Viktor's Modular Synth Diary

Live set prep with the travel rack.

Two excerpts from a practice session. 0-Ctrl sequencing XPO into Multigrain. Untitled 51, 2:00–4:00. Untitled 51, 7:00–end.

---

Patch Notes

0-Ctrl ─▶ XPO ─▶ Multigrain ─▶ [out]

0-Ctrl driving XPO — pitch and pressure from the 0-Ctrl sequencing the oscillator. XPO output into Multigrain for granular processing.

Three takes from a practice session. Maths in bouncing ball mode driving XPO, filtered through QPAS, recorded live into Morphagene, Erbe-Verb for reverb. Ultra-Kick as kick. Untitled 44, 0:00–3:10. Untitled 43, 0:00–2:40. Untitled 45, 0:00–3:30.

---

Patch Notes

Maths (bounce) ─▶ XPO MODULATE-L
               └─▶ XPO MODULATE-R

XPO (var sine) ─▶ QPAS RADIATE-L
               └─▶ QPAS RADIATE-R

XPO (saw) ─▶ QPAS IN ─▶ Morphagene (live rec) ─▶ Erbe-Verb ─▶ [out]

Maths Ch1 (unity out) ─▶ XPO FM
Maths Ch1 (unity out) ─▶ QPAS FREQ CV

Ultra-Kick ─▶ [kick drum]

Maths running in bouncing ball mode — driving XPO’s modulate inputs. XPO’s variable sine then feeds the QPAS radiate inputs, modulating the filter’s spatial spread. The saw wave is the main audio signal going into QPAS. Maths Ch1 unity out modulates both XPO FM and QPAS filter frequency. Out of QPAS into Morphagene for live recording, then Erbe-Verb for a touch of reverb. Ultra-Kick underneath as kick drum.

Two excerpts exploring DPO sine wave crossfading through ModDemix into QPAS and Mimeophon. Untitled 40, 0:00–1:05. Untitled 39, 1:40–2:40.

---

Patch Notes

DPO VCO A (Sine) ─┐
                   ├─▶ ModDemix ─▶ QPAS ─▶ Mimeophon
DPO VCO B (Sine) ─┘

Both oscillators running sine waves from the DPO — VCO A and VCO B fed into ModDemix, which blends and combines them before the signal moves on. Out of ModDemix into QPAS for filtering, then into Mimeophon for space and texture.

V/oct on the DPO is driven by Bard Quartet Arps, giving the pitch sequence its melodic character.

---

Patch Notes

Modules: Multimod, Polimaths, Tiny Rise and Fall, DPO, QPAS, QXG, XPO, Spectraphon, Morphagene, Bruxa, Ableton Live + Meld

---

Clock & Modulation

Multimod runs as master clock in Red shape mode. It triggers Polimaths in Yellow (activate) mode. Tiny Rise and Fall handles envelope shaping with no rate and no oscillator engaged — acting as a pure slew/transient shaper on the modulation signals coming out of Polimaths.

Polimaths Routing (8 outputs)

Output	Destination
1	DPO — Fold input
2	QPAS — Volume + Freq 1
3–6	QXG — inputs
7–8	XPO — Left & Right Modulate

Audio Signal Flow

• DPO Square wave → QPAS (audio input)
• Spectraphon (all 4 outputs) → QXG (all 4 inputs)
• XPO Variable output → DXG (mix)
• QPAS Low Pass output → DXG
• QXG output → DXG

Drone Layer

The drone comes from Morphagene, loaded with a chord recorded in Ableton Live using Meld — voicing G2 / D3 / F3 with minimal LFO modulation applied before recording. From Morphagene the signal goes into Bruxa, with Multimod modulating Bruxa’s filter for subtle movement.

Listen before acting

In modular synthesis, it’s easy to develop the habit of constantly turning knobs.

A sound appears.

Adjust something.

Another modulation.

Another voice.

Another effect.

But after a while the patch never has a chance to become what it wants to become.

Onkyō musicians often do the opposite. They make an almost imperceptible change, then wait. Sometimes for thirty seconds. Sometimes for minutes.

The performance isn’t built from dramatic gestures. It’s built from listening.

Contact improvisation

In contact improvisation, beginners often think they need to keep creating movement.

I certainly did.

But many of the most useful things I’ve learned have been about doing less:

• Stay with the point of contact.
• Follow momentum instead of creating it.
• Don’t rush to the next idea.
• Trust your partner.
• Let the dance unfold before trying to steer it.

The dance already contains information.

If I’m constantly initiating, I’m no longer listening.

Don’t interrupt the system

The phrase that keeps coming back to me is:

Don’t interrupt the system.

A modular patch is already evolving.

Two bodies in contact are already evolving.

The room is already evolving.

The interesting question isn’t, “What should I do next?”

It’s:

“What is already happening?”

Instead of generating material, the job becomes noticing where the energy already wants to go.

Small gestures matter

A one-millimeter movement on an FM index can slowly transform the entire texture over the next minute.

A slight shift of weight in contact improvisation can redirect two people’s movement without either person consciously deciding to “lead.”

The action is small.

The consequence is large.

Space is part of the performance

One of the hardest things to trust is silence.

Or stillness.

In music, there’s a temptation to fill every moment with sound.

In dance, there’s a temptation to fill every pause with movement.

But those empty spaces aren’t empty.

They’re where attention grows.

They’re where the audience leans in.

They’re where your partner has room to respond.

Discovered her through Patch & Tweak.

“I just left myself play with what I want and trust my taste.”

Three pieces, three completely different approaches — but the same restraint running through all of them.

• What Is To Be Done? — dark and melodic, almost purely harmonic (H/P 4.67×), with enough rubato to feel hand-played rather than sequenced
• Abstract — percussion and melody weighted equally (H/P 1.01×), much sparser, rhythm tells the story through a deliberate arc: silence, percussion building to a peak, then receding
• Paris Texas — percussion stripped out almost completely (H/P 9.23×), bright and tonally stable in Eb major, the clearest key of the three, the slowest tempo, the most cinematic

---

What Is To Be Done?

Timbre & Texture

• Spectral centroid: 1,538 Hz — warm, mid-focused sound; not bright or harsh
• Spectral rolloff (85%): 3,088 Hz — the vast majority of energy sits below 3kHz, confirming a dark, intimate character
• Zero-crossing rate: 0.026 — low, consistent with tonal/melodic content rather than noise or distortion
• H/P ratio: 4.67× — strongly harmonic-dominant; melodic/harmonic layers far outweigh percussive transients (think piano, strings, or sustained synths over drums)

Dynamics

• Mean RMS: 0.193 — moderately loud on average
• Dynamic range: 0.000 → 0.572 — significant variation, with moments of near silence and peaks; likely builds in intensity
• Onset std/mean ratio: 1.80 — high variability in attack strength, suggesting expressiveness or rubato phrasing rather than a rigid grid

Structure (8 detected sections)

Section	Time	Duration
Intro	0:00	19s
A	0:19	~1:00
Transition	1:18	22s
B	1:41	40s
Bridge	2:21	19s
C	2:40	48s
D / climax?	3:28	34s
Outro	4:02	26s

---

Summary

An introspective, harmonically rich piece in F minor — slow-burning at ~129 BPM but with enough rubato to feel unquantized. The harmonic-to-percussive ratio and low spectral rolloff strongly suggest acoustic or semi-acoustic instrumentation with piano prominent. The 8-segment structure with a long first section and shorter later sections follows a classic through-composed arc. The title references Chernyshevsky/Lenin’s political text, hinting at intentional conceptual weight in the music too.

---

Abstract

Timbre & Texture

• Spectral centroid: 1,692 Hz — slightly brighter than What Is To Be Done? (1,538 Hz)
• Spectral rolloff: 2,767 Hz — energy even more concentrated in the lows despite the brighter centroid
• Zero-crossing rate: 0.045 — nearly double WITBD’s 0.026; more transient/noisy content present
• H/P ratio: 1.01× — the most striking difference: almost perfectly balanced between harmonic and percussive layers, vs WITBD’s 4.67×. Far more rhythmic and textural

Dynamics

• Mean RMS: 0.051 — much sparser and quieter than WITBD (0.193); lots of breathing room
• Dynamic range: 0.000 → 0.637 — a very wide range, suggesting sharp contrasts between silence and peaks
• Onset std/mean ratio: 1.71 — similarly expressive attack variation

Structure (8 detected sections)

Section	Time	Duration
Intro	0:00	33s
A	0:33	13s
B	0:46	28s
C	1:14	56s
D	2:10	20s
E	2:30	34s
Outro	3:04	16s

---

Summary

The H/P ratio flip (1.01× vs 4.67×) is the biggest tell between the two pieces — Abstract leans into texture and rhythm as much as melody, where What Is To Be Done? is almost purely melodic. The much lower mean RMS makes Abstract feel more spacious and sparse. D minor at 126 BPM. Same artist, clearly different intent.

---

Paris Texas

Timbre & Texture

• Spectral centroid: 2,141 Hz — the brightest of the three; noticeably more air and presence
• Spectral rolloff: 4,220 Hz — significantly more high-frequency energy than WITBD (3,088 Hz) or Abstract (2,767 Hz)
• Zero-crossing rate: 0.054 — highest of the three; could suggest bowed strings, textured pads, or layered timbres
• H/P ratio: 9.23× — the most harmonically pure of all three; almost no percussive content at all

Dynamics

• Mean RMS: 0.093 — sits between WITBD (0.193) and Abstract (0.051); moderate density
• Dynamic range: 0.000 → 0.328 — tighter peaks than the other two; more controlled, less explosive
• Onset std/mean ratio: 0.90 — the most rhythmically even of the three; attacks are regular rather than rubato

Structure (8 detected sections)

Section	Time	Duration
Intro	0:00	13s
A	0:13	42s
B	0:56	35s
C	1:31	30s
D	2:00	58s
E	2:59	28s
Outro	3:27	9s

---

Summary

Paris Texas is the most tonally centered of the three — Eb major with a correlation of 0.747 (vs 0.455 and 0.334 for the others), meaning the key is unusually clear and stable throughout. At 112 BPM it’s the slowest, and the H/P ratio of 9.23× means percussion is almost entirely absent. The brighter spectral profile and higher ZCR suggest strings or textured harmonic layers rather than piano alone. Named after the Wim Wenders film — wide, open, cinematic.

Onkyō (音響) is a Japanese experimental music movement that emerged in Tokyo in the late 1990s. It centers on extreme restraint — near-silence, micro-sounds, extended pauses, and the acoustic properties of the room itself as compositional material. Less about notes or rhythm, more about the texture of sound and the weight of silence between events. Heavily influenced by reductionism and electro-acoustic music, it blurs the line between performance and listening.

Artists

• Toshimaru Nakamura
• Sachiko M
• Otomo Yoshihide
• Tetuzi Akiyama
• Taku Sugimoto
• Ami Yoshida

“I’m not interested in playing music that has no risk.” — Toshimaru Nakamura

Patch Notes

• Multimod provides the clock for Polimaths.

Untitled 28

Matthew’s feedback: play with panning, and think about how to transition it into the Bouncing Ball theme.

Transitioning

• Micro-improv (Japanese)
• Onkyō

Untitled 24

• Manual vs. sequenced trigger
• Right feel for the sample

Patch Notes

• We sequenced XPO via Rene 2

Patch Notes

• Bouncing ball patch on Maths
• Goes into Ultrakick
• Its duck goes into Bruxa to filter the audio of DPO
• Ultrakick also goes into Multimod

Analysis

• This reads as a layered percussion experiment rather than a single drum voice.
• Ultra-Kick suggests a dedicated kick path with envelope, pitch, and decay shaping.
• Ultra-Perc suggests a second percussion voice for accents, toms, or metallic/transient percussion.
• Pachinko likely adds probabilistic or generative triggering/modulation, which fits the overall rhythmic feel.
• The setup looks like it is trying to balance a stable kick backbone with a more variable percussive texture.

Retake of my live set from 03/29.

Technique

• BPM ~85, the slowest session yet
• Dynamic complexity: 3.86 — wide volume swings, especially the quiet middle and loud return
• Spectral flatness consistently low (~0.01-0.02) — tonal throughout
• Dissonance moderate (0.40-0.47) — harmonically rich but not aggressive

Sound & Characteristics

~4:47 session with a clear three-act structure:

Opening (0-40s): Confident start. Loudness 0.69 dropping to 0.30, centroid around 950-1280 Hz. Gradually brightens as volume pulls back — an inverted dynamic.

Plateau (50-150s): Settles into a dark, steady zone. Centroid hovers around 760-890 Hz, loudness 0.30-0.47. The warmest sustained passage — low and grounded, gently shifting in density.

Quiet drop (150-220s): Volume falls to session lows (0.16-0.24). A long, exposed passage — the sound thins but stays dark (centroid ~800-1090 Hz). Nearly two minutes of restraint.

Surge and close (230-287s): Dramatic return — loudness climbs from 0.24 to the session peak of 0.99 at 4:20, the loudest single moment across all recent sessions. Centroid briefly rises to 1312 Hz before settling back to 750 Hz. Ends warm and fading.

Technique

• BPM ~110, moderate pulse
• Dynamic complexity: 4.75 — the most dynamic session of the day by a wide margin
• Dissonance stays high throughout (0.40-0.45) — harmonically dense, more complex than earlier sessions
• Spectral flatness generally low but with sharp spikes — tonal base with noisy interruptions

Sound & Characteristics

~5:30 session, restless and unpredictable:

Opening (0-20s): Warm and present. Centroid around 290-420 Hz, loudness peaks at 0.73. The lowest, darkest opening of any session today.

First descent (30-100s): Volume drops sharply. Two quiet, bright moments — centroid spikes to 1240 Hz at 0:50 and 2344 Hz at 1:30. The sound thins out and becomes exposed, flatness nearly doubles.

Middle plateau (100-180s): Settles into a restless mid-range — loudness 0.34-0.48, centroid 900-1500 Hz. No clear direction, constantly shifting texture and density. Dissonance holds steady around 0.43.

Surge (190-200s): The loudest moment (0.67) with centroid dropping to 803 Hz — a sudden warm, full-bodied return. Brief but decisive.

Long fade (200-330s): Gradually loses energy. Centroid drifts between 800-1800 Hz, volume settles around 0.32-0.42. A brief brightness spike at 4:20 (1817 Hz, dissonance 0.455) before the piece dims to its quietest ending — dark and unresolved.

Technique

• BPM ~104, slower pulse than earlier sessions
• Dynamic complexity: 3.71 — the most dynamic session of the day, wide loud/quiet swings
• Spectral flatness low (~0.03) — tonal throughout

Sound & Characteristics

~4:18 session with a dramatic build:

Opening (0-60s): Quiet and low. Centroid around 689 Hz, loudness ~37. Dark, restrained start — the lowest energy opening of all three sessions.

Brightening (60-100s): Centroid spikes to 2892 Hz around 1:30, dissonance peaks at 0.475. A sharp textural shift — brighter and more harmonically complex.

Drop (100-140s): Volume falls to the session’s quietest point (loudness ~22 at 2:10). A near-silence that resets the texture.

Build (140-220s): Steady climb in both volume and density. Centroid settles around 1100-1200 Hz — warm but increasingly loud.

Peak (220-258s): The loudest passage across all three sessions (loudness 71.89). Centroid around 1180 Hz — full, warm, and saturated. The piece ends at maximum intensity rather than resolving back down.

Technique

• BPM ~135, pulse-driven from 0-CTRL
• Dissonance builds through the middle (0.34 → 0.47) then drops back — tension and release arc
• Spectral flatness stays low (~0.035) — tonal throughout, not noise-based

Sound & Characteristics

Three-part arc across ~2:45:

Opening (0-30s): Loud and warm. Centroid around 1500-2400 Hz, low dissonance.

Middle (60-120s): Volume drops ~40%, brightness peaks at 3170 Hz around 1:30, dissonance climbs to 0.47, flatness nearly doubles. Thinner, more exposed, harmonically tense.

Return (130-160s): Volume returns, centroid settles around 2050 Hz, dissonance and flatness drop back. Warmer and more resolved than the opening.

Technique

• BPM ~140, 0-CTRL driving the rhythm
• Dynamic complexity: 2.11 — moderate, with clear loud/quiet sections
• Spectral flatness low (~0.03) — tonal throughout

Sound & Characteristics

~6:30 session with a wide dynamic arc:

Opening (0-60s): Loud and steady (loudness ~57-61), warm centroid around 1800-2000 Hz. Confident, grounded sound.

Descent (70-130s): Volume drops sharply by ~50%. A dip to 800 Hz centroid at 1:20 — a moment of near-silence or very low register. Dissonance eases slightly.

Exploration (130-270s): Quieter, more varied. Brightness fluctuates widely — centroid spikes to 3750 Hz at 3:20 and 4190 Hz at 4:00. Flatness increases, the sound becomes more textural and less pitched.

Return (280-330s): Volume surges back to opening levels (~57). Centroid drops back to 1200-1900 Hz — the warmest passage in the piece.

Fade (340-390s): Brightness climbs sharply to 4000-4400 Hz while volume drops to the lowest point. The piece dissolves into high, thin, noisy texture — flatness peaks at 0.064.

This session shifted something fundamental in my practice. We talked less about modules and more about structure — how I document, analyze, and prepare.

1. Documenting Patches — Technique vs Sound

Technique

This layer focuses on structure — what is happening and why.

• What modules are interacting?
• What modulates what?
• What is the central idea or constraint?
• What rule defines the patch?

Examples:

• One oscillator FM’ing another at a fixed ratio
• Two envelopes phase-offset from a shared clock
• A slow modulation shaping timbre over several minutes
• A rule such as: “No additional voices beyond two”

Technique is repeatable. It is abstract and transferable.

Sound & Characteristics

This layer captures how the patch behaves.

• Dense vs sparse
• Stable vs unstable
• Organic vs mechanical
• Aggressive vs meditative
• Static vs evolving

Separating technique from sound builds a vocabulary — structure on one side, perception on the other.

2. Building a Patch Database

The goal is to move from scattered notes toward a structured archive.

Each entry includes:

• Technique description
• Sound characteristics
• Modules involved
• Audio or video link
• Tags (FM, two-voice, slow evolving, polyrhythmic, etc.)
• Notes on what worked and what didn’t

The aim is to stop relying on memory and start building a reusable vocabulary.

3. Analyzing a Live Set — Macro Thinking

Beyond individual patches, the focus shifts to analyzing entire sessions.

Energy

• Does intensity shift over time?
• Where does tension build?
• Where does it release?

Distribution

• Are quieter passages given space?
• Does density ebb and flow?
• Is pacing intentional?

Time & Development

• Do ideas evolve long enough?
• Are transitions meaningful?

Contrast

• Fast vs slow
• Thick vs minimal
• Rhythmic vs textural
• Predictable vs unstable

The key question becomes: Does the session have shape?

4. Recital Setup — Two Voices

For the end-of-month performance, I’m simplifying.

Voice 1: Rhythm / Foundation

• Structural anchor
• Repetitive or pulse-based
• Provides grounding

Voice 2: Decoration / Response

• Expressive layer
• Textural or melodic
• Reactive to Voice 1

The focus is clarity. Two roles. No competition.

Conclusion

This session marked a shift — from exploring modules to shaping a language.

• Documenting techniques
• Mapping sonic qualities
• Analyzing structure
• Preparing with intention

Research overview on visual techniques, tools, and approaches for documenting modular synth patches. Modular patches are ephemeral — disconnect a cable and the sound is gone — so the community has developed a variety of methods to capture and communicate these configurations.

Historical Methods

Patch Sheets

The original documentation method, dating back to the 1960s. Don Buchla shipped large A3-sized pre-marked patch sheets with his 100 Series systems — printed representations of the front panel where you mark cable connections and annotate knob positions. Moog adopted a similar approach. The key limitation: they’re system-specific. A Buchla sheet is meaningless for a Moog system.

Block Schematics

Allen Strange introduced a more portable notation in his 1972 book Electronic Music: Systems, Techniques, and Controls. Rather than mapping physical layout, he used flowchart-like graphics representing synthesis building blocks: oscillators, filters, amplifiers, envelope generators. Later dubbed “block schematics” by Rob Hordijk.

Modern Visual Techniques

1. PATCH & TWEAK Symbol System

Developed by Kim Bjorn for the book PATCH & TWEAK, this is a standardized, module-agnostic visual language using symbols and color-coded connections. Released under Creative Commons.

• Distinct symbols for oscillators, filters, envelopes, LFOs, mixers, VCAs
• Color-coded connections differentiate audio, CV, gate, and trigger signals
• Optimized for learning and sharing between users with different systems
• Free to download from patchandtweak.com/symbols

Strengths: Universal, well-designed, community-adopted, free Limitations: Learning curve for the symbol set; less intuitive than a photo for quick recall

2. Patchbook Markup Language

A text-based markup language designed to be both human-readable and machine-parseable. Write patches in plain text using simple connection symbols.

• -> for audio connections, >> for CV, p> for pitch, g> for gate
• Can include knob settings and module parameters as annotations
• Designed as an open standard the community can build tools around
• Text files are lightweight, versionable, and easy to share online

Strengths: Portable, searchable, machine-readable, no special software needed Limitations: Not visual by itself; requires rendering tools for graphical output

3. Synth Patch Library (Online Tool)

A free web-based application with a visual patch schema editor, drag-and-drop functionality, audio upload, and community sharing features.

Strengths: All-in-one solution, visual editor, audio support, community features Limitations: Requires internet; patches live on an external platform

4. Photography and Digital Annotation

Photograph your patched system, then optionally annotate in a drawing app. Some users grab their rack layout from ModularGrid and overlay drawn patch cables.

Strengths: Fast, intuitive, captures physical detail, no learning curve Limitations: Hard to read with dense patches; not searchable

5. Patch Deck Cards

Created by Kim Bjorn and Chris Meyer — a physical deck of cards with tips, techniques, and patch ideas using a simplified signal-flow visual language. Brand- and module-agnostic.

Strengths: Tangible, inspiring, great for learning, portable Limitations: Fixed content; not a system for documenting your own patches

6. Pencil, Paper, and Tabular Notation

Many experienced synthesists prefer handwritten documentation. A common approach is a numbered table of cable connections. Can document a full 6U x 104hp system in about five minutes.

Strengths: Fastest method, zero dependencies, highly flexible Limitations: Not shareable digitally without scanning; no visual representation of signal flow

7. Video Recording

Recording the patching process creates a step-by-step tutorial for your future self. Captures the process, not just the end state.

Strengths: Captures performance techniques and process; rich medium Limitations: Time-consuming to review; hard to quickly reference a specific setting

The Unsolved Problem: Performance Over Time

Nearly all documentation methods focus on the static configuration of a patch. What they struggle to capture is the performance dimension: how the synthesist interacts with the patch over time — turning knobs, pushing sliders, sequencing changes. This temporal, gestural aspect remains one of the most difficult things to notate. Video comes closest but trades away quick-reference quality.

Comparative Analysis

Method	Speed	Portability	Visual Clarity	Best For
Patch Sheets	★★★	★	★★★	Single-system recall
Block Schematics	★★	★★★	★★★	Teaching & sharing
PATCH & TWEAK	★★	★★★	★★★	Community sharing
Patchbook	★★★	★★★	★★	Digital archives
Photo + Annotate	★★★	★★	★★	Quick personal docs
Pencil & Paper	★★★	★	★	Fast personal notes
Video	★	★★	★★★	Capturing performance

Using Pachinko (Marbles clone) as a clock. Topic from a session with Matthew.

A collection of SVG album cover illustrations generated by Claude Code — abstract interpretations of iconic electronic/ambient albums.

Artists

Clicks & Cuts Moodboard

The core concept is elegant: a gate signal has a sharp transient attack followed by a sustain and release. By driving the QPAS’s radiate/resonance into self-oscillation, you can treat the filter itself as a pitched sound source, and then use the gate (often via an envelope) to excite it — like physically striking a tuned resonator.

The Core Technique: Filter Ping

The QPAS has a pair of bandpass filters in a stereo configuration with its unique Radiate parameter controlling the interaction between them. When you push Radiate high and increase Q (resonance), the filters approach and eventually enter self-oscillation — they ring at their cutoff frequencies like tuning forks.

A short trigger or gate sent to the audio input (or used to modulate the input level via a VCA) causes the filters to “ping” — they ring out at their tuned frequency and naturally decay. This is the same physics as hitting a bell or a drum: an impulse excites a resonant body, which then decays at its natural frequency.

Basic patch:

• Send a gate or trigger from your clock/sequencer into a fast envelope (e.g. Zadar or Maths)
• Run the envelope into a VCA, with white noise or the gate itself as the audio input
• Patch that VCA output into QPAS audio input
• Set QPAS resonance high (close to or at self-oscillation)
• The Radiate parameter controls the stereo character — low Radiate = both filters in phase (thicker, mono-ish), high Radiate = filters spread into stereo image

Drum Voices You Can Make

Kick drum: Tune QPAS low (60–100 Hz range), hit it with a short impulse, then modulate the cutoff frequency downward with a fast envelope (pitch drop is key for a convincing kick). The Zadar is great here — use one channel as the audio envelope, another for cutoff CV with a sharp initial peak that falls fast.

Tom / resonant thud: Slightly higher tuning, slower pitch envelope decay, moderate Q. The QPAS’s stereo bandpass character gives toms a rich spatial quality that mono filters don’t.

Hi-hat / snare-adjacent texture: Mix noise into the input, tune QPAS higher, use very short gate/envelope. Adjust Radiate to spread the stereo image — high Radiate creates a nice wash. Adding both cutoffs spread apart creates a more complex, metallic texture.

Clap / transient crack: Very short ping, fast envelope, mid-high frequency, high Q but not quite self-oscillating. The transient becomes the sound rather than the sustain.

Cowbell / metallic perc: This is where QPAS really shines. Because it has two filters, you can tune them to non-harmonically related frequencies (say, a minor 7th or minor 9th interval apart). The two pitches beating against each other create that characteristic metallic inharmonicity. Push Radiate to control how separated vs. blended they are.

Key Parameters to Modulate

The QPAS has dedicated CV inputs that make this really playable:

• ωA and ωB (the two cutoff frequencies) — Sweep these with a fast envelope for pitch drop/pitch bend. Patching both from the same envelope with slight offset between them creates movement.
• Radiate — Modulate with a slow LFO for evolving stereo width on repeating hits
• Q — Dynamic resonance control, can push into self-oscillation territory on peaks
• ΔFreq — Offsets the two cutoffs relative to each other; modulating this creates metallic shimmer

Deep dive into Clicks & Cuts — a movement in experimental electronic music where artists deliberately embraced digital errors, glitches, and sonic artifacts as primary creative material. Named after the Mille Plateaux compilation series (2000).

Key Artists

• Oval (Markus Popp) — physically damaged CDs to create glitch loops
• Alva Noto (Carsten Nicolai) — sine waves, granular synthesis, co-founded Raster-Noton
• Ryoji Ikeda — ultra-minimalist, converts data into sound and barcode visuals
• Pole (Stefan Betke) — dub meets glitch via a broken Waldorf 4-Pole filter
• Pan Sonic — raw analog minimalism, self-built electronics
• Fennesz — guitar processed through laptops into lush glitch textures
• Richard Devine — all-modular records, essential reference for Eurorack C&C

Sonic Palette

Microscopic clicks & pops, digital buffer glitches, extreme frequency exploration, pointillist textures, dub-influenced bass and space, granular clouds, and silence as a compositional element.

Modular Synth Artists

The original C&C movement was largely laptop/software-based — the modular world inherited and evolved the aesthetic as Eurorack exploded. These artists bridge the two worlds:

• Richard Devine — the most direct overlap. Last three records made entirely out-of-the-box on his massive Eurorack system. Rapid clicks, metallic thrums, scattering beats — clicks & cuts realized in hardware
• Keith Fullerton Whitman — moved from laptop glitch (Playthroughs) into hybrid digital-analog modular. His album Occlusions is subtitled “Real Time Music for Hybrid Digital-Analogue Modular Synthesizer”
• Pan Sonic (Mika Vainio) — self-built electronics and raw analog circuits. Not Eurorack, but fully in the spirit of DIY hardware minimalism
• Marcus Fischer — Eurorack, tape loops, and field recordings in a quiet microsound aesthetic. More restrained than Devine but very much in the genre
• Mouse on Mars — Jan St. Werner collaborated with Peter Blasser (Ciat-Lonbarde) to create the Clicker, a synth for “microsecond orchestras” — clicks & cuts philosophy made physical
• Hainbach — Ciat-Lonbarde synths, test equipment, and Eurorack for glitchy ambient textures

Notable hardware: Møffenzeef Mødular built Eurorack modules specifically for clicks & cuts style glitch percussion.

Modular Synth Takeaways

• Sound sources: Granular modules (Morphagene, Arbhar), ultrashort envelopes (<1ms = click), FM at extreme ratios, self-oscillating filters
• Processing: Extreme bandpass filtering, sample & hold for bit-crush, wavefolder distortion, feedback through delay lines
• Sequencing: Chaotic clock sources, probabilistic triggers (Marbles, Branches), Bernoulli gates, sub-audio LFOs modulating everything slowly

See the full Clicks & Cuts mood board for the complete timeline, discography, labels, and visual language reference.

Session with Matthew covering polyrhythm and polymeter — two ways of layering conflicting rhythmic patterns.

Definitions

• Polyrhythm: Two or more rhythms with different subdivisions played simultaneously over the same time span. Example: 3 against 2 (triplets over eighth notes) — both patterns resolve at the same downbeat.
• Polymeter: Two or more meters running simultaneously with the same subdivision but different groupings. Example: 3/4 against 4/4 — same tempo, but the downbeats drift apart and only realign after a full cycle (12 beats in this case).

Creating them in Tempera and Renoise

• Tempera: Use multiple lanes with different time signatures or loop lengths. Set one lane to a 3-step pattern and another to a 4-step pattern at the same BPM — the offset between them creates polymeter naturally.
• Renoise: Use the delay column (Dx) to shift note positions for polyrhythmic feel. For polymeter, set different pattern lengths per track using the phrase editor — a 12-row phrase on one track against a 16-row phrase on another gives you 3 vs 4.

Composition practice, a 3 minute piece with 3 parts, intro, peak and outro.

A curated list of artists for SuperCollider exploration and sound design inspiration.

Modular / Generative

Dub Techno / Textural

IDM / Algorithmic

Ambient / Drone

Granular / Spectral

Buchla / West Coast Synthesis

Organic / Nature-Inspired

Layered / Evolving Textures

New Age Revival

Techniques to Explore

• Generative sequencing (Autechre, Caterina Barbieri)
• Dub delay/feedback systems (Vladislav Delay, Pole)
• Granular processing (Fennesz, Tim Hecker)
• Slow envelope evolution (Éliane Radigue, Stars of the Lid)
• Harmonic series exploration (Kaitlyn Aurelia Smith, Suzanne Ciani)
• Tape degradation simulation (William Basinski, Deepchord)
• Micro-sound / sine wave purity (Alva Noto)
• Organic modulation sources (Buchla-style randomness)