I love a lot of VCV Rack modules, but I kind of realized today that I think among the top five of mine is Impromptu “Clocked”. In my humble small Euro Rack collection of Modules, It occurred to me today that I would LOVE to have a hardware module like this. Is there any particular Eurorack “Clock” module that most closely resembles this functionality?
Thanks for the kind words regarding Clocked, many hours went into making that module I have heard a few people compare it loosely to Pam’s New Workout; the Pam has more features I believe, but with its compact HP, they may not be as visible as in Clocked. Good luck!
@marc_boule It seriously annoys me there’s no Impromptu irl Thank you.
Wow! You answered my question! “Pam’s New Workout” looks close to what I’m looking for! I think my favorite Knobs on your virtual module are those Swing, PW and Delay knobs… I marvel at the Fantastic ways I am able to transform the feel of a rhythm with those knobs. I’m sure you have at least considered it… but I bet if you managed to manufacture a hardware version of “clocked” … they would sell like hotcakes!
Finally arrived is the time where people ask for eurorack modules that behaves like vcv modules instead of the opposite!
Trust me, the day Geodesics arrive in eurorack format i’m getting a case !
I’m no Electronics guy… but I wonder… Is it harder to reverse engineer a physical module, or vice versa?
I guess it depends on whether the physical module is digital? If you compare Plaits and Audible Instruments Macro Oscillator 2 Plaits is obviously harder because you have the hard and the soft to figure out rather than just the soft.
@modlfo was the first to release a Hardware version of a rack module (his freak filter). Maybe he can answer you
Well, we are inquiring to maybe one day go hardware with Geodesics… The non obvious (to me) thing is: Yes you can make a digital module works exactly like your code in VCV but, if you make a digital module, you need a lot of A/D converter: every CV input, every knob movment needs to be converted in digital
The complexity depends on the function. There are functions that are easy to emulate in software, others are easier in hardware.
In software we are almost unconstrained. We can add as many inputs and outputs as needed and some operations are trivial, like multiplications, additions, S&H, VCA. On the other side, emulating analog behaviour is complex. Something that can be done in hardware with a few electronic components can be very difficult in software and it can consume a lot of CPU. That’s the main problem of going from existing hardware to software.
Going from software to hardware can be difficult as well. If a software module has too many inputs, outputs or knobs, getting that on hardware can be unfeasible or just expensive. To give you an example, I’m working on making a Vult Caudal real module. The problem with this one is that it requires many analog outputs (8 to 12). Driving that many outputs is costly because it requires a powerful microprocessor and several DACs. Other problem is that many modules are not designed to be real. For example, the separations between the knobs or jacks is not enough to let the fingers in, or they use components that do not exists in hardware.
That’s why for most of my modules I stick to designs that could exists in hardware and software.
Could a Branes be analog? I don’t know what a noise circuit looks like, tho…
I just can’t imagine how people cope without one in their real racks.
I recently bought the Vult Quincunx and Dopamine modules and if they ever came out in hardware I’d snap them up immediately. Quincunx is amazing for breakbeats paired with topograph.
Could you do Quincunx easily in hardware?
I designed Quincunx and Dopamine to be easily converted to hardware
I need to finish a few things before I start designing the electronics.
I will be sure to buy the hardware model when it comes out along with a Grids… It’s indispensable!
I can’t remember who this was (sorry!!), but when I got into Rack I read a blog post of a module author walking through his latest VCV creation, and what they did was they actually prototyped it first on a breadboard, and once they were happy with the result, signal paths, functions, etc, sat down and translated all of these into VCV.
That VCV provided a framework that enabled module designers to do this blew my tiny mind.
I could be wrong but i’m fairly sure that was the Vult guy (@modlfo). He’s the only one i can think of whos done that.
Probably this was what you saw (check the bottom of the page) https://modlfo.github.io/VultModules/vorg/
Branes would be our first quandidate for a hardware port, but has Leonardo said, 18 in and 14 out… You’ll need converter a/d and d/a converter behind each jack… And a processor to make them run… And that can handle 14 different noises sources at the same time. Another question is the noise, should it be digital or analogue? I understood that it would be better to have it analogue… Also it have to be adapted to eurorack environment: what do you do with 14 sh? You won’t send it 14 quantizers or 14 slew… So maybe the hardware version should have an internal quantizers and slew, and a way to edit them…
On the good news, it’s great to go with vcv because we can understand how the composer’s use the module: we noticed that the sh inputs are almost never used, so the hardware design( if it ever exists) will loose most of them