anyone in here go from having pb/coco to having a full IFM set? i am not a euro guy but i admit i am really intrigued by the idea of getting the full IFM “system” to experience it on those terms and check out what peters approach to euro is all about.

i guess what i’m really looking for is general thoughts about the full IFM system and how it compares to/complements standalone c-l kit.

2 Likes

Modulargrid is showing all the IFM modules as discontinued. Is this true?

No, they are available as a set on synth mall.

2 Likes

Yeah best to buy direct so Peter gets paid!

2 Likes

I had a dunst a few years ago and the experience of that module wasn’t really comparable to using the ciat lonbarde instruments. It didn’t really grab me and it feels like a tiny part of what I get with the grey out on the pb, for example.

The IFM stuff seems to be more focused on the noisier and chaotic side of things. I think there are a handful of people here who have had the complete set though, so I’ll let them weigh in.

2 Likes

I have, I think, one of all of them (grassi not presently in my skiff though). I’m super into the Fourses/Denum, like the Swoop/Sprott, and think the Dunst is ok. The Grassi is badass, but I don’t need that much space devoted to interface stuff in my skiff.

I would totally go with two Fourses and two Denums. I think the Swoops are good and very Peter-esque, I just like being able to retrigger functions, and the swoop waits until the cycle is done before retriggering.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Semi-related (I’m trying to create a bit of space to be able to fit more IFM in there), has anyone of you avid ciat-DIYers made any 1U implementations of Peter circuits? There’s all those charms or other interesting tidbits that would be fantastic to explore in a smaller format. I’m wanting to add a 1U row to my skiff here to mount the expert-sleepers stuff sideways, and that would then leave me around 18hp of 1U space to fill. I can always stuff some untility stuff in there, but would be nice to add something a bit more exciting.

5 Likes

I had the full set a few months ago, but panic-sold it because of a combination of being unemployed and the choice paralysis of Eurorack.

On that second part, I didn’t really feel the IFM set was an entirely complete system- key omissions would be S&H, VCA’s for CV (the Denum/Dunst ones are audio only iirc), and I personally didn’t like not having an envelope that would sustain (Swoop is just A/D). There were a couple of other things I’d want but could’ve lived without (logic, maybe a wavefolder, a filter that wasn’t batshit, etc).

However, since I’m back to work, I’ve been interested in picking another IFM set to pair with the Make Noise Tape and Microsound Machine, which should mostly round off what I felt what was lacking last time. What I liked about the IFM was that I never vibed with the hard-panned audio and more complex internal set-up of much of the mainline C-L stuff, but loved the timbre etc otherwise. Ultimately, I guess it’s kinda Buchla (C-L) vs Serge (IFM) and I generally prefer the latter.

As for combining the two, here’s an IFM/CQ patch that turned out ok. I don’t think there’s too much cross patching from what I can tell.

4 Likes

Still thinking this one over, the tetrax is still appealing though due to the smaller footprint and additional shaping options.

I’m still not sure about the actual tetrax sound. The sidrax has 2 demos on the webpage, but the tetrax doesn’t. Does anyone have good examples of it that aren’t washed out in reverb that allow you to get a sense of the range of timbres?

Peter B made a YouTube demo of Tetrazzi

2 Likes

Look up Scanner (Robin Rimbaud) on YouTube (heck, I think he even shared those videos in this very thread). I know he has quite a few Tetrax videos up. I had a tetrax and the sounds skew to the harsher side. I think the Sidrax doesn’t get quite as harsh, and is more for “beautiful” tones. I struggled with interfacing with the barres, and ended up selling my Tetrax. Now that I have a cocoquantus, I would consider getting a Sidrax at some point though, due to the modulation capabilities.

Just to have more modulation or are the modulation options different? It seems like tetrax would allow for more complex modulation due to the rise/fall knobs to shape the sound (although yes, less barres). I read something over on MW where the poster said they liked tetrax better for modulating coco.

Would sidrax have the ability to play lower tones or bass and tetrax higher notes? Still not sure of the range and the bass/melody explanations may be throwing me off.

The range of both goes very high and very low. The main difference in tone is triangles vs saws.

1 Like

I used to have a Sid. Sold it (stupidly) as I guess I didn’t «get» it. A couple of years later (after getting a CQ2) I lusted for one. But decided to go for the Tetrax instead. I have had zero regrets. Like you say the extra timbral possibilities are really nice. Also I found it easier to work with less bars. I don’t, however, use it to make chords etc. so I guess that if that’s what you want it is a bit limiting.
I find that there certainly are enough modulation options with both the Tetrax and the quantussy section on the coco (crosspatching).
I totally get your request for clean non reverb demos of the Tet. I don’t have any videos/audio at the moment, but I’ll try to record something this weekend (but I can’t promise anything). But I can tell you that I LOVE the sound of the tet. I don’t use any reverb, delays etc when playing it. It sounds so wonderful on it’s own😍

3 Likes

Good points – and good question @Jonny. For the record, I have no plans of picking up a Sidrax (or Tetrax) in the near future. Plumbutter would likely be my next addition, gods willing. I was leaning toward Sidrax simply because I already had a Tetrax. I’d like to try out a different CL machine. However, after hearing the above comments about Tetrax, I shouldn’t count it out for such a silly reason. I actually just came across some samples I made of the Tetrax and they all sound really good and interesting. With some play money in the bank, I really shouldn’t start thinking about this right now… hahah :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

hey plumbutter people! i was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue - the left gong isn’t coming through in the mixer.

it’s still giving an offbeat and orange output but it’s totally silent - everything else works fine, though. I was helping out a pal with a few fixes (banana jacks just needed some resoldering) but this issue is persistent and i can’t find a reason why.
any suggestions?

is the gonz/trad switch in the center position?

nope, in gonz and trade nothing shows up - adjusted the response knob too

1 Like

Here’s an example of tetrax timbres, totally clean of effects, but caveat: patched through a 4ms bend matrix (IMO, this only aided the fluidity of re-patching, the timbres are all available in the tetrax though)

3 Likes

My experience is gestalt with these instruments, each one feeds the other. I use Coco Sid and PB and enjoy it as one bigger instrument, you can’t really go wrong.

3 Likes

Post a picture of the unit so we can see the knob settings?