#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

#32

as for Clouds, the interface is imperfect and as is clear from Plaits/Marbles/Stages, that’s a major interest in these modules. Clouds has been super key for me transitioning from Max and Reaktor, simply love to fill a buffer you know, and it’s still pretty key in my instrument, never really felt like i could lose it.

#33

I got into Eurorack through Mutable Instruments (my first module was Elements, bought from @shellfritsch!) because I absolutely loved the design. And because I have a bit of collector’s syndrome, I have almost all of the MI modules ever made (including an Anushri with modern style panel that I should probably sell because I never use it).

I do think it made my life quite hard - the older MI modules tended to be quite deep and complex (especially when you’re trying to recreate something you saw someone do and you realize they have an alternate firmware installed or are using Easter eggs features… that feels quite daunting). I’d have probably have been better served by starting with straightforward, one knob per function, classical synthesis kind of modules. But now a few years later, after a bit of suffering, having watched a lot of YouTube videos, and acquired a lot of other modules, it turned out alright.

And I can definitely see the design evolution. MI modules are still fairly nuanced and complex compared to, say, Pittsburgh Modular’s stuff - but they feel much more coherent and streamlined. Plaits and Marbles have been a joy to work with - can’t wait to get my Stages, and to see what the Clouds successor will be like.

As far as sound goes, Rings, Elements, and Tides are some of my favorite sound sources ever, so nothing to complain about there. But that’s very personal.

4 Likes
#34

just to pop my collar, I built an original Shruti-1 that’s definitely seen better days but similarly can’t let it go. do i even have MIDI cables for it?

I see the procession from the MI DIY tabletops. to Braids n Clouds b Peaks pretty clearly, and also how the new modules illustrate a deeper understanding of “how to design for eurorack”

#35

I’ve gone to a shop and played around with Rings, and the two people who were working there were both pretty down on the company in general. I didn’t have the time to do much experimenting, so it was just about 20 minutes of knob twiddling and trying out the basic functions. I really liked what I heard.

Clouds I know less about, just that I like some artists who use it. At this point I’m not sure if I would wait for a new version or get something like a Morphogene or similar. At this point, I would hesitate to even say how I work or even would like to work since I am still getting a handle on things, just that I had a background in brass instruments, then took a long hiatus from music, and I’m very interested in generative music.

1 Like