#6

There is always the parasites firmware, the people who want simplicity can leave theirs alone, those of us after multifunctionality can access open source stuff :slight_smile:

#7

The only usability issues I’ve had with Mutable modules:

Peaks: I insisted on using Expert Mode to get the most out of it. But the knobs can’t be “read” – is that top knob showing the attack time of the envelope on channel 1, or the frequency of the envelope on channel 2? The only way to tell is to turn the knob, changing the current setting. And all too often, I’d just grab a knob and not realize I had the wrong channel selected.

Also I used the Dead Man’s Catch firmware, which adds a lot of cool functionality to it but required a cheat sheet to show what was selected. I find I don’t really like cheat sheets.

Warps: The Parasite firmware is a bit too cheat-sheet heavy for my liking; the control meanings change too much. The stock firmware is easy to work with though! (And the stuff Parasite offered, while pretty neat, wasn’t far off from effects plugins I have anyway.)

Frames: To some extent, once you start automating it, it has the “unreadable knobs” issue, but it’s less insidious than Peaks. The real problem I had was never remembering how to change the interpolation/response curves, how to switch from CV to sequencer control, etc. But mostly because I didn’t use those frequently – I found myself using the module like a giant Shades, for attenuation, offset and mixing, under manual control rather than automated. I decided those needs would be better suited by other modules…)

I never had any trouble with the interface of Tides, Rings, Streams, Plaits, Marbles, or Stages. Or Shades :wink: I’ve briefly confused myself with Stages a few times, but the answer was always that I plugged in a gate somewhere to the left of segments that used to be independent, so I’ve gotten used to shuffling things as necessary if I have to rethink my patch.

2 Likes
#8

I can’t speak for Olivier but I would not say that he stopped including alternate modes because people complained about them. Most people actually liked them. It’s more that he has refined his vision of how an instrument should be like. This refined vision is the product of experience gained, of making things and analysing how well these turned out based on your own goals. It’s the product of a learning process, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned from Olivier is that you have to always be sincere with yourself and accept your own mistakes and learn from them. This all reflects on the newer modules.

9 Likes
#10

Do you mean things Olivier has said, or people’s complaints about the complexity of his modules?

#12

what’s happening here folks.

3 Likes
#14

Hannes has it here:

this is very much what I’ve heard from Olivier too and I see his designs from Rings onward as a significant refinement of his work but also as a more robust understand of designing for the eurorack format and “ecosystem.” I think it’s worth understand the “lack of multimode modules and alt firmwares” in light of this kind of developmental process, that MI was never intended to be “the multimode/alt firmware brand.”

2 Likes
#16

microRings is here!

5 Likes
#17

@Kel: please note that I was just enquiring out of curiosity. I do have a hard time keeping track of the discussions going on online so it’s always likely I might have missed something.
Just to be clear: What I stated above is a sum up of what what I remember Olivier having stated in a couple of posts, freely paraphrased by me (so it’s mostly my personal interpretation of his words and thoughts, purely from memory).

Don’t worry, didn’t feel like we were arguing, or were we? Really not my intention. I know your intentions were not bad in any way either.

But to get back to the main theme. My perception is very much the same that has been expressed here by others. Some people actually like the alternate modes/firmwares/easter eggs and I can totally understand the reasoning behind it. Modules cost lot of money, need space in cases which, again, cost lots of money. Getting some free, extra functionality is something one has a hard time arguing against. It’s also a nice way to have more “material” to experiment with.
There is some good reasons against it though, and – just to be clear – this is now me personally speaking, I’m not saying this on behalf of MI (even though my opinion on the matter is pretty similar to Olivier’s in these regards).
First of all, you need to ask yourself, as a designer or engineer, what is the modular, what do you want it to be? What kind of approach/attitude do you want to foster, and what do you not want to foster? There needs to be a vision about that. Some of the now classic electronic instruments incorporate a very clear vision. The Buchla didn’t come with a keyboard, and did not really work well for 12TET-based material, for that reason.
There’s example of musicians who have having spent a lot of time working with just one instrument, trying to really push that to the max. This is a great example of the type of attitude I would personally like to encourage and foster. Another aspect is: what is the identity of a module? Around which sonic elements, controls, feedback patterns do you construct the identity of a module? The best modules are those where everything is a branch of a central, strong core functionality and everything clearly gravitates around this centre.
This makes the instrument both easy to understand and strongly increases its potential.
I could go on for hours on this topic of course… :slight_smile:

7 Likes
#19

I think the community might take care of that. All the modules are still open source, so it’s not unlikely that somebody might make an alternate firmware just as it happened for some of the older modules.

The Teletype is another one btw.! Then of course both the ER-301 and the TT are really made for that, with their display-based UI, they are made for multi-modality, so there is really makes sense.
There’s always the danger of feature creep going bad though…

4 Likes
#20

This is a constant concern of mine.

1 Like
#21

Could just be me being a bit grumpy, but I really don’t understand the constant need to downsize Mutable modules.

It’s cool it’s an option (especially for the discontinued modules), but downsizing current modules for the sake of downsizing goes beyond me. Besides less HP I don’t see any gains.

Sorry for ranting!

4 Likes
#22

I could understand it for Braids, I guess. Maybe Frames, except I think that effort went too far; part of the appeal of Frames was its playability.

It made a lot of sense for Ornament + Crime though, where the new panel layout was an improvement over the original.

I wonder if someone’s going to try an 8 HP Stages where all the sliders are replaced by mini-pots :laughing:

#23

Y’all best cover your eyes when uElements is released :joy:

3 Likes
#25

I thought I read somewhere that downsizing Stages would be very hard

#26

To this day (and peaks was the third module I bought) I need to open the damn cheat sheet for what the knobs do in the different modes.

But it will take something special to make me take it out of my rack

#27

I feel the same way! At a certain point, it feels like it can hinder the playability and useability of a module.

However, I feel that hp really starts to matter when one is building smaller instruments. In a 50hp case, 6hp is quite a bit of real estate.

Mutable Instruments Rings
#28

ah thanks mods for the appropriate topic move

2 Likes
#29

to address what is now the OP

•that’s just like, an opinion, man

MI modules are designed and built to a very high standard and as such, function as intended nearly all of the time. some users or observers made a lot of noise about particular features or design choices and were loud about it.

if you can, go to a shop and try out modules you are interested in and ask questions. ask questions here, whatever. I use a lot of MI and am generally super pleased. I think Clouds could be refined (it is being refined) but I’ve never found it impossible or awful. Rings is super easy to get started on and repays more creative approaches to it’s application than just “v/oct in v/oct - move on.”

like any musical instrument or creative endeavor, you will only get out what you put in. if you just spend yr $, turn it on and “this module sucks,” that’s on you.

that said: what are you looking for in a module? how do you work/would you like to work with this kind of instrument? but also - why Rings and Clouds?

3 Likes
#30

To one of the questions in the OP re: philosophy:

We’re in a bit of an in between period as far as being able to discern Olivier’s design philosophy, as he has yet to release all of the new modules in his revised product line. I suspect by the end of the year we will have two more utility modules and one to two beefier major actors, and that will be an excellent time to take a look at his whole “instrument” and discern how he sees modular synthesis working within the Mutable world.

That said, Plaits, Marbles and Stages are Really Good Hints, and point to things that previous respondents have already said.

Full disclosure: I own Peaks, Clouds, Warps and Ears. I will selling the first two and replacing them with their successors.

2 Likes
#31

I still think Peaks is a strong (if limited) module and i can’t let it go entirely:

•the burst generator (admittedly not easy to menu around to) is incredible.

•i have found plenty of utility for envelopes that i can trigger manually and Stages can’t do that.

•don’t have urgent need for them but the drums sound great and I don’t feel like giving up everything else i have Plaits up to for a kick/snare adventure