User Posts

I shouldn't think it would invalidate the idea if a larger case is called for, though. Larger case = more possibilities. Plus, case prices have been on a positive downward trend as of the past year-plus. The keys to look for are space, beefy power capacity, and price. For example, Erica has a 6U x 126hp cab with serious power (2.5A on each 12V rail, optional 5V!) for only EUR 300 right now, direct from their site.

A processing "nexus" would be a significantly different sort of build than one normally sees on here, though. You'll want to concentrate less on audio generation and more on modification and modulation sources. This isn't to say that you'll want NO oscillators, but you can stick to a few fairly simple ones for AF modulation purposes. So, that saves a little bit there.

The thing that'll need space here is sequencing, timing manipulation (logic, skippers, Euclideans, comparators, divider/multipliers, etc), and modulation that's more of a "free-run" variety, such as a Batumi + Poti or a Maths (better yet, both). The Lancet expander needs to fit, as well. The Stages is a very good choice for envelopes, but putting in something really over the top for linked envelope generation would be worth your time, too...have a look at Erogenous Tones' RADAR + BLIP. They also have a very useful VCA bank/mixer in their VC8; that should deal with ALL of the VCA needs you'll have here, really.

Then for sonic modifiers, consider some of the more "interesting" filters like Xaoc's Belgrad or Intellijel's Morgasmatron, things that give you a lot of leeway on internal architecture. A Clouds clone would be useful in this, or a Make Noise Mimeophon or Morphagene. Note that a lot of what I'm pointing out are larger modules; if you use these, this also saves money in the long run by jamming multiple functions into a large space. For example, all of the Erogenous Tones modules above are about $1000 put together...but that $1000 covers 54 hp of space. Now, if you tried to do this with smaller modules, it would get more expensive and still come out covering a sizable amount of panel space, and you'd probably wind up with less linked functionality.

Last, effects...one choice might be Intellijel's Rainmaker, which bills itself as a "delay" but which really is a far more complex affair, especially when you start plying it with modulation sources. Also, definitely get some CVable waveshaping; Tiptop's got a very good one for cheap. Jam in a stereo VCA mixer like Qu-bit's Mixology, and there you are.

So, yeah...you'll spend money. That's the nature of modular synthesis...it ain't cheap. But if you "go big" with multiple function modules, the money can get spent on some very complex architecture.

For starters, you might want to up the size of the build. There's a lot you want to do here, and that'll take more space than this single-row cab. This sounds like you need it to be both a synth and something of a processing nexus for external devices to modify their behavior. If you've not got the cab yet, seriously consider upping the size by another row.

Yes and no. First of all, DC coupling only really comes into play when you're trying to send/return CVs, etc to your DAW so that software such as Silent Way, Volta, or CV Tools can directly address the modules. I use a MOTU 828 for this, myself. Expert Sleepers also has an extensive line of modules and expanders that can do this; they're sort of the...well...experts at it.

Now, all that a VCA is going to do is to control a signal's level. Linear ones (with DC coupling) are what's used for CVs and modulation signals, and exponential VCAs (AC coupled, quite often) are used for audio so that the level changes seem correct to our ear, since we perceive apparent loudness in logarithmic changes. So a VCA won't get your signal to the Presonus interface as such.

Now, I'm going to assume you're talking about Intellijel's Quad VCA here...this is a 4-VCA module with variable responses (which makes it useable for ANY signal type) which can also function as a mixer, with some configurability when patching. But again, you can't take the output directly from this and send it to the Presonus, as synthesizer signal levels are considerably hotter than what the interface is wanting to see at its inputs. Instead, the module you need for this is an output module...something that can step the level down from the +/- 10V (at max, as a rule) signals to the +/- 1.4VRMS line level that the Presonus is expecting. So, if you wanted a solution that all four of the Quad VCA's outputs can connect through, something like a Ladik P-520 or a pair of their P-530s would work.

BUT...it's very important to not pass DC in your audio path! DC can do things like wreck speakers and amps when it's present in audio signals and screw up levels and stereo balancing in recording. This was always a big danger with the ARP 2600, for example, since it had a DC-coupled audio path through the entire synth and could output DC offsets along with the audio signal, potentially causing speaker burnout, amp damage, etc. So choosing an output module with a balanced output, such as a Happy Nerding Isolator or an Intellijel OUTS, is important. These contain isolation transformers that output balanced audio on TRS jacks, which the Presonus should also have, and not only do those isolation devices prevent DC passage on to your DAW, they also help kill noise and eliminate ground loops. I always recommend that people use isolated, balanced outs for their output modules.

So if you wanted to pass audio directly from the Quad VCAs individual VCA outs, you would need a pair of those 2-channel isolated types. But if you're using the Quad VCA to mix your audio while it's still in the modular, just one isolated output will suffice. Hope that's somewhat helpful!

Depends on the dual VCF in question. Some of them, like Doepfer's A-106-1 or the Intelljel Morgasmatron, have their basis in the Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key pair. While they have two VCFs, they're more intended to be used in tandem for thruput of a single audio signal but you can always screw around with that bit of architecture. Others like the Erica Dual VCF or Radikal's RT-451 are more like true dual filters with varying degrees of linking capability.

Frankly, I like the MS-20-based ones. That Doepfer, also, has an insert point in its resonance path that has MASSIVE abuse potential, allowing all sorts of things to be patched into the feedback path to majorly screw around with the behavior of the filter(s). Consider what would happen with, say, a monophonic delay line in there...fun!

Beefy VCOs with a twist, hm? OK...try some of these on for size in your build:

Instruo Cs-L, tona, troika
Dove WTF Oscillator
Make Noise STO (yep! good choice), DPO
Pharmasonic Digisound VCDO (I have the original...quite neat...you can step thru the fixed wavetables)
Pittsburgh Lifeforms Primary VCO, Lifeforms Double Helix Oscillator
Erica Black Wavetable VCO
Studio Electronics QUADNIC, GRAINY CLAMPIT
VOID Gravitational Waves (probably the cheapest complex VCO)
Mannequins MANGROVE
Synthesis Technologies E340 Cloud Generator, E350 Morphing Terrarium, E352 Cloud Terrarium
Moseley Cosmopolitan
Intellijel Rubicon II, Shapeshifter
WMD Phase Displacement Oscillator mkII
Harvestman Hertz Donut mkIII, Piston Honda mkIII
Sputnik Dual Oscillator
4ms Spherical Wavetable Navigator
Rossum Trident
Hexinverter Mindphaser
1010 Music Waverazor

Trying to stay under $600 here. But this is a good cross-section of some of the more capable and interesting VCOs out there. You'll notice that some of these are actually not single VCOs, also...there are several dual oscillators (some in Buchla-like "complex" arrangements), a couple of triples, and the six oscillator 4ms module. Another not expensive thing you might add alongside one of these and your existing VCOs would be a Doepfer A-196 PLL module, which is a strange little thing (VCO, filter, phase-lock loop) that can do glitchy, sync-like behavior while tracking the audio of another VCO. See what works!

EDITED Sep 20th 2019, 03:55

That Befaco mixer bugs me...you do know that if you mix the -MIX and +MIX outputs as if they were L - R stereo, you'll get some hellacious stereo mis-phasing issues, right? It looks like this is intended as a final output mixer in the revision, which is why I'm pointing that out. If you're trying to put a stereo mixer in 6 hp, have a look at Happy Nerding's PanMix Jr. instead. Mind you, the Befaco is useful for getting simultaneously normal and inverted signals, but this is something that's better suited to modulation signal mixing, where the normal + inverse outs would actually be far more useful.

This isn't exactly making a lot of sense. On the one hand, you mention the DC-coupling on the Presonus interface as if this might be what you want to control the synth with (via Silent Way/Volta/CV Tools), but then you're also talking about VCA audio outputs. A bit of clarification might help...

I would keep the MScale. Using a Disting for that one purpose is a waste of the zillions of other useful things that it could be doing. Which, of course, means that you really ought to have a Disting in this for all of those other things. It's a Swiss Army Knife of functions in a very small space, which makes it ideal for smaller builds like this. Besides, the MScale is designed for this specific purpose, and you'd have to prod the Disting into doing what it does in all likelihood.

That Noise Tools tile is also super-useful...lots of function, little space. Plus, consider pulling the headphone module...this opens up space you can use to put a much better MIDI module in. And with the extra 8 hp left, you could drop in a stereo VCA for your overall output level control or for controlling the level on a stereo FX return...or get all pimped out with a pair of USB power ports and a couple of gooseneck lamps on each end of the 1U row! But my bet is on the stereo VCA, as that would fit in with Ronin's idea on processing, above.

One other point about the 1U row: with the inputs, consider adding an envelope follower. This then allows you to extract gate and volume contour CV from an inputted signal, which you'll want if you get the idea to use this as a processor (modular synths can be KILLER processing gear!). There's not an Intellijel-format tile with this, but there's plenty of small 3U ones.

Comparator? Easy-peasy...remove the Black VCA and the A-132-3, and replace them with an Intelljel Quad VCA, which then leaves you 6 hp you didn't have. Then, my suggestion for that 6 hp space would then be SSF's Tool-Box. So as a result of that swap, you now have one more VCA and all of the VCAs would then be variable-response for either audio or CV/mod work as necessary, plus the Tool-Box then gives you a 2-in summing mixer, a rectifier for positive offsetting and/or waveshaping, a comparator, an analog OR (gives the maximum of two inputs...feed it two LFOs and watch the mod curve craziness!), another inverter, and an electronic A-B switch. And all that for only $27 more than the current two modules!

There are ALWAYS solutions. They just require lots of poking at things. ;-)

First up, don't get used to the idea of the M32 being in the 7U case. It's a lousy idea. It wastes space that needs to be used for modules which don't have a case, for starters. Then if you factor in the cost of rehousing it in the 7U, given that it already has a case + power, your M32 would then wind up costing you about $765, figuring $599 street for it + about $165-ish for the 60 hp it would occupy in the 7U. Not a good deal.

The rest of the modules are actually quite sensible. The Quad VCA is the correct choice, fyi; the ALM Tangle's VCAs are all linear only. It's necessary to have those, but mainly for CVs and modulation signals where you want that response. Exponential VCAs are the ones needed for audio, because of how our ears respond to apparent loudness (logarithmically). By using the Quad VCA, you can select either linear for your CVs and mod signals, OR exponential to control audio levels...or anything in between due to the variable response controls. Besides, the Tangle costs $10 more.

The DixieII+ is actually a decent choice as well. If you plan to feed the M32 through the 7U's audio path, that VCO will serve very well to double the single Moog VCO to allow for detuning and sync and other things that will be pretty useful to getting a "bigger" sound. In fact, I would suggest controlling the DixieII+ from the M32's pitch CV and then feeding its audio back through the M32's VCF and just presuming that it should be a doubling VCO for the M32. While the Mother 32 does have that Moog LP VCF...it only has the one VCO, which means it only has ONE part of the "Moog sound". Using the DixieII+ along with it fixes that issue to a decent extent.

As far as other VCOs/sources...wavetable VCOs aren't a bad idea as long as you can "scan" the wavetables, PPG-style. That's a big aspect of that sound, and one that comes to mind that has that ability is The Harvestman's Piston Honda, now in rev 3. Another route would be a pair of complex VCOs, something akin to the Make Noise DPO or Sputnik's Dual Oscillator; these are more akin to Don Buchla's 200-series oscillators, in which you have ample internal crossmod possibilities that can create loads of possible timbres before ever getting out of the VCO itself! Very convenient! But don't neglect other exotic possibilities as well, such as multi-op FM VCOs, thru-zero FM-capable ones, phase distortion oscillators (ala the Casio CZ series), etc. LOTS of possible directions there, from simple to utterly insane.

But this is coming along...just take this process slowly! It's not a race; consider ideas carefully, ask for advice/ideas, and the like. And don't expect the first build to be THE ONE...because it won't be. There's always room for improvement, along many fronts.

Yep, divider goooood...but choose the more capable A-160-2 instead. This gives you not just the usual suboctave division, but an integer count + divide by primes. Then, by adding a simple Boolean logic module such as Doepfer's A-166, you can combine the outputs from the divider + your regular clock to create more complex crossrhythmic gate patterns. Even better would be to add a comparator to this lineup, which would allow you to track voltage curves coming off of the Maths or the Black Modulator or EG to generate a gate pulse when the voltage crosses a determined level. Put this all together with the logic gates, and the rhythmic timing aspect will be bonkers!

And do put the A-138p and o back in there. The Quadratt is great for summing down the VCOs or attenuverting CVs, but it's not much on audio when compared to a proper stereo performance mixer. It's more of a "utility" mixer, plus offset generator and inverter, while the 138 series is very much audio-specific and allows you to build up a stereo image for your stereo Line Out. By feeding the A-138o to the Black DSP, then going from there to the Line Out and using the DSP's wet/dry knob (or CV control over it) to balance your stereo effects against the dry mix, you'll have loads of control over global effects...and STILL get to use the AUX send/return setup in the A-138p/o combo for something like a mono delay (something simple but with CV, like a Dreadbox White Line Echo) that you can mix in on a per-channel basis. Pretty cool, pretty neat!

But yeah, this is rapidly approaching "button 'er up" time. Think about those last two ideas, then I concur with Garfield...this'll be a damn fine system!

Yeah, the Intellijel 7u x 104 seems spendy...but let's look at it for a moment.

First up, it's powered. And not just powered in a typical way, but with an utterly bonkers amperage capacity: 3A on both 12V rails, 1.5A on the +5. Now, that's serious...it would be rather difficult (but not impossible [although very irresponsible!]) to overload that, even on the inrush at switch-on. A more typical supply in that size of case would give you perhaps half that current capacity. Also, the bus board IS the power supply...this means that you won't tend to have any power components near audio ones in a way that can cause noise/garbage. It also means there's basically NO internal cabling for your DC busses, ergo less to go wrong. See here for more: https://www.perfectcircuit.com/intellijel-tps80w-a.html ...it ain't no joke!

Next, check the construction: all aluminum attache case style, with a lid with enough depth to let you keep a patch in place during transport. Predesigned for a second case to attach, too, via Intellijel's bracket system. But then there's the I/O on this, which gives you MIDI I/O/T + USB MIDI, stereo audio in and out, and your power inlet/switch...all of which is kept off of the patchpanel, meaning more space! And the case comes with the necessary 80W Meanwell "line lump", which simplifies everything...no need to match up the right AC supply for the Intellijel TPS80 supply inside.

So, sure...$649 street. But what you get for that $649 in both hardware AND ease of use...worth it! Also, keep in mind that while you can shuffle modules relatively easily, your case is something you'll be locked into for a while. Get something solid and very capable to start with, and you'll be happy with it for years.

EDITED Sep 18th 2019, 00:52

If you're set on that 104 hp width, Intellijel's 7U might make more sense. It would allow you to remove the Befaco Out, and the Buffered Mult (although, tbh, you don't need that with this few VCOs...you can use inline passive mults and open up more space), plus add some option possibilities that can give you more control, such as a Quadratt, MIDI interface, etc etc. Just keep in mind that with that case, you MUST use Intellijel-format tiles; the "standard" Pulplogic sizing won't work in their case. And yes, go back to a pair of Erica PICO Mods, since these are extremely useful for quick-n-dirty EG + VCA control over CVs and mod signals. Finally, yeah, I know black looks snazzy and all that, but those Vintage panel Doepfer modules add up. Going with the sleepy-looking aluminum ones makes more fiscal sense. Yes, they break up the color scheme...but given the ones you've got here, you can make use of those aluminum panels to break up the patchpanel into functional "zones" that're easy to see. Oh...and definitely spring for the Batumi's expander, Poti. It's worth it in $$ and the 3 hp it needs.

Nah, I'm in there with Ronin...this would be better off in an Intellijel 7 x 104. There are some modules in the Intellijel tile format that can replace/better what's here currently, and also open space in the 3U rows. For example, the Triatt can go in favor of the 1U Quadratt. The Befaco Out would then get replaced by Intelljel's Audio I/O tile so that the case's 1/4" jacks are useable, which also takes the output pair off the front panel and gives you an audio input as well. Then you can also add a Noise Tools for a noise source, clock, and sample and hold, and a uMIDI for a MIDI interface...and all of those changes would up this build's game considerably, AND leave space for some more tiles to keep that trend going. Maybe Intelljel's Stereo VCA would be useful for controlling the overall output...or if you can scrunch things on the tile row a bit, their mono digital reverb...?

Otherwise, the module compliment is pretty good. Looks like you did your homework in VCV Rack pretty well!

Clouds is out of production, so unless you have one on hand or want to go thru sourcing a used one, you're better off using a third-party build. These also tend to be considerably smaller, which is also useful. The Peaks is in the same situation, btw.

If you have this paired with a 2s, you might want to look into some modules which can screw around with timing, particularly if you want to get better use out of the Euclidean Circles. Logic modules are a must for manipulating gate behavior, plus adding some clock dividers/multipliers would also probably prove useful.

Buffered mult: unnecessary. If you have 4-5 VCOs to drive with a single CV, you'd need it. I advocate using NO multiple modules on small builds like this, btw; you can get the job done with inline mults and/or stackcables and save some panel space.

Add another VCO. Even if you're using something like Plaits as VCO 1, having a second VCO to detune or sync against it will yield some excellent (and bigger-sounding) results. This also means you'd need to add a proper mono mixer to combine your VCO outs, and after that you might consider a CVable waveshaper (Tiptop's is a good choice) to get more timbral variety. Plus, add a quantizer; yes, the 2s has that, but one with various scalar patterns might come in handy to get some cross-modal lines going against the 2s.

Have you considered adding effects, such as delay, reverb? Again, this is something that really fattens up/complicates your sound, letting you get more out of what's here.

Lastly, add some modulation sources such as envelope generators and LFOs. The Maths is useful, but you need more of this sort of thing, potentially along with a couple more linear, DC-coupled VCAs for manipulating CVs and modulation signals. Perhaps some attenuverters would go well here, too, for some nuanced control over your modulation.

Not too bad a start, otherwise. But it's got a ways to go. Try and keep things small when populating a cab this small. And also, watch your module depths, as the Rackbrutes really only have about 40mm in practicality.

Try using the Disting as a quantizer instead. You might have a better shot at constraining the CV values that way, plus it'll give you proper scalar intervals to send back to the 2S's VCO1.

This build has got some very real problems, actually. For starters, I don't see any VCAs aside of what's in the Tesseract mixer and the M32. The mixer's VCAs might take care of audio levels...but how do you plan on using modulation to modify CV/mod levels? Basically, you can't. And part of that, also, is the drastic lack of modulation sources. Aside of the M32, I see only one very lonely Make Noise Function. No other LFOs, no ADSR (and variants), zilch.

Then there's the M32 itself. Mother 32s come with a case that has power already. And you've already paid for that case. So why pay twice to house the M32 and power it? It might be convenient, but economically, it sucks. Try this: take the price of your case + power supply, and then divide that by the total HP in the case. Then multiply that x60. Not so convenient now, is it? Even if you just count the one uZeus on that row in the equation, it's still a lousy bargain. And if you want (need) to add more (as noted), you'll now have to get yet another cab in which to put the various VCAs, LFOs, EGs, and other oh-so-boring BUT ESSENTIAL modules that this build just ain't got. So...take the M32 out, as you're going to need that extra 60hp real soon now for things that don't have their own cases and power, which is what should be in a Eurorack case anyway.

Next, things that are there that don't need to be. Let's start with the Takaab buffered mults. Again, aside of the M32, you have two VCOs. You don't need buffering to correct CV sag with just two VCOs. This problem really starts at 4 or 5 and above, depending on the frontend buffering on the VCOs in question. Now, I can see the mistaken idea of putting one by the VCOs...but the second one is for...what, exactly? Fact is, in a small build (which this is), you should avoid adding anything that you can replicate outside of the cab, and multiples are one of the big offenders here. It would make more sense to use inline mults or stackcables, given the space constraints...yes, even to replace the buffered mults here. Trust me, you won't see any detuning. Then there's the GSMN tube distorter; did you happen to read this in the MG listing: "PLEASE NOTE: As with all vacuum tube based designs, this module is very sensitive to noisy power supplies."? If this is the case, why is this next to the uZeus on the bottom row? And this gets into the whole concept of workflow/signal flow itself...and this is sort of a mess in that aspect.

Go and study classic, prebuilt modulars and semi-modulars...instruments such as the Moog 55, ARP 2600, EML 101/200, VCS3, and so on are the way they are because their workflow patterns are ones which function to assist the user. This current build doesn't seem helpful at all, which you'll find extremely annoying when your career starts to move and you're gigging live in a low-light situation and suddenly you're having a very hard time figuring out where you are on that scrambly patchpanel. Building a modular synth is just like building any other musical instrument -- it has to make sense from a musical standpoint, and it needs to be carefully thought-out before throwing money at it, because much of that money will wind up going up in smoke if you've proceeded with that process before A LOT of careful preplanning. That Neutron may have been inspiring, but it also may have given you a lot of wrong ideas, because they're definitely showing up in this build.

Actually, what MG needs is a tutorial on modular synthesizers and their use. I've been working on a multipart text on this for a bit, and could go ahead and crank it on out over the weekend. It won't help the lazy-ass TL;DR crowd, true, but in general those people tend to pay little attention to useful advice anyway.

What exactly would the problem be in using the 0V - +5V range? Those are perfectly normal CV values, and by using the Disting, you're definitely up in that range going into the 2S. I'd say take the Disting's adder out of the patch and use the wider CV range, and just restrict the Marbles' behavior so that the amount of voltage swing is reduced but within the desired range of activity. Besides, it's a bit of a waste of what the Disting can/should be doing.

Are these modules that you already have on hand, or is this build still speculative? I ask because the Braids, original Pam's, and the Pittsburgh OUT are all discontinued modules, and if you don't have these the best thing I could suggest would be to remove them from the build and look for current versions. At that point, it'll be a lot easier to see where you can go with this.

The thing you'll want to do is to listen for "beating". When tuning VCOs to unison, octaves, fifths or fourths, the second (and subsequent) VCOs will create a pulsing if they're not precisely on the interval in question. This is due to heterodyning: adding two waveforms will always result in some sort of sum and difference frequency. This is best known with ring modulation, where a carrier and modulator combine in a diode ring to cause only the sum and difference frequencies to be heard, with the original signals (optimally) suppressed.

But with simply mixing VCOs, you still get the sum and difference, but also the original signals. The "sum" is generally harder to hear, but can show up when dealing with very low pitches. The "difference", though...this is MUCH more prominent, and is what causes "beating" between two slightly-detuned oscillators. To get VCOs exactly in tune on those particular intervals, you fine-tune the second VCO so that the beating stops. But slight detunings can also be musically useful for creating the illusion that a sound is more than just the sum of two VCO signals, and thereby making things sound "fat". If doing this, though, the best practice is to tune VCO #2 exactly to VCO #1 (or #3, #4, etc), THEN slightly alter the #2 (etc) VCO's tuning so that you get that bigger, slightly-detuned sound. That way, you're relatively assured that your detuning should track properly.

The only times I use a tuner myself is when establishing a "reference pitch"...my "concert A", more or less. And in a lot of those cases, I'll simply use a synth that gives me a specific A=xxx Hz reference and proceed from there. But if I need to do something more elaborate, such as microtonal intervals or alternate tunings, then I bust out the Strobotuner and a reference table for cents offsets. That sort of tuning issue goes way beyond the "by ear" method above, especially if I need to get it right.

It depends on the VCO's pitch controls. In some cases, you have an octave switch and a tuning control, while others use the coarse/fine tune knob pair routine. The former (which began with Moog) can be easier to sort out, since these tend to use the tuning knob over a restricted range, either 12 or 24 semitones as a rule. The other method can be more of a pain...but also allow the VCO to get into frequency ranges that the octave switching method might not allow.

It's worth noting, btw, that if a VCO has NO fine tune control, it's apt to be a real pain to use in a precisely-tuned manner unless it's part of a set of VCOs under a single control set.

As for how I tune, I do it by ear. This is what I recommend, actually, as it helps to increase your pitch acuity over time. The better you can recognize what "in tune" vs. "detuned" vs. "out of tune" sounds like, the quicker you can work and the quicker you can realize when retuning is necessary. I really only use a tuner when working with microtonal intervals...which brings us to...

Quantizers. Now, these do NOT help with tuning. Quantizers are designed to force an incoming CV signal into scalar intervals which can then be used to control VCOs, etc. But they won't help keep the VCOs in tune, they just make them play pitches that conform to the quantizer's scalar parameters. It's still possible to have several VCOs that are totally out of tune with each other, but tracking the same scalar "pitches" equally (which can sound interesting in of itself; see Aphex Twin's "180db_" on "Syro").

I dunno...there's also the pad-controller desktop version, definitely smaller. But the full keyboard is only a 4 octave, which puts it in the same general form factor area as the DeepMind, DSI OB-6 or the Prologue-8...and with that, you also get the 4-octave ribbon (which can be used as a separate controller altogether) and the full poly-aftertouch. The pads on the desktop also have poly-aftertouch, but you lose that (quantized!) ribbon.

Technically, it's something you shouldn't worry about...until you have to worry about it when you start getting noise/crud, so it's probably best to deal with it now. My suggestion, however, would be to move the P/S next to the Pam's; since that outputs clocking/trigger signals, P/S garbage won't be problematic for it, and the Arturia P/S should be just as happy on the bottom row as the top. In fact, the cable-draping for the P/S's line from the external "wart" will work even better down there, minimizing its proximity to the rig altogether.

Not a bad choice if you're short on space. However, have a look at Erogenous Tones' LEVIT8, which offers eight attenuators, with four invertable, plus DC offset, 2x gain, and it can also be configured as a 8-1 or dual 4-1 mixers, all in 10 hp. Super-flexible, very capable of being a central attenuator control and/or mixer for several paths at the same time. Something like that, where you have a lot of the same functionality in a single module, also helps to "future-proof" things a bit since it's enough of a module that expanding the build wouldn't pose as much of a problem for it as it might for the Cascade.

Pro-1's going to be a while, according to my contact at Sweetwater. They know it's in "pre-production", but aside of that Uli's not supplied a release date or even a final MSRP. It could drop next month...or next year. Who knows?

Meanwhile....ahhhh...HYDRASYNTH. Why wait for Uli to reissue the past when the future is on pre-order and set for November delivery? ;-) Future apparently seems to built like a brick s**thouse, too...same sort of steel + heavy aluminum endcheek construction that my JP-6 has. And yes, you gotcher CV/gate jacks right there on the front panel, so it likes modular just fine. You can even input modulation signals via two dedicated mod-ins (which now makes me wonder what happens if you unleash a Maths on this thing).

EDITED Sep 7th 2019, 01:07

Yep...the big thrust of the West Coast and related designs is that they're more "texture" instruments. To get something "giggable" in a band sense, you'll probably want to stay in a lane that goes more in the subtractive area...straight-up VCO-VCF-VCA + modulators. Not that textural programming doesn't have a place in that sort of thing; David Bowie's "Heroes" is a great example of where washes of non-melody/non-harmony can work in a more "conventional" situation.

VCOs...really, you want two per voice. I know that you can get away with a single VCO, and many synths do just that. However, to get a really BIG sound, you can't beat having two VCOs, with one ever-so-slightly detuned.

Keystep: got. So the patchable in question should optimally have a MIDI-CV capability in addition to the normal CV/gate patching methods. This simplifies control, keeps the patchcord jungle a tad more manageable.

Filter: decent LP VCF or similar. Need EGs, need LFOs, but nothing too out of control.

So basically, something like an ARP 2600-ish architecture, minus a VCO, but with duophony. The device that immediately comes to mind is...........drumroll, please.......................the Plankton ANTS!. Costs the same as a Mother 32...but it's definitely NOT a Mother 32. Yep, you get duophony via MIDI, 4 VCOs, a multimode VCF, dual EGs, dual LFOs, dual VCAs, noise, an AND gate, sample and hold, 3-in mixer...in short, all of the basics and a little bit more, plus prepatching like the better patchables that you can defeat just by busting out the patchcords. And it's a little-bitty thing: 222 x 132 x 45mm; it and the Keystep would fit in a smallish gigbag. And it most definitely expands via the Eurorack world, for later on. The sole thing of note it's missing are multiples...but on a Eurorack system this small, you'd be using inline mults or stackcables anyway. Pop over to https://www.planktonelectronics.com/ants/ to have a closer look.

The B. Eurorack? Well, when it was this idea of replicating the 100M stuff, I was rather mixed on the idea. True, the 100M is VERY out of production...but there's the 500 series that Malekko's made for Roland that is a redux of the 100M, with improvements in some cases. And that, I would have a problem with...not that it hurts Roland any, but it would impact Malekko, and those guys don't deserve that. They've done some important work, such as Euro-sizing classic Wiard modules. But at this point, I'm not sure what B.'s plans for modular are; I keep hearing that they're working on things outside of the Roland 100M range, perhaps about 40 different modules. If, of course, any of that's true. But at the same time, their idea of how the 100M form factor worked was utter crap...there are NO multiples of 16 hp that can make up a full row in any of the typical Eurorack cases, not even the 104 hp-er that B. is releasing, so if these new modules go beyond that one panel size, it'd be helpful (maybe). Ultimately, I think there's enough modular circuits out there for use (especially if you have a chip fab line for the CEM chips, which they do) that Uli's designers should be able to come up with a unique line, and not merely a clone. Unless, of course, it's a clone of something unobtainable...which we might see a bit of, since I'd heard of some linkages between B. and AMSynths and their efforts to clone ARP 2500 modules, or the repeated claims that there's "going to be an ARP 2600" from B., something Korg apparently blew off.

As for the SE-II...that's just dumb on Uli's part. It and the SE-IV would technically be under Eminent's patents, which should be quite expired at this point, ergo no licensing issues although credit-where-credit's-due should come into play here. And although the SE-IV is DEFINITELY the version of the Solina that everyone wants, I think the idea here is to kick something cheap out the door to compete with/annoy Waldorf and the Streichfett. Even though I have a Crumar Performer, I've also had an SE-IV, and they're very different creatures, ergo I might've jumped at getting a cheap SE-IV. But not this, and others who know the difference won't jump at it, either.

Then there's the "theft" reissues...the Model D, the MS-20, the Odyssey. All of these are, in some way, active products. And the Model D is something of an iconic device for Moog, even if all of the patents have expired. It's nice to have the ability to get a cheap Minimoog, I suppose...but I have some issues with the ethics of that as far as how Uli's opted to deal with it.

EDITED Sep 2nd 2019, 01:36

Hmmm...a poster example of "Sexy Module Syndrome"...

This will not only not work the way you expect, it won't work that way with MAXIMAL expense! I hope you haven't bought all of this, because there's some grave mistakes here. Let's rip into this...

I see three (actually 3 1/2, but you didn't add the Brains along with the Pressure Points) sequencers. And I see ZERO modules which can work with timing trigger/gates to create more complex pattern behavior between the three. No delays, no comparators, no logic, no probabilistics, no dividers, no multipliers. Zilch.

There are NO VCAs! None! Yeah, I know...VCAs look BORE-INGG, but they're quite essential. How do you expect to control any of your levels, audio or CV/mod, without those? And, for that matter...

There are NO EGs! Well, there's one lone Maths that's being tasked with every single bit of modulator duties in this build. But the Maths isn't exactly a dedicated envelope generator that can give you the nice exponential envelopes you need for your audio path VCAs (when you decided to put them in). Where are your LFOs? Your standard envelope gens?

There is ONE mixer in this entire build. Given that you need mixers and/or adders to combine signals, ahhh...yeah.

Basically, this is a great example of how to spend money to fill up a Eurorack cab, but it's missing about half of the sleepy-looking scutwork-type modules that MUST be in there to make these sexy, expensive, blinky ones function optimally. Or, for that matter, as a synthesizer in general. As it stands now, it's an interesting collection of...stuff, but a poorly-planned one, in the end. If this is simply a MG build, I would suggest deleting it and starting over AFTER taking some time to study how classic synths are structured and AFTER quite a bit of time spent here on MG going through the really dull-looking modules and understanding what those are for. And believe me, they definitely exist for a reason!

Oh...one last thing: Maths = Serge DUSG. Not Buchla. Again...study, don't just read adverts. Go back and look at a Serge system and a Buchla 200 (same general vintage) side by side. Don never used the same sort of slope gen implementations that Serge Tcherepnin did, mainly because Don kept his audio and control paths separate and Serge didn't. This is the sort of thing you pick up on from actually digging into the history, concept, and so on behind these classic systems, along with why they're designed the way they are. By picking up on these concepts the...yes, hard way...you learn to avoid critical (and costly) mistakes in designing a modular. And the above is definitely quite costly!

Yeah...the thing that Uli loves to do, with creating CGI mockups, dropping them on forums such as Gearslutz, and then basing his marketing decisions on what degree of hype he can observe...that's the thing I really detest. Basically, that's market research via trolling, IMHO...it's lazy, it annoys quite a few people, it tells us little about the final product other than that it might exist eventually, and so on. Then when he starts showing off his "field prototype" and "production run" pics in the same way, it still tells us NOTHING in the way of when the product will be available, NO exact MSRP figures, NO general availability, ad nauseaum. In the meantime, there's a certain...ah...arrogance? to this, how it seems that "influencers" can get his protos but I've never, ever heard of anyone with an actual background in instrument design or "in the trenches" musicians (except on rare occasions) obtaining a B. "field prototype" to really dive into.

And this can have predictably shitty results. F'rinstance, let's look at the NEW (ie: vaporware) Behringer "Solina". Now, Eminent made a few different versions of this for ARP, and users who have experience with them know that the SE-IV was THE version to have. But Uli opted to base his redux on the SE-II. This is the one that the "world's most famous pop, rock, jazz and disco musicians" didn't like. It wasn't stereo, it sounded thinner, it had no control over mixing the "ranks", and so on. The "lounge band" version, more or less. And to this, he's added a very basic phase shifter circuit which is...well, OK, but the other key to the Solina sound was flanging, and I see no flanger circuit here even though B. does, in fact, make them. In the end, it looks more like the Behringer "I Can Haz Streichfett Too" synth and not the Solina that everyone who knows better has been wanting.

So, when Uli gets it RIGHT...sure, I'm down. Neutron: OK. Pro-1: Sure. RD-8: fine. But when he screws up (this "Solina"), or when he just decides to go for intellectual property theft (Mackie, dbx, et al) and whip out something currently being made (MS-20, Odyssey)...yeah, screw that, and him too. He needs to learn to play nice with others.

EDITED Sep 1st 2019, 21:37

Well, what you need to do is to come up with a list of six things you know the patchable MUST have. We already have one here: more than one VCO. So, let's start with that as #1, and work out five more.

Now, clearly you seem to be leaning toward something with a proper controller, such as a Moog Grandmother. But is that the right move? Would it make more sense to get something like an Arturia Keystep as both a controller AND sequencer, with that being capable of working with the initial synth and the later expansions? Also, if you eliminate the controller as being part of the synth, it's worth noting that you both widen the field of candidates + lower the price for them.

Next, what functions should the patchable have? Multiple VCOs, check. Filter...? How much "character" do you think is needed there? You're considering adding a Rings later, which is a physical modelling "filter" and therefore capable of some pretty strange transformative behavior, so maybe you can get away with something with a more simplistic filter sound for now and know that, later, you can expand on this.

More functions...modulation sources? Should it have ample LFOs and EGs? You've specced a Maths above, so again, you might go simpler here, either in terms of amount of submodules or in terms of potential complexity. Perhaps the patchable can have the "simple" sources and the more esoteric stuff can go in later?

Do you want this to be a purely subtractive synth? Or more "West Coast"? Or something down the middle such as the Pittsburgh Voltage Lab or the Make Noise 0-Coast? Or something just downright weird? And with that in mind, do you even really want it to patch with 3.5mm cables? Why not bananas, such as the Kilpatrick Phenol, or Dupont patchwires, like on the AE Modular system? After all, you can adapt one connection to the other in many different ways.

Lastly, should you jump right on into Eurorack with a voice module as your first Euro acquisition? Note that I'm NOT suggesting taking something like a Mother 32 and "de-casing" it to put it back into another case, but something like the Intellijel Atlantis, Malekko Manther Growl, Cwejman VM-1S, Eowave Quadrantid Swarm, et al.

So, work along these lines, sort your "must-haves" out into a list, then sift the data according to them. Given the sheer amount of equipment out there these days, there's SOME patchable that'll work on nearly all if not every one of the aspects you need.

As for the Odyssey, I'd rather give Korg the money. They were there first, plus David Friend of ARP assisted them with bringing it back. That's a Uli move I don't endorse. True, it has a few additional functions, but since you can get the "real deal" for all intents and purposes, I think that would be more appropriate.

But as for the RD-8? Yeah...the Roland Boutique really didn't match up to the original, so Uli wins there. As long as he sticks to the currently-unobtainables, I don't have much of a problem with B.'s reduxes.

Hee...actually, there are two B. products that will probably wind up in here before much longer, tbh. One of those is their 808 clone, and the other is the Pro-1. Someone whose ear I trust has put the RD-8 through its paces, comparing it to their experiences with the Real Deal, and they state that the only obvious difference is that the timing on the RD-8 is tighter than the original. Now, this might be a problem, as I think that one of the things that made the TR-808's feel right was that certain amount of "slop" that added a tad of humanization to things, but there might also be a (M4L-generated clock quantizing jitter, perhaps?) way around this.

As for the Pro-1, Dan Bell up in Tha D has had a preproduction unit for a while, and the original Pro-One is something he knows inside and out since that's one of his mainstay axes. His verdict was that it's indistinguishable from the Sequential version...and this, interestingly, makes sense since B. now manufactures the redone CEM chips, meaning that the original and the Pro-1 have essentially the same chipset for the signal path. Again, this is someone whose judgement I trust implicitly, not someone random shill on Gearslutz that's sucking up to Uli. So, given that I'd like to have a Pro-One(ish) again (this would be...ah...#3? I think?), and given that the sound is pretty much spot-on and there's little else that B. can fuck up there, this seems like a logical buy. Whenever Uli bothers to get 'em out the door in Shenzhen, that is.

Hmmmm...filters. A few that I think are interesting, have a great deal of "abuse potential":

Doepfer A-106-1: this is based on the Korg MS-20 filter pair, but with some extra tricks and the downright evil inclusion of an insert point in the resonance foldback path.

Limaflo Motomouth: bizarre modelled formant filter with morphing capabilities.

Epoch TwinPeak: what it sounds like...a Rob Hordijk design that incorporates aspects of filtering and wavefolding. Massive abuse potential here.

DinSync Sara VCF: another dual VCF scheme, this time with "opposed cores" in which all sorts of strange resonances can be pulled out due to the interference of the VCFs.

Tiptop Forbidden Planet: Tiptop's take on a Nyle Steiner design. It acts quite a bit from what I've heard of it like the Synthacon VCF...gritty, punchy, very capable of tearing your ears off when in self-resonance. Quite a good "everyday" filter, too.

Intellijel Morgasmatron: Intellijel's MS-20 pair version, with loads of modulation/routing possibilities, more modes, etc. More, basically.

Make Noise QPAS: currently, the stereo VCF extraordinaire.

SSF Stereo Dipole: the other stereo VCF extraordinaire. More like a relative of the TwinPeak above, but with more complexity, stereo signal path.

Mind you, a filter isn't 100% necessary to color signals. Some potent waveshapers also have quite a bit of capability in this as well, and it's worth noting that Don Buchla's original "Buchla Boxes" didn't have proper filters as we know them today. It's from Don's work that we have the VCA/LPF combo known as the "Low-Pass Gate" as a timbral (and dynamic) shaper, but his synths also relied heavily on waveshaping, FM, and the like to arrive at complex timbres. My Davolisint doesn't have a filter either...but that's something else entirely. ;)

Fixed some of these after finding an image source, but getting the 3 hp one put together was a total PITA, so it remains uncorrected.

Actually, have a look at Recovery's Jupiter Spirits. This is a quad VCO module based around the CEM 3340 chip, designed to hit the general area of classic analog polysynth sound generation. The waveforms it outputs are triangle (great for the more organ-ish sounds) and saw (typical string synth waveform). Easy to use, relatively small, and doesn't cost a pile of $$$. You could follow this with something like Intellijel's Quad VCA, also, which would allow you not only to mix the VCOs down to a single signal, it would let you use modulation sources to vary the four VCO levels; if you use a quad LFO in conjunction with this, you could put all four VCO outputs in continuous asynchronious shift against each other...definitely an ambient sort of thing there.

EDITED Aug 24th 2019, 23:15

VCAs? I see the Joranalogue VC mixer, but you don't have anything specifically for use with CV/modulation signals.

Lose the mults altogether. This build is too small to sacrifice 8 hp for something that could be accomplished in 0 hp with inline mults and/or stackcables. Plus, if you want more trigger capabilities, 8 hp happens to be the space needed for a Pamela's New Workout, and that would give you eight channels of activity that includes that...and quite a bit more.

I honestly don't see the point of the Cwejman dual VCF, either. Not that it's not an excellent piece...but it's expensiveAF and, these days, a little too simplistic. Intellijel's Morgasmatron, ADDAC's Dual Wasp, The Harvestman's Bionic Lester mkIII, SSF's Stereo Dipole...all are far more interesting dual filters; you might be able to get one for near-zilch by trading in the Cwejman. Or better still from a space standpoint, there's Rossum's Linnaeus, Doepfer's A-106-1 or DinSync's SARA VCF, all of which fit in the same space as the Cwejman (the Doepfer even saves 2 hp) and offer some very interesting takes on dual VCF architecture.

Wavefolding and mixing. Why not both? Look at Tiptop's Fold Processor, for starters; this also gives you an octave divider. Blind Monk's Harmonic Multiplier also provides a dual-input mixing solution. But the most over the top version of this could be Vintage Synth Lab's AWM-3...a three input wavefolding mixer. FYI, combining functions like this is a great way to free up space in a smaller build like this; you could employ this as an audio mixer post-VCOs to give you a single audio path beyond it...and then this cascades on down to allow for simpler filters, mixers, processing, etc...all of which can then go in as smaller modules, which then ups your patch complexity while potentially spending less money.

They do, but they're not the BNC connector type. Synthwerks has dimmable USB modules that work with typical 5V USB LED goosenecks, for example.

Yep, I despise Behringer. ;) However, functionality definitely works when needed. My take on that would be to wait until B. comes out with the Pro-One clone, though, as I think the original was a superior monosynth overall when compared to the original Minimoog. The modulation routing capabilities alone are worth the wait, plus in the case of B.'s reintroduction of the CEM chips (even with their janky semi-piracy of the architecture), well, that was a move that I feel was 100% warranted. Now if someone would step up to the plate and get the SSM silicon back on the street, I'd be similarly unopposed.

Another way to get those bell timbres would be a ring modulator, of course. Yes, this requires two VCOs to work, but you really should have two anyway for detuning, working waveforms against each other (swept pulse against square, for example...quite nice) and the like. And the ring mod offers its own set of extra functions, such as being useful as a spare VCA of sorts, modulating audio with LFOs to create 'chopped-up' sounds, mangling incoming audio, and so on. It's very much another of those "boring" modules that gets overlooked...when that shouldn't be the case, as ring mods are part of the "bread and butter" of electronic music devices. Plus, they're small and cheap (usually).

Have to agree, although branching off a new category might be a bit much. What if the mods were able to instead add a "marker" of sorts to the tiles...something like a "P" for the original format, and "I" for Intellijel's?

But yeah...the tile situation is becoming the mess that I figured it would when Intellijel started bringing out these not-exactly-1U tiles. Didn't like that then, still don't like it. At least Analogue Systems FINALLY had the sense and decency to start making their not-exactly-Eurorack modules with proper Eurorack power connectors and oval mounting holes to avoid the wacky .5 hp discrepancy problem. Seems like Intellijel might take a cue from that move and make it easier for users to incorporate their tiles into something other than cases spaced for that specific format variation.

Is there a particular power consumption/+12v power requirement I am not seeing here?
-- mistakeets

There's a power consumption requirement you're not seeing here.

If the 4ms Row Power 30 only supplies 1500 mA on the +12V rail, the lower row is close to 1000 mA. Then the upper row is about 500 mA. If you used just one Row Power 30, you would be very close to the maximum allowable current for that P/S...when in normal operation. Not only is that not good (lots of heat, component stress, etc) for the P/S, there's also the question of inrush current levels at start-up, which would almost certainly exceed the +12V rail's rating for milliseconds. Doesn't sound like much...but it only takes milliseconds of excessive loading to wreck the P/S and potentially cause chaos to anything connected to that +12V rail.

As this stands now, the lower row runs at 2/3rds of the Row Power 30's capability, leaving 1/3rd of capacity as headroom for inrush loads...and this is about right, although you could go up to 1/4th of capacity as that headroom buffer and still be safe. But there's no way that you'd get away with powering BOTH rows from the same Row Power 30 if you factor that inrush into current loading...so, yes, that's actually done right.

Marbles is all about sample-and-hold, actually, and what you can do to tamper with the degrees of randomness to various extents. It would be my pick, and would pair nicely with the Noise Tools Intellijel tile.

FYI, my votes for both the extra filter and the waveshaper both go to Tiptop. Their Steiner clone (Forbidden Planet) is perhaps a tad more spot-on than Arturia's (and I own a MicroBrute plus did own a Synthacon for some time), and that wavefolder + divider module is pure usefulness. Plus, a third vote for yet another Tiptop device, the MISO...one of the better CV/mod router/modifiers in a while, at a stoopid-cheap price to boot. And yes, you're going to need that MISO, because generative involves a lot of tinkering with control signals, and that module makes it easy to work them "live", like a configurable controller.

Oh, and as modulation sources go, have a look-see about jamming a Maths in there. Yeah, everyone gets those...but it's because they work as advertised, plus pairing something that can do complex slopes with the Marbles...oh, yeah, classic generative stuff there.

First of all, the best starting strategy immediately proceeds from the understanding that MODULAR IS EXPENSIVE. That's not even rule #1...it's more like a basic law of physics. A primary setup is going to cost a significant amount of money...period. Even going with the less expensive makers is going to cost a chunk, since they don't make everything you'll need and since you'll want a sturdy and properly-powered case to stuff everything in.

Also, instead of feeling butthurt about Ronin's advice above, I'd suggest going back and reading it again. It might BE a "default answer"...but that's because you're already falling into default traps. Points #1 and #2 are actually extremely important and not merely flip replies. That advice is 100% spot-on and you ignore/deprecate it at your own peril. Or peril to your credit rating, because you'll wind up spending a lot to get very little in return.

Lastly, if the focus here is sound design, you might consider two other options:

1) Get a vintage modular/patchable. Something like an ARP 2600 is expensive, true, but you'll wind up learning a lot more out of something that had researched design principles behind it, plus an undeniable sound quality. And if not that, a more recent patchable based on older paradigms (such as a Buchla Sound Easel, or Kilpatrick's Phenol, which is based on Serge concepts) would make just as much sense and probably be easier to maintain.

2) Consider whether you actually need a modular synth in the first place. Frankly...and this might sound heretical on MG...you may find more use in a large, modern polysynth like a Moog One or Waldorf Quantum as far as sound design is concerned than you'd get out of a modular system that's built without proper research, funding, and system discipline. Or stay in software; have you explored the possibilities of something such as Iris2, PPG Ultimate, etc in tandem with a good library of other processing plugins?

In either of the above cases, you'll potentially wind up spending pretty much the same amount of money as a properly-scaled modular system. But they're more likely to yield an immediate result. Modular isn't about immediate results; it's more of a long-term process between the user and the instrument, and if you want those immediate results, you'd probably be better off not frustrating yourself with modular.

Uhhhhhh...I foresee problems. First of all, modular synths tend to have a specific sort of architecture; they're not put together with a "throw modules that look cool in a box, hope for the best" mentality. In fact, there's a very high risk of falling into the "sexy module" issue...lots of cool looking stuff, blinkenlichts und tvistenknobs, but you'll have neglected a lot of boring but essential modules in the process, resulting in a totally useless build that's then cost a pile of money to yield no useful results. And there are a LOT of important-yet-boring modules that have to be part of any build: attenuators, interstage mixers, OR-type summers, buffered mults (if you have enough CV destinations to require them), VCAs and the like.

ReBirth and Reason are NOT good starting environments for understanding what has to go into a proper modular build, since neither has you working at the module level on signal flow. Before proceeding further, I strongly suggest you do the following:

1) Get VCV Rack. This is a virtual Eurorack-type environment, and while things don't work precisely like they do in hardware, they do show how a build has to be put together, since the same signal path and architectural rules apply there as in a hardware build.

2) Study some classic modular and/or patchable systems, such as the ARP 2600, Korg MS-20, Moog's IIIc and System 55, the Synthesizers.com and other manufacturers' prebuilt systems, Roland's System 100 and 700, etc. All of these are successful designs, and still sought-after because they were done right. Notice how the signal flow works, what modules are incorporated, and the like. Make special note of the ergonomics, also; it might seem as if some panel space is wasted on some of these, but there are very real reasons why the various controls are located where and how they are.

3) Stay off eBay, Reverb, etc for the time being. That's just "modular porn", and it won't help you understand what you're trying to do. MG does a far better job of explaining what things do, why you might want them, why you also might NOT want them, and to explore how a build would work for you before dropping stoopid-huge wads of cash. You also get user feedback here, such as on this forum; commerce sites just can't provide that.

No one module will get you "where you want to be". That's actually a dangerous idea. Look instead at how modules interact in subsystems, and how those subsystems' signals get handed off in a modular environment. Saying that a certain module will achieve everything you need is like thinking that if you just had this specific, bespoke, boutique key on your tenor sax, you too would suddenly become John Coltrane. Ain't gonna happen. Do the work; throwing money at a problem without doing the work beforehand is simply expensive foolishness.

First up, if this is intended to replicate Block 1, I wouldn't have put it in this case. Erica's Monster Case (2x 126hp) is a much better fit here, with the same space, internal power, and the two-row form factor (or something better approximating it) of the original. The 84hp width cabs are better suited here to stand in for the wing cabs, and since (I assume) you have three already, you have the basis for two of your wing cabinets.

Block 1's audio input is already there...it's the "amplifier", which you'll notice has a similar gain setup to the ARP 2600 input amplifier. That extra module can therefore be eliminated.

DSP effects...uhm, no. Part of the key to the System 700 sound (just like in the Buchla 100) is the spring reverb. The electromechanical design introduces a lot of odd behaviors, nonlinearities, etc that you just can't model well with a Spin FV-1 chip (the basis for the PICO DSP). You're also missing a panner here. And the output stage needs metering to match up with the original. For the reverb, I'd be inclined to go with G-Storm's Electro Spring Tank as the drive module, then select a long Accusonics tank (mounted internally) to get the right sort of sound there. The "panner" that Block A has, though, isn't a VCA-based autopanner but a three-channel stereo mixer, everything under manual control. So something simple but stereo like Doepfer's A-138s would be just fine. Then for your output, I'd go with something that has dual balanced 1/4" outs plus metering, like Olitronik's Pro OUT. Note that all of this is available in black as well, which fits the look.

Lastly, MIDI. Now, this is something the System 700 Block 1 didn't have. However, it DID have the keyboard interface which allowed multiple channels of control for CV/gate to Block 1 and other Blocks. My suggestion would be Befaco's MIDI Thing, which gives you four channels of CV/gate, plus clocking...which might be handy if you try and replicate the sequencer block later on. And the look fits, plus it's a rather simple MIDI to CV, which would fit with the simpler implementation found on Block 1's keyboard interface.

This isn't at all a bad idea, especially since Pharmasonic has replicated the primary modules for the most part. The only stumbling block might be the sequencer, if you opt to continue on and recreate the entire System 700, because that used a weird 12-stage x 3 setup, sort of like a mutated Moog 960 etc. But continuing on while using the Pharmasonics as the basis is also much cheaper than trying to source an original System 700; even with Eurorack being more spendy these days, the resulting build would still come in at a price far less than a used original System 700.

I'm not too jazzed about the drum module choices, tbh. While the Tiptop Hats909 module is a good choice, the Jomox just strikes me as pointlessly expensive and a space-hog for what it does. Erica's Bass Drum would be a better choice if you need that level of control over the kicks...it's less than half the cost, takes up 6 hp less. And the Basimilac Erectus Blovio or whatever nonsense it calls itself is, again, expensive for what it does and...sorry, but I'm of the opinion that the panel looks like utter shite and poses issues if you want to use this effectively in a live, low-light venue. Having done plenty of that exact sort of thing back in the 1990s, I can speak from experience when I say that you want clean, clear panel layouts, not something that requires excessive squinting and puzzling over. Lastly, you might find programming easier if you use a multitrack trigger sequencer such as Tiptop's Circadian Rhythms for the drum programming alone, leaving the Hermod to deal with bass/bleep/pads/leads and clocking in general.

One way I would suggest making ample use of a separate trigger sequencer, btw, would be to go with a Delptronics LDB-2e/2x pair. That would then give you much of the TR-808/TR-606/CR-78-type soundset, with the 2x expander allowing some extra control tricks like CV pitch over several of the sounds, etc.

Another point: you should find a way to set this up as a stereo device. Right now, it's not really that, despite the Rosie having a stereo out (of a sort). Drums/percussives are much more effective when spatialized across a stereo field as opposed to all coming out of one point. If this is in an Intellijel 7U cab, you need to implement the stereo I/O in the tile row as well as putting a QuadrATT in there for mixing/attenuation duties. Plus, if the Circadian Rhythms is limiting in capabilities, you can add a Steppy 1U up there for four additional trigger lanes.

Lastly, envelopes. There's no EGs in here, unless you count the Maths (which I don't...it has much better uses here, especially considering the lack of any other modulation sources), and you have plenty of things that NEED envelope control, such as your VCAs, VCFs and...yep...the Rings, which you probably should keep, as it would make a nice resonating cavity-type effect before your Clouds clone, and also do some to help out the stereo imaging as a result.

As has come up on here numerous times, putting patchables that already have a powered case into another case for which you need power isn't a very economical move. Basically, you're paying to case and power these patchables twice...and given the cost per hp of space in a Eurorack cab with power, that's costing you perhaps a few hundred to do in terms of loss of Eurorack cab space.

Actually, you could possibly use some more VCAs...the Veils is obviously for the audio, but having a few more linear/DC-coupled ones for CV level modulation would be useful here since you've got an ample amount of modulation sources. Other than that, I'd reorder everything so that your power supplies aren't next to audio path modules...especially not next to the Ears, which stands the highest chance of susceptibility to noise/garbage.

Doepfer A-182-1, EMW Switch Interface 2, ph Multiple Dual Channel, ph 2xAB, EMW Switched Patch, EMW Matrix Patch.