Hi All,

Two things I would like to reply to:

1) A DAW-less usage has one big advantage, as Quantum_Eraser already mentioned: You don't require the computer. I have an office job too, taking that one far too serious, hence I am in front of my computer between 12 till 16 hours a day then there comes a point that you really had enough of that thing since I am doing that already for decades (working almost day and night with a computer). So, I do understand "that need" to try to work without a DAW completely and that's for the moment my approach as well.

That, however, doesn't mean that I hate the DAW, no not at all. I am even afraid of the DAW, because I am afraid that I am going to love it, meaning, I am going to spend even more hours in front of the computer, yet another reason not to touch DAW ;-)

Also, I am not saying I am never going to use a DAW, I can foresee in the future a need for using a DAW and might be even willing to consider that, however as long as I can live kind of comfortably without a DAW and not missing it yet, I will try to stay away from it (because I am afraid of it, that I would love it and that I would use the computer even more...)

2) The Maths Myth (apologises for calling it like that) is something I also can't follow for the full 100%. Yes, Maths is a good module, and yes you can do a lot with the Maths and yes it's a very handy utility module at the same time, yes, yes, yes! I totally agree with it ;-)

It however doesn't explain why almost the entire world has to worship this module like it is done currently. It might be a good module (and by the way, I have the Maths myself) for beginners who have a "nice small" rack of less than (just an example) 200 HP buying the Maths to fill up the rack quickly and yes in certain cases it will be really useful, I do think so indeed. If you have limited rack space you indeed might need a Maths because you have so less space and you need to fully utilise that space by modules that can do tons of things.

However, for myself, I realised that I rather like the approach of having most of the functionalities separated in a per module basis. So EGs in EG modules, attenuators in attenuator modules, logic in logic modules, etcetera (naturally there will be always exceptions to this, this is just generaly speaking). I can then use at any time those EGs or attenuators and/or logic modules in any which way I want without being concerned if that functionality I want to use can be matched somehow in my Maths or if I use too many things parallel it's not going to work out with Maths. I even don't bother to check this with Maths, I straight away start to use a pure EG if I need one or an attenuator if I need one, etcetera.

Having said that last part... I actually do love the both attenuators of the Maths, the main reason I still haven't sold the module and I am using it mainly for that purpose.

Again, I am not saying Maths it bad, it's a good module, especially for users with limited HP space, but if your racks are getting larger, having many functionality in separate modules available... for me... Maths isn't that great, it's good yes, but it isn't great either.

Well that's just my humble opinion, that's all folks ;-) Kind regards, Garfield.

Edit: Rephrased one sentence in a more accurate way.

For review reports of Eurorack modules, please refer to https://garfieldmodular.net/ for PDF formatted downloads