Anyone developing a mixer?

[Murf]

Great project and very cool!

Regarding GUI, IMHO, it seems visually distracting with so many diagonals, dBu labels, and outlined LEDs. Any consideration for a cleaner, minimalist design? iZotope came to this conclusion beginning with Ozone 6 when they hired a GUI expert to clean up their entire product line.

Thanks for the feedback!
I have definitely considered re-designing the greater part of the RE to be honest, however it is supposed to be inspired by a real world physical mixer, the MIDAS XL88, and I do not want to stray too far from it's look and feel.
I have had lots of requests (even a suggestion from Reason themselves) to make it stereo, so I have decided to make that change. I may consider more, but they wont really affect the UI much if at all.
I plan to design a new RE after this one that incorporates all the things this one is missing, and with a much better UI
Murf.

[reasonosaer]

I think he wants to make a 1:1 copy of the original because it was a revelation to many people who used it back in the day that weren't sure what they were looking at at first glance but went ahead and used it anyway despite the "busy" front panel. From the era when Midas stuff was well engineered and made, the xl88s had the honor of being stolen from a lot of sets as did the old speck xtramix location consoles. I'm all for making a reason optimized version or update but try it out before reinventing it. Try setting up an ambient or drone related pedal board with all the time and modulation stuff on parallel sends like in the reason ssl mixer, try making a drum template with per channel parallel compression and delay, try multiple instances of your favorite delay or filter envelope synced to the bpm at different intervals. It was a pro live sound and location tool that turns out to have a lots of creative potential, matrix mixers are good fun and you should try one. Lucky people with a surfeit of midi controlled synth modules made some great proto-rompler sampled instruments using the hardware version.

For my part in terms of RE mixers I'd like an 8:2 version of the Ekssperimental sounds 6ch mixer with an aux stereo input on the master and also a new skin or just some different colors for the old reason rack mixers which I've always found hard to look at. While I'm ordering can I also get an SSL 2.0 for Reason 14 that's switchable per channel between all of the brainworx/ua ssl models, and since I guess they've partnered or merged in this scenario let's throw in the neve and focusrite consoles and whatever else they've modeled by then too. They could cut this deal and poach some indie talent to redo the sequencer and make lots of green money three or four years from now as the hottest daw on the market, that's how you know they won't do it. We might get a chatGPT powered synth that generates a mood appropriate patch for you after you discuss your problems and feelings with it by then though. And if we're really lucky five years after that we might get an otherwise still completely broken browser that uses sophisticated general ai to remember what term you just searched for in the instruments tab after you've manually told it whether you meant to search utilities or effects.

[selig]

My 2 cents…
I'd say if you want to appeal to the folks who used the original you have no choice but to follow the original design, same for any product IMO.
That said…"Back in the day" you often had no choice but to use the gear that was on hand, and so you often had no choice but to put in the time to work around the interface complexity and get past the quirks to find the gold in the design (if it was even there). I worked in many studio with odd console designs I eventually got my head around, but man what a pain. But software is different, you don't HAVE to use the gear someone else installed…
So for the rest of us, just give us the gold please!
Side note - in the Eurorack world there is a company (https://grayscale.info/panels/) that sells alternate front panels for popular devices. They are successful because they simplify (and some would say 'beautify') the panel design while not changing functionality. For most of us, it's the function first, and design second that we want from a re-creation product. There is no logical reason to copy the flaws of the original IMO.

[Murf]

So for the rest of us, just give us the gold please!

Yeah I am thinking I may have to
I will see how I go with Stereo.
It is more complex than you first think, for example it is easy enough to convert all the channel VU meters by making 2 close together instead of one, and the Fade slider can even be split in two, but what about the bajillion gain knobs? They will all be setting gain for a stereo signal with no way of panning.
After looking at the 14:2 internal mixer I think this wont be an issue.

Another bugbear I have is the way they implemented the "row" format of matrix mixing, where a "column" format makes so much more sense.
I might have a button that swaps between "original" row mode and "sensible" column mode (no offense Midas...)
That may have to be it though, I will save the rest for Mark 2
Murf.

[selig]

So for the rest of us, just give us the gold please!

Yeah I am thinking I may have to
I will see how I go with Stereo.
It is more complex than you first think, for example it is easy enough to convert all the channel VU meters by making 2 close together instead of one, and the Fade slider can even be split in two, but what about the bajillion gain knobs? They will all be setting gain for a stereo signal with no way of panning.
After looking at the 14:2 internal mixer I think this wont be an issue.

Another bugbear I have is the way they implemented the "row" format of matrix mixing, where a "column" format makes so much more sense.
I might have a button that swaps between "original" row mode and "sensible" column mode (no offense Midas...)
That may have to be it though, I will save the rest for Mark 2
Murf.

Well for one, on a digital device do you really need full peak meters on every channel? I Mackie "signal present" LED would do as well, something I've found useful on a few of my devices.
And one fader for stereo signals is fine, as is a single "Signal" type LED IMO. Or ditch the fader and just use another (bigger) knob?
And you don't need an input trim either IMO, you can use that space for a panner maybe?
The "ROW" arrangement makes sense if you compare to sends in other mixers, right?

[Murf]

Well for one, on a digital device do you really need full peak meters on every channel? I Mackie "signal present" LED would do as well, something I've found useful on a few of my devices.
And one fader for stereo signals is fine, as is a single "Signal" type LED IMO. Or ditch the fader and just use another (bigger) knob?
And you don't need an input trim either IMO, you can use that space for a panner maybe?

Agreed, but... it has to have SOME resemblance to the original

The "ROW" arrangement makes sense if you compare to sends in other mixers, right?

Agreed but at first I assumed it was column! (it could just be me)
The fact that you think it should be row anyway is enough for me!

Anyway all the stereo logic and UI is done apart from splitting the VU's and the Fader... and I consider that a challenge so the games begin!

P.S., on the topic of VU, I have been calibrating my meters to be the same as other rack devices but I notice things like the 14:2 and the BigMeter are all about 9dB more sensitive.
I feel my mixer should at least do the same thing as the 14:2 in this respect so i will re-calibrate, but any insight would be most welcome (I didn't get much joy from the reason devs when I asked them)

Murf

[selig]

Agreed, but... it has to have SOME resemblance to the original

Murf

That's up to you, but I don't care if it does or doesn't since I have no nostalgia for the original! And I don't "get" the original so the more like the original the less likely I am to try it.
I would want something useful in Reason, which the original may or may not be.
Again, sticking to the original will appeal to folks who used the original - but how many of those are there compared to those who want something better than the original?

When I made my first RE, the first question my co-developer David Antliff asked was "Who is this device for", and I quickly realized I hadn't fully understood the implications of answering that question as fully as possible. So I'll ask it here in the hopes that answering it will help you as it helped me.
Who do you see as the typical/desired user of this device?

[Murf]

Agreed, but... it has to have SOME resemblance to the original

Murf

That's up to you, but I don't care if it does or doesn't since I have no nostalgia for the original! And I don't "get" the original so the more like the original the less likely I am to try it.
I would want something useful in Reason, which the original may or may not be.
Again, sticking to the original will appeal to folks who used the original - but how many of those are there compared to those who want something better than the original?

When I made my first RE, the first question my co-developer David Antliff asked was "Who is this device for", and I quickly realized I hadn't fully understood the implications of answering that question as fully as possible. So I'll ask it here in the hopes that answering it will help you as it helped me.
Who do you see as the typical/desired user of this device?

People who asked for an 8x8 matrix mixer!
I get your points, and I have made some compromises along those lines so far and I am sure there will be more.
It definitely needs to be useful in Reason and also fit into the ecosystem, working well with other REs.
Murf.

[reasonosaer]

people: anyone working on a mixer?

murf: i've got an idea for a really cool one, check it out

people: we wanted a mixer, what is this strange object with lots of channels and knobs and faders and metering?

random 90s foh guy: a really cool kind of mixer called a matrix mixer based on a hardware classic. the hardware version also confused a lot of people who didn't get it at first glance but many of them went on to love the thing after they tried it in a creative context, give it a shot!

people: meh, i don't have any nostalgia for this thing i'm just now learning about. i was just told that lots of folks who aren't foh engineers didn't understand the concept at first glance but nonetheless came to love it after giving it a chance, but i'm only interested in things i already understand. why don't you just make me a copy of something i'm nostalgic for that does the exact same thing as the mixers we already have instead, otherwise i can't imagine why me or anyone else would be interested...

Murf just make what you want and ignore the people trying to talk to you into changing the concept while freely admitting that they don't understand the concept. Or make the XL88 for yourself and then collaborate with them on something else. They can try it for free so a few of them will have the same experience as creative people who experimented with the original. Unfortunately most of their fates were sealed by the immutable laws of internet debate when they posted their first or second comment and they are now honor bound to go to their graves flatly denying that either matrix mixers in general or the xl88 in particular have any conceptual validity or creative potential in any context for people of their quality and experience...

[Murf]

people: anyone working on a mixer?

murf: i've got an idea for a really cool one, check it out

people: we wanted a mixer, what is this strange object with lots of channels and knobs and faders and metering?

random 90s foh guy: a really cool kind of mixer called a matrix mixer based on a hardware classic. the hardware version also confused a lot of people who didn't get it at first glance but many of them went on to love the thing after they tried it in a creative context, give it a shot!

people: meh, i don't have any nostalgia for this thing i'm just now learning about. i was just told that lots of folks who aren't foh engineers didn't understand the concept at first glance but nonetheless came to love it after giving it a chance, but i'm only interested in things i already understand. why don't you just make me a copy of something i'm nostalgic for that does the exact same thing as the mixers we already have instead, otherwise i can't imagine why me or anyone else would be interested...

Murf just make what you want and ignore the people trying to talk to you into changing the concept while freely admitting that they don't understand the concept. Or make the XL88 for yourself and then collaborate with them on something else. They can try it for free so a few of them will have the same experience as creative people who experimented with the original. Unfortunately most of their fates were sealed by the immutable laws of internet debate when they posted their first or second comment and they are now honor bound to go to their graves flatly denying that either matrix mixers in general or the xl88 in particular have any conceptual validity or creative potential in any context for people of their quality and experience...

lmao!

[selig]

people: anyone working on a mixer?

murf: i've got an idea for a really cool one, check it out

people: we wanted a mixer, what is this strange object with lots of channels and knobs and faders and metering?

random 90s foh guy: a really cool kind of mixer called a matrix mixer based on a hardware classic. the hardware version also confused a lot of people who didn't get it at first glance but many of them went on to love the thing after they tried it in a creative context, give it a shot!

people: meh, i don't have any nostalgia for this thing i'm just now learning about. i was just told that lots of folks who aren't foh engineers didn't understand the concept at first glance but nonetheless came to love it after giving it a chance, but i'm only interested in things i already understand. why don't you just make me a copy of something i'm nostalgic for that does the exact same thing as the mixers we already have instead, otherwise i can't imagine why me or anyone else would be interested...

Murf just make what you want and ignore the people trying to talk to you into changing the concept while freely admitting that they don't understand the concept. Or make the XL88 for yourself and then collaborate with them on something else. They can try it for free so a few of them will have the same experience as creative people who experimented with the original. Unfortunately most of their fates were sealed by the immutable laws of internet debate when they posted their first or second comment and they are now honor bound to go to their graves flatly denying that either matrix mixers in general or the xl88 in particular have any conceptual validity or creative potential in any context for people of their quality and experience...

I’ll have what he’s having!

[Murf]

Would anyone be interested in an RE clone of this?

https://www.ericasynths.lv/shop/standal ... rix-mixer/
.
.

mm.PNG

.

.
Murf

[Ahornberg]

I had the idea of something like the Visual Mixer by Isotope.

In Reason's SSL console, there are CV inputs vor volume and pan,
and so it could be quite easy to drive up to 16 (or 32) mixer channels
by a graphical display that looks like the Visual Mixer by Isotope.

[Re8et]

Would anyone be interested in an RE clone of this?

https://www.ericasynths.lv/shop/standal ... rix-mixer/
.
.
mm.PNG
.

.
Murf

My 2 shellings.

There are already some HAMU devices that does CV mixing and are free...
MAYBE, a PLAYER with MIDI to CV features, like Aftertouch, and scenes or save states
that can be replayed live, with live midi reloop... that would be quite a thing... BUT...

I would say that a well made (not introducing latency for eg) Stereo or Mono mixer like the Ekss 6ch, but with
internal FXs... would be a NEW thing in Reason... even a Behringer 10ch FX mixer clone,
or a Allen and Heath ZED 10 FX Clone, would be quite a big deal, especially if those FX
are well done.
There is the 4ch parallel mixer in the shop, that I use often, but it introduces latency, and it's not always ideal.

The Ekks mixer has a Compressor FX on Master, but behind the UI it could well be
individual compressor for each mono channel..-

[DJMaytag]

I still stand by my OP, wanting a stereo mixer like the Reason 6:2 device, but with 2 or more FX sends.

Something like a Mackie 802VLZ or SSL SiX mixer would be cool too.

[Murf]

My 2 shellings.

There are already some HAMU devices that does CV mixing and are free...
MAYBE, a PLAYER with MIDI to CV features, like Aftertouch, and scenes or save states
that can be replayed live, with live midi reloop... that would be quite a thing... BUT...

I would say that a well made (not introducing latency for eg) Stereo or Mono mixer like the Ekss 6ch, but with
internal FXs... would be a NEW thing in Reason... even a Behringer 10ch FX mixer clone,
or a Allen and Heath ZED 10 FX Clone, would be quite a big deal, especially if those FX
are well done.
There is the 4ch parallel mixer in the shop, that I use often, but it introduces latency, and it's not always ideal.

The Ekks mixer has a Compressor FX on Master, but behind the UI it could well be
individual compressor for each mono channel..-

Yes the HAMU CV stuff is nice, but I am definitely talking Audio here.

Regarding latency, it is not possible to process the audio buffers without a minimum amount of latency being introduced, it is just the way of DSP.
The only ways it can be reduced is limiting the amount of time you give the DSP to do it's thing, and also playing with your Audio buffer settings in Reason of course.

There are a lot of mixers, I just liked this one and wondered if anyone would buy something like it if I developed it.
I would add stuff of course, like effects
Imagine... 256 separate effects instances... I wonder if it would even run...
Murf.

[Murf]

I still stand by my OP, wanting a stereo mixer like the Reason 6:2 device, but with 2 or more FX sends.

Something like a Mackie 802VLZ or SSL SiX mixer would be cool too.

I keep feeling really bad about doing stuff that doesn't match what this whole thread initially covered..
I will take another look at your original requirement, but I am not promising anything
Murf.

EDIT: Ok I looked at the first page again and would ask you this:
Could you take selig's mockup picture and hack away at it in photoshop or similar to give a requirement for what you want?
it doesn't have to be pretty, just functional.

[Murf]

DJMaytag I think your mailbox is full

[selig]

I still stand by my OP, wanting a stereo mixer like the Reason 6:2 device, but with 2 or more FX sends.

Something like a Mackie 802VLZ or SSL SiX mixer would be cool too.

I keep feeling really bad about doing stuff that doesn't match what this whole thread initially covered..
I will take another look at your original requirement, but I am not promising anything
Murf.

EDIT: Ok I looked at the first page again and would ask you this:
Could you take selig's mockup picture and hack away at it in photoshop or similar to give a requirement for what you want?
it doesn't have to be pretty, just functional.

They wanted to also add CV for sends, pre fader send option, three band EQ, and uni/bi polar switches.
The Uni/Bi switches are a bit redundant, you typically don't have a uni-bi converter (if that's what is wanted) on each CV input.

My thoughts:
CV for Sends: takes up a lot of room on the back, can be done externally very easily with any gain device.
Pre/Post fader sends is an uncommon use case, which is why the 14:2 only has one, and requires the space for another button per send on the panels. Can be worked around with direct outputs for individual channels, since the direct out is essentially a pre fader source.
Three band EQ requires another knob and CV input in the back, so becomes tricky but doable. And unlike the above, there is no workaround besides just using an EQ on the way in. Plus, do you want to be able to sweep the mid-range control or is a fixed frequency (and which one) going to do the trick? If sweep is needed, it's another knob…

I suggest going back to what buddard said, earlier, the classic way to start a design is by asking: what (and who) is it for?
Basically what are the exact use cases in order of importance.

I'm happy to help out in any way here if it's needed.

[Murf]

I keep feeling really bad about doing stuff that doesn't match what this whole thread initially covered..
I will take another look at your original requirement, but I am not promising anything
Murf.

EDIT: Ok I looked at the first page again and would ask you this:
Could you take selig's mockup picture and hack away at it in photoshop or similar to give a requirement for what you want?
it doesn't have to be pretty, just functional.

They wanted to also add CV for sends, pre fader send option, three band EQ, and uni/bi polar switches.
The Uni/Bi switches are a bit redundant, you typically don't have a uni-bi converter (if that's what is wanted) on each CV input.

My thoughts:
CV for Sends: takes up a lot of room on the back, can be done externally very easily with any gain device.
Pre/Post fader sends is an uncommon use case, which is why the 14:2 only has one, and requires the space for another button per send on the panels. Can be worked around with direct outputs for individual channels, since the direct out is essentially a pre fader source.
Three band EQ requires another knob and CV input in the back, so becomes tricky but doable. And unlike the above, there is no workaround besides just using an EQ on the way in. Plus, do you want to be able to sweep the mid-range control or is a fixed frequency (and which one) going to do the trick? If sweep is needed, it's another knob…

I suggest going back to what buddard said, earlier, the classic way to start a design is by asking: what (and who) is it for?
Basically what are the exact use cases in order of importance.

I'm happy to help out in any way here if it's needed.

Thanks for your thoughts Selig, I can see now why you did not pursue your prototype now.
I guess I "fixated" on the need for a matrix mixer earlier in the thread, which resulted in MIX88.
There are quite a few different concepts floating around the thread (as you and others have frequently reminded us all).

In the interests of not trying to keep everyone happy with just one Mixer design, I think I will just pick one that I gravitate to and pursue that.
To be honest I like the idea of a horizontal style single stereo strip Mixer RE, and I have been discussing it with DJMaytag in PMs, since he was the one who originally raised the idea here.

So I guess the question is:
what (and who) is [a strip channel mixer RE] for?
What should it have?
What should it not have?

Here is the original post: viewtopic.php?p=609215#p609215

Have it it people

Murf.

[selig]

They wanted to also add CV for sends, pre fader send option, three band EQ, and uni/bi polar switches.
The Uni/Bi switches are a bit redundant, you typically don't have a uni-bi converter (if that's what is wanted) on each CV input.

My thoughts:
CV for Sends: takes up a lot of room on the back, can be done externally very easily with any gain device.
Pre/Post fader sends is an uncommon use case, which is why the 14:2 only has one, and requires the space for another button per send on the panels. Can be worked around with direct outputs for individual channels, since the direct out is essentially a pre fader source.
Three band EQ requires another knob and CV input in the back, so becomes tricky but doable. And unlike the above, there is no workaround besides just using an EQ on the way in. Plus, do you want to be able to sweep the mid-range control or is a fixed frequency (and which one) going to do the trick? If sweep is needed, it's another knob…

I suggest going back to what buddard said, earlier, the classic way to start a design is by asking: what (and who) is it for?
Basically what are the exact use cases in order of importance.

I'm happy to help out in any way here if it's needed.

Thanks for your thoughts Selig, I can see now why you did not pursue your prototype now.
I guess I "fixated" on the need for a matrix mixer earlier in the thread, which resulted in MIX88.
There are quite a few different concepts floating around the thread (as you and others have frequently reminded us all).

In the interests of not trying to keep everyone happy with just one Mixer design, I think I will just pick one that I gravitate to and pursue that.
To be honest I like the idea of a horizontal style single stereo strip Mixer RE, and I have been discussing it with DJMaytag in PMs, since he was the one who originally raised the idea here.

So I guess the question is:
what (and who) is [a strip channel mixer RE] for?
What should it have?
What should it not have?

Here is the original post: viewtopic.php?p=609215#p609215

Have it it people

Murf.

I’m happy to help with whatever is decided - in reading that link I saw the channel strip as an alternative to the 8 channel mixer, assuming the 8 channel mixer is not going to happen.

I’m more interested in helping with the original idea of a simple (8 channel ?) mixer if anyone else is still interested in that concept.

[DJMaytag]

I suggest going back to what buddard said, earlier, the classic way to start a design is by asking: what (and who) is it for?
Basically what are the exact use cases in order of importance.

Well let’s start with me, since I started the thread. Theres a lot of assumptions and some situations that have changed since my OP.

In my 2020 OP, Combinator 2 wasn’t released yet, nor was the Combinator Mixer a thing that existed. So let’s start there.

There’s been a lot of assumptions about what I suggested that could just as easily be solved with the expanded CV inputs and the programmer of Combinator 2. CV control over level and pan per channel seems to be standard across Reason devices, so that’s not unreasonable IMHO. Direct CV control over sends or any additional potential features isn’t critical to my ideal mixer/channel strip.

That said, I think 2 sends is an absolute minimum, and one of the should be switchable to pre/post fader (and the “fader” can be a knob or a slider… I don’t care which).

I didn’t originally have a HPF in mind, but I do think it’s useful, even if it’s a fixed frequency HPF like some real world consoles have (usually at around 75-100 Hz). Continuously variable is totally fine. LPF isn’t something that I can recall ever seeing in a real world analog console, so I would leave that out.

Is EQ even necessary? I don’t think it is, and I would almost rather see an insert/return path for EQ/dynamics processing (switchable pre/post fader). I’m not a coder, so I don’t know if it makes it easier to not have to come up with good EQ code, but if it is… then leave it up to other devs who have made good EQ’s and utilize the inserts.

My typical use situations:

Mixing multiple synths stacked/layered in a Combinator, with common sends.

Taking a mixer from a master FX output and splitting that, such that one path goes back to the normal master return path, but also feeding that into another master FX (utilizing another mixer to mix its inputs).

Using only a single channel of a mixer, utilizing its FX send for “throws” of FX that only get used on one sound source (mainly because you can’t use CV to control the SSL mixer sends yet).

At a minimum, I could see needing a 4:2 type mixer that’s a simple as Reason’s 6:2, bit with some of the features of Reason’s 14:2 mixer.

[selig]

•2 sends minimum, one pre/post (which could be done with additional outputs on the back or a button on the front).
•Filters: Not sure I can agree, as a long time SSL user, that an LPF is not something seen on an analog console… My original design allows the LP and HP filters to be switched to Low and High Shelf. It’s not common to need both, so think of them as EQ with bonus filters if needed.
•Mixer Master FX output - don’t know what you’re describing here, maybe clarify?
•For single use FX “throws” (aka “specials”) via CV, you can use almost anything with CV gain, so not sure how this device would be any better as a single use CV controlled gain stage. If that’s all you’re doing, you can just mult the signal to multiple channels and use the pre fader send along with the gain CV to create the effect.
•4 channels seems like you’ll always be a few channels short - I even feel that way with the Line mixer’s 6 channels from time to time.

What I’m seeing you describe is a four/6 channel version of the line mixer, but with one more send. What am I missing here?

[DJMaytag]

•Mixer Master FX output - don’t know what you’re describing here, maybe clarify?

Typically using a 6:2 like this:

#1:
Master sends (SSL) output 1 to 6:2 #1 input 1 (6:2 #1 input 2 comes later). 6:2 main output to FX. FX output to master (SSL) return 1.

#2
Master sends (SSL) output 2 to FX. FX output to 6:2 #2 input 1. Send FX from 6:2 #2 to 6:2 #1’s input 2. 6:2 #2’s main output to master (SSL) return 2.

I’m typically doing this to feed a portion of some FX back into other FX. It’s generally critical that the devices involved are stereo, to allow for feeding a stereo delay into another stereo FX.

I’m generally setting up “FX Combinators” for the master (SSL) sends/returns, with the chain inside being: 6:2 -> FX -> 6:2. That’s allows me to have the routing for FX feedback wired up and ready, whether I need it or not.

•For single use FX “throws” (aka “specials”) via CV, you can use almost anything with CV gain, so not sure how this device would be any better as a single use CV controlled gain stage. If that’s all you’re doing, you can just mult the signal to multiple channels and use the pre fader send along with the gain CV to create the effect.
•4 channels seems like you’ll always be a few channels short - I even feel that way with the Line mixer’s 6 channels from time to time.

What I’m seeing you describe is a four/6 channel version of the line mixer, but with one more send. What am I missing here?

I’m sure it could be done, but that’s not the way my mind works. I started with hardware in the early 90’s LONG before I did anything in the software world. As such, my mind naturally gravitates towards solutions that are typical in the hardware world. I’m sure using mults and several VCA’s couple accomplish something similar to what I’d want in my Eurorack setup, but it’s just easier to buy a Eurorack mixer that has the features I want to accomplish my goals.

Personally, I don’t ever use more than 4 stereo pairs in a synth stack in a Combinator. That said, I don’t think I specified any minimum number of channels. I guess that ends up being a limitation of the RE code, if any limitation exists, and what it takes to implement that with a usable GUI. If someone made a 10 or 16 stereo pair mixer to use as a dedicated sub mixer for Redrum, NNXT, or Kong? That would be pretty cool, but that’s one a hell of a bigger project.

A minimum of one extra send compared to the 6:2, yes. I’m not going to complain if someone makes a device that has 3 or more. Also, a HPF would be welcome, as would EQ (not a deal breaker if no EQ). Those two things aren’t part of the current 6:2.

[DaveyG]

@Murf. Mate, make the mixer you want to make then put it in the shop.

Then you can think about making another one if you want, although if you try to please everyone in this thread you'll end up making an 8 seater tractor with low profile road tyres and go faster stripes.