Request for a Router Module (Signal Splitter)

EDIT: Just realized it might be difficult to remember which Output leads to which Module.

Maybe the name of the outbound Module could Appear under each On / Off Switch?



  • edited April 10

    I'm giving this some more thought...

    I put together an example image of how a Router Module might be used.

    I like this idea because it would provide a way to turn multiple different modulation signals on and off from a single module.

    It also allows same-source signals to be adjusted to different levels, then sent to modulate different parameters in different modules.

    Anyone have any thoughts about this idea?

  • I'd suggest the following:

    • Use larger switch buttons (like the existing Trigger Button module)
    • Replace the "ON/OFF" label by a 1 or 2 line text you can set
    • Show on/off state by dark grey background with medium grey std text or medium grey background with white bold text
    • Make the button set configurable to act as individual buttons or as radio buttons (so enabling one switches off all others).

    I'm often missing other "sliced bread" stuff (from the Nord Modular and others) like just a column of buttons or knobs (in the same way as described above), 1-to-4 and 4-to-1 demux/mux with modulation inputs and temporary manual override, 1 vertical and 3 horizontal sliders with labels on the slider panels, a brother to the X-Fader that instead has 1 input and 2 outputs, a mixer with knobs that can be modulated, an XY pad with Z=touch output, an oscilloscope with X input and automatically switching to XY display mode, and finally, a Recorder module with Rec, Clear, Play and Reverse buttons that can all be P-locked.

  • Ok. I'll do another mock-up as you've described.

    I may have to use a next size up module width to fit everything properly.

    Thanks for your input !

  • @rs2000 I have this strange intuition that a lot would be solved if the recording options in flexi sampler would be p-lockable. Excuse me for going off-topic.

  • I'd like to extend on this request...

    A new module with 4-8 inputs with P-Lockable On/Off 'radio buttons' (meaning only one route is active at one time).

    This would mean that we could route multiple sources to this module and only the selected one is used.

    Uses cases would be to for example use a few CV Quantizers and use the 'switch' to select which one to use at any given time.

    Or two different chord modules and choose which of the chords is used.

    This could be even further extended to a 'signal merger/matrix' with multiple inputs and outputs that can individually be turned on/off.

  • 3 things are planned:

    Splitter, switch and router. e.g. 4x4 router is a matrix of buttons.

  • I'm working on my vintage synth emulator again... (between pandemic crisis mitigation duties).

    I have some module configurations that I can finally say I'm satisfied with.

    BUT... I keep wishing I had a splitter module so I can make the interface clean and efficient.

    If I could have one Drambo wish granted.... It would be to have a splitter module (possibly) based on the design of the current Mixer module... But reversing it's signal flow direction to create a splitter module.

    Example use... Place a splitter module after an LFO. Tap a single signal input at the bottom of the splitter module and connect it to the LFO's output. Next I can tap on a filter cutoff knob, then tap on a (+) symbol on the splitter, a knob appears on the splitter that controls the level of LFO sent to the filter cutoff. There only need be a way to double tap a knob on the splitter so it can be given a name. The filter cutoff knob can take the name of the splitter module per existing functionality.

    Now I have the ability to connect that one LFO module "all over the rack" to modulate whatever needs to be modulated by the LFO from a single location.... Filters, PWM, OSC Pitch, AMP's, etc...

    I think it would make a world of difference for rack organization, and simplify the programing of the instruments that Drambo users create.


  • +1. Agreed & thanks for the detailed description.

    I would add: Switch buttons for every output that can be configured to be either "freely selectable" or "group of radio buttons" using the module header menu.

    Plus a modulation input to select outputs (router mode: switching radio buttons) that is enabled as soon as the mod input is connected.

  • edited July 27

    Its not the same, but if what you want to activate is tied to the clock, you can use the gate+velocity sequencer and math to select different parts of a patch. Could use other CV sources as well. I used that heavily in this patch . I'd love to simplify it though, so I'm all about more routing options :).

  • edited July 27

    Completely OT: This is how it looks in the Nord Modular, introduced in 1998 when Windows 95 was "state of the desktop art".

  • And 17" CRT monitors had 1024x768 (in some rare cases 1280x1024) resolution that made the UI usable without too much eye-strain ;)

  • edited July 27

    The reason I want a multi-splitter is so I can program synth sounds on the instruments I create without having to scroll back and forth throughout a complex rack, tweaking parameters from module to module.

    It's better for example... If you put a splitter after an ENV ADSR, you can then adjust that ADSR -and- control what the ADSR in modulating, all from a rack section devoted to the ADSR.

    I can now use a number of Mixers to break up that ADSR output and split it up. But I end up with instruments with long chains of single Mixer modules being used to split signals, and that method results in a confusing designs.

    I'd like to put some vintage synth emulators on patch storage for others to use. But I'd like it to be possible for others to program those synths without having to wade through a network of modules interconnected to emulate vintage synth sounds.

    I'd rather hide those parts from the user, and just let them work with a set of controls that are familiar. They can un-hide the complexity if they want to see how it works. But I myself don't even want to see the complexity because it turns programing into a game of "find the parameter".

  • @Horsetrainer Absolutely. Whenever I've started to copy the architecture of a slightly more advanced synth, these were the roadblocks. Up to the point that I lost the full picture with so many parameters on an endless track or on multiple tracks and no morph knobs or macro controls.

    I remember though that all that was on @giku's list so it's probably more a question of when it's going to happen.

  • Maybe an alternative is to make some vintage synth emulators that do only a narrow range of sound type?

    Basically... Instead of making a synth that can be programed, make a pre-programed synth that would be sort of equivalent to a preset.

    You could have 8 different synths, one on each track, and each track is essentially a preset.

    What do you think of that idea?

    It's not as much fun as creating a full emulator of a classic synth. But at least you could emulate some classic synth sounds, and add in a few controls to provide a degree of variation.

    Later on when the needed control modules arrive. Then I would work on some full emulators of classic synths.

    I think I'll give this a try. I need a project to get my mind off of pandemics and politics.

  • edited July 28

    It's a an option but I wouldn't really recommend to do that.

    Continue to build your synth until you're satisfied with the sound and the module setup and make it a full-fledged synth. Using Amp and X-fader modules, you can do some routing, just not as straightforward as if there were dedicated routing modules.

    Questions? Please ask, we might be able to help!

    I would only split functional module groups over several tracks if absolutely necessary.

    Being able to load a synth as an instrument rack, even if it's a gigantic one, is much easier to handle in projects. People will sooner or later want to use it in a multitrack composition.

    As long as we don't have other options, I would recommend to use scenes for preset functionality. You can have up to 16 scenes each with completely different knob settings and instantly switch between them. Since you can also crossfade between any two presets of choice, that's a nice sound explorer too. Once you've found a great sound, you can save the knob settings as a new preset and use it it any project. And the scenes can then be used for other stuff again.

    If it really makes sense to build different synth racks to reflect different routings then I would put them into separate projects, each with 16 presets done via scenes. You could then create new presets much more easily and saving to an Instrument Rack preset will make these available everywhere.

    @giku has recently introduced the Misc => Section module that allows for quick folding of module groups so finding and adjusting parameters in an insanely long instrument rack has become much easier.

    At least that's probably the most straightforward way of providing instant preset functionality while offering preset saving for use in other projects.

  • edited July 28

    I think its time to add these modules. I think about:

    • Switch - N -> 1 selects one of input signals N inputs (no attanuation knobs) - so in minimized mode it looks like N buttons in a single column.
    • Splitter - the same but 1 -> N

    These modules will be added to the Mixer section.

  • @giku Why not. Start simple, work with it and then see what's really missing.

    1=>N would need two modes: Radio and Multiple.

    In radio buttons mode, only one button can be active. Enabling a different button will disable all others.

    In Multiple mode, any combination of buttons can be enabled.

    I'd suggest to add this setting to the module header menu like "Radio mode".

  • edited July 28

    @rs2000 As about "presets in presets". Its not an approach I want to promote.

    In Drambo you don't make synths, you make sounds. E.g. as structure editing is as easy as setting a param, if you don't need LFO, you don't add it :)

  • @giku What's wrong with saving the current parameter values as a preset?

  • I'm going to devote my Drambo time to emulating vintage synth sounds by constructing modular configurations dedicated to only one particular "genre" of vintage sound per track.

    I want to start sharing some sounds on Patch Storage. I can put 8 different "instruments" in one project.... one on each track.

    If someone likes a sound and wants to use it, all they have to do is copy the "instrument" from the track, and paste it into their own project.

    I had hoped to be able to use Drambo to create full synths, but I can adapt to thinking of Drambo as a tool for building "instruments".

  • edited July 28

    Nothing, its already here in presets

    What I meant is that structure is like parameter in Drambo :)

  • Its a halfway, but at the end, Instrument rack in minimized mode will have just a few meta parameters defined by user.

  • Ah OK, what I meant to say is that when using scene morphs, optionally being able to save the current parameter values instead of the original parameter values in a preset.

  • Instrument rack needs its own morphs = meta parameters.

  • edited July 28

    @giku Just an idea to solve this:

    Morphs can be a big help in finding the sweet spot in large instrument racks.

  • edited July 28

    Its not the right way, because:

    • Morphs are shared between modules
    • Instrument rack "shouldn't know" about what's outside
    • Imagine situation, where the same preset is loaded to more tracks :)

  • If morphs are shared between modules, that won't hurt because presets are per Instrument Rack.

    Instrument rack presets contain all parameter values and the sound can change dramatically when using morphs.

    If the same preset is loaded to other tracks, the new option would make no difference: No matter if you save original or morphed knob positions, as soon as you overwrite a preset, it will affect all instances anyway.

    Am I wrong?

  • edited July 28

    You are not wrong. But this behaviour is strange and results in a WTF response. :)

    Its more than sure, that in multitrack project, you don't want to morph all of instrument racks the same time, just because they are saved in their presets. And user is not even aware whats inside preset, how it affects morphs etc...

Sign In or Register to comment.