Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Modular...for Traditional Musicians


Recommended Posts

I have some time on my hands while out visiting my daughter and so figured I"d give this subject a shot. I know almost everyone here is some sort of keyboardist who, ya know, actually plays their keyboards. Me too.

 

Let"s try to avoid some of the the typical comments that often quickly surface when discussing modular:

 

1) Bleeps and bloops: Hey I like to plays my sounds as a traditionally trained keyboardist and I"m not into the typical sequenced auto-pilot stuff.

 

2) Endless rabbit hole: if you"re into constantly upgrading, replacing, having to have the latest and greatest etc. it"s no different whether it"s modular or not. I have 1 skiff of modules on each side of my room to enhance the functionality of my mono synths. It""s been this way for several years without changing a thing.

 

3 ) Cant store my settings. No different than the resurgence of some classic reissues. If you have to have storage move on.

 

4) Not gig friendly. Yup- I"m talking home, studio use.

 

 

So what else is there to discuss and why even bother with this antiquated way of working?

 

I"ll start with some thoughts on Oscillators. The 'sound' of the oscillators often come up with polys; VCO, DCO, NCO, CEMs, SSM, FPGA, DCO, whatever. IMO people love to get behind their favorite tech acronym for why their synth is better than yours. Whether the oscillator type is actually a significant contributor to the sound or not is mostly irrelevant (I"m going to stop with the IMOs).

 

In a typical Poly synth and fixed mono synth the manufacturer is trying to give you a saw, square, triangle and if you"re lucky other types of wave shapes. The shape of the waveform greatly affects what you hear. But the difference between one square wave and another.... extremely minor compared to all the other stuff provided to muck with the sound. Also you can"t really tell whether the oscillator itself is contributing to the unique flavor of the sound (excluding the waveform selection itself).

 

Yes there are quirks and exceptions with some of these intended perfect waveforms. But again I think it"s mostly negligible. And no way to prove it unless you"re some kind of geek always messing with a scope :wave:

 

Modular is completely opposite. Manufacturers go out of their way to have unique sounding and funky oscillators with all kind of modifiers to muck with the waveform. I have a couple of oscillator modules that have noise artifacts built into every waveform. Not too good for clean sounds but still wonderful for other stuff. Some oscillator modules are way more than just oscillators. But the added features are more convenient than adding additional dedicated modules to do the same.

 

So what do you do with this? I connect the output of the oscillator into the external input of a mono and now I have an additional oscillator that sounds completely different from the ones built in. And I can use the on board synths filter and other stuff to further modify that oscillator"s sound. Or I use that oscillator as an LFO with a unique rhythmic waveform for a cool modulation, different from the typical tremolo type mod wheel effect.

 

Ok enough for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have purchased my hardware synths with oscillator complexity in mind (except the minimoog model D), so I find myself conceptually aligned with your approach. I think that rich oscillator modulation produces much more expressive sounds. The ADSR is such a crude approximation. I find complex, capable oscillators and a deep, modular-style modulation matrix attractive in synths. Small desktop monos? Not at all.

 

The other approach to modular for players is to use it as a powerful FX rack. There are wonderful modulation and mangling modules out there. The Erica synth stuff comes to mind... In this model one might not concentrate on oscillators but on filters and modulators that do crazy things to the sound.

 

I think there is one more model, and that is what Moog is currently pushing. Buy a hardware synth with lots of patch points, combine it with their sequencers, drum synths, etc and make a hybrid setup that involves playing keys with the sound happening everywhere via a mess of patch cords. Admittedly, a lot of these seem to sequence bass/drums kind of things and have a mono melody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first synth back in 1981 was a PAiA 4700 modular. I gigged with it and cut my sound development chops experimenting with that thing. After acquiring my first Moog in 1985 I stopped using the PAiA. I have no desire to own modular again. Why?

 

1) perpetual upgrade treadmill

2) bottomless money pit for upgrades

3) I'm an performing ensemble player and modulars don't have a place in an ensemble. A modular is a solitary instrument.

4) can never reproduce a patch 100%. Even with digital pics for "patch storage". Not a quick change instrument for gigging.

5) high risk of malfunction when gigging a modular. Many potential points of failures.

6) today I have a good collection of synths, not many modular patches that I can't already do on them. My Andromeda is the closest thing to a modular, especially for modulations.

 

I'm a traditional trained player and enjoy hearing players. There's some good EDM out there played on modulars but I am not into bug music or bleeps and bloops.

 

Not saying modulars are bad, just that I no longer have a use for them. They're great for experimenting and building your sound design skills - already been there.

 

I'm fascinated by the renaissance in analog modulars. You know they are hip again when an entire section at NAMM is reserved for "modular alley". :boing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to toy with Sonigen Modular. The sound doesn"t suck and you can save presets. If I really wanted to gig with a modular it would be some form of modular VST.

"It doesn't have to be difficult to be cool" - Mitch Towne

 

"A great musician can bring tears to your eyes!!!

So can a auto Mechanic." - Stokes Hunt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great points Nathanael. Most small monos just need a little assistance or enhancement as I like to call it. As long as they have the hooks to get signals inside the machine. Then you can take advantage of their unique characteristic sound and not be hampered by their often limited modulation.

 

I started this thread talking about unique oscillator sound but my 2 single skiffs are almost exclusively used as a modulation toolbox. Even these complex oscillators I referred to are used this way. Seeing these huge modular setups I think people are often intimidated with hooking up a single patch cord. Understandable as I was never into this stuff until I needed a way to control the modulation on one of my semi modular monos with a foot pedal.

 

VCA modules to the rescue. My recently acquired Karp Odyssey module which stupidly doesn"t have modwheel control over midi let alone aftertouch takes advantage of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first synth back in 1981 was a PAiA 4700 modular. I gigged with it and cut my sound development chops experimenting with that thing. After acquiring my first Moog in 1985 I stopped using the PAiA. I have no desire to own modular again. Why?

 

1) perpetual upgrade treadmill

2) bottomless money pit for upgrades

3) I'm an performing ensemble player and modulars don't have a place in an ensemble. A modular is a solitary instrument.

4) can never reproduce a patch 100%. Even with digital pics for "patch storage". Not a quick change instrument for gigging.

5) high risk of malfunction when gigging a modular. Many potential points of failures.

6) today I have a good collection of synths, not many modular patches that I can't already do on them. My Andromeda is the closest thing to a modular, especially for modulations.

 

I'm a traditional trained player and enjoy hearing players. There's some good EDM out there played on modulars but I am not into bug music or bleeps and bloops.

 

Not saying modulars are bad, just that I no longer have a use for them. They're great for experimenting and building your sound design skills - already been there.

 

I'm fascinated by the renaissance in analog modulars. You know they are hip again when an entire section at NAMM is reserved for "modular alley". :boing:

 

 

You"re absolutely right, Maths by Make Noise is awesome and crazy at the same time. Like you I spend much time exploring its endless possibilities trying to get my head around it. I can"t believe you do this live on a gig and as part of an ensemble? Way to go! :thu:

 

But I wouldn"t hold my breath waiting for an upgrade anytime soon. Try to stay focused on what you already have. Thanks for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reasons why I love modular off the top of my head:

- Everything starts on, not off like a keyboard. You start with a drone and chisel away

- Everything starts out of sync. Leads to unexpected results and "playing with sound" in a more acoustic-like alive way vs a keyboard synth designed to be played by a professional keyboardist

- If you like playing with samples, it's sooo much easier to "play" with them than any keyboard samplers or virtual instruments I'm aware of ... Assimil8or, Arbhar, Morphagene, etc. ... such a hands on way to zoom in on sound and, again, find the unexpected

- While the sounds I get from the modular are theoretically possible from other instruments, it's actually a chore to get there and, actually, I'm not sure it is possible

- The complexity of modulation, from both control signals and audio signals, is super-easy in modular, not so easy outside it. Zadar, Maths and a few VCAs ... good luck in a Moog

- I get to start with a blank slate each time when I sit down, like a painter at a bank canvas ... no temptation to play presets

- I am often pleasantly surprised by what I'm able to coax out of it. I never think "uy, that voicing again ... can't you find something new to play after decades at this!"

- I don't think it's a rabbit hole of money because if I wasn't spending the money on modules I'd be spending it on keyboards, or pedals, or mics, etc. You need self-control like anything else in life when it comes to money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I built my giganto modular, I had SO many choices available just for analog oscillators. My system had high precision saw core, cheap and cheerful saw core, triangle core, and through zero FM (but still analog) oscillators. I also had a wavetable oscillator so that I could dabble with digital. Never got around to trying a Buchla style complex oscillator, although I did certainly patch up an equivalent a few times.

 

They all sounded different, and were all sources of inspiration. These days, I look at modular as a means to more expressiveness. The integration of some of the modern digital modules with analog modules is allowing new physical modelling techniques with voltage control inputs for everything.

 

Lots of unconventional controllers to make your music more expressive too - XYZ pads, gestural rings, etc. Looking forward to my Osmose to start exploring sound design again. Who knows, maybe I will dip my toe back into the modular waters.

Moe

---

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAMM 2000, some KCers invite me to the Technosaurus booth.

 

I guess my reputation had preceded me... when I introduced myself, owner Jürg Oldani immediately pulled every patch cord on the Selector modular and invited me to "have fun".

 

I knew I had walked into an initiation procedure. So I dialed up my "acid test" patch... a choir. "Acid test" meaning that it goes a long way to qualify the resonant quality of a filter and it tests the subtle VCO modulations needed for emulate the sound of multiple voices from a pair of VCOs. Mind you this was the first time I had laid hands on a Technosaurus, but I was hardly a novice around a modular.

 

After that I was accepted into the "modular club".

 

Technosaurus Selector were great sounding modulars...excellent interface/patching design...every module a winner... MISS THEM. Jürg prematurely quit the modular synth business for unknown reasons just as the modular craze was starting. Not many Technosaurus systems out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.

 

I only have hands on experience with Eurorack other than the occasional encounter at NAMM and such. I"m not quite sure how to ask this question in a non-confusing way. Is there any defining characteristic to the sound of modular based on the physical 'format' used, i.e. Euro vs 5U, vs Frac etc.?

 

I know Buchla approaches synthesis much different from say Cwejman or just about anyone else and therefore sounds different. Would a Buchla module in Euro sound different than in 5U? Is any of this because of the size of components used, power rails etc? Or does this approach the same endless arguments as thru-hole vs smt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own about 6 rows (84 hp) of Eurorack, and I"ve owned both Frac and Moog/Dotcom formats in the past. I don"t think that there is an inherent characteristic that can be defined technically of a specific format over another, but I will say that the larger formats, except for Buchla, tend to be less 'out there', most likely because of smaller user bases and less chance to make money. But Noise Engineering and other have definitely delved into larger formats with some of their more popular modules. For those modules that come in two formats, I have not noticed any difference per se in audio quality or character, but then again, the ones I"ve been able to compare apples to apples have been digital.

 

There are a few companies making Buchla clones in Eurorack format, and at the last in-person Knobcon, I spent a lot of time A/Bing oscillators. I didn"t really notice a palpable difference. Buchla also makes Eurorack modules, and those sounded great, but they were new modules, not exactly recreations.

 

My conclusion is that given the same components, I don"t think the format matters much for oscillators except for issues around density of components per PCB.

"For instance" is not proof.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks 0/9. Intuitively that makes sense to me from a technical perspective. There"s no denying the visceral aspect of standing in front of one of these monster setups and the feel of the knobs as you 'clunk' them into position. Much more inviting than the 'tweezers required' approach with eurorack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claims have been made that the huge open sound of the old Moog modulars is due to large scale transistors and wide traces. I dunno. I've heard similar sound quality from Macbeth and others using more modern thru hole designs.

 

As to the sound of thru hole vs surface mount - yeah, that's a debate rabbit hole we don't want to go down. There is no denying that thru hole components are much easier to repair for old eyes and stiff fingers. You can hang identical circuit boards behind any front panel no matter the format, as long as you solve the panel control mounting issues. Most times the board is designed for a single panel format though.

Moe

---

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claims have been made that the huge open sound of the old Moog modulars is due to large scale transistors and wide traces.

 

Not directed at you - those claims are heifer excrement coming from people who have no knowledge of the technology.

 

As to the sound of thru hole vs surface mount - yeah, that's a debate rabbit hole we don't want to go down.

 

I'll plug that rabbit hole right now. Put a Moog Minitaur built from surface mount up against the original through hole Taurus I pedals and you're hard pressed to hear any difference. Surface mount can sound excellent when done right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to toy with Sonigen Modular. The sound doesn"t suck and you can save presets. If I really wanted to gig with a modular it would be some form of modular VST.

 

Yeah me too. It will need to be in a laptop. Will check out Sonigen. Thanks. ð I gigged a Nord Modular for several years. A great synth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the playing aspect can someone discuss the keyboards that went with the classic modulars? Did they use bus bars? Was Pratt-Reed used or were they exclusive to a particular brand modular? How did they feel and stand up overtime? Any special features?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am kinda interested in the Behringer 2600; it isn't even available yet, but at that price I am thinking add a small euro rack skiff and add an extra Envelope Generator, maybe an LFO, and perhaps some kind of small sequencer. Then I heard about the guy who started adding modules to an ARP 2600, and within a few months the 2600 was relegated to the closet...

 

I have also avoided euro rack because I figured I would generally end up with VCO->VCF->ENV->VCA anyway...

 

Another story- back a few years ago I was hanging out a lot at the John Bowen Solaris booth at NAMM, and right next door was Buchla. I was subjected to an entire weekend of bleeps-and-bloops and couldn't understand why anyone would spend $25K on a system, until I heard this:

 

[video:youtube]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered something interesting regarding the keyboard of the original ARP Odyssey and presumably 2600 as well. Both of these synths are duophonic. In order to sound 2 notes the physical keyboard has 2 separate bus bars each generating its own CV; one for the lower note produced by VCO 1 and one for the upper note (VCO2).

 

The Odyssey clones made by Korg and Behringer do the same thing only using modern keybeds that use digital scanners and midi as opposed to bus bars. This is pretty simple to implement. The Karp Odyssey also has an external CV in that let"s you control pitch with, you guessed it, an external control voltage. Plugging something into this external CV jack switches out the digital/midi control.

 

I stated earlier that the Karp Odyssey does not recognize the mod wheel or aftertouch over midi. I believe this is because these were designed to have minimum additional modern features. Let"s give the customer midi but only the bare essentials. If you want modulation you use the 3 on board dedicated modulation buttons (which I hate) just like the originals.

 

To get around this midi limitation I"m using the Karp external CV jack connected to the keyboard out of my Voyager VX-351 CV breakout box. This allows for pitch modulation from aftertouch, modwheel or whatever when playing the Voyager either locally or over midi. Cool. But because the Karp Odyssey only has 1 CV jack, not 2 you lose the duophonic capability.

 

Not a huge deal to me but anyway I thought it was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered something interesting regarding the keyboard of the original ARP Odyssey and presumably 2600 as well. Both of these synths are duophonic. In order to sound 2 notes the physical keyboard has 2 separate bus bars each generating its own CV; one for the lower note produced by VCO 1 and one for the upper note (VCO2).

 

Actually only one buss generates both CVs. Patent #3,733,955 describes it pretty well - Gene Zumchack designed it for the Musonic (later Moog/Musonic) Sonic 5. Before he started building SEMs, Tom Oberheim was an ARP dealer and he designed a second voice option for the 2600 which ARP later implemented as standard. Both Moog/ARP systems operate the same way, performing math based on the voltages at the multiple key presses. I don't know why Moog never pursued infringement against ARP.

 

Zumchack was an RA Moog engineer who was an early proponent for portable synthesizers, he left RA Moog and designed the Sonic 5 for Musonic. He and Bob did not get along well, and Zumchack wound up leaving twice - once from RA Moog, and later from Musonic when it merged with RA Moog. Nothing is known of him after that.

 

I stated earlier that the Karp Odyssey does not recognize the mod wheel or aftertouch over midi. I believe this is because these were designed to have minimum additional modern features. Let"s give the customer midi but only the bare essentials. If you want modulation you use the 3 on board dedicated modulation buttons (which I hate) just like the originals.

 

The Karp is a good replication of the Odyssey, but I was turned off by the very rudimentary MIDI implementation. Last year I acquired an ARP Avatar to restore as an Odyssey module and I chose the Kenton MIDI retrofit which is much better - note on/off, pitch bend, mod wheel, even filter cutoff. The Kenton kit is actually a generalized retrofit aimed at the largest range of analog synths as possible. I emailed Kenton and learned that there are many signals available that aren't used on a stock Odyssey, such as aftertouch and clock from MIDI. Since I was doing a full set of patchpoint jacks on the Avatar, I decided to route these signals to patchpoint jacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the 1 bus vs 2 bus you are correct. I misread/misinterpreted the description in the Odyssey service manual. Thanks for the correction and additional info.

 

I also hesitated on the Karp because of the limited midi functionality. Once I figured out there was a work-around using CV the module made a whole lot of sense for me. Especially after several weeks creating the 'perfect' overlay and CC mapping to control the VST from my drum pad controller.

 

:redwall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzanne Ciani is amazing - such a creative force. Fully capable of composing with score paper and also able to groom randomness into something musically sensible. I find it interesting that she is not into the big wall of Eurorack. When you hear her talk about the Buchla it is very specific modules and very specific functionality that she finds essential to using them as an instrument. Her rig is very thoughtfully constructed both in terms of the Buchla modules as well as the other controllers and capabilities added. She spent many years championing this kind of music without a lot of support. It is good to see her honored today by the new electronic musicians who understand the foundation she has laid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sounds very nice with interesting sounds and textures throughout. Tbh (and this is just my own personal likes) I prefer root note progressions along with melody. While I hear a few key changes the repetitive nature of the sequenced foundation with interesting changes on top leaves me wanting the "other half". I'm not sure why modular compositions are often limited to so few changes of this nature.

 

Is there a limit with the transposition capability of the sequencer or simply a musical style that modular use seems to gravitate towards? If the former I feel it's the machine dictating the music to a larger degree than I care for. Sorry if that appears blunt - its really not aimed at you specifically and again I did find your composition enjoyable. Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the modular sequencers have 8, or 16, or 32 steps, so yeah, the limitations of the machine definitely dictate the music to at least some extent. I know some sequencers can be transposed, and some people use multiple sequencers for different sections, so those two things can provide some more harmonic options.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional music is expressed through traditional forms, like verse/chorus, theme and variation and sonata form. Many of these forms correspond to structures we might see in nature or other aspects of human culture. These forms can effectively create a deep emotional response.

 

There are also other options. It"s not for everyone but if one was interested in broadening the pool of possibility, I"d suggest taking a look at topics like aleatoric composition and directed randomness...

 

https://synthandsoftware.com/2020/03/modular-synthesis-for-beginners-randomness/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the modular sequencers have 8, or 16, or 32 steps, so yeah, the limitations of the machine definitely dictate the music to at least some extent. I know some sequencers can be transposed, and some people use multiple sequencers for different sections, so those two things can provide some more harmonic options.

 

The NerdSeq can do 64 steps per pattern and supports pattern chaining, I believe.

 

Pyramid makes a couple of capable sequencers - Hermod (Eurorack module) and Pyramid (standalone). Pyramid can do up to 384 bars a track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are also other options. It"s not for everyone but if one was interested in broadening the pool of possibility, I"d suggest taking a look at topics like aleatoric composition and directed randomness...

 

https://synthandsoftware.com/2020/03/modular-synthesis-for-beginners-randomness/

 

Hmm... admittedly I fit a particular musical profile. On one hand I complain about repetitiveness and on the other I want well established conventional musical elements. What can I say? I recognize and appreciate the efforts that drive non-conventional musical forms. Do I like it, I mean really like it? Not so much. But life is short and perhaps to my detriment I have a very narrow focus - actually always have.

 

On the other hand randomizers are probably my favorite modules and the ones I spend the most time on. Random sounds while playing intentional notes...oh yeah! Random notes...not so much.

 

 

A lot of the modular sequencers have 8, or 16, or 32 steps, so yeah, the limitations of the machine definitely dictate the music to at least some extent. I know some sequencers can be transposed, and some people use multiple sequencers for different sections, so those two things can provide some more harmonic options.

 

The NerdSeq can do 64 steps per pattern and supports pattern chaining, I believe.

 

Pyramid makes a couple of capable sequencers - Hermod (Eurorack module) and Pyramid (standalone). Pyramid can do up to 384 bars a track.

 

Pretty much what I suspected. Not only does it take the right sequencers; it's a lot of work to craft those sequences with transitions found in conventional music. At which point you may be better off playing those notes. Sequencers or arpeggiators that you can transpose on the fly are fun. But when you're limited to certain modalities...well I really don't want the sequencer dictating what the underlying music has to be.

 

Face it Jerry, I'm hopeless. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...