#103

I get your point. I had the original axoloti with axo-control for ages, and although it’s super nice, it would see a lot more action if it were in my rack.

I’m sure there will be bare bone axo2s as a first, the ability to rack it without having to develop the electrical surroundings (something that is out of my league) it new and very exciting to me…

Edit… and judging from the comments a few others as well…

Edit2: not sure we have enough openended computers in eurorack. 301, percussa, nebulae and salt is about it?

#104

@tehn is spot on here. “audio-specific arduino” is much closer to my line of thinking on this. I don’t see myself as a Eurorack manufacturer in the traditional sense at all. Module making is one possible application of the device.

7 Likes
#105

The Axoloti 2 looks inspiring in the way the Arc has recently inspired me. There are tools that lend themselves to my desire to build and approach music making in the way that drives my ability to create. I am very excited about this device (as I was in the original, but had not yet approached) and hope to have my “sea legs” soon as to be able to provide many of the tool sets I could dream to combine.

All things fair though, having some awesome adjustable DSP passthrough effects similar to a programmable guitar/effects pedal/eurorack module seems pretty rad.

I see both points. And that’s a testament to the potential power this fantastic piece of hardware/software provides.

#106

I think where it becomes really useful to have a screen is when a device’s firmware makes it possible to switch presets/patches from the hardware itself (as is possible with Axoloti).

It’s really cool to be able to switch patches/presets etc., and see what you’re doing, without having to connect a computer.

It’s also really nice to have some kind of visual cue about what the various controls do, for a particular preset/patch, and their current values.

That’s much less of an issue with something like Crow, of course, as you can’t change scripts on the fly without connecting a computer, and there’s basically no UI.

1 Like
#107

This might sound a bit wild but where I want to go with this eventually is having a system where any “patcher action” is theoretically possible away from the patcher application, in the standalone device itself. At least over some set of installed objects. In other words, being able to have a physical interface control any aspect of the patch, including what objects are running and how they are connected. My FPAA technology works this way.

The architecture of the current patcher software prevents this because patches have to be compiled ahead of time. Down the road I see the architecture being more like SuperCollider where the device acts as a “DSP server” and receives message from a client that is anything you want, a GUI patcher or a physical interface, etc.

Whether or not a physical interface can actually be made for arbitrary patching is another question. But I think having access to that theoretical possibility in the software could be really interesting. Obviously screens are going to be beneficial for visualizing more complexity away from a host desktop machine.

14 Likes
#108

That sounds great, actually!

#109

Reading this topic, I had a fun idea :grin:
Screenshot 2021-01-21 at 09.09.59

3 Likes
#110

Zoia’s grid interface is the best tactile digital patching metaphor I’ve seen so far and would be really powerful paired with the ability to write your own modules. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t been copied yet.