Cardinal – Virtual modular synthesizer plugin(cardinal.kx.studio)
cardinal.kx.studio
Cardinal – Virtual modular synthesizer plugin
https://cardinal.kx.studio/
47 comments
>while the hardware versions of these modules can cost hundreds of dollars, the software versions are using the exact same firmware
firmware? so for the modules you are talking about, what you are saying is that they're virtual analog software synths anyway, and the "hardware" aspect simply provides some jacks for patching?
firmware? so for the modules you are talking about, what you are saying is that they're virtual analog software synths anyway, and the "hardware" aspect simply provides some jacks for patching?
They are not necessarily "virtual analog", they can also just be "digital".
Think the Mutable Instruments modules, many of these are based around STM32 microcontrollers. The firmware is MIT licensed and has simply been ported into Rack modules.
There are a number of Rack modules that started out as pure hardware that now have virtual counter-parts.
Think the Mutable Instruments modules, many of these are based around STM32 microcontrollers. The firmware is MIT licensed and has simply been ported into Rack modules.
There are a number of Rack modules that started out as pure hardware that now have virtual counter-parts.
Eurorack setups can be as digital or analog as you want these days. My rack, https://modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/2558872 , for example is mostly analog oscilators and filters, but digital low-frequency oscilators, envelopes, sequencing, and effects. IMHO, the analog filters and oscilators are 90% of the analog magic though, so that's what really matters to me.
Very nice project, it has all the basic modules to start learning from, and most importantly - in one place.
I'm using it myself in combination with Ardour, now at the beginning of my learning curve - it is great!
I'm using it myself in combination with Ardour, now at the beginning of my learning curve - it is great!
Also there is now a physical eurorack module where you can load and play VCV modules.
https://modulargrid.net/e/4ms-company-metamodule
When can I get this module in VCV? :)
They got you covered:(11:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB4A32yrcwI&t=684s
Sort of.
I think in the video you linked, what's being shown is an instance of VCV Rack representing the modules running within the MetaModule, and there's a non-interactive MetaModule faceplate in that rack that you can use to map from the real MetaModule's controls to the virtual knobs of the modules it's running. Which is a pretty cool interface.
But I reckon what the GP is asking is for a real interactive MetaModule within VCV Rack, running the real firmware - i.e. VCV Rack hosts the MetaModule, which hosts VCV Rack, which could presumably host another MetaModule, which could host another VCV Rack ... etc etc.
I think in the video you linked, what's being shown is an instance of VCV Rack representing the modules running within the MetaModule, and there's a non-interactive MetaModule faceplate in that rack that you can use to map from the real MetaModule's controls to the virtual knobs of the modules it's running. Which is a pretty cool interface.
But I reckon what the GP is asking is for a real interactive MetaModule within VCV Rack, running the real firmware - i.e. VCV Rack hosts the MetaModule, which hosts VCV Rack, which could presumably host another MetaModule, which could host another VCV Rack ... etc etc.
You can host Cardinal inside of Cardinal inside of ..
Wow. I guess I haven’t been paying attention to 4ms lately.. this feels wrong but right. I like it.
It would be nice to add a guide or a question in the FAQs about using your PC keyboard for MIDI input. I've explored the project and the menus a bit, but I can't get it to work from the browser (Firefox, Linux).
I'm a little torn on how I feel towards the Cardinal project. It claims not to be a fork on a technicality. It brings some improvements certainly and VCV dev has felt stagnant the last couple years, but it's also a little uncomfortably (to me) ideologically trying to GPL VCV. At least they are transparent about it. I like their community presence. I wonder if most users of Cardinal are aware how much of what they appreciate is the work upstream. A lot of value is lost to not have access to all of VCV's free-but-not-GPL modules, but the gap is shrinking.
What do you mean `trying to GPL VCV`? The Rack 2.0 project was always licensed `GPL3.0-or-later` so we are using it exactly as intended.
Cardinal also contains MIT, BSD and CC0 modules. As long as all the code is compatible to GPL3.0-or-later since everything is built into a single static binary.
A lot of work has gone into due diligence in order to vet all the resources that have gone into the project: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/LICENSES....
The value proposition that Cardinal offers by being self-contained is one of stability, backwards-compatibility and being able to easily share patches with other users without having to download or buy anything additional.
See the differences document to better understand how the projects compare: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/DIFFERENC...
Cardinal also contains MIT, BSD and CC0 modules. As long as all the code is compatible to GPL3.0-or-later since everything is built into a single static binary.
A lot of work has gone into due diligence in order to vet all the resources that have gone into the project: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/LICENSES....
The value proposition that Cardinal offers by being self-contained is one of stability, backwards-compatibility and being able to easily share patches with other users without having to download or buy anything additional.
See the differences document to better understand how the projects compare: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/DIFFERENC...
I misunderstood the licensing choices. Thanks for correcting.
VCV Pro has the DAW plugin feature as a paid extra. Cardinal seems to be taking the GPL version of VCV and using it to undercut the main income source of the VCV project.
We are using it to create a self-contained opensource plugin. How does this "undercut" VCV?
Their main model is based around having a "limitless" store where users can buy "premium" modules. And having a plugin-version that allows loading these dynamic modules. This is not something that Cardinal allows and goes straight into the philosophy of a "self-contained" audio plugin.
If anything it's an easy (and free) stepping-stone for users to try a plugin version of Rack and then buy "the real deal" when they want the full-on VCV Rack experience.
The two can easily co-exist. They can even load each other as plugins.
Their main model is based around having a "limitless" store where users can buy "premium" modules. And having a plugin-version that allows loading these dynamic modules. This is not something that Cardinal allows and goes straight into the philosophy of a "self-contained" audio plugin.
If anything it's an easy (and free) stepping-stone for users to try a plugin version of Rack and then buy "the real deal" when they want the full-on VCV Rack experience.
The two can easily co-exist. They can even load each other as plugins.
That was never the intent.
There are some technical issues with VCV Rack, and the lead developer is ... gently resistant to accepting patches/fixes from anyone else.
Cardinal started as an attempt to do some things better than VCV Rack does. Most people involved think it would probably have been better if those changes had been upstreamed, but that's not VCV Rack's development model.
There are some technical issues with VCV Rack, and the lead developer is ... gently resistant to accepting patches/fixes from anyone else.
Cardinal started as an attempt to do some things better than VCV Rack does. Most people involved think it would probably have been better if those changes had been upstreamed, but that's not VCV Rack's development model.
What technical issues are there with VCV Rack that are addressed by the forks (Cardinal, MiRack, etc.)?
I recently switched to VCV Rack 2 as my main creative tool, and it has been very stable and performant with frequent updates[0]. My experience led me to pay for Pro just to support this work (even though the free feature set is more than enough).
[0] My only beef, I suppose, is that those frequent updates can alter the sound in case of long-running projects; it never happened with the rack itself, but it did happen with some modules. That said, regular copies of the app and the plugins directory is a sufficient workaround for my purposes, it’s less than 50 MB after all.
I recently switched to VCV Rack 2 as my main creative tool, and it has been very stable and performant with frequent updates[0]. My experience led me to pay for Pro just to support this work (even though the free feature set is more than enough).
[0] My only beef, I suppose, is that those frequent updates can alter the sound in case of long-running projects; it never happened with the rack itself, but it did happen with some modules. That said, regular copies of the app and the plugins directory is a sufficient workaround for my purposes, it’s less than 50 MB after all.
The core differences are documented here: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/DIFFERENC...
I have read that before.
Things like “Core only” vs. “Everything is internal” make perfect sense to me as a developer, but this doesn’t answer my question. In fact, “everything is internal” is a downside since no one really uses all modules.
It also appears outdated, since Rack 2 supports ARM (that’s how I use it).
It is also clearly disingenuous in quite a few places, such as by:
a) providing an uncritical generous excuse for every downside of its own (e.g., lack of multi-threaded engine), but never for VCV Rack’s (an opportunity to pay for an open-source project’s development so that it can sustain itself as a proper business is a feature that benefits both the project and OSS ecosystem as a whole), or
b) pointlessly comparing to VCV Rack Pro. I, like many, am not using any of the Pro features—just one of the amazing things about the base version of VCV Rack is its completeness, combined with generous licensing. The VCV Rack 2 I use is open-source, and is free (though I paid for Pro to support the project I don’t use any of the Pro features, I literally never needed them yet), and is supported (it receives updates regularly).
Things like “Core only” vs. “Everything is internal” make perfect sense to me as a developer, but this doesn’t answer my question. In fact, “everything is internal” is a downside since no one really uses all modules.
It also appears outdated, since Rack 2 supports ARM (that’s how I use it).
It is also clearly disingenuous in quite a few places, such as by:
a) providing an uncritical generous excuse for every downside of its own (e.g., lack of multi-threaded engine), but never for VCV Rack’s (an opportunity to pay for an open-source project’s development so that it can sustain itself as a proper business is a feature that benefits both the project and OSS ecosystem as a whole), or
b) pointlessly comparing to VCV Rack Pro. I, like many, am not using any of the Pro features—just one of the amazing things about the base version of VCV Rack is its completeness, combined with generous licensing. The VCV Rack 2 I use is open-source, and is free (though I paid for Pro to support the project I don’t use any of the Pro features, I literally never needed them yet), and is supported (it receives updates regularly).
Disingenuous how? it's a factual comparison list.
You say it's pointless to compare to VCV Rack Pro where the whole point of the Cardinal project is to create a plugin version.
I think your commentary is disingenuous.
You say it's pointless to compare to VCV Rack Pro where the whole point of the Cardinal project is to create a plugin version.
I think your commentary is disingenuous.
It is not factual as it is clearly biased in ways I described. It is also outdated and factually incorrect in ways I described. Feel free to address those ways specifically.
I wouldn't lump Cardinal and MiRack. The latter is more audaciously wrapping an outdated VCV and selling it on the App Store. I would like to throw my bones at VCV for such a thing. Hopefully they are working on it.
Cardinal takes money via Github sponsorships. It appears that the original VCV Rack developer’s efforts are a money-maker for a few people…
If you think that this project makes any money you are completely clueless.
Wow, and it is somewhere in this very thread that someone hinted that the maintainer of VCV is the one sort of rude.
There is no information publicly disclosed about how much money is generated, but the sponsorship button is there and that is the point.
There is no information publicly disclosed about how much money is generated, but the sponsorship button is there and that is the point.
the plugin implementation and audio I/O backend are not designed in what would be considered "standard" ways among other audio developers.
it works fine, but it can work better.
cardinal also provides some of its own modules to provide better integration with host provided time.
cardinal also, of course, is now compilable to wasm allowing it to run in-browser. the fact that Rack itself can't be used that way is not, however, an issue or flaw, just a choice.
it works fine, but it can work better.
cardinal also provides some of its own modules to provide better integration with host provided time.
cardinal also, of course, is now compilable to wasm allowing it to run in-browser. the fact that Rack itself can't be used that way is not, however, an issue or flaw, just a choice.
Thanks, interesting. As a musician I suppose it’s not worth switching away from the original until I have an understanding of how Cardinal works “better”.
This only includes a small subset of the VCV Library, some of the best modules aren't included in this and pretty cool. There's also some incredible paid modules in the library worth checking out.
There are also a few collections that are available only in Cardinal, and not VCV
You think over 1200 modules is small?
Definitely enough for endless hours of modular patching.
Definitely enough for endless hours of modular patching.
I'm not saying the quantity is small, I'm saying the subset is. There are 3,336 VCV modules. So, 1200 is only ~35%. Notably, for myself, only about 1/3 of the modules I have developed are there (some of mine are paid), and it lacks some of the truly great analog modeled modules such as those from Vult, Cytomics, and Lindenberg Research.
Any proprietary or GPL3.0-only modules would of course not be able to be built into the binary (also bit cheeky to consider those as "missing" since they are fundamentally incompatble). And this gives VCV Rack a better value proposition, so a reason for people to specifically use it.
We also have several modules that are missing from VCV Rack because they were never ported to 2.0 Some of our own modules are missing from the VCV Library because of their commercial restrictions.
And while the idea of an "infinite" rack of modules is really cool, that is also not the goal of Cardinal or how we feel it is best used. Quality of quantity first.
There is still a big list of potential modules to include: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/wiki/Possible-modules-to... However we are somewhat limited by what we can even build in a single CI job on github. Our current builds are already quite stretching of what is possible. And again quality over quantity.
We also have several modules that are missing from VCV Rack because they were never ported to 2.0 Some of our own modules are missing from the VCV Library because of their commercial restrictions.
And while the idea of an "infinite" rack of modules is really cool, that is also not the goal of Cardinal or how we feel it is best used. Quality of quantity first.
There is still a big list of potential modules to include: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/wiki/Possible-modules-to... However we are somewhat limited by what we can even build in a single CI job on github. Our current builds are already quite stretching of what is possible. And again quality over quantity.
I'm in the process of building a similar project aimed towards beginners, so it's hopefully a bit less daunting than Cardinal/VCV Rack.
https://wavepen.jinay.dev/
https://wavepen.jinay.dev/
It remind me Rebirth [0] (had so much fun epochs ago). Soo many buttons, but where the heck is play button ?
I will leave it more experienced musicians :). Looks like great project
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBirth_RB-338
I will leave it more experienced musicians :). Looks like great project
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBirth_RB-338
Do you mean Reason? This was the first virtual synth with patching UI that Propellerhead released a bit after ReBirth.
ReBirth was amazing though and would love if someone brings it back. They had an iPad version that worked pretty well but apparently Roland forced them to take it down.
ReBirth was amazing though and would love if someone brings it back. They had an iPad version that worked pretty well but apparently Roland forced them to take it down.
Does this offer anything besides circumventing the little set of features that VCV Rack charges money for? Am I subsidizing the development of this tool with my paid VCV Rack version?
You can read about all the main differences in this document: https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/DIFFERENC...
One could argue that a plugin version is more than a minor feature.
Cardinal is not affiliated with VCV in any way. We use the upstream Rack source-code as a base so any support towards VCV will ultimately "trickle down" (in the form of code) back to Cardinal as well.
One could argue that a plugin version is more than a minor feature.
Cardinal is not affiliated with VCV in any way. We use the upstream Rack source-code as a base so any support towards VCV will ultimately "trickle down" (in the form of code) back to Cardinal as well.
Ah, thank you. The Plug-in version is one of the main selling points of VCV Pro though, no? I have VCV as a VST plug-in, plus the ability to use any VST plug-in inside VCV which were for me the main reasons to purchase it (apart from wanting to support the project and buy commercial modules).
Exactly, you said "little set of features" but this is anything but little.
You can also use any VST plugin inside of Cardinal using the Carla and Ildaeil modules.
You can also use any VST plugin inside of Cardinal using the Carla and Ildaeil modules.
How might one get started with this sort of thing? It's always intrigued me but it's very daunting...
It lacks the VultModulesFree from VCV...
These are proprietary so how would you include these?
Cardinal is based on open-source modules (compatible with GPL3.0-or-later license) that are all compiled into a single static binary.
This is not possible with proprietary binaries.
Cardinal is based on open-source modules (compatible with GPL3.0-or-later license) that are all compiled into a single static binary.
This is not possible with proprietary binaries.
Loading proprietary binaries at runtime is still GPL-compliant.
Cardinal does not load any external module binaries, the entire plugin is a single static binary. This is done on purpose for stability and resolving symbol conflicts within a single namespace. We believe this is the best way to operate an audio plugin.
There is an LV2/VST2/3/CLAP/JSFX plugin loader (Carla or Ildaeil) that can load audio plugins, but these don't sit directly in the Rack DSP graph and do not modify the Rack runtime like its modules do. You could load the VCV-Pro plugin and run it inside one of these if needed ;)
There is an LV2/VST2/3/CLAP/JSFX plugin loader (Carla or Ildaeil) that can load audio plugins, but these don't sit directly in the Rack DSP graph and do not modify the Rack runtime like its modules do. You could load the VCV-Pro plugin and run it inside one of these if needed ;)
Or run VCV Free with all the modules and run a virtual cable to Cardinal. ;)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_synthesizer