Hi there, I need a source of modulation/envelope in my rack (pretty much a t&mmm) so maths is the first thing that comes to my mind but I saw a couple of video about quadrax and it seems a more powerful maths in a smaller space.
Is there something that I don’t see and I will miss about maths if I will choose intellijel?
It’s hard to conclusively say Quadrax is “more powerful” since Maths does things Quadrax doesn’t do and Quadrax does things Maths doesn’t do. If you just want the envelopes, Quadrax is pretty much a no brainer (4 envelopes > 2 envelopes), but Maths can also be: slew limiter, attenuverters, source of constant voltage, CV offset/multiplier, rectifier, trigger delay, and/or logic, inverter, envelope follower, clock/trigger source/divider (you can get some triggers out of Quadrax with an expander module though), a janky filter etc etc - check the back of the Maths manual for info. Maths on its own is capable of generating more complex modulation than Quadrax by using the logic outputs and self patching end of rise/cycle into the other envelopes trigger - you can do this last bit with Quadrax but only if you have the expander.
Most of the genius of Maths is how all the individual components work together and let you build lots of functionality by self patching. I also prefer the directness of having the CV inputs all exposed - you get ‘more’ envelopes in Quadrax, but you only have as much modulation potential over the rise and fall of them as Maths does because there are only 4 CV ins, and they have to be assigned through button combo stuff. You DO get CV over shape and level, which Maths does not have, however. But it really depends if you need/want this extra stuff in your system, or if you’re really just after a bunch of nice envelope generators. If the latter you’re not missing anything from Maths, and you’re gaining extra envelopes.
8 Likes
Great write up and I concur.
Personally I’d take a Quadra over the menu diving of Quadrax.
1 Like
I would recommend you to check klavis quadigy.
3 Likes
Quadrax is also capable of doing this internally, by linking channels. For instance, I like linking the EOR to trigger the subsequent envelope to produce an undulating wave of four envelopes/functions. Additionally, you can patch CV sources to more than one destination at a time, using the mod matrix, which can be very powerful.
I won’t do say one is capable of “more” complex modulation than the other – this is reductive. But they are both capable of different and powerful modulation, and there are many, many things you can do with Quadrax as a modulator that cannot be achieved with Maths.
I ditched my Maths, because it can do a million things, but I was using about a million minus 999,999 of them on a regular basis, and I replaced it with Quadrax. Zero regrets.
6 Likes
Stages is a good shout if you can get one for a decent price - unfortunately discontinued though. There will be clones very soon (I think After Later are doing one).
Otherwise I’d consider splitting the functions, if you have the space. Maths is big so that shouldn’t be a challenge. i.e. Taking something like a WMD Javelin + an LFO generator might make for a more versatile setup. The issue I had with Maths when I had mine is that I either felt big parts of it were going unused (i.e. if I just needed an A/D eg), or I was creating modulations that were often more complicated than neccessary. I’m getting on well with Mod Medusa right now but it’s a very specific approach to LFO’s and some might find that restrictive.
2 Likes
Thanks for the correction, thought you needed the expander to get those triggers but that’s v nice that you can set it internally.
Personally, I think there is too much emphasis on Maths as the default function generator. It is important historically but has some weaknesses. I have Falistri, Quadrax/Qex, Delta-V.
Falistri is my favourite: very playable, nice separation of concerns, and a good oscillator as well. But it is wider (though not as wide as Maths) and more expensive.
Quadrax is pretty usable for core functionality, but for bursts and offbeat LFO shapes you need the manual at hand. If I don’t use it for a week or two I forget everything that isn’t obvious from the front panel (including the internal CV routing). It’s quite powerful; one can program an entire Krell patch with only three of the four channels. But I think some of the functionality comes at a cost. It theoretically tracks V/oct but is a pain to tune so I don’t use it as an oscillator. I took Qex out of the case because I wasn’t using it.
Delta-V is a good space-saving choice; it includes skew and internal VCAs, plus some nice internal normalizations, and is very usable. I never have to look anything up. It doesn’t really track V/oct, so you can’t use it as an oscillator if you want precise pitch, but it delivers fine envelopes and LFOs.
3 Likes
Quadra + expander is a great choice as well! Super hands on
2 Likes
I love this community! Thanks a lot to everyone.
I have to study more my situation and think of what I need and what I can do with the modules I have.
I hope that in the meantime I find someone that let me play with both and also take a look at the alternative you suggest
More Maths Alternatives opine here:
https://modwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=164126&start=25
1 Like
Ive been using befaco Rampage lately in mirack. It does some pretty out there stuff.
Very capable dual function generator. Loads of features.
Buchla inspired, just like maths. Maths is always a turn off for me due to the obtuse panel layout and unreadable legend.
I have 2 Pittsburgh envelope modules which when used together are a basic version of a serge dual slope generator, upon which the whole business is based.
1 Like
Last post in that thread was more than six years ago. Here’s a newer one. The original question is quite restrictive but the thread goes all over the place, so lots of good opinions, pro and con.
1 Like