|
Post by funbun on Feb 5, 2021 23:11:17 GMT
Help me understand. Many of the "west-coast" modules are "pre-patched" configured mini-system consisting of more basic modules. For instance Serge's Stepped and Smooth Generator is just a comparator, sample-and-hold and a slew limiter. My question is could you get the same thing if you simply bought the basic modules yourself and patched everything yourself?
For instance the Dual Universal Slope Generator. This has spawned Eurorack modules like Maths, Befaco Rampage. It's basically an AD envelop and slew limiter combined with a mixer. What do these sorts of modules offer that you can't get by using the basic modules within them?
I suppose saving space, but with integrated circuits, transistors let alone and processors, I don't see how Maths will save space in an AE Modular system where a 2ENV, a pair of slew limiters and a mixer would do 90% of the same thing.
I don't mean any of this negatively, as I know nothing about electronics. Is this is more design philosophy than anything. Design individual module versus pre-grouped modules.
For instance, as I understand, Serge is somewhat much like a Moog Mother 32 in that they came in panels, more semi modular than modular. I do understand they are different, west vs. east synths. My point is if you had a Serge panel and there was one module in it that you hated, you couldn't change it unless you bought a whole new panel.
|
|
|
Post by MaxRichardson97 on Feb 5, 2021 23:15:51 GMT
I've been making my own complex oscillator recently, FMing an oscillator with another and feeding it to the wavefolder. It's definitely capable of some huge sounds!
I think it's pretty difficult to compare, say, Maths to anything in AE. As AE is such a small format, everything is essentially a basic component - envelope, or LFO, or slew. In my eyes, this suits me MUCH more than the Swiss army knife approach of eurorack, as I'd rather be able to pick and choose what I want with specific, smaller modules!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 6, 2021 0:09:23 GMT
I've never had the chance to play with a Buchla or Serge system, but I rather like the approach of having this in smaller modules that you can patch together as you want. I believe that Lugia has designed his huge gargantuan system in functional groups like that. You can see the discussion about his system and some pictures here: forum.aemodular.com/thread/650/gargantua
|
|
|
Post by tIB on Feb 6, 2021 6:53:27 GMT
I regularly call out for a DUSG type module in AE format - it's magic for me is it's multifunctionality; if you know how to patch it you have one module that can do many things depending on how it is patched. In a small - medium sized system that is invaluable. I have a serge system which is largely made up of slopes - I don't have any traditional oscilators in it even. The old adage of not having too many VCAs is more applicable to slopes imo.
I'm trimming from another forum here but this will give you an idea of why the DUSG is so revered...
1 x DUSG = - AR EG - ASR EG - VC SQUARE WAVE LFO - VC TRIANGLE/SAW WAVE LFO - VC Audio Oscillator - VC Trigger/Gate Delay - VC pulse divider - VC slew limiter - VC clock - VC lopass filter - Subharmonic Generator - Envelope Follower - Directional CV Glide - Lopsided Recursive Waveform Generator
|
|
|
Post by tIB on Feb 6, 2021 6:59:51 GMT
I should add there is absolutely nothing wrong with the modular modular approach of providing the tools to patch it yourself - Doepfer and Bugbrand are two others that take this approach along with AE, and it is an approach I enjoy just as much. In the case of the DUSG though I think those with experience of it see it as if only I had a couple of those in my system as it can patch in so many different functions in a pinch.
Buchla is a little different to all the other formats imo - it feels to me somewhat semi modular in approach, because there is so much done for you in each of the modules. Don's philosophy there is interesting - there's a great interview I'll find a link to shortly that will give an idea if what he was seeking. Again, not better/worse, just different approaches.
Here's a snippet - I'll post a link to the rest of it's ok to link other forums?
|
|
|
Post by tIB on Feb 6, 2021 7:13:08 GMT
And sorry to ramble on now but in terms of serge I believe the approach was to give you a collection of modules that can be patch programmed into many different functions - there's very little in that system that you don't need to patch in to get the functionality. The SSG for example does literally nothing until you get it patched up, and then it can be a number of things. The panels approach there is something it evolved into I believe - there was a standard (individual) grid layout I think where people could decide module choice and put behind paperface panels. We know have full and mclass panels, though at one point you could buy custom panels. I prefer modules to panels, though while there are a couple of bits I couldn't cram into my serge without major overhaul to the system, there's nothing in it now that doesn't get used.
|
|