To someone considering the EaganMatrix rack, here are my ideas, based on using the Continuum:
If I were to get this module, I’d either set up a controller, or a generative sequencer and some modulation, as my CV source, and use the EaganMatrix rack first as a mono voice. I’d start with:
-Pitch CV to EaganMatrix x input
-Timbre CV to y
-Volume CV to z, envelope or continuous pressure not velocity
-Gate to w
And then I’d just start flipping thru presets on the rack, with the editor open on a laptop (in the now-default simplified “performance view” rather than the full complex matrix view that you see in most videos). i-iv inputs will be quite different for every patch, but it’s usually pretty self explanatory between the labeling and patch notes in the editor (which is live, so if you change a preset on the hardware, or an input changes value, you’ll see it reflected in the editor immediately).
Then, when I found a preset I liked, I’d glance at the editor to see which synth parameters the inputs i-iv are controlling for that preset (and how they’re scaled, are they continuous values or discreet steps etc. In the default simplified editor view, this is very straightforward info to parse), and then I’d try plugging some appropriate sources for those functions into the i-iv inputs.
Then, I’m thinking there will be a bank of audio processing presets arranged especially for the module, so I’d try those using an external Euro voice that’s patched into the EM rack’s analog audio inputs. I’d keep my favorite x, y, z & w sources patched in for this. My starter arrangement, suggested at the top, is just my idea of an “init” setup, but xyzw can be assigned to everything in the matrix, including to act on the audio inputs.
And then, I’d open up the full matrix view of the editor, and explore modifying existing presets, and then making my own.
Anyway, based on the Continuum, that’s my mental model for how I’d proceed with the rack, if I didn’t have the Continuum. I don’t see a need for both at this time, though I’d rather have the rack’s analog vs the Continuum’s digital audio inputs.
On some patches it’s really nice to smoothly vary the y input in just the right way that brings out the acoustic instrument quality of the sound. On another patch x and y together make up a harmonic layout, so y is mapped out as discreet harmonics of each x value, while x is still continuous pitch spectrum. There is a patch where y sends one of only two values, switching at its midpoint. There’s a patch where x isn’t assigned to pitch. There are patches where z does volume and brightness and who knows what else. There are patches that sound completely different depending upon whether you play z (or sequence it) with a percussive envelope shape vs a smooth and gentle touch. I mean it’ll sound like a drum if you finger drum it, and it’ll sound like a stringed instrument if you ease into it, on the same preset. So, it’s not as simple as x means this, y means that, always the same. And even when they do mean what they often mean, the shape and scale of the CV can make a patch sound like a 2 different patches. So, if you switch controllers or a different sequencer, even if you keep the same assumptions (x=pitch, z=volume shape etc), you might wonder why your patch sounds different. That’s probably why.
The EaganMatrix manual is available via download from the Haken Audio website. The descriptions of the synthesis modules are an interesting read. It’s not the most comprehensive manual - but it’s a pretty unusual synth. There is a basic subtractive architecture available through the matrix, and you can stick to very basic control formulas, if you want to be boring. Or you could use a simulated mouth for formants - that’s there too. Speaking of which, I’ve said enough for now.
