Muff's Modules & More

[strettara]

I'm pretty new here - this'll be post #9, I think. I come from an acoustic instrument background - piano when I was younger, more recently recorder (for baroque ensemble music) and tin whistle, mostly low whistle for pseudo-shakuhachi noodling, and playing along to tabla and tanpura backing.

So when I decided to get into the modular thing, I really wanted to get a setup that would be a playable instrument, but not just a more elaborate electric organ. I don't know if I've achieved my goal, I have a pretty flexible beginner's setup I think, but I'm curious what you all think makes a modular a "performance modular" per the title of this forum? I see such a variety of setups in members' pictures of their gear (mine is much more basic, mostly a load of Doepfer utility modules and a couple of voices, plus a keyboard I mostly use to transpose sequences).

So, what's the common thread? Is there one?

[Hi5]

Control interface.

[strettara]

That's obviously the right two word answer. But one thing I've noticed is that a lot of you have very densely featured modules, like maths, which don't look as flexible to me in performance as modules which do just one thing, although you'd need more of those. Most of my modules are more dedicated to just one function. So that was one thing I was curious about.

[Matos]

Well performance cases tend to be smaller, which lends itself to dense, multipurpose modules. Maths gives you tons of outs to route to everything which is great in performance. Two pressure points will give you 8 presets of sorts which allows for great flexibility.

[RealDudes]

joystick
edit: specifically the flight of harmony choices for it's wide throw and manual gate button

[Hi5]

Personally I dont like things like a Maths due to their excessive size and even though they are multi-purpose I find when space is a concern I'd rather have focused modules.

Instead of a Maths for example, if all I need are 2 eg and an env follower I would rather get those and save space.

It really comes down to how focused of a rig you will have. My performance patch has been essentially the same for the past couple years and all i've really done is replace VCO, Filters, etc..

[Hi5]

[goiks]

the performer

[DonaldCrunk]

in the question re: multi-use modules vs one use, i think your preference really depends on the extent that youre willing to physically patch while performing. i want to do things with minimal rerouting, so i tend to prefer isolated simple function blocks combined with wide-ranging modules with lots of normalizations.

certain sorts of modules are easy to repurpose - an oscillator to an LFO only requires a twist of the pitch knob, whereas converting something like the maths from a dual EG to a mixer would require a little bit more extensive repatching. i find that if i delve too deeply into my preplanned patch while performing, things start to get more unpredictable (not always bad!).

but i have seen others do sets with multiple repatches on 9u or more, so in their case multi-purpose modules will work well.

[strettara]

Does anyone simply start with a naked set of modules and start patching them as he/she goes?

About control surfaces, the most flexible one I've seen - that doesn't go into computers - seems to be the Buchla tactile controller affair. I haven't seen anything quite like that for other systems, except for some folktek pieces. Do most people end up going through computers with pad controllers and all?

BTW - that quote of Goike's remark about folk instruments is thought provoking. I've often thought that what makes the modular synthesizer unique - apart from being the instrument of an economic and technological elite - is that it has no repertoire, in any normal sense. There are styles, genres and so on, but no pieces. It's mainly improvisational. Folk instruments are usually closely bound to a specific repertoire. Of course this is part of what makes the instrument so fascinating.

[mono-poly]

[Hainbach]

A good digital delay and reverb with saveable presets can make all the difference for transitions between patching tunes. I use the Strymone Timeline for that and will someday get an Eventide Space.

[strettara]

I was looking at both of those...

[bryantcheramie]

If your doing something very musical and less on the experimental noisy side, I would recommend modules with switches. For example, if I'm playing a sequence with a doepfer envelope, I'll usually switch the envelope type from medium to short after a transition in the song. Or, if I'm using a Morphing Terrium, I will switch banks at the transition. I prefer the sound of an immediate change when using the module for a musical song, as opposed to sound you get from slowly dialing in the right cutoff frequency value of you filter, envelope curve, etc. If you are doing the experimental noisy music then do the opposite.

The autocorrect on this website keeps taking all my doepfers and turning them into deepers.

[Hi5]

[Hi5]

[BugBrand]

Everything I do is informed by what I want to play! Engineering meets art - theory with open-ness - stabilty with surprise. I always start unpatched.

I am fascinated by how a system (inc. a few external machines) comes somehow alive and presents you with a rolling play flight (my approach to life)

Saying that, I wouldn't in any way claim that my system is a good/right approach and it is somewhat personal...

[BugBrand]

Also for me, portability comes into it - you have to be able to move with your machines!

[Hi5]

Its always personal, or at least should be to get the best results

[anthonybisset]

I was big into switches and still think they're useful for CV sources, but have mostly moved on to crossfaders/panners... When playing on a nice sound system the clicking brought on by switches (depends on the patch of course) was just uncomfortable and unnerving depending on the gain of the system.