+1
at large, there’s some redundancy in the huge VCV library, but a surprising amount of modules are there to be used. For instance, for sequencing chains of discrete changes (a song’s structure, chord progressions that aren’t looping), have a look at Mindmeld’s Shapemaster.
This is the one single module that I urge everyone to learn in depth, it’s incredible. Then, buy the Pro version.
I know I often use a mixer with cv control to arrange. I may have A and B sections playing together and have something like BogAudio PGMR send cv to turn up or down channels of a mixer like MixMaster. I may send a divided click to PGMR and put it in charge of when things happen.
Thanks for your answers. Further Input allways Welcome, specially this chaining and logic thing, that make feel me stupid or the modules are really bugged. Even the fates flip flop sound weird. I also own the Shapemaster and know the capability of making a full song structure including automation and everything. This fundamntal project is just a pesonal challenge and study. I have all elements ready and even a very basic “Mastering chain”. The last “tiny” part is the hardest: An easy structured arrangement. If I get it done someday, it would maybe be at least a little profe of concept. The idea with an cv controlled Mixer arrangement seems “doable”. I will try this maybe wifth wavetable lfos…That could be less pain i the a… because I still have to learn a lot with voltages… Thanks
Navigator by JPLab might interest you for a counter, you can divide a clock and use diff divisions per step, this can advance 2 channels of CV and 2 gate ouputs, I sometimes use this as an arranger/event starter. It even accepts 2 clocks and you can choose between them per step also. Makes for more complexity in arranging with little fuss in patching. It may still have the clock inputs reversed, a small bug that the designer knows about.
Honestly, the quick answer here is buy VCV Pro and arrange in a DAW. I may be in a minority, but I think standalone Rack is terrible for producing finished songs with proper musical structure. I can understand that some people like the challenge of chaining different sequencers together and designing complicated logic, and I’ve done that ro an extent before, but it’s just not my thing. If you don’t want to spend the money, try Cardinal which runs as a VST plugin for free (but with fewer modules and no library). I never finish anything with a musical structure so it’s not an issue for me, I just make wierd sounds and fade things in and out!
I have the Pro Version and I also have DAWs (Ableton, Bitwig and Cubase). I know the difference but to get deeper into this modular thing, it’s somehow necesssary to really start making Music with it and not just Sounds. It’s just a personal challenge.
ML audio has a 8 step switch. I know there are more.
Computerscare has soly pequencer. Never used it but it would appear that by merging all your switch inputs with vcv merge and feeding that into the soly pequencer, you would get a 16 step sequential switch…
But basically, if you go with the “sequential switch” method, you can just use a switch with many inputs, and sequence the triggers to advance.
If you want to get more meta, have a clock drive trigger sequencers for each part via unique sequential switches. Use another trigger sequencer to send reset pulse to restart and sync all switches to 1. Hope that is helpful.
Before I got the Pro version, I struggled with the same concept of arrangement within Rack itself. So I turned to trigger sequencers running on a divided clock. Here is an example of a patch driven completely by a sequencer, each trigger starts or stops a passage, or instrument:
Its a crappy old patch, but the concept is there. These days I prefer to “play” a patch, than to plan out when what must happen. Or I automate it all in a DAW. But that seems to take the magic away.
Have fun exploring. . .
For me modular is more connected to the concept of creating instruments, not a daw or any other arrangement tool. Trying to have an instrument behave like one, is bound to some (unmusical) limitations. Where as when you treat it as an instrument, it means you have to master creating a sound first in order to do anything musical with it.
The only exception I found in this, is the generative genre, where the patch runs on itself. But still it is me who decides if it is musical what it generates, and if not, I alter it or connect controllers to it and play it live.
My point is that trying to make modular do something for which it is not best equipped for, can be rather exhausting. You can learn how to cook with a brush, but it won’t make you a better painter.
I use modular as a live tool (with dedicated controllers and/or as an effect), or I record the sounds and put it into a musical context after.
Everyone has a diff approach. I like Big clock driven Rube Goldberg machines of triggers, gates, and voltage. Making events happen and linking one event with another is a joy to me. I will tinker many hours to perfect a self playing patch that has many twists and turns and surprises. But then I have that to add more instruments or vocals, but at its core often a completely arranged in VCV track that holds it all together. I don’t get the same thrill of accomplishment in Ableton, something about DAWS leaves me cold. I treat it like multitrack tape machine and do my initial planning in VCV.
Yeah I get that and you are right ofcourse.
I only wanted to show that “just making sounds” is a great start to get them into “sounds that inspire to make music”. I do not think inventing a linking system is the fastest way for this. Instead actually diving deeper into into the sound itself, will give more satisfying results I believe. Connecting the dots is easy when the dot has a character so to speak 
But each to his/her own ofcourse!
For a simple expandable sequencer, there’s always Bogaudio’s ADDR-SEQ and the ASX expander. With 22 of the ASX modules you can get up to 184 steps in total. Simply add them to the immediate right with no gaps to hook them up.
Cool idea thanks
Not to pour any cold water on this feature, I love the feature and use it a lot, but if you string more than 4-5 of these together and close the patch and reopen, it is basically a coin toss if it will recognize all the expanders on the open and you may have to drag and reconnect them somewhere in the chain to get them all flowing together again. Easy way to tell is hover over the Steps knob and see how many steps are actually connected. PGMR has the sickness as well, too may chained and you have to check patch on reopen.
I thought this was fixed ?
I think this was fixed. But, I never did any testing to confirm. I’m not a fan of ADDR-SEQ. It is probably great module, but I always have to fight it to get it to do what I want and to confirm that it is still doing the same the next time I open it. My opinion may be outdated though.
You just need a sequential switch triggered by a clock divider. That is the classic way to arrange and “count” in modular.
It may be, but I’m sure I have seen this behavior since those dates.
