6 ms·

> more people aren't jumping on the bandwagon of physically based modular synths. It’s expensive, takes a lot of space and does nothing that you can’t do in so

by 6581 7y ago

> more people aren't jumping on the bandwagon of physically based modular synths. It’s expensive, takes a lot of space and does nothing that you can’t do in software. The UI/UX of hardware modules might be better, but that’s a trade-off I’ve personally grown to accept.

InitialLastName 7y ago
> does nothing that you can’t do in software I can't turn knobs on my computer, and the blinking LEDs are underwhelming.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  I love modular, so don’t take this as an attack - but a $50 midi controller has a lot of knobs you can turn :)
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    Agreed, although a midi controller by its generic nature does have to adapt to very different hardware, so that for example the knobs, switches etc. placement doesn't reflect functionally the hardware it is connected to, which sometimes would help immensely to ease the operators work. I wish there was a controller made of pluggable micro modules, that is, say 2x2 cm modules receptacles that could host a potentiometer, a pushbutton, a few leds, a sensor pad etc. where no matter where the module is placed, it will link to the backplane processor getting its identification number and function, then the user can move them around to replicate the functional arrangement of an instrument panel to make programming much easier. It's more or less the same idea I'd like to develop for computer keyboards, where pluggable keys (pots, haptic transducers and sensors etc.) could be moved around still keeping their programmed function. With todays technology it wouldn't be so hard to develop; very likely the most expensive part would be the plugs/receptacles hardware rather than their digital hardware or firmware.
    - karlding 7y ago
      This already exists in some form. There's a Waterloo start-up that spun out of a Fourth Year Design Project, Palette [0]. Their main sell was integrations into various creative tools (ex. Adobe Creative Suite, Ableton). They recently rebranded as Monogram [1][2] after announcing new hardware. [0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cchu/palette-a-freeform-interface-that-controls-any-sof https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cchu/palette-a-freeform... [1] https://fstoppers.com/gear/palette-gear-announces-new-hardware-rebranding-monogram-407023 https://fstoppers.com/gear/palette-gear-announces-new-hardwa... [2] https://monogramcc.com/ https://monogramcc.com/
      - squarefoot 7y ago
        Very interesting product, thanks for the links!
    - slackpad 7y ago
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electro-smith/daisy-an-embedded-platform-for-music https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electro-smith/daisy-an-... is worth a look as well. They have dev platforms in Eurorack, desktop synth, and guitar pedal form factors that could be used for something like this, though they have enough DSP to actually run the audio processing the module, but it seems like it could be used for something like a hybrid setup as well with VCV rack with some software work.
  - ovi256 7y ago
    Yeah, but a MIDI controller has fixed button, knob and display positions. We need a new form MIDI controller with movable button and knob and LED placement. Then one could make a physical MIDI controller for any MI software instrument by placing the controls and the LEDs on a backplane in the right place. If it's not already done, I bet it will be in the next 5 to 10 years.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    MIDI controllers and a computer can definitely have their own advantages and can nicely compliment stand-alone hardware nicely. But stand-alone hardware has some advantage of its own over a MIDI setup. Well designed stand-alone hardware modules can turn on instantly, you don't have to keep their software up to date, you don't have to do any performance tuning on them or muck around with latency, they don't have to compete with other software running on your computer as software synths do, I can be pretty sure that barring hardware failure they'll still work exactly the same way 5 or 10 years down the line, etc. In sum, stand-alone hardware offers me a lot of reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance that's often hard to match with a computer and MIDI controllers. Of course, a computer and MIDI controllers have their own advantages and conveniences, like being able to save settings, having a virtually unlimited amount of functionality by using various software packages or writing your own, allowing the user to change or choose their preferred UI, etc. So they're really not the same. It's best to have both!
    - louthy 7y ago
      One thing you forget to mention, but were kind of indirectly saying (I think), is the "reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance" leads directly to creativity in a way that in-the-box stuff can't replicate. Personally, I need to get to the sound I'm designing quickly for my creative flow to continue, if I fight the computer's UI (and let's face it, the vast majority of DAWs and plugins have terrible UIs) then it kills it for me. I end up self censoring (not even bothering to try) and the music that I end up making ends up more 'rigid'. I think if you're the kind of person has infinite patience, then yeah sure, you could probably achieve similar results, but I think for many that's not going to work. Another aspect is the true analogue modules, which software still struggles to emulate well. This matters for some modules/synths more than others, but there is a quality difference. Again, with time, one could make a digital synth/module sound good, but for me it's the same problem of killing the creative flow.
    - klodolph 7y ago
      The line is blurring a bit. Back in the 1990s, hardware modules booted directly from ROM. These days, you’ve basically got a whole computer inside which boots like other modern computers, i.e., slower than it should. There are also some good examples of software stability. Having used Logic and Reason since the early 2000s, you can see all the care that they’ve taken in never removing anything, and only adding new things.
  - absorber 7y ago
    MIDI has the limitation of only having a maximum of 7 bit resolution of continuous control of a parameter. Not only that, but it's not trivial to combine with DAWs because of jitter.
    - rotexo 7y ago
      I've been fantasizing a little about a new modular format, or at least a new category of synth controllers, taking advantage of the higher resolution of MIDI 2.0 for some modulation signals. I could be wrong, but I thought MIDI 2.0 was supposed to potentially be faster/more timing accurate too.
      - absorber 7y ago
        I'm not overtly familiar with MIDI 2.0, but from what I've heard it does fix most of the issues of the old MIDI. However, if you transport your messages over DIN ports, all bets are off. You can also look at Open Sound Control, as it was once intended as a replacement for MIDI.
        PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
        OSC has never, ever been even remotely close to being a replacement for MIDI. Every MIDI message (well, almost every MIDI message) has a defined semantic associated with it. The receiver of the message might choose to reinterpret that, but the default semantic is still defined by the standard. There is not a single standard OSC message. The only thing that is standardized in OSC is the format of a message. Both the receiver and sender have to agree to a specific set of messages, with a specific set of semantics. Trivial example: you want a MIDI-driven synth to start playing middle C. You send it a MIDI NoteOn event with the note number 60. There is no equivalent for this with OSC, not even close. You must know precisely what messages the synth will accept and which ones will mean "start playing middle C". OSC is cool but it isn't and almost certainly will never be a replacement for MIDI.
        rotexo 7y ago
        Yeah I was thinking transport over ethernet would be cool
  - guggle 7y ago
    Thanks, but no thanks, because: - parameter and pot position mismatch - lack of layout - lack of labels Basically a 50$ midi controller gives poor UX.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  you can use something like the FaderFox if you want lots of knobs. as for the LEDs, I'd probably say that VCV Rack running on my 42" screen gives most blinkenlighten setups a run for their money.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
batmansmk 7y ago
You interpreted physically based as physical. You can have a software physically based modular synth. "Physically based" refers to the synthesis method, you model the resonance mechanism. The EaganMatrix, Nord Modular, Kronos... are all examples of this technique, and are also available in 100% software. It is in contrast to subtractive, additive or fm based synths.
- elihu 7y ago
  I don't know, I think the grandparent post could be interpreted either way. Usually, "physical modelling" is the term I'm used to seeing for synthesis methods that simulate physical effects, whereas "hardware synths" are what people tend to call synthesizers that are physically tangible (as opposed to pure software). Physical synths can themselves be digital or analog, or a mix of the two.
brianobush 7y ago
A lot of hobbies are expensive and take-up space, so that argument doesn't hold up in reality. If you are into hardware, you choose hardware. Software versions of Eurorack just don't have the same feel. Even VCV seems clunky. My case has around 140 knobs and switches that I can easily tweak, just can't get the same feel in software regardless of how well the UI has been optimized. My 2 cents.
FutureSpec 7y ago
Doesn't take much space, actually. Also, there's a tremendous satisfaction in getting away from a computer screen. Physically twisting knobs and plugging in wires. Building a rack. Collecting modules.

by 6581 7y ago

InitialLastName 7y ago

> does nothing that you can’t do in software I can't turn knobs on my computer, and the blinking LEDs are underwhelming.

kennywinker 7y ago
I love modular, so don’t take this as an attack - but a $50 midi controller has a lot of knobs you can turn :)
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Agreed, although a midi controller by its generic nature does have to adapt to very different hardware, so that for example the knobs, switches etc. placement doesn't reflect functionally the hardware it is connected to, which sometimes would help immensely to ease the operators work. I wish there was a controller made of pluggable micro modules, that is, say 2x2 cm modules receptacles that could host a potentiometer, a pushbutton, a few leds, a sensor pad etc. where no matter where the module is placed, it will link to the backplane processor getting its identification number and function, then the user can move them around to replicate the functional arrangement of an instrument panel to make programming much easier. It's more or less the same idea I'd like to develop for computer keyboards, where pluggable keys (pots, haptic transducers and sensors etc.) could be moved around still keeping their programmed function. With todays technology it wouldn't be so hard to develop; very likely the most expensive part would be the plugs/receptacles hardware rather than their digital hardware or firmware.
  - karlding 7y ago
    This already exists in some form. There's a Waterloo start-up that spun out of a Fourth Year Design Project, Palette [0]. Their main sell was integrations into various creative tools (ex. Adobe Creative Suite, Ableton). They recently rebranded as Monogram [1][2] after announcing new hardware. [0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cchu/palette-a-freeform-interface-that-controls-any-sof https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cchu/palette-a-freeform... [1] https://fstoppers.com/gear/palette-gear-announces-new-hardware-rebranding-monogram-407023 https://fstoppers.com/gear/palette-gear-announces-new-hardwa... [2] https://monogramcc.com/ https://monogramcc.com/
    - squarefoot 7y ago
      Very interesting product, thanks for the links!
  - slackpad 7y ago
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electro-smith/daisy-an-embedded-platform-for-music https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electro-smith/daisy-an-... is worth a look as well. They have dev platforms in Eurorack, desktop synth, and guitar pedal form factors that could be used for something like this, though they have enough DSP to actually run the audio processing the module, but it seems like it could be used for something like a hybrid setup as well with VCV rack with some software work.
- ovi256 7y ago
  Yeah, but a MIDI controller has fixed button, knob and display positions. We need a new form MIDI controller with movable button and knob and LED placement. Then one could make a physical MIDI controller for any MI software instrument by placing the controls and the LEDs on a backplane in the right place. If it's not already done, I bet it will be in the next 5 to 10 years.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  MIDI controllers and a computer can definitely have their own advantages and can nicely compliment stand-alone hardware nicely. But stand-alone hardware has some advantage of its own over a MIDI setup. Well designed stand-alone hardware modules can turn on instantly, you don't have to keep their software up to date, you don't have to do any performance tuning on them or muck around with latency, they don't have to compete with other software running on your computer as software synths do, I can be pretty sure that barring hardware failure they'll still work exactly the same way 5 or 10 years down the line, etc. In sum, stand-alone hardware offers me a lot of reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance that's often hard to match with a computer and MIDI controllers. Of course, a computer and MIDI controllers have their own advantages and conveniences, like being able to save settings, having a virtually unlimited amount of functionality by using various software packages or writing your own, allowing the user to change or choose their preferred UI, etc. So they're really not the same. It's best to have both!
  - louthy 7y ago
    One thing you forget to mention, but were kind of indirectly saying (I think), is the "reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance" leads directly to creativity in a way that in-the-box stuff can't replicate. Personally, I need to get to the sound I'm designing quickly for my creative flow to continue, if I fight the computer's UI (and let's face it, the vast majority of DAWs and plugins have terrible UIs) then it kills it for me. I end up self censoring (not even bothering to try) and the music that I end up making ends up more 'rigid'. I think if you're the kind of person has infinite patience, then yeah sure, you could probably achieve similar results, but I think for many that's not going to work. Another aspect is the true analogue modules, which software still struggles to emulate well. This matters for some modules/synths more than others, but there is a quality difference. Again, with time, one could make a digital synth/module sound good, but for me it's the same problem of killing the creative flow.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    The line is blurring a bit. Back in the 1990s, hardware modules booted directly from ROM. These days, you’ve basically got a whole computer inside which boots like other modern computers, i.e., slower than it should. There are also some good examples of software stability. Having used Logic and Reason since the early 2000s, you can see all the care that they’ve taken in never removing anything, and only adding new things.
- absorber 7y ago
  MIDI has the limitation of only having a maximum of 7 bit resolution of continuous control of a parameter. Not only that, but it's not trivial to combine with DAWs because of jitter.
  - rotexo 7y ago
    I've been fantasizing a little about a new modular format, or at least a new category of synth controllers, taking advantage of the higher resolution of MIDI 2.0 for some modulation signals. I could be wrong, but I thought MIDI 2.0 was supposed to potentially be faster/more timing accurate too.
    - absorber 7y ago
      I'm not overtly familiar with MIDI 2.0, but from what I've heard it does fix most of the issues of the old MIDI. However, if you transport your messages over DIN ports, all bets are off. You can also look at Open Sound Control, as it was once intended as a replacement for MIDI.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
        OSC has never, ever been even remotely close to being a replacement for MIDI. Every MIDI message (well, almost every MIDI message) has a defined semantic associated with it. The receiver of the message might choose to reinterpret that, but the default semantic is still defined by the standard. There is not a single standard OSC message. The only thing that is standardized in OSC is the format of a message. Both the receiver and sender have to agree to a specific set of messages, with a specific set of semantics. Trivial example: you want a MIDI-driven synth to start playing middle C. You send it a MIDI NoteOn event with the note number 60. There is no equivalent for this with OSC, not even close. You must know precisely what messages the synth will accept and which ones will mean "start playing middle C". OSC is cool but it isn't and almost certainly will never be a replacement for MIDI.
      - rotexo 7y ago
        Yeah I was thinking transport over ethernet would be cool
- guggle 7y ago
  Thanks, but no thanks, because: - parameter and pot position mismatch - lack of layout - lack of labels Basically a 50$ midi controller gives poor UX.
PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
you can use something like the FaderFox if you want lots of knobs. as for the LEDs, I'd probably say that VCV Rack running on my 42" screen gives most blinkenlighten setups a run for their money.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

batmansmk 7y ago

You interpreted physically based as physical. You can have a software physically based modular synth. "Physically based" refers to the synthesis method, you model the resonance mechanism. The EaganMatrix, Nord Modular, Kronos... are all examples of this technique, and are also available in 100% software. It is in contrast to subtractive, additive or fm based synths.

elihu 7y ago
I don't know, I think the grandparent post could be interpreted either way. Usually, "physical modelling" is the term I'm used to seeing for synthesis methods that simulate physical effects, whereas "hardware synths" are what people tend to call synthesizers that are physically tangible (as opposed to pure software). Physical synths can themselves be digital or analog, or a mix of the two.

brianobush 7y ago

A lot of hobbies are expensive and take-up space, so that argument doesn't hold up in reality. If you are into hardware, you choose hardware. Software versions of Eurorack just don't have the same feel. Even VCV seems clunky. My case has around 140 knobs and switches that I can easily tweak, just can't get the same feel in software regardless of how well the UI has been optimized. My 2 cents.

FutureSpec 7y ago

Doesn't take much space, actually. Also, there's a tremendous satisfaction in getting away from a computer screen. Physically twisting knobs and plugging in wires. Building a rack. Collecting modules.