When I'm not making Mutants... I'm making Monsters!

Well, hello there! I’ve been putting some more modules together, unlike the Mutants these are originals. The first 3 I present are Hydra, Gegenees and a Monsters Blank.

Hydra is an 8 to 1 switch, Gegenees is a 1 to 8 switch and the blank is… glowy.

How are the switches different?

  • Don’t compromise! Need a switch that resets to the first step (like, say, Seq-3)? We got you covered! Need a switch that resets to “wait for clock” or “no step” (like the Count Modula ones?) We got you covered as well! The option is just a single click away.
  • Ever wanted a switch with random step selection that doesn’t repeat the same step consecutively? (I did!) These Monsters do that as well!
  • Embrace the nostalgia of taking halci… having some fun at the pinball arcade with their pinball inspired UIs.
  • Statistics inclined? These monsters use Melissa O’Neill’s MIT licensed PCG library for random number generation. The PCG library is statistically sound, fast and compact, unlike, say the Mersenne Twister I’ve seen used in some modules that love gorging on the CPU. (N.B. If you enable the option to not repeat the same value consecutively when randomizing, the lovely flat distribution curve gets, ostensibly, bumpy).
  • Like clicking or using those light up MIDI pads? If it looks like a button… it is clickable: select any step directly and trigger everything by hand if that is your desire.
  • Love those big, fat polyphonic cables? The inputs and outputs cater to you.
  • Love reading? We have an extensive manual.

Want your rack to look sleek? Put a vampire with our glowing “Monsters” logo on your Rack to protect it from dust in one of those inconvenient empty spaces.

The release can be found here:


My “Arpeggiator” uses Mersenne twister. Works great for me, but I do use my own code for “no repeat”. If you only use at at most when the clock goes high, then does it really matter how much CPU is uses (within reason)?

Didn’t know about your arpeggiator. That said: I used (and loved) Mersenne Twister for quite a few applications (I like making games…for DOS… and dice rollers) then I started finding out about both its failures and inefficiencies. That’s how I got to PCG. I took it for a few spins and when compared to my then beloved Mersenne Twister… it danced around it performance wise. Making good RNGs is not an easy task. Perhaps you would like to check PCG out sometime and fall in love with it too. It’s really, really easy to use.

I would only use something not built into the runtime if it had an advantage in my use. I don’t think I have a use where I would make a random number often enough for it to make a difference. I guess if you were calling it for every sample, but I don’t think I would ever do that?

All righty then :slight_smile:

1 Like