MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Small 212 based system, room for one more module?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge  
Author Small 212 based system, room for one more module?
christie
A question for those of you with experience with small 212 based systems:
After a couple of years of my 212 based system sitting in a temporary frame I put together, I finally built a (hopefully) permanent home for it, 2 rows x 5 units.
Top: 258, 212
Bottom: 245, 257, BLANK, 277
Separate: 216

What would YOU add - I'm looking something that will lend variety or WOW to a patch.

Obvious ideas I've thought of:
Add another 258
Add a 294 comb filter
Swap 258 for 259

Less obvious:
Move 245 to a combined case with the 216 and add a lot!

What am I not thinking of that your experience suggests?
ryangaston
Hey christie !

I'm in a very similar boat—I just finished up a 10U system myself with a very similar complement of modules:

Top: 258 & 212
Bottom: 258, 216,257

The one point I thought would cause me grief was not having any voltage controllable pulse sources—but honestly, I've been having a lot of fun personally just seeing what this set of things wants to do of its own accord. I'm having fun exploring with this for now, but I personally would love to add a 281...for the CV-able pulse source and CV-able envelope combo. Of course, the 245 can take care of part of that too smile

Honestly though if you're just looking to fill that one extra space—I'd prioritize another 258 (or other 1-space oscillator if you're not trying to stick with that "era" of module).

Hard to go wrong with that set of things—cool to see someone with a relatively similar setup.

Guinness ftw!
christie
Thanks.

258 - when I use a "keyboard" I do often find myself wanting another "voice" - I usually end up using noise through the bandpass filter or setting up a feedback patch, but yeah sometimes I want more.

245 - yes, I often use it as a modulation source, also varying the pulser time, or sort of an envelopey source. That's why I hesitate to move it out into a separate case with the 216. It makes the system by itself a lot less interesting and self playing. Plus by pairing it with a keyboard I might think of it as mostly a pitch source.

I highly recommend the 277 for your small 212 system. Endless rhythmic variations and goodness
Peake
258 or 25s for more sounds at the same time or a control module such as a 281 or 266 to randomize and generate more CV control.
christie
Thanks.

That's two votes for more sounds. I think that's where I'm headed.

But I also agree with more random and or more envelopes or looping functions. But now that the 216 is calibrated and working reliably, at least I have 3 human controlled envelopes on the left hand side.

Other things I miss from other systems - clock division without wasting an envelope (or stealing the 245 stage pulses), wave folding, sample and hold.
christie
Going with a 158, for now at least. Pretty straightforward way to see how much I use the additional oscillators and gives some variety compared to the 258.
jimfowler
2TT from northern light is extremely useful for clock division/multiplication.
christie
Agreed! Looks super cool - and I've always wanted a pendulum/ratchet...

Maybe for the next one though? This guy sort of has a fixed aesthetic...


ExtrasensoryPerception
my vote is for the 294.it'll add a lot of possibilities shaping sounds you have already, as opposed to adding a complete different voice. I believe a lot of 212 based old systems had comb filters for that reason!

https://encyclotronic.com/synthesizers/buchla/101-r1426/
MechaSeb
If you want to stay "historically true" (i.e. only stay with modules which were available at the time), i would vote for a second 258. This 212 need more source !

Or if you want to go "more officiency" i would go like this :
258 + 212 on top
258 + 254v + 245 + CV toolbox 244 + 277 on bottom.

Question though, do you really need a voltage processor in such a small system ? Do you really need the 277 ? Maybe removing 277 and replace it by 294 ? (or both and replace with 295/296 ?).
ryangaston
Ooh, 158 was a great idea! This system looks like a blast, christie!

And I think you’re right about the 277–seems like an awful lot of fun in that context.

Guinness ftw!
Happyanimal
Thought this would be a good as place as any- do you any of you know if the 212 is significantly deep? I know an easels 208 won’t fit in a regular depth boat. Is it the same situation with the 212r, or is it shallower than the 208?

Thanks,
Josh
@green
291 would be cool, three channels of sweepable filtering, considering the one already in the 212 and everything’s in 3’s.
Peake
Happyanimal wrote:
Thought this would be a good as place as any- do you any of you know if the 212 is significantly deep? I know an easels 208 won’t fit in a regular depth boat. Is it the same situation with the 212r, or is it shallower than the 208?

Thanks,
Josh


The 212r is 2 PCBs deep behind the front panel plus the height of whatever's installed on that top PCB. The 208R is at least three PCB's deep relatively due to the height of the daughterboards off of the mother PCB.
levelhead3
@green wrote:
291 would be cool, three channels of sweepable filtering, considering the one already in the 212 and everything’s in 3’s.


second vote for a 291, as it also plays really well with the 277 for filtering the fractional delay signals before feeding them back to the inputs. with frequency and bandwidth modulation you can get some really complex delay sounds.
christie
Happyanimal wrote:
Thought this would be a good as place as any- do you any of you know if the 212 is significantly deep? I know an easels 208 won’t fit in a regular depth boat. Is it the same situation with the 212r, or is it shallower than the 208?


Just measured. My 212r is about 2 1/8 inches deep behind the front panel. The deepest parts are some caps on the mixer side, otherwise the deepest part would be dead center for the reverb tank and frame. So the depth can vary from build to build depending on the caps used.

My 208r measures about 3 inches deep behind the front panel. As peake says, this is due to the daughtercards, so aside from slight differences due to jack mounting, should be pretty constant build to build.

As an aside, when I first got my 212r I tested in an empty Skylab case i had - fit fine.
Peake
I try to stuff those tall 212r caps parallel to the PCB to provide even more space.
Happyanimal
christie wrote:
Happyanimal wrote:
Thought this would be a good as place as any- do you any of you know if the 212 is significantly deep? I know an easels 208 won’t fit in a regular depth boat. Is it the same situation with the 212r, or is it shallower than the 208?


Just measured. My 212r is about 2 1/8 inches deep behind the front panel.

As an aside, when I first got my 212r I tested in an empty Skylab case i had - fit fine.


Great, this is what I was looking for. Thanks.
mestlick
My choice would be another 258.
I have a 4x4 case with: 212; 258/257/245; 248; 258/216.

You'd have my system with the 277 instead of the 248. Pure black knobs!
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group