Intellijel Quadrax

[Bonobo]

Looking for bit a of advice, I currently use a quadra in my techno rack and its job is to do envelopes A/D for the LXD make noise LPG, a filter envelope and modulation on my DPO. I tend to vary the envelopes from short percussion snaps to longer ones and tweak them all the time. I also find myself sticking them into LFO mode with the triggers resetting the LFOs to get wilder modulation on the DPO/filter. What i'm hoping quadra will do for the case:

1) Allow my to route in some 4 step CV sequences from the TTA z8000 to modulate the attack/decay of some of those envelopes to add more interest and groove.
2) Add some interesting burst effects to short percussion sounds
3) Use my filter envelope and DPO modulation from the same trigger without needing a stackable cable
4) Give me some crazy stuff I don't understand to explore at my leisure!

Any advice, will I get what I'm after? I really like the quadra and it works well so I'm kinda torn about replacing it, but in my head I have these nuts burst mode percussion things and crazy changing envelopes from CV that seem like a great idea

[closedLoop]

Any advice, will I get what I'm after? I really like the quadra and it works well so I'm kinda torn about replacing it, but in my head I have these nuts burst mode percussion things and crazy changing envelopes from CV that seem like a great idea

I've had a Quadra for a long time, and I was looking for another EG to go beyond the usual duties. After trying out a bunch of EGs, I grabbed Quadrax when it first came out, and I really didn't like it at first. After I Intellijel swapped the chip on my unit, and there was the firmware update, it's now my go-to EG.

I think it will do everything that you describe, plus more. It does take a while to get used to the CV matrix assignment, but if you use it a lot, or it's your main EG, you'll get used to it quick. It's got a much wider range than Quadra, mostly due to the new firmware, and the secondary mode that each primary mode has. The secondary random mode to the bipolar LFO mode is just huge. I still run Quadra beside Quadrax.

My only issue with Quadrax is that I wish Intellijel would fix the synchronization issue with the bipolar LFO mode.

[Arneb]

Looking for bit a of advice, I currently use a quadra in my techno rack and its job is to do envelopes A/D for the LXD make noise LPG, a filter envelope and modulation on my DPO. I tend to vary the envelopes from short percussion snaps to longer ones and tweak them all the time. I also find myself sticking them into LFO mode with the triggers resetting the LFOs to get wilder modulation on the DPO/filter. What i'm hoping quadra will do for the case:

1) Allow my to route in some 4 step CV sequences from the TTA z8000 to modulate the attack/decay of some of those envelopes to add more interest and groove.
2) Add some interesting burst effects to short percussion sounds
3) Use my filter envelope and DPO modulation from the same trigger without needing a stackable cable
4) Give me some crazy stuff I don't understand to explore at my leisure!

Any advice, will I get what I'm after? I really like the quadra and it works well so I'm kinda torn about replacing it, but in my head I have these nuts burst mode percussion things and crazy changing envelopes from CV that seem like a great idea

Wait, Quadra or Quadrax? I'll assume the latter since we're in the Quadrax thread...

1) Yes, using the mod matrix, but the inputs aren't 1V/oct.
2) Try it? Burst mode is there and the Qx expander will give you a trigger burst out of it.
3) Yes, using the LINK buttons.
4) I guess so.

[DukeOfPrunes]

Looking for bit a of advice, I currently use a quadra in my techno rack and its job is to do envelopes A/D for the LXD make noise LPG, a filter envelope and modulation on my DPO. I tend to vary the envelopes from short percussion snaps to longer ones and tweak them all the time. I also find myself sticking them into LFO mode with the triggers resetting the LFOs to get wilder modulation on the DPO/filter. What i'm hoping quadra will do for the case:

1) Allow my to route in some 4 step CV sequences from the TTA z8000 to modulate the attack/decay of some of those envelopes to add more interest and groove.
2) Add some interesting burst effects to short percussion sounds
3) Use my filter envelope and DPO modulation from the same trigger without needing a stackable cable
4) Give me some crazy stuff I don't understand to explore at my leisure!

Any advice, will I get what I'm after? I really like the quadra and it works well so I'm kinda torn about replacing it, but in my head I have these nuts burst mode percussion things and crazy changing envelopes from CV that seem like a great idea

Wait, Quadra or Quadrax? I'll assume the latter since we're in the Quadrax thread...

1) Yes, using the mod matrix, but the inputs aren't 1V/oct.
2) Try it? Burst mode is there and the Qx expander will give you a trigger burst out of it.
3) Yes, using the LINK buttons.
4) I guess so.

Unless I'm missing something, the CV inputs are calibrated to pass 1V/Oct!

[closedLoop]

1) Yes, using the mod matrix, but the inputs aren't 1V/oct.
2) Try it? Burst mode is there and the Qx expander will give you a trigger burst out of it.
3) Yes, using the LINK buttons.
4) I guess so.

Unless I'm missing something, the CV inputs are calibrated to pass 1V/Oct!

You're right. I tested it once, and it definitely tracks 1v/oct.

[scottmfr]

1) Allow my to route in some 4 step CV sequences from the TTA z8000 to modulate the attack/decay of some of those envelopes to add more interest and groove.
2) Add some interesting burst effects to short percussion sounds
3) Use my filter envelope and DPO modulation from the same trigger without needing a stackable cable
4) Give me some crazy stuff I don't understand to explore at my leisure!

1) Yes, absolutely! You can even set different amounts of attenuversion for each channel so they'll respond differently to even a single CV source. You can also route that CV source to as many destinations as you want on as many channels as you want (Attack, Decay, Shape, Level).
2) Yes.
3) Yes, if you send a trigger to CH1, you can link CH2 to respond to that trigger. No Mults necessary.
4) Yes indeed!

Regarding the LFO Sync issue, I'm assuming you're referring to the LFOs being out of phase? They will be in sync, they just wont start together, however you can reset phase using channel link modes.

Also, yes the CV inputs will track 1v/oct as long as there is no attenuation of the signal applied.

If you ever get lost with your routing assignments, just press and hold the top left and bottom right buttons.

[modularbeat]

It's not really a bug, just something that has not been implemented yet because so far I have not found a suitable solution…

I'm also open to other suggestions users have, how would you like to see it work?

Hey @kisielk, on LFO syncing: would it be possible to implement something like 2018 MI Tides does?

I think the way Tides handles this (at least the VCV clone), is to stop the LFO when no more clock pulses are received (rather than let it free-run). So if you stop the clock, the current LFO cycle completes and then waits. When it gets the next pulse, it starts a new cycle (resetting the phase) and keeps the frequency the same as it was before. This means you can get all your LFOs phase-synced by stopping then starting your master clock and everything fires right up as it was before, without having to recalculate tempo and taking a cycle or two to catch up.

I've been obsessed with finding a phase-resettable, independently-syncable quad-LFO and Quadrax is so dang close to being perfect. Fingers crossed!

[autopoiesis]

that would be a nice solution, I think, but it would be ideal if you could switch back to free running if the trig input (or its normalization from a preceding channel) is unpatched.

by the way, the manual states that the logical combination of Trig and a normalized preceding channel's end-of-x trigger is an Or, but it actually behaves like an And. which is definitely useful and I'm happy with that. but the manual is off

[modularbeat]

that would be a nice solution, I think, but it would be ideal if you could switch back to free running if the trig input (or its normalization from a preceding channel) is unpatched.

Yeah for sure. That’s what Tides does and it seems Quadrax can detect when something is patched (to enable the clock divider/multiplier logic) so fingers crossed something like this is possible.

[closedLoop]

that would be a nice solution, I think, but it would be ideal if you could switch back to free running if the trig input (or its normalization from a preceding channel) is unpatched.

Without any kind of screen or basic selection tool, I think it would be hard to find a way to switch between those 2 functional states and have that user switching be at all intuitive or obvious.

I hope Intellijel comes up with some kind of solution to the synced LFO mode problem. In it's current state it's a very curious thing. The user can 'sync' the LFO, but has no real control over the phase?

Until then, I'm going to hold off on replacing Batumi with a second Quadrax.

[modularbeat]

I don't have the module (yet) and have only read bits of the manual so I might be missing something but I figured you'd just have the proposed behavior enabled when in LFO mode with something plugged into Trig. Not sure about with the channel link stuff but either enabling the behavior when linked or requiring the clock to be multed to all linked channels seems like it could work.

Outside of some weird edge-case scenarios involving a desire to keep the LFO cycling even when the clock drops out, I don't see any reason you'd want to switch from the proposed behavior back to the current behavior

[kisielk]

That sounds like a good idea. I've got a WIP firmware update for Quadrax that's I'll get back to working on once I finish some higher priority projects, but this seems like something worth trying out.

[modularbeat]

So stoked that this is a possibility. Thank you! I think there are a lot of people struggling with this problem on other modules that are going to jump to Quadrax if this can be done. Guess I'd better pick up a Quadrax while there are some in stock out there

And really cool for the Intellijel folks to engage the community here and on the IJ forums. The reputation for great customer support really is well-earned.

[closedLoop]

That sounds like a good idea. I've got a WIP firmware update for Quadrax that's I'll get back to working on once I finish some higher priority projects, but this seems like something worth trying out.

There's a higher priority than Quadrax?
I'm kidding...

If the phase is fixed by a trigger coming into the trigger input of a channel, I personally think it's a simpler solution to expect the user to vary the phase/delay of that trigger, rather than to expect the Quadrax interface to provide a range of phase modulation. Let's be honest - nearly everyone in eurorack has Pamela's New Workout, and changing the phase of a trigger output in PNW is very simple, direct and exact.

[pablowdadon]

That sounds like a good idea. I've got a WIP firmware update for Quadrax that's I'll get back to working on once I finish some higher priority projects, but this seems like something worth trying out.

There's a higher priority than Quadrax?
I'm kidding...

If the phase is fixed by a trigger coming into the trigger input of a channel, I personally think it's a simpler solution to expect the user to vary the phase/delay of that trigger, rather than to expect the Quadrax interface to provide a range of phase modulation. Let's be honest - nearly everyone in eurorack has Pamela's New Workout, and changing the phase of a trigger output in PNW is very simple, direct and exact.

[closedLoop]

ha! I guess it's ONLY #5 on MG...

[modularbeat]

If the phase is fixed by a trigger coming into the trigger input of a channel, I personally think it's a simpler solution to expect the user to vary the phase/delay of that trigger, rather than to expect the Quadrax interface to provide a range of phase modulation.

Not to mention that phase offset would have to be adjusted each time the clock is stopped/interrupted and resumed again.

Re-reading the previous discussion, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I think the only thing that I'm proposing that wasn't already discussed is logic like Tides has which can sort of figure out when the clock is stopped and immediately start back up at the same frequency as before- something Batumi can't do. The other thing about Batumi that drives me crazy is how the LED is hardwired/hardcoded to the sinewave. Makes it really difficult for me to visualize what is going on with, say, the ramp wave.

[autopoiesis]

yeah, not all of us have phase-adjustable clock sources or square lfos. I like modularjammer's suggestion.

another thought is that I sometimes wish I could adjust the level and polarity of an output without an external attenuverter, and that this could be possible if Quadrax behaved as though there were a positive reference voltage normalled to any CV input that has nothing patched into it. then we could assign an unpatched CV input to Level and use the stepped attenuverter on the associated button to set the level and polarity of an output. I guess this could trip people up occasionally if you set up your matrix but then unpatch stuff from the CV inputs (and find, for example, that your Fall knob is behaving like its range has been offset), but it could be worth that trade off

[Midiot]

I too, went from Quadra to Quadrax.

I have both.
What I still have is, 2x Quadra, 3x Quad VCA, and a Quadrax.
In all honesty, Quadrax does more than Quadra can do.... If you remember some menu settings, by using it all the time.
Otherwise, you'll forget many of the settings, and only use the basic ones.
The Quadrax manual is always nearby... and helpful.
All manuals.
....
Gee, that was nearly a HAIKU.

[evzone]

I play hours with both Maths and Quadrax. For me the exp curves are definetly not the same on both.
I can't find the type of feeling I enjoyed since 2013 with Maths exp short envelopes on Quadrax.
My Quadrax exp curve loose a lot of the "acoustics" feeling of Maths enveloppes.
I read some post saying they are the same since last firmware.
Not for my ears. Do I tune something wrong ?
I didn't know if I have a 12 or 16 bits version. ( how to look at the harware version ? )
My Quadrax is running on 1.1.3

[closedLoop]

I play hours with both Maths and Quadrax. For me the exp curves are definetly not the same on both.
I can't find the type of feeling I enjoyed since 2013 with Maths exp short envelopes on Quadrax.
My Quadrax exp curve loose a lot of the "acoustics" feeling of Maths enveloppes.
I read some post saying they are the same since last firmware.
Not for my ears. Do I tune something wrong ?
I didn't know if I have a 12 or 16 bits version. ( how to look at the harware version ? )
My Quadrax is running on 1.1.3

Are you using the "alternate" AR mode? (long press the second channel button - "Rise" "Fall" "Shape" or "Level")

[evzone]

yes, I just test it after reading this thread and I find it worse with short attack

[evzone]

answer p43 of the manuel... mine is a 16 bits.

[intellijel]

@evzone

The range of Quadrax curve is quite dramatic and I would recommend that you stay away from the extreme CW or CCW and you may notice a huge difference in the results. You can use your ears or if you have a scope it will help for you to visualize.

Also another major difference is that with Quadrax the envelope time will stay constant when you adjust the curve while on Maths it will change. This could definitely throw off any a/b tests.

I would love to see a video example of where you dial these into true equivalent settings and can clearly hear a difference.

[megarat]

When I hear people say that noise made with Maths envelopes “sounds better”, I wonder how much of this is the “stereo salesperson effect”.

Most people here are probably aware of the old trick employed by hi-fi salespeople when they want to get rid of a certain model: play it louder than everything else. Louder music generally sounds better than quieter music, so naive customers would think the unit itself had a better intrinsic sound and would be more likely to buy it.

Back to Maths: it generates 10V envelopes by default while many other envelope/function generators (including Quadrax originally) only produce 5V envelopes by default. Many VCAs (including the Intellijel Quad VCA) have a range up to 10V, meaning that the noise made from an envelope with a 10V range will be louder than a noise made from an envelope with a 5V range. And thus, to some (many?) ears, that louder noise will sound better.

Or so I ponder. I’m just brainstorming here. It would be fun to give someone a related A/B test and see how it turns out.