Modular IV - ideas

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:17 am

wishes for a modular IV:

- integrated Flexor packages
- and userbuildable GUI (MRC)

integration:
If everyone has to buy ModIV, the Flexorpack could be a little cheaper for the individual because they`ll sell more...
+ there would be a standard compatibility again.... a Mod4 patch would load in any modular4, if somebody decides to buy Mod4

at the end everbody needs the Flexor packages...

new MRC:
a user GUI for adding real synth graphics layout and free knob arrangement and assaignment(no 16 knob fixed limitation). And maybe the possibilty to save the new synth as normal scope device.
So you don`t have to play around with the modular, once you have build the device with the GUI.
-> some kind of GUI editor....

of course just an idea for inspiration.

best regards...

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:20 am

Flexor is already incredibly cheap. A crazy amount of work goes into making this huge range of modules. Support the developers.

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:27 am

On 2006-10-11 07:20, darkrezin wrote:
Flexor is already incredibly cheap. A crazy amount of work goes into making this huge range of modules. Support the developers.

that was not my point....

I did not want to get it cheaper.

I wanted to say. Everbody needs it. So it could just be integrated as a standard.

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:29 am

What I really love to see in the new modular is a structure window (like the reaktor one). I love the one we have had right now, but it became quite unuseful with complex patches (and the low refresh rate of all the cables became very annoing in this case IMO).

steffensen · Post by **steffensen** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:41 am

I vote for submodules inside Modular.

(Modular inside modular, for us that dont have/cant run SDK)

ChrisWerner · Post by **ChrisWerner** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:51 am

Once again, I wish Modular would use the same selection features like sfp uses in the project window.

Draw a box to mark several modules at the same time, also copy, paste and duplicate would be nice, to handle the whole thing in a faster way.

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisWerner on 2006-10-11 09:53 ]

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:11 am

On 2006-10-11 09:51, ChrisWerner wrote:
Once again, I wish Modular would use the same selection features like sfp uses in the project window.

Draw a box to mark several modules at the same time, also copy, paste and duplicate would be nice, to handle the whole thing in a faster way.

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisWerner on 2006-10-11 09:53 ]

good idea!
something like a traditional vs quick building switch.

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:34 pm

You can copy & paste in modular (single modules)- it takes an extra mouse-click.

bosone · Post by **bosone** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:47 pm

i think they are great ideas!
the possibility to use a custom graphic skin with user-selectable knobs/switch etc position would be a great addition...

BTW: it has appeared in the device section a "submodular host" (dont remember the name, exacly)...

Ben Walker · Post by **Ben Walker** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:18 am

I'd like to see some of the technology which was used to build SixString implemented as modular modules. Would allow for some very interesting physical modelling experiments.

And while we're at it, what about giving us some of the other components of the plugins. Like the Minimax, Pro-12 & Prodyssey oscillators and filters, etc.

I think this would be low cost development for CW as they'd just have to repackage existing technology, rather than having to invent something new.

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:05 am

And while we're at it, what about giving us some of the other components of the plugins. Like the Minimax, Pro-12 & Prodyssey oscillators and filters, etc.

I think this would be low cost development for CW as they'd just have to repackage existing technology, rather than having to invent something new.

another nice idea,

and of course they could earn some extra money from their past developments.

another advantage would be:

with a GUI Editor and the Prodyssey, Minimax, modules (filters etc.) there would be a fast growing base of good sounding and easy to use synths for our beloved CW platform....

[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-10-12 07:08 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:09 am

There's some nice ideas here so far, although I really can't see flexor becoming 'fully' integrated & sold as part of a new CW modular package. It would sure benefit CW, but I'm not so sure exactly how much it would benefit Adern. I could be wrong though because I'm not often right

Michu · Post by **Michu** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:38 am

Chris, are you on mac?
on pc, all it takes to duplicate is to press ctrl+d, mac version is a bit buggy

Kymeia · Post by **Kymeia** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:05 pm

I'd like to have the ability to replace a module with another of the same type retaining the connections and structure like you can with the Nord G2 - I find that feature invaluable. In fact my main problem with the Creamware Modular is it's so slow to work with compared to the G2. Plus it should be more stable.

HUROLURA · Post by **HUROLURA** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:40 pm

new MRC:
a user GUI for adding real synth graphics layout and free knob arrangement and assaignment(no 16 knob fixed limitation). And maybe the possibilty to save the new synth as normal scope device.
So you don`t have to play around with the modular, once you have build the device with the GUI.
-> some kind of GUI editor....

This would be great as this could allow anybody to build up new ergonomic skins for modular construction.
Just a dream though I think...

Keep on offering ideas...

CheerZ

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:11 pm

Ok, I give in

I'd like more user-friendly & capable sequencers (even just 1 or 2 definative ones) with very logical, yet advanced features. I'd also like those to be larger (2U module width at least) instead of pokey little things that you can barely see never mind use effectively.

Auto-quantizing of live midi input?

Groove quantize?

Realtime movement of sequence in left & right directions?

... Wolf ... anybody ?

Ok, it could be said that you can input any sequencer into the modular, but that's really not the point when considering patch creation!!!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:23 am

I'm sorry to say, but imho all midi and sequencing in Scope is a true waste of DSP resources - the performance just isn't adequate (regarding processing power).

I have Wolf's Midi Toolbox (which is great) and he even implemented a 'special' filter mode for me (any note on a source channel to a fixed note on a destination channel).
Now when I use 4 of these modules to route incoming midi data, the DSP meter goes up significantly.

This is (essentially) a simple bit-logic operation, according to the 'speed' at which midi data drops in, I can hardly imagine how to measure a (native) CPU load at all for this application

I would appreciate an interface directing that stuff to the CPU, like it's done with file buffers, the FFT/analyzer routines, time stretching in the STS5000 etc.

It would require a 2nd layer of midi (assuming it would be pretty messy to change the existing implementation) with a couple of interfaces to enable the 2 midi layers to exchange data where appropriate.
This is not impossible, as the TripleDat module shows

on the other hand one might as well implement most of this functionality in a native app that communicates with the virtual Scope Midi drivers

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-10-14 03:27 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:09 am

erm, I was talking about larger (easier to use) & more advanced sequencers within the modular enviroment (for modular patch builders)

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:20 am

You both have valid points there. There are times when having a sequencer inside modular is a definate advantage, even considering that you can achieve sample accurate sync by using a saw waveform fed from your DAW app. And at the same time, you can be sure that those modules are using more dsp than a comparable native solution would use, and I would agree it's probably not due to the complexity of the runtime operations (but rather having to allocate typical scope-based resourced for graphics and other internal atoms needed for a module to be a module).

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:02 am

I think that others midi module are also important: for example: a set of module that permits to interact with the midi flux.
Something like working in Logic.
Maybe we need some modules that generate the midi messages, some that compare two of them, some that makes a midi delay, a real time transposition etc...

So we can go into algoritmic composition, auto chord or stuff like this.