Home | ER-101 | ER-102 | ER-301 | Wiki | Contact

Er-301 sdk mia

Thanks for your reply kei. I really do appreciate the effort in your responses, but you are also jumping to conclusions regarding the effort or experimenting I have already done the the ER301 firmware (haven’t been trying with 2.0 but was up to about 1.8 maybe). So can you do transition probabilities then, or draw from non-uniform distributions? Can you probabilistically set the length of an envelope segment and then use a variable to control the length of the sequence? I was giving a simple example because I am not into long postings, but it is actually very easy for me to make the argument that unit X doesn’t exist. So far this forum has served the opposite propose, ‘hey did you know you can do X with the existing unit chains’ and I totally understand that as a 301 user, many of us here like the fun of experimenting with the limitations of the current units and reporting back to the forum. In fact I am not saying that any of you in any way are uncool for spending your time this way. For me, it is very clear that the units I envision can not be constructed by the existing units. This is where the unit SDK would come in and this is how I would like to use my time. Maybe this is more clear now?

I think kel was under the impression that you hadn’t used your ER-301 much at all since you said it has been gathering dust since you bought it.

1 Like

Replace “Units” with “modules”, and that’s the Eurorack format as a whole! :wink:

Some of the greatest achievements in recorded music history are from pushing the limits of what was available. Imho, limits hone focus and up the anti with thinking outside the box problem solving skills.

But mini-ramble aside…

YES!! I’m absolutely stoked to see what units code-ninjas will create when the SDK is released in the wild. :smiley: :smiley:


Sure jonny, that impression is a figure of speech, I was one of the first to place an order. It has sat gathering dust for some time now, much like the new units requests that seem way out of control!

Yes, I read and was disappointed by your reverb unit request to Sean. That is one reason I am posting here BTW. The issue is that Brian has made a really nice hardware design and such a beautiful GUI that many programmers would prefer to build something that has access to the existing units, because that means 301 users can have a reverb that can utilize 17 LFOs as modulators instead of the usual 1. What would a reverb that had 17 modulators sound like?

I get where you’re coming from. While you wait for the SDK, I’d like to invite you to join in on the sheer joy and fun many of us are experiencing from using (and in some cases pushing to the limit) what’s included in the O|D firmware updates that are coming out fast and furious.

Totally up to you of course, but it might make that wait go by faster. :wink:

1 Like

Yes - this!

I am reasonably confident you that you can do all the things you are suggesting now, at least to some degree. You would probably need some initial external support from other sources.

The really great thing about doing this publicly and discussing it with everyone here is that you get both an interested audience who are very capable and may just surprise you with some stunning solutions, and a listening developer who has an uncanny ability to distill what you are asking for into units that enable an extremely broad range of application instead of ‘unit X’ that does whatever.

I totally understand why @odevices is holding back, by the time the SDK is released the approach taken here will be firmly established and the core functionality will be implemented to a very high standard. This will set the tone for much going forward!

We’re in danger of going round in circles… I know it seems a way off yet, but the end of the year really isn;t that far away, I am more than happy to wait, patiently, for the good stuff that is coming our way and simply enjoy the time in-between exploring what we have already, and whatever else turns up of course!

Why not start another thread saying what it is you would like to achieve right now that you can’t and see what happens?


Hmm, I’ve had a hard time wrapping my head around what can only be described as the closed and sometimes archaic mindsets for what modular synthesis should be. The only thing I’ve found is, if someone loves it you can be sure someone hates it. I find it odd that some of the biggest critics who have been in the modular world for quite sometime are the ones that seem to not understand the most as to what modularity is suppose to mean. Modules like the 301 and SSP are the exact way eurorack should be going IMHO.


Because this thread is already composed very well. SDK MIA…

Thanks Joe, I think I will buy a MOD DUO and have more fun now and of course come back in a few months and again be the only one to ask for the SDK…

If I understand you correctly then yeah sure…

To me the beauty of the format is that it literally can be all things to all people, if you don’t like a particular module then simply move on to something you do like, if what you like doesn’t exist yet, build it!

It’s amazing :slight_smile:

The MOD DUO does look like a blast! And yep, you do seem to be in a minority in the sense that you aren’t getting much satisfaction out of what the ER-301 can do right now. I think most of us, including those who are also excited about the SDK, are.

Hope that someday it will do what you bought it for. Cheers

There have been some great points realised in this thread, it’s been good to reflect on how far we have come and what is possible already.

Asking about the development of the SDK is totally valid and it’s great to have an update on approximate time frames for the arrival of that.

Of course this is still a guesstimate and it may take longer - that’s totally ok!

I think we are all of one accord in that we would rather it was late and as awesome as it can be than early and a compromise somehow.

In conclusion, I think it’s helpful to remember that the SDK really isn’t missing in action, it just does’t exist yet and it will be yet another ridiculously impressive feat of engineering to bring it into existence!


Now you’re losing me in a few ways:

  1. [quote=“tbecker, post:25, topic:679, full:true”]
    Yes, I read and was disappointed by your reverb unit request to Sean.
    [/quote]What’s the difference between putting out a feeler request to a master of their craft for the slim hope of a 3rd party reverb unit vs. you coding something? None. You’re both 3rd party.

  2. [quote=“tbecker, post:25, topic:679, full:true”]“that has access to the existing units” [/quote] Wasn’t the point of wanting the SDK asap to avoid all the internal units (as you said yourself the module is sitting there doing nothing) and make something yourself that “isn’t patching”… but hardcoded within the brand new unit?? Having 3rd party units rely on internal units (that could change slightly with updates) could potentially throw off whatever you’d be doing. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to have modulator inputs for all your control parameters so the guts are all self-contained within the unit you’re creating?

A: Gauging by listening to my Eventide H8000 - either amazing or absolutely swamp sandwich terrible :smiley:

I’m not arguing at all with my comments … . just curious :slight_smile:

1 Like

If all you wanted was the SDK functionality I don’t understand why you even bought the 301 months prior to its implementation. Brian has been completely transparent with us regarding the firmware development, even before it was released. Why not hold off from purchasing the 301 until you were sure it contained the functionality you desire. You’ve been into this scene a while, you should know things a usually take a bit longer than originally anticipated.

Im also very excited to see how it evolves wit the SDK but this module is insanely powerful as it is, its keeping me busy in the mean time.