One way to do that was to calculate "10 - gate" (effectively turning 0 into 10 and 10 into 0) and let the result be the trigger. The problem was where to get the constant 10 from. I eventually stored it in the sequencer module which can be made to constantly send the same value without intermediate zeroes. There are probably better ways, but if it works, it works (one idea would otherwise be to somehow sample and store the gate value when a key is pressed, which would mean not having to hardcode, or even know, the exact value).
2. Storing more constants: Later, I needed a constant of 100. This was a problem, because the sequencer knobs go up to only ten, so I had to use a mixer module to multiply the max value, 10, by 2 three times and then by 100/80 one time. Some time after that, I realized 10 was enough: the display value of what I needed to set goes from 0 to 100, so I initially assumed without thinking that 100 was what I had to feed it, but it makes sense now that 10 volts is what represents a maximum value (or so I assume; could still be lower than that, but 10 volts seems to be a standard (yup, time to do a bit of reading instead of guessing)).
3. Pulse generator: I needed to briefly enable something, i.e. send a pulse, so I used a sequencer, set the step size to 2, triggered the internal clock, and then, using a delay module, reset the step position soon after. By setting the individual values of the step positions, I could send the needed activation signal and then a zero soon after. I later realized I could use a sequential switch module instead, which is more specialized and more compact (the value I needed to send was available already from somewhere else). Come to think of it, I could possibly get rid of the delay module when using a sequencer, by changing the clock tempo at the right time, set the number of steps as needed, and also reset the clock tempo (to zero) when done. Might need more modules than the current solution, though, but still fun to think about.

[Aja]

Thanks for answering. Is there ever a risk of damaging equipment by making weird unexpected connections?

Some modules can be damaged by patching an output to an output, but most of the bigger manufacturers protect against this. Some, like Make Noise, explicitly state that anything can be patched anywhere, but you can't assume it for every brand.

The bigger danger, I think, comes with Eurorack power supplies. There isn't much standardization, and it's possible to really cheap out on your PSU, which may or may not cause issues. The other thing is the silly ribbon cables used to connect the power supply to individual modules; on modules without keyed headers they can be plugged in backwards, which, again, may or may not cause damage depending on whether there's reverse-protection circuitry included. I've fried a couple of my DIY modules plugging them in backwards and had to replace ICs as a result. Another issue is that if you have any unused space in your rack, your power supply is exposed, and a stray cable could slip in there and potentially cause damage. The best-built modules, though, are designed to be able to handle the maximum voltage between the power rails at all inputs and outputs.

[faetal]

I recommend modular grid for planning builds. It keeps track of things like power usage and warns if any of th emodules have poorly defined or incompatible power.

I haven't gotten round to carrying on the patch building since getting stuck on the krell patch, largely because I'm back at work and super busy again, but also because I now have the start of my Eurorack system and have been sidetracked with goofing around on that. To loop back round to modular grid, here is my current system (some of the modules have been bought but not arrived yet - I currently only have Ears & Clouds in addition to the Minibrute 2S): https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/1254059

[Aja]

Here's mine, including some of my kludgy DIY stuff: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/442533

[faetal]

Nice setup. Can you afford to eat?

[Aja]

You wanna trade your Prophet for it?

Truthfully the cost of Eurorack does bother me, the fact that I can afford it while others can't, but somehow I always manage to justify it to myself. I have a pretty-good paying job and no kids (yet), and when I started out I sold a bunch of gear to make the initial investment and bought used. It's been a couple years since, so by typical Eurorack standards I'm accumulating slowly, but it's pretty easy to delude yourself when you can compare against guys on the forum with $30,000 collections. It's a true guilty pleasure.

[faetal]

One of the big things I am doing to limit my spending on Eurorack is buying the Expert Sleepers ES-3 & 6.
Will let me incorporate VCV rack into my setup pretty seamlessly, if this video is any indication.
I think this will serve to not only massively expand what I can do, but also slow down the rate at which I buy modules by giving me more time to try out types of modules.
The disting mk4 I have on back-order will also help on that front.
I'm also toying with buying a soldering kit and learning to make DIY modules, which has the added effect of offsetting one hobby with a new one.

That's the plan anyway. Nothing to say I won't just end up buying modules compulsively anyway because shiny, but I am trying to restrain myself.

[Volitions Advocate]

Goddammit. This is what happens when I don't log into the forum for months at a time.

I've always loved synths, but never learned how to use them properly. I was a band geek kid, playing everything from flute to highland bagpipes. Been Playing guitar since I was 16 (about 20 years now yeesh), and always played in either punk, or butt rock bands.

In the last 10 years I've eeked out a bachelors degree in music and I'm almost done my Masters. That one is on hiatus because of my divorce, but hopefully I'll finish it by next year.

While all my friends were either salivating over Van Halen or Guns n Roses, I was listening to trashy europop techno comp albums, Erasure, and Depeche Mode. So it's dumb that I never learned to play them.

Until around the time this thread started anyway. I discovered Look Mum No Computer on YT and I'm not turning back. DIY is a big part of what I do in basically everything, and I didn't know that there was this long held tradition of building your own modular synth that stretches back to the 70s. Much like Ham Radio's used to be a big DIY thing.

I have to admit. While I heard of Eurorack a lot over the years. I never looked at what it was exactly, and just thought it was some DJ oriented equipment. I had no idea it was an actual modular synth. I always thought they were just relics that nobody used and only collectors bought who liked stuff from the 70s and 80s.

So that was a neat revelation.

I've been pretty rabidly looking through circuits and trying to figure out where to start. I've been going through Omri Cohen's videos a bit and learning how to use VCV so I have some frame of reference, but the whole idea of patching without watching a tutorial video is still something I feel I can't do. I still don't really understand how to do it.

While I wont be buying eurorack modules. I will probably be spending a lot of money on some new toys for the garage. Like a distillation set, some beakers and Erlenmeyer flasks and some HCL to start etching my own circuits. Time to get nerdy.

Of course if I had been poking around the forum more often I could have joined in on the conversation before now.

[Jason Moyer]

Here's mine, including some of my kludgy DIY stuff: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/442533

What do you think of the Morphagene and the Mimeophone? I was thinking about putting together a small system to complement the VRL (maybe in the same kind of case if they make more) and I want to build it around sound mangling, maybe an FM radio, and some other weird stuff like the PghMod percussion sequencer and Gamesystem.

Maybe something like this https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/1273614

[demagogue]

@qolelis, I think one of the best ways to get into the scene is to just start watching tutorial and demo videos on YouTube, and maybe join a synth and the VCV Facebook groups that post them a lot.

Anyway, for a cheap controller, I'd recommend the Arturia Keystep or Keystep Pro, or it seems to be the popular choice anyway. I mentioned the demo videos because I've seen it used in so many demo videos by so many synth experts, I have to think there's something to it. It's set up to control four synths or modules at a time, where you just push a button and all the knobs switch over to whichever synth you have set to that button, and there are a lot of other good things about, including that they're cheap. The Keystep is ~$120 USD and the Pro I think around $350 USD.

As for my concept I posted, yeah, I already know half or more of those knobs are going to get cut. I probably shouldn't have posted a WIP so early, but I liked the look and feel of it and wanted to show it off I guess. (Edit: I updated it and replaced the old image with a newer version.) The idea is it's something from which I could build a physical prototype from. If I get further with it, I would build either a standalone or VCV version just to test it and make it work. And if it works well and I get spontaneously rich someday, I'd try to make a hardware version.

@Aja, that set up looks great.

I have a list of modules I'd get if I start collecting. For the most part, though, I've used my Mox8 and some soft synths together for a long time and know them really well. Whenever I have a synthing idea, I can usually figure out some way to at least jerry rig it with what I have now. As I think I said at the top, though, I am thinking seriously about the Novation Summit at some point because it looks just great to work and perform on.

[Aja]

What do you think of the Morphagene and the Mimeophone? I was thinking about putting together a small system to complement the VRL (maybe in the same kind of case if they make more) and I want to build it around sound mangling, maybe an FM radio, and some other weird stuff like the PghMod percussion sequencer and Gamesystem.

Maybe something like this https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/1273614

I think they're a lot of fun as a pair; they have lots of complimentary features that patch well together. Individually, I can recommend the Mimeophon hands-down. It's not the most hi-fi delay ever, but it's a real joy to use. I think it sounds great, with a kind of unspecified vintage feel -- the designer, Tom Erbe, talked about how he took inspiration from oil can delays to Lexicon digital delays to Space Echos, and it feels like it. It's still a bit mysterious to me, but that's why I buy Make Noise modules; they encourage exploration. It also works really well as a 1v/oct oscillator.

The Morphagene is maybe not as immediately recommendable, but I wouldn't get rid of mine. It's a little harder to get a handle on, a little harder to use to its potential, but I love the way it sounds, and again, it's really fun to just explore and experiment with. It feels like a crazy instrument that you have to learn to play. Downsides are that some of the button combos can be hard to remember, and a lot of interesting features were added after the fact and are adjustable only with a config file.

One thing I'll note is that both modules have a bit of a noise floor when using line level signals (with modular level they're fine), so if you're planning to use them in a sound-mangling setup, I'd definitely include some kind of preamp module as well, something like this.

[faetal]

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine gifted me a Moog Werkstatt as he was getting ready to sell his house and needed to clear space (good for me).
Very nice, if not immediately user friendly for non-modular users. To make it easier to use with my eurorack setup, I bought an expander module, which converts the micropin patch bay to 3.5 mm patch points.

Now it looks like Moog have reissued it with better patch points (the original allowed double use of the gate out socket for gate in, but doesn't work that well): https://youtu.be/_3sH4iRsMF8

Should be of interest to anyone looking for that big Moog sound without that big Moog price tag.

[Jason Moyer]

Did you put it together yourself?

[faetal]

No, mine came pre-assembled by the person who gifted me it, but based on that video, it looks super easy (no soldering unless you're doing any custom mods).

[Jason Moyer]

I have a Mother-32 so the Werkstatt would probably be redundant, but it seems like a really nice synth. I dunno what Moog's secret is, but of the pile of analog kit I have their stuff easily has the best raw tone of anything.

[PigLick]

apart from the actual physical act of using the things, is there any advantage versus software synths?