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

Can´t decide - Rainmaker vs. Tapographic vs. EFFEXX
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules  
Author Can´t decide - Rainmaker vs. Tapographic vs. EFFEXX
Mr. Aloud
Folks,

I´ve got some outboard like DP4 and fireworx and some pedals, also integrate my work with the DAW and tons of plugins. However, having things directly accessible in the rack is a different thing, and modulation is a plus.

Therefore, I´m looking at my first modular FX and can´t exactly decide between the three.

Rainmaker: Getting rave reviews everywhere and I don´t doubt it. Not so sure if it would be the perfect fit for me. The delay part is awesome, the comb part however has never been shown off to do something I feel I need in my patches. May just haven´t hit the right review yet. It seems to give you instant zoviet france, much appreciated, but I´m doing other things as well, mainly progressive and acid techno, think Jan Fleck, Heckmann, UMEK etc.

Tapographic: interesting UI, less pot control over the patch, but tapping gives other options. Does delay only, but that´s probably what I´m after in the first place. Not looking for the Rainmakers comb unless I´m getting convinced it´sw usable for me.

Radikal EFFEXX 1701: The most conservative approach, classic multi FX with a twist, pun intended. While combining a few classic FX is nothing to write home about (think dp4, fireworx, vst), it seems the option to morph between different patches is what makes this one shine. It could deliver the bread and butter FX we all love and need and then put something on top of them.


I´m currently leaning to the Radikal, as it´s closer to what I´m used to from dp4 and fireworx, but adds the modulation/morphing of the fx. Probably going for a delay specialist afterwards.

Any comments from your experience? Audio quality, usability, known quirks?
starthief
Rainmaker is very powerful, but certainly not the simplest thing to set up for more of a vanilla delay application.

I generally find it leads me to two places:

- Rhythmic bouncy bits, which I'm not inclined to use in my own music anymore

- Transformative washes of ambient soundscape, which fits my style to a T.

I almost think of it more as a resonator than a delay. It's a little out of control.
It will do more straightforward delay effects, but I have other hardware and software I tend to go to first for that.
ckwjr
My hot take on the Rainmaker is that it hasn't been interesting enough to justify either its expense or the space it takes in my rack. I like the 4MS Dual Looping Delay for its straightforward immediate usability/playability.
nocks
I have the Rainmaker for about 2 weeks now and have used it almost daily. It has a steep learning curve. It gets very quickly out of the sound realm of delays, and into the realm of ambient soundscapes. The pitch-shifting doesn't sound good, imho; has a very digital/grainy sound - which might work for some people tho.

As of now I'm not sure if I'll keep it for long - it's quite expensive and takes up quite some space in the rack.
nectarios
nocks wrote:
The pitch-shifting doesn't sound good, imho; has a very digital/grainy sound - which might work for some people tho.


+1 and this is one of the reasons I sold mine, the other being that the module is complex as it is, I have to be careful of settings that bring back delay line taps, out of nowhere due to that "looking into the future" thingy that Intellijel explained on line (not in the manual though...), the dry/wet balance and after a while the interface kinda got to me too. This is not to say the interface is bad, its good considering all the stuff the RM does. Just preference.

I've replaced it with software (Byome, Valhalla Delay, Crystallizer, Echoboy) as I work in the DAW which is more practical for me and I find it to sound better too.

If you are using Logic, and don't care about the comb, you already have Delay Designer which has a lot of overlap with the Rainmaker.
Mr. Roboto
Personally I would recommend the EFFEXX1701.
The Rainmaker seems to be too complex to remember all and everything even after three weeks of non-wiggling. Also the type of FX is too particular. Also, as others already mentioned, not every FX-type sounds good.

The Tapographic delay is what is says on the tin: a delay. From the videos it sounds very good and interesting but without at least a reverb I wouldn't get enough bang for the buck. And let's be honest: the first few days you think these echo-rythms/sequences are such a great option but at day four you'll have enough (?).

The Radical in the other hand has three FX units (FX1, FX2 and Reverb) at the same time and the morphing capabilities look very promising. Sizewise it's a little bit too big I would say but:
"Irgendwas ist ja immer"

Option number #2 (Muffwiggler style): you'll need all of them. Mr. Green
Koryo
Radikal Technologies - EFFEXX 1701 is the one I would go for if you are looking for a broad, super high quallity effects palette.



It should really be thought of as 4.5 different modules in one.

The main way I use it these days is to permanently set all 8 snapshots with wildly different effects and chains. Then in morph mode, wiggle the big morph knob and instantly get a pseudo random effect. For instance, later, if I need that wooshing sound preset that I had set previously, dial it into the ballpark and rock. I know I don't use it to it's full extent yet. For instance the Data knob. It's a dial-a-voltage output that is saved with the Snapshot.

The downside to this workflow is that there is no way to update the snapshot. It's a one and done thing.
Utopian
Rainmaker was a big reason for me starting eurorack, but 60 modules later I still haven't acquired one. Much because of reasons mentioned above. My priority now is simpler and more patchable modules. DLD is my main delay and it really suits my workflow. That said, Rainmaker is still pretty unique and one may very well end up in my rack.

I think the EFFEXX is much overlooked and offers very much for the price and space. As other Radikal products it has a diverging user interface, so it may not be for everyone, but I think it would be great for performance use. Nice to see the comments above highlighting its strengths.
Mr. Aloud
The more I read, the more I get my list sorted.

Now: EFFEXX
Next: One of the other two Mr. Green

Now phase 2: Reading Manuals.

Oh btw, I found a few videos on morphing, but don´t think I completely got it yet. Is there any in depth demo that shows morphing for a little bit, small changes within a given setup, then more changes, basically the same patch but more extreme settings, then total character change, morph FX1 chorus to FX1 phaser while ... you get the idea. I´m not yet decided whether that morphing thingie is a novelty or killer feature. Oh btw, when you find a great setting while morphing, can you take a snapshot of that and use it as a morph target later?
cliffemu
Rainmaker is up to 16 delays at once, plus the comb delay. If you don’t need that amount of power then you’ll likely want to get something else. Most people just want one or two delays at once, and it can certainly do that well, but why get it just for that?
starthief
I just wonder if the Effexx is a good choice if you also have plugins. I don't know that much about it but it does seem kind of vanilla?

That was why I went with less usual effects for the rack -- a Doepfer BBD, Erbe-Verb and Rainmaker.
Mr. Aloud
It´s about workflow. I like my plugins for mixdown and working in the box, but it´s a different kind of operating and comes at a later stage. Much like I could go with Reaktor, VCV and so on for a modular in the box, but then again, hardware is something else.

I thought about patching with vst fx via expert sleepers and probably will try that too, as EFFEXX will do many tricks, but not all. The standards plus morphing is way quicker to patch outside the box though and getting the same level of automation/modulation plus hands-on access will eat a lot of channels, which I´d rather save for things that can´t be done within a module (m4l).

Oh, and the most important reason: unused HP and GAS Mr. Green
starthief
Mr. Aloud wrote:
It´s about workflow.


I can't argue with that. smile
damase
rainmaker maybe has some faults but always delivers the magic for me w00t

the tappgraphic seems to have a more crystal clear kind of sound, sounds very good. the UI looks to be opaque though, button combos n such... would love to hear others thoughts on it
Zymos
I felt the Tapo was kind of half-baked. Fine if you want ambient washes, but not very controllable or precise.
guigui
I tried the Rainmaker twice and now I'm waiting mine to arrive.

Never tested EFFEXX 1701 and Tapographic didn't impress me that much.
wsy
Just to make things more difficult, I got to play with both a Rainmaker and a Magneto.

Both were absolute loads of fun. Very different.

Check out the Magneto too.

- Bill
Mr. Aloud
Went for a used EFFEXX over the weekend, just to get the basics covered and see if that morphing thingie is something useful. Next step will be something more adventurous, got some ideas what to check out in this thread. Thanks to all!
nios
I have a rainmaker, it's not that hard to use for vanilla delays; there are a number of presets that are pretty close to there and you can touch those up to taste. OP already made his choice but if anyone else is debating, to me there simply is no debate as far as Euro FX that bring something truly interesting and really open up on being modulated. It quickly becomes much more inspiring than a usual delay into basically a fairly unique bit of kit, able to be its own instrument and give odd rhythms and touches effortlessly, things that would generally be time-consuming to program in a DAW and generally are far out of the reach of any typical delay plugin or unit. It's not just "good for a gigging Eurorack" FX, it's "good FX" period, the kind of thing you'd want to set up a dedicated line-in for to run other instruments through.

At first I was reluctant to get one mostly because of its gigantic size and intimidating-looking panel; it seemed like overkill. What you get from the layout however is very very little-to-no menu diving, which turns out unbelievably nice to have for something this complex. I can see why they went with it like this, because nobody would want to use the thing if they had to scroll through so many options in menus to fiddle with it otherwise.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group