Emulate ACL Sinfonion with SSP?

Am curious if anyone had created a patch that functions similarly to Sinfonion?

I don’t own that module but from what I’ve seen it’s pretty powerful especially for generative sound creation.

If it could be replicated using SSP then that would be pretty cool.


You can recreate a channel on the Sinfonion with a sequenced switch and as many quantizers as you would have song parts. Mult the pitch input to all the quantizers. The switch will have multiple inputs from the quantizers that you select. Repeat for additional channels.

Sounds like a good starting place. Thanks for the guidance.

I took a quick look at the Sinfonion…

the basics probably can be covered by sequencers (e.g. CART) and quanizer (SHQ), then just use offsets to get chords.

I will say, from what I read on the Sinfonion, kind of its point is to go beyond that… this is described pretty well in the manual, so I won’t repeat that , but essentially its the way it combines multi ‘streams’ that makes it quite interesting… maintaining musical relationships.

the other side is, the Sinfonion has a really large UI !
its supposed to be hands-on, so replicating with a lots of virtual buttons/knobs, would also kind of miss the point a bit.

I do have some ideas for modules in this area…
though for the above reason, id be unlikely to want to ‘emulate’ the Sinfonion, but rather something that uses similar concepts. but does things in a different way. there are also some interesting ideas also floating around in various vcvrack modules.

(that said, I think I might hold off on that until Ive created another module thats really required to make use of something like this)

I know, I’m talking in riddles… but Im not ready to commit to what these modules might be, or when I might prioritise them.

all that said…

I think with certain compromises, you can still patch something that gets you to similar places as Sinfonion.

and thats often the case… because these complex modules are hardware, then have to cover a variety of use-cases. but for every track you make you don’t need all of this flexibility, rather you use in one way.
so on the SSP you patch that use-case NOT the entire Sinfonion.

of course, every module brings its own pros/cons… so your ssp patch will influence the end result too - thats not necessarily bad.

frankly, what’s cool about patching your own preset on the SSP, is you get to put your spin on the idea… use your ideas for how things relate, and get creative :slight_smile:

Thank you for the time looking into this and responding back. Yea, I agree with your points that a SSP patch can mimic Sinfonion capabilities (from a 10,000 foot level) plus offer flexibility well beyond what the Sinfonion can do today.

“Maintaining Musical relationships” sounds like automation logic which I believe falls outside of SSP capabilities (but I may be wrong) and hopefully could do some automation with an Electra One but will cross that bridge when I actually get my hands on one (expected ETA is mid- May).

TBH, was hoping that someone here had already created a patch that does most of the chords, patterns, harmonizing, etc., and was willing to share it vs trying to build one from scratch. (wishful thinking I know :slight_smile:)

Like most new things, walk before run, and that certainly falls into the marathon category.

Thank you all again for the guidance.


no, I don’t think so… I meant more , it has multiple channels, but the outputs are kind of related…
this is the tricky (not impossible!) thing to do when you just have multiple independent modules.
but for sure the SSP can do this… its just a matter of patching.

all that said, I only had a quick look thru manual to see what it was all about… and it wasn’t entirely clear how much logic it really has to relate channels, without digging deeper.

but as I said, I think a big part of what its about is the immediacy thru the UI… hence why its has so many buttons (dedicated to selecting intervals etc) … thats hard to do, without a lot of buttons :slight_smile:

Personally, I do think a lot of what the Sinfonion does could be patched (both on the SSP and in eurorack!), if you focus on that task at hand… rather than on the tool.

I mean creating chords is just voltage offsets, we have an arp, (though even an arp is really just a ‘timed’ switch) … scale selection is just quantisers… add in a matrix mixer, sequencers, and literally the only missing elements is a creative spark :wink:

I do love these complex modules that do it ‘all-in-one’, but sometimes they don’t feel very modular.

Think I’ll simplify this project for now by building the voices on SSP, (each controlled by different MIDI channels), and dust off the ole NDLR and let it control the chords & sequencing parts, or control it in some combination between Hapax & NDLR.

Guess in other words let the NDLR to do the heavy lifting for now until I get more acquainted with doing it all on SSP.

Yea, I hear that. These specialty modules are often macro-oriented meaning they do the job of a bunch of individually-focused modules. Guess one of the nice trade-offs that these complex modules offer is reduced footprints. But yes, it takes away the flexibility that individual modules offer.

in fairness, producing digital hardware will drive you towards more macro oriented.

if we look at a more obvious example… Mutable Instruments Plaits.
the hardware side is identical if it has 16 or 64 different synth engines.
and every ‘extra’ synth engine is one more selling/marketing point.
so whilst analog oscillators kind have one ‘sound’, digital oscillators will have a plethora.
(and need to, to be ‘competitive’)

and if we look at the (digital) sequencer market we see the same… sure there are some simple ones, but there are a lot with tons of functions.
so really Sinfonion is just trying to carve out a niche, in a already crowded market.

BUT this brings me back to the SSP , and something Ive talked about before…

with the SSP we don’t have that limitation of hardware…
it doesn’t cost any more to design/program where we split the functionality over 2 or 3 modules, versus putting it in one ‘uber’ module.
so its a design choice… and these days I tend to lean a bit more towards the ‘modular’ view.

BUT at times, putting things into one module makes more sense, because its easier to integrate.
e.g. CART
I could have made CART a single layer grid, and you could use 3 instances to get similar functionality, however communicating between modules solely via CV, not only means more patching for the end user , but also not all ‘communication’ can be done effectively via just voltage.
(which is partly why i2c has gained some popularity for behind the panel comms between modules)

anyway, its part of the process that I enjoy about designing modules - what should be done in one module, what should be split out… as its often a style choice as much as anything… there is no right answer.

talking about writing SSP modules,
remember if you want to design something like the Sinfonion, or really any generative like module - then end-users can now program their own SSP modules using MAX RNBO. its pretty easy, and a fun thing to do.
(see my other topics for info)

1 Like

Maybe that power of the chip is there, but it’s pretty complex and b4 you start to combine functionality modules in the SSP you really completely have to understand how its done in the sinfonion that was designed by Matthias who after started his own company DMMDM where he vastly took parts from the programmed code into his DROID universe which has great flexibility but does not reach the deepness of a SINFONION, as he said in his discord Chats where you also can find a Section for the sinfonion
That’s what I know about it :sunglasses:

1 Like