Consider modules that had no jacks, but instead LED readouts indicating a buss and up/down buttons to select that buss.
One could patch several modules to the same buss and it would be like multing or mixing.
Said modular could have, say, 99 busses, which is more than most people have in patchcords.
With this type of design, the patching could easily be remembered and recalled.
If the controls were also digitized, the entire patch could be programmable.
I know this wouldn’t work so well when trying to interface with other modulars, but it’s an idea I’ve had for some time and I can’t see any real problems with it.
I don’t see why not. I know software like Reason, Nintendo/ Korg DS-10 and such have virtual patching. The Little Phatty has extra sub-menu options in the LFO.
If done right I’m sure it could easily be more user friendly than modular patchbays. (like rgb leds that could change colors and would quickly show where patchpoints were.)
Is the allure of a modular the patching or the DIY or ability to mix & match?
At the least, if it were all internal, there would be no need to burnish/ clean jacks periodically.
I am curious, and now will preemptively start saving.
Or what about just a digital patch bay for existing systems. Every patch could be multed, routed anywhere, and saved. The digital patchbays out there for studio systems are not really adequate for modulars. And you could easily interface with other systems.
Sounds EML or 2500ish. It is a good idea for those who don’t mind a set group of modules. For those of us who change the modules depending on needs, it doesn’t seem flexible enough. I do something similar for live performance with a Yamaha programmable matrix switcher.
I envisioned it as a modular that one could move around modules in and out.
No hard numbering for each module, but instead dynamically allocated buss numbers assigned as needed.
The touchscreen idea would be cool too.
Each module could have one of those matrixed signal switching ICs that are available.
(for those unfamiliar, these ICs are just like a Synthi AKS’s patch board. Like the game Battleship.)
Plugging in a module would just hook up it up to common busses, much like a 2500 module does.
Each module could send an ID code too and the touchscreen could show a facsimile module in a certain location.
Additional cases with an expansion connector could be recognized too.
Still, I agree that modulars look wicked with patchcords strewn.
It wouldn’t be the same if a screen showed this.
Just another opinion from here. I’ve got a Nord G1 and the interface is just too ‘virtual’ for me. Even with the drawn patchcords. All I really use it for is to duplicate background patches for use live. It allows me time to patch and repatch the modular for the main source.
What about an interface that used different shapes and sizes in blocks? Kinda like that Teac thing that Bob demonstrated once. Then expand on that concept and make new routings by stacking the various blocks? There are a lot of possibilities with such an interface.
Something that would be cool with a system like this would be sequenced/clocked routing. Can you imagine having a patch that would be able to switch a filter’s input from a saw to square to a ring mod signal? All under a variable clocked rate control. The possibilities there are very interesting. Extra points if the routings could fade at selectable rates, so that a morphing effect could be had.
It seems to me that virtual patching is best realized in software. Why go to the effort and expense of creating new alternate physical patching paradigms? The modular market is about people wanting the original paradigm.
Not according to Buchla. If I had the knowledge and resources (read: money and brains), I would be experimenting on digital controls for patching a compact and portable modular synth. I think Kevin’s idea is great! Mine is just a product of my imagination.
