Mixing OTB product suggestions - your thoughts?

[jazzius II]

These days it seems possible to mix hi-quality OTB without a conventional console.....we have nice summing boxes.....different flavours (if you like) from the likes of Dangerous, API, Manley GML etc.....

.....you've also got some nice monitor boxes....

...........but one thing we're missing is something to give us sends and busses....

..so here's my suggestion:

A box that takes your audio in one end and passes it out out as pristinely as possible at the other end......also on this box would be (say) 6 sends (knobs). These could be used to feed either FX units or busses (in the shape of other stand-alone summing devices).....so as your budget/mixing desires expand, you could just add to the size of your "console".

I'm not aware of any devices like this on the market......only some low-end ones designed to distribute audio in shops/cafe's etc......

Any thoughts?....useful product?

[zimv20]

you mean something like the Aurora GTM-822?

anyone know how much this thing will go for?

and the long-rumored speck Lilo will serve that purpose for you, yes?

[faeflora]

GML, Millenia, Manley, Purple Audio etc make these on a custom/semicustom basis.

[NathanEldred]

You may have already thought this out:

1) Use your computer stemming for busses. Duplicate the tracks and stem them to additional channels of the summing box. You can have as many busses as you have channels. Busses may or may not be processed, mixed in with singular mono or stereo tracks on seperate analog channels.

2) Send digitally from your computer (i.e. via lightpipe or AES) into your efx/verb box, and return on the summing box channels via DACs. Stereo Aux 1-4 (or mono 1-8 or any variation) out of the DAW, into the unit, back D/A into the summer.


This is my working method and I don't need busses or aux's of the non virtual type any longer.

[thethrillfactor]

How about this?


******//www.shure.com/mixers/models/auxpander.asp


Nothing still beats a console though.

And all in one solution is still in my opinion the best for mixing.

[C.Lambrechts]

the new spl looks like one of the more versatile ones ... looking foreward to hear some opinions on that one when it becomes available.


******//www.spl-usa.com/

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
You may have already thought this out:

1) Use your computer stemming for busses. Duplicate the tracks and stem them to additional channels of the summing box. You can have as many busses as you have channels. Busses may or may not be processed, mixed in with singular mono or stereo tracks on seperate analog channels.

2) Send digitally from your computer (i.e. via lightpipe or AES) into your efx/verb box, and return on the summing box channels via DACs. Stereo Aux 1-4 (or mono 1-8 or any variation) out of the DAW, into the unit, back D/A into the summer.


This is my working method and I don't need busses or aux's of the non virtual type any longer.

Yes Nathan...i've thought about it every which way.....the problem with the setup you describe is that you limit yourself to sending to FX at the begining of the chain......maybe you get a killer snare sound after using a couple of outboard boxes.....it's at that point you want to send to you FX.

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
How about this?


******//www.shure.com/mixers/models/auxpander.asp


Nothing still beats a console though.

And all in one solution is still in my opinion the best for mixing.

good find there, Thrill (shure).

Yup, I guess you're right....which ever way you think it about it, you always come back to the same thing......a ready made large format console......my problem with it is that a console has only one "color" (be that the eq, dynamics or sound of the console itself).....i guess what we need is a sort of standardized console format.....then convince the dons (GML, Cranesong, Manley, Empirical) to make modules for it, so you can put together a console with the sound you like......you could even have buss modules so you could choose a Neve buss, an SSL etc).....of course all this is a dream and would never happen.

Thrill'....if cost was no object, what new console would you buy?......what do you think of new API's?.....i presume you never heard a Vision (only 2 in the world).

Man as I have posted elswhere, I am loving what I get from the folcrom. AT $750 I can't help but compare it to a plug in (like analog channel)

Why don't you get your snare cranking through outboard and re record it then you can send to your favorite devices.

My main problem is when you want to feed your ffx to other ffx. Since the returns would be going directly to the summing bus, How woud one feed the delay to the reverb???

I guess if you had HD with ADC you could set up ffx as send/return on converters, but this could take quite a few converters.

for now I'll be re recording and sending out to ffx with the outputs tied to the folcrom

[Mike H]

jazz,
For my home project studio where a console is not an option (cost/space), I simply have two 96TT patchbays which are half-normalled. I have the patchbays set up so:
-16 DAC's are half normalled to one Folcrom
-8 DAC's are half normalled to processors
-8 processor Outs are half normalled to 1/2 a Folcrom
-8 reverb/FX Outs are half normalled to 1/2 a Folcrom.

With this, I can mult from the patchbay pretty easily to do whatever I need. Plus, several outboard boxes can handle digital I/O (Reverb 4000, etc.), if necessary.

The two Folcroms sum 32-to-2, and the stereo pair is then patched thru a "mic patchbay" to STT-1's (or another preamp), then to HEDD to monitors.

I just mention this approach for those with small project studios who want to do outboard processing/summing in limited space.
Mike

[jazzius II]

Thanks for the suggestions....

....i'm just throwing around some ideas about a studio that would be analogue but without the usual large format hogging all the space.......

What about automation?....isn't that also something that is lacking?........imagine a box that could take in 24 channels, each channel having a motorized, computer controlled fader....then spit the audio back out again.....hi-quality analogue automation without a large-format console......the closest i've seen to this is the mil-media modular mixer with optional automation.

[DirkB]

Jazzius,

So basically you're looking for a fader box with automation, 6-8 aux's and a few busses?
Or otherwise put: a console without preamps, eq's and dynamics...

That could be an interesting scenario .

Greetings,
Dirk

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by jazzius II
good find there, Thrill (shure).


Thrill'....if cost was no object, what new console would you buy?......what do you think of new API's?.....i presume you never heard a Vision (only 2 in the world).

Am i buying for mixing or recording?

I know this maybe heresy, but i've never liked mixing on API's.grudge

This goes the same for some Neve's.

I haven't had a chance to try the new 88R, but the records i've heard so far i like a lot.

For mixing i am strictly an SSL man. So if looking for a new mix console, i would probably lean to the new "K".

I do like mixing on my little Tac Tec M4000.

It has some limitations, but i can see with some modifications it could be a killer for people with small situations.

I have one with instant reset/total recall and moving faders.

Also because of its size you always stay in the sweet spot.

The mic pre's and line inputs are nice.

The EQ's are lacking a touch and it has no dynamics, but considering the price i paid for it($3500) its the steal of the century.

[nbutter]

i use a speck xtramix...i'm sure the sound isn't the same quality as a GML/Manley/Cranesong thing would be... but it's basically a mixer without eq, has 8 busses, 8 effects returns, and sounds pretty good to my (admittedly fairly unsophisticated) ears. it isn't noiseless, but it's pretty quiet. there are only 2 sends per channel, and there's no automation, obvously -- but i just automate sends inside logic.

on nathan's suggestion about digital i/o, and your comment about wanting more flexiblity about where in the chain the send happens -- i find that going in and out of the digital domain a few times isn't the end of the world, working at 96khz with a good converter (digi 192 for me). i wouldn't have a problem with going to an analog chain, converting back to digital, then sending to an FX box via digital i/o. is this heresy?

mike h - your rig is ingenious. bet it sounds pretty good ; )

[jazzius II]

i just posted this in another forum:


Motorized fader automation?

Like the stuff from Uptown or GML.

Does anyone here know how it works?

Are the faders passive attenuators?

Could you build a custom motorized fader box without a traditional console?

Has this ever been done?


The answer from John Klett:


The current moving faders systems to look at are Flying Faders, Uptown and GML.

I am not certain GML is still available as a new system but it is certainly a good one.

Flying Faders is pretty much the most widely used moving fader system that one can drop in as a retrofit. This is the system that Neve used after Necam and before Encore. There is supposed to be a new system from MartinSound/Martek that, as I understand it, uses the same faders and servo rack but replaces the old platform and operating system with a new one.

Uptown is also a full featured moving faders system and does pretty much everything the others do. The main difference is that in the most popular and affordable version there are no local function buttons so you have to go the the little master panel to change fader states... generally this is no impediment to normal use.

All of these systems turn up used. Generally the issue is always the computer platform. GML uses a dedicated set of boards - not sure of the buss standard - so they just run. A Mac (or PC, I guess) is used as a terminal and stores all the data.

Used Uptown and Flying Faders system are now running on older platforms. I think it is easier to upgrade the Uptown. You buy new software and move the card over and I THINK that's it.

Used Flying Faders systems have an issue that is harder to deal with. The software MAY run on a newer platform but the card(s) do not want to run on a fast bus... they run on the oldest PC standard buss... actually not the oldest... I think it's the one that was standard in 286 and 386 machines - an AT style bus or some close derivation? Whatever it is it is OLD and slow. If you remember the older PC's that had the TURBO button on the front that change the bus speed from 8MHz to 16MHz?

When the Flying Faders computer or drive craps out you better have another computer already on hand that you have tested with the system. I can take months of looking to find that computer geek who has a great stack of these machines in a dusty corner of his shack and maybe only one out of five will work. We have been through this a couple times and it was a problem. You COULD upgrade to the new system, keeping your servo rack and faders but I am not sure of what is really involved with that or what the cost might be... other than it would not be cheap.


YES to your second question. Self standing moving faders systems have been done. They need to be balanced and buffered to really work well because these would normally slip into the insert loop. You would patch gear in front of the faders and that would be pretty much the same path as the console. You have to "cal" the faders of whatever console you connect this to for unity gain.

The first system I saw that was like this was Phil Ramone's Necam system. I had to fix that thing once. I can't say that Necam travelled very well but it did solve the problem of moving from studio to studio when moving fader automation systems were scarce.


this is pretty interesting, isn't it? You could run your stuff out of PT...D/A into your outoard.....into your automated faders.....out to summing busses (sends?)....big console mixing without the big desk clogging up the room.....i'm amazed more people don't run a setup like this.......i agree it would be impractical for commercial studios......too confusing for visiting engineers....thoughts?

[strauss]

Uptown used to have their 'System One' which consists of patchable motorized faders, though for some reason it's discontinued.
I really don't understand why no one else has come up with a similar product. Especially with this whole summing craze at the moment...

[LTA]

Originally posted by jazzius II
i'm amazed more people don't run a setup like this.......i agree it would be impractical for commercial studios......too confusing for visiting engineers....thoughts?

Thats why they invented assistants. It isn't really that it is more complicated, but rather that it is different.

The only thing the visiting engineer really needs to know is where the faders are. Assistants can be pretty good at pointing. Flying Faders (or whatever system) on a Neve would be no different than a Flying Faders system hooked up between protools and a summing mixer. Now, if the "engineer" doesn't know the difference between read, write, and update, and automatch is something they keep doing because its cool to watch the fader bounce around, I would argue replacing the "engineer" might be the better end solution.