Since a number of people have been talking about the new Teletype/JF combo as a kind of complete instrument in itself, and such conversations have also tied in the ER-301 and Koma Field Kit, the idea of a Mutamix at the end of the chain seems interesting.
In fact, the idea of a Mutamix at the end of any six channel chain sounds interesting.
There’s also the Linix, which lends itself to true CV-VCA control, and the Mutamix won’t do that, but the Mutamix allows for hard-panned binaural outs, which could then be routed to a Cold Mac for final spatializing, and for me personally, stereo matters a lot.
This has also led me to the less compact idea of a Just Type as six channel sound source, followed by say six channels of passive LPG or VCAs, controlled in turn by another Just Friends, with resultant six channels post-VCAs to Mutamix?
Thoughts on Mutamix in general? I could use some more internal patch mixing, prior to final stereo out.
Yeah! Scroll down to the section titled “Synthesis Mode”
Vactrol Low-Pass Gate model is used to implement amplitude envelopes over each channel, triggered digitally, or physically from the hardware TRIGGERS. The time-base of this envelope is controlled with the TIME control, while the attack-release ratio is controlled by the INTONE control. Due to the nature of the LPG model high-frequencies will be rolled off as volume decreases, encouraging use of varying velocities.
That said, if such a patch as I’m describing were done without the Teletype on the front, the Linix would still be useful for amplitude modulation.
@ppqq: the Toppobrillo looks sweet, but it’s only four channels. I want six.
For an end of chain mixer it would be great. I’ve already got a Verbos Pan & Scan and a Cold Mac, both of which are serving me well at the end of a chain. In fact, I may eventually pick up a second Cold Mac to dedicate to this purpose, as I also really like having it between my pair of Mangroves.
Yikes. I’m going to become the Everything-in-a-pair Mannequins guy…already have a pair of both Mangroves and JFs.
One thing to consider is that the A and C channels are normalled to B. The concept of “stereo” is kind of a weird one with the RxMx. For instance, you could consider the A output as “Left” with the first two channels and the B output as “Right” with the next four channels. Likewise, “B” could be four channels left, and “C” could be two channels right. It’s only “four out in stereo” if you only consider the A and C outputs.
Also, if you plug anything into the A or C outputs, they’re removed from B. You can plug additional Aux signals into A and C as well.
I previously had a Mutamix but never really got along with the programming scheme (or the whole switch-only style).
Yeah, I understand it pretty well. I’ve watched the MN demos a couple of times, read the manual, etc.
I do really like it a lot. If/when Perfect Circuit gets one in, I’ll probably not be able to resist. I love scanning. It’s so cool. I almost want to get a Verbos Harmonic Oscillator for that alone…but I’ll suffice with my Pan & Scan.
One of the slight compromises with a lot of the MN stuff is that it doesn’t seem as easily accommodating of stereo as I’d like. That the Phonogene is mono is a deal-breaker for me. And while I have and like the Erbe Verb, I do wish it had stereo ins.
In general, when I say stereo, in the world of Eurorack, I don’t really mean true stereo; probably more on the order of binaural, but the end result of the patches I like to make is something that would, in a final mix, be rendered out as stereo, which is why I value the Cold Mac and Pan & Scan so much–they both allow fine control of the final image.
I talked to Tony about this once when he visited UCSB. His response was pretty straightforward. The Make Noise Shared System is designed as a mono instrument.
To be fair, it’s not only Make Noise. In fact, I can’t think of a single manufacturer who has designed their system to be stereo from the ground up. Most manufacturers (MN included) have mono generators and the occasional stereo effect. It’s something I’ve grappled with a lot regarding my own modular. Part of me thinks that spatialization works better outside of the modular. More and more, I’ve been recording every voice as a separate mono track and doing the mixing more deliberately.
Yes, this is a mono world. And you’re of course right about the mono bias cutting across almost all manufacturers. I don’t mean to single out MN, but merely used their modules as an especially apt example.
The reason I hedge a bit on using the word stereo is because the stereo product–I mean actual, stereo sound image I want to hear coming out of my instruments–is a product I make. I don’t expect the instruments to do that work for me, per se. I generate it.
What I don’t consider an acceptable stereo signal is a pure mono sound (no matter how complex or how many modules its run through) that is run through a terminal mono-in stereo-out reverb just to merely put it in space. I’m much, much more attracted to creating a complex spatial arrangement of source sounds that stand on their own as a spatial arrangement even if they’re completely dry. It’s not hard to do, I do it all the time, as I’m sure many of us do.
As far as modules go, in most cases, to produce something called a stereo module would be laughable. A stereo VCO would be rather pointless. But give me two independent VCOs? I’ll be damned if I’m not going to exploit that separation to create an image that has at least some kind of spatial aspect.
Where I start to get frustrated is with modules like, say, mixers, that don’t easily accommodate an already preceding two channel patch that I’m building…or an effect or reverb or delay that doesn’t have two inputs.
4MS and Audio Damage understand this, as do others.
To take this back to MN, this is why I bought a DLD and not an Echophon.
i underuse mutamix as well, not using xmode at all. but it is pretty convenient as a mixer/attenuator with flexible routing. i don’t think there is a whole lot of simple mixers that use sliders so i like that aspect. i usually use it for audio with A/B/C going to different effects and then use switches to change which effect i send a channel to. would work well with CV as well to create more complex env shapes or attenuate.
but as you said it wouldn’t work for stereo (unless you limit it to only 3 inputs). if you just want to be able to pan 6 voices without CV control this Ladik mixer is the cheapest / smallest option i can think of: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/ladik-m-174
for modules that have stereo outs and have control for spread, 2x of the 2hp mix modules seem pretty sweet. totally noninteractive due to the size, but if you need a 4-input in-rack stereo mixer, can’t beat the price or space usage.
I’m sorry, can you explain why two of these would be useful for modules with stereo outs and control for spread? It’s probably the weather but for the life of me this doesn’t make sense to me. Thanks for your guidance.
Or, decide on channel side of a binaural patch from modules preceding the two mixers, then, take those two outs and patch to inputs on a width-image controllable module, such as Verbos Pan & Scan or Mannequins Cold Mac, both of which I have.
This will work precisely for me. I didn’t think of the 2hp modules. Perfect, especially as I don’t need dynamic control of volumes. This uses no more physical space than a simple unity mixer, but has level control, even if it’s set-and-forget.
Thank you. 4hp total for 8 channels, and I only need 6.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
EDIT/aside: I’ve been curious about these 2hp modules. I like the concept, especially the idea of problem-solving the designs with such a hard limit, this particular limit being module size. Limits/constraints are good; foments creative thinking. This will be a nice way to see how I get on with them.
Any opinions on build and sound quality? As good as any of our usual benchmarks around here (i.e., Mannequins)?