RMS 216 FolcroM DAW Summing Device Release

[Helsing]

Are you dissatisfied with the harsh, sterile sound of your Digital Audio Workstation? Do individual tracks sound good while full mixes sound flat and lifeless? Are you having a hard time deciding between an API or a Neve console for creating lush analog mixes from your DAW? Are you unable to afford either one? Do you have a rack full of expensive vintage and esoteric microphone preamplifiers sitting unused at mixdown time? Perhaps the RMS216 FolcroM from Roll Music Studios can help you find the sonic glory you've been missing.

The FolcroM is a high quality passive mixer intended for multichannel analog summing of digital mixes. It uses no active circuitry and provides no gain or level controls. The idea is to control the level, panning, EQ, and effects sends of your mix from within the DAW, and send as many as 16 different tracks or submixes to a high quality multichannel outboard DAC which in turn feeds the FolcroM. You then perform only the summing in the analog domain. This enables you to maintain absolute repeatability from within your DAW.

Each of the FolcroM's input channels features a balanced connection on standard 8-channel DB25 connectors and a pair of pushbutton switches to assign that channel to the Left or Right output, neither, or both. The output of the Folcrom is a stereo pair of balanced, 150-ohm signals on XLR connectors and requires approximately 30-40dB of make-up gain (program dependent). This signal is ideally suited for feeding into an outboard microphone preamp of your choosing. The FolcroM is therefore able to assume a wide variety of tonal character dependent on your choice of amplifier. The FolcroM itself has an extremely simple, pure, and transparent signal path. The absence of faders, EQ, aux sends, pan knobs, or any other superfluous features allows for an entirely passive circuit. There are no amplifiers, ICs, transistors, capacitors, or transformers in the signal path whatsoever. The simplicity of the fully balanced, symmetrical signal path allows the use of no-compromise passive components for ultimate fidelity. The unit passes signals "from DC to daylight" without coloration. The "sound" of your mixer is up to you and your preamps. Chances are your mic preamps just sit there unused at mixdown time anyway, so why not put them to work?

By excluding the make-up gain amplifier from the Folcrom, we are able to provide an ultimate quality summing buss without compromise and at a price that's less than you paid for your car. At the same time, it provides a unique opportunity for wide tonal control by allowing you to choose your flavor of make-up gain. Put those old Telefunken or RCA tube preamps to work when you want super thick warmth; or plug into your Great River MP-2 when you need pristine clarity.

<br><center>Roll Music, in partnership with Helsing Audio, is announcing the release of the FolcroM DAW Summing Box. This unit will revolutionize your computer based mixes. Go to http://rollmusic.com/systems/folcrom.shtml for a full description.

</center>

<center>The first run of units is currently in production and will be ready mid-December. We are now accepting pre-orders. $795 plus shipping</center>

<br>

<center>For sales information contact jon@helsingaudio.com</center>

[imacgreg]

So it's basically a box, with i/p + o/p jacks, resistors, some wire and some switches? It's a cool idea I guess, but how much does it cost?

Ian

[Helsing]

Hi,

We are still hammering out the final pricing details, but for this run we will be offering this unit for $795 plus shipping. We feel that this low price will help bring an often prohibitively expensive tool to a wider audience.

Passive summing is simple in concept, but real world implementation is far from easy. We have spared no expense on parts, pcbs, enclosures or finish. Gold contact switches, xlrs and db25s. Hand matched resistors. Sturdy custom steel enclosure with a powder coated and silkscreened finish.

Our decision to leave the makeup gain to an external mic pre is critical to the concept.

First, by leaving out an amplifier section we eliminate amplifier obsolescence or defect and increase reliabilty.

Second, we allow the user to select the degree of amplifier color by simply patching in various external mic preamps for the makeup gain. Try your Neve, API, Telefunken, Great River. They will each give a distinct sound to your mixes and one that you can quickly audition.

Last, by leaving out the gain section we can make this unit as affordable as possible.

Passive summing is old news when discussing analog consoles. Top engineers often turn to console mixing out of their daws. We have found that much of the improvement of the console mix is due to the analog stereo summing buss replacing the digital stereo buss algorithm bottleneck. We get rid of the math where it can do the most damage.

This box is built by working engineers, so we put our reputations behind every unit.

Please feel free to email with questions.


Jon Erickson

[Bruce Keen]

Very interesting concept.
Choose your own gain device. I'm curious to see peoples reactions to this.
At any rate I don't think I would want to put another input xformer at the ouput of the desk. More of a modern eletronically balanced input. GML or Millenia HV3 would be my choice. That would be my favorite sound in a desk. I don't know the great river. They're not big in europe.

Opinions?

[Jules]

Great River, solid reputation in the US I belive!

[Helsing]

Bruce.

Im glad you have begun the discussion about the different varieties of makeup gain amplifiers. Variety is at the core of the FolcroM's purpose. You mention some great clean examples. I would add the Great River gear on to that list. Their stuff is incredible and is very flexible.

Mic pres go unused during mixdown and most studios have a variety of quality pres, clean to colored. In many cases these outboard pres are the studios most refined pieces of equipment. A pre like a Telefunken V76 or a Neve 1073 will add some color to your mix that may be just what the mix needs. But as you mention, a Millenia or GML's transparency might be the ticket as well.

Keep the comments coming!

Jon

[Jax]

"Passive summing is old news when discussing analog consoles. Top engineers often turn to console mixing out of their daws. We have found that much of the improvement of the console mix is due to the analog stereo summing buss replacing the digital stereo buss algorithm bottleneck. We get rid of the math where it can do the most damage.

This box is built by working engineers, so we put our reputations behind every unit."

Hi. Any soundfile examples to share? I'd love to hear the same mix summed in a DAW (hopefully Pro Tools) vs. the Folcrom.

Btw, why is it spelled "Folcrom" instead of "fulcrum"? I actually kinda like the new spelling - just wondering.

If it works as well as it looks like it can, I'm jumping aboard!

[Jax]

Specifications
--------------
Input channels: sixteen
Input impedance: 10k ohms balanced
Recommended source impedance: <100 ohms
Maximum input level: +42dB rms

Output channels: two
Output impedance: 150 ohms balanced
Recommended load impedance: 1300 ohms
Output level: -35dB nominal

Frequency response: 0-500kHz
Crosstalk @1kHz: -90dB

Power requirements: none.


I couldn't get a pic to load. Looks... ok.

[oortnyc]

Is it possible to insert on a given channel for no latnecy compression?

[hollywood_steve]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. I'm curious about the decision to include two switches for each channel instead of a panpot. I can't see the need for an "off" position on the box. If you don't want to include the track in the mix, turn it off on your DAW. And once you've moved past that question, who can really say that left/center/right is a realistic choice? What about 10:30 or 2:00? Was it a cost decision - were high quality panpots too expensive to implement? I must be missing something obvious, because this is not the first DAW summing box to go this route, I just don't understand why?


I know that a panpot is going to cause increased make-up gain requirements, but a separate amp is part of this concept anyway. Would including panpots push the level loss to a point where a typical mic preamp wouldn't have enough juice to get you back to unity?

To be completely honest, I don't own a DAW and don't plan to. My needs are for an analog summing box so that I can take my 8ch DSD recorder output and produce an analog stereo mix without using the onboard PCM mixer. For me, a panpot and fader on each channel make the most sense. Then on to a 2ch make up amp. But that box isn't on anyone's product listing.........

[Jax]

Hmm... I've been under the impression that panning choices made in a DAW would be represented "as placed" when fed thru a summing box like this one. IOW, the signal wouldn't go hard left or right or center, but be placed in the stereo field where it was intended in the DAW mix.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that the pans would only be L, R or center... with 16 tracks, you'd essentially end up with a mono mix that way. That can't be the way they're designed to handle panning, with 2 buttons per channel... can it??



I guess I'm asking the same question as Steve.

[Jax]

Just reread the manufacturer's post. My suspicions appear to have been on target:

"The idea is to control the level, panning, EQ, and effects sends of your mix from within the DAW."

[ulysses]

Hello and ,
My name's Justin, and I designed the Folcrom (with help from Dan Kennedy and a few other very smart folks). I'm glad to see this unit getting such an enthusiastic response. I think it's a pretty good idea, and we put a lot of time and care into making sure it got implemented correctly.

There have been a few online discussions of the Folcrom and analog DAW summing in general over the last few months. Right here on the Gearslutz forum, my friend Ben at Crazy Beast Studio presented some comparisons of a single song mixed inside PTLE; through a Studer console; and through his Folcrom with various makeup gain amplifiers. I don't know if his soundfiles are still available, but the discussion surely is. Also, Steve Lintz at Bang Audio has some samples of mixes he did with the Folcrom on his band's website, blacklinerock.com. Steve was the very first Folcrom owner and the inspiration for its design.

The name "Folcom" came about in a rather accidental way. Our first four prototypes we custom one-off jobs that were each a little different, but they all used rotary switches to control relays for the channel assigns. I found a deal on some nice 5-position rotary switches at a surplus shop, but I only needed 4 positions for Left, Right, Neither, or Both. So I decided to add an extra "off" position to make things symmetrical. Each channel's switch became labelled with "O-L-C-R-O" (off, left, center, right, off). Since we were screenprinting the faces ourselves, we tried to minimize our set-up costs by re-using one of the "OLCRO"s as a model logo. "Folcrom" was the only word I could think of that used those letters. An internet search found a few common uses of that archaic spelling, mostly among fantasy enthusiasts, roll-playing geeks, and the generally pretentious. But I like the name because it describes how the unit can give you leverage to pry every last bit of sonic euphoria out of your DAW.

The production model Folcrom ditches the rotary switches in favor of a pair of pushbuttons, which makes for a more intuitive interface. But we already had the name, and we like it, so we're sticking with it.

[ulysses]

Originally posted by hollywood_steve
Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. I'm curious about the decision to include two switches for each channel instead of a panpot. I can't see the need for an "off" position on the box. If you don't want to include the track in the mix, turn it off on your DAW. And once you've moved past that question, who can really say that left/center/right is a realistic choice? What about 10:30 or 2:00? Was it a cost decision - were high quality panpots too expensive to implement? I must be missing something obvious, because this is not the first DAW summing box to go this route, I just don't understand why?

Steve,
The reason we didn't incorporate pan controls on the Folcrom is because they would require buffering. A pan pot will, depending on how it's implemented, either vary or raise the impedance of the circuit feeding the mix buss. Neither of these are acceptable in a passive summing application. Low source impedance is necessary to keep the crossalk between Left and Right outputs very low; and it's especially important to maintain a constant impedance so that adjusting one channel doesn't affect the other channels. In an ordinary mixer this problem is overcome by placing a buffer amplifier before the pan pot, and another one (two, actually) after it. But this defeats our purist goal of a passive signal path. Furthemore, any knobs at all on the Folcrom would defeat our goal of maintaining total DAW recallability. It's my feeling that any incrementally adjustable analog controls cannot be set precisely to the same place twice. With the Folcrom, you can be sure your left/right/center/off buttons are set the same as they were before.

Okay, so now that you know why there aren't pan controls on the Folcrom, you still need to know how to pan a signal to an intermediate point in the stereo spectrum. The answer is that you feed such a signal to two channels as a stereo pair, and control the panning inside the DAW. Yes, this means you waste a channel on a single mid-panned source. We think that's not such a big deal though. In practice, most users will feed several submixes or "stems" into the mixer as stereo pairs; a mid-panned solo source would be fed in a similar fashion. Users have responded positively, and we've found that you don't necessarily need to feed every recorded track out through its own individual channel. Textural overdubs don't seem to mind being "pre-mixed" in the DAW, whereas bass, kick drum, rhythm guitar, and piano benefit most from being given their own individual DAC channels or simple 2-source submixes. With 16 input channels on the Folcrom, there's plenty of room to work even if a coupld of sources "waste" a 2nd input channel.

[Jax]

Thanks for the concise explanation of the pan issue and the clever naming of the mixer.

So far as a manufacturer with something potentially great to offer, you're doing as well as Dave Seymour (atticus) from benchmark when he came aboard to tell us about the DAC-1. Considering you worked with Dan Kennedy on the Folcrom, I think there's a pretty good chance that it will take off just like the DAC-1 did. I'm betting it does the job well and when I have the funds, I'd like to try one out.

[chewie]

Hollywood Steve, it´s sounds like you want to have a look at the Dangerous 8ch Mixer........looks good to me.

Chewie

[muddy]

just wanted to quickly point out that if justin is involved in the designing of this piece, it is definitely worth SERIOUS consideration.


ml

[eskay]

Would it be possible to link 2 units together for 32 channel capability? This would be amazing.

[tommyd]

This unit sounds VERY interesting, as I'm currently looking at summing bus options (D2B,etc.) I'd love to see more detailed photos, rear panel, connectors (XLR, trs, or DB25) etc.
wonder what's the dif f between this and the D2B LT?

[Kenny Gioia]

I announced this over at the PSW and they seem to be underwhelmed.

The Link is Here

They mention that passive mixers can be built for $30 in parts.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade (as I am excited too) but can you please explain the difference between your unit and one I can make cheaply?

Thanks

[Helsing]

Produceher wrote: "I don't want to rain on anyone's parade (as I am excited too) but can you please explain the difference between your unit and one I can make cheaply?"

This a great question. The Folcrom is designed for professional use and a lifetime or more of it. The cost of quality parts, custom enclosures, assembly and finish work alone is staggering, but impossible to avoid if you want to make good stuff.

Im dont doubt that one could build a diy version of this box, but $30 wouldnt get you very far Im afraid. It might get you a handful of switches from the folcrom but nothing else.

There was a great thread regarding John Hardy's mic pres in RAP

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...com%26rnum%3D1

Here's another one by Chris Muth,

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=da...gle.com&rnum=1

Again, Im gald you brought this up. I dont want to be defensive, but I do want to illuminate the cost issues that manufacturers face.

Jon Erickson

[ulysses]

Originally posted by eskay
Would it be possible to link 2 units together for 32 channel capability? This would be amazing.

We haven't built in any connector or facility to link multiple folcroms together. It would only require a very minor modification to do so, but you'd start to run into the limitations of passive mixing once you got up over 24 channels or so. It's a trade-off between crosstalk and noise at that point, but if you don't need 90dB separation between right and left (and why would you, really?) then it would be fine.

Anyway, my best suggestion for using two Folcroms for multiple channels would be to use one unit to feed just your "Left" output and the other unit to feed your "Right" output. You'd waste a track on any mono sources (since you'd have to feed it to both units) but it wouldn't be a big deal.

But if anybody really wants to own two units and have them linked together, I'd be happy to make the minor modification necessary and include a pair of custom link/output cables to make them play nice together.

[Auxillary]

If you can hear the minor differences in the digital realm that exist in the -90db range and other subtelties related to samplitude. A 90db crosstalk can be a big thing. And I would not doubt that most of us can hear that in a normal situation.

Is it possible for one of these items to include a specific make-up gain stage permanently calibrated to optimum level?

[hammer]

Im dont doubt that one could build a diy version of this box, but $30 wouldnt get you very far Im afraid. It might get you a handful of switches from the folcrom but nothing else.

Hmm, well jon is right...however...WHY DO YOU WANT SWITCHES? For that matter why on earth have it in a box? You can easilly wire a passive summing sytem into the back of a patchbay (for a few hours and $30 in parts). I'm just finishing the wiring for a studio with just this setup now. I'll post my findings when it's all operational.

I'm not saying that this fulcrom-thingy product isn't gonna be great...but US$795????!!!.....I don't get it. sorry.

Peace
H.

[tommyd]

Guys, tell me if I've got this straight or if I'm an idiot
Is the difference between the Folcrom and the D2B (lt) basicly just the absence of the gain make-up stage?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tommyd
This unit sounds VERY interesting, as I'm currently looking at summing bus options (D2B,etc.) I'd love to see more detailed photos, rear panel, connectors (XLR, trs, or DB25) etc.
wonder what's the dif f between this and the D2B LT? [/QUOT

[Duardo]

To be completely honest, I don't own a DAW and don't plan to. My needs are for an analog summing box so that I can take my 8ch DSD recorder output and produce an analog stereo mix without using the onboard PCM mixer. For me, a panpot and fader on each channel make the most sense. Then on to a 2ch make up amp. But that box isn't on anyone's product listing.........

You could look at the Dangerous mixer, or the new 8-channel mixer from Aurora, or the API system...

-Duardo

[Jax]

Originally posted by Auxillary
If you can hear the minor differences in the digital realm that exist in the -90db range and other subtelties related to samplitude. A 90db crosstalk can be a big thing. And I would not doubt that most of us can hear that in a normal situation.

You can hear a signal by itself at -90dB down? I seriously doubt it. What are these "subtleties related to samplitude" you speak of? Fwiw, "samplitude" ain't in the dictionary, but it can be bought off a store shelf......

The cumulative effect of many channels summed together with -90dB crosstalk might become audible after a certain number of channels. I don't know how many it would take, but I doubt that 16 would cause much of a problem.

I wonder what the crosstalk of an SSL is?

[ulysses]

Originally posted by hammer
WHY DO YOU WANT SWITCHES? For that matter why on earth have it in a box? You can easilly wire a passive summing sytem into the back of a patchbay (for a few hours and $30 in parts). I'm just finishing the wiring for a studio with just this setup now. I'll post my findings when it's all operational.

I'm not saying that this fulcrom-thingy product isn't gonna be great...but US$795????!!!.....I don't get it. sorry.

The question of how a simple circuit like a passive mixer adds up to eight hundred dollars is a good one. Yes, you could solder a bunch of resistors onto the back of a patchbay and call it a mixer. A patchbay worth bothering with costs quite a bit more than the Folcrom, but that's just one of the problems you'd run into. Hypothetically, a snarl of resistors in the back of your rack can pass audio. But in practice, you're going to need an enclosure to protect the circuitry, shield it, make it portable, and hold the connectors. Maybe for home use you'd be happy with a homemade box with some holes drilled in it to mount everything. You might not care about a robust chassis or the cosmetic concerns of a commercial product, used in commercial environments where people like to see what they're paying for. Aside from that, unless your time isn't worth anything to you, it's generally going to be worthwhile to save hours of hand wiring of components to connectors by using a circuitboard instead. Having built many DIY mic preamp and other projects, I can tell you what a pain it is to hand-wire even a 2-channel box. Unless you've done it, you might not see the value in paying for a circuitboard rather than handwire a 16-channel box. Since the Folcrom uses balanced circuitry throughout, and has stereo outputs, there's more in there than your $30 guess assumes.
And then there's those switches. Why do we use switches on each channel? Flexibility. I don't know how each and every user is going to route their channels on any given day, so the mixer needs to be flexible. I thought about building a bank of inputs that feed the Right buss, and a bank that feeds the Left buss, and a bank that feeds both, for mono sources. But I don't know how many of each you're going to need at any given time, so I provided the ability to choose the routing for each channel. Equally important is the ability to turn off any channel you're not using. You can mute a channel on your DAW, but what if you're only feeding 8 or 12 channels into the mixer? Passive mixing depends on constant, predictable source impedances. The Folcrom is expecting to see less than 100 ohms from each source. Disconnecting a channel increases the source impedance to infinity, which is a lot more than 100. Unused channels need to be correctly removed from the mixbuss in order to avoid altering the noise floor or the crosstalk performance. You could do this with your "$30" homemade job with switched jacks or special adapters, but it would be incredibly inconvenient, and actually more expensive. The switches are a bargain.

Now that we've established the need for all these parts in the box, there's still the matter of building it and making it work well. I'm not interested in building any junk with my name on it, and the folks who have been buying it are looking for quality. This means gold contacts on all connectors and switches. It means hand-matching of 1% resistors down to 0.2% tolerance to achieve tighter CMRR on the balanced inputs and outputs. It means carefully designing and building a beefy, robust chassis that will hold up and will protect the circuitry from physical, electromagnetic, and verbal abuse. The Folcrom is housed in a heavy steel chassis with a nice looking finish.

So the simple answer to the question is that there are a lot of little things that add up to the price of any piece of equipment, and the Folcrom is no exception. Assembly labor and design costs are big factors. Those costs don't actually go away when you DIY, they only change shape. The chassis is the next biggest expense, followed by the switches and then the circuitboards.

I know I could build a mic preamp for $30 too, especially if I thought enclosures and switches were unnecessary. Would I want to listen to it? Does it mean that John Hardy, Great River, Millenia Media, or Sytek are overcharging for their preamps? Do all these rhetorical questions make me sound like Donald Rumsfeld?

[tommyd]

Interesting info. What does the back panel look like? Connections, etc.?

[ulysses]

Originally posted by tommyd
Guys, tell me if I've got this straight or if I'm an idiot
Is the difference between the Folcrom and the D2B (lt) basicly just the absence of the gain make-up stage?
This unit sounds VERY interesting, as I'm currently looking at summing bus options (D2B,etc.) I'd love to see more detailed photos, rear panel, connectors (XLR, trs, or DB25) etc.
wonder what's the diff between this and the D2B LT?

I've never laid hands or eyes directly upon any Dangerous products, and I don't want to make any definitive statements about their products. My understanding is that the D2B is a fully active device with virtual-earth summing and make-up gain. In other words, it's probably electronically similar to any other mixer you'd buy today, except without the controls. It would presumably have a buffer amplifier on each input, buffers around the "mono" control, an inverting amplifier for summing, buffers around the output fader, and a pair of output line amplifiers for each balanced output.

The Folcrom, on the other hand, is an entirely passive device which means it doesn't have any buffers or amplifiers in it at all. The idea was to get everything out of the way for the most absolutely pure signal path possible. Ultimately you only have to put a single (stereo) amplifier in the signal path for the whole mix and you get to choose what it will be.

Fundamentally, from the user's perspective, the primary difference you'd notice is the make-up gain. How do they differ in sound? I don't know. Why don't you buy one of each and let us know? My guess is that you'd have no complaints about the sound of the Dangerous box, which is highly regarded as a well-built piece of professional recording kit. I think the Folcrom has two advantages over it, however: The price, and the flexibility of choosing your flavor of make-up gain. You could potentially use a preamp that's cleaner than whatever happens to be in the D2B, or you could choose something nasty, if it suits your music. With the Folcrom, it's up to you.

The connectors on the rear of the Folcrom are a pair of DB25s for line inputs and a pair of XLR-Ms for the mic-level outputs. Our website is evolving, and I hope to have a rear-panel photo up soon. I thought I could do my own product photos and web design, and I learned the hard way that professional photographers earn their pay. It's a lot more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming than it looks.