Ever thought about a modular version?

The other day I talked about the Shruthi with a friend of mine who is totally into the doepfer/eurorack stuff, and he told me: “I’d love to buy a Shruthi-1… but I want to put it into my modular”. So I was thinking, has this ever been thought about? To build a version of the shruti with just the CVs and with an eurorack form factor? Actually the main question behind this is: would this make sense? How is the shruthi-1 using the CVs? Is pitch correct modulation of the oscillators possible by CV? The nice thing would be that you could use the shruthi as just an osc and feed the signal into some other filter, or use just the filter… or both…
Probably one could make a module out of the existing kit, Only the voltages would probably have to be converted from the 12v you find in the doeper to the 9v the Shruthi requires…
What do you guys think?

ANd CV’s for the shruthi are 0-5v .

If he wants to ill make a Case with 3.5mm jacks for all the CVs that fits to the Doepfer Format. I thought the Shruthi would be evil to all those modular guys becaus its digital :wink:

Oh man I get asked this over and over. And over and over again.

The main selling point of the Shruthi is that it offers a lot of synthesis power in a small package, with integrated MIDI and arp/sequencer, from a small part count and price point, with circuits adapted to work from a 9V DC source as simple as a battery. But from a pure technical point of view, there’s nothing magical in its ADSRs, LFOs, filters (you can get a SSM2044 module pretty much everywhere, a C-OTA like the SMR4 from Oakley, a CEM3379 module from Doepfer…). As for the oscillators… Digital oscillators modules are available (Harvestman Piston Honda ; Wiard Waveform city), which can be given the extra Shruthi crustiness, if necessary, through something like the Harvestman Malgorithm. So if you want a modular Shruthi, it’s already there, I don’t have to do it. Totally patchable and reconfigurable, for the hefty price of $1000 worth of modules, case not included.

Would it still make sense to simply package the whole Shruthi-1 in a module? Maybe, but then, how many knobs, and how many features exposed as CVs? It’ll be hard to draw the line. Some people will want CV control over pitch, CV control over oscillator param, CV control over mixer, CV control over oscillator type, so in the end it’ll become a 20in monster with 40 CV jack and 40 attenuators, and at this point it’ll need to be broken down into submodules - none of them being more useful than pre-existing modules… What to do with the MIDI? How to deal with patch storage? What’s the point of using a DC converter like the 1054 if -12V/12V is already available in the case…

Bluntly said, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. My goal was to make something small/affordable/accessible and I don’t think these are words that describe very well the modular philosophy. MIDI and small plastic boxes are more my thing than bulky, large, metal faceplates.

I think I have more urgent things to do that are closer to my core principles - more filters, a cheaper pre-built version, a poly version, a sequencer…

Well if you put it like that it really makes sense to me. I mean, the actual reason why I got into this whole Shruti/Shruthi business is for the exact same reasons you exposed here: small, cheap, hackable, fun!
Maybe it didn’t sound like, but I was more asking out of curiosity than anything else. So don’t worry, I perfectly agree that making more filters, a poly version and a sequencer are things much more important than modular versions… if just seemed quite an easy thing to do, so I thought I’d ask. :slight_smile:

and sorry for bugging you… didn’t know people have been asking you this over and over… didn’t seem like it here on the forums…

I always wonder why these modular guys just dont take schematics + codebase an do a Shruthi to their needs . . . .

My version of Shruthi-1 in Eurorack version.
I have a little error on LCD cut, I correct this and I send the file.
I have another idea, Wait & See ;).

PoolLP: Nice! :slight_smile:
fcd72: Has been done a few times already, here too for example: http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46379

Whoops, didn’t realize the thread was from 2010 :slight_smile: But yes, it has been done a few times since then :wink:

the .FPD file for frontpanel for Schaeffer Frontpanel Designer (http://www.schaeffer-ag.de/index.php?id=97&L=2).

I corrected the cut of LCD and another little error ;).

Wouldn’t it be nice to have some input protection diodes on those cv inputs perhaps? I’m thinking two 1n4148 and a resistor.

I used Front Panel Designer to create a Euro panel for a Microzwerg, turned out really well, I think the one that PooLP came up with will make a nice starting point for the Shruthi I would like to mount Euro. Thanks!

I think the problem with digital modules is that it’s easy to get away from the actual modularity and end up with a bunch of synths in a case.

This is neither a good or a bad thing, it’s just that eventually we’ll end up through the looking glass and be throwing an Alesis Micron module in our cases- the interface would fit perfectly in a euro module =).

I think Braids is the perfect amount of synth to have in one module- it’s dependent on others (but not so dependent you need a full 6U case to use it. It has parameters to alter, but not too many- otherwise you end up sitting lost in a small LCD screen programming a patch on a synth that just happens to be surrounded with thousands of dollars of other stuff you aren’t using.

Also, remember that you can also route signals form or to devices outside your Eurorack case; nit everything you use has to fit in it. :wink:

You might also check these guys here: http://thebeast.co.uk/ I’ve had some panels done by them in the past, Julian (who seems to be the main lad behind thebeast) is really kind and helpful, plus they usually are a bit cheaper than Schaeffer. They will also accept exports from FPD for CNC cutting and engraving.

Why don’t we just call the “CV’s” “Modifiable Inputs”? It would be 4 MIs that way, and would cause less confusion.