That makes sense to me. Thanks for your explanation.
But let's face it: The bang for the buck in 1u is less compared to 3u so it's possibly not that good an idea.
-- wiggler55550
While I agree with you given the current lineup of available 1u modules, I could see something like this prompting the creation of more unique and interesting 1u modules.
I like the idea of a 1u only rack for patch specific utilities that I don't always want taking up space in my main rack. Rather than use a 4ms pod or a pico case with a bunch of tiny 2hp modules, I would rather have just a row or two of 1u stuff.
Am I missing some glaring drawback of 1u? In other words, is there a concrete reason for the difference in "bang for the buck?"
I'm interested. A wider, more HP, version would be neat too.
I would lose one or two of the sound sources and opt for a powerful sequencer like metropolix or ornament & crime. And more VCAs.
I’m afraid I’m going to fuck something up. Is this fear valid or should I just go through with it?
-- Eros222
Just do it. I recently gave the rings alternate firmware a go and it's a gamechanger. Adds elements, as well as a whole bunch of other stuff.
It does lower the sample rate just a hair, but it doesn't bother me as it's not very noticeable.
I think you're on the right track. Stages seems like a large bite to chew for your first rack, but if you really want cv control over each step then it might be your best option in a small case.
Zadar seems overkill. I would imagine you will always have at least one or two unused outputs. Also, if you plan on using it at audio rates to modulate mco, then why not go with something designed to run at audio rates? Twin waves seems like a better option. The lfo modes are great and vco modes have a built in quantizer. Now that I think about it, just ditch MCO all together for twin waves, and then you could lose the pico quant as well. The quantizer on twin waves doesn't respond to trigs, rather it just continuously confines your sequence to a scale, so if you went that route maybe you would want to add a 2hp sample+hold to be able to achieve sustain. Or maybe you could just use stages in such a way where the s+h isn't necessary.
Hope this helps.
Such an epic video! now I'm thinking of what animal/object I want to make... maybe I can commission my friend, a papier maché wizard, to help me make something massive.
the performance at the end was just beautiful. thanks for sharing
Here's my take on utilizing random within pitch sequencing.
While it's great to have a source of random cv that can loop within a boundary of 8 or 16 steps (like marbles or turing machine) the actual listenability of those sequences can be hit or miss (and you don't want to take the potential 'miss' when you are jamming or god-forbid performing). I personally use an O_c for my turing machine purposes, and instead of sending the random sequence straight to an oscillator, I use it to address inputs on my sequential switch (plenty of sequential switches can do this), which all have simple cv sequences coming from my sq-1 or digitakt via midi-cv. This way there is still an element of unpredictability, but I am able to prepare sequences beforehand (on the sq-1 and digitakt) that will sound good when spliced together.
I find that this technique works really well for acid bass lines, but depending on the style of music you are trying to make, you might want to add your sequences together instead of swap between them. In my mind this is a good way to make long and virtuosic ambient stuff, where you have multiple sequencers clocked at different speeds that are then summed with a precision adder.
This might be helpful:
https://forum.mutable-instruments.net/t/marbles-new-alternative-firmware/17905
