Magical stuff. There are software versions available for free, usable in VCV Rack which is also free. I've been playing with it on and off for the last year. It blows my mind that 1) someone would just give this stuff away 2) more people aren't jumping on the bandwagon of physically based modular synths. These things can make some of the most pleasant musical sounds I've ever heard. Check out the YouTube channels "Lightbath" or "ann annie" for examples.
Sadly, Émilie Gillet (the person behind Mutable Instruments) recently announced that she's stopping development of new modules, because being a known person who's visibly trans is just too much, and she's looking for the next niche to disappear in.
> more people aren't jumping on the bandwagon of physically based modular synths.
I've been building a (eurorack) modular modular for a little over 10 years now. It's seriously blown up in subsequent years. After not buying anything for 5 years or so, I just recently started my second case. The amount of modules available has probably doubled since then.
I suspect some of the barrier to entry is the price. Especially when you have a lot of options in the $500 and under monosynth category. But, once you eclipse that initial hurdle, the sky's the limit.
Modular is seriously addictive, my setup [1] has probably plateaued for now, but I reckon it'll probably still grown from here.
What I love about the modular world (as a producer and someone who loves sound design aspect) is the fact that it's very much a cottage industry, and some suitably ambitious individual can build a quirky new module and get it out into the world in a way that would be much harder if they were building a full synth (or something of similar complexity).
I think the ecosystem in general is much more willing to try stuff out too. Most modules aren't that expensive, although collectively they do become that, but most hold their value pretty well, so it's pretty easy to cycle modules in and out of the case to keep things interesting
> more people aren't jumping on the bandwagon of physically based modular synths.
It’s expensive, takes a lot of space and does nothing that you can’t do in software. The UI/UX of hardware modules might be better, but that’s a trade-off I’ve personally grown to accept.
You interpreted physically based as physical. You can have a software physically based modular synth.
"Physically based" refers to the synthesis method, you model the resonance mechanism. The EaganMatrix, Nord Modular, Kronos... are all examples of this technique, and are also available in 100% software. It is in contrast to subtractive, additive or fm based synths.
I don't know, I think the grandparent post could be interpreted either way.
Usually, "physical modelling" is the term I'm used to seeing for synthesis methods that simulate physical effects, whereas "hardware synths" are what people tend to call synthesizers that are physically tangible (as opposed to pure software). Physical synths can themselves be digital or analog, or a mix of the two.
MIDI controllers and a computer can definitely have their own advantages and can nicely compliment stand-alone hardware nicely.
But stand-alone hardware has some advantage of its own over a MIDI setup.
Well designed stand-alone hardware modules can turn on instantly, you don't have to keep their software up to date, you don't have to do any performance tuning on them or muck around with latency, they don't have to compete with other software running on your computer as software synths do, I can be pretty sure that barring hardware failure they'll still work exactly the same way 5 or 10 years down the line, etc.
In sum, stand-alone hardware offers me a lot of reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance that's often hard to match with a computer and MIDI controllers.
Of course, a computer and MIDI controllers have their own advantages and conveniences, like being able to save settings, having a virtually unlimited amount of functionality by using various software packages or writing your own, allowing the user to change or choose their preferred UI, etc.
So they're really not the same. It's best to have both!
One thing you forget to mention, but were kind of indirectly saying (I think), is the "reliability, consistency, convenience, and performance" leads directly to creativity in a way that in-the-box stuff can't replicate. Personally, I need to get to the sound I'm designing quickly for my creative flow to continue, if I fight the computer's UI (and let's face it, the vast majority of DAWs and plugins have terrible UIs) then it kills it for me. I end up self censoring (not even bothering to try) and the music that I end up making ends up more 'rigid'.
I think if you're the kind of person has infinite patience, then yeah sure, you could probably achieve similar results, but I think for many that's not going to work.
Another aspect is the true analogue modules, which software still struggles to emulate well. This matters for some modules/synths more than others, but there is a quality difference. Again, with time, one could make a digital synth/module sound good, but for me it's the same problem of killing the creative flow.
The line is blurring a bit. Back in the 1990s, hardware modules booted directly from ROM. These days, you’ve basically got a whole computer inside which boots like other modern computers, i.e., slower than it should.
There are also some good examples of software stability. Having used Logic and Reason since the early 2000s, you can see all the care that they’ve taken in never removing anything, and only adding new things.
That's the extra insurance that open source buys you: instead of relying on the proprietary software maker to do the right thing, you ensure that you can always (1) actually run the version you had way back on Feb 22 2020.
(1) yeah, I know things are not quite that simple.
My experience is that the Linux audio APIs have been so volatile that I often can’t run older audio software, even when I have access to the source code.
I have actually composed and recorded music with open-source software, but the cost of doing so was very high, so I switched to proprietary software. Even worse, the open-source software for various reasons has had interoperability problems—you can’t export in standard formats, or that kind of thing. With proprietary software, I was less tied down, since I could export data from one program to another and continue working.
So I’m slowly working on converting the old songs I wrote with open-source tools into standard formats.
The ALSA API (the fundamental device driver layer) hasn't changed in any significant way in more than 20 years. There was one trivial change that might require a 1 line change in a program that happened to use that particular call, but not all Linux audio apps did so.
I don't know what you mean by "cannot export in standard formats", unless you're referring to something like AAF.
AAF is a closed-source proprietary standard for "session files" that fundamentally relies on utterly closed Microsoft APIs. There are some incomplete open source implementations that use a GNU efffort to reimplement those APIs but AAF is also the prime example of design-by-committee. I will never put time into trying to support AAF. Note also that AAF support is missing in major DAWs and users need to rely on 3rd party translators such as Chicken Systems AATranslator (RIP).
If you're referring to standard formats for audio files (WAV, AIFF, CAF and more), then I really don't know what you're thinking of.I cannot think of any open source audio project that has problems with exporting to "standard formats".
ALSA may not have changed, but programs variously have used ALSA, ESD, JACK, OSS, PulseAudio, and aRts. Depending on your hardware, some of these options have been variously unusable at points--too many developers assume that you have a hardware mixer, for example, which is true for standard PC audio output but not true for any pro interface I have ever used (even the dirt cheap ones). At various points, I ended up with audio that only worked with exclusive access. I tolerated it for a while but now I consider it a dealbreaker.
I'm 100% willing to pay Apple to make this problem go away for me. Core Audio is an amazing API.
For cannot export in standard formats--talking about MusicXML. Until a couple of years ago I also had problems listening to music on my Linux system; I think it was because of some patent licensing issue.
All of the above APIs except ALSA run on top of ALSA, except OSS which was deprecated more than 20 years ago. The CoreAudio API has changed just as much in that time period.. there are huge chunks of the CoreAudio API that existed back in 1999 that no longer work or even exist.
Also, note you can't use the audio APIs from macOS "classic" on macOS/OS X (and never could - Apple banned it from the start, so every single audio app that existed for macs pre OS X had to have its audio I/O completely rewritten. Apple didn't pay for this - 3rd party developers did).
I write pro-audio/music creation software for a living, and I can assure you that from this perspective, CoreAudio is definitely not an amazing API. That's without even taking into account the differences between CoreAudio on iOS and macOS.
The only Linux distributions that had problems playing patent-protected formats over the last 20 years were the ones that stuck to a strictly libre software policy. If you picked one of them (e.g. Debian), it's hardly Linux' fault that you chose a distribution one of whose raison d'etre's was to exclude any non-free formats of any kind. I used RedHat starting in 1997 and it never had a problem playing mp3 files.
Agreed, although a midi controller by its generic nature does have to adapt to very different hardware, so that for example the knobs, switches etc. placement doesn't reflect functionally the hardware it is connected to, which sometimes would help immensely to ease the operators work.
I wish there was a controller made of pluggable micro modules, that is, say 2x2 cm modules receptacles that could host a potentiometer, a pushbutton, a few leds, a sensor pad etc. where no matter where the module is placed, it will link to the backplane processor getting its identification number and function, then the user can move them around to replicate the functional arrangement of an instrument panel to make programming much easier.
It's more or less the same idea I'd like to develop for computer keyboards, where pluggable keys (pots, haptic transducers and sensors etc.) could be moved around still keeping their programmed function. With todays technology it wouldn't be so hard to develop; very likely the most expensive part would be the plugs/receptacles hardware rather than their digital hardware or firmware.
There's a Waterloo start-up that spun out of a Fourth Year Design Project, Palette [0]. Their main sell was integrations into various creative tools (ex. Adobe Creative Suite, Ableton). They recently rebranded as Monogram [1][2] after announcing new hardware.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electro-smith/daisy-an-... is worth a look as well. They have dev platforms in Eurorack, desktop synth, and guitar pedal form factors that could be used for something like this, though they have enough DSP to actually run the audio processing the module, but it seems like it could be used for something like a hybrid setup as well with VCV rack with some software work.
Yeah, but a MIDI controller has fixed button, knob and display positions.
We need a new form MIDI controller with movable button and knob and LED placement. Then one could make a physical MIDI controller for any MI software instrument by placing the controls and the LEDs on a backplane in the right place.
If it's not already done, I bet it will be in the next 5 to 10 years.
There are no issues with using MIDI in a DAW because of jitter: jitter is a problem of device drivers, hardware and badly implemented MIDI handling inside the DAW. It works remarkably well.
AFAIK it's only capable of 14 bit resolutions for things like modwheel. CC can only have 128 values, right?
Also, isn't it safe to say that by the nature of USB MIDI interfaces, they are not well suited for MIDI operation? As in: Since USB drivers buffer messages, it causes jitter. Is that correct? Are there USB MIDI interfaces / drivers that don't have these issues otherwise?
Added to that: MIDI is mostly used for interfacing with external hardware, and as such you're dependent on the external hardware's MIDI implementation, which isn't always superb to say the least unfortunately.
No, there are many parameters with 14 bit resolution. Precisely how many depends on exactly how you interpret the MIDI specification.On the order of 64, plus or minus depending.
Sure, USB interfaces might be problematic but it's very dependent on the precise hardware. My MOTU Ultralite AVB is basically unusable because of jitter; my MidiSport 2x2 (also USB) is extremely usable and has extremely low jitter. So you cannot make blanket statements about it being caused by using USB for MIDI.
I've been fantasizing a little about a new modular format, or at least a new category of synth controllers, taking advantage of the higher resolution of MIDI 2.0 for some modulation signals. I could be wrong, but I thought MIDI 2.0 was supposed to potentially be faster/more timing accurate too.
I'm not overtly familiar with MIDI 2.0, but from what I've heard it does fix most of the issues of the old MIDI. However, if you transport your messages over DIN ports, all bets are off.
You can also look at Open Sound Control, as it was once intended as a replacement for MIDI.
OSC has never, ever been even remotely close to being a replacement for MIDI.
Every MIDI message (well, almost every MIDI message) has a defined semantic associated with it. The receiver of the message might choose to reinterpret that, but the default semantic is still defined by the standard.
There is not a single standard OSC message. The only thing that is standardized in OSC is the format of a message. Both the receiver and sender have to agree to a specific set of messages, with a specific set of semantics.
Trivial example: you want a MIDI-driven synth to start playing middle C. You send it a MIDI NoteOn event with the note number 60. There is no equivalent for this with OSC, not even close. You must know precisely what messages the synth will accept and which ones will mean "start playing middle C".
OSC is cool but it isn't and almost certainly will never be a replacement for MIDI.
you can use something like the FaderFox if you want lots of knobs. as for the LEDs, I'd probably say that VCV Rack running on my 42" screen gives most blinkenlighten setups a run for their money.
A lot of hobbies are expensive and take-up space, so that argument doesn't hold up in reality. If you are into hardware, you choose hardware. Software versions of Eurorack just don't have the same feel. Even VCV seems clunky. My case has around 140 knobs and switches that I can easily tweak, just can't get the same feel in software regardless of how well the UI has been optimized. My 2 cents.
Doesn't take much space, actually. Also, there's a tremendous satisfaction in getting away from a computer screen. Physically twisting knobs and plugging in wires. Building a rack. Collecting modules.
That is so sad about Emilie, she's a genius and has produced some wonderful stuff. Her physical modules on the second hand market are hard to come by and command a high price, they are so renowned.
tech is such a double-edged sword for trans folks. i feel like it both affords opportunity to be recognized for skills but also carries a very heavy potential cost of rejection and ignorance from peers.
It's probably fine in the research phase, but when the tech is productized/commercialized, then it takes off, and then the money starts rolling in, the niche starts attracting social conservatives.
Mutable Instruments stuff has been open source long before her coming out as trans. I think they might actually have been open source from the beginning, or thereabouts? (The company originally started by selling DIY kits, IIRC.) Usually (at least with recent modules) she waits to release it openly until after the first production batch of modules has sold.
It’s because they’re so expensive. Luckily though, behringer recently announced a bunch of amazing modules for very cheap (which is basically their MO, and why they are going to end up eating most of the industry)
Eurorack modules are so expensive because they are mostly niche products made by one man shows (like Émilie Gillet). The exotic takes on synthesis and user interfaces are exactly what makes them worth every penny to me. Behringer is using their vertical integration to bring classic and well known synthesis concepts (and UIs) down to attractive price points. I don't think they are in conflict with most of the Eurorack folks (except perhaps Doepfer). I'd be surprised if they start cloning Make Noise modules.
I think that Behringer's entry into the modular space actually HELPS these bespoke manufacturers and is going to help them sell more modules (if behringer doesn't just outright buy them, like they've already done with outfits like TC electronic).
I'm not going to drop $5k on a starter modular setup. But I will drop $500 on one! And then $250 on Maths; something I would have never even thought about buying if I didn't have the rest of the modular to support it.
I can agree with that. I think the manufacturers who would be threatened by Behringer are the ones who are making oscillators, filters, voltage controlled amplifiers, envelope generators, and other basic modules that you kind of have to have just to have a usable setup. Whereas anything that's a substantial departure from what you'd find in any mainstream subtractive synth may actually become more popular, because the hobby is more accessible.
FWIW, I think that the real issue is Bg eating things like moog mothers... I very much love mine (and could have bought either), but I can see why folks would rather spend 300 than 600.
Your point is generally good; I got a maths and a couple of other things immediately after the mother.
Another more affordable option is to build your own modules.
What's involved could be as simple as merely assembling a purchased kit (which should already save you money over a pre-assembled module) all the way to designing, prototyping, and etching your own PCB's, designing and building the enclosure, finding and ordering all the parts, soldering them all together, testing, etc.
The DIY modular synth community is pretty active.
The "Music Tech DIY" forum on Muffwiggler is a good place to start.
For what it's worth, Behringer's penchant for cloning bespoke hardware that is still available from the creators is generating some negative sentiment* which is broadly affecting their reputation.
Behringer are anti-Veblens, which annoys people who believe that technology should be an expensive and exclusive wealth signal.
In reality cloning - if not outright theft of designs and ideas - has been rife in the synthesizer industry since the earliest days.
Some Eurorack modules are more or less literal clones of "famous" designs. The only difference is the graphics. So cloning is not exclusively a Behringer issue.
Generally, most of the big name synthesizer companies are lagging far behind the Eurorack market for innovation. Behringer are taking advantage of this by filling that niche.
Given that they also produce original products - like the Wing and the X32 mixers - I expect they'll produce some original synth designs when they've exhausted the clone market.
But synth players are not particularly adventurous, and nostalgia sells, so the clone market is where most of the money is for now.
> Some Eurorack modules are more or less literal clones of "famous" designs. The only difference is the graphics. So cloning is not exclusively a Behringer issue.
Typically clones are made for vintage and hard to find gear, which Behringer (and many others) have done for years without issue. The specific recent problem with Behringer and why it's angering many members of the synth community is Behringer is actively cloning and undercutting products being made right now.
In the link above about the TD-3, the "DevilFish" mod is a mod Robin Whittle does for the out-of-production Roland TB-303. Behringer cloned the TB-303 to make their own unit, the TD-3. Not many people are upset about this.
They then contacted Robin Whittle, who created and sells kits for the DevilFish mod, and after being unable to come to an agreement with him, simply used his mod in their synthesizer. This is legal because there are no patents on the mod.... Kind of a dick move though.
Purely speculation, but they feel like the kind of company that would clone a Mutable Instruments module and conveniently ignore the GPL portion of the license when it suits them to.
They also hype product announcements in a way that seems like they're trying to poach customers. They didn't announce their Model D clone until just after Moog put up pre-orders for their re-issue. Then Behringer took over 2 years from announcement to sale. They've done similar things with Roland announcements. Releasing a "We're working on something very similar!" image on Facebook the same day as a sale announcement for a new product, and then never releasing the Behringer item.
And Lastly, Uli Behringer is a bad member of the community. He constantly has posts deleted by GearSlutz moderators for having false information. He attempted to sue several members of Dave Smith Music for talking negatively about him on forums outside of their day-jobs.
> I expect they'll produce some original synth designs when they've exhausted the clone market
They already have some lovely original designs like the Neutron or Deep Mind by the way.
Being anti-Veblen is not the reason I dislike Behringer. It's not so black and white when it comes to cloning or replicating original designs of the past. It can be done tastefully. Behringer does not do their clones with integrity.
Behringer made cheap knockoffs of famous products a while ago, and most apparently sucked badly. I've heard more recent accounts of newer products being of decent quality however, and a couple teardowns seem to confirm this. They still mostly clone stuff by others though.
The problem to me is also due to the very high price the original stuff is sold at. Technology has progressed to a point an electronic instrument or effect can be built at a fraction of what would be the price 30 years ago, still mainstream producers sell at absurd prices. As an example, I can build with 15 euros in an evening a fantastic sounding germanium transistor fuzz face clone with mosfet input stage and LDR compressor, place it in a box and make a small profit by selling it at €40. If adding a fancy box and famous name will raise its price tag to €150 or more, notwithstanding the differences between costs of non mass parts purchases and production, I'd say the famous producer is asking for its products to be cloned.
Behringer already has the reputation of selling very inconsistent and unreliable hardware, some of which are truly amazing values, but most are true heaps of garbage.
This won’t bode well for Behringer in the professional and prosumer markets perhaps, but guitar center is going to eat their euro rack modules up. They’ll look great on the demo shelf. They’ll replace them regularly as they start exhibiting problems on the demo floor. It’ll work out just fine for them.
That's not exclusive to Beheringer in the bargain department. Even so-called quality brand has issues when on display in the stores. Nord for instance has a super good reputation but their products are in fact quite fragile. I've seen more than one broken on display model. And that stuff isn't cheap at all. Things I've seen: virtual drawbars breaking on their organ model, keyboard issues (dead notes, inconsistent volume, knobs missing / broken off. Otoh; brands like Yamaha and Korg seem to hold up quite well at in-store displays.
Even so, most electronic music gear sold in quantity isn't nearly the quality of stuff aimed at the touring musician, and for the price it really couldn't be.
Cloning exists across every segment of the music making industry: guitars, amps, studio gear, mics, etc. Making a sustainable living as a creator of boutique instruments or equipment is a rare feat.
My own take is that cheap clones allow people to enter a hobby/passion at an affordable price. My experience is that those who find the hobby worthy of continued investment often progress to become buyers of boutique/artisan gear.
Imagine a world where the first inventor of a violin was the only person ever allowed to create a violin. We would not have the musical landscape we have right now.
Behringer's proposition is basically: this stuff doesn't need to be luxury goods. Not that luxury goods shouldn't exist, and when you sell your platinum album, go ahead and buy stuff with a moog or a korg logo. But that said, normal people should have access to this stuff as well.
In fact, to bring this back to a conversation more directly relevant to HN: the market of people willing to pay $500 for a synth is MUCH larger than the market of people willing to pay $5000 for a synth, AND the people who are willing to pay $500 for a synth could be converted into people willing to pay $1000 for a synth.
I think there is a really important lesson there about pricing. One that I think that current, bespoke instrument manufacturers are going to have to learn.
Full disclosure: I own behringer synthesizers. My current SaaS product is breaking conventional advise about pricing in the same way that Behringer does (not yet launched).
Behringer has not taken over any industry in which they have copied the successful because their quality is not high enough. It's high enough for their revenue expectations, but not high enough for the industry.
"Csound is a sound and music computing system which was originally developed by Barry Vercoe in 1985 at MIT Media Lab."
I prefer to do things in hardware rather than software because after staring at a computer monitor all day long professionally, it is the last thing I want to do when I get home. I much prefer twisting knobs and patching cables.
Also, one philosophical interest in Eurorack is as an alternative model of computation. You've totally given up the Von Neumann architecture, but you can still do some amazing computations. Sums, integrals, differentials, chaotic functions, ...
point is, this is another way physical Eurorack is an alternative to "software" (where software seems to assume a Von Neumann system to run it on...)
Cost is an issue. It is hard to be serious about the hobby for less than $1500. You are welcome to dispute that point with me by discussing all the cheaper options available or talking about resale value, but given that most modules cost north of $100 it doesn't take long.
And building modules from scratch (which I've done, just a stash of chips, resistors, and caps and a blank proto board, working off a hand-drawn circuit diagram) can save a few bucks but the time cost gets very high.
VCV Rack is much more appropriate if your goal is to "emulate [modular] in software".
CSound is a wonderfully cool piece of software. It's not an effective way for people who want to do in software what they do with hardware modular: obtain modules, put them in a rack, and connect them up.
Finally, eurorack has nothing to say about computer architecture,in the context of digital computers. It's an analog synthesis system, which means that it's an analog computer (even if some of the internals are digital).
I really recommend you check out VCV Rack. It is a deeply amazing piece of software, both in terms of its concept, but also the way that its author has created an ecosystem for modules and modules authors.
VCVrack does look like some seriously cool software, thanks for the link.
"Finally, eurorack has nothing to say about computer architecture,in the context of digital computers. It's an analog computer."
That kind of is what it says about architecture. Analog vs digital.
When I'm hooking up a clock on my synth I can't help but think of a system clock on a CPU. A digital computer computes an integral using a series of discrete-time operations on binary representations of floating points. My synth computes integrals using an op-amp and and RC circuit applied to a voltage source, and sometimes calls them "filters".
So I have these sorts of thoughts in the back of my head, different mental pictures of how the system is doing the math.
Plus other thoughts-- what is the purpose of the "computer". Kraftwerk "I am the operator of my pocket calculator" viewing a calculator's primary function as a musical instrument...
Isn't that saying something about computer architecture?
Csound looks good, but I find that predefined instruments are hard to find, and not catalogued in a central place in the internet. Also doing drum tracks seems not so easy, none of the example csound music I have heard has drum tracks.
because Csound is not for that. Think about Csound opcodes as about electric parts - you got some oscillators, VCAs etc and it's up to you to build synth.
I've been building MI modules for a while. Émilie is such a boon to the SDIY community. Not only does she design incredible modules and release the entire design for free but she also actively encourages modification and improvements buy offering a complete development VM.
It was pretty much expected whenever a new module was released that people would get right to work designing 'µ' versions of the modules that use less space on a rack or in some cases "double" versions of modules.
If I might just gush here. The work made available here by Émilie has been just so damn valuable to me over the last few years. From simple but effective circuit design, to very efficient and easy to follow DSP code. I would never have fallen so deep into the eurorack rabbit hole without it. Whatever it is she ends up doing now, I hope she shares it with the world the same way she did with MI!
I hope so too. Émilie's work has been my primary inspiration in learning more about digital signal processing. The Mutable Instruments body of work is a tremendous gift. Thank you so much, Émilie!
Because they are open-source, those modules have been ported to VCV Rack [1], a virtual instrument aimed at recreating the Eurorack experience in digital audio workstations. Obviously, using a mouse/trackpad is not the same as tweaking real knobs, but it's much cheaper.
> Obviously, using a mouse/trackpad is not the same as tweaking real knobs, but it's much cheaper.
I’m interested to see what the availability of cheap VR does here. With today’s room scale VR, using knobs and sliders in a 3D space is feasible. Being able to develop spatial memory, even without tactile feedback, makes for a compelling alternative to using a mouse and screen. Once VR/AR gets tactile feedback like this glove[0], it gets even closer to parity with hardware.
If the module controls in VCV Rack are standard components (button, knob, slider, etc.) then it should be pretty simple to translate them into 3D controls. Though I guess buttons may not work as well as switches, I haven’t encountered them in VR yet. Anyway, with those component mappings in place, any VCV module should be displayable in a virtual rack with no extra effort—it’s just a procedural UI change, generated from the existing 2D layout, that doesn’t impact the audio engine at all.
I'm not as excited to see traditional interfaces cloned in VR space because the lack of tactile feedback in VR really hampers such interfaces (it's really annoying to have to look down at your hands and the knobs you're turning or the switches you're pushing to make sure you've got the right one, etc).
What's much more interesting to me are exploration of innovative interfaces. For example, with full-body tracking you could map body parts to different synth parameters or algorithm parameters and then allow the user to make music by dancing.
The sky is really the limit in terms of what body/head/arm tracking and VR can allow you to do with innovative interface design.
Hopefully, haptic feedback needed for this would eventually be recreated in VR. It already has some really good haptic feedback in default controllers (talking about Oculus Quest here, but also experienced the same with Vive setups), where something as simple as reloading a gun feels way more impactful with the haptic engine built into those controllers.
For something as refined as the sensation of twisting a knob, however, I don't think that the current VR controllers are enough. Maybe once VR gains a bit more mainstream adoption, we will get VR glove controllers with a bit more complex haptic feedback mechanism, which should allow for the "twisting the knob" sensation to be implemented, and then it will be a total gamechanger. I would looove to have my DAW and synths in VR, as the spaciality of VR is perfect for this kind of workflow, but we gotta wait a bit for tech to catch up.
I think current gen controllers could work well enough here to be useful. The modules might have to be oversized, and you’d need to have a visual indicator that “this is the knob you’ll grab if you pinch now,” with good visual position feedback. But when I play Beat Saber, part of the fun is how my every slight twist is reflected exactly by a freaking lightsaber! The fine motor control is already present.
It’d take some getting used to, but still miles ahead of mouse/trackpad. The nice thing about VCV being open source is...someone can just build it, and it can be iterated upon as the haptics improve.
One of the better examples of that I've seen was actually back in 2012, done with a couple of Kinects[1]. Although it's still not much more than the equivalent of pressing a few buttons and sliders and it's obviously highly pre-programmed.
There's the Hot Hand[2]; the bassist is using one in [3]. There's still a lot more that could be done.
VCVRack is one of the all-time greatest pieces of synth software, ever. The sheer number of modules you can install, out of the box, for free, is astonishing.
Its also pretty neat that a lot of hardware manufacturers use VCVRack as both a prototyping system as well as a promotion mechanism. I've introduce a lot of people to Eurorack by way of VCVRack - usually they play with it for a few weeks, and before I know it, they've got a new hardware rig set up in the living room ..
Pretty great time to be a synth nerd. (See also: Behringer.)
The longer you ignore Behringer, the longer a thriving community of module builders can exist. Cheap ripoff modules sound great (no pun intended) but provide one more angle to screw the little guy.
Start your synth life with a cheap Behringer Neutron, add a few modules here and there - and before you know, you've got a wall of synths, and not all of them will be Behringer.
They open the doors for kids to get started, at a cheap price, and it means way more people on the market than otherwise. Some of us remember when synth manufacturers could get away with gouging their customers - not any more!
Émilie Gillet (founder of MI) has done so much for the modular synthesiser world - she has pushed the state of the art pretty far forward, and now making all the designs available pretty much means that we are going to see some great progress beyond the current scene .. I wonder if there is a F/OSS award that she could be recommended for? Its one thing to release software for free, but to also do it for hardware designs is amazing ..
She released the designs years ago and her influence on the scene has been growing for years. Having a well engineered production example makes all the difference for people learning how to make electronic music devices
Using a Mutable Instrument module is a fun way to code your own Eurorack ideas if you're like me and bad at the hardware/DIY part. Everything is open, even the bootloader, and there's a neat process where it converts the compiled program into an audio stream that the module then listens to (when turned on in recovery mode). And it's even easier to go back to stock firmware.
There's also the well-known-ish alternative "Parasite" firmwares by mqtthiqs which is fun to look through and really fun to play with in a module. [0, 1] I don't know if these are available in a software-only form like VCV.
Mutable also isn't the only manufacturer releasing open-source modules. 4ms has a few, the DLD [2] is a delay I've been playing with reprogramming lately (almost 3 minutes of memory! stereo!). Rebel Technology releases their stuff under GPL [3]. I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting. I wish Make Noise would open-source their digital stuff...
Aah Eurorack... I first found out about this scene when a friend started making modules in his spare time and then eventually left the game development industry to found Noise Engineering[0]
Mutable Instruments did a great thing open sourcing their hardware and software. I own a couple of MI clones from Momo Modular. Eurorack is an incredible hobby.
Interesting contrast with TipTop, who makes modules which are derivatives of other devices (808 and 909 drum modules), but they patented Stack Cables (even though stackable banana cables were already a thing), and has sued to prevent other companies from also making stackable cables.
TipTop is a bad actor / goes against the ethos of many others in the eurorack space IMO. I have their mantis case, was my first eurorack case, and while it's good I do dislike that i use theirs.
the modularity and interoperability (and the implied open source culture) of eurorack philosophy should extend to the companies that make these products. so often they dont. makes me think of unix philosophy and how tech companies dont follow that philosophy either.
I have mixed feelings about TipTop. On one hand, I really like their modules, and when one of the buttons on my Circadian Rhythm sequencer died, they sent me another for just the cost of shipping.
On the other hand, I broke one of my TipTop modules by accidentally plugging the power in backwards (they should really add reverse power protection), and the identifiers on the chips are all scratched off, so I have no way of identifying the chip I fried in order to replace it. Mind you this is a module cloned from a Roland 909, so it's not even like this is an original design.
I built a Mutable 6-voice Ambika synthesizer about five years ago with the SMR voice cards. It is a magical synth and an easy build. You can get DIY kits from TubeOhm.
Sadly, Émilie Gillet (the person behind Mutable Instruments) recently announced that she's stopping development of new modules, because being a known person who's visibly trans is just too much, and she's looking for the next niche to disappear in.