#13

Yeah, I think the advantage of the AMORE model is that the switch/matrix isn’t a separate module, but rather a capability built in to every module. The internal interconnections are a bit “extensive” but significantly less expensive looking than this kickstarter approach.

1 Like
#14

You said it!

I’d need a 128x128 matrix to handle my Serge - and that is a just a small 3 rack system, not nearly as dense as most Eurorack! AND - patching that on a screen would be a nighmare!

4 Likes
#16

This looks like zero fun. Not sure why they don’t just use a physical matrix or patchbay. (yes - totally understand the whole affordability part, but still…the examples they use are giant systems anyways)

2 Likes
#17

reminds me of what ssl did with the matrix console, but less clear. it was a great idea for a studio - hook up all of your outboard gear, and audition different hardware inserts / chains via a digitally controlled router. really makes analog workflow fast and (more importantly) recallable, which is why I’m so surprised they don’t reference recall as a potential use/feature in their video. same idea is much less cool / interesting in modular synths.

2 Likes
#18

Going further down that line of thinking — what could be nice is a rack with modules that have a faceplate, knobs and jacks — the same deal you get with your regular modular system — except you are not patching analog signals, just digital pulses that allows the system to track what input connects to what output, which is replicated by the switch matrix. Then you’d get good user experience plus total patch recall, and if you’re willing to duplicate your system and matrices a bunch of times, true modular polyphony.

Implementing this in the analog domain this way would still be very expensive, but doing so in the digital domain could be very affoardable because there would be no need for a switching matrix and the processing power you’d need for this is well within reach (although it depends how crazy you want your modules to be). Somehow it seems no one has attempted to do this yet (do correct me if I’m wrong!).

1 Like
#19

seems to me that your idea breaks as soon as you recall a digitally stored patch after having removed physical cables: connections are made, but invisible, and yet you can add visible connections (physical cables), meaning you have to track in your head both the invisible and visible realm, and it becomes witchery even more than operating a “standard” modular synth.

3 Likes
#20

This could be addressed by creating a modulation matrix UI that uses LED ringed endless encoders, and/or an OLED screen. Not an easy challenge though.

#21

This got me thinking…something really exciting would be a eurorack patching matrix with i2c and teletype integration, allowing for algorithmic re-routing or just avoidance of physical repatching.

Perhaps that’s what’s going on here…

2 Likes
#22

Yep, you’re completely right. Editing a previously made patch would be really bad. I’d rather stick to the dumb cables and embrace the uniqueness of every patch

1 Like
#23

Perhaps the solution is computer vision and robotic arms haha

#24

Sometimes I wish Discourse had a :smiley: button.

#25

You are right. In X-Bay we call this a sub-matrix. The first X-mod modules which use such a sub matrix is designed. It has 8 VCA’s, 6 summers and an inverter. This module interconnects several modules from the ‘MiniMoog Setup Plus’ connected to the main matrix. It is added to indeed save channels of the main matrix. A 32x32 matrix has I2C communication lines and 4 Chip Select lines to serve steering the sub matrices. Another module which will take use of a sub matrix will be a multi-mode VCF.

#26

@simondemeule: Yes, that could be a nice way to use X-Bay. And possible too when a face is add and the modules are wired up to the controls on the face. In my module design for X-Bay I already have designed headers that would make this possible. Although I, at first instance, did this to also have the boards serve as a rack module for a modular system, your suggestion to combine it is a good one.

#27

Maybe it looks like that when you only look to each card at its own but each modules has all the CV’s it needs. By using a VCAx8 card with sub matrix and mixers in combination with them, it becomes very versatile. I.g mixing an envelope generator with a LFO signal to feed into any of the CV inputs of a module and being able to set the depth of those sources and/or also modulate them.
The amount of modules is limited to start with but, once we will succeed many more modules are to come and designer rules will be outlined for other module designers and the DIY world.

To jasonw22 and others: I got the message that I’m not allowed to place more than 3 comments because I’m new here. That make it a little hard to respond to the questions, critics and suggestions.

One answer I had ready and post it now in this edit:

That’s is indeed what’s going on here. The SM010 Matrixarchate most likely also uses an Analog Devices matrix chip. They use a single 16x8, we the 16x16 in a multiple cascading configuration to achieve a larger matrix.

“” jansonw22 I think some of the ideas you are working with here are pretty unique and maybe some of us are having a little trouble grokking the vision. Would you mind backing up a little and telling us about the motivations for the project and the types of problems it manages to solve in new ways?"

Let me first say that the Kick Starter gets a lot of criticism about being not very clear. I think that is true.
In essence it is an analogue matrix connected to a module board for any module connecting to the matrix and a 32 channel DAC card. The DAC card and the matrix can be steered by a HTML based application to set the matrix connections, the DAC channels and interfaces like a Keyboard. It depends what a user likes to achieve to have certain modules (X-mods) required to patch in. The vision is to create a bridge between the modular world and vintage fixed synthesizers and other gear like that. To be more portable with an in-board modular set (inside the X-Bay case) to have presets to recall instantly. It never will replace the full extend of a large modular system and the joy of a Dr. Frankenstein with all those patch cables. Nonetheless, it gives the opportunity to run sessions with a set of modules (in or out the X-Bay case), store and recall complex patches to make a production go more smoothly. Even when not all parameters of an external connected modular can be patched to the X-Bay matrix, still one can switch instantly a patch of for example 32 ins and 32 outs (or more). When it comes to modular systems with all those patch cables I do not see it as a replacement. It is a bridge to fulfil certain gaps.

“Edit: is it wrong to think of something like the Behringer X32 as the nearest mass market competitor?”
The X32 is a mixer and although X-Bay could be transformed into a mixer this would be foolish to do so.

3 Likes
#28

@marcmarc thanks for joining the discussion!

I think some of the ideas you are working with here are pretty unique and maybe some of us are having a little trouble grokking the vision. Would you mind backing up a little and telling us about the motivations for the project and the types of problems it manages to solve in new ways?

Edit: is it wrong to think of something like the Behringer X32 as the nearest mass market competitor?

1 Like
#29

Just to be clear–those patch cables aren’t a comedic luxury, they represent an ergonomic and comprehensible workflow for a lot of musicians.

What about one-to-many, many-to-one relationships between module connections? Does the system support mixing signals when two or more connections are made to a specific endpoint?

2 Likes
#30

I think one of the problems you have is the KS model…
the usual ‘reward’ model that backers are used to , is you back one reward , which comes with X.
but your reward structure, implies you expect users to back multiple rewards to build up the system they want (which I thought was not even possible)

so Id recommend, you post something about how backers need to back rewards to get the system they want.

also, it took me about 15 minutes (possibly more) to work out what it would cost to get the minimoog system you talk about - whilst Id agree if I’m going to spend 2k that’s not unreasonable as part of research. I think many will just not bother, because then don’t know if you in the ballpark of 1k or 10k.

the other thing is… you say this digital implementation is more cost effective, but when you price up your system, it doesn’t seem to be … i.e. getting the same modules for a eurorack system (ajh spring to mind) plus a case/power I don’t think would be any less expensive.
(so then its a trade off of physical control over software/recall, but that’s not the argument you make)

I actually genuinely like the idea, I’m not actually hung up on a physical interface, I can see benefits either way… but like others, I’m a bit confused about the scalability and cost arguments.

1 Like
#31

First time I’ve ever seen a reply above the post it was replying to… confusing!

@marcmarc I think there are some really interesting ideas here, but I fear it’s just not coming across the way you might be hoping.

#32

Time travel? For me it was the first time that I could not post more than 3 comments so I had to improvise :wink:

2 Likes
#33

Oh weird. Discourse (the forum software), always with the helping! :wink: