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.
Eg: https://intellijel.com/downloads/manuals/rubicon_manual.pdf
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.
it packs a ridiculous amount of functionality into a single plug & knob combo
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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'.
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.
The complexity of this approach (ignoring the display and flair) unfortunately means you won’t see this used too often due to cost.
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.
0. https://microbots.io/products/motorcell
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVszJMlvZcA
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.
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
it ends with:
The king wisely had the engineer beheaded, and they all lived happily ever.
Yes, several. For example, the main knob on the Komplete Kontrol S-series MIDI controllers (https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/keyb...) 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! :-)
There is something satisfying in noticing the same solution applied to problems in different domains, like audio, medicine, and aviation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s all so deep I’m not going run out of fun in any mode.
Gonna look it up, and I’ll edit this post when I find out.
Edit 1: Didn’t 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] https://youtu.be/6ixv4F4XD4Y
Edit 2: Still haven’t found it.
I have the film at home, but I’m traveling in Europe at the moment, so it is out of reach for me currently.
> 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.
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.
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.
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. It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t find that an inspiring place to start.
But making songs? Just not for me... And that's a whole different thing.
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
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. https://mitxela.com/projects/flash_synth
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.
> 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 :)
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..
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 worlds— maximum space, an intuitive interface, and attenuators if you so choose to have them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When a laptop can simulate anything, the physicality of the interface is most of the attraction, so might as well go all the way...
In my design, I wouldn't say the state is hidden though—that'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...
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.
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.
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?
Can't wait for the y-combinator module.
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?
E
W E
M
O
S