Hey Lugia,

Thank you very much for the advice, much appreciated!

I hear you regarding the AJH module but I'll probably just keep it and add it to the next skiff I just purchased.
I'll take your advice on the LFO and add that to the first skiff in place of the ADSR.
Doesn't the Make Noise Maths act as a good LFO, or do you recommend having both modules in the same setup?

Thanks again!

Thread: Mutigel


This has worked out well!
If the button (double-click) is assigned to the CV quantizer, it'll step through none, chromatic, major scale, minor7 scale. If there's no CV input, the scales can be played with the knob. The maj & min scales use the CV knobs position at start of record as an offset for the scale (tranposition) so it can be easily played in any key right away!
If a CV input is applied, then the Knob acts as a smooth offset for the CV so can tune any VCO/key offset. I find it easiest to patch in a dead signal, tune the knob, then patch over to the CV source and it all quantizes perfectly

Thanks again for your insight! It made the RIT_M a winner ;)

I'm interested in basically exactly what it going on here in Legowelt's studio tour


He introduces a small, contained doepfer system that generates organic drones and soundscapes.

I really really like this style of synth, and I want to sort of condense in further maybe into two rows?

How can I start?

This what I have so far, definitely liking analog VCOs, LFOs, spring reverb and the fun filters he was talking about during the talk


Added possible third row dedicated to Drums! How does this look? Thanks

Wow...that is one seriously expensive ADSR. That's actually where I'd start: get rid of it. Instead (and keeping with the preponderance of Erica stuff here), replace it with Erica's Black Dual EG/LFO. It's cheaper, for starters (so you can sell the AJH cheaply and still afford this module), and doubles up on its functions. And you do want that...having separate envelopes for filter and amplitude is actually pretty useful, hence why Bob put both in the Minimoog.

Mixer? Sure, why not? It's kind of in the wrong position, though; instead, swap it and the quad VCA so that you can control the oscillator mix with the VCAs, then the Stereo Mixer can work with some sidechaining-type patchwork (you need stackable cables for this, fyi) to send the filter to both the mixer and the Pico DSP, then return the DSP back to a stereo pair on the mixer in sort of a cobbled-up AUX send/return fashion. Also, if/when this gets expanded, you'll want that mixer to add in the signal from whatever expansion skiff you put together, so it's a good plan for the future to have that.

Sold MI Edges to @DerLatakia - very fast payment, nice communication. Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I am totally new to eurorack systems and building a 104hp rack.
Just looking for advice on the setup I intend to build.
Do I really need a mixer in this setup, as I have a VCA?
Would this be an effective setup?
How could it be improved?

Modules I have so far are:
Erica Synths Midi to CV, Wavetable VCO, Quad VCA, Pico DSP, Pico Output.
The others I have yet to purchase.

ModularGrid Rack

Thank you!


I have a Moog Sub37 and a DFAM. Moog got me into modular, now I must have more! I want to build a system that will have lots of interesting possibilities, but I have no experience. I realize I can't really afford to expand this system for a long time after I build, so I am trying to plan it out in OCD detail. I'd really appreciate any ideas from anyone who's linked up any of these modules and knows how they play together!

This kit is designed to fit into a 60HP Moog box to pair with the DFAM. The small size constrains the build (and maybe inflates the cost, although I'm not sure as cases are expensive AF), especially with all the functions I think I want. I also wanted to avoid any modules with menus. One thing I noticed as I started to build it out is that sticking with a single module maker seemed to make more and more sense the more units I put in... now there's no room left for a 20HP Maths module.

Here is how I think it will work, signal path left to right:
The clock-divider can send different clocks to the ClepDiaz and Zularic and DFAM, and I think that will tie everything together.
ClepDiaz is there just to provide CV to the Zularic to switch up those drum patterns in interesting ways.
Mullet is gonna multi my drum patterns, but it also sums the signals in different combinations. I think this will let me play 2 voices with the BIA (by adding 1+2+3 to trigger the BIA, and then patching the multi of those into other variables in the sound path).
BIA is the main voice on the rack. It takes a ton of CVs in, and the Mullet makes a ton CVs, so I imagine they will be amazing together.
Now to attenuate or slew all those CVs... I managed to cram just one 2HP Envelope in there. Is that enough to give the BIA a 2nd voice? Ideally I'd have 4 envelopes in there, one for each out of the Mullet.
Tonnetz can do three tones at once, and so I imagine it will end up controlling VCO1 and VCO2 of the DFAM and either the BIA or Sinc. Because it can quantize three voices at the same time it seemed like a really nice module for this setup.
Finally, I hope the Sinclastic + Sinc will combine to make a decent range of snare sounds.
For an output stage, the lunchbox mixer seemed ideal. It is just the right size to mix the mono from DFAM, BIA and Sinc, AND it has mute switches, an attenuator and both audio and headphone out.

oh my that's a lot of text.. signal paths have to have so many stages!
Any ideas/advice would be so much appreciated! Thanks!!

Well, it seems to lack some complex random-type functions, so 18 of those 20 hp maybe oughta be a Marbles, especially if you're out on the experimental end of the spectrum. Ultra Random is...OK, but Mutable's new take on random is just plain nuts!

My rack:
ModularGrid Rack
(The image isn't updating, click on it to see full rack)

What would you fill the remaining 20hp with? I was going to put a SSF Ultra Random and a monome walk + ansible. But now I'm thinking maybe ad something else... Love to hear ideas!

Making mostly experimental / ambient stuff... http://sleeplesswaves.bandcamp.com/


Great seller @PinPinKula

Easy communication and very fast delivery! Solid build gear!

No public name calling, please. I have sent you a message.

this person wont leave me alone. called me a 'cunt' because i wouldnt respond to his harassment. how else am i to report this?

Hi guys, again available now via www.milkaudiostore.com !!!

Since today, all my previous racks are just showing empty cases.

They look ok in command center, but when i choose 1 for viewing/editing,
the racks does not show any modules anymore and i cant edit them. (data sheet is still there)
The top buttons-row for editing just don´t work, except for command center.

Any ideas whats wrong here?

Add: just tested, via mobile seems to work, but via PC won´t.

-- anticitizen1

Your data is still there.
Maybe you have Javascript disabled on your PC? Or some extension that blocks Javascript?
Which browser are you using? Try another browser to check.

Since today, all my previous racks are just showing empty cases.

They look ok in command center, but when i choose 1 for viewing/editing,
the racks does not show any modules anymore and i cant edit them. (data sheet is still there)
The top buttons-row for editing just don´t work, except for command center.

Any ideas whats wrong here?

Add: just tested, via mobile seems to work, but via PC won´t.

I bought an OC from @Virgil. Very nice guy.
All was perfect. Quick response.
Highly recommended too.

I'm unable to find the TrueGrid chickbox. Has it been removed?
-- mortarm

You are the first who recognized it. A change in the current chrome browser made TrueGrid next to unusable.
The TrueGrid project was way too ambitious and the user interface never worked very well.
Since there are tools like https://vcvrack.com/ I thought it did not make enough sense to put more developer effort in it ...
TrueGrid is still there but it is hidden.
If MG users protest I will bring it back, but that did not happen yet ...

While on the MU format subject, given that some other firms beside COTK are now doing half-height modules, might it be time to add a half-tier option to MU? Something similar to how 1U tiles work in Eurorack...much the same row selection method could be employed in the rack creation interface, I should think.
-- Lugia

Yes, that would be a welcome addition! :-)

The CP format has the same inconsistency problem between module heights that eurorack 1U tiles have. COTK CP modules are slightly taller at 147 mm then the ones everyone else makes at 143 mm. But I guess that's just something the end users need to be aware of before attempting to add CP modules to their physical systems.

Here's a thread on Muff's that discusses the differences:

Bought an Ornament & Crime from @zfrucht

Great build with loads of options, very friendly and was helpful when there was a slight problem with the shipping.

Overall great value :)

I'm unable to find the TrueGrid chickbox. Has it been removed?

Just bought something from @Larkstarr. Very responsive, fast shipping. Great experience!

It's sort of hard to describe. Depending on which partial has had phase changes, there can be obvious timbral changes...or nothing noticeable at all. The phase-change effects get more apparent as the partials get closer together in frequency, and ultimately wind up affecting each other more than the fundamental at that point.

Of course, this is only referring to fixed phase changes. If the phase changes are modulated, then a lot of timbral evolution/alteration becomes apparent, since human hearing has problems with hearing phase in of itself, but if phase of a frequency is shifting against something else, we perceive it much more readily.

Hi Voider,

Thanks very much for your info, will give that a try.


What would it sound like if you put the harmonics out of phase with the fudemental

I've recently completed my first skiff so really just a novice myself, but if you haven't yet
I would recommend VCV rack. Especially if your interested in the mutable modules, great testing ground and its free.
Also The Befaco Rampage module is in there which could give you a better idea of what you can achieve with the Maths
(which is Awesome).


You can never have too many VCAs.

Thanks to Lugia for the input, this is the completed Skiff

If Anyone is interested check earlier post for the other gear I'm using in my current setup.
Already thinking I'll need a small utility rack (Quad VCA, mixer module, maybe the new Bastl midi module?)

And more cables...

I bought an uTemps module from @RTFM (who also built it). Overall a very nice and friendly person. Offered several customization options on buttons and knobs. The build quality was perfect. Highly recommended!

Please click on the rack, for some reason the link does not show all of my modules. Thanks!

I have put together a possible eurorack system. I am a newcomer and hope to learn modular using what I have put together here. At the moment i am using a mother 32 to try to learn the basics. I am also using Maschine Mk3 to sequence the M32 via MIDI and play drums. I mainly make music with a 4 -4 beat and like alternative / glitchy interesting sounds and effects. The aim of getting into modular is to experiment and be a more hands on instead of using software. I do hope to explore using Reaktor Blocks (hence the inclusion of ES-8) with the modular rack I build (I think) but after I have learnt the basics.

I think what I have included here is at the top end of my budget for now, but I hope to continue to expand if it goes well.

Assuming my ideas are ok what 4 modules of the above would you buy first?

Feedback appreciated, I am a complete newcomer!


I think a neat idea would be some sort of plug-in for the virtual rack system where the program calculates the ideal placement of any given collection of modules, based on an algorithm that finds the shortest distance possible from ALL of the jacks to ALL of the jacks, using the least (imagined) cable possible. It seems like there would be a cluster or arrangement that would by far be the most efficient way to make connections, for any given assortment arranged in a case.

In general, I think that using actual bus boards is preferable to using flying bus cables except in smaller builds. A handful of modules on a single flying bus isn't going to create the draw issues and potential interference that loading a flying bus out totally might cause. Plus, bus boards can be had which incorporate filtering which improves noise factors, reduces interference leakage across the DC busses, and so forth. That's just not possible with a simple length of ribbon cable with some clipped-on connectors.

As for the tiles, check here: http://syinsi.com/Shop/other/ Power connections for tiles, on boards with filtering, which is pretty snazzy and definitely an improvement over the splitter-cable-off-a-16-pin previous methods.

Hi everyone,

I've got a 4ms row power 40 and I'm looking to power a 7u synthrotek 84hp case. I think my options include flying bus cables or bus sticks. One order of the flying bus cables includes 13 headers, but I'll need 15 plus another for a row of 1u tiles. This is my first rig, and I'm not sure if I should get a combination of cables and a bus stick, or if I can chain the bus cables together? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks

Bought a Basimilus Iteritas Alter from @robocoder. Shipment from Japan to Belgium done in a breeze, organised by him in a way to avoid hurdles with custom. Packaging was incredibly robust and professional. For sure I would buy again from him with closed eyes! Thx again for the great & easy deal, man!

Hey everyone, if your module sounds quiet there are trim pots to adjust things. The top one simply adjusts white noise peak to peak voltage (mine was very quiet and so I nearly sold the module). I think the others do similar for their respective noise output, with perhaps some other effects because of the filtering involved in them.

I am surprised they don't really mention this anywhere, I would've thought it should be on this page. Would be good if anyone with more detailed info on each pot and the effect it has would post some bullet points for us all!

Check out my modular channel, it's full of droning bleepy shite

Much more scrunching:
ModularGrid Rack
This is a little more like it. Notice that this comes in at a hair under $10k, where your original build was $17k+. Two harmonic oscillators, two complex oscillators, both the Fumana and Koma mixer. Ample modulation sources of the right sort, four LPGs with four matched EGs. Clocking and sequencing are a lot more complex, plus the Serge TKB clone was added as a pretty much 1:1 replacement for the similar Buchla touchplate sequential controller. Signal input with envelope follower and, yes, quad outputs. One note, though: the fixed filter bank in the top row could be subbed out for a multimode VCF of the right size; I felt, however, that since West Coast is about waveshaping and since the Instruos have wavefolders onboard already, some sort of fixed equalization-type filter was more in line with the timbral alteration idea.

While it's not exactly Buchla appearance-wise, believe me, this is in the right ballpark without spending an arm and a leg. Cases, btw, are a pair of Erica 126 hp powered cases, optimally housed in one of their dual case end-panel sets. Very ample power supplies in these, so the draw I came up with is nowhere close to their limits.

Nope, it does not have usb and very few cv outputs.

I broke the rule and already ordered bela & rebeltechnologies Salt module along with expander. When everything else consists of 2-4hp modules, its fine.

Salt is fully programmable and it runs custom Linux, latency is below 1 ms, measured in microseconds! This way I can run my Pure-Data patches directly in modular and it can run fx, cv-generation and oscillators simultaneously, this way I need fewer modules :) Just need to configure it for my needs and then connect to usb-midi controller.

I thought about Experts-Sleepers new midi-cv module, but could not wait until July, and it is rather small + requires constant computer to run Pure Data.

Thank you very much again! So very informative :). I've remodeled for a smaller starting setup - ModularGrid Rack - the Koma Mixer & Fumana are both superb & superbly expensive piece of gear - and after watching demos - Fumana is the choice. For mix i'll do with Scan & Pan's for now; maybe when i finish the rack i'll go further with this. Should be enough ? Suggestions ?

While on the MU format subject, given that some other firms beside COTK are now doing half-height modules, might it be time to add a half-tier option to MU? Something similar to how 1U tiles work in Eurorack...much the same row selection method could be employed in the rack creation interface, I should think.

A clarification: given that VCV is an open-source project with respect to the module developers, it's apt to fall victim to the open-source issues that tend to dictate that those developers don't necessarily coordinate their efforts on resource utilization amongst themselves. And this was where my issues were arising; adding certain modules, notably FFT-heavy ones, were causing glitches to appear in timing and control signals to the point that, eventually, the patch would either become unusable and/or VCV itself would crash. This could be avoided, to my way of thinking, in a couple of ways:

1) Establish clear resource-management standards amongst the module developers. This isn't unusual; Dieter Doepfer's de facto establishment of the hardware Eurorack standard early on, with clear form-factor and bus connection standardization being the goal, is one of the things that makes Eurorack work. And yes, there's been attempts to buck that, most notably Analogue Systems' adoption of a physical form-factor that wasn't in line with what other companies (piggybacking on Dieter's work, which was in turn based on existing process control hardware form factors) were doing at the time. Result: Analogue Systems makes some pretty hardware that doesn't see nearly the usage that it could, because it doesn't physically 'work'. Now, in a virtual device, the physical form factor issues are minimized, but processing resources become the 'elephant in the room' if several developers can't follow some sort of programming methodology that allows all modules to exist happily with the same resource utilization standard. And this was what seemed to be part of the issue I ran across; adding modules that were FFT-heavy with respect to their needs would bog all modules in a given patch, some worse than others. It strikes me that what has to be done, therefore, is to give developers a map they must stick to in terms of resource management, or to employ some sort of reallocation within VCV itself to force things to work more seamlessly. And knowing what I know about computing, the latter method seems as if it would be very wasteful and ultimately detrimental to the whole under the present circumstances.

2) Reconsider VCV's core. Yes, this gets into that last bit above, but if a very robust memory/process management routine set could be added that could do this fairly seamlessly, it would go quite a ways to solve issues of this sort. This would also be the logical point around which multiprocess/multithread support could be dealt with more effectively. VCV needs some way of becoming 'machine-aware', gauging what resources it has at its disposal, and then allocating those resources effectively to the myriad plugins. And no, I'm not under some illusion that this would be an easy task...in fact, I think it would be difficult on a number of levels...but it's an effort that would make the difference that could keep VCV around for many years, which is what I think we all would like to see. I'm not under an illusion that hardware is better than software, as each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but more that there's room for both, and if both can be the best they can, then they definitely should be. It's not, to my way of thinking, a situation where anyone should be saying "it has to be like this because...", but more one of "why can't it be that way, given enough effort?" Some of what you state above tells me that there are some solutions that don't get into the really headachy aspects of sample-rate sync et al, so it strikes me that taking steps to have VCV's core process do some sort of processing reallocation that dodges the nastier digital audio issues could be feasible. And any bump in 'horsepower' in the end would be worth the effort.

Yes, I do see this as a developer vs. user issue...but one in which there's potentially a lot of common ground that could be very fertile. After all, had Bob Moog not been listening to his musician userbase and, instead, approaching his hardware development strictly as an E.E exercise, we'd likely not be having this discussion right now. The inherent problem is that those of us who approach VCV from a purely musical standpoint are apt to run across issues due to working methodologies that diverge from what developers tend to see as issues of importance. But also, musicians can vote with their feet, so to speak. For example, I myself have a rabid hate for ProTools. For many iterations, it didn't work in a way that a composer like myself, making intuitive decisions and trying to think outside the box, could feel comfortable in. Then along comes Ableton Live...developed by musicians, basically. It does what PT can do, but a lot more, and its workflow functions in a more 'musicianly' manner (if that makes sense).

So, when coding a musical device such as VCV, approaching it from a bit of a less-rational standpoint might seem like a recipe for disaster from a coding standpoint...but it winds up becoming something that doesn't impose itself on how musicians tend to think. It's a very weird tightrope-walk...but an invaluable one.

A few things...first up, the mixing really needs to be internal. Buchla's mixers also did quite a bit with CV over spatialization and weren't merely level controls. Have a look at https://www.modulargrid.net/u/buchla-system-interface-model-227 , which is the original 200/300 mixer I'm familiar with. Note that you have control not merely over stereo panning, but quadrophonic spatialization, in addition to a bunch of other functions that, to be honest, really bring a level of convenience to a synth mixer that you mostly don't see now. The closest thing to this would probably be Koma's quad performance mixer, which would make a decent stand-in for something like the 227.

Filters...if we're not talking LPGs but actual, typical VCFs, you can probably do with less. Buchla's gear was more about wave combination/shaping, so typical subtractive methods didn't happen much. But note that: 'much'. There were still a few filters that made it into typical Buchla architecture that we'd recognize, and of course there's all of the spectral-type filtering that was a lot more common starting in the 200 series. The Bark filters definitely satisfy that need. Also, there's only one thing I can think of that's like a critically-significant Buchla 'filter', the 296 (see https://www.modulargrid.net/u/buchla-296), and that would be the Frap Fumana. Not cheap, but definitely in a similar vein to the 296 in function and usage methods.

Lastly, the controller. If you're not going to use touchplates, you're not going to get the same...ah, hard to describe...'behavior' out of an iPad. The iPad (or any other tablet) will correct a lot of the weirdnesses that the various touchplate controllers brought to playing the Buchla. For example, one thing I was warned about is that setting certain touchplate voltages before spending some time settling into the studio will likely later result in values that aren't what you had in mind. Yes, these things could be that biologically sensitive! They literally bring you into the instrument circuits themselves, if that makes sense.

Also lastly (yeah, yeah...), it could be smaller. Yes, big 200/300 systems were hulking things, but Don built those modules in a larger format (4U-ish), and you'll notice that present-day 200e setups are pretty small, physically. Even the System 200e we see Marton Subotnick using in "IDOW" is a smallish affair when compared to his original 100 rig. You can do more with less in a typical West Coast setup, to be honest, so it shouldn't be too necessary to go quite so big here.

Mind you, Buchla stuff is getting cheaper if you go outside of Buchla itself. Northern Light, Roman Filippov, et al are gradually getting the Buchla-format pricing under a modicum of control, so one could make do with a few of the nosebleed-pricey Buchla modules augmented by a lot of other not-Buchla that doesn't cost so much.

Very clarifying reply, what you can do outweights what you can not do.

One of these is the automatic breaking of ALL modules upon each new iteration of the software.

This is effectively solved with the build system designed at https://github.com/VCVRack/community. Since most modules are open-source, a breaking update to Rack's ABI just means re-running the automated build script and distributing updates to everyone via the Plugin Manager.

There are no software projects that solve the problem of API/ABI incompatibilities. Steinberg doesn't solve it either---they "solve" it by never releasing updates to the VST standard. You might say that VST is backward-compatible. No, every VST host has to implement the VST 2, 3, etc standard separately.

When Rack 1 is released, all 1.X plugins will be compatible with 1.Y. Rack 2 is many years down the road and will be like the migration from VST2 to VST3, except it will be automated for users and semi-automated for developers with help from the "VCV Community" project.

You are confusing Rack as a stable software package at this time. Two decades ago, "beta" meant early, unstable, in-the-works, experimental, and buggy. Now, some consumers think it's another name for a stable release. If you want professional, stable software, DO NOT use beta software.

There's also no basic standardization of how the OS should work. Some knobs work one way, others in some other method, so you have to keep what works how memorized as you're also trying to do music.

Fair point, and I don't like inconsistent knobs as a user, but if developers want their own unique look and feel, it would be against the grain of the flexibility and hackability of community software to stop them. Imagine if all websites looked the same. That would be great for me when I'm trying to read information, but no web developer would have the chance to attempt to stand out from the crowd, and regulating that seems counterproductive.

noting that multiprocessor support wasn't some idly-addable feature that, clearly, 'laypersons' woudn't understand the requirements of

Here's the thread https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/823 to your GitHub issue for reference. It's not snarky---it gives a good lay-person's reason for not supporting it at the time, and I linked the thread https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/195 which is a full discussion of the technical issue if you prefer that instead.

A bit of a mid-level explanation is that modules in Rack exist on a unidirectional graph with no specific graph-theoretic structure whatsoever. If you try to assign different modules to multiple threads, they'd need to synchronize upon each sample before continuing, and 1/44100 seconds is too short for this on non-realtime operating systems like Mac, Windows, and Linux. There are some tricks that might work in theory, which is discussed in the technical thread, but Rack would be the first to implement a solution to the general problem proposed there.

With that said, I imagine your wish is not actually to multithread Rack's engine thread, but to make it handle more modules. The bottleneck of Rack is not actually the stepping of its modules, but samplerate conversion, rasterizing SVG with OpenGL (specifically tessellation of curves), and DSP block operations in particular plugins. The only modules that need to be on different cores are the ones with block operations like FFTs or file encoding/decoding/IO, and they absolutely can do that, and there are some that already do.

I should point out that Native Instruments REAKTOR, Softube Modular, Puredata, and all other virtual modular synthesizers I'm aware of all do not multithread DSP either. It's not because it's a super difficult problem (although it isn't easy), but because it's not a huge problem after all. One core can do the serial DSP stepping, one core can draw the complex 2D UI, 7 cores can do asynchronous FFTs, 2 cores can run your DAW, etc.

Virtual modulars are different from DAWs because a multitrack DAW can be thought of as a one-level tree that processes 64-1024 sample blocks, so multithreading is much easier. Same goes for N-voice synth VST plugins.

VCV Rack doesn't work like the actual thing.

Rack wouldn't be possible without the hardware it was inspired by! Go out and support your nearest hardware modular manufacturer. But before beating the dead horse that hardware is better than software (we all know it), remember that there are millions of would-be musicians in the world that would give anything to play a musical instrument but are not financially able to express their creativity in the way they wish.

VCV Rack is already used by a few household names, live musicians (even I wouldn't recommend doing that right now, but I won't stop you), Hollywood film composers, and university professors, so while it might not fit into the industry standard rules of being a "professional audio application", professionals and amateurs both get use out of this "toy".

Trying to downsize what I have and acquire maybe some new modules that take up less hp and maybe have more outputs than some of the modules I already own, for more routing possibilities. I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this rack, as I know the basics of synthesis, I don't fully understand the depths and interactions of each module to each other or sometimes in their own environment. MG is an amazing place, but it gets overwhelming at times.

I wouldn't say no to an "invisible" enclosure for Eurorack as well. Same as Pittsburgh without the wooden sides. Not sure if/how to design it and add, but definitely interested.

Also, there are new uCases coming from Tubbutec, at 18hp. Any chance we can lower the minimum HP size of a case? Just curious. Not a big issue to begin with.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

I was thinking that if possible, it might nicer if the Info, Zoom, Rotate and Trash icons were in a sub-popup menu that is opened by clicking on a single icon

They are too prominent, in the way? You can hide them quickly by pressing ESC.

True but they show up again as soon as the mouse/cursor moves. I think I'd prefer just a toggle button at the top to turn the
buttons off completely when I don't need them.

The log out period seems really short these days! It used to be too short for my liking and then it seemed to get longer and more recently it seems extremely short! :-(
If it creates too much of a burden on the server to have lots of people logged in, maybe time out could be a lot longer for Unicorn folks? ;-)

Mhh. I did not touch the settings in the past. Maybe some PHP update changed some INI. I have increased the values now. The server should handle the users we currently have just fine. In future there should be an US proxy though...

Thanks! I'm not sure how short it was but maybe only 15 or 20 minutes?

Small HP case sizes needed for MU and MOTM.
-- JohnLRice

A bit tricky. I have checked it, the graphics of most enclosures look scrambled with 2HP MU/MOTM...

Yeah, the cases with feet and corners etc would look weird but Shelf, Pittsburgh Cell Style, Geeklapeeno Cluster might work? Or maybe there could be an "invisible" enclosure that is just a solid black or grey line, sort of like the "No Board" option for pedalboards but still acting like the other enclosures?

Synthesizers.com sells 1, 2 and 4 MU (hp) enclosures with or without wood sides:

Thanks for listening and considering requests! :-)

I don't think i've missed anything crucial. Still on the fence on Catalyst Audio vs more Verbos stuff. Looking for demos of CA b100 clones, please post if you have them : ) . Especially for the oscillator.

8 oscs
14 VCAs (6 lpgs, 8classic)
8 envelopes (well, more if you count the multiple outs, but 8 controllable by hand)
7 filters
3 FX
Lots of controlled randomness.
The control base will be ipad with Lemur
Mixing is going to be external or maybe on a skiff

Everything is hands-on touchable, absolutely no menus, screens - its ment to be played like a piano :D

Yes, I have...however, the fact still remains that VCV doesn't have the ability to fully utilize the given resources in a typical pro-level DAW machine. Once you've hit the limit on the one core it's using, you're done. Period. While this might not be as severe an issue in a quad-core Intel running at a fast clock speed, if you're working with a major multicore setup for the sort of brute force it offers, VCV is pretty sad stuff when you start getting into sizable module counts, such as what you'd see with complex generative patching, etc. And I know quite a few pro-level users who've gone with the big multicore Xeon, etc setups because when you use something that is multicore-aware, that software becomes screamingly powerful and tends to outstrip quad-core much of the time.

Unless you run VCV. And with no clear indication if multiprocessing will ever be added (as is the case with pretty much ALL other pro-grade audio software), I'll stick with considering it to be a 'toy'.

Additive synthese is something I do not want in my eurorack, I rather keep it more analog.
The difference between a ladder filter and a z-plane filter is huge, sticking with the Evolution.

Thanx for replying though.