User Posts

the example of snap-on being the inventor of ratcheting socket wrenches is totally incorrect - the patent was filed over 50 years before snap-on was founded... the other companies are NOT copying snap-on! - if you don't believe me go to wikipedia and look at the pages for snap-on and socket wrench!! the 1864 patent is clearly mentioned on the socket wrench page and no mention of a patent is cited on the snap-on (founded 1920) page - the snap-on marketing slogan is just that - marketing! what snap-on may (or may not) have innovated with is their sales method...
-- JimHowell1970

I did not mean to imply that Snap-On invented the idea of the socket wrench, but they certinainly created the version of it which is well known today. Whether or not they were the original inventor is besides the point here, the point is their specific design has become a standard, and was copied by bigger companies down to every last cosmetic detail: the handle shape, the location of the decorative grooves around it, the shape of the head, the way the pawls work inside, etc. It's no different than the situation with Maths, for example. Make Noise, like Snap-On, wasn't the first: Buchla started it. Serge refined it. Make Noise refined it further. In the end Maths, like Snap-On, became the standard. And then, others started knocking it off, even down to the minor cosmetic details. As I mentioned before, a Harbor Freight ratchet is a much closer copy of a Snap-On than an Abacus is a copy of a Maths. If you want another example go compare a Harbor Freight pliers wrench with a Knipex.

beds, for example, have been around for thousands of years - the earliest known mattress is 77000 years old, bookcases have almost definitely been around since the earliest book (wikipedia says roughly 1500 years) and the concept of shelves in an open box, as a piece of furniture probably pre-date that by a long way... tables are at least 4500 years (again wikipedia)... the earliest shirt 5000 years (wikipedia) etc etc

What is the point of this statement? Are you implying that it is acceptable to buy from asshole corporations when the product is old?

again you're comparing "mass market" to "niche market", "mass produced" to "artisanal"

Again, why does that matter? Is it okay to buy mass market products from assholes but not artisinal products?

For me, there's a difference between modular synths and guitars in the same way that there's a difference between experimental and pop music. Or an outside comparison - go and chess. The former is small and the latter is big. That causes the communities of the former to be rather close-knit everybody knows one another kind of places whereas the latter are rather anonymous. So when a bully enters, the latter will shrug and go on minding their business. Whereas the former will close ranks and protest.
-- Arrandan

I think you're on to something, but I'm not so sure it's "Small vs. Big". I think it's more about what people are passionate about and what they are not. Here we are on a Synth forum so obviously we care a lot about our hobby or music career so, like you said, we notice when a bully shows up. But the bullies are everywhere else too, it's just that we're ignorant of many of them. We don't see them because we don't look that closely into areas which aren't our personal hobbies or interests. Mechanics are fed up with ripoffs of Snap-On tools....most of us here probably weren't even aware of the ripoffs existing, just as they are completely unaware who rips off modular snyths. In Japan Go and Shogi are big while western-style chess is much smaller. It all depends on your knowledge, and our knowledge is greater in our areas of interest.

almost everything is a knock off if you go back far enough or stretch the point far enough... the house you live in, the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the computer you surf the internet with, the tv you watch, the radio you listen to etc etc - but these things are so ubiquitous and necessary to a greater or lesser extent - so again totally different category, both, sort of, fast moving consumer goods - or at least not niche - with much much bigger markets & are much more 'generic'

That was the point I was trying to make. Ripoffs are everywhere, so it's curious why this particular example gets so much attention. In the Four Play topic FATSO asked whether we look at a Behringer module and think "hey, that looks like a so-and-so!". The answer for me is yes--their modules are often quite clearly copies of others. But that's not special or unique; I see kind of thing everywhere. A Harbor Freight Icon ratchet is a much closer knockoff of a Snap-On than a Behringer Abacus is a knockoff of a Maths, they even went so far as to copy the visual styling, not just the workings inside. Snap-On may not be a mom-and-pop operation, but there are far larger companies copying them, they sell a fraction of the volume that big box store brands do. The aforementioned Harbor Freight Icon brand is an example of just one of countless Behringers in the tool world knocking off the Make Noises. I could list many, many, more but these posts are getting long enough as it is. And on it goes for nearly everything: Shoes. Food. Apps/games. Household appliances. Electronics. Toys. There's loads of music gear which is made in questionable overseas factories based on someone else's earlier design from guitars to keyboard stands. So it makes me wonder if this standard is applied to everything, or if it's only modules that get this kind of scrutiny? Jim wrote that examples like tools or household goods are a "totally different category", but I am not sure I agree. Going back to the beginning of the post:

but what I'm usually saying is this - it's up to you - but really do you want to give your money to known bigots? do you actually want to put your money towards innovation or towards corporate greed?

I can absolutely get behind that principle, but why shouldn't it apply beyond Modules? Why does the size of the market matter here? There's nothing specific to music or modular or niche markets about that principle; it is universal. If we should avoid giving our money to corporations peddling inferior modules based on copying someone else's ideas shouldn't we be doing the same when we buy, say, socks or a bookshelf? If we admit that we must, sometimes, stray from those ideals out of financial reality why can that not apply to Modules too? If we aspire to that principle yet we sometimes shop at Amazon, Ikea, or Wal-Mart then can we really look down on someone who sometimes purchases Behringer modules?

That said, I don't to come across as complaining--I appreciate being able to read all the information about a module or modular company, this kind of thing included. I already wanted to avoid Behringer because of the quality issues I previously experienced and discussed in the other topic. Learning they are corporate assholes on top of that was good to know and further cements my position to avoid purchasing from them. But I am lucky enough that I can afford to purchase other modules, and not everybody is in that position. I can also afford to be picky about the tools I own--but there was a time, much earlier in my career, when all I could afford was knockoffs. I don't think music is any different. Think about how many musicians got their start playing cheapo catalog-grade or low-end foreign imported guitars, horns, amps, drum kits, etc, made with rubbish materials and shoddy workmanship but designed to look just like the big names. The companies behind those instruments didn't give a crap about traditional lutherie methods, the future serviceability of their products, or the intellectual property of those whose designs they ripped off. The half-broke teenagers who bought them probably didn't care about that either, they were just happy to get an instrument to play, and that's what set them on the path to become guitar gods later in life.

There is more to the Behringer situation than just ethics. Quality is a factor too. My first exposure to Behringer was a little more than 20 years ago. At the time I was not into modular but I was into Hi-Fi. I purchased a fancy Behringer digital equalizer (19" rack mount) and straight out of the box it had an extremely annoying echo that would randomly come and go on the right channel, and the audio quality was not very good either. This EQ was supposed to use its included microphone to measure the room's response and adjust the EQ parameters accordingly--this did not work. As part of my troubleshooting process I tested the microphone by itself and found its response to be all over the place. I was able to operate the EQ manually but no matter what I did the sound quality problem and the right-channel echo persisted. Behringer's tech support was useless, luckily the dealer I bought it from was willing to take it back and give me a refund. The unit was cheaply built given the price and their customer service was essentially non-existant.
The next time I heard about Behringer was on a youtube channel focusing on vintage electronics. Things like 1950'-1980's computers, teletypes, electromechanical calculators, vintage electronic test equipment, early space communications gear, were the usual features on the channel. Then one day a modern Behringer UB1202 module shows up instead of the expected vintage NASA stuff. I didn't know what Eurorack was at the time, but I do rembember the engineer complaining as he replaced every capacitor in the module because they were bottom-of-the-barrel junk which had all failed.

On the ethics side of things, I feel their copying of other designs is reprehensible, but at the same time I think that kind of thing is tricky to talk about. I would much rather buy from innovators rather than soulless corporations mass-producing inferior copies of someone else's idea but the harsh reality is that we all have to do that kind of thing from time to time. I'd bet that many of those who would criticize others for purchasing Behringer modules out of financial necessity own plenty of products which were copied from other designs without credit, they're just things they don't notice or care about. Do you own a socket set? If it wasn't made by Snap-On, it's a knockoff....but I certainly can't fault the average person for buying a cheaper one. How many of us have Ikea furniture instead of buying handmade from small designers?

In my opinion the ratio of inputs to outputs is not significant except perhaps in extreme cases. This can be demonstrated mathematically. Once you have even a small number of inputs and outputs the potential number of connections quickly runs into a very, very, high number.
If you have only one output (A) and two inputs (X, Y) you have three possible patches:
A-X, A-Y, and A-X and Y.

If we have two outputs (A,B) and two inputs (X, Y), we have eight possible patches:
A-X only, A-Y only, A-X and Y, B-X, B-Y, B-X and Y, A-X and B-Y, A-Y and B-X

With two outputs and three inputs I can come up with at least 26 different patches. See how fast the number is growing? Let's say we have a small system with 20 inputs and 10 outputs. There are 200 ways to place the first patch cable. Once we place that first cable we now have 199 possible options for a second cable...and so on. That setup has so many patch possibilities I can't even type out the number. It's roughly 8 with 374 zeroes after it. Even such a small system with a heavy imbalance has a mind-bogglingly huge patch potential. Your numbers are 90 inputs and 60 outputs, roughly speaking? You have 5400 options for that first patch cable, and my scientific calculator gives me an overflow error trying to compute the total number of possibilities. You aren't "missing out" if the number of ins and outs don't match. It's not important in the slightest.

My personal advice is to not worry about trying to balance out the number of ins/outs and instead to ask yourself what you think the weakest part of your system is and address that. What's the one module that would add the most utility to your system?

It can be tempting to put modules from the same company together because it looks nice when the modules match in appearance. That's what I did when I first put my rack together, and I still try and do it when it makes sense, like having similar or related modules next to each other. But what worked better for me as an overall plan was thinking in terms of work flow and function.

I have a large case, it's roughly square but I mentally divide it into two parts. The top two-thirds (roughly) is devoted to audio modules and the workflow goes left-to-right. The left side is sequencers, oscillators, and voices. Middle is envelopes, filters, reverbs, delays, and so on. My main mixer and output module are on the right side. The bottom third of the rack is VCAs, LFOs, modulation sources, and most of my utility modules. So basically the audio signal goes left-to-right across the top and middle of my rack while the modules at the bottom pertain to CV, and/or are the things I fiddle with the most often, like VCAs.

That makes me wonder how you arrange your cases; if I had a tall narrow stack like in your pic I might think more about top-to-bottom workflow rather than left-to-right, but perhaps you just arranged them like that for simplicity in modulargrid. How do you actually have your cases set up when you play? You also mentioned portability. That makes me think it might be a good idea to set up one of the Intellijel 7u cases as an all-in-one mini system so you could take just that one case if you wanted to be extra portable, and then you could arrange the other cases around the idea of expanding upon the capability of the core one.

A few of my favorite utility modules are:
LA Circuits Machinist: Sample & Hold, Track & Hold, Slew, and several noise generators (Pink, Red, White, Blue, Violet), plus it has an LFO and clock generator.

Thorn Audio VCLFO: For starters it is an extremely powerful LFO with 16 different waveforms so even if you don't use its voltage control capability it's already a great modulation source. You can control it with CV to act as a more complex modulation source or use it as a bass VCO. It's syncable, it has a built-in octave offset function, generates noise & gates, and has S&H as well. It also has a built-in VCA on its output.

ADDAC216 Sum & Difference: This is a special mixer that allows you not just to add signals together like a standard mixer but also to subtract one from another. It has an attenuverter and offset on every input. It can operate in absolute or bipolar mode and can be AC or DC coupled so you can use it for audio or CV. A single module has two channels with two inputs each. This is quite a powerful module and it is not very expensive either.

Schlappi Engineering Boundary: This module can do a lot, at first glance it is a mini version of Maths, it has fewer channels but it is smaller and less expensive. But look closer and it has a few functions which Maths does not have. It has an AD envelope which can also be cycled to act as an LFO like Maths, but it has the ability to shape the rise and fall parts of the waveform independently, which Maths cannot do. It has a variety of other functions too, VCA, ring multiplier, and a lot more.

And of course the various "many in one" like the Disting and FX Aid series, ALM Busy Circuits MFX, and various fancier DSP modules come to mind. I'm not sure it's accurate to call all of those "utility" modules but many of them can perform a huge variety of functions in a relatively small footprint and that is very handy.

Would some granular stuff fit this 'category'? I have MISO Cornflakes and yes it does things you would expect, but you can get into some pretty wild territory with it too...probably the same for other granular modules.

-- jb61264

Speaking of Granular, and if I'm understanding renken correctly, I think a good comparison might be Morphagene and ADDAC112. They are both Granular modules but they feel very different. The ADDAC is like a supercomputer, it looks and feels analytical, it has a lot more functions and options for CV control, but that also means it can be harder to use. You can get lost with too many options and too many controls. Morphagene feels more like an "instrument" if that makes any sense. It's like some of the decisions you have to make with the ADDAC112 are already made for you by the Morphagene. It is not as capable but it is easier to "play". The ADDAC is a totally blank slate, the Morphagene carries with it some of the designer's artistic vision. And frankly I love them both.

I have had very little opportunity to play with them but right now the "opinionated" modules that interest me the most are from Bizarre Jezabel.

I keep four different things in mind when I chose what modules to buy, in no particular order:
1: Budget. I maintain a list of modules I want and I kept an eye out for sales, marketplace , Reverb, Ebay, etc. When I come across a good deal on a module I know I will use I try and jump on the good price if I can.

2: Rarity. Some modules are hard to get because they aren't made anymore. If you want one of of those you're at the mercy of the market. When one pops up for sale that might be a rare opportunity to get it when perhaps later on you might not be able to find one for sale at any price. On the other hand, many rare modules are overpriced, sometimes very much so. So this is a balancing act. Overspending on rare modules is a poor idea, especially if you are new. But if you find a rare module that you know you will use and it's a great price? That is something to jump on even if you can't use it right away.

3: Usefulness. This was especially important when I was starting out. Some modules, say a sequencer or logic, are useless by themselves, but others have at least limited functions by themselves--you can play a little bit with an oscillator or a resonant filter, for example. Some modules like complex oscillators with built-in modulation and "voices" can do a lot on their own, if your planned rack includes any of those you might want to prioritize them when you start. This changes as your rack grows though. A sequencer with no oscillators is useless, but once you have one or more oscillators now a sequencer becomes useful. I think uselfuless also applies to any weak points in your system. When you're just starting out everything is a weak point. But before too long you will idenitify specific needs. Right now my biggest need is envelopes, so that's what I'm planning to buy next. I often ask myself the question: "I've got $X to spend. What module(s) can I get for that which will add the most functionality to my rack?".

4: Balance of utility & fun/inspiration. Some modules are fun and exciting to play with: a fancy new filter, a complicated oscillator, granular processor, DSP, etc. Others are boring but are 100% necessary utilities, like I/Os, mults, VCAs, attenuverters, logic, offsets, S&H, clock tools, etc. I feel it's important to strike a balance between them. Utilities are super important but a rack full of nothing but them is boring and uninspiring. And likewise you might have a bunch of really cool oscillators and FX but without the nuts and bolts that hold everything together you can't do very much with it. So I try and maintain a balance of purchasing interesting and inspiring modules while also keeping up with the utility stuff at the same time.

I'd also suggest this starting out: make sure that at least some of your patch cables are stackable or pick up some splitters. This avoids the need for passive mults in your rack, saving you both space and money.

I've got a question about the usefulness of external MIDI controllers or even more capable devices like the Ableton Push with Eurorack.

Right now my setup is 100% modular only. I don't have a keyboard of any sort, and I don't have a DAW or a computer rigged up to my system either. I specifically don't want a PC involved, I use those enough througout the day and one of the things that I like about modular is that it's an escape from a computer. However, one of my main interests in synths is the fat polyphonic sound from a lot of the classic 80's synths like the CS-80. Even though I plan on building a large rack I forsee that at some point I'm going to want to dive into a non-modular synth like a Deckard's Dream, Ise-Nin, etc. The problem is those require MIDI to control. I do not want to use a traditional piano keyboard and I do not want to use a PC, laptop, etc. I have found modules to generate MIDI from CV but that seemed both complex and limited at the same time--more like it was useful for interacting with a synth setup, but rather limiting as the only interface.
The other day I stumbled across the Ableton Push III via a Youtube video. I have zero experience with these sorts of machines but it seems like something like this might be very useful to me. It is a MIDI controller that could play MIDI capable synths like the Deckard's Dream--via its buttons and also as a sequencer. It also functions as a synth on its own, which is attractive since I can use it to augment my modular setup--for example right now my modular system is very weak in the drum department, something like this could handle a lot of my drums before I get a chance to buy all that in modular. And finally, I understand the version III has 4 CV outputs, so it can be used as a modulation source too. Using something like this as the main controller for the external non-modular synth(s), perhaps augmented with MIDI generating modules as I can afford them, seems like a good way to go.

I'd appreciate any thoughts, also any suggestions for other hardware to take a look at.

Perhaps they only use it as an office tool, like Word or Excel.
-- ferranadsr

That's exactly how I use the site. I make everything private by default, no different than my grocery list or my budget plans. But if I want to ask questions or collaborate about a rack? Of course then I'll make it public.

Replicant, the connection to ground of metal case is necessary also in presence of a thermal magnetic circuit breakers ? I live in Italy and my apartment has both protection systems (grounding and this device). Thanks.

-- picadura

Yes. You can think of "ground" as a chain: it is only as strong as its weakest link.

So, if I understood correctly, through a power supply it is not possible that the AC current arrives inside the case?

There are two ways that could possibly happen.
First would be some kind of catastrophic failure of the power supply which resulted in AC short-circuiting to the case. This is highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible. The best protection against this kind of failure is good grounding. It is also worth pointing out that this kind of failure is a risk with any electronic device so it's probably not something that would keep you away from modular.

Second is what is generally meant by the term "leakage current". Basically this refers to very small amounts of electricity passing through insulation, and it is a very tiny % of the working voltage of the circuit. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. Because Modular signals are very low voltage whatever tiny % of leakage may occur is probably not worth worrying about.

There is a good centralized and certified grounding system in the building where I live

That is good to hear. But when I wrote that "Good grounding" is important I don't mean just the building, I meant how the rack is put together. Ideally you'd have a metal rack, the rack itself should be wired to ground, and you'd make sure to tighten all the screws holding your modules in. Sometimes I see people online that have just rested modules inside a rack without any screws, or maybe they're just using one screw per module. That's not good practice, the metal front panel of the modules should have firm contact with the grounded rack. That is critical for safety, if there were any stray voltages present you want them going to ground through the case, not being present where you might touch a knob or grab a patch cable. If you are building a wooden case with metal rails to make your rack then run a ground wire to each rail.

Like JimHowell1970 wrote, most Modular racks use the same kind of power supplies as a computer, sometimes this is a literal laptop power supply "brick" wired externally, other times it is a similar power supply mounted inside the rack itself. But either way the power supply has the same basic function: it takes in AC mains and converts it to the lower voltages (+/-12V, 5V) used by the modules.

EDITED Mar 29th 2023, 13:43

I'm not sure it's accurate to call this a bug, but it is an error.

The Doepfer A-135-4A mixer requires the A-135-4B control panel. In fact they are sold together as a pair. However, each one shows as full price. So if you put both units in a rack the price ends up being counted twice.

Howdy everyone, new user here.
I do not have any specific knowledge of pacemakers but I do have electrical engineering experience. In my opinion the risk of harm from things like AC leakage, RF or magnetic interference, etc, from Modular is extremely low compared to the average home appliance. AC leakage, when present, is a percentage of the working voltage of a circuit. The voltages in modular are very low, no more than 15 volts and commonly only +/- 5V. So even if there were some leakage the amount of voltage to start with is so low that I doubt there would be an appreciable risk. You being around something as mundane as the 120V AC wiring in the walls or an extension cord exposes you to stronger magnetic fields than a modular rack running on 12V DC and pushing tiny audio signals around. People play electric guitars with pacemakers, and that involves holding the strings and the pickups right next to your chest while you touch the metal strings and that is generally regarded as safe.

The best way to reduce the risk of any sort of leakage current would be to use a metal case and make sure the case is grounded. The location of the power supply (internal or external) shouldn't matter so long as it is properly grounded. And as a general rule, don't cheap out on the power supply.

The one exception you might want to be careful about are modules involving tubes. Some tubes involve quite high voltages, sometimes a few hundred volts, and that is obviously a greater risk.