New from Oxi this looks like a fun performance tool:
Included FX scenes are:
SPACE
Two kinds of Reverbs:
· Classic long-tail reverb with tone and filter control.
· Experimental reverb from shimmery to deep/black-hole textures.
RISER
Two kinds of Risers:
· A high pass filter with reverb and noise build up.
· A high pass filter with reverb and Shepard Tone style build up.
FILTER
A DJ-style low pass and high pass filter with resonance control.
LOOP
A Looper and Reverse Looper / beat-repeat. Synced to tempo.
DELAY
A Clocked Delay with Reverb Wash and HP/LP Filter.
GATER
Two effects in one knob including:
· A Gater with time division control and built-in High Pass filter.
· A snare roll build-up with reverb and built-in High Pass filter.
I am not going to knock the people at OXI, they are putting out product that people like, and it seems well-designed. But this and Coral both feel somewhat anti-modular to me. Meta is designed for easy playability, with the coarse/fine macro knobs and off button. But it cannot be programmed; it’s a prepackaged set of effects, with only one CV input.
Modular doesn’t have to be all things to all people, though, and there is clearly a trend of modules like this (those from Knobula, for example). My only concern is for beginners who might be tempted into just moving slightly from what they are used to from standalone devices, at considerable cost, rather than taking a larger step into the more constructive middle of the field (which, to be honest, many of them probably should not do in the first place).
I got rid of a lot of modules and now only have my Vector sequencer, an XAOC Sofia and a Coral…with a few envelopes, LFO’s, etc.
I love the Coral. Multitimbral, using it for percussion and a few voices, has some CV in for LFO’s. Saves me lots of money over having 3-4 separate voices like I used to have and after loving patching for a few years, I’m more tired of doing it each time I want to set up new sounds, so having one main sound source for a multitude of sounds is great for this old dude.
Expressed as concern but IMHO it sounds a little bit like gatekeeping.
First of all, Eurorack is a commodity, if you have the money, spend it as you please (within moral limits ofc).
Second, I think Eurorack’s origin as patch program instrument is no longer exclusive, and that’s ok. As Eurorack evolved, there were many ideas and forms that one rack could take, and there’s no better or worst approach, only the goal that each person wants to achieve (even if the goal it’s being cooler and look nice with a rack, that’s ok too, unless people pay modules with rent money they don’t have, that’s irresponsible).
I’m extremely lucky to have 2 racks, one for patch programming and another for live performances and they are quite opposite. The live rack has grown to be closer to what a groovebox could be, pre patched (muscle memory is fun), coolest controllers in town, lots of effects, sequencers, voices and still, I cannot have anything remotely close with non Eurorack gear (maybe a van worth of standalone gear?).
Meta fills a role for these types of cases, it does what a full rack filled with effects and macros would do in 6HP. Is it less versatile than a full rack filled with effects? Yes. Does people that go into modular HAVE to avoid modules like Meta, Knobula offerings, or modules with MIDI input? Absolutely not.
No gatekeeping intended. I tried to qualify and balance my statements. As an educator, I gravitate towards more general tools.
Coral and Meta make sense as peripherals to Oxi One, and as performance tools in small cases. But playability and flexibility are not mutually exclusive.
I understand your point better, coming from an educational perspective. I agree on that part, a more didactic system would be closer to modular origins with modules being basic building blocks and fully open ended.
Is that why Meta is “anti-modular” to you?
IMO the term could be more specific, like these types of modules are not good to learn or teach how the classic approach to modular works.
In fact most digital units could fit the bill, they offer shortcuts with built in patches. The purest approach to learn modular is a classic Doepfer system ni doubt, but that doesn’t mean the rest is anti-modular, it’s just another side of the coin, adding some limitations to make it more accessible or just have a different goal.
Meta is fairly modular, it has 2 cvs and a clock in (measuring modularity in terms of I/O which I don’t totally agree on). Just not as open as other options for what it offers, or definitely not good to learn patch programming.
I should probably not have used the term “anti-modular”, which in the morning light does have a somewhat reactionary sound, but when I typed it, I did not mean “non-Eurorack”. Rather, I was using “modular” in the more generic sense, a small functional unit to be used in flexible construction. One can speak of a modular approach to furniture or housing. Meta feels more “pre-built” or “built to purpose” for me. And if that purpose is what one wants, and one knows what one is doing, then it’s fine.
Oh, I see your point now, definitely missed the broader meaning of “modular” there. With that perspective in mind, anti-modular seems fair but still too strong, like it removes modularity of other modules haha
Still, I wouldn’t have disagreed enough to have written all of the above.
I kind of agree with @plragde, and I get where you are coming from with ‘anti modular’, though I can see why its might raise peoples hackles too
honestly, this has been a trend in eurorack (more so than ‘modular’) for a while…
Im mean, you could say the same of Mutable Instruments Braids (ad many other MI modules).
for sure, modular started off about ‘low level’ modularity, about being able to do things that you could not do (to sound) with a fixed architecture synth.
however, with its rise of popularity, many saw it as a way to build their perfect (often performance focused) synth, and multifunctional modules provided more bang for your buck, and also often in less HP (useful if for performance racks)
does this mean they are no longer modular … they are ‘anti modular’
yes, and no…
it means the modularity is a of a higher levels…
it’d still be ‘modular’ if you just had a separate sequencer, synth voice and fx, its just the modularity is a higher level.
ofc, the danger here is at something point, you could consider everything modular, so whilst the term still has meaning … it doesn’t really have the same essence as before.
anyways, really Oxi is not pushing any enveloper here in terms of less modularity etc. FX aid and many others have been down this route…
yeah, though, dsp had been around , long before euroracks rise in popularity.
the main change, exemplified by mutable instruments, was the availability of general purpose arm chips … in particular the likes of the STM32F4.
these were not only cheap to buy and easy to put on pcbs, but also didn’t require (highly, sometimes expensive e.g. shark chips) specialised programming tools or skills… and could be used for everything from oscillators/sequencers / fx. ofc, these days, its got even easier, because we have dedicated SoC, things like the Daisy.
(actually special mention here for the Spin-FV1, which came from guitar pedals , so had a ton of algos, and so was also popular… noticeable, by its 3 fixed parameters )
but hey, thats the great thing about eurorack… there is so much choice, and so many ways you can use it.
so its unsurprisingly, that some dislike complex modules, digital modules or modules with menus… whilst others love them for their flexibility/cost saving…
theres room for everything.
but does mean, we all have a different idea about ‘what modular is all about’ … and indeed my ideas have developed over the years.
Imho the term anti-modular totally makes sense. It’s not modular in the sense of the word and the lack of modularity in terms of cv inputs also kind of makes it anti-modular.
Those modules have a role in Eurorack, though.
If you play live strictly with modular, you might welcome a simple, more generic module you can put in your rack.
If you have a hybrid setup (meaning grooveboxes, line level synths etc. + modular) it probably seems kinda pointless, but still maybe you want these types of effects inside the rack.
So yes, it’s not really modular (in the sense of modularity being small building blocks that are patched to build something), but still serves its function.
yeah, this is probably the trend I like least (rather than multi function modules which I like)
it’s notable (to me) in the (above) official oxi meta demo , none of the examples show any external modulation.
reminds me of the ‘concerns’ Émilie, (of MI) had on the usage of Clouds being used with lack of modulation… and what that meant for Beads.
however, the alternative to this would be a guitar pedal (or similar ext fx), but that means more cables, power bricks etc… so its clear why its popular.
This thing is two reverbs, dj filter, delay, looper and gater + risers, so quite a few desktop/rack fx and/or pedals. Might mean you’d have to deal with line level to modular conversion which isn’t always so straight forward. Often it is, but some effects are noisy and if you have saturators, compression and/or a limiter in the rack, the noise can become a problem. Not to mention all the cables and power those individual effects will need, so yeah, it’s a straight forward solution.
Reminds me of the Pioneer RMX1000 btw, but aside from that one, not many multi fx around that are tailored towards dj style transitions and fx.
You could even throw it into a Pod and use it with your groovebox setup.
It’s definitely not for me, but I’m sure people will make good use of it.
yeah, I didn’t mean specifically this fx unit… rather pointing out why its convenient to have things in a rack even if you’re not using ‘modular features’ (lie modulation)
yeah, thats the interesting thing about Eurorack, the dev costs to create a (digital) module are so much lower and less complex than creating something standalone -its been cost effective for some manufactures to create modules which are quite ‘focused’ on a target group.
as you say, not for me either… but I can see it being a popular module
I cannot disagree more that Coral is not meant for modular.
That shows very little knowledge of the module. I could do a standalone version of it easily, but losing the CV inputs is what stops me from doing it.
And I think it would make more sense. Both the Coral and the Meta seem to be really solid standalone devices, except they aren’t standalone. Would be awesome as a box with full MIDI control of all parameters, so that you can modulate them.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t modular, it’s just that I’m not interested in going down the Eurorack rabbit hole, and these two should be great outside of the Eurorack world as well.
To me, it looks like a missed opportunity. I wish they were present in both forms.
