The Case for Simpler Tools

George R. R. Martin famously writes his books using WordStar 4.0 on a DOS-machine. He has a “real” computer on which he reads email and surfs the web and does all the other things required of modern man. His writing computer has no network and can only do one thing. It doesn’t try to spell check for him. It doesn’t pop up alerts that an email has arrived, or that Stephen King wants to chat. A focused tool allows him to focus. I think there’s a lesson here for all of us: when you focus you end up killing all your protagonists. No, that’s not it. When you focus you start thinking that the phrase “her nether lips” has no cheese in it? Not that either. Is it that when you focus you can write endless amounts of stuff? Yes! Exactly! Focus increases productivity.

Focus level one million.
Focus level one million.

I’m going to go ahead and postulate that focused tools help you be more productive, based on no evidence whatsoever. I feel this to be true and I find myself gravitating towards tools that are designed to do one thing well and that otherwise gets out of my way as much as possible. I’m not trying to describe an objective reality: when I say that IDEs are evil I don’t mean that you are a bad person if you like IDEs. I’m just saying that I hate you and that your lineage is questionable.

Computer programs used to be very focused. This was because the computers of old were very limited so their programs had to be simple.  As computers and their operating systems got more powerful and more and more tasks were computerised, it became possible to try to do more than one thing at a time. And we did. I’m inclined to think that it is non-controversial to say that perhaps we overdid it.

I think I can detect a slight resurgence of the focused tools though. Smartphones and tablets have brought some of the old focus back. An “app” commonly occupies the whole screen and doesn’t trick you into trying to do five different things at once. And some people — like old George R.R. — has started to recognise that multitasking isn’t helping us do what we want to do (unless “what” is stressing out and dying at 45). Multitasking, by definition, removes focus. Less focus, less actual work gets done. As I’m sure is proven by a paper somewhere.

A rant for your entertainment

Most IDEs, or Integrated Development Environments (in case you’re reading this for the jokes), illustrates the lack of focus that I mean. I don’t know about you but when I code I want to see code. As much of it as I possibly can. I have a seriously defective short-term memory so I’m constantly jumping around the code, checking what a function is doing; what a parameter is supposed to be; what that struct field name is called. Sometimes I need to see some trace output and two or three source files at the same time. To me, screen real estate is precious.

An IDE commonly splits the screen into a series of panes or windows. There’s usually a project window on the left side where you can see files and folders. Why the heck would I want to see files and folders while I’m programming? If I’m looking for a file then a window for that could pop up, but it’s not like I’m constantly checking the file names while I’m writing code. On the bottom there may be some sort of message or status window. The status is that I’m programming! Leave me alone, message window! On the right side you might find a debugger window or a symbol browser or something like that. A GUI can be really great when debugging but that is only like 90% of the time so please get it out of my sight!

In the middle, fighting for relevance, is (if you are lucky) a poor source code editor in which you do your actual work. In the end your sweet 24″ monitor is reduced to a 17″ editor window and that is just no way to live. I realise that you can probably apply XML voodoo somewhere and get most IDEs to look like EMACS and that is great. My point is that viewing all the available tools all the time may look cool in a screenshot but is just distracting in practice.

A totally representative screenshot of an IDE.
A totally representative screenshot of an IDE.

I won’t go on and on about applications that I think are overly complicated or badly designed. I will instead write a little about those that get it right. Tools that I think exhibits an admirable level of focus and are a joy to use because of it. Things that help me focus. I apologise if this makes me sound like a management consultant peddling a trivial slogan, “simplicity and focus”, as some kind of road to success. I would never sell out like that unless someone offered me actual money.


My preferred editor is EMACS. I recognise that I would absolutely hate EMACS if I had been introduced to it today. Back when I learned EMACS I was young and dynamic, curious, hungry for learning, and smelling slightly of peach. The inscrutability of EMACS made me want to learn it because knowing it would be impressive, and then (in the immortal words of Eddie Izzard), “people would shag me”. Now I have become a grumpy older guy. Some would say “mature” but that always makes me think of a particularly stinky cheese which is actually disturbingly accurate… These days I just want to get on with things. Write the code, fix the bug, have some coffee and get back home in time to mow the lawn and watch a bunch of identical TV shows about home styling. But I digress.

The reason I bring up EMACS is not because Meta-Control-Cokebottle-Hashtag-Detonate is the natural way to type the letter ‘n’, it is because EMACS illustrates the way good tools gets out of the way. EMACS is pretty hard to learn, but that does not mean that it is hard to use. Easy to use is often implicitly taken to mean easy to use for the beginner. This is not at all the same thing. Great tools are not designed to be easy to learn, they are designed to be easy to use. Easy to use, easy to learn, powerful. Pick any two.

Once you know the basics of it, EMACS allows you to edit text without EMACS getting in your way. It doesn’t hide some things in obscure menus, it hides everything. There’s no menu bar to steal pixels from your precious text. Well, actually, there is but fortunately you can turn that off with some LISP voodoo (clearly superior to XML voodoo). There’s no toolbar with stupid icons. Ok, it has that too but it can thankfully be disabled with some LISP magic. There no annoying status area. Eh, ok there is a status area and I’m not sure that you can turn that off. But it is really small! As I have convincingly demonstrated, EMACS is clearly superior to any IDE.

When all the voodoo has been applied EMACS really doesn’t get in your way.

Distraction-free EMACS. You can almost smell the awesome.
Distraction-free EMACS. You can almost smell the awesome.

iA Writer

Another editor that I really like is the one I’m using to write this very text: a program called iA Writer. iA Writer is designed explicitly to embody the idea of focus and simplicity. In its full screen mode iA Writer displays only the text that you write. No menus, no widgets, just black text on a white background. Options are severely limited: no font selection, no layout, no pictures. Just text. It’s not that iA Writer has no features, but the features have been very carefully picked. I find that this really helps. iA Writer is my WordStar 4.0.

I’m writing this on a bus on my way to work. That means no Internet. The combination of iA Writer and no Internet really makes a huge difference to my productivity. Being on a bus with nowhere else to go also helps.

If you don't get writers block by staring at this full-screen actual screenshot of iA Writer then you never will.
If you don’t get writers block by staring at this full-screen actual screenshot of iA Writer then you never will.


I recently ended a 13 year long love affair with the Sawfish window manager when I left it for Xmonad. Xmonad is a tiling window manager which means that it will put the windows on the screen according to a predefined layout, with no gaps. This means that there is no desktop, which I think is great. The desktop metaphor was useful when people didn’t know what a GUI was but it doesn’t provide any benefit to me. Why would I want a bunch of files lying around behind everything else?

The tiling aspect of Xmonad sort of forces you to be more organised. Since you cannot have windows that overlap you necessarily always see every open application. Instead if having a stack of windows ten deep, you need to put things on separate desktops. While this can at times feel restrictive, and doesn’t work well for some applications that love to open gaggles of small windows (GIMP, I’m looking at you!), it is remarkably liberating once you get used to it.

My Xmonad desktop, not at all posing for the shot.
My Xmonad desktop, not at all posing for the shot.

And the rest…

I’ll add two examples of simplicity and focus from the wonderful world of web.

This is the web page of Berkshire Hathaway. It is easily one of the 10 biggest publicly held companies in the world. Berkshire Hathaway owns, among many things, large parts of the Coca Cola Company, Wells Fargo and American Express. A single share of Berkshire Hathaway is worth $190.000 at the time of writing. Look at that web page again. It takes a certain kind of self confidence to maintain a web page that simple. And yet, nothing more is really needed.

Programming in the twenty-first century” by James Hague is my favourite programming blog. The site is, apparently, generated by 269 lines of Perl, including the HTML templates. Both the site and its implementation embodies simplicity and focus. Although I haven’t seen the Perl code I’m assuming that it is simple and pretty, based on mr Hagues blog posts. But I guess that it could also be Perl code.

Finally, I’ve written a little bit about analogue modular synthesisers. While a modular synth is by no means simple, I think the resurgence and current popularity (ok, “popular” is a rather relative concept) of analogue modulars at least in part reflects a wish to remove options. These days, when you make music in a computer your power is almost unlimited. Major music-making applications are huge and very complex and they encourage you to dive down and micro-edit the music. With a modular synth you remove a lot of the control. While you can nudge an analogue synth into a direction of your choice, you cannot force it to do your bidding exactly. You need to let go of some control and let the machine work on its own a little bit. This can be very freeing and creative. To be fair, a modular synth can also be an example of the exact opposite: an example of a tool that is so complex (and engrossing) that it consumes all your time and prevents you from spending any of it on the reason you bought  the damned thing the first place — the music.

Obligatory parting words of wisdom

Like anything in life, simplicity is best in moderation. A word processor in which you could only write the word “goat” would, perhaps, be too simple. A car without seat belts would be simpler, but not better. But in some cases, simpler really is better. The UNIX philosophy, if you will. The value of focus is readily evident in physical objects. Most people would probably agree that, all else being equal, a simple object is better than a complex one. Compare the Apple TV remote with the remote of any cheap TV. The TV remote isn’t complex because those who designed it thought that complex was better, it is complex because they couldn’t afford — or simply didn’t know how — to make it simple. Well judged simplicity is a valuable skill. Treasure it.

A Bug’s Life : Security Level Cray

Illustrations by Jonas Ekman.

When the nineties were getting old and people could value a pet shop at 100 million dollars as long as it had a web page, I was missing out on the hype by working as a sysadmin at a supercomputing site. This was before supercomputing got boring; when a super was a really odd machine running a demented OS instead of just being a thousand of what you have on your desktop. One of my babies was a Cray J90, more specifically a J932SE.

The J90 was, admittedly, not one of the awesomest Crays. It did not have an integrated couch (Cray 1, Cray XMP, Cray YMP).

Cray 1, when you want your super in the lobby.
Cray 1, when you want your super in the lobby.

You couldn’t serve beer on it (Cray 2).

The Cray 2 gets my vote as the coolest looking computer ever. It is a coolant aquarium!
The Cray 2 gets my vote as the greatest looking computer ever. It is a coolant aquarium!

It did not have a waterfall (Cray T90).

A Cray T90 with coolant waterfall behind it.

However, it was a 32-CPU shared-memory vector supercomputer with a gigantic (at the time) 8GB of RAM. It was the size of 2 largish fridges, ran UNICOS — the Cray flavour of UNIX — and could multiply 64-bit floating point numbers like nobody’s business.

A Cray J90 wishing it had more awesome looks.
A Cray J90 wishing it had more awesome looks.

Seymour Cray was famous for his disdain for virtual memory and thus UNICOS did not have any. If you had 8GB of RAM then that was all you could use. When you wanted to start a process you’d better hope that the system could find a free, continuous chunk of RAM of the appropriate size. If your process ran out of memory it would be swapped out to disk in its entirety. Needless to say, swapping was death for performance.

A Cray machine was a reasonably expensive piece of equipment (some may even have called it unreasonably expensive) and most, very likely all, were bought to service many users at the same time. One of the system software packages Cray sold was called Multi-Level Security, MLS for short. MLS allowed you to virtually partition the machine in a fairly bullet-proof fashion. You could buy a 32-CPU system and let some users see 30 CPUs and half the memory while other users only saw 2 CPUs. If you were running in a partition you couldn’t access or even see processes running in another partition. In fact, you could be a system administrator and still have access to just a part of the physical machine. The effect was similar to virtualisation but without the performance penalty. MLS was a fabulous idea because it allowed, say, the NSA and the North Korean embassy to pool their resources and buy a Cray together and their users wouldn’t see each other. What could possibly go wrong?

MLS was a pig and a half and any sane sysadmin would run from it screaming. Some poor souls were forced to use it because it sounded like a great deal to management. We were lucky because our machine was open and we did not run MLS.

A typical sysadmin reaction.
A typical sysadmin reaction.

One carefree day I came into the office and found an envelope in my mail box with a DAT-tape in it. The label on the tape said UNICOS 10.0. UNICOS 10 had been out for a while and we could not put it off any longer, it was time to upgrade the OS on our machine from 9.0 to the latest and greatest.

An OS upgrade on a million dollar multi-user system is a pretty major undertaking. The machine ran batch jobs for dozens of users. Jobs could be queued for weeks waiting for a time slot to run in, and a single job could execute for days. Just turning the machine off would get you murdered by a PhD student (bad) or lectured at by some mechanics professor (worse). The OS upgrade had to be announced weeks in advance and planned like a Prussian wedding. The plan was written, the upgrade announced, the sacrificial goat was prepared and magical runes were appropriately carved on the computer room doors to ward off evil upgrade gremlins… the process for OS upgrades can be highly site-dependent.

The day arrived. We stopped the batch queues, rebooted the machine into single-user mode and went to work. The upgrade went well and after a few hours of testing we could restart the batch queue and let the users back on. Mission accomplished.

A week or so later I was doing some routine work (the technical term is “dicking around”) on the Cray and I discovered something strange: there was a file in the root directory that was owned by a normal user. The user was one of my co-workers and he did not have root access to the Cray. The file should have been unpossible. My immediate worry was that we had been hacked. A supercomputing site is a juicy target for hackers and a super, with its huge I/O capability and usually great network connectivity, can make an awesome denial-of-service booster.

The co-worker was trusted so I asked him about the file. He had been testing a script with a path bug in it so he could explain where the file came from. He could not explain how it had managed to be written in a read-only directory. This pretty much discounted the theory that the file was part of a hacking/cracking/fracking operation. Looking around some more I quickly found other files that were owned by users in places where those users didn’t have write access. After some testing the horrible truth dawned: any user could write anywhere. While academic institutions have a reputation for openness even Richard Stallman might agree that this was a step too far.

We had a common login system for all our machines. It was based on an implementation of Kerberos called Heimdal that had been developed locally and luckily for me I shared an office with one of the main authors of Heimdal. He was the kind of wizard every computing site needs. If you complained vaguely about some proprietary protocol not working he would sit quietly for 30 minutes (not acknowledging that he had even heard you) and then suddenly announce that he had reverse-engineered the protocol and mailed you the source code for a replacement server that he had coded up from scratch. Once, when confronted with what appeared to be a corrupt file name in a directory his first action was to hexdump the directory inode. While he did not have an actual, physical, beard, his virtual Unix beard was mighty to behold.

Everyone needs a UNIX beard.
Everyone needs a UNIX beard.

I was a bit out of my depth so I recruited my wizardly office mate to the cause. The best way to do that was to not ask for help directly but to just complain generally until he either got tired of listening to it or got curious. After applying beard to the problem for a while he managed to figure out what was going on.

The Heimdal kxd program was responsible for accepting logins via the network, authenticating them and spawning a user login session on the machine. When doing this it had to change the owner of the spawned process to the UID of the user logging in, which it did with the setuid() system call. This used to work just fine. But now the setuid() call changed the UID and left the process with root file access permissions.

As a part of the planning for the OS upgrade I had pored over the release notes for UNICOS 10 time and again to make sure that I hadn’t missed something that would cause us problems. One of the changes that Cray had made was that MLS, the Multi-Level Security that everyone loved so much, had been included as a default component in the OS. It used to be a separate product but now everyone got it. The release notes promised that if you disabled MLS in the kernel it would work exactly as a non-MLS system did in UNICOS 9. What the release note should have said was that if you disabled MLS it would work exactly as a non-MLS system did except for the part where we changed the way access permissions are inherited by the setuid() system call. A consensus was developing around the view that MLS was the spawn of satan.

Are you sure you didn't order a MLRS?
Are you sure you didn’t order a MLRS?

The virtually bearded one went quiet for 15 minutes or so and then announced that he had fixed it. The fix can still be found in the Heimdal source code today:

 if (setgid (passwd->pw_gid) ||
     initgroups(passwd->pw_name, passwd->pw_gid) ||
 #ifdef HAVE_GETUDBNAM /* XXX this happens on crays */
     setjob(passwd->pw_uid, 0) == -1 ||
         setuid(passwd->pw_uid)) {
         syslog(LOG_ERR, "setting uid/groups: %m");
         fatal (kc, sock, "cannot set uid");

I would frankly have been a lot less restrained in the comment…

Cleaning up the mess took a while, we had to check all file systems for integrity. Happily we had dumped all system disks to tape after the upgrade but prior to letting any users on so we had a known good set to compare against.

Lessons learned? If you change the semantics of setuid() then maybe, just maybe, drop a line about it in the release notes. Also, a paranoid mind set is a great asset to a system administrator (although it can definitely go off the rails without some healthy pushback from management) and preparation is key to any successful system upgrade.

While this MLS thing was a bit of a fiasco I have to say that UNICOS was incredibly stable. It just ran for years and years and the only crashes that I can remember were caused by hardware failures (typically hard drives). Oh, and that one time when I shorted out the entire machine with a carelessly applied screwdriver…

A Bug’s Life : The One Sample Solution

At one point in my life I found myself working for a company that made synthesisers of the musical instrument kind. The guts of the synths consisted of a bunch of DSPs that did all the audio processing, some memory, and a general purpose CPU that handled the rest: scanning the keyboard, scanning the knobs and buttons on the control panel and providing MIDI and USB connectivity.

One of my jobs was to clean out a list of bugs that users had reported on a released product. Most of these bugs were minor and sometimes obscure but the company prided itself on high quality so they would strive to fix all reported bugs, no matter how minor. Unless the bug report was that “the product should cost 50% less, be all-analogue, and be able to transport me to my place of work”. Some people have strong feelings of entitlement.

One of the bugs on my list was that the delay glitched if you turned it off and on again quickly. A delay is a type of audio effect that simulates an echo: if you send a sound into it then the sound will be repeated some number of times while fading out. Early delays were implemented using magnetic tape. If the recording head was placed some distance ahead of the playback head then a sound that was recorded into the delay unit would play back as an echo a short while later as the tape passed by the playback head. In this particular case the delay was digital and consisted of a circular buffer of audio samples that the DSP would continuously feed data into (mixed together with feedback from audio that was already in the buffer). The buffer would then be played back by being mixed with the main audio output signal.

A tape-based delay effect unit.
A tape-based delay effect unit.

The delay had an on/off button on the front panel of the synth and when you switched it off the DSP would set the input volume to the delay buffer to 0 so that it would fill up with silent samples. However, since this happened at the normal audio rate it would take a few seconds before the whole buffer was filled with zeros. A user had discovered that if you played something with the delay enabled, then switched it off and then quickly switched it on again then parts of the delay buffer would still contain sound that you would hear, sometimes with nasty transients. The solution was to program the DSP to quickly zero the delay buffer using a DMA transfer whenever the delay was turned off.

This may sound trivial but the code running on the DSP was hand-coded assembly optimised to within an inch of its life. The DSP had one job: to present a pair of completely processed 24-bit samples — a stereo signal — to the Digital-Analogue converter inputs at the sample rate, which was 44100 times per second. If a sample wasn’t ready in time then digital noise would result at the output. This was frowned upon because it would sound horrible and if it happened while the instrument was being played on stage, through a serious sound system, you might as well poke out the eardrums of your audience using an ice pick. This made the rules of the game for the DSP pretty simple: if it could execute one instruction per cycle and was running at F cycles per second then that meant that it could spend N=F/(2*44100) instructions per sample. In fact it had to spend exactly N instructions or the timing would drift off. Any unused cycles had to be filled in with “No-op” instructions that do nothing but waste time. In this case N was a couple of hundred cycles. This meant that the DSP code was a couple of hundred instructions long, which was good because there was not so much of it, but bad because there were very few unused cycles left in which to set up the DMA.

This type of DSP is built to do one thing: to perform arithmetic on 24-bit fixed point numbers. It is a multiply-add engine. Multiplying and offsetting 24-bit fixed point numbers is easy and everything else is a pain in the upholstery. Instructions are often very limited as to which registers they can operate on and the data you want to operate on is therefore, as per Murphy’s law, always in the wrong type of register.

After scrounging up some spare cycles I managed to set up a DMA that zeroed the delay buffer whenever it was turned off. Apparently. I tested it: no problem. I told my boss and he came in and listened. Now, my boss had worked with theses synths for years and years and he immediately heard what I didn’t: a diminutive “click” sound that was so weak that I couldn’t hear it at all. “Probably you didn’t turn off the input to the delay buffer so a couple of samples gets in there while the DMA is running.” I verified it but no, the input was properly turned off.

Everyone needs Wilson's Common Sense Ear Drums.
Everyone needs Wilson’s Common Sense Ear Drums.

Now that I knew what to listen for I could hear the click if I put on headphones and turned the volume up. Headphones are always scary when programming audio applications because if you screwed up the code somewhere you might very well suddenly get random data at the DACs which means very loud digital noise in the headphones which means broken eardrums and soiled pants in the programmer. In contrast, a single sample of random data at 44.1kHz sounds a little bit like a hair being displaced close to your ear. In the beginning I had to stop breathing and sit absolutely still to hear the click noise. Moving the head just a little would make mechanical noise as the headphones resettled, noise that would drown out the click. After a while though, my brain became better at picking out the clicks, after a day or so I could hear it through loudspeakers. Unfortunately I soon started to hear single-sample clicks everywhere…

"Wait, wait! I think I can hear it!"
“Wait, wait! I think I can hear it!”
The good thing about this bug was that it was fairly repeatable. I like to think that no repeatable bug is fundamentally hard. Unless the system is very opaque you just have to keep digging and eventually you’ll get there. It may take a long time, but you’ll get there.

So what was going on? Was the delay buffer size off by one? No. Was the playback pointer getting clobbered? No. Did the DMA do anything at all? Yes, by filling the buffer with a non-zero value and then running the DMA I could see that the buffer was zeroed afterwards. Was it some sort of timing glitch that caused a bad value to appear at the DACs? Not that I could tell. Blaming the compiler is always an option but in this case the code was hand-written assembly so that alternative turned out to be less satisfying. A compiler can’t defend itself but your co-worker can…


The debugging environment was pretty basic. The only tool available was a home-grown debugger that could display something like 8 words of memory together with the register contents and not much else. Looking through a megabyte or so of delay buffer data through an 8 word window might sound like fun but I guess I’m easily bored…

One thing that became apparent after a while was that the click sound would appear even when the delay buffer was empty to begin with. This indicated that the bad data was put there instead of being left behind. At this point I started to throw things out of the code. I find this to be a pretty good way forward if a bug checks your early advances. Remove stuff until the bug goes away, then you can start to add stuff back again. After a while I had just the delay code left. I wrote a routine that filled the delay buffer with a known value, ran the DMA, and then stepped through the whole buffer, verifying the contents word-by-word. And bingo, it found a bad sample.


Seeing it made it real. As long as I only heard it, the defect could theoretically have been introduced somewhere later in the processing or in the output chain. But now I could see the offending sample through my tiny window, sitting there in the middle of a sea of zeros. What is more, the bad sample did not contain the known value that the delay buffer was initialised with. At this point suspicions were raised against the DMA itself. A quick look through the DSP manual revealed an errata list on the DMA block several pages long. This DSP had a horrendously complex DMA engine that could do all sorts of things. For example, it could copy a buffer to a destination using only odd or even destination addresses — in other words it could copy a flat buffer into to a single channel of a stereo pair. It seemed like half of these modes didn’t really work.

None of the issues listed in the errata list fit what I was seeing but I still eyed the DMA engine suspiciously. I therefore tried to zero the delay buffer using a different DMA mode and it worked! Ah, hardware: can’t love it, can’t kill it. Hardware designers on the other hand…


So the bug was put to rest and I moved on to the next issue on my list. Did we learn something? When you can’t blame the compiler, blaming hardware remains an option. In the end I came away pretty impressed by the dedication to quality and stability that this small company displayed. The original bug report was on a glitch that many companies wouldn’t bother to correct at all. The initial fix took maybe half a day to implement and took the amount of unwanted data in the delay from 1-2 seconds (between 90000 and 180000 samples) down to just a single, barely audible, sample in what was already a rare corner case. Fixing it completely took about a week. In other words, it took four hours to fix 99.99999% of the bug and 36 hours to fix the rest of it. But the message was pretty clear : fix it and fix it right.

And to all the semiconductor companies out there: don’t let your intern design the DMA engine.

The Philosophy of Bug-fixing

I spend way to much time fixing bugs. I don’t say that because my code is excessively buggy (although that is also true), I say that because quite a few of the bugs I fix are probably not worth fixing. Not really. Let’s imagine…

Your customer has submitted, along with vague threats of ninja assassins being dispatched to your company headquarters, a bug report about a crash in your software. He cannot really supply any useful information on what led up to the crash but the error message tells you exactly where in the code the crash occurred. Firing up your favourite editor you take a look. The crash happens because an unallocated resource is freed.

A bug :



The crash is easily prevented, just check if the resource is allocated before freeing it. The thing is, that resource should be allocated at this point in the code. You know that it usually is or you would have seen this crash before. The crash, while a bug in itself, is clearly also a symptom of another bug. What do you do and why?

A bug fix :


 if (hired(wizard))

Any diligent programmer would at least spend a little time considering the implications of this discovery. If you can easily figure out how the resource came to be unallocated then perhaps you can fix that too. And you should. You may also realise that the unallocated resource is a fatal error which absolutely, positively, must be fixed or the plague breaks out. Put on your mining helmet and start digging. Perhaps your product is a pacemaker. Fix the bug.

Most of the time though, the situation is not as clear cut. You just don’t know what the implications are. The bug could be a corner case with no other consequences than the crash that you just fixed. Or it could be a symptom of some intricate failure mode that may cause other bad things to happen randomly. I would guess that most competent programmers would feel decidedly uncomfortable papering over the problem. Some may even find it hard to sleep at night, knowing that the bug is out there, plotting against you. They lie awake worrying about when and how the bug will crop up next. So you start to investigate.

Initial state.
Initial state.

You rule out the most likely causes. You try to repeat the problem. You try to make it happen more often. If you’re an embedded programmer you verify five times that RX and TX pins haven’t been swapped somewhere. You instrument the code. You meditate over reams of trace printouts. You start to suspect that this is a compiler bug, but that is almost never really the case. You read the code (desperation has taken hold). You poke around in a debugger. You remove more and more code, trying to reduce the problem. You start to become certain that this is a compiler bug (it never is). You dream about race conditions. You stop showering. You start to have conversations with an interrupt handler like it was a person. You dig into the assembly. You now know that it is a compiler bug (it isn’t). You mutter angrily to yourself on the subway. A colleague rewrites a completely unrelated part of the code and the symptom inexplicably goes away. Your cat shuns you. You start to question everything; how certain are you that a byte is 8 bits on this machine?

Intermediate stage.
Intermediate stage.

After aeons of hell a co-worker drops by. She looks over your shoulder and asks “isn’t that resource freed right there?” And sure enough — in the code that you’ve been staring at for weeks, a mere 4 lines above the bad free, the resource is freed the first time. To say that the error had been staring you in the face the whole time would be understating it. You kill yourself. The cycle starts again.

The final state.
The final state.

The terrible truth:


       if (flag)

   if (hired(wizard))

Or maybe the bug turned out to be something really gnarly that could explain dozens of different bug reports.

Should you have fixed that bug? The thing about bugs is that they are unknown. Until you know what is going on you can’t tell wether the bug will cause catastrophic errors or is relatively harmless, right? The bug is what Donald Rumsfeld would call a “known unknown,” something that you know that you don’t know. Not tracking down the bug means living with uncertainty. Fixing bugs increases the quality of the software so fixing any bug (correctly) makes the software better. You can easily convince yourself that fixing the bug was the right thing to do, even if it turned out to be relatively harmless. But you’re probably wrong.


The “known unknown” argument cuts both ways. Even if the bug turns out to be serious you didn’t know that beforehand. Putting in serious effort before you know what the payoff would be may not be the wisest way to allocate your time. And the question isn’t really “did the fix make the software better” but “was the time spent on the fix the best way to make the software better”.

Living with uncertainty can be difficult but lets face it, your code probably has hundreds or thousands of unknown bugs. Does it actually make a difference that you know that this one is out there?

Am I saying that it was wrong to start looking for the bug? Definitely not. If you suspect that something is amiss, you should absolutely strive to understand what is going on. The difficulty lies in knowing when to stop. There’s always a sense that you are this close to finding the problem. If you would just spend 10 more minutes you would figure it out, or stumble upon some clue that would really help. Now you’ve spent half a day on the bug, might as well spend the whole day since you’ve just managed to fit the problem inside your head. You’ve spent a day on it, might as well put in another hour just to see where this latest lead goes. You’ve spent three days and if you don’t fix it now you’ve just wasted three days. You’ve spent two weeks and dropping the whole thing without resolution at this point would cause irreparable psychological damage. The more you dig the deeper the hole becomes.

So what do you do to prevent this downward spiral? Talk to a co-worker. I know it might seem uncomfortable and unsanitary and possibly even unpossible, but it can be an invaluable strategy even if your colleagues are all muppets. Take ten minutes a day to talk about where you are and how it is going. Just describing the problem often makes you realise what the solution is. “So the flag is unset when frobnitz() is called and… and… never mind, I am an idiot” is a common conversation pattern (although “never mind, you are an idiot” is idiomatic in some places). Sometimes this even works with inanimate objects like managers. This is sometimes called “Rubber duck debugging“: carefully explain your problem to your rubber duck and the fix will become apparent. Don’t own a rubber duck? What is wrong with you??

Even if describing the problem doesn’t help, a sentient co-worker has a tendency to ask if you have checked 10 different things that are so obvious that how can you even ask, and do you think I’m completely incompetent and, by the way, no, I meant to get around to it. “Did I recompile the code after changing it? No, do you have to?” If your colleague is very polite you may have to insult him a bit before he asks the obvious questions. Obvious questions can be hard on the ego but very useful because the odds are in favour of the obvious things. For some reason the human mind seems to prefer the mystical and complex (“it’s a compiler bug”) to the simple and likely (“I forgot to recompile”).

The final reason it is good to talk to a co-worker is that you get some distance from the problem. Just discussing loosely where you are and what you know and how much time you’ve spent can really help when you start to suspect that you should strap your bug-fixing project to an ejection seat.

  • Don’t get lost fixing a hard bug, keep an eye on the big picture. This is a lot easier to write than to do.
  • Learn to live with uncertainty. If this is impossible: embrace misery.
  • Co-workers can serve a useful purpose other than being on the opposite side of indentation wars.


Eurorack is a type of modular synthesiser. In a non-modular synthesiser the various functional blocks that generate and modify sound (such as oscillators and filters) are preconfigured — they are connected in a predetermined way. In a modular synth these blocks are connected manually using patch cables. This makes them harder to use but more flexible. It also makes them expandable; if you need another oscillator you just buy another oscillator module. There are several different modular synth formats. Eurorack is popular because it is open, the modules are physically small and there are many hundreds of modules to choose from, from a large number of manufacturers.

A fixed architecture synth. The oscillators, filters and envelopes are pre-connected.
A fixed architecture synth. The oscillators, filters, amplifiers and envelopes are pre-connected.


A modular synth. The oscillators, filters, envelopes, amplifiers and other gadgets are manually connected with patch chords. Each sound can have it's own synth architecture.
A modular synth. The oscillators, filters, envelopes, amplifiers and other gadgets are manually connected with patch chords. Each sound can have its own synth architecture.


Modular synth fans have a tendency to go slightly overboard.
Another modular synth. Modular synth fans have a tendency to go slightly overboard.



A Self-centered Introduction

My anorak.
My anorak.

In this blog I’ll talk a little bit about my journey into Eurorack-hood. What modules I’m looking at, what I want to do with the system and perhaps some reviews of the components once I get a working system installed. Hopefully it can function as a kind of beginners guide to Eurorack modular synths. But why would a person choose to expose himself to a sordid world of holy wars, rabid gangs and addiction? Is it even a choice, or is it an inevitability caused by the social structures of my upbringing? The answer must surely be found in a brief narcissistic soliloquy…

My youth was profitably wasted playing computer games, reading about computer games and collecting huge stashes of pirated computer games (on cassette tapes, no less). At about the same time I graduated from my trusty C64 to an Atari ST I started to get interested in synthesisers. The ST was the musicians computer of that age because it had built-in MIDI. The Atari magazines would sometimes include reviews of sequencer softwares like Cubase and sometimes even actual hardware synths. I listened to a lot of Front 242 and played with an interesting tracker-type program called Quartet and dreamt of having a synth that could make cool sounds. Then I bought a Roland D5. I kept dreaming of having a synth that could make cool sounds.

The slightly less than classic Roland D5.

Well, perhaps that’s a bit unfair. The Roland D5 wasn’t that bad. The keys were good and the “LA-synthesis” was a kind of poor-mans sample playback that made some decent impressions of real-life instruments. But the D5 had no effects (I should have gotten a D10), no sequencer (I should have gotten a D20) and was easier to program than a Yamaha DX7 (I should not have gotten a DX7). It was programmed by stepping cryptic 8-bit values using a plus and minus key while peering confusedly at the lavish 16 by 2 character display and wondering wether “TVF Freq KF” would be better at 1/2 or 5/8 and why. On the plus side it did have a Cowbell patch.

You always need more cowbell.

Basically, I couldn’t make the D5 sound cool and Front 242 had an Emulator II and there was no way in hell I could ever afford that so I went back to computer games.

After a while though, I read about the Nord Lead virtual analog synth and thought that that seemed like a much better way of learning synthesis. It had knobs for everything. It was Swedish. It was red. Jean-Michel Jarre had 5 of them. I drooled for months and then splurged on a slightly used Nord Lead 2 and (wiser this time) a Zoom 1204 multi-effect unit.

Jean-Michel Jarre receives the very first Nord Lead 2.

This turned out to be a lot more fun. I could actually learn the basics of subtractive synthesis on the Nord Lead 2 and I could even put some reverb on it. Ok, I drenched everything in reverb. I’m a real sucker for reverb.

I could totally not play though. I never really got the hang of the sequencer programs: I played so poorly that they never could quantize my creations properly and when I tried to program using the grid they would never keep an accurate beat.

On the theory that more gear would cure my inability to play I bought a Yamaha A4000 rack-mounted sampler which had both knobs and a pretty cool Grand Piano sample if you could stand waiting for it to load. I really wanted to use the A4000 more than I did but every time inspiration struck it would be 30 minutes of swearing over Windows sound drivers, 10 minutes of staring at the A4000 display, 10 minutes of playing around with the sound and 240 minutes of Baldur’s Gate.

The Yammy A4000 in a restful pose.
The Yammy A4000 in a restful pose.

Then came Reason. I loved Reason because I didn’t have to muck about with all that other stuff. It just worked. I would play around with the Subtractor and it was a bit like the Nord Lead (which isn’t all that surprising if you know the history). I took the leap and switched from Windows to Mac, which is perhaps less dramatic for a Unix-nut (they both suck, but at least the Mac sucks less). But it was when I got Reason 6.5 that the penny dropped. Thor. Thor was complicated and scary and could say “I Am Thor” like a deaf person. It turned out that a guy named Gordon Reid had written a series of Thor tutorials that were published on the Propellerhead web site and once I started going through those the truth emerged : Thor is awesome. One thing in particular makes it awesome (for me) and that is the modulation matrix. Having a bunch of switchable oscillators and filters is all well and good but it’s when you want to control the LFO rate with an envelope, and you can, that the excrement gets tangible.

So now I’m a happy Reason-user. My Nord Lead 2 and A4000 gathers dust, the D5 was donated to the needy. I’ve even managed to put together some “music” that I will only inflict on my closest friends and most hated enemies. So why the heck do I want to ruin my life with a modular synth?

First and, let’s be honest, foremost, modular synths are cool. Like a bowtie or a Fez. Who wouldn’t want a wall full of knobs, patch cords and blinking lights, and where can those people get help?

A modular synth is _this_ cool.
Modular synths are this cool.

Secondly: I’m renovating an old room so that I can finally have the space I need to keep all my gear connected and organised. It has to have a 19-inch rack for my rack-mounted gear. Tallying up the height requirements of my vast equipment stash I came up with 3U. 2U for the A4000 and 1U for the 1204 effect unit. I will never use them again and they have to be rack mounted so they won’t figure that out. But a rack with 3U used is just pathetic, I need more rack-mounted gear!

Thirdly: While I have a fair grasp of the basics of subtractive synthesis and have a non-strict “no presets” policy for my music, there is lots more to learn. If I need a flute-sound or an analogue bass drum I can dial that up from scratch but once you need the more advanced stuff like ring-modulation, oscillator sync or (god forbid) FM, I can play with it, but I can’t use it with a goal in mind. Now it turns out that Gordon Reid (remember him?), that titan among men, has written a hugely ambitious series of articles about synth programming called “Synth Secrets“. Synth Secrets ran in 63 (!) installments in the great magazine “Sound On Sound” and is available online. It is also the final motivation for my modular future : I’m going to build a Eurorack system (because it is cool) and use it to build the patches in all 63 articles of Synth Secrets. After that I’ll come out the other end poorer, older and slightly harder of hearing. Or, if my 45 minute epic “856Hz Sinewave and Timpani” becomes the hit it will deserve to be, a millionaire. I’m not saying I will blog about all 63 lessons, or necessarily any of them. I will primarily write about designing and installing the actual system and, perhaps, review some of the modules once they are making noise properly.

So the goal here is not to build a 1000-module behemoth (at least not yet), but a pretty basic system. I’m going to control it from Reason, so no sequencers, and I won’t be digging into any of the esoteric math modules or any of the other crazy stuff.


Beware, for I am not an electrical engineer. While I have some hazy mental model of voltages and currents, and have managed to solder simple components without setting myself on fire, I really have no clue what I’m talking about. So please, for your own safety, judge all information on these pages as if I’m actively trying to kill you. Another way of looking at it is to read every sentence as if it ended with “, apparently.” Corrections are most welcome!

You should perhaps also know that I’m far from an audiophile or an analogue nut. I don’t think the terms “analogue” or “digital” really tells you anything about the sound and I don’t expect my modular system to sound better than Thor or the Subtractor in Reason. It might, and I’ll be interested to hear what my ears think, but I don’t expect it to. The attraction of the modular for me is the immediacy of knobs and the flexibility of patch cords.

In closing: Welcome and lets geek out!

Some Holistic Considerations

When it comes to designing a system I found it very helpful to use a “modular planner” website. There are a couple of different ones out there but I’ve found to be the best by far. It has a huge database of modules that you can drag onto a rack so you can try out different layouts. It tallies the current draw and cost of your picks so it gives you helpful ballpark figures for these important metrics. As an added bonus it allows you to show off your creation to others.

The Eurorack format specification was defined by Doepfer and it can be found on their web page:
Technical Details :
Mechanical Details :

We’ve established that I’m building a fairly traditional subtractive analogue synth: an East Coast style modular. Modular synthesizers were pioneered in the 1960s by Bob Moog on the American east coast and Don Buchla on the American west coast.
Actually it seems that most countries had at least one crazy bearded guy who built a modular synth before everyone else in the world, but no-one cares about those guys. Anyway, an East Coast (Moog) instrument is usually played by means of a keyboard captained by a serious man in a suit.

All inhibitions are lost at a lively east coast performance.
All inhibitions are lost at a lively east coast performance.

A West Coast (Buchla) instrument is usually played by injecting psychedelic drugs in the audience and waving various extremities in the general vicinity of the synth.

A west coast player jams on the Buchla Breath Controller.
A west coast player jams on the Buchla Breath Controller.

As a further illustration of the difference I will now list the modules that I planned to get at one point for my system, as well as the modules for a possible West Coast type system that I picked out on

East Coast :
Doepfer A-190-2 MIDI/CV Interface
Doepfer A-110 VCO
Doepfer A-118 Noise Generator
Doepfer A-182-1 Switched Multiple
Doepfer A-140 ADSR
Doepfer A-132-3 Dual DVCA
Doepfer A-138 Mixer
Doepfer A-114 Ring Modulator
Doepfer A-148 Dual Sample&Hold
TipTop Audio Z3000 Oscillator
TipTop Audio Z4000 ADSR

An East Coast type modular.
An East Coast type modular.

West Coast :
Harvestman Piston Honda
4ms Euro Noise Swash
Make Noise Maths
Make Noise dual Prismatic Oscillator
Make Noise Pressure Points
Malekko Heavy Industry Assmaster
WMD Micro Hadron Collider
Harvestman Zorlon Cannon
Synthetic Sound Labs Modulation Orgy
Bananalogue Serge 3P

A West Coast modular.
A West Coast modular.

See what I mean? Did I just pick the modules with the weirdest looks and strangest names on Maybe I did. But I’m not that far off. And now I’ve managed to make a system I haven’t even bought yet seem a little boring…

Ok, ok. The main difference between the two styles lies in how sound is generated and shaped. The East coast style is to generate sounds using simple waveforms and shape them using filters and envelopes. The West coast style is to use advanced modulation techniques to generate harmonically complex sounds directly. And then drugs.

Anyway, I looked around for “starter” systems a bit but found surprisingly little. TipTop Audio has a “Happy Ending” kit which seems to be just an enclosure with a power-supply. Pittsburgh Modular has the “Foundation” system which looks nice and Doepfer has a “MiniSystem” which looks similar to the Foundation but is quite a bit cheaper. I chose to go with Doepfer as my “default” — if there is a Doepfer module that solves my problem, I’ll go with that unless I have a compelling reason not to.

Why Doepfer? They pioneered the Eurorack format. They are “competitively priced” (because “cheap” sounds cheap). They’ve been around for ages and have loads of modules. When I emailed them to ask if their 6U-enclosure could be split into two 3U halves I got a reply from Doctor Dieter Doepfer himself (it was “no,” in case you were wondering (but more politely put)). And yes, yes, I know that Americans did it first, but let’s face facts : a modular analogue synthesiser is a very German instrument.

An italian masquerading as a german weakens my point.
An italian masquerading as a german weakens my point.

The Enclosure

The Doepfer MiniSystem looked cool but I want to rack-mount my system so the cheap wooden box (the A-100LC6) it comes in would have to be replaced. I’ve basically settled on a A-100G6 which is a 6U (so it has two rows for modules) metal enclosure with rack-ears. It comes with a 1200mA power supply (which seems to be plenty) and a common bus for the two rows. It looks sturdy with decent room for expansion, should the fancy take me.

A lonely A-100G6 awaiting tennants.
A lonely A-100G6 awaiting tennants.

So the way the Eurorack system works is that you have a “bus” which supplies power (+12V and -12V, +5V and ground), CV and Gate signals. Not all modules use all the signals. Many modules don’t need the +5V pin and the standard Doepfer power supply doesn’t even supply power to that pin without an extra adapter. None of the modules I’m considering needs 5V so I’ll do without the adapter. One (and only one!) module on the bus can use the internal CV and Gate signals as outputs. In my case it will be a MIDI-CV interface module. Other modules may use the internal CV and Gate signals as inputs and in this case several can do that at the same time. All other connections have to be made using patch cables in the front of the system.

Each module is connected to the bus using a ribbon cable and apparently these cables are often incorrectly built. If the cable is incorrect or connected the wrong way you may end up letting the blue smoke out of the module you’re connecting (that’s bad). I’ll be sure to inspect each cable carefully before using it.

MIDI-CV Interface

Doepfer has a couple of options here that boil down to combinations of these two questions:

A) Do you need a USB connection or is a regular MIDI connector enough?


B) Do you need MIDI Clock?

A built-in USB-MIDI interface is a little more flexible than the traditional DIN-type MIDI connectors since you won’t need an extra adapter when controlling the system from a computer. All interfaces have regular MIDI connectors (the 5-pin DIN type) so if you want to connect a keyboard or an old sequencer or something you should be set either way. In my case I already have a USB-MIDI dongle so I think I can save a few bucks by skipping the USB option.

MIDI Clock is a bit trickier. The primary use is to synchronise any sequencers you have in your modular system with external sources. MIDI Clock could be potentially useful even if you don’t have a sequencer module though. It seems nice to have a clock source available in the system, for example to synchronise an LFO with the song tempo. Unfortunately the price difference between a simple MIDI-CV (MIDI-CV/Gate) interface and one that can also handle MIDI Clock (a MIDI-CV/Gate/Sync) is pretty substantial.

I haven’t really decided yet. I imagine that my needs are pretty basic so my current pick is a Doepfer A-190-2 MIDI-CV/Gate interface. It is a cheap, no-frills interface. However, Doepfer has the A-190-4 MIDI-CV/Gate/Sync interface coming out this spring and I may end up feeling that I can’t live without MIDI Clock. It’s my first module and the Euro-quicksand is already pulling me in!

The Doepfer A-190-2
The Doepfer A-190-2


Oscillators are one of the two big ticket items (the other being filters). There is no limit to the amount of crazy you can find here. I’m trying to put some upper bound on the craziness of my initial system so my picks are pretty traditional (you’ll hear this again!).

My first pick is a Doepfer A-110 Standard VCO. It goes for about 140 Euros and is a pretty basic oscillator that outputs sine, triangle, sawtooth and square waves on separate outputs. The output frequency goes from 15Hz to 8kHz which goes as “basic” I guess — not great. The A-110 has two CV inputs controlling the pitch so you can do basic frequency modulation. The pulse width of the square wave if also CV-controllable. Finally, the A-110 has a Sync input which can be used to hard-sync it to another oscillator. The A-110 oscillator may need up to 20 minutes of warming up before the tuning becomes stable — welcome to analogue land!

The Doepfer A-110 Oscillator.
The Doepfer A-110 Oscillator.

So the A-110 is basic and has what I need. However, a modular synth with a single oscillator is pretty boring, you’ll need at least two to get things interesting. Initially I planned on getting two A-110s. There are things to be said in favour of having two oscillators of the same type: they are more likely to track similarly across the octaves and detuning them to make a sound fatter is probably more likely to have the intended effect.

I had basically settled for two A-110s when I started to look at which LFO I wanted. The thing about the LFO is that the frequency has to be voltage controllable. One of my favourite effects is sweeping the LFO rate with an envelope (imagine creaking ice or the sound of a mooring cable being strained) so I definitely want a CV-controllable LFO rate. The basic Doepfer LFOs (A-145, A-146) does not have this but the A-147 VCLFO does. When I was digging around looking for an LFO it struck me (well, it struck someone who wrote about it on a forum via which it then struck me) that if I got an oscillator that could go down into really low (like a tenth of a Hertz) frequencies I could use that as an LFO and when I’m not using it as an LFO I’d have a free oscillator!

Ok, so “free” turned out not to be what this extra oscillator was going to be. Since the A-110 doesn’t go below 15Hz it is not a viable LFO-replacement candidate. This is when I found the TipTop Audio Z3000 Smart VCO Mark II. On paper the Z3000 is a lot more powerful. It does everything the A-110 does — square, sine, saw and triangle waves on separate outs, hard sync, CV-controllable PWM — and it has some extra goodies to tempt you away from your liquidity. It has a frequency counter display which allows you to set the oscillator frequency exactly and it can be used to measure the frequency of external signals as well. The Z3000 frequency range is 0.7Hz to 30kHz. It has a waveshaping input, which does something, and a Hard Sync Modulation input, which does something else. It’s significantly more expensive than the A-110 at about 220 Euro but if I replace one A-110 and can save on buying a dedicated LFO then it’s a wash. Right? Right? What happened next was typical.

The TipTop Audio Z3000 Smart VCO mk2.

What happened was that I read the manual to the Z3000. Never read the manual. At first a particular module is something you want. If you then read the manual the module becomes something you need. It’s a “Yesterday I didn’t know that it existed and today I cannot live without it” kind of thing. I like the possibility of setting exact, matched frequencies when using a pair of oscillators as parallel sound sources. So the Z3000 looks like it would be particularly well matched by another Z3000. So maybe two Z3000 oscillators and no A-110s…

It would be nice to have one of each because I’m curious about how pronounced the difference is between different oscillators — the naive assumption would be that for instance a sawtooth wave would sound much the same on all oscillators. On the other hand I do have a budget and the beauty of the modular system is that I can get another oscillator later if I want to.

Finally, I need a noise source. Maybe not strictly speaking an oscillator but as a sound-generator I’ll deal with it under this heading as well. Noise is a lot more versatile than you would think but I don’t need anything fancy so I’m going with the Doepfer A-118 Noise/Random module. It has outputs for white noise, coloured noise (high or lowpass filtered noise) and random voltage. The random voltage output is a low-pass filtered version of the coloured noise so that you get a lower rate of change which is useful for CV (rather than audio).

The Doepfer A-118 Noise Module.
The Doepfer A-118 Noise Module.

To summarise the sound-generating section:
2 TipTop Audio Z3000 MKII Oscillators
1 Doepfer A-118 Noise/Random