I’m kinda stuck with Metamodule right now. I’m not sure what to use it for tbh. I’m wondering how other people approach the module conceptually. Do you limit yourself to a subset of capabilities? Have you built a go-to patch that you use for most things? Are you a constant explorer? I think I get stuck partly because of the sheer number of modules available to me.
I use it in one of three ways:
- start a patch on other devices besides the MetaModule, wait until I need some function that I don’t have in other modules, set that function up on the MetaModule, keep patching. I usually end up using MetaModule utilities or modulation rather than sound sources or effects in this case. (I do it with the Nonlinear Triple Sloths so often that I should probably just get a Sloths.)
- pick an interesting-looking module on the MetaModule, set it up carefully, and build a patch around it using my other modules. I’ve done this with Orca’s Heart, the Bogaudio FM-OP, and lots of the modules from the 4ms, Mutable, and Moffenzeef plugins. (ETA: Also the OrangeLine and probably lots of others I’m forgetting.)
- build a patch without using the MetaModule, realize I haven’t used it yet, load up Plateau.
What I don’t do, and what a lot of others on this forum seem to do, is spend a ton of time building elaborate patches to run on the MetaModule itself. I find that a bit too much like computers — there’s a lot of cognitive load that takes me out of the flow of patching. I prefer using the MM as a complement to the rest of my system, and it works extremely well that way. I’m usually only using a small fraction of the MM’s potential, in terms of CPU and RAM, but that’s just one less thing to worry about.
Hope that helps! I love the MetaModule but the options paralysis you’re describing is real.
4 Likes
I’ve been struggling with this too and most of the time it’s due to me not having enough sound sources in hardware. I end up making a patch that is way too much for the module to handle and then get disheartened when it doesn’t work right. So I recently got myself the Vostok Sena module from Thonk and right now, I’m building a patch around that and getting great results. I agree with your 3 options, having hardware to do the heavy lifting is going to change the way I do things moving forward and I can start to concentrate on using the MetaModule as a vast utility repository.
I’m a lot like gabrielroth above, especially his number 1)
I have a large system already, so to me MM is just for “hey, one more Rings would be good in this patch” or whatever. It’s just an extension of my whole system.
It’s easy to be overwhelmed to the point of paralysis with the huge number of available modules!
1 Like
I’ve been fooling around with vcv for years, but MM is what actually got me buying a rack.
Some easy wow ideas that take almost no patching:
- Hook up Sickozell modulator 7 through VCV 8vert. Map sone knobs and you have steerable Ochd.
- Also try Randmod7 for the random flavor of the same.
Any patch gets super powers with so many cv modifiers. It gets absolutely brain bending if you have the extra IO outs and add 7 more. - Try several different oscillators all at once. They usually aren’t too resource intensive by themselves. There are several types of oscillators I’ve wanted to try, but can’t afford to buy them all to figure out which ones I want. This way I can kick the tires virtually, but still in my actual rack with my effects.
- Pick 4+ of the ones you like. Map them to a knob set and get eurorack polyphony using CV instead of MIDI. Or hook it up to MIDI and get both.
- I have trouble justifying modular drums both for hp and cost. Go get a drum line and start some earthquakes. A chorus of kicks can melt your face.
- I always want an oscilloscope when breaking ground on a new patch, but rarely after I get it going. Just hook up VCV Scope 2 in, 2 out. It only uses 3% CPU. Then I switch to one of my other MM patches to play. Plus, the new display menu option makes the ”screen“ take up the whole screen. Instant wiggle happiness big enough for me to read.
I’ve tried really involved patches and used some that the community has built and had a blast, but the most fun I’ve had is getting a bunch of somethings and just wiring them out through a mixer and having modular mayhem to back up my lead voices. I found out that the simplest patches are some of the best ones.
5 Likes
I totally understand.
I struggled quite a lot with this question. Why did I buy it? Too much time spent on the MM figuring what I did wrong on a patch, for example.
Then I tried to recreate some modules that doesn’t exist in MM… And in my rack. And that is the most fun way I used the MM till now. It is good for learning synthesis. Getting documented about circuitry, internal wiring, gain staging, how complex something simple can be…
A classic complex oscillator like the verbos one for instance, or their polyphonic envelope. Try to get a fully featured 4 operators FM voice.
I don’t have a computer anymore for some months now and patch everything within the MM. Things evolve much slower but my understanding of the processes are much more efficient. And when using it, you already deeply know your module much more than if you bought a hardware version of it. And it works well.
The plus of the meta module is also the ability of setting complex sequencing with an unbeatable hp factor.
Cheers.
1 Like
I’d say this is pretty common, not only for MM but VCV and other hardware virtual modules. ( I have a few)
like others, I think the bread n’ butter are simple patches.
often , wrappers around a couple of modules- things like modulation , fx patches - they are quick n’ simple to build, on the unit… and fill ‘functional’ holes I have in my hardware rack.
to avoid choice paralysis, I stick to a few plugins - mainly hardware clones (arbitrary choice), so I know my ‘palette’ . I’ll only go look further if I need something they cannot provide.
sure, it may seem that this is under utilising the possibilities, but I don’t think so.
given the form factor, for me the MM excels where there are limited number of parameters exposed (via knobs) and connects to your existing hardware module (lots of IO)
this is my bread n’ butter, and I feel this makes the MM valuable to me.
as a ‘bonus’
I love the MM (and other similar modules) for the tinkering and exploration possibilities. its worth it for the the days I wake up and think “I wonder if…”, “what about …”.
these are varied by nature, could just be a patching idea, or could be a (module) development idea.
the MM is good for this, as it can feel like a (connected) sandbox for ideas.
(currently, Im working on a module that allows me to simply use MM as a MPE voice - just hook up an Erae Touch and play :))
tl;dr;, I use it for ‘utility patches’ and experimentation.
1 Like
Thanks everyone for the replies. As I read your responses, I start to see some of my own mental blocks. For one, I tend to think that since it’s so capable, and quite expensive, I should find a use for the Metamodule in every patch. But I don’t think that way about other modules, so why the MM? Also, because there are so many VCV modules available I tend to think that my patches should always be complex. Last night I abandoned that idea and just created something I liked in VCV then adjusted it to work in MM. It’s quite simple but I like the sound and tweakability.
I uploaded it to the patch gallery: Voxglitch and Resonators
3 Likes
Forgive my long-winded philosophical rant, but I think it might help you.
Whenever I’m making a video for MM or designing an entirely new product I often start with a set of limitations rather than the infinite possibilities of what the video could describe, or what the product could do. Often defining what a patch or an instrument shouldn’t do is a more inspirational starting point.
After all, almost all of the greatest instruments in the history of music as a whole (acoustic included) have a fixed set of limitations. A snare drum is an excellent design and can’t play diatonic musical notes. A trumpet can only play one note at a time in a fixed timbre and musical range no less (unless you’re a master of overtones or throat singing). Look at Coltrane - he dedicated his entire life to figuring out all of the things he could do with a saxophone. The saxophone wasn’t modded, he didn’t try to change the instrument - he simply worked with what was already present and completely broke the mold with his mouth and his fingers.
I’m convinced that the same concept applies for electronic instruments as well. People love the CR78 and you can’t even adjust the sounds, you only have control over the sequencing. The CR78 is heralded for navigating what it already does provide for you, no what it could provide for you. Would a CR78 still be a CR78 with an infinite number of sound possibilities for the voices? I’m not sure…
Why not start with a prompt for yourself in a sort of problem/solution manner? “I’m making a patch that processes audio for making ambient stems” or “I’m making a sequence that specializes in generative rhythms” or "I’m making a complex modulation source with 20 modules but I want to reduce the controls to 2 or 3 knobs.
It’s easy to get lost in the infinite - this is why many people leave computers for the modular environment. MetaModule seems to only exacerbate this existential issue, which can only be wrangled with focus and diligence. Have fun! 
6 Likes
I did not know about the screen thing with the scope!!! Thank you so much for this!!
I just tend to use mine as a utility module. I bought it because my case was nearly full, but I knew there would be a handful of utility modules that I would need but not need in every patch. So rather than buy a single filter or scope or quantizer or whatever, the MM seemed to cover all those bases. I also fall into the trap of “this thing is expensive and powerful, so I better get the most out of it every patch” in fact I have this issue with most of my gear. The reality I have come to is, that is simply not true. If I am having fun and making music I enjoy, that is the point of all this gear in the first place.
Thank you for this post, the responses have really helped me to see more possible ways to use MM!!
2 Likes
Right now I am “stuck” (happily) using MM as a 4-voice polysynth based on the 4ms Ensemble voice running through Plateau reverb by Valley with a bunch of the parameters mapped to the knobs. It’s a pretty basic patch but it allows me to do something my hardware rig doesn’t normally do, play notes and chords so it’s adding another dimension and making it a little more fun.
The other main function I have used MM for- and this keeps things really simple- is using one module at a time. Just having the ability to dial up any module in the 4ms and Mutable Instruments libraries is a wealth of functionality, let alone delving into all of the bajillion other makers and modules. You can easily use up most of the ins and outs and knobs just playing with an MI Grids let alone More complex modules.
Lastly, sometimes I turn the tables on “analysis paralysis” and deliberately doomscroll through MM-available modules, just searching for random inspiration under the premise of “I’ve always wanted to try…” or “that thing just looks cool I wonder what it does”. MM is a wonder in this way, with thousands of choices, some of them are things I have never thought of. This can be a great way to start a patch when I get bored of my typical methodology.
Great topic, some really useful ideas from everyone, thanks!
1 Like
This is such an excellent point, and one that I often forget. Thanks.
1 Like
+1 for the single module approach. I’m finding this focused approach means it can better integrate with the rest of my rack. The interface is fine but my brain cannot handle too many options per module
2 Likes
I found out that since last beta fw with sortability by tags my patch output more than doubled.
1 Like
The other great thing about a single-module patch is that you can throw in a few utilities later when you need them.
2 Likes