Isms is here


I’d be ready to pre-order a 60hp isms today. I’d really like a small, thin, self contained thing to carry around an ER-301 and a teletype with a few other bobs and bits…maybe something like a tri-ger with some buttons.


You guys say it like it’s a bad thing!

It’s a good thing.


…Uh, so now you are into eurorack TPV 2 will never happen, I am afraid - since lack of time and all the funny noises.


Oh it’s definitely happening. More than anything there may just be some BEAP-type stuff built in to TPV2.


OOh. I would prefer just a tiny bit more space (64hp?) but I could definitely get by with 60!


Yes, in my experience that’s exactly how it goes…:grinning::astonished:

But honestly, I am still in the process of condensing my setup, selling a lot of modules and consolidate on a lower and more practical level than I have been.

I found the 120HP Isms pretty much perfect - If I had been in need of a case or had just started to think about Monome when it appeared I would have gotten one and might have been happy with just filling it up with a delay/sampling module or so and then stop. Just to keep the lovely design consistent and explore its capabilities. I am looking forward to learn about the new one but cannot imagine that I would not not want to extend it with a second case.

For me the trick with eurorack is to get a system balanced on a low or medium level. You can always buy more but you don’t have the feeling you need to then. It’s just options and different sounds but that’s oaky when your system is somehow balanced and already has endless options in the direction you already have chosen. For me, regarding the control part, Monome eventually is pretty much there now and Isms was a perfect incarnation of this - plus the lovely sniper suitcase…:sunglasses:


I’m excited to see what you guys are working on, especially any built-in utilities. Perhaps Ansible built into the case somehow??

Regarding the case being smaller - it will be refreshing to see minimalism and restraint when Eurorack is known for excess.


Don’t know if the rest of the specs are hush hush, but is the depth of the little isms the same as the big isms?


Ooh an integrated ansible would be amazing.

Ideally there would be enough space for a teletype, a just friends and an Eric-301. But that’s 62 hp.


I’ve been seriously debating cutting back my rig to something 3U instead of 6U, but a 104hp case + a mini isms would be just about perfect.


Question for people here who seem to be voicing a preference for a long 3U. What do you feel is the advantage of that over say, a 60 HP 6U? To me the flexibility of patching across the entire case makes a 6U preferable. With a 104 or 120 HP 3U you’d need very specific cables to reach from one end to the other.

I dunno, just curious. I have a 6U 90 hp Monorocket and that’s been my case from the start and I’m very happy with it. Sometimes I think about a 6U 104, because that extra 28 HP would feel luxurious, but…have held off for 5+ years :slight_smile:


I still have just a 104hp 3U skiff (but 12U worth of modules, naturally), and if I had to do it over again I’d definitely go 6U / 50-60hp. while I love the concept of a uni-directional flow, in practice I tend to have a more zigzaggy patch structure, and splitting up the hp would make that easier.


My (only) case is a 3U126HP, and yes, it requires a combination of long and short cables (which have distinct colors modeled on the wavelengths of light, red being longest, violet being shortest).

I would not recommend a long case for the next generation of Isms.

I’ll ask your forbearance as I noodle about the future.


Thinking about a next-generation Isms, I start with a few requirements:

  1. It needs to conform to rules for carry-on luggage.
  2. It needs to have a side- or back-mounted power plug to avoid taking up panel space.
  3. It needs to include basic utilities (such as those offered in the 1U Isms row)
  4. It needs two VCOs, a VCF, a mixing module and a function generator (essentially the Mannequins modules featured in the first Isms).
  5. It needs an interface with external effects (e.g., something along the lines of the discontinued AD ODIO )
  6. It needs two Ansibles, a Walk and a Teletype.
  7. It would benefit from a light
  8. It would benefit from some form of stand
  9. It would benefit from a MIDI interface
  10. It would benefit from the ability to close the case in a patched state.

Given that the Mannequins + Monome HP count as proposed above is (10+10+10+8+14 + 6+6+4+18)=86HP,
And given that the Isms v1 utility row is 120HP,

My proposal would be for a 8U60HP case configured 1U+3U+3U+1U,
Monome modules on the bottom row and Mannequins on the top,
which would leave 34HP for additional modules/capabilities.



I prefer panoramic patching, it helps to see everything laid out in front of me from left to right. I’ve got a bunch of long cables, so it really doesn’t bother me.


I’ve always veered towards vertical stacking of shorter widths rather than having longer ones horizontally.

It depends on individual patching style perhaps to an extent. Module design certainly plays a part. Wiard 300 or MOTM modules with their grid of jacks at the bottom always seem to want to be horizontal. Others, such as Buchla 200e for example, with knobs and jacks placed dependent on each individual module’s functions I think lend themselves better to vertical.


i just prefer cases/setups that are wider horizontally, for some reason. so one row of 120hp for me is preferable to two rows of 60hp (although the double 60hp moog case set up looks pretty sweet). a couple of points to consider - isms includes a 3 channel bus that reduces the need for longer cables somewhat, and isms form factor works really well when you have a grid 128 and a keyboard for teletype sitting in front of it.

also thinking of getting a detroit underground skiff which is 120hp and 40mm deep as well - this might be a good way to add a row to isms:

speaking of ideal isms, it’d be awesome if it included a powered i2c bus with individual connectors. and a switch for grid/arc that could somehow be connected to trilogy/ansible modules from the back…


Things I miss on my original Isms:

  1. no individual Headphone input, i.e. I can’t pre-listen to stuff

  2. other positions than extreme hard left and hard right panning for channels 1 & 3 (this was especially annoying when listening via headphone)

  3. an attenuator that is equally well suited for adjusting vibrato and wild FM (the ones used in Isms – and in a lot of other attenuator/attenuverter modules – require wasting a second attenuator in series if you want more than say 10 degree of turn to dial in a vibrato amount)

  4. one more bus.

  5. multiples. stackables are fine, but I find they often get in the way. would have been great if the busses had multiples

  6. a stereo return, i.e. give the user a choice whether he wants to use a mono spring or an external stereo effect

  7. a send in the mixer


These are outstanding ideas - real-world experience with Ismsv1 should result in some powerful practical improvements for v2, especially for live performance applications I think/hope.


I’m using the Moog 104hp case, and 48mm is not very deep. There are a whole load of great modules out there that are just too deep for my skiff. Shame, really. I guess I’d like to see a standard set. Some of the bigger companies should get together and say “Right - maximum depth for a standard eurorack module should be X”


Is this something that happens? I get the impression that it isn’t.