_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI Eurorack Knob Idea
schobi wrote 10 hours 26 min ago:
I love the out-of-box thinking and clean execution by mitxela. But why
not make it the other way round?
Downsides: you need enough magnetic knobs and store them when not in
use. If this becomes popular, will all knobs be compatible? What if you
loose some? If you buy a used module? This idea somehow creates a new
set of problems.
Idea: Knob with a plug!
The outer dimension of a knob is limited by how easily you can grab it.
Even if used as a socket, you need the sideways spacing anyway. But the
knob face is not used. Why not have the socket in the center of the
knob?
How to build this?
You would need a hollow knob riding on a bearing surface around the
socket.
I vaguely remember magnetic position decoders that work off-axis? Or
maybe have multiple magnets in the rim of the knob, in an orientation
that creates a uniform magnetic field in the center? The current
prototype would even be suitable for trying.
Benefits: no extra removable components. Knob and socket can be used at
the same time. Can you still reach around a plugged-in cable? Is this
even useful?
sokoloff wrote 1 day ago:
Why not route out the FR4 under the TRS jack and sense the magnet from
parts mounted on the other side on a single PCB?
gitroom wrote 1 day ago:
been messing with gear for years and honestly the obsession with
cramming everything into tiny boxes always cracks me up, but the idea
of knobs you can move around is actually kinda sick. you ever feel like
stuff gets too complicated and takes away from just having fun making
sound?
adrianmonk wrote 1 day ago:
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but why not just stick a
potentiometer on the same axis behind the 3.5mm TS jack? Many 3.5mm
jacks are open on the back, so you can give the knob a long shaft
(longer than 3.5mm obviously), and that shaft can mate with the
potentiometer.
Alternatively, Eurorack uses TS jacks as connectors for control voltage
inputs, right? If you build a module with a TRS jack instead, you have
an extra pin (R) that you can connect a removable potentiometer + knob
to. And you can still plug in regular TS cables.
(Note: the article uses "TRS" loosely when it means "TS". I mean them
literally.)
raphman wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, this sounds like a simpler solution - the major
drawback/advantage would be that you'd need to insert the knob in
just the right orientation so that the shaft end fits into the
potentiometer's slot. Might be a bit fiddly. On the other hand, the
poti would keep its state even when the knob is removed, and you
wouldn't accidentally change the value when inserting the knob.
Just to nitpick the nitpicker: the knob's shaft needs to be longer
than 15 mm, right? "3.5 mm" is the diameter, not the length of a
small T(R)S jack.
adrianmonk wrote 22 hours 36 min ago:
Oops, yes, 3.5mm is the diameter. I was sleepy when I wrote that,
and I knew it didn't seem right.
Good point about the orientation when inserting. I was thinking
something like hex or torx or friction fit that would allow you to
insert it without thinking about the orientation. But then that
causes another problem: any visual markings on the knob aren't
guaranteed to be in the right position. I'm not sure if there's a
good way get the best of both worlds on that.
raphman wrote 18 hours 46 min ago:
Something like this might work. When pushing the knob in, a
spiral inside it rotates around the tongue that is attached to
the potentiometer (or vice versa). Once it is fully pushed in,
the groove in the spiral rests against the tongue, allowing the
knob to turn the potentiometer.
Would probably need a lot of fine-tuning to get all forces
exactly right.
URI [1]: https://winterwind.org/_media/pasted/20250426-220417.png
frainfreeze wrote 1 day ago:
Be sure to check their other projects! Stylophone business card is one
of my favs:
URI [1]: https://mitxela.com/projects/stylocard
aylmao wrote 1 day ago:
Very cool idea! It reminds me of how software worksâ you usually drag
an LFO to the knob to modulate a parameter.
A few people have pointed out that the knob can act as an attenuator
when it's being modulated via a jack, but sometimes the goal is space.
I can also imagine a version of this that uses the same technique, but
where the knob has an audio jack on it. You wouldn't need to unplug it
to connect the incoming cable, and you could use the still-connected
knob as an attenuator if you wanted to. This would get you the best of
all worldsâ maximum space, an intuitive interface, and attenuators if
you so choose to have them.
UltraSane wrote 1 day ago:
Eurorack is very cool and I totally understand the appeal of having
physical devices to interact with but one thing I never understood is
how you can recreate a specific configuration you liked later. Do you
manually document every connection? Or just take pictures?
skinpop wrote 1 day ago:
Once it's gone it's gone. That's part of what I like about analogue
modular synthesizers. It's a liberating approach to doing music if
you embrace it for what it is.
UltraSane wrote 1 day ago:
So it is more of a toy than an actual tool.
anigbrowl wrote 1 day ago:
Neither, you just tell people about how great it was. Ideally, you
don't record it either so that you can filter out the less
imaginative people from your social circle. If challenged, you
explain that you've moved on to a more abstract aesthetic, a musical
plane which requires greater levels of commitment to attain.
JodieBenitez wrote 1 day ago:
Nailed it.
fitsumbelay wrote 1 day ago:
E
W
A
E
M
O
S
d--b wrote 1 day ago:
It's like real life functional programming.
Can't wait for the y-combinator module.
smj-edison wrote 1 day ago:
Tangential idea, but I've wondered if it would be possible to make
synthesizers a lot cheaper by only having a couple rotary encoders. You
could have hundreds of parameters on the panel, but each parameter
would just be a neopixel LED and button. You could link the rotary
encoder with a parameter by pressing it and the parameters' button at
the same time. Certainly not as nice as a dedicated knob for each, but
you'd also get an interface that is ~$40 instead of ~$600...
peteforde wrote 20 hours 44 min ago:
It's not an obviously terrible idea assuming that your only goal in
creating an instrument is cost minimization. (Consider that
foreshadowing.)
Like all tools, it's rare for the cheapest possible option to be a
good value. This is only a subtle difference to people who don't need
to use the tool.
camtarn wrote 1 day ago:
If you had a little silkscreened circle around each parameter's LED,
and a Hall effect sensor underneath, you could even make a passive
magnetic knob that you could use to adjust parameters by simply
placing it on top of them and twisting. It wouldn't feel great due to
the complete lack of resistance but it's a fun idea :)
smj-edison wrote 19 hours 32 min ago:
Ooh! Now that's an idea. Especially if you could 3D print a knob
and hot glue a magnet in it.
munificent wrote 1 day ago:
There was a trend in 80s synthesizers along these lines: Yamaha DX7,
Ensoniq Mirage, etc.
They were famously hard to program. The DX7 in particular is known
for basically being a preset machine because almost no one could
figure out how to build patches with it.
Muscle memory is really important and it's hard for users to build a
mental model of the internal architecture if the external
architecture doesn't reflect it at all.
sigy wrote 1 day ago:
The physical interface is an intrinsic part of the design of any
eurorack module, including artistic elements. If you actually use
these, then you quickly tire of menu diving for simple options, and
only modules that do very particular things make it worth the bother.
For everything else, the layout must be accessible, memorable,
understandable, and not too crowded. And it helps if the visual of
the thing conjures up memories of how it sounds or what it does.
mdpye wrote 1 day ago:
There are loads of systems where every button and encoder has many
functions, with modal or paged interfaces. But I'm trying to stick to
a model of no hidden or ephemeral state with my modular, just for
fun, I guess. Mostly analogue, so no non-volatile memory to store
settings, the positions of the patches and knobs set everything, and
the test is that if I power it down and back up it must come back
doing what it was doing when the power went out (very long cycle lfos
notwithstanding!)
When a laptop can simulate anything, the physicality of the interface
is most of the attraction, so might as well go all the way...
smj-edison wrote 1 day ago:
For sure! The interface is the most important part these days when
practically everything can be emulated.
In my design, I wouldn't say the state is hidden thoughâthat's
the point of having an indicator light with every parameter. The
LED becomes the state visualization. So, write-wise, yes, it's
overloaded, but read-wise it's not.
I'm just now realizing I didn't explain that well in the OP, lol.
And really this is more of a budget-friendly approach, rather than
a user-friendly approach. I'm trying to meet those half way...
dimal wrote 1 day ago:
I like it, but the best modules already have knobs and jacks for
everything. When you have CV going into the jack, the knob acts as an
attenuator or attenuverter. This means that the modules are generally
larger. Make Noise generally does this and their modules are
consistently bigger than everyone else, and they're also some of the
most popular. Look at Maths. It's a slope generator and a mixer. It's
fucking huge. But everyone has it because it's patch programmable. The
problem in Eurorack is instead of making things patch programmable,
they try to fit in a ton of functionality into a small space, so you
have a lot of modules that have multiple modes where buttons and knobs
all have different meanings depending on what "page" you're on. Fuck
that. Almost every time I try a module like that, I end up selling it.
He's right about the interface being the point of Eurorack. Plugging
things into other things is the whole point. When I have a module that
has hidden state, I forget what state it's in or what the knobs mean. I
end up avoiding those modules. With cables and knobs, I can see the
state of the whole system. I need good cable management to make sure
it's not spaghetti, but I already do that in code already, and it's not
that different.
csours wrote 1 day ago:
Ok, but why stop here? You've effectively created a rotary
potentiometer in one dimension, you could add two more dimensions like
an analog thumbstick on a game controller. Do any controllers have a
twistable thumbstick?
Also, like other commentors have stated - this could be a jack too, so
you could have a jack knob analog stick.
BUT WHY STOP THERE?
You could mount it on a linear pot/slider.
BUT WHY STOP THERE?! (help me)
You could daisy chain pluggable rotary analog stick jack stacks...
----
The madness has taken him
m463 wrote 1 day ago:
reminds me of The Parable of the King's Toaster...
it ends with:
The king wisely had the engineer beheaded, and they all lived happily
ever.
hinkley wrote 21 hours 42 min ago:
The king wisely had the computer scientist beheaded and they all
lived happily ever after.
anigbrowl wrote 1 day ago:
IT consultant detected.
moffkalast wrote 1 day ago:
Sanity wants you to stop? Just say no, sanity legally cannot stop you
without your consent.
mrandish wrote 1 day ago:
> Do any controllers have a twistable thumbstick?
Yes, several. For example, the main knob on the Komplete Kontrol
S-series MIDI controllers ( [1] ) combines a rotary encoder with four
axis directional input, a push button and an LED indicator ring. I
have an S61 and the implementation of the knob is delightfully
intuitive, responsive and functional. To be clear, this
implementation is not a joystick on a ball base with twistable knob,
it's a flush-mounted knob that can be slightly nudged up, down, left
or right with a single, satisfying click in each direction. I'd
recommend trying it yourself, if only there were still any music
stores that put a range of high-end midi controller keyboards out
where customers could, you know, touch them.
I actually came here to suggest the same idea for the EuroKnob. The
four axis directional input is basically a D-Pad module commonly used
in game controllers. I find this kind of rotary knob + directional
input control to be very effective. However, there's one critical
caveat. It's apparently possible to implement this kind of control
poorly because I've also seen a couple devices where the
implementation is as bad as the S61's is great. It probably just
requires a certain degree of engineering finesse to nail a good
combination of responsiveness and tactile feedback.
> You could mount it on a linear pot/slider.
As much as I like and agree with your first thought, I've actually
seen the idea of a rotary knob combined with a linear slider -
although it's extremely rare. Having touched one myself I can confirm
the reason it's rare is that it's not just bad - it's uniquely bad.
By which I mean the combination of two controls which each work so
well on their own into one combined control, is unexpectedly awful. I
was unfortunate enough to try one first-hand (so to speak) at a tiny
booth buried in the back of some long-forgotten NAMM show in the days
when Cubase was still being demoed on an Atari ST. There was a
bespoke mixer from a company I'd never heard of with rotary knobs on
their mixer's sliders. I'm pretty sure when I tried to adjust the two
parameters at the same time I may have reflexively pulled my hand
back and uttered "Ugh!"
Usually I'm polite when trying out some novel interface idea but
there must be something 'special' about trying to combine two very
precise but divergent proportional motions on two different arm joins
(wrist & elbow) at the same time that's deeply unnatural. It felt so
weirdly wrong that I suspect some human factors kinesiologist has
probably written an award-winning paper about how humans evolved to
never, ever do this. But hey, one out of two ideas is still a great
day! :-)
URI [1]: https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/keyb...
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
I saw an encoder similar to the one you like in an ultrasound once.
Here is another: [1] There is something satisfying in noticing the
same solution applied to problems in different domains, like audio,
medicine, and aviation.
URI [1]: https://www.ctscorp.com/Resources/Press-Releases/New-Three...
csours wrote 1 day ago:
Thank you for taking my lunatic ravings semi-seriously!
tpm wrote 1 day ago:
There are several 'joystick' controller modules (Doepfer a-174-4 or
Intellijel Planar come to mind) and the Doepfer also produces 3rd
signal by twisting the knob.
atoav wrote 1 day ago:
As a fellow Eurorack circuit designer and university teacher on thst
issue one immidiate issue I can see is one of practicality. Decent
potentiometers are maybe a Euro per piece if bought in bulk, they have
a start and an end which is nice and for analog gear you have direct
control over the parameter, with very clear feedback what is going on
â that is the main reason people want physical gear. So add in a LED
ring for visual feedback and endstops.. Might be nice for a digital
module.
But even then I'd wonder if it worth it, because of the high pcb space
usage. With potentiometers as attenuators or attenuverters you can fit
two pots next to each other in a space of 20mm which neatly aligns with
the standard panel widths. Theoretically you could certainly get
smaller with thst solution, but the hall effect IC needs to be
accounted for as well. With existing pots I can use the space
underneath. If your module is just 10mm wide that space is pretty
premium..
m_kos wrote 2 days ago:
1. I find Tim's work always so impressive and humbling. Compared to
software, hardware projects seem infinitely more complex.
2. Speaking of knobs, I am writing a toy software synth for
smartphones. Are there any design guidelines for mobile UI for audio?
Knobs are hard to use and sliders take up a lot of space with only a
little more precision. I experimented with curved sliders (inverted
parabola or sine), but they are confusing since height doesn't really
encode anything and the curvature is there only to make the slider
longer. I didn't find any design systems focused on audio components.
ecolonsmak wrote 1 day ago:
Knobs shouldn't be hard to use - hold down the knob that needs the
adjustment and then drag in either of two directions to set the
value. Maybe have a pop-up over the knob that displays the value as
it's in use.
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
Thanks! For me, this works well for knobs that don't require
frequent adjustments. Currently, my knobs have little pills next to
them that switch a knob to a "precision mode." It is a little
quicker, but you may need to remember to disable this mode next
time you use the knob.
I also played with the idea of letting users slide their finger off
a knob (tap and slide away from the center). This allows for moving
the finger over a longer circumference, hence enabling a great
degree of precision. The problems with this approach are that it
takes longer to operate such knobs, you need to communicate to the
user what the max allowable distance from the knob is, it can
interfere with scrolling, and it doesn't work for knobs close to
the edge of the screen. (Your idea works well for knobs at the
edges.)
And this is just knobs! There are many other components,
interactions between them, as well as associated accessibility
challenges, haptics, etc. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I was
hoping that human factors people had developed relevant guidelines,
but perhaps it simply is not a prevalent enough problem.
recursive wrote 1 day ago:
Loopy Pro has a cool convention that I haven't seen elsewhere for
this. Drag up or down to change the knob value. While doing that,
drag left or right to zoom in. That makes the up/down movement
more precise.
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
I will look into it! Is this for mobile or desktop? I would like
to see how they introduce this interaction pattern and what
feedback they provide as you interact with the knob.
recursive wrote 1 day ago:
It's an ios app. IMO it's really good. I own exactly one
apple product, and it's an iPad that only runs Loopy Pro.
Here's a section from the manual that loosely explains the
concept[1]:
> Adjust a slider or dialâs value by dragging up and down, or
left and right for horizontal sliders. For finer control, move
your finger away from the dial.
[1]
URI [1]: https://loopypro.com/manual/#sliders-and-dials
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
Thanks! This link is really great!
My only Apple product is also an iPad, and I mostly use it to
make music with Auxy Studio:)
Do you use any fun apps on Android? Currently, my favorite
apps are Digitron and Nanoloop. (No affiliation, but
Digitron's upgrade was gifted to me.)
recursive wrote 1 day ago:
The only other music or audio app I use with any regularity
is Reaper on Windows. I tend to do more
performance-oriented stuff, and I try to keep everything
outside the computer as much as practical. I don't use any
software synths. I like the constraints and UX of dialing
patches into my one keyboard/drum machine. I record some,
but mainly I like to play in real time and not fiddle with
VSTs and plugins.
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
Makes sense. Hardware is not something within my reach,
currently, so I stick with software. I'm sure hardware
can be a lot more fun.
alnwlsn wrote 2 days ago:
> any jack can have a knob plugged into it to set it to a fixed value.
I'm kind of surprised he didn't start with a knob with a tiny
accelerometer, mcu and battery in it to produce some sort of output
signal into a stock plug depending on how the knob is oriented with
respect to gravity.
Putting electronics inside the plug is nearly a mitxela trademark.
URI [1]: https://mitxela.com/projects/flash_synth
sigy wrote 1 day ago:
Profit margins on eurorack are pretty damn low. And you need a lot of
knobs and jacks and plugs. Even a hall effect sensor may be out of
the sweet spot for cost.
naikrovek wrote 1 day ago:
Probably because pulling on cords can twist them. Thatâs what I
thought when this occurred to me.
pea wrote 2 days ago:
I was wondering this - I'd buy this if I could just plug it into my
existing sockets. I'm pretty sure you could get 50-100 hrs with a
battery, but I wonder if you could have something that you wind-up
like a mechanical watch.
butlike wrote 2 days ago:
Fantastic idea except for the proprietary 3.5" knob. From the video it
appears the magnet is required to discern position.
moebrowne wrote 2 days ago:
Anyone know what is being used to render the git repo for this?
URI [1]: https://git.mitxela.com/euroknob
devinvs wrote 2 days ago:
looks like it's this:
URI [1]: https://git.mitxela.com/web-git-sum
jimbokun wrote 2 days ago:
I liked the video focused on his hands, where his gestures and
expressing the rough size and orientation of things added to his verbal
description. Not sure if this is a common technique, but works very
well for this topic.
Gracana wrote 2 days ago:
This Old Tony (a hobby machinist / welder on youtube) has made all of
his videos in that format. It works very well!
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/c/thisoldtony/videos
joemi wrote 2 days ago:
It's an interesting idea (truly a clever way to accomplish this!), but
I think it's addressing the symptom, not the problem. The symptom is
that some jacks don't have associated knobs. The problem is that either
the module designer or the module user is overly obsessed with
miniaturization. The designer is at fault if it's a parameter that
really should have had a knob with the jack and they avoided including
one in order to keep things small. The user is at fault if they're
trying to stay so space-constrained that they can't fit a module that
outputs an DC voltage set by a knob into their case. There are numerous
modules that do this (and often that attenuvert as well) and many of
them are fairly small too.
anigbrowl wrote 1 day ago:
The problem is that different people have genuinely different ideas
on what kind of modulations are sensible. My go-to example on this is
E-mu gear - a company that started out making big modulars in the 70s
and went on to dominate the sampler/rompler space for about a decade
before going bust during the dot com boom and being absorbed by
Creative.
the nice thing about E-my synths was that they nearly all had big
modulation matrices included, although users were often defeated by
the 2-line LCD on their romplers. But one strange omission from the
modulation destinations was filter resonance; all their later modules
included a huge (arguably excessive) selection of filter types, but
for reasons of computational efficiency you could not adjust the
resonance while a note was playing. This wasn't too bad from the
front panel because most people want to ride the cutoff rather than
the Q, but the inability to modulate it inadvertently highlighted
some limitations of the filter design.
I can see both sides, as I am a 'let me modulate everything' person
when choosing gear but at the same time I quite admire 'opinionated'
synth designs where flexibility is traded off against maximizing
sweet spots. Sometimes it's better to have an instrument with limited
sonic range but which responds very consistently within that, so 'you
can't get a bad sound out of it'.
arnorhs wrote 2 days ago:
This looks super neat and probably a fun project to build.
> It's a nice dream, of a synthesizer where any knob can be pulled out
and replaced with a patch cable, and any jack can have a knob plugged
into it to set it to a fixed value. Whether it's actually practical to
build a synth like this I'm unsure. It would probably only be
worthwhile if you applied it to every single control on the modular,
which rules out using other people's modules. You would have to invest
heavily into the Eurorack Knob Idea. You couldn't even port other
modules that easily, as many of them would expect a real potentiometer,
whereas the encoder can only produce a voltage. Coupling it with a
voltage-controlled potentiometer would work, but would be even more
expensive.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine this fitting in nicely to everything since
it's defintely more effort and work than just having a knob and a jack
for the control of a particular thing. Esp. since most of the time, as
a convention, you'll have a knob that controls the value, but when a
jack is plugged in, this same knob acts as the attenuator for the
signal.
I would have appreciated having an image or a pdf of the schematic for
the design to understand it properly - i can get it from your github
but I don't have kicad installed on this computer.
I'm esp. interested in the normalized behavior - ie. when you have a
signal plugged in to the jack that is _not_ the potentiometer.. does it
get passed through or does it have to go through this chip as well?
Having to supply a 3V to this to make it work as well is also an extra
requirement of its usefulness in normal eurorack circuits - not a total
dealbreaker but that does add extra requirements, and extra components
to one's design.
Anyways... really cool idea :)
spankalee wrote 2 days ago:
Wouldn't it be more universally compatible to have a powered knob that
outputs a adjustable constant control voltage? You'd probably want trim
adjustments on it too.
Yes, there'd be an extra wire to the power supply module, but that
seems fine for a modular.
tpm wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, but there are already many of these in modular form (usually
attenuators normalled to +5V in the absence of input voltage or just
fader modules without inputs). This is new :)
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
> Yes, there'd be an extra wire to the power supply module, but that
seems fine for a modular.
Maybe other's modular synths look/work differently than mine, but
when all the panels are installed, there is no way to pull a cable
from underneath the panels/inside the case to the outside, without
drilling new holes through some panel or the sides of the case. So
not sure how you'd pull a cable from the power supply to the front
side of a panel when it's closed like that. My case is a Intellijel
Palette 104HP, maybe other cases expose the power supply to the
outside?
buescher wrote 2 days ago:
This is so cool and so clever I'm in awe, really. I'm grinning from ear
to ear looking at this and jealous I didn't think of it. But the
problem it solves is not quite one that anyone has. What does it offer
over a built-in knob with a jack that overrides it beside compactness?
A knob that's not designed for feel that you can misplace?
There's a miniature case study in thinking about innovation here. This
is what the germ of a really neat idea looks like but you have to keep
going and that's hard.
CamperBob2 wrote 2 days ago:
As he mentions in the video, the whole motivation is compactness.
When your panel looks like [1] , every mm^2 matters.
I'd be tempted to eliminate the patch cord altogether by using one of
those pushbutton pots. Normally it would act like a traditional pot,
but if you push it, it would go into a mode where you could choose
from a variety of nearby inputs wirelessly.
The LEDs next to the pot would need to be an OLED display that
indicates the selected input. Some form of extremely lightweight
mesh network for control connections would need to exist, something
with very low bandwidth and short range but also low latency. After
5 or 10 years' worth of tinkering, it might actually synthesize some
sounds.
URI [1]: https://learningmodular.com/the-eurorack-expansion-project/
buescher wrote 2 days ago:
Right - it solves the compactness problem but introduces new ones.
That said, from what I've seen of other people's modular setups,
keeping them from growing without bound does not seem to be the
highest priority in that world.
I'd also have to wonder how well a jack would hold up under regular
use as a bushing. It's very common for engineers with little
exposure to the connector industry (not my background either, but I
read the data sheets and app notes) to underestimate how highly
engineered and optimized for their use case even decades-old
connector types are.
It would be nice to have something like the NKK display pushbuttons
in the knob for a rotary encoder/pushbutton.
>After 5 or 10 years' worth of tinkering, it might actually
synthesize some sounds.
Yeah.
dylan604 wrote 2 days ago:
"It's a beautiful dream â a very expensive, but beautiful dream."
While that might be true, what is expensive for me is chump change for
someone else. However, that is very difficult to grok as there was no
prices mentioned anywhere that I could see. Sure, it'll be expensive to
me because I have to ask. But I also know that I cannot afford a fully
spec'd out MacPro, but at least I can see the numbers.
JKCalhoun wrote 2 days ago:
It's interesting. I haven't been sucked into the Eurorack thing though
â do people want not just patch cables all over their mixing desk but
knobs as well?
Eurorack (and modular synths in general) seem like funny things. Like
guitar pedals, I sense there are a lot of enthusiasts that do a lot
more tinkering than actually playing them. Watching Rick Beato and
guests on YouTube ... seems like a lot of musicians are looking instead
for simplicity. Like a few good sounding pedals that, ideally, each
have just a knob or two.
Maybe the synth-heads are in a whole different headspace though.
enneff wrote 1 day ago:
Thereâs definitely a thing in music, as in computing, or golfing,
or whatever, where some people are more into the gear than the actual
practice of doing the thing. Modular synths are a great outlet for
those kinds of people.
I have a modest Eurorack setup and a few other synths and I find them
a nice way to get into music making without looking at a computer.
Itâs nice to have a limited set of options, rather than a near
infinite set of software plugins and presets. My gear can only make a
certain number of sounds at once, and thatâs it. The liberty of
constraints.
When I get serious about a music project I inevitably end up working
in a computer DAW but I often donât find that an inspiring place to
start.
mrandish wrote 1 day ago:
> I haven't been sucked into the Eurorack thing though
I'm the same. I love playing around with making electronic music on a
hobby level and I find the idea and look of modular synths appealing
- and I'm also a pushover for most retro things, especially those
with cool knobs and blinkenlights. However, if I'm honest, I don't
really enjoy creating music with modular or vintage analog "knobby"
synths. I haven't ever bought a modular rig and my vintage analog
synths are lovingly packed away with my numerous retro Amiga, Atari
and Commodore computers where they wait to be enjoyed in limited
doses on special occasions.
So, to address your implied question, IMHO I don't think people like
us are somehow "missing" something deep and great in modular synths.
To me, the essence of the modular appeal is three things: 1) tactile
feedback that's responsively immediate, 2) a set of compatible 'lego
block' components which can be combined in creative ways, and 3) An
element of randomness from the combined interactions on analog
components.
While modular rigs offer all three of those things, having those
three together doesn't require analog hardware or a dedicated modular
rig. I think I can get a very similar creative feeling and joy of
discovery (plus a smidge of randomness) from the right combination of
high-quality MIDI control surfaces and a well-chosen set of synth
plug-ins running on a computer. To be sure, some MIDI control
surfaces are crap and not all synth plug-ins enable creative
experimentation deep enough and easy enough to 'scratch that itch'.
But, then again, it's possible to assemble an ill-conceived modular
rig out of poor quality components that also fails to inspire
creativity. While finding that unique balance of factors sufficient
to trigger creative serendipity isn't trivial with either analog
hardware or digital MIDI + plug-ins, to me the advantages of digital
in cost, size, speed, repeatability and flexibility win out.
I guess it's possible there's some other essential element which
analog modular rigs provide that I'm missing out on but if so, I
haven't been able to discover what it is.
rapjr9 wrote 1 day ago:
Some people want to try new ideas that you can't buy ready made in
a commercial synth or effects pedal. For example, trying unusual
modulations, feedback loops, and signal dependent effects
depth/parameters. Without a Eurorack you have to build a custom
circuit to try it. With a Eurorack you can plug in some patch
cables and quickly try it out. Think of a Eurorack synth module
like a math symbol, you can assemble them to create an equation
that produces sound. It's actually very much like an analog
computer, where you can write an equation and implement it in
hardware. It is literally possible to write equations and see what
they sound like. You can do the same thing with something like VCV
Rack though it's somewhat more difficult since to get physical
controls you have to map midi controllers and may need a lot of
midi controllers, which probably means manually labeling all the
controls so you can tell what they do. In a Eurorack module each
control, input, and output is already somewhat usefully labeled and
defined by the module it is part of. So for some sound designers
Eurorack systems are sophisticated sound design tools. You might
use one to design a new kind of guitar effects pedal or to create a
custom tweak on a specific sound in a movie soundtrack. Not that
you can't just play with them without a coherent design in mind
also, just to see what turns up.
mrandish wrote 1 day ago:
Thanks for explaining the unique value you find in analog modular
hardware.
> With a Eurorack you can plug in some patch cables and quickly
try it out.
I'm curious if it's possible to do the same kind of modular
interconnection with virtual analog plug-ins like Kontakt or
Cycling '74? I've played around with Kontakt and it seems
enormously capable and able to hook up operators and simple
circuits almost down to the level of math symbols. I haven't
played with Cycling or similar DSP environments but my
understanding is they're literally programmable down to that
level.
To be clear, I'm asking because I really don't know. I have a
vintage Prophet 5 and the best DSP emulations seem to emulate it
perfectly but with even more flexibility, extensibility,
repeatability and no need to avoid oscillator drift or clean
dirty pots :-). But I'm also not a serious synthesist or sound
designer and I don't pretend to have golden ears. I guess at a
certain point it may be quicker and easier to just wire up
modules rather than assemble code modules in Kontakt, Cycling or
some other DSP environment (assuming you have the right hardware
modules on hand). But once you have to order or solder up
different modules, I assume the plus sign swings to the software
side again? Once again, not questioning the value you get from
what's clearly working for you. Just interested to understand. As
I said, maybe I am missing something. It might be that it's just
something I don't personally care too much about for my needs, so
it's all good.
c0nsumer wrote 1 day ago:
For me I pretty quickly realized that I like synths to make sounds,
or maybe a bit of programming (with wires!) to make an electronic
music box.
But making songs? Just not for me... And that's a whole different
thing.
malthaus wrote 1 day ago:
i'm happy someone is considering new physical ideas/approaches at
least as i find the trend in recent years of basically putting full
"computers" into eurorack modules ridiculous. not just raspberry pi's
behind a eurorack plate but with full configurability / user
interfaces.
the release of the 4ms meta module was when i decided to be happy
with what i have because it's becoming an unironic misguided
circlejerk of sorts
kgwxd wrote 1 day ago:
I got sucked into it a little over a year ago, it's starting to wear
a bit thin for me already though.
> I sense there are a lot of enthusiasts that do a lot more tinkering
than actually playing them
It's called "sound design" :) Can't start on a song until the timbre
of my never-quite-done-this-way-before saw tooth bass is juuuuuuust
right.
m_kos wrote 1 day ago:
Don't get sucked into modular hardware synths. They are TONS of fun,
but it is a very expensive hobby. Monotrail Tech Talk has a few
excellent videos on YouTube, but he must have spent a fortune on his
gear.
2mlWQbCK wrote 2 days ago:
My favorite documentary I have not seen (yet), I Dream of Wires from
2013, about modular synthesizers. I know in some trailer there was a
maker of modules saying something to the effect that if only people
actually making music with their synths bought modules he would be
out of business. Can't find that trailer now or I did not watch
carefully enough now. There are a few different ones on youtube.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQSxqha62j0
chabes wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm pretty sure the person who said that quote about
non-professional musicians who purchase Eurorack modules was Paul
Schreiber, who passed away about a month ago.
Gonna look it up, and Iâll edit this post when I find out.
Edit 1: Didnât find the quote from the film yet, but did find
[1]this video (unedited interview from I Dream of Wires) where Paul
explains how he himself is not a musician, but rather an engineer.
[1]
Edit 2: Still havenât found it.
I have the film at home, but Iâm traveling in Europe at the
moment, so it is out of reach for me currently.
URI [1]: https://youtu.be/6ixv4F4XD4Y
geerlingguy wrote 2 days ago:
Watch some episodes of LOOK MUM NO COMPUTER for an example of the
kind of tinkering/creativity some people at least love to have
available in the physical realm: [1] A lot of the music is made just
playing with different parts of the sound, and having all the
controls exposed to be messed with can lead to more creativity.
IMO, kind of like how I enjoy Linux configuration files, in a way,
more than I do a GUI that covers up 90% of the guts of an application
or server software.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCafxR2HWJRmMfSdyZXvZMTw
butlike wrote 2 days ago:
The knobs tend to be the "public API" and the patch cables the wiring
up of the functionality to that public API. having a knob for each
patch is akin to making every method 'public' instead of protected or
private.
ericwood wrote 2 days ago:
> Like a few good sounding pedals that, ideally, each have just a
knob or two.
It makes for a nice narrative but I haven't found it holds much
water; musicians are all over the place on this spectrum. You'll find
both extremes very well represented, and a good chunk of people who
compartmentalize their "dayjob" music and tinkering. I've found a lot
of successful musicians love to tinker and are always on the search
for new inspiration. Like any good craftsperson they take some amount
of pride in their tools and I've been blown away by how technical
many can get on the electronics side! It's always funny to see Reverb
auctions go up for famous musicians and finding out a bassist in a
pop punk band owns a bunch of weird synthesizers :)
Simple one to two knob pedals are a big deal but you'll see a very
large number of pros touring with extremely complicated modeling
setups and all sorts of gadgets. At a certain point you really know
what you want, and having the ability to dial that in is important! I
tend to gravitate towards simplicity in a band setting but I know a
lot of people who want dirt pedals with 10 knobs so they can dial in
the sounds they hear in their heads.
robotresearcher wrote 1 day ago:
I swing bimodal on this. For a while I enjoy the most exotic
modular patches and loaded pedalboard. Then for months I am all
about piano and acoustic guitar, as vanilla as can be.
Itâs all so deep Iâm not going run out of fun in any mode.
tricky wrote 1 day ago:
I'm the same on the guitar side. I'll go weeks using a fractal
fm9 straight into the PA. it's like playing through a computer
which is awesome. however...
I'll get real sick of the complexity and go back to my cranked
tube amp and one overdrive pedal.
If I had to choose one, I couldn't.
ericwood wrote 1 day ago:
100%, there's weeks I just plug straight into an amp because that
feels right! At the end of the day it's great to have options.
butlike wrote 2 days ago:
Your pedal board/modular synth is a reflection of your personality.
ericwood wrote 2 days ago:
Just like real life I have a tidy put together functional board,
then a disturbing spaghetti mess tucked away in a corner that few
are allowed to see
bondarchuk wrote 2 days ago:
Maybe they are tinkering, but sounds still come out while they are
tinkering. So maybe they're playing music after all? The idea that if
you're not recording and releasing tracks you're doing it "wrong" is
a bit silly IMO. Just strumming a guitar or playing some chords on a
piano without recording any of it was always an "acceptable" hobby
and not considered "unmusical", playing with synths and sequencers is
no different IMO.
JKCalhoun wrote 2 days ago:
You're right. Someone's hobby could be "noodling" â with a
guitar, synth, etc.
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
> It's interesting. I haven't been sucked into the Eurorack thing
though â do people want not just patch cables all over their mixing
desk but knobs as well?
I don't personally feel the need of wanting more cables all over my
current setup, but sometimes I have had the feeling of "Oh if I could
just modulate the VCF Cutoff on my Zen Delay with a patch cable from
my modular instead of doing it manually" for some of the desktop
units I have next to the modular.
And on the other side, I've also felt the need of having some of the
patch holes replaced by knobs, so I could just twist and turn it to
evaluate if I want to modulate it, instead of having to actually
setup the patch. I could see something like this knob-idea being very
useful for that, basically prototyping patches.
> I sense there are a lot of enthusiasts that do a lot more tinkering
This is definitely true, large parts of the community is about
tinkering more than making music. But the same is true for
programming, large parts of the community is not about problem
solving, but coding. That's fine, we all have different motivations
:)
What I found really useful (for myself at least) is to try to connect
with people who are artists first, who just happen to be using
modular synths, rather than finding people tinkering with modular
synths who don't actually produce/perform music.
> I haven't been sucked into the Eurorack thing though
Good for you :) A friend pulled me into this dark abyss a month ago.
Lots of fun, so many distractions, but lots of fun. Helps that
Barcelona (where I live) have a lively community around modular
synths as well. It is expensive though, and VCVRack doesn't come
close to providing the same experience.
semi-extrinsic wrote 1 day ago:
> And on the other side, I've also felt the need of having some of
the patch holes replaced by knobs, so I could just twist and turn
it to evaluate if I want to modulate it, instead of having to
actually setup the patch.
That could be an interesting spin on this idea. A freestanding PCB
with a jack plug on the back and a knob on the front. Turn the
knob, and the jack sends CV accordingly. Maybe with a velcro based
system to have the PCB stay still while you twiddle the knob.
tym0 wrote 2 days ago:
It's somewhat similar to people enjoying developing their game engine
more than their game in my experience.
Provably why in attracted to it despite having little musical talent
:)
Fredkin wrote 2 days ago:
Site doesn't load: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG
bondarchuk wrote 2 days ago:
>It's a nice dream, of a synthesizer where any knob can be pulled out
and replaced with a patch cable, and any jack can have a knob plugged
into it to set it to a fixed value.
What's even better, though, is a coupled knob + jack where the knob
turns into an attenuator for the input when a cable is plugged in, and
works as a standalone knob otherwise. I think this is quite a common
design.
I believe I've also seen patch cables with built-in attenuators.
enneff wrote 1 day ago:
This is why I really like Intellijelâs designs. They generally have
attenuators on the inputs for which it makes sense, and those
attenuators are the small stick knobs. While they use larger knobs
for more central module functions.
Eg:
URI [1]: https://intellijel.com/downloads/manuals/rubicon_manual.pdf
malthaus wrote 1 day ago:
the smartest pattern is used in mutable instruments beads, the
"attenurandomizers"
it packs a ridiculous amount of functionality into a single plug &
knob combo
kennywinker wrote 2 days ago:
Another common pattern is jack + offset. The most useful is when you
have jack + offset + attenuator⦠but most modules pick one or the
other for space reasons.
robotresearcher wrote 1 day ago:
The attenuator-inverter is super handy too. A gain knob that goes
from -1 to +1 X.
wbl wrote 23 hours 16 min ago:
That's a neat trick. Only way I can think of to do it involves
two op amp buffers, one inverting one not and take the signal
from the wiper.
BlandDuck wrote 1 day ago:
Totally. Also, an attenuator is easier and cheaper to implement,
because it just requires normalizing V+ into the jack plug. An
offset requires an adder.
My preference is: attenuator < offset < attenuator + offset. I see
no benefit of having to remove the knob to get to the jack as
proposed in the article.
nine_k wrote 1 day ago:
The benefit is saving space. Imagine a 10x10 grid of such jack /
knob inputs.
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
Interesting idea for sure, but how is the feel of actually turning the
knob? Seems to offer short to no resistance, which would make fast but
precise movements pretty hard, something that is important for things
like performances.
What would be a huge bonus point (but maybe unrealistic? I don't quite
understand how the current implementation actually works) would be
software-configurable resistance (physical, not electrical). I've spent
a lot of time for my DIY modules to find the right knobs, or the right
process to adjust the resistance of my existing knobs, being able to
control that digitally could introduce a whole new level of fun.
mrandish wrote 1 day ago:
> the right process to adjust the resistance of my existing knobs
I too have "a thing" about the feel of tactile control elements
ranging from the tensioning of knobs and joysticks to the dampening
on sliders, the force on my emulation arcade cabinet buttons and, of
course, the keyswitches, o-rings and lube on my computer mechanical
keyboards.
However, I don't really feel a need for software control of the
tensioning feel. For example, I have a few different high-end
dual-joystick radio control transmitters for RC aircraft. These have
fairly pricey hall effect joystick mechanisms and the good ones have
a tensioning adjustment for each axis on the bottom. Whether on these
RC transmitters, my arcade cabinet or high-end console game
controllers I find it's sufficient to simply set the tensioning to my
preferences once and I don't feel the need to change it again.
So for the EuroKnob, I agree having no tensioning would be pretty
awful - as there's little worse than a floppily loose knob wiggling
about - but for me a simple friction-based drag adjustment would be
fine.
scottapotamas wrote 2 days ago:
You might enjoy [1] The complexity of this approach (ignoring the
display and flair) unfortunately means you wonât see this used too
often due to cost.
URI [1]: https://github.com/scottbez1/smartknob
hinkley wrote 21 hours 49 min ago:
This is what cars need. Only make the entire dial depressable
instead of the embedded screen. Use different haptics for each
setting so you can feel which setting youâre changing.
weinzierl wrote 2 days ago:
My dream is a piano keyboard with entirely software controlled
mechanical key response. Every key individually mounted on a
servostepper. As a bonus it could be used as a fake player piano.
Or for practice you could make the wrong keys hard to press.
Endless possibilities.
vhcr wrote 1 day ago:
The Yamaha Disklavier has solenoids on every key, so you could
disable every key but the one you want by moving them downwards.
It already has a similar feature called SmartKey:
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_Qj33POZCyA
adamgordonbell wrote 2 days ago:
> Or for practice you could make the wrong keys hard to press.
This seems like a pretty cool idea
tarentel wrote 2 days ago:
I'm not convinced it would work very well on making you a
better player but who knows. Either way, it sounds like a good
way to injure yourself. Piano is a very percussive instrument
and if you're hitting the keys with any force and they don't
give the way you expect them to I imagine that won't be very
great for your joints.
Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote 2 days ago:
Great idea and Iâm shocked this doesnât exist.
robotresearcher wrote 1 day ago:
It would likely be very, very expensive.
A compromise that is affordable and does exist is programmable
response curves to key velocity and aftertouch pressure. It can
make sense to have different curves for eg. piano vs
harpsichord even if you canât change the mechanical key
impedance.
I havenât seen it in the wild, but using this you could make
the wrong notes quieter/louder or even play a different sound.
But I think we all know when we play a wrong note, so the
utility might be small.
mrandish wrote 1 day ago:
> key velocity and aftertouch pressure.
Just a tangential note to say whenever I see these terms in
discussion of MIDI keyboards it reminds me how disappointed I
am the vast majority of MIDI controller (and multi-thousand
dollar flagship synth) keyboards still don't fully support
per note velocity or polyphonic aftertouch. It's only been 40
years kids... (sigh).
otabdeveloper4 wrote 1 day ago:
Not really needed. A synthesizer is not a piano, it's
essentially a wind instrument.
adolph wrote 2 days ago:
A differently complex and smaller approach might be to combine the
knob with with an axial flux PCB-BLDC, like what Carl Bugeja made
[0, 1]. It might be suited to get haptics in something as small as
the article's knob, although to get an in-built display you'd have
to use one of those displays that fit in lego bricks [2, 3] with a
slip-ring.
0. [1] 1. [2] 2. [3] 3.
URI [1]: https://microbots.io/products/motorcell
URI [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVszJMlvZcA
URI [3]: https://github.com/AncientJames/uGrey
URI [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pUV_3qeHog
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
Many thanks for the links/references. I don't really care about
the display itself (probably prefer without it actually), but
never saw those other links before, interesting stuff.
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
That's so cool on so many levels, and I really enjoyed that indeed,
now I have to fight the urge to try to build it myself, good thing
it's weekend.
However, it does seem to miss the single most useful feature (for
me) which is the resistance part. I understand there is a DC motor
controlling the snap points and whatnot, but what I'd like is
constant resistance I guess, to a configurable level, rather than
snapping to specific points and such.
I don't think it would be possible to hack on top of the already
made hardware, but didn't seem like it was already done in the
software side of things, although I did skim through things so
maybe I missed it.
pakue wrote 2 days ago:
Should be doable to add that. The BLDC needs to add a
proportional (or any other function) force against the rotation
direction until it reaches 0.
diggan wrote 2 days ago:
Sounds reasonable, wonder how that would actually feel in real
life? As far as I understand, this would pass through digital
parts, adding a little bit of (maybe noticeable) latency, but I
wonder if the latency gets high enough for it to be a bit
jarring that the resistance is dynamically changing as you
apply torque.
camtarn wrote 1 day ago:
In practice, when latency is small enough (on the ~1ms level,
which is trivial to achieve using even pretty cheap parts)
it's imperceptible.
I sometimes develop control loops for prototype systems which
use a motor to emulate a combination of spring + friction
damper, and even though I know that my code only runs every
1ms, it's really remarkable how much it feels like a real
continuous analogue system.
Another good example is power steering, which uses a motor to
remove resistance instead of add it. If I understand it
correctly, it senses you applying torque to the steering
column and adds proportional amounts of boost - but because
it happens so fast, it just feels like the steering is
magically lighter.
scottapotamas wrote 2 days ago:
This is all fairly normal in robotics, under a subset of
(slightly overloaded naming sorry) âimpedance controlâ
itomato wrote 2 days ago:
Iâm just waiting for the Eurorack Boombox revolution to hit.
DIR <- back to front page