The VCAs are all manual control on SMX-3 – it’s a signal integrity thing, to preserve bandwidths, and common across all the Gen3 modules. Whenever you’re turning the knob on the attenuverter, you’re creating an internal voltage offset that controls the VCA. So the signal path is entirely active. We could absolutely do a “giant bank of VCAs” or a “VCA matrix” style module too. Gen3 modular can and should have lots of raw function access and utility modules.
These first 6 are very focused on packing in the density of core functions, so that you can have more core functions in the same space.
For example, I want a 4-layer alpha compositor with luma/chroma keys on each channel, and that is possible with 4x FKG in 48HP. To do this in Expedition you’d need 4x Doorway + 2x Marble Index (72HP) – and there would still be no luma/chroma key functions.
There’s a focus on versatility with these modules. More rotary and toggle switches in general, making each module have several modes – this lets one module cover a lot of use cases, so that the same smaller case can cover a wider range of possible patches.
We’re trying to establish a balance of patchable (IO points), programmable (switched signal paths) and voltage control (attenuverters, CV inputs).
We also want to make sure that there are modules that are heavily slanted in all of these ways …
– programmable (switches, like DSG)
– inputs with attenuverters (FKG, SMX, ESG)
– inputs without attenuverters (directly patchable) (ART)
– source heavy (more outputs than inputs) (DSG, DWO)
– destination heavy (more inputs than outputs) (FKG, SMX, ESG)
– balanced IO (ART)
– special/complex function heavy (FKG, ESG)
Part of the point of the “building block approach” is to empower the user to have more control over the ratio of these items, by which modules they pick. It makes tuning the patchability of your system possible. This is also in the best interests of those of you with long term system investments that are lacking a ratio of certain key functions.
The 12HP slot is based on a 9 point control grid and a 12 point IO grid. It’s a ratio designed to fit all these “tetris pieces” as base footprints:
OK, so in the context of SMX the expectation would be VCA’s prior to pumping signal in. That makes sense, more of a building block approach.
Yeah make a huge fucking VCA matrix. Idk how everyone patches these systems without 20 VCA’s. Can I pay LZX to design the boards & I’ll pump them out ASAP
To everyone who had thoughts on the names: I hope I haven’t come off too combative or dismissive – we’ve enjoyed thinking about all of these names through endless permutations over the past year – so I’m merely trying to tell the story of how and why we ended up where we did. We’ll be processing everything suggested.
That makes sense… I was just trying to address the redundancy and similarity in the abbreviations. Jettisoning the interesting sounds of G’s and D’s gives you a lot more flexibility to assign unique names.
But I really should take the time to say, this is fantastic stuff. From a workflow design standpoint I think you’re hitting the sweet spot for me, and probably for many other users. High-level modules with many functions don’t give enough visual feedback; there’s just too much going on in there. Low-level modules require too much patching and it can become a PITA to even parse what’s going on, let alone document and repeat the patch. This new series seems to get it just right: mid-level modules with just the optimal level of functionality, mix-n-match and/or collections of modules, full RGB throughout, and a much more efficient, legible, and pleasing graphic style IMHO. So well done, this feels like LZX has reached a new level.
love the naming evolution!
the hyphen felt extra
and the basic function included is wonderful
I didn’t think I had an issue with what was up before but these are even better
We’ve made a subtle change to the module titles which we think will make a big difference – the images in the OP were updated if you’d like to see.
Even though the acronyms don’t match the functional descriptors perfectly, I think we’re going to keep the model numbers as they are. There’s some history involved now.
for some reason i wasn’t a huge fan of the panels at first. nothing to do with the abbreviations tho - didn’t really care either way re: abbreviations vs. full text before and i still don’t care… but with the model numbers in outline and the full words next to them the panels just feel so much more complete. i’ve always been a sucker for attractive typography (huge fan of the typeface on the Expedition panels as well) so not really all that surprised i guess now start pumping these beauties out so we can get patching!
How do we take a RGB image and apply this (ART) kind of morphing to its frame?
I thought MP at first but you could do this transition without the ART as it stands.
I’d use Escher sketch find the in point (XY MP controls), find my out point (ES pad), turn speed all the way up, set in point, press record, set out point, stop record, speed down, loop
Then I got to thinking oh maybe the SMX is part of the answer. RGB video into input one and then 2x ART outs>keyer into input 2. Depending on your matrix settings I think that would do more of a crop/negative crop than what I’m after though.
(1) Memory Palace’s alpha / aux inputs, in mesh mode! You still need a texture mapper (digital frame store/GPU component) like Memory Palace. You would feed the ART’s HV outputs into the alpha/aux as an analog displacement mesh for the texture. In this case, you are using ART as an analog vertex mesh generator.
(2) This video looks like it may have been the Scanimate? That would be another way to do it, requiring a vector monitor and rescan/colorization workflow. In that case you’d feed the ART HV outputs into the XY of the vector monitor, the image of the text into the Z input, then rescan and colorize the vector image.
Does this mean that the X/Y/XX/YY inputs are bipolar inputs in the range [-1, 1]? To program a rotation with the DWO in quadrature mode, would you need extra voltage arithmetic to turn the [0, 1] sinusoidal oscillators into [-1, 1] oscillators, then invert one with the ART’s attenuverter to get a rotation matrix?
I notice that there are no DC/AC coupling switches as are found on most Expedition series CV inputs. These are notably not present on Topogram’s CV inputs either. I find these useful on the Expedition series but I understand this contributes to component count and design complexity, but I’d be interested to hear more about this choice.
I’m very excited about the whole series and the design philosophy being laid out here. It seems to strike such a nice balance between the micro-function modularity of the Cadet series and the somewhat more abstracted blocks from Expedition, which seems like a really lovely space for patch-programmability. The panel designs are awesome, I love all the shape-based visual aids.
To program a rotation with the DWO in quadrature mode, would you need extra voltage arithmetic to turn the [0, 1] sinusoidal oscillators into [-1, 1] oscillators, then invert one with the ART’s attenuverter to get a rotation matrix?
This is a good point. The quadrature outputs on the VCO are +/-1Vpp. While we typically don’t have generators with bipolar outputs on LZX modules, this is actually the existing precedent with MAPPER / COLORSPACE MAPPER on the UV outputs, which is the only place we have a quadrature encoded output.
So I am thinking of “quadrature out” (sin/cos) as +/-1V polar coordinates, and this being different from “sine out”, which is a 0-1V texture source. I can definitely make that more implicit in the panel graphics.
But this all comes back to the point of using the ART3 as a rotator. We’re missing 1 piece, the inverted sine. I might as well introduce one of the other modules, as it’s an important piece we should probably make part of this first set, which is the RMX6 Matrix Router. So this is how you would probably be patching it:
Now there is a second affine module coming, that is specifically a rotator / spinner. It has the affine, an internal quadrature oscillator, and a polar-to-cartesian circuit integrated, and is more like Navigator in that sense. So I think of ART3 as more raw access to Scale/Shear or just as a Shape Positioner/Sizer, whereas the next one will be more for angular displacement and rotation.
Short answer; it’s because the toggle and rotary switch response is latched to the top of each video frame.
In the past, if you flip a switch on most LZX modules, this produces an abrupt distortion inside the middle of one of the transitioning video frame. Some modules circumvent this – like Cortex for example, has a big CPLD, so it latches things like this already. But most Expedition modules (anything without sync) will show you that glitch in the output any time you flip a switch. It may not be that big of a deal, but it’s an attention to detail that’s important if you are trying to record a live, hands on performance. So this is why Expedition preferred slide switches (a “programmed setting”) rather than toggles (a “live control”) in general.
From a form factor perspective, most modules will have sync IO. But they are ALL in identical, right angle tucked pockets on all modules. They will all fit any slot in any case identically. So as a user, it actually becomes easier to manage. You just expect that every module needs a short 6" RCA sync cable, to daisy chain to the next one.
now start pumping these beauties out so we can get patching! 
