Anyone developing a mixer?

[madwurmz]

I didn't really look back in this topic until now and must admit I added nothing compared to the already posted screenshots, skimming though all pages I don't really understand how Murf went from his almost finished Mix88 to Mix82 design.

All in all , I can't really relate to people asking for more CV or more inserts.
I can imagine the fun, but I just don't have 8 fx's to stack. So I'm happy with the current options in Reason, I guess my music is just not that weird

It's nice to see how you guys develop, and if you need help with adding some style and color, I'm happy to assist!

[Murf]

I didn't really look back in this topic until now and must admit I added nothing compared to the already posted screenshots, skimming though all pages I don't really understand how Murf went from his almost finished Mix88 to Mix82 design.

All in all , I can't really relate to people asking for more CV or more inserts.
I can imagine the fun, but I just don't have 8 fx's to stack. So I'm happy with the current options in Reason, I guess my music is just not that weird

It's nice to see how you guys develop, and if you need help with adding some style and color, I'm happy to assist!

MIX88 has been finished for awhile now (Unless that is a dig?!)

The MIX82 is supposed to fill a missing need, but so far that is really only 8 sends instead of 4 and a slightly smaller rack size... and some extra CV if I can cram it onto the back panel
I must admit all this effort is not feeling like it will be worth it.

Murf

[Murf]

I think it's an improvement. Now the knobs of the different sends and their corresponding return should get some colour coding. Maybe following a nice sunset theme of colours would work out nicely.

Thanks I have been looking for something like that color picker!
I have started on colors already but it looks horrible.....

Murf

[Murf]

I really like the idea of large vertical faders/meters. All I’m thinking now is physical position and features, and a way to differentiate from what is already available. And also what is actually wanted, of course, all crammed together in a way that is still comfortable and inviting. A tall order indeed, but I like a little “outside the box” thinking here!

I do like the vertical fader/meter also, but if I go for the vertical idea I either have to reduce to 6 channels or keep the smaller knobs....



POLL: (How do I do a proper poll?!)

Smaller knobs and vertical VU and fader slider with 8 to 10 channels, or larger knobs and only 6 or so channels?

[ekss]

As I see vetical space is the issue here. If it's not essential that every channel has 8 sends simultaneously it could perhaps be an idea to reduce the number of knobs to maybe 4 or 2 per channel and make those assignable to sets of sends, as an example if there are two groups it could be aux group A and B, with sends 1-4 & 5-8. Or with 4 groups with sends 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8.
If it is essential that it's at least 8-10 channels and that every channel has 8 sends I'd suggest make the device heigher, if that functionality has priority it would validate the device being higher than 14:2 mixer.
Or if 8 sends and low height is a must maybe a 1U horizontal channel strip with 8 sends is enough?
It could be accompanied by a master channel that is 2U for returns and VU, eq and compressor or what more:)

Ultimately I guess the burning point is to define its main purpose and not try to please all request.

[Murf]

As I see vetical space is the issue here. If it's not essential that every channel has 8 sends simultaneously it could perhaps be an idea to reduce the number of knobs to maybe 4 or 2 per channel and make those assignable to sets of sends, as an example if there are two groups it could be aux group A and B, with sends 1-4 & 5-8. Or with 4 groups with sends 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8.
If it is essential that it's at least 8-10 channels and that every channel has 8 sends I'd suggest make the device heigher, if that functionality has priority it would validate the device being higher than 14:2 mixer.
Or if 8 sends and low height is a must maybe a 1U horizontal channel strip with 8 sends is enough?
It could be accompanied by a master channel that is 2U for returns and VU, eq and compressor or what more:)

Ultimately I guess the burning point is to define its main purpose and not try to please all request.

Banks of sends is a good idea...

[madwurmz]

MIX88 has been finished for awhile now (Unless that is a dig?!)

The MIX82 is supposed to fill a missing need, but so far that is really only 8 sends instead of 4 and a slightly smaller rack size... and some extra CV if I can cram it onto the back panel
I must admit all this effort is not feeling like it will be worth it.

Murf

haa oopsie, not a dig! I didn't know it was already in the shop and I thought this forum topic just kept going into a slightly differnt direction. your UI designs are ...special!

Selig wrote 4 years ago already "adding anything at this point would require a bigger panel size for starters" , to which Murf replied "I can hide more complex stuff in hidden widgets" and
someone else suggested to use the biggest unit rack, but that was probably related to the MIX88..

Maybe foldable panels are a solution to save space , divide mixer from inserts, like the 'remote editor' in NN-XT , or the overlapping FX panel in Scenic Hybrid Instrument. I dont know if that translates to more usable space in the back though.

[selig]

cool thread. im just now getting caught up on it. here's my 2 cents.
for sound design, I always combinator my instruments and use a mixer 14:2 in said combi. this might just be me, but i never even use the send returns and instead just wire them back to a channel in the mixer. that way i can make send feedback loops.
I guess what i'm saying. are returns even necessary? could free up space on the front and back by getting rid of those

Yes, the returns make sense, because they have a lower delay. The mixer input delay depends on the audio buffer settings. AFAIK.

The returns don’t have any delay , there is delay on the channels intentionally. It’s not a limitation of the system, it’s an imposed limitation to mitigate runaway feedback since there is such high dynamic range in digital systems compared to analog.

But funny you should mention dropping the returns - I’m working on a variation of past designs that does just this! By taking the 14:2 approach, you can have a more modular system, and you can begin to fit a little more UI as well. This means you can link sends and master outputs to provide more flexible routing options.

I’m starting with 8 input channels each with 8 sends, with the first 3 having pre fader and mute options (cv controlled of course). There will likely be some sort of basic EQ/Filter option per channel as well.

Link this to a second mixer, and you have 8 dedicated returns with full FX send access for every input. Link another and you have 16 inputs with 8 sends/returns, etc. Using a link for the master outputs, you can configure whatever size “console” you want!

As a single device you can still exceed Line Mixer capabilities by using 6 channels for inputs and two for returns (or any other combo that equals “8”). So you may not even need to link a second mixer in most cases.

But wait, there’s more. If I have space, all I need is to add one switch per send to allow the Link jacks to function as more traditional returns, although they will be internally summed returns without any controls. But since these mixers are modular, you could also use one just as send master controls with full CV control over the global send level and muting if needed.

The idea is to give enough sends and routing flexibility that if the feature isn’t supported by one mixer, you can add it by adding a second mixer. The hope is that a single device is enough for most cases, but the expandability will appeal to those who need “more”. Basically trying for a “something for everyone” approach, and also trying to provide a clear difference between this and the existing choices.

I’ll post a mockup asap, but in the mean time how does this sound? What am I missing? I’m still figuring out the technical details but wanted a bit of feedback on the basic concept before fully committing to this path…

[Loque]

Yes, the returns make sense, because they have a lower delay. The mixer input delay depends on the audio buffer settings. AFAIK.

The returns don’t have any delay , there is delay on the channels intentionally. It’s not a limitation of the system, it’s an imposed limitation to mitigate runaway feedback since there is such high dynamic range in digital systems compared to analog.

But funny you should mention dropping the returns - I’m working on a variation of past designs that does just this! By taking the 14:2 approach, you can have a more modular system, and you can begin to fit a little more UI as well. This means you can link sends and master outputs to provide more flexible routing options.

I’m starting with 8 input channels each with 8 sends, with the first 3 having pre fader and mute options (cv controlled of course). There will likely be some sort of basic EQ/Filter option per channel as well.

Link this to a second mixer, and you have 8 dedicated returns with full FX send access for every input. Link another and you have 16 inputs with 8 sends/returns, etc. Using a link for the master outputs, you can configure whatever size “console” you want!

As a single device you can still exceed Line Mixer capabilities by using 6 channels for inputs and two for returns (or any other combo that equals “8”). So you may not even need to link a second mixer in most cases.

But wait, there’s more. If I have space, all I need is to add one switch per send to allow the Link jacks to function as more traditional returns, although they will be internally summed returns without any controls. But since these mixers are modular, you could also use one just as send master controls with full CV control over the global send level and muting if needed.

The idea is to give enough sends and routing flexibility that if the feature isn’t supported by one mixer, you can add it by adding a second mixer. The hope is that a single device is enough for most cases, but the expandability will appeal to those who need “more”. Basically trying for a “something for everyone” approach, and also trying to provide a clear difference between this and the existing choices.

I’ll post a mockup asap, but in the mean time how does this sound? What am I missing? I’m still figuring out the technical details but wanted a bit of feedback on the basic concept before fully committing to this path…

Nice, i like the 3 pre faders. I would like to see more, if there is enough room for it.

[Murf]

Yes, the returns make sense, because they have a lower delay. The mixer input delay depends on the audio buffer settings. AFAIK.

The returns don’t have any delay , there is delay on the channels intentionally. It’s not a limitation of the system, it’s an imposed limitation to mitigate runaway feedback since there is such high dynamic range in digital systems compared to analog.

But funny you should mention dropping the returns - I’m working on a variation of past designs that does just this! By taking the 14:2 approach, you can have a more modular system, and you can begin to fit a little more UI as well. This means you can link sends and master outputs to provide more flexible routing options.

I’m starting with 8 input channels each with 8 sends, with the first 3 having pre fader and mute options (cv controlled of course). There will likely be some sort of basic EQ/Filter option per channel as well.

Link this to a second mixer, and you have 8 dedicated returns with full FX send access for every input. Link another and you have 16 inputs with 8 sends/returns, etc. Using a link for the master outputs, you can configure whatever size “console” you want!

As a single device you can still exceed Line Mixer capabilities by using 6 channels for inputs and two for returns (or any other combo that equals “8”). So you may not even need to link a second mixer in most cases.

But wait, there’s more. If I have space, all I need is to add one switch per send to allow the Link jacks to function as more traditional returns, although they will be internally summed returns without any controls. But since these mixers are modular, you could also use one just as send master controls with full CV control over the global send level and muting if needed.

The idea is to give enough sends and routing flexibility that if the feature isn’t supported by one mixer, you can add it by adding a second mixer. The hope is that a single device is enough for most cases, but the expandability will appeal to those who need “more”. Basically trying for a “something for everyone” approach, and also trying to provide a clear difference between this and the existing choices.

I’ll post a mockup asap, but in the mean time how does this sound? What am I missing? I’m still figuring out the technical details but wanted a bit of feedback on the basic concept before fully committing to this path…

I really have to make sure my Mixer isn't crossing over too much with yours Selig.
If you are going to do 8 sends I might drop that idea and go back to the original 2U design with 4 sends.


Murf

[selig]

I really have to make sure my Mixer isn't crossing over too much with yours Selig.
If you are going to do 8 sends I might drop that idea and go back to the original 2U design with 4 sends.
Murf

You don’t have to change anything, I’m without a coder at present so you won’t be seeing this from me unless I can find someone to build it for me (I’m C++ illiterate).

[Murf]

I really have to make sure my Mixer isn't crossing over too much with yours Selig.
If you are going to do 8 sends I might drop that idea and go back to the original 2U design with 4 sends.
Murf

You don’t have to change anything, I’m without a coder at present so you won’t be seeing this from me unless I can find someone to build it for me (I’m C++ illiterate).

And I am clearly UI illiterate