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

Some new Units to share



Yay great idea this one! There have been a lot of requests on the forum for a straight up clock divider, including my own. I can’t test the unit right now, but probably you can tell me about its clock tracking performance? Stays in sync nicely with the incoming clock? I feel like this is going to be another essential building block for a lot of us.


Yes, I think this will work for the scenarios you’ve described in other posts because it is counting incoming clock pulses directly vs. using a derived/calculated tempo like the Tap Tempo unit does. If I had to guess, there is probably a more efficient way to create a straight up clock divider at the c++ level that Brian will make some day, but I think this unit will work OK as a simple clock divider without a derived tempo component until then.

If there’s interest, it should be pretty easy for me to create a version of this that just has one divider and no carousel. It would save some CPU and have a smaller UI footprint.


Ballot stuffing! :scream:


Vote early, and vote often! :crazy_face:


can you please explain what you mean by derived\calculated clock? thanks!


Do you mean you want to know the difference between a tap tempo and a clock divider? :thinking:

Tap Tempo: “I’m going to clap a tempo for a few beats, please clap your own hands at this same tempo.”
Clock Divider: “Count my claps. When you get to N, clap your hands once and start your counting over again.”

Notice that the Tap Tempo has a free running oscillator inside while the Clock Divider does not.


ah ok no i just misinterpreted it! i already use the tap tempo as pulse vco :slight_smile:


Just played a gig and really enjoyed the ring modulator, huge thanks Joe <3


Question for you all. This library already has quite a few units, and I have a couple more in the works.

If I don’t discover any problems with them, and no one else reports any after some period of time, I want to move them out of the “Experimental” category.

Would you prefer that I try to put them in a category I feel is appropriate (whether it be one of the existing builtin categories or new ones if there are no good matches)?

Or would you prefer I create a category called “Joe’s Bespoke Units” or whatever and dump them all in there so you can separate them from the builtins?

Of course it’s pretty easy to edit the init.lua file to put them where you want them, but each time there’s an update, you’ll have to manually update your init.lua file with the new unit lines, and I’m sure some will prefer not to bother with that.

Any thoughts? I guess my inclination is to categorize them, as I don’t care whether they’re builtins or not if they work. But then again, I pretty much know which ones are the builtins and which are bespoke. :wink:


I’d prefer a category you feel appropriate and not in “Joe’s Bespoke Units.” Nothing personal but when I’m working with my modular gear I prefer information be as straight forward as possible without personal dedications.


They are so good they belong to the official categories!


What @phonk said!!


I would prefer standard categories, or possibly new generic categories? As the list grows longer it might start making sense to have more specific categories?

Hey look we can actually vote!

  • Generic categories
  • Dedicated “Joe” folder

0 voters


Cool @Bparticle - did not know about the polling feature. That’s a nice way to get a quick pulse on something.

I think most of these map decently well to existing builtin categories. The exceptions might be the Flanger and Ensemble which in my mind are ‘audio effects’ or ‘audio modulation effects’ I guess the could go in ‘delay and reverb’ since they are time based effects, though I tend not to think of these effects specifically as delays in my mental map.

I guess another point in favor of me categorizing them is that, assuming I do a decent job of it, it’s a much easier mod to the init.lua file for someone who wants it the other way to move them all to a ‘bespoke’ category than going the other direction, with everyone categorizing them themselves each time.


+1 for the generic categories!

  • though I am also for generic categories, I strongly recommend not to call any of them „audio fx“ or „audio mod sources“. for isn’t the er-301 nothing less than a great bundle of audio- and cv effects and mod sources?
  • imho same goes for time based effects… (thinking of time and frequency domains in sound/music…)
  • @Joe himself stated somewhere that one of the biggest benefits (though also challenges) of dealing with the er-301 is that you (have to) gain a pretty deep understanding of what is actually happening under the hood of every audio gear. Some of us already had the physics straight when they came to 301-land. Others could begin or continue to have a better understanding of physical possibilities as well as constraints. the er-301 as an outstanding educational tool for audio engineering and music was also mentioned somewhere in the forum. from this point of view a rather physical/mathematical categorization would be interesting though it would obviously lead to a whole different set of categories… at some (more stable) point in time an additional and educationally differentiated init.lua with physical/mathematical categories might get interesting. and for those who already
    know the maths of music that would already be useful i think. but for users who have a more “musical approach” to the er-301 (as some of us might call it) the categories Brian had chosen seems almost necessary.
  • So i got one rather serious suggestion:in order to fit into the categories that we have already on board: what do you think about a further category called

“chorus, phaser and flanger”

  • then, i got a rather funny suggestion: what do you think of a new category called


(i boroughed the concept from this concert. from the introduction to a song that Leo wrote
for his son @Joe. You see Joe, I keep looking for musical references to your name, while “Hey @Joe” would just be too obvious to be mentioned here :wink: )

or is he saying “noiseator”? help me out here.


Nauseator? Noiseator? Tough call. :slight_smile: I’m not really feeling the need for a vanity category here, even a veiled one. Your point about making a category name that is too generic is well taken though, @mopoco !

Thanks for the votes and thoughts everyone. There’s really no precedent here, so just trying to think through it and hopefully set a good one. One of the things I was really trying to think through is whether there is any value in being able to distinguish between a bulitin and bespoke unit from looking at the insert screen. There’s a group of us who use our 301s a lot, and for that group, I think you already know. Then there are newer users,and more occasional users, and for them it may be less obvious. I guess you can always boot it without the SD card if you want to know, and the bespokes will disappear.

At any rate, based on the responses, I think this will be my approach:

  1. Try to map to builtin categories whenever possible*

  2. If there’s really no good match with the builtins, create a new category*

  3. I will try to make a 5 minute Youtube on editing the init.lua file for anyone who wants to move stuff around. It really doesn’t take any coding skills to do this. Anyone who can operate the ER-301 can edit the init.lua file to make the bespoke unit categorization meet their preferences.

(*) These may be subject change since the bulitin categories may also be a moving target.


Would love a youtube on editing .lua files!


I’m all for having them placed into existing (or new) categories based on function.
It seems that a search might eventually be useful, I currently have trouble finding a unit sometimes despite knowing the name. Entering the first few characters of the name for a search seems like it may be faster than scrolling through all of the units. Just a thought.


Here are a couple new units to try out. I think Logics has been my most challenging build yet! But I enjoyed making it. I assume these will work fine on firmware 0.3.25 but I have only tested them (lightly) on 0.4.x. Both units can accept CV or audio rate inputs.

NEW UNIT: Logics
JANITORIAL: Moved units from Experimental to appropriate categories.

Compares two inputs (a and b) and outputs a user determined value based on the selected logical operation (select from header menu).

AND: Outputs TRUE when both inputs are true, otherwise FALSE
OR: Outputs TRUE when either or both inputs are true, otherwise FALSE
XOR: Outputs TRUE when one but not both inputs are true, otherwise FALSE
NAND: Outputs TRUE when either input is false , otherwise FALSE
NOR: Outputs TRUE when both inputs are false, otherwise FALSE
XNOR: Outputs TRUE when both inputs are the same, otherwise FALSE

threshold: values at or above the threshold are considered TRUE, below FALSE. Threshold applies to both inputs a and b. Modulatable at frame rate
true: value to output when TRUE. Modulatable at sample rate
false: value to output when FALSE. Modulatable at sample rate

Scopeside Chat for Logics Unit

Compares two inputs (a and b) and outputs a value based on the selected math operation (select from header menu).

MAX: Outputs the maximum value of the two signals
MIN: Outputs the minimum value of the two signals
MEAN: Outputs the mean value of the two signals

Scopeside Chat for Maths Unit

Direct Download: Joe-s-Bespoke-ER-301-Units-13-Sep.zip (106.8 KB)
Github: https://github.com/SuperNiCd/Joe-s-Bespoke-ER-301-Units