Mutable Instruments' Eurorack Modules
github.com
github.com
Sadly, Émilie Gillet (the person behind Mutable Instruments) recently announced that she's stopping development of new modules, because being a known person who's visibly trans is just too much, and she's looking for the next niche to disappear in.
I've been building a (eurorack) modular modular for a little over 10 years now. It's seriously blown up in subsequent years. After not buying anything for 5 years or so, I just recently started my second case. The amount of modules available has probably doubled since then.
I suspect some of the barrier to entry is the price. Especially when you have a lot of options in the $500 and under monosynth category. But, once you eclipse that initial hurdle, the sky's the limit.
What I love about the modular world (as a producer and someone who loves sound design aspect) is the fact that it's very much a cottage industry, and some suitably ambitious individual can build a quirky new module and get it out into the world in a way that would be much harder if they were building a full synth (or something of similar complexity).
I think the ecosystem in general is much more willing to try stuff out too. Most modules aren't that expensive, although collectively they do become that, but most hold their value pretty well, so it's pretty easy to cycle modules in and out of the case to keep things interesting
The amount of things a layman needs to learn is mind blowing.
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.
I can't turn knobs on my computer, and the blinking LEDs are underwhelming.
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...
[1] https://fstoppers.com/gear/palette-gear-announces-new-hardwa...
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.
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!
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.
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.
cd Rack
git checkout version-of-February-22-2020
(1) yeah, I know things are not quite that simple.
I have actually composed and recorded music with open-source software, but the cost of doing so was very high, so I switched to proprietary software. Even worse, the open-source software for various reasons has had interoperability problems—you can’t export in standard formats, or that kind of thing. With proprietary software, I was less tied down, since I could export data from one program to another and continue working.
So I’m slowly working on converting the old songs I wrote with open-source tools into standard formats.
I don't know what you mean by "cannot export in standard formats", unless you're referring to something like AAF.
AAF is a closed-source proprietary standard for "session files" that fundamentally relies on utterly closed Microsoft APIs. There are some incomplete open source implementations that use a GNU efffort to reimplement those APIs but AAF is also the prime example of design-by-committee. I will never put time into trying to support AAF. Note also that AAF support is missing in major DAWs and users need to rely on 3rd party translators such as Chicken Systems AATranslator (RIP).
If you're referring to standard formats for audio files (WAV, AIFF, CAF and more), then I really don't know what you're thinking of.I cannot think of any open source audio project that has problems with exporting to "standard formats".
I'm 100% willing to pay Apple to make this problem go away for me. Core Audio is an amazing API.
For cannot export in standard formats--talking about MusicXML. Until a couple of years ago I also had problems listening to music on my Linux system; I think it was because of some patent licensing issue.
Also, note you can't use the audio APIs from macOS "classic" on macOS/OS X (and never could - Apple banned it from the start, so every single audio app that existed for macs pre OS X had to have its audio I/O completely rewritten. Apple didn't pay for this - 3rd party developers did).
I write pro-audio/music creation software for a living, and I can assure you that from this perspective, CoreAudio is definitely not an amazing API. That's without even taking into account the differences between CoreAudio on iOS and macOS.
The only Linux distributions that had problems playing patent-protected formats over the last 20 years were the ones that stuck to a strictly libre software policy. If you picked one of them (e.g. Debian), it's hardly Linux' fault that you chose a distribution one of whose raison d'etre's was to exclude any non-free formats of any kind. I used RedHat starting in 1997 and it never had a problem playing mp3 files.
Most of my analogue gear will drift tuning if you don’t warm it up for ~5min ;)
But yeah in general I agree with everything you’re saying, but I also like software. Different tools for different tasks :)
Not only that, but it's not trivial to combine with DAWs because of jitter.
You can also look at Open Sound Control, as it was once intended as 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.
There are no issues with using MIDI in a DAW because of jitter: jitter is a problem of device drivers, hardware and badly implemented MIDI handling inside the DAW. It works remarkably well.
Also, isn't it safe to say that by the nature of USB MIDI interfaces, they are not well suited for MIDI operation? As in: Since USB drivers buffer messages, it causes jitter. Is that correct? Are there USB MIDI interfaces / drivers that don't have these issues otherwise?
Added to that: MIDI is mostly used for interfacing with external hardware, and as such you're dependent on the external hardware's MIDI implementation, which isn't always superb to say the least unfortunately.
Sure, USB interfaces might be problematic but it's very dependent on the precise hardware. My MOTU Ultralite AVB is basically unusable because of jitter; my MidiSport 2x2 (also USB) is extremely usable and has extremely low jitter. So you cannot make blanket statements about it being caused by using USB for MIDI.
- parameter and pot position mismatch - lack of layout - lack of labels
Basically a 50$ midi controller gives poor UX.
"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.
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.
This won’t bode well for Behringer in the professional and prosumer markets perhaps, but guitar center is going to eat their euro rack modules up. They’ll look great on the demo shelf. They’ll replace them regularly as they start exhibiting problems on the demo floor. It’ll work out just fine for them.
Even so, most electronic music gear sold in quantity isn't nearly the quality of stuff aimed at the touring musician, and for the price it really couldn't be.
In reality cloning - if not outright theft of designs and ideas - has been rife in the synthesizer industry since the earliest days.
Some Eurorack modules are more or less literal clones of "famous" designs. The only difference is the graphics. So cloning is not exclusively a Behringer issue.
Generally, most of the big name synthesizer companies are lagging far behind the Eurorack market for innovation. Behringer are taking advantage of this by filling that niche.
Given that they also produce original products - like the Wing and the X32 mixers - I expect they'll produce some original synth designs when they've exhausted the clone market.
But synth players are not particularly adventurous, and nostalgia sells, so the clone market is where most of the money is for now.
Typically clones are made for vintage and hard to find gear, which Behringer (and many others) have done for years without issue. The specific recent problem with Behringer and why it's angering many members of the synth community is Behringer is actively cloning and undercutting products being made right now.
In the link above about the TD-3, the "DevilFish" mod is a mod Robin Whittle does for the out-of-production Roland TB-303. Behringer cloned the TB-303 to make their own unit, the TD-3. Not many people are upset about this.
They then contacted Robin Whittle, who created and sells kits for the DevilFish mod, and after being unable to come to an agreement with him, simply used his mod in their synthesizer. This is legal because there are no patents on the mod.... Kind of a dick move though.
Purely speculation, but they feel like the kind of company that would clone a Mutable Instruments module and conveniently ignore the GPL portion of the license when it suits them to.
They also hype product announcements in a way that seems like they're trying to poach customers. They didn't announce their Model D clone until just after Moog put up pre-orders for their re-issue. Then Behringer took over 2 years from announcement to sale. They've done similar things with Roland announcements. Releasing a "We're working on something very similar!" image on Facebook the same day as a sale announcement for a new product, and then never releasing the Behringer item.
And Lastly, Uli Behringer is a bad member of the community. He constantly has posts deleted by GearSlutz moderators for having false information. He attempted to sue several members of Dave Smith Music for talking negatively about him on forums outside of their day-jobs.
> I expect they'll produce some original synth designs when they've exhausted the clone market
They already have some lovely original designs like the Neutron or Deep Mind by the way.
Preposterous. There are plenty of "copies" of Neve channel strips, but they ain't good enough to pee on Veblen's grave.
My own take is that cheap clones allow people to enter a hobby/passion at an affordable price. My experience is that those who find the hobby worthy of continued investment often progress to become buyers of boutique/artisan gear.
Behringer's proposition is basically: this stuff doesn't need to be luxury goods. Not that luxury goods shouldn't exist, and when you sell your platinum album, go ahead and buy stuff with a moog or a korg logo. But that said, normal people should have access to this stuff as well.
In fact, to bring this back to a conversation more directly relevant to HN: the market of people willing to pay $500 for a synth is MUCH larger than the market of people willing to pay $5000 for a synth, AND the people who are willing to pay $500 for a synth could be converted into people willing to pay $1000 for a synth.
I think there is a really important lesson there about pricing. One that I think that current, bespoke instrument manufacturers are going to have to learn.
Full disclosure: I own behringer synthesizers. My current SaaS product is breaking conventional advise about pricing in the same way that Behringer does (not yet launched).
I'm not going to drop $5k on a starter modular setup. But I will drop $500 on one! And then $250 on Maths; something I would have never even thought about buying if I didn't have the rest of the modular to support it.
Your point is generally good; I got a maths and a couple of other things immediately after the mother.
What's involved could be as simple as merely assembling a purchased kit (which should already save you money over a pre-assembled module) all the way to designing, prototyping, and etching your own PCB's, designing and building the enclosure, finding and ordering all the parts, soldering them all together, testing, etc.
The DIY modular synth community is pretty active.
The "Music Tech DIY" forum on Muffwiggler is a good place to start.
That is so sad about Emilie, she's a genius and has produced some wonderful stuff. Her physical modules on the second hand market are hard to come by and command a high price, they are so renowned.
"Csound is a sound and music computing system which was originally developed by Barry Vercoe in 1985 at MIT Media Lab."
I prefer to do things in hardware rather than software because after staring at a computer monitor all day long professionally, it is the last thing I want to do when I get home. I much prefer twisting knobs and patching cables.
Also, one philosophical interest in Eurorack is as an alternative model of computation. You've totally given up the Von Neumann architecture, but you can still do some amazing computations. Sums, integrals, differentials, chaotic functions, ...
point is, this is another way physical Eurorack is an alternative to "software" (where software seems to assume a Von Neumann system to run it on...)
Cost is an issue. It is hard to be serious about the hobby for less than $1500. You are welcome to dispute that point with me by discussing all the cheaper options available or talking about resale value, but given that most modules cost north of $100 it doesn't take long.
And building modules from scratch (which I've done, just a stash of chips, resistors, and caps and a blank proto board, working off a hand-drawn circuit diagram) can save a few bucks but the time cost gets very high.
See this collection for examples http://iainmccurdy.org/csound.html or check out Cabbage (https://cabbageaudio.com/) which allows you to develop VST plugins with it.
CSound is a wonderfully cool piece of software. It's not an effective way for people who want to do in software what they do with hardware modular: obtain modules, put them in a rack, and connect them up.
Finally, eurorack has nothing to say about computer architecture,in the context of digital computers. It's an analog synthesis system, which means that it's an analog computer (even if some of the internals are digital).
I really recommend you check out VCV Rack. It is a deeply amazing piece of software, both in terms of its concept, but also the way that its author has created an ecosystem for modules and modules authors.
"Finally, eurorack has nothing to say about computer architecture,in the context of digital computers. It's an analog computer."
That kind of is what it says about architecture. Analog vs digital.
When I'm hooking up a clock on my synth I can't help but think of a system clock on a CPU. A digital computer computes an integral using a series of discrete-time operations on binary representations of floating points. My synth computes integrals using an op-amp and and RC circuit applied to a voltage source, and sometimes calls them "filters".
So I have these sorts of thoughts in the back of my head, different mental pictures of how the system is doing the math.
Plus other thoughts-- what is the purpose of the "computer". Kraftwerk "I am the operator of my pocket calculator" viewing a calculator's primary function as a musical instrument...
Isn't that saying something about computer architecture?
I/O differences.
etc.
Just fun to contemplate
It was pretty much expected whenever a new module was released that people would get right to work designing 'µ' versions of the modules that use less space on a rack or in some cases "double" versions of modules.
Its also pretty neat that a lot of hardware manufacturers use VCVRack as both a prototyping system as well as a promotion mechanism. I've introduce a lot of people to Eurorack by way of VCVRack - usually they play with it for a few weeks, and before I know it, they've got a new hardware rig set up in the living room ..
Pretty great time to be a synth nerd. (See also: Behringer.)
They open the doors for kids to get started, at a cheap price, and it means way more people on the market than otherwise. Some of us remember when synth manufacturers could get away with gouging their customers - not any more!
https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/spectrum-synthesizer-bundle/id...
(I am the creator of Spectrum)
I’m interested to see what the availability of cheap VR does here. With today’s room scale VR, using knobs and sliders in a 3D space is feasible. Being able to develop spatial memory, even without tactile feedback, makes for a compelling alternative to using a mouse and screen. Once VR/AR gets tactile feedback like this glove[0], it gets even closer to parity with hardware.
If the module controls in VCV Rack are standard components (button, knob, slider, etc.) then it should be pretty simple to translate them into 3D controls. Though I guess buttons may not work as well as switches, I haven’t encountered them in VR yet. Anyway, with those component mappings in place, any VCV module should be displayable in a virtual rack with no extra effort—it’s just a procedural UI change, generated from the existing 2D layout, that doesn’t impact the audio engine at all.
What's much more interesting to me are exploration of innovative interfaces. For example, with full-body tracking you could map body parts to different synth parameters or algorithm parameters and then allow the user to make music by dancing.
The sky is really the limit in terms of what body/head/arm tracking and VR can allow you to do with innovative interface design.
There's the Hot Hand[2]; the bassist is using one in [3]. There's still a lot more that could be done.
[1] "The V Motion Project" https://vimeo.com/45417241
For something as refined as the sensation of twisting a knob, however, I don't think that the current VR controllers are enough. Maybe once VR gains a bit more mainstream adoption, we will get VR glove controllers with a bit more complex haptic feedback mechanism, which should allow for the "twisting the knob" sensation to be implemented, and then it will be a total gamechanger. I would looove to have my DAW and synths in VR, as the spaciality of VR is perfect for this kind of workflow, but we gotta wait a bit for tech to catch up.
I think current gen controllers could work well enough here to be useful. The modules might have to be oversized, and you’d need to have a visual indicator that “this is the knob you’ll grab if you pinch now,” with good visual position feedback. But when I play Beat Saber, part of the fun is how my every slight twist is reflected exactly by a freaking lightsaber! The fine motor control is already present.
It’d take some getting used to, but still miles ahead of mouse/trackpad. The nice thing about VCV being open source is...someone can just build it, and it can be iterated upon as the haptics improve.
I don't know, but it would seem to be wise.
There's also the well-known-ish alternative "Parasite" firmwares by mqtthiqs which is fun to look through and really fun to play with in a module. [0, 1] I don't know if these are available in a software-only form like VCV.
Mutable also isn't the only manufacturer releasing open-source modules. 4ms has a few, the DLD [2] is a delay I've been playing with reprogramming lately (almost 3 minutes of memory! stereo!). Rebel Technology releases their stuff under GPL [3]. I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting. I wish Make Noise would open-source their digital stuff...
[0] https://github.com/mqtthiqs/parasites
[1] https://mqtthiqs.github.io/parasites/clouds.html
If, like me, you were wondering "what is this, exactly?" see:
I purchased 6 from https://www.amazingsynth.com and couldn't be happier. It's good fun trying to do surface mount soldering!
It’s definitely cool the MI stuff is open source!
the modularity and interoperability (and the implied open source culture) of eurorack philosophy should extend to the companies that make these products. so often they dont. makes me think of unix philosophy and how tech companies dont follow that philosophy either.
On the other hand, I broke one of my TipTop modules by accidentally plugging the power in backwards (they should really add reverse power protection), and the identifiers on the chips are all scratched off, so I have no way of identifying the chip I fried in order to replace it. Mind you this is a module cloned from a Roland 909, so it's not even like this is an original design.
https://www.arturia.com/products/hardware-synths/microfreak/...