Anyone developing a mixer?

[DJMaytag]

I know there's the old 14:2 and 6:2 stock mixers, but I'm curious if anyone has ever considered making something in between the two? The 6:2 is handy for mixing a couple things for layering sounds in a Combinator, but I've found it lacking when doing a LOT of stacking for atmospheric/drone type sounds. The 14:2 is nice with the level & pan inputs, but it would be dope to have more CV control of mixer parameters, more EQ choices, AND be a smaller device (maybe a 12:2?).

Food for thought.

[Loque]

There are at least 2 mixer devices i know of in the shop.

And this topic was already discussed several times here. The need is clearly there, just someone needs to deliver. Maybe you?

[deeplink]

On the topic, why not a 1 unit rack meter - similar to the size of the mclass maximiser, but show's VU and Peak at the same time.. perhaps even unit values

[DJMaytag]

There are at least 2 mixer devices i know of in the shop.

And this topic was already discussed several times here. The need is clearly there, just someone needs to deliver. Maybe you?

I saw the 4:4:2 DJ mixer, that’s about it. I searched “mixer” but maybe that’s not what they’re called?

[Loque]

https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack-extension/xem/
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... cts-mixer/

[DJMaytag]

Looking for something a bit more full featured, not a utility mixer. Omega Merger would be a dope option for simple unity gain summing, but I want something closer to a hardware equivalent of a WMD Performance mixer with the stereo I/O/FX & EQ of the Befaco Hexmix system.

[selig]

I toyed with this design on a thread a while back…
The EQ section can be individually switched to filters instead of shelves, four sends per channel, polarity invert on each channel, direct outs for each channel, CV for level/pan/EQ, scribble strips for each channel + returns, and a switchable master insert (and yes, I know it's missing a tape strip on the front panel!):

[Electric-Metal]

I toyed with this design on a thread a while back…
The EQ section can be individually switched to filters instead of shelves, four sends per channel, polarity invert on each channel, direct outs for each channel, CV for level/pan/EQ, scribble strips for each channel + returns, and a switchable master insert (and yes, I know it's missing a tape strip on the front panel!):

When is it going to be released

[DJMaytag]

I toyed with this design on a thread a while back…
The EQ section can be individually switched to filters instead of shelves, four sends per channel, polarity invert on each channel, direct outs for each channel, CV for level/pan/EQ, scribble strips for each channel + returns, and a switchable master insert (and yes, I know it's missing a tape strip on the front panel!):

This looks pretty dope! How hard would it be to add a couple things? CV in for sends would be amazing, as would a bi-polar/uni-polar switch for CV control over the things that are CV-controllable.

I'm not sure how useful the insert in/out is on this, even though I know this is a pretty standard feature on hardware mixers.

[selig]

This looks pretty dope! How hard would it be to add a couple things? CV in for sends would be amazing, as would a bi-polar/uni-polar switch for CV control over the things that are CV-controllable.

I'm not sure how useful the insert in/out is on this, even though I know this is a pretty standard feature on hardware mixers.

Short answer, yes all these things could be added.
My intention on this mockup was to see how much could be crammed into a small footprint, which I accomplished and so I'd be happy to entertain additional features.

But adding anything at this point would require a bigger panel size for starters. For example, adding CV for sends plus uni/bi polar switches for all would significantly increase the needed panel space on the back. And when you do that, you add space on the front too which would provide an opportunity to add more controls to the front (and possibly add the need for more CV on the back, and now we're caught in a vicious circle!!!).

Also, and it's a small detail, but there is a required amount of space to be set aside on all back panels, which is not being done on this mockup - meaning, there's actually less space on the current back panel than indicated by my mockup.

[DJMaytag]

Gotcha. Maybe downsize it to make it only 8 channels? Would ditching the direct outs on each channel help? I haven’t used direct outs (for using with Rewire into Cubase) since not longer after Reason 9.5 came out. I’m sure there’s a good Reason you put it in, one that I’m missing a use for.

Is there any plan for pre/post fader send options?

[Murf]

Well since my most recent project just got sh*tcanned due to a certain recent release of a (awesome) modular effects RE, I would probably consider looking at a mixer.
I was always going to do a small 1U mixer for the MODRACK series so why the hell not..
Would people prefer lots of functionality (equates to lots of smaller knobs) or a cleaner minimalistic look?
I can hide more complex stuff in hidden widgets.
Design it here and I will try and build it!
Murf.

[EdGrip]

Design it here and I will try and build it!
Murf.

The Forum:

[buddard]

Design it here and I will try and build it!
Murf.

The Forum:

Exactly this!

I find that you often get better results by starting to ask why a new product is needed at all:
Which musical goals can't comfortably be achieved with the existing options?

It's very easy to slip into "feature creep territory" when everyone is just suggesting features, because everyone has different priorities and ways of working.

So I would try to find a strong use case first, and then try to come up with a great design with that particular use case in mind.

[Loque]

The Forum:

Exactly this!

I find that you often get better results by starting to ask why a new product is needed at all:
Which musical goals can't comfortably be achieved with the existing options?

It's very easy to slip into "feature creep territory" when everyone is just suggesting features, because everyone has different priorities and ways of working.

So I would try to find a strong use case first, and then try to come up with a great design with that particular use case in mind.

I answered exactly this question in the other threads too:
I want to have more send fx to create more complex cross fx and feedback loops. 4 Fx are just not enough in most cases for experimental and weird fx stuff. I can live with 4-8 stereo audio channels without any eq and so , but the fx is a huge problem. Its pretty hard and complex to create more fx with cross fx and feedback loops. And if you get to work around this limitation, you cannot save it in a Combinator...

[Enlightenspeed]

I find that you often get better results by starting to ask why a new product is needed at all:
Which musical goals can't comfortably be achieved with the existing options?

I think this is similar to my thinking, but I go for a different stipulation - "What tools do I want for my own music making?".

I feel that providing I can see myself using something, then I can always roadmap how it should be, and thus when feature suggestions come in, it's a quick "yay or nay" as to whether it will fit with that "flow" - this is before technical restraints say otherwise of course

Cheers,
Brian

[rorystorm]

Honestly for me if I was looking at a mixer I wouldn't be very interested in a 14:2PLUS, particularly if it had more eq controls. There's enough eq devices around, as well as the SSL eq, and that would be redundant. What would be really useful is something that had these two things:

one, bulk sends each with a pre/post control and with an automatable off/on button, as the SSL does, but on a device.

two, each audio input has a corresponding audio output - so you can then route each incoming device out again to its own mix channel - as well as a global audio output.

annnd straight forward pan and gain controls for each input I guess. But I'd rather see pan and level controls for the sends.

So, this would be really useful for mixing a bunch of instruments on the fly at the same time and fulfilling your king scratch lee tubby dreams, and then using the SSL for the levels and eq etc of each individual instrument or drum sound.

note: I know you can kind of do this a bit with the 14:2 but it only has levels for the sends, not off/on switches - which doesn't work if you, say, want to put a delay on one snare hit in four and then a little bit of reverb on each eighth kick and so on. Instead it just turns the send volume up and down again which sounds like shit.

I think.

At least that's what it seems to do.

Anyway a mixing device that was focused on send effects would be amazing and different enough to the stock mixers to be a viable option.

[selig]

Anyway a mixing device that was focused on send effects would be amazing and different enough to the stock mixers to be a viable option.

Interestingly, the VERY first device idea I had back in 2012 as for a send mixer matrix (called "Blender"), which could send any input to any output to create feedback loops etc. Instead I choose to build the Leveler (Curve).

Getting back to the thread, sounds like there are at least two or three different products being suggested here so far…

[DJMaytag]

And if you get to work around this limitation, you cannot save it in a Combinator...

For mixing inside a Combinator, realistically 4-6 stereo inputs is all that’s needed for layering a bunch of synths (the most synths I’m stacking is 4). The stock 6:2 is nice because it’s small, but it lacks multiple FX sends (2-4 would be good, with 1-2 switchable to pre-fader sends). The lack of EQ on the 6:2 is limiting, but isn’t a dealbreaker. I’d find it WAY more useful than the stock 6:2 mixer if there were more FX sends.

If the size was reasonable (2U or 3U), two of these could be stacked/cascaded to create a larger mixer. I’d rather have a small feature packed mixer than a large mixer that lacks features and has a ton of unused channels. This is where a niche could be found between the stock mixing devices.

Added bonus territory would be CV inputs for control over sends/pan/level. To make it reasonably sized, could there be maybe 8-16 general CV inputs that could be assigned in a drop down programmer, like the RV-7000? 4 assignable CV’s in the Combinator isn’t enough, so some sort of programmer/matrix style assigning of CV control might be more reasonable that having (for example) 6x CV inputs for the level, pan, and 4x sends.

[Loque]

And if you get to work around this limitation, you cannot save it in a Combinator...

For mixing inside a Combinator, realistically 4-6 stereo inputs is all that’s needed for layering a bunch of synths (the most synths I’m stacking is 4). The stock 6:2 is nice because it’s small, but it lacks multiple FX sends (2-4 would be good, with 1-2 switchable to pre-fader sends). The lack of EQ on the 6:2 is limiting, but isn’t a dealbreaker. I’d find it WAY more useful than the stock 6:2 mixer if there were more FX sends.

If the size was reasonable (2U or 3U), two of these could be stacked/cascaded to create a larger mixer. I’d rather have a small feature packed mixer than a large mixer that lacks features and has a ton of unused channels. This is where a niche could be found between the stock mixing devices.

Added bonus territory would be CV inputs for control over sends/pan/level. To make it reasonably sized, could there be maybe 8-16 general CV inputs that could be assigned in a drop down programmer, like the RV-7000? 4 assignable CV’s in the Combinator isn’t enough, so some sort of programmer/matrix style assigning of CV control might be more reasonable that having (for example) 6x CV inputs for the level, pan, and 4x sends.

Well, as i said, i nearly never use more than 6-8 audio channels. Most of the times there is only 1, maybe 2 or 3. But my biggest problem are the send fx. Here is a simple example: Creating a tape delay
* Add 4 delays, with different timings
* Send only to 1 from the dry signal
* Now send from delay to delay, means #1 -> #2, #2 -> #3 and finally #3 -> #4
* If you like, create a feedback with #4 -> #1
Et voila! A tape delay. No, if you want to have 6 tape -heads, you are doomed. Or if you want to some additional processing in the loop. So, i would like to see more a big bunch of send fx which can be routed back to the mixer channels.

[selig]

So, i would like to see more a big bunch of send fx which can be routed back to the mixer channels.

Here's my very first RE idea mockup, no one understood it at the time but it's basically what you described above. Not sure if it makes any more sense today than it did originally…

[Zac]

So, i would like to see more a big bunch of send fx which can be routed back to the mixer channels.

Here's my very first RE idea mockup, no one understood it at the time but it's basically what you described above. Not sure if it makes any more sense today than it did originally…

I would buy the blender

[BigPictureSound]

So, i would like to see more a big bunch of send fx which can be routed back to the mixer channels.

Here's my very first RE idea mockup, no one understood it at the time but it's basically what you described above. Not sure if it makes any more sense today than it did originally…

Call it SBLENDER

“the selig blender”

You’re welcome

[DJMaytag]

Here's my very first RE idea mockup, no one understood it at the time but it's basically what you described above. Not sure if it makes any more sense today than it did originally…

This looks like a really cool unit, but only for use with a single source (one synth or on the outputs of a mixer that’s layering a bunch of synths). It looks like a great device for doing feedback loops and what not, like what mentioned before.

[dancing fool]

A stereo 6 in 8 out matrix mixer with direct out of the inputs would work for me.