how many slots are should a 500 form card be?

[pan60]

how many slots should their be in a 500 form card?
i see a few cards that are taking up two spaces and i am not 100% sure how i fee:(
i find it exceptional in the case of a compressor if both slots are used to key into the comps functions such as side-chian.
i am on the fence with the pre/eq.
i do not think more then one slot should be used for the purpose of gaining more current to step up voltage.
at some point someone my choose to load some of these cards into a console.

[Reptil]

function over form IMO
cheerio

[pan60]

but at what point do you just get a 19'' rack?

[TonyBelmont]

NEVER more than one...

Also, in a perfect world... the modules themselves should NEVER draw more than 70 milli-amps!

The only exceptions, is when there isn't already a rack-mounted version of the product available.

[NathanEldred]

I like that the format is being pushed in a new direction...if two slots facilitate that on a pragmatic level, then so be it. I prefer it, and it looks tough too. Especially with comps, it's impossible to do side chain insert with only one in and one output. That's why guys like Tim Farrant are doing their comps that way. Draw lots of voltage too, true Class A with a fast amplifier is going to draw, and that's just the way it is. There is wind of some double slot pre/EQ's floating around too from various manufacturers. Even the new Great River NV 500 is going to be two slots, so it looks like it's established now.

[gm5k]

2 is cool, ill start worrying when i see a 3 spacer.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

I prefer it, and it looks tough too.

The aesthetic look of something is not a good reason to implement it.

Draw lots of voltage too, true Class A with a fast amplifier is going to draw, and that's just the way it is.

Probably a good reason to not design those type of products for the 500 series format... put it in it's own 19" rackmount or half rack box, and not try to cram it into a format that wasn't meant to support it.

There is wind of some double slot pre/EQ's floating around too from various manufacturers.

Great... just what everyone needs.

The 500 series market is flooded with product already... Moving forward, the idea that a double space module is a good idea from a design standpoint is not logical for the consumer for many reasons which have been talked about in other threads. It only makes sense for the designer trying to cash in on the frenzy, or who can't make the product work without the extra room... In which case, design it as it's own product, not around a format that wasn't meant to support it.

I sincerely hope that those who are developing new products for this format re-think their ideas on why a double width (or god forbid triple & quadruple) modules are a good idea.

Not trying to put down any products that have already been manufactured.... but, definitely trying to curb the idea for the format moving into the future that non-standard module sizes are a good idea (because, for the most part they are not).

[pan60]

i think a pre/eq would be cool if you could use the pre as a stand alone with or without the eq or bypass the pre for just the eq.
this way nothing is wasted as far as space goes.

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

The aesthetic look of something is not a good reason to implement it.


Probably a good reason to not design those type of products for the 500 series format... put it in it's own 19" rackmount or half rack box, and not try cram it into a format that wasn't meant to support it.


Great... just what everyone needs.

The 500 series market is flooded with product already... Moving forward, the idea that a double space module is a good idea from a design standpoint is not logical for the consumer for many reasons which have been talked about in other threads. It only makes sense for the designer trying to cash in on the frenzy, or who can't make the product work without the extra room... In which case, design it as it's own product, not around a format that wasn't meant to support it.

I sincerely hope that those who are developing new products for this format re-think their ideas on why a double width (or god forbid triple & quadruple) modules are a good idea.

i knew every single response you were going to have to nathan's post before you even posted it

lets not make it into one of those threads. im sure pan would appreciate it.

i agree though on the triple and quadruple module thing...thatd just be ridiculous.

i personally like the idea of making my own customizable 500 series console of sorts in a very compact area. collect enough units, a passive mixer or two(speck xsum, etc), faders, and you have a really unique eclectic front end going on. mix, match, and blend as you wish.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by pan60

i think a pre/eq would be cool if you could use the pre as a stand alone with or without the eq or bypass the pre for just the eq.
this way nothing is wasted as far as space goes.

It might be better to make them separate preamp & EQ modules. It would allow for greater flexibility, and most likely no difference in cost.

For someone like me who is doing a lot of mixing nowadays.... the preamp isn't so important as the EQ. So, I would rather have the option of buying that manufacturer's EQ and not be tied to their preamp, and losing a slot in my lunchbox.

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

It might be better to make them separate preamp & EQ modules. It would allow for greater flexibility, and most likely no difference in cost.

For someone like me who is doing a lot of mixing nowadays.... the preamp isn't so important as the EQ. So, I would rather have the option of buying that manufacturer's EQ and not be tied to their preamp, and losing a slot in my lunchbox.

i agree w/ this. unless there was some way to use the EQ w/ anything else i wanted, and i didnt have to use THEIR preamp w/ the EQ if i didnt feel like it.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by gm5k

i knew every single response you were going to have to nathan's post before you even posted it

lets not make it into one of those threads. im sure pan would appreciate it.

i agree though on the triple and quadruple module thing...thatd just be ridiculous.

i personally like the idea of making my own customizable 500 series console of sorts in a very compact area. collect enough units, a passive mixer or two(speck xsum, etc), faders, and you have a really unique eclectic front end going on. mix, match, and blend as you wish.

But it really has nothing to do with Nathan... it's the idea of moving forward with the format, and why some things are a good idea and others are not.

I'm really worried about the future of the 500 series format, and the direction that some designers may try to take it. The standard was already established many years ago. The standard is this.... a single module that takes up one module worth of space and less than 70 milli-amps of consumption..

Moving forward.... For those that want to go outside of that standard, there is another standard in place in EVERY recording studio.... the 19" rack-mount standard. They should really think about that, rather than cash in on a well established format and make it a gimmick.

[RCM - Ronan]

I am very ignorant when it comes to electronics design etc, but I wonder why some one does not just make something like a 1000 series, a similar pedigree but with a big phat power supply that can power modules with higher demands? It seems like that would open up a lot of cool possibilities.

BTW, if one or two modules in a lunch box draw tons of power, will it effect the sound of the other modules in the rack that draw less power? I have never had a chance to test this myself.

I am just waiting for some one to make a lunch box module that is six spaces wide

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

But it really has nothing to do with Nathan... it's the idea of moving forward with the format, and why some things are a good idea and others are not.

i know. just taking every precaution for my beloved 500 series threads LoL

I'm really worried about the future of the 500 series format, and the direction that some designers may try to take it. The standard was already established many years ago. The standard is this.... a single module that takes up one module worth of space and less than 70 milli-amps of consumption..

Moving forward.... For those that want to go outside of that standard, there is another standard in place in EVERY recording studio.... the 19" rack-mount standard. They should really think about that, rather than cash in on a well established format and make it a gimmick.

you have a point here, but for instance i dont feel like tim's two offerings of compressors are gimmicks at all. they are variations on his 19" rack comps. completely new innovative offerings. essence is like a SOC w/ a hint of tranny goodness in there. potion actually looks to be a completely new design!

im very excited about that...it has a mix % control(optional parallel compression control on the compressor!), sidechain, a new built in way of preventing annoying "pumping"...tons of options on there, no skimping out, definitely not just "cashing in" IMO...also, i guess for me using nothing but racks 2 slots never seems so daunting.

maybe some people are "cashing in", who knows. but it also seems theres people who are genuinely trying to advance and innovate in the 500 series while keeping it within 2 modules.

I say if the market is there, they should build it. If people buy it, then there a reason for it to exist in the marketplace. If people don't buy it, they won't build it for long.

There's not alot to debate.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by gm5k

you have a point here, but for instance i dont feel like tim's two offerings of compressors are gimmicks at all. they are variations on his 19" rack comps. completely new innovative offerings. essence is like a SOC w/ a hint of tranny goodness in there. potion actually looks to be a completely new design!

im very excited about that...it has a mix % control(optional parallel compression control on the compressor!), sidechain, a new built in way of preventing annoying "pumping"...tons of options on there, no skimping out, definitely not just "cashing in" IMO...also, i guess for me using nothing but racks 2 slots never seems so daunting.

maybe some people are "cashing in", who knows. but it also seems theres people who are genuinely trying to advance and innovate in the 500 series while keeping it within 2 modules.

This has nothing to do with Tim's current products at all... He decided to try something different and some people like his stuff (like yourself for instance).... This is about moving forward, and the ideas people will take to the table when they design a new product for the format.

Also, I don't really see anyone innovating new designs for the format.... what I do see are a lot of people trying to adapt existing stuff...

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I say if the market is there, they should build it. If people buy it, then there a reason for it to exist in the marketplace. If people don't buy it, they won't build it for long.

There's not alot to debate.

The market is there for anything made for the 500 series format... But, designers need to be more responsible in regards to designing new gear for the format. If they can't adhere to pre-existing standards, then they should make them standalone products. I'm hoping some of the people who are developing for the format will hear my words and do something new, different, and within reason. Preserving the one module per space idea for the consumer is vital to the continuation of the formats cost effectiveness and space saving benefits.

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by gm5k

essence is like a SOC w/ a hint of tranny goodness in there. potion actually looks to be a completely new design.

Essence is 95% from scratch (otherwise it wouldn't have taken 9 months to bring to market if it was just an adaptation to the 500 series, with how fast Tim is an 'adaptation' of current product would have only taken 2-3 months at most). Only the opto cell is consistent with the SOC, all the electronics around it are a new design. Otherwise it's all Class A discrete with passive input and transformers (for function, not just coloration) on the front and output. You are correct too, Potion is something Buzz has never released in any way at all (FET comp/limiter). Even that is an all original design, not a copy of any other design on the market.

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

Essence is 95% from scratch (otherwise it wouldn't have taken 9 months to bring to market if it was just an adaptation to the 500 series, with how fast Tim is an 'adaptation' of current product would have only taken 2-3 months at most). Only the opto cell is consistent with the SOC, all the electronics around it are a new design. Otherwise it's all Class A discrete with passive input and transformers (for function, not just coloration) on the front and output. You are correct too, Potion is something Buzz has never released in any way at all (FET comp/limiter). Even that is an all original design, not a copy of any other design on the market.

thanks for the correction Nate i guess it had stuck in my head from the site "the control circuit design is based on the SOC 1.1"...

its really cool to know other than that it was from scratch.

[Resonant Alien]

As far as current draw goes, a dual slot module that draws 120mA (like the Essence) is no different than having two single slot modules each drawing 60mA. As for something like the Elixir that is single slot and draws 150mA, this is only an issue for the Lunchbox with the internal power supply. A 500V rack or OSA rack with external power supply can power an entire rack full of 10 Elixirs, so I really don't know why this would concern anyone except for those with a Lunchbox.

[Tim Farrant]

It has to be pointed out that the space on a 500 series card is not huge, and by the time you mount an input and output transformer and amplifiers and switches, it's gone. In the case of our compressors, the side chain electronics is on the second card, with the audio section on the first. There was no way I could have put it all on the one card unless I ditched the transformers.

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

This has nothing to do with Tim's current products at all... He decided to try something different and some people like his stuff (like yourself for instance).... This is about moving forward, and the ideas people will take to the table when they design a new product for the format.

Also, I don't really see anyone innovating new designs for the format.... what I do see are a lot of people trying to adapt existing stuff...

The market is there for anything made for the 500 series format... But, designers need to be more responsible in regards to designing new gear for the format. If they can't adhere to pre-existing standards, then they should make them standalone products. I'm hoping some of the people who are developing for the format will hear my words and do something new, different, and within reason. Preserving the one module per space idea for the consumer is vital to the continuation of the formats cost effectiveness and space saving benefits.

Come on Tony, stop it. Who says standards can't be changed? What's with the personal war on saving the 500 series? If people are willing to buy and the market demands it, so be it. Who should designers be responsible to? Who's being harmed? Why is this a big deal?

[Stitch333]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

Moving forward.... For those that want to go outside of that standard, there is another standard in place in EVERY recording studio.... the 19" rack-mount standard. They should really think about that, rather than cash in on a well established format and make it a gimmick.

Also, how can you say any tool is a 'gimmick' if it produces quality results? Granted the power consumption is a technical issue that needs to be adhered to from a design standpoint but many boutique audio manufacturers are finding clients they couldn't have gotten otherwise if they stuck to 19" racks. Im seeing companies like Lachapell, Daking and Shadow Hills making 500 format modules...are these companies filled with 'gimmicky' designers and designs?
Granted the 583 has tubes in a 2 spaces, but its a pre and eq....

[pan60]

i want to vote more then one time, could i vote twice if it had meaning

my attempt at humor

[emfrank72]

I would prefer that modules stick to one slot. I jumped into this format as a way to mix and match different pres and for the following advantages:

1) I can buy them one at a time. It has been hard for me to justify spending $2k at a time for a pair of pres but with the 500 series I can fork out 700-800 for a pre and it doesn't feel like that much of a hit.

2) There is some cost savings because of shared power supply and housing.

In January I was looking for some new pres and after listening to some online comparisons, I decided I liked the API 512C but didn't know anything about 500 series format. Once I researched this format I was really excited because of the reasons I listed above. I started with a lunchbox and 1 512C. Over the next 4 months I have added another 512C and 2 P1s. I would never have been able to convince myself to spend around $3400 on a 4 channel pre but when purchased one at a time, not so bad.

I am excited about the new GR module but with it taking 2 spaces, it eats into the cost savings equation. Especially if it will end up costing more than the $700-$800 range. If that is the case, I might as well buy the singe channel version and save my last 2 spaces for something else.

[vince @ speck]

I think the “double-wide” module is necessary to grow the third-party market for 500 series compatible products. There’s just no way you can squeeze a Great River preamp or a full function Buzz Audio compressor into a 1.5" wide package. If you want more, more, more in features, your going to have to accept wider, wider, wider.

Although… I do believe new applications for 500 modules are in the near future. If you are betting or hoping on one of the new applications such as a hybrid-mixing console with open architecture for the 500 modules (like I am), then the double-wide module will have compatibility issues. "Desk style" consoles have vertical and horizontal mechanical spec's to consider. The API standard is 5.25" x 1.5" for a 500 series module.

Something else to consider: When penciling out the overall cost of 500 horizontal rack, consider that each empty rack position cost "x" dollars. To use a double-wide module each position now costs "2x" dollars. However, it’s a small price to pay for killer module.

[ScumBum]

I think if it takes up more than 1 slot , it better be really special . But if it can already be picked up in a 1 rack space unit , and they just want their product in the 500 card market and it can not be done unless it takes up more than 1 slot , thats lame .

[Wil Penis]

Originally Posted by binarybob

6d 61 79 62 65 20 74 68 69 73 20 77 6f 75 6c 64 20 62 6f 74 68 65 72 20 73 6f 6d 65 6f 6e 65 20 77 68 6f 20 73 65 6c 6c 73 20 41 50 49 3f 2e 2e 2e 2e 2e 2e 2e

54 68 6f 75 67 68 74 20 74 68 65 20 6f 6e 6c 79 20 74 68 69 6e 67 20 54 6f 6e 79 20 65 76 65 72 20 73 6f 6c 64 20 77 61 73 20 68 69 73 20 62 6f 64 79 20 74 6f 20 74 68 65 20 6e 69 67 68 74 2e 20 41 6e 64 20 65 76 65 6e 20 74 68 61 74 20 77 61 73 6e 27 74 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 75 63 63 65 73 73 66 75 6c 2e 0d 0a 0d 0a 54 68 69 6e 67 73 20 63 68 61 6e 67 65 20 74 6f 6f 20 66 61 73 74 2e

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by Tim Farrant

There was no way I could have put it all on the one card unless I ditched the transformers.

how could you even SAY such a thing?!?!

...must...have...trannies...

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Who should designers be responsible to? Who's being harmed? Why is this a big deal?

For starters.... the consumers.... the people who have four space lunchboxes, the people who own the 2 slot API racks, the people who have dreams of building inline 500 series format consoles, the people who want to enjoy the space and cost saving benefits of the format.... that's just off the top of my head.... there's plenty.

Originally Posted by Stitch333

Also, how can you say any tool is a 'gimmick' if it produces quality results? Granted the power consumption is a technical issue that needs to be adhered to from a design standpoint but many boutique audio manufacturers are finding clients they couldn't have gotten otherwise if they stuck to 19" racks. Im seeing companies like Lachapell, Daking and Shadow Hills making 500 format modules...are these companies filled with 'gimmicky' designers and designs?
Granted the 583 has tubes in a 2 spaces, but its a pre and eq....

It's not the tool that is a gimmick, it's some of the ideas and how they are being implemented or will be implemented in the future....

Also, the Daking is a well designed product that definitely adheres to all of the standards posted above. The designer, Dave Thibodeau has been a good friend of mine for the last decade and is one of the most knowledgeable guys in audio.

Originally Posted by vince @ speck

Although… I do believe new applications for 500 modules are in the near future. If you are betting or hoping on one of the new applications such as a hybrid-mixing console with open architecture for the 500 modules (like I am), then the double-wide module will have compatibility issues. "Desk style" consoles have vertical and horizontal mechanical spec's to consider. The API standard is 5.25" x 1.5" for a 500 series module.

Bingo!

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

For starters.... the consumers.... the people who have four space lunchboxes, the people who own the 2 slot API racks, the people who have dreams of building inline 500 series format consoles, the people who want to enjoy the space and cost saving benefits of the format.... that's just off the top of my head.... there's plenty.

But if you are one of those consumers, then you don't have to buy a module that is 2 spaces - just stick to the ones that are one space. If someone else wants to buy one that happens to be 2 spaces, that's their choice also. No one is forcing anyone to buy only 2 slot modules. I just don't see why it's a big deal - consumers still make their own individual choices, and if someone doesn't like a 2 slot module because it's 2 slots, they don't have to buy it.

Besides, I don't think any manufacturers are making modules double wide just for giggles. I'm sure if Tim could have fit the Essence or Potion into a single slot, or if Dan could have put the MP-500NV into a single slot, they would have done it. Actually, they probably could have done it, but sacrificed sound quality in the process. What's a Great River without the big trannies, after all?

Sure, I could just buy a ME-1NV and stick it in a 19" rack space, but if I have the space in my 500V rack and want to use it for the MP-500NV and save $350 or so in the process, and not take out another 19" space in my rack, what's the big deal with that? I think having all these options is great.

Now, if API would just come out with some additional modules.