#12

As others have said I think your description is kinda confusing but what I boil this down to is… what are good semi-modular synths that can be expressively controlled?

I’ve said it many times before but while it has a very particular sound you can get the MS-20 to do a LOT of different things, and theres no reason the keyboard needs to be used to play notes or the wheel needs to be used for pitch bend or on the filter.

On the higher end theres the Cwejman S1, but you would have to pair it with some sort of midi or CV controller.

edit based on your commend above about switching/changing- so by this do you mean the ability to say only turn one knob or hit one switch/button and have something radically different or wide in effect happen to the sound? because if you ask me that can be done on LOTS of instruments. I was using a Blofeld as a live instrument like this for a while with a BSP- just change the midi control numbers around and with careful patching I had sounds that could change drastically in character in a performance setting with just hitting one or two buttons. But that goes against your programming/patching idea I suppose?

3 Likes
#13

Just want to draw attention to something I really agree with (at least with the stuff many people look at or play up as modular music). Control IS key!

6 Likes
#14

maybe, yes. I’ve never made a forum topic before and have a hard time knowing how specific one should be in the genre. its just that lots of semimodulars I’ve seen don’t have much range in terms of control. But I should look into them more carefully.

one of the main things that continues to fascinate me! If its not obvious I come from a ‘music instrument’ background too and maybe I’m expecting some sort of practical isomorphism between it and a synthesizer without fixed architecture where there might not be one entirely. for me I use the latter not dissimilarly to how the magnetic tape or ‘film’ process is—having a bunch of recorded bits and subsequently composing them—and I’m not exactly finding it sustainable.

#15

My “goal” with my music playing is to be able to sit and play my electronics without extensive preparation just like you can a flute, guitar, a piano.

And let’s be clear - I’m still a long way from doing that :slight_smile:

My current approach has been: Norns/Grid - the work in progress Islands script is one take on all this (which I guess does have presets in the sense I can switch between 4 different patches easily), Various techniques on the modular - sometimes resorting to a large setup divided into different parts (which I used for my lines community piece) and sometimes with a small modular setup which I have a lot of hands on control over (see my YouTube if you are interested), Various pieces of software - and I’m really liking Crow and Teletype for this for letting me do macro controls over multiple parameters without having to remember them all. And in all of this I fall back to keyboard controllers

So yeah - Hard and not in the natural flow of things. But is it do-able. IMO yes. There are certainly synth designers who’ve been down this road too - obviously Buchla was very interested, I’d argue this might be a key part of the momome world too

A good conversation to have

1 Like
#16

In the analog synthesis world the upcoming Syntonovo Pan instrument is designed to be the absolute beez neez. XYZ modulation analog keyboard, 2 touch plates…patch anything to anything, innumerable lfos,envelopes and recall.

1 Like
#17

Which is not the case in modular, since the instrument is designed according to your specifications. That’s what I was getting at.

If I’m not mistaken, there’s contradiction in what you wrote. From one hand you point that modular sound synthesis architecture offers complex control possibilities, while on the other hand you consider the plug-and-plug format as arduous, and not amenable to real-time performance. I see this as contradictory; the open architecture is exactly what provides lots of opportunities for performability (sic).

My main point from my first post on the subject was that this is very much personal. The options are there and the way you approach the modular is so custom, that any limitations you’ve found by watching videos or listening to music coming from modular systems are not inherent in the instrument (although I hate considering the modular as an instrument type, but rather as a category, explicitly because of limiting associations), but to the approach of that particular performer/musician/composer.

It is practically quite easy to create a modular instrument with a large amount of expressivity (sic). Something that would require practice to master.

I get that the format lends itself to sound exploration more than playability, but the amount of options categorized as Controllers is a testament to the demand for haptic control of the sounds. Lets not forget that a common answer from modular users when asked why they transitioned from software is the physical aspect of the format.

Not all UI encourage hands-on control, but one of the biggest perks of modular-as-an-instrument approach is the option of meta controls, following the paradigm of acoustic instruments.

I can heartily suggest you take a look at the Hardware Physical Modelling thread for more inspiration. PM as a synthesis method can be seen as being focused around this premise.

My personal experience in this area, is that it is ripe with possibilities.

2 Likes
#18

a format that doesn’t necessarily entail a “plug-and-plug format,” yes? If so, which is what has been demonstrated by certain instrument designs, then I maintain my position as without contradiction in this case.

I get the impression that you find the premise of this entire topic to be wrong or misguided, which is fine but I wasn’t really intending to argue anything—I should know better and say less stuff on a forum, probably (I say this sincerely). I’m really just looking for equipment/instrument recommendations that aren’t arbitrary collections modules and don’t require a ton of patch cables but still afford modular control found in ad hoc 3U/frac/4U/5U systems. maybe digital hardware? @mystasea’s rec looks promising, thanks!

#19

I have a feeling this already is and is probably going to go further down the road of becoming what feels like a defence of modular thread… or whatever other working system (monome, so on…). I won’t speak for the OP but I think part of the point of someone looking for an expressive instrument like a semi-modular is that… they just don’t want a damn modular and there can be plenty of reasons for that. constantly telling someone who says they don’t want something to just spend hours looking at different modules and planning a possible case with tactile controllers is simply not helpful and possibly one reason they want to avoid the whole thing.

there was another thread on here about instrument design, or was it circuit design, or both? that maybe covered a lot of what you are talking about- things where the finished fixed thing feels more like an instrument, as in more than just the sum of its parts. Unfortunately there aren’t very many of such things that exist IMO, or at least that maybe have a broad enough sonic palette for what you want to do and remain affordable/obtainable- theres lots of stand-alone non or semi-modular instruments at this point but most of them are designed to do one particular thing very well, I guess kinda like only getting a floor tom when what you really want is a whole drum kit.

2 Likes
#20

Yes.
I agree with this and appreciate your saying it.

#21

Far from me being the reason you’d stop saying stuff in a forum! I do not find your topic wrong, or misguided, and even if you might get that impression, I am not an adamant supporter of modular systems. Nor did I endorse that you have to have a modular system for your purposes, as @slowsounds seems to support in the first section of the earlier post (although, I do know it wasn’t addressed to me specifically, I do feel partially responsible for posting extensively about why I believe the OP contained some misconceptions, or at least how it misrepresented modular systems). I did find the way you’ve set the premise of this topic (specifically the dichotomy upon which the topic is set) somewhat problematic, but that doesn’t mean the quest you’re on is not valid. Far from it! It’s a path very close to my heart. My posts were not meant as an advertisement for modular systems, but an address to those aspects that I did not agree with, and which I find set arbitrary limits to your search. That being said here’s a few non-modular suggestions you might find interesting in your search:

Expressivee Osmose

Haken Audio Continuum and ContinuuMini.

I see these as superbly powerful instruments. Self-sufficient. No patching required. Any sound you make is saved and easily recalled, the expressive options of all three are state-of-the-art, and so is the sound engine.

1 Like
#22

I’m not sure it’s exactly what you’re looking for, but the new 0-CTRL paired with the 0-coast seems like a fairly ‘closed system’ that is extremely playable. Two patch cables would get you a really quick, expressive synth. Then if you wanted patch more and rearrange things, there are plenty of ways to reroute signals and patch up more control.

3 Likes
#23

I’ll politely disagree that the Easel & AKS are examples of what you’re describing.

The Easel has a great interface into a semi-modular synth, but making presets requires using a soldering iron. It suffers the same fate as a lot of modular though – a lot of people use it to make the same sounds, and they are often ‘monotextural’.

The Synthi AKS is a fully modular synth and doesn’t have patch recall or presets. Maybe it’s enticing because the patching metaphor is physically (and thus mentally) isolated from the performance of the knobs / keyboard. A similar separation of patch/performance is present in a different way in the MS-10/20 and a number of newer synths. Perhaps this is enticing about the Easel too? Most of the patch points are collected in a strip along the middle of the instrument, not interspersed.

I would argue neither of the above instruments has particular ‘complex’ control interfaces (or rather, they have the same parameters as a typical modular synth). In many ways, the meaning of a parameter in a modular synth isn’t determined until it’s patched. Perhaps the Easel’s controls are seen as complex because of the predefined patch?

My critique here is not ‘pro-modular’, rather I think there is an interesting point you’re trying to make, it just seems clouded (to me at least). It seems you want 1) a tactile parameter interface, 2) less patch cables (I agree!), 3) default signal flow (for audio at least).

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I’ve not found ‘the thing’ in my search so far, so I can’t really point you there.

9 Likes
#24

I am not exactly sure if I would say that presets recall make synth instruments feel more like acoustic ones, because I personally feel like preset recall can often result in a very strong feel of discontinuity between played notes when presets are changed midway, while changing parameters by hand makes the change feel more gradual.
I think the answer “how to make modular more playable” will probably depend a lot on which instrument somebody played before. I started as a guitar player so what feels “natural” to me is for example using mikrophonie into strum input of Rings where I can affect how sound is triggered by “scraping” the mikrophonie surface in various ways using fingers and/or pick and achieve different results sonically.
But also what others mentioned you might look into “submodular” segment of synths. I have mother-32 and I used it both as a part of eurorack setup and as a standalone synth without any patch cables and I felt like it excelled in both of these use cases.

1 Like
#25

Not exactly targeted at modular but I can comment on how I like to build expression into my patch creation. In particular I’ll take the Peak as an example. I use it with a fairly standard keyboard controller with velocity and aftertouch, and pitch and mod wheels. I have two expression pedals connected as well as a sustain, and the two binary animate buttons on panel. When defining modulation routings for the mod wheels and expression pedals I tend to think of each control as having a patch at either end, i.e altering several parameters providing a high level timbral shift. The pitch bend can also be mapped arbitrarily in the positive and negative direction so I use that to provide two momentary accent mappings (as I find myself using pitch bend traditionally infrequently when playing polyphonically). I similarly map gentle variation to velocity and more to the aftertouch. They aren’t features coming in like vibrato or tremolo but broader textural shifts. This gives me a broad range of dimensions to use in expression that can be expressed with both hands and feet. I’ve also been tempted to add a breath controller to add a “fifth hand”. I don’t have a bank of such patches but tend to make one for a specific purpose. Such controls may sound will suited to drones and pads, but can be used equally to add movement and variation to arps, sequences or sounds that occur momentarily.

The trade off ends up being in having to do such design before performance to get the best from it; in contrast I like designing sounds live. The middle ground in exploring is making a “routed init patch” where my timbrally variations (modulation routings) are saved alongside a default sound. I could then adjust the sound in the fly, but know how the texture timbre will change with each expressive dimension.

Though not quite what I’m doing, I think this sides to providing consistent exclusive dimensions that you can learn to use: without consistency you have to learn how to apply expression with every patch. I hypothesise that we may emphatically operate a control to great effect in a patch, but how intuitively or directly are we expressing our musical intent? As has been stated elsewhere I think the expressive e osmose is a great example of such a principle. In particular a physical modelling engine is well suited to acoustic instrument like expression as the expressive dimensions can be mapped to inputs to the dynamical system. This allows for (if designed well) very subtle yet expressive control that feels intuitive, or at least familiar, to players of acoustic instruments.

3 Likes
#26

not all models but a lot of them have “PrestoPatch” card slots, basically the same as an Easel. http://synthi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/01/Matrix_Interface.pdf

1 Like
#27

Perhaps thinking modularly is the way to go? Not in the “just jump in already and buy a rack” sense but in a much more minimal “sound module” desktop or rack unit that is the engine and a “control module” such as a continuum, or rolli, or instrument, or keys and a touche? Or?

I certainly appreciate the desire for something that is “an instrument.”

I think the really important questions with searching for t “the thing” is what sound do you want it to make? How do you want to get there? And since its “an instrument,” how portable should it be?

#28

The easel and the synthi both have analog patch recall (presto patch on synthi for example), which does have limitations, but is an interesting thing in terms of playability. In particular, the easel has sliders which allow a player to manipulate more than one parameter at a time, much easier than a bunch of knobs.

In the past there have been players of these instruments who have been able to switch gears/contexts very quickly, much faster than on a standard modular system. Charles Cohen (easel) and Thomas Lehn (synthi) come to mind.

I believe you can get similar abilities by using modules like Cold Mac for macro control over a patch or something like Meng Qi voltage memory to change several values at once. In the serge world, the preset/programmer/tkb allow for fast changes. There is also something to be said for keeping a rig the same or sticking to a single manufacturer. Modular synths do not encourage this.

The appeal to me of both the easel and synthi is that they are complete ‘instruments’ that are somewhat fixed, but with enough control and modularity if you want it.

3 Likes
#29

I’m still figuring this out. Right now my plan for expressivity will appear to involve at least these components:

  1. Sensel morph controller with Buchla Thunder overlay
  2. Polyend Poly 2 - Sensel morph plugs in to here via MIDI USB, and up to 20 customizable CV outs are provided (a single voice might involve note on/off, pitch, velocity, and MIDI CC)
  3. Envelope generator(s) (how many envelopes? it depends. To some extent, the multi-dimensionality of the Morph may be a substitute for envelopes, but not completely)
  4. VCAs (at least 2 for each voice - one for volume, one for velocity. Whether these are linear or exponential might matter a little or a lot, depending)

It’s a bit more than I expected when I first dreamed of using a Buchla Thunder overlay with my eurorack. The Morph with Thunder overlay works beautifully and the Poly 2 is a great match for it, but I don’t have enough VCAs, and it remains to be seen whether I have enough envelopes. Once I do have everything I need, patching it up in a way that sounds “musical” or “natural” or “expressive” in various senses of those words is a separate question entirely.

#30

I don’t know what this thread is about anymore, so imma just throw some pics down and let you guys have at it.

Lorre-Mill Keyed Mosstone? (Had one, loved it.) edit: The DoubleKnot as well.

image
image528×586 145 KB

Ciat-Lonbarde Sidrax?

image
image894×635 178 KB

Folktek Mescaline?

image
image659×620 161 KB

8 Likes
#31

Plumbutter! Entirely self-contained; infinitely fun to patch—and play. Plus it has that amazing Deerhorn controller.