If you are only really looking at it for triggers, the varigate 4 lets you delay steps, which I think was left off of the 4+.
Good note. I’m considering that as well. Almost picked up the one for sale right now. The only major downside is you don’t get clock mulitplication at all, and division is global rather than per channel – which is probably why they took out the gate delay. I imagine it manages its clock differently.
I’d skip the Varigate 4+ to be honest.
My personal issue with the Varigate 8+ and the Voltage Block is that it’s really hard to read your sequence state from the interface. Since you use the same sliders to set probability of triggers on all channels of the Varigate, your sliders very quickly no longer correspond to what you’ve input. With the Voltage Block you literally have no way to see what your sequence is after you’ve entered it.
They’re very powerful and compact but I never got past that, even though I tested them and was enjoying playing with them just prior to shipping them off.
This may not bother you! But for me I prefer something like Pressure Points where it’s literally visible in front of you, or Kria where it can be called up on the Grid. Or a DAW for that matter. Just something to know going in.
(I’m assuming the 4/4+ has a similar interface paradigm… I’m not sure how it could show you more info given the size.)
This is probably a really dumb question that I’ll probably regret asking but…
Is it uncouth (for lack of a more apt word) to filter wavetables? I know this question leaves me vulnerable to a very IIIIIII response of “it doesn’t matter what gear you have, but how you use it.” But seriously though, say I send a e352/orgone/wavetable vco, which essentially can mimic filtering to some degree, to a filter thus removing some of that harmonic content–does the filter basically cancel out what the wavetable is able to achieve somewhat on its own?? Been curious about this for a while.
Au contraire, I think that could be a very fruitful partnership, since if you filter a wavetable oscillator, you’re basically giving yourself two dimensions of control over the harmonic content, especially if you modulate them with different envelopes or LFOs!
I could imagine modulating the wavetable position with an LFO to create a morphing timbre, and then using an envelope to modulate the filter to help create “notes” out of your morphing sound, for example.
very nice way to explain it, completely agree.
In a way it’s similar to chaining filters, which is a big yes in my book (and with modulation there’s a lot of nice things to do). I think it’s very common to do, and sometimes without thinking of it :if you pass a filtered content to a low pass gate you are chaining filters
Consider this: most of the classic wavetable synths from the 80s had analog filters!
As you said we might say: if it sounds good to you, do it
As long as you’re trying to combine things together, listen the results and learn from it you’re not missing anything
That’s a big part of what makes modular workflow interesting, and depending on what you have in your case I’d try other combination too. As said before, try modulations on various parameters, maybe put another processor between, or try to combine things in parallel or series. For example, split the output of the wavetable, put different envelope on the clean and filtered signal.
Oh it absolutely does!
FM is super limited unless you have through-zero.
Without through-zero, most of the interesting use cases are limited to situations where the modulation frequency is less than the (average) carrier frequency.
With through-zero, you get plenty of interesting effects where the modulation frequency is greater than the carrier and so you have at your disposal a much wider range of tonal effects. This is because the amount of frequency modulation required to achieve a noticeable effect scales linearly with the modulation frequency.
It’s more difficult and expensive to design an analog VCO with linear FM and through-zero characteristic. This is why the first experiments with through-zero FM were done with digital oscillators and why FM has in general been considered a digital technique. The proliferation of analog through-zero oscillators in the 2000’s is a rare example of a primarily digital method influencing analog design.
modular FM took a little while to click with me; the big thing i found that made a difference in usefulness for me was modulating the FM amount with an envelop. really helps get the percussive sounds i was looking for.
There was an amazing digital/wavetable synth in the late 70’s, the PPG 360. It had no filter and yet was capable of some amazing tones. Its successor the PPG Wave added a resonant filter, and is also widely recognized as a classic, particularly since so many were sold (the 360 was done in the very early days of the company). Somehow though, the Wave 2.x all seem to lack something in comparison to the 360. Have a listen:
I just came up with a patch this evening where I’m running E370 through an Epoch Twinpeak, while also using other E370 channels to modulate the two peak frequencies. I don’t use filters much and was thinking about going down to just Cinnamon, but I’ll hang onto Twinpeak for a while and keep trying things like this
No rules in modular! That sounds like it’d give some really interesting results so go for it
Hey man just trying to understand if the Disting mk4 can perform more than one function/task at the same time?
No, it’s pretty much on a per algorithm basis.
Could someone point me in the right direction in figuring out how to change a voltage range from 0-5 to 0-10?
To provide some context, I’d like to use Rene to sequence the shift/level knob of (new) Tides to change between the entire range of chord types.