Martin Brinkmann, maybe?
Just having a look at his patches now, some great looking stuff.
AFAIK the Nebulae is powered by a Raspberry Pi and runs LibPD, a
small-ish Pd interpreter.
There are other solutions, e.g. using the Heavy compiler which can
generate optimised code for different embedded architectures.
My own company Rebel Technology makes the OWL Modular, which uses Heavy
to run Pd. Then the OWL is also programmable in C++, FAUST and most
recently Max Gen (end plug).
As a modular maker, I wouldn't bother to make anything that already
exists: another resonant low pass filter or ADSR for example. Not unless
I felt it had a unique feature which made it worthwhile. Product
development is really hard, and if you're not innovating then I don't
see the point. We are all really lucky with Eurorack that Dieter has
made such an amazing range of quality modules, which you can combine to
build just about any type of modular system. It means that as a small
maker I can focus on the unique bits that I want to contribute. This in
fact is the very reason I do Eurorack.
Martin
On 2017-02-11 19:43, Diego Ragnini diegora@free.fr [Doepfer_a100] wrote:
> Does Nebulae load Pure Data files? That's amazing, really! I love
> that software! Thomas Brinkmann is sharing materials since ever on his
> web site. Though I can't see to what extent it loads PD files… I did
> believe that it loads audio WAV files… sincerely I don't know
> Nebulae at all, I purchased MN Phonogene, tried it for few weeks and
> gave it away since it seemed just crap to me, compared to granular
> synthesis software which do the job more efficiently for sure. Of
> course I am not a pure fanatic of modular synthesis, since I can use
> pc without shame.
>
> Beginners prefer pre patched modules (for instance, MN Wogglebug which
> can be replicated by coupling few doepfer modules) just because they
> are beginners: afraid of having to dedicate too many hours to learn
> several functions and schemes in a short time. Then pre patched
> modules need less room in the racks and, as everyone experienced, they
> get filled very fast!
> :-)
>
> Diego
>
Message
Re: [Doepfer_a100] A Verdict.
2017-02-11 by Diego Ragnini
:-)
The more I use Doepfer modules the more I enthusiastically adore them. They are also so much appealing to me because of their “look”: such a spartan design which makes me feel at ease with the sounds coming out from them, just like I would with pure vintage material, instead of dealing with panels decorated with uncertain taste and pastry esthetics.
Endless thanks to Dieter for his initiative to start up in the middle of the nineties.
My only doubt concerns the slightly heavy course of the pots, sure you discussed enough about it many times… In few circumstances I would have preferred to can make rapid changes, rather than smooth ones.
As for the comparison done few mails ago between Doepfer and Buchla (the original vs I hope), I do believe that the ladder features components which likely couldn't be found into the Doepfer modules without being obliged to sell them at much higher prices. Just don't know. Somebody told me that pots, for instance, adopted by the majority of ER modules producers are at least 10 times cheaper than those used by Moog. I still don't know, though I am sure that such a debate doesn't affect, anyway and anyhow, the value and quality of creation, having witnessed, as listener and music lover, thousands of beautiful tunes made out of the cheapest instruments ever.
Best,
Diego
Il giorno 11/feb/2017, alle ore 21:41, "mars@pingdynasty.com [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com> ha scritto: