Christopher Winkels wrote:I sort mine by whether Mercury was in retrograde or not at time of purchase.

Mercury retrograde modules. They would have to be the ones that have been paid for in full but not delivered yet.....right?

Moderators: Kent, luketeaford, Joe.
Christopher Winkels wrote:I sort mine by whether Mercury was in retrograde or not at time of purchase.
Your being far too helpful and practical. I thought this thread was for useless, whitty responses only?Metamusik wrote:My system for module placement revolves around patch-cable length + trial and error:
If I find myself using lots of short cables, say doepfers yellow and black, that means I'm doing something right.
If I constantly reach for the longest, that means a module should probably be moved.
If I find dead spaces without cables, that means that the module needs to die.
Usually my well laid modular placement plans are changed beyond recognition a week after unboxing. Don't loose any sleep over it is my advice.
fac wrote:I've coded a computer simulation to determine the optimal module placement that minimizes the average required cable length based on patches I typically make.
The problem is NP-complete, so my algorithm's been running for 3+ years now. Should finish anytime soon. In the meantime, I've bough twice the modules I had 3 years ago, so I may just have to run the program again.
Not intentionally. But whenever I move stuff around, I tend to discover new patches between modules that moved closer together than they were before. I don't put modules of a given kind all together. I have a lot of modules, so I can distribute them around.crispy_porker wrote:Does anyone distribute their modules randomly/chaotically? I'm just starting out and every time I rearrange my case (to add new modules etc) I try to put one or two modules in odd places to encourage myself to try new things. I often wonder whether I should just start moving everything around and have oscillators, envelopes filters and VCAs all mixed up.