#251

Very interesting. I imagine norns functioning as a brain for interfacing and snapshots, (also imagine a sequencer app sequencing through routings, or tilt positioning, or RIP gain).

In fact, a mixer that also has additional functionality if you have a grid (mutes/routing) or an arc (panning/modulation, even quad panning) could be unbelievable.

1 Like
#252

I wonder if it’s worth examining how much headway we could make in arriving at something that makes the right compromises for more use cases (e.g. per channel pan for those who want it, nearness behavior for those who want it) by bringing back some of the scriptable, customizable open-endedness @Gahlord and @dianus were emphasizing into the core design you have been iterating on. In particular, what if the behavior of (at least) the per channel knob(s) and the span knob+cv input could be easily customized via script?

1 Like
#253

I’d like to dig into this a little, if you (and anyone else with an opinion here) is interested.

What are some interactions that individual pan knobs specifically enable that people don’t want to lose?

yeah, I’m currently trying to wrap my head around where this needs to go next.

part of what excites me about this general project (without getting too attached to a single design or concept) is finding that right mix of capability and simplicity. this won’t be the simplest mixer ever, but it might be able to strike that balance just well enough to be a very appealing and useful tool for some people. if some aspect of it, or some aspects in combination introduce new ideas or capabilities, all the better.

setting limitations (size, control type, fixed relative panning) is a crucial tool in limiting the conversation from covering everything that a mixer can be (which is too many things). I don’t pretend we’ve set the correct limitations just yet, but some are going to have to be set eventually.

this pulls me around to scriptability, customization, re-assignable controls, and basically any features that take us away from a fully analog design. I love the idea of something like the designs we’ve all been sharing here but that’s also a headless digital system. if crow is a scriptable USB-CV-ii interface, then this would be a scriptable USB-audio-ii(?) interface.

my concern is the work and expertise involved in making that project go. I’m no expert in this, but I know enough not to underestimate the work involved. if we can get the right people together, I’d be thrilled to work on this.

I also recognize the value of trying to find the right set of a features for a fully analog design that could just work.

continuing to chew on this. would love to hear other’s thoughts.

7 Likes
#254

A huge one is just the ability to move a single sound across the stereo field at any time. The concept of a width knob still would only only get you from the outer edges to the center and would act globally, correct? That feels like a giant miss as far as the actual playability of a mixer goes. A stereo mixer as an instrument should allow allow for the full utilization of the stereo field otherwise there really is no point in it being stereo at all. I as a performing musician I feel very strongly about this.

13 Likes
#255

Also if I have e.g. 3 stereo sources, with the nearness concept 2 of them will have narrowed stereo width. More generally, if I have more than one source that should be in the same L/R location, I now have to pre-mix those sources before putting them into this mixer

#256

I like the idea of the nearness-based analog mixer (with an emphasis on feedback), acknowledging its limitations. I like the idea of creating movement of the width manually with the span knob, and automating it over cv control, I could see myself using those two things quite a bit. I also like the fact you’d be able to target the symmetrical pairs and doing the balance control I had mentioned above. I’d bet you could do some interesting things with the tilt eqs, so that you could sweep from low freq on the left to high frequency on the right.

Anyways, I’m really intrigued by the idea because it feels like something that gets my mind thinking about what’s possible with it. It doesn’t check off every box of a feature list, makes some quirky compromises, and isn’t really made to be a studio hub where you hook up tons of gear to it indefinitely (seems better for building systems specific to a particular idea), but that doesn’t bother me personally.

EDIT: I also like the idea of the ultra configurable i2c controllable mixer…but I do feel that wants to be something separate than this thing you’ve been working on. For that I’d personally like something like a very low hp i2c addressable vca/eqs/pan/overdrive etc in eurorack format.

7 Likes
#257

what about a telexn looking thing (2hp 9 jacks) connected to ii… crowfeet

you could do a 5 in 4 out digital matrix mixer like that… or the 7 in 2 out thing… that seems interesting. The digital vcas make sense to me, wouldn’t effects such as EQ, overdrive, or anything else be much more difficult with a digital signal across ii? I’m so far out of my depth here, just thinking about when Trent was talking about the resolution of crows inputs…

2 Likes
#258

I’m also out of my depth, but I Was thinking along the lines of how analog synths that have a digital preset system work. The analog components parameter levels are basically able to be digitally set to values. If the i2c part was kept for the control elements (and not the sound path), the resolution would only affect how fast you could change the values so it would probably be fine I would guess

2 Likes
#259

You could explore whether the span knob could take you to ‘full stereo’ spread with a single mono source in the middle:

  • Full CCW: Minimum span
  • 12 o’clock: Nearness style span
  • Full CW: 4 full stereo channels with a one centre mono channel.
4 Likes
#260

Sure, that solves the specific “100% L/R” case, but it doesn’t solve the more general version of that problem, e.g. two sources that should both be at 50% L, or more commonly: two sources that both should be centered.

1 Like
#261

I suppose this again cuts to a core discussion in this thread: a heavily opinionated design with creative constraints vs. a minimal aesthetic with classic mixer functions.

I think @jlmitch5 put it well, so I won’t repeat his points. I prefer the former; but would probably also find the latter useful.

#262

I’m highly supportive of focused, minimal tools with constraints. I don’t think removing per-channel panning from a mixer would be a constraint that engenders creativity. That said, I feel like I (and others arguing for the same position) have perhaps already derailed the thread enough here :woman_shrugging: it’s really awesome to see this coming together, and I don’t want to drag it down. As was said earlier, perhaps others could re-use the specs as a starting point for a version with a panning knob.

2 Likes
#263

This just gave me an idea for a new thing - how about a generative mixer that isn’t set, that is alive - and moves / mixes stuff on its own. You set ranges or push things in motion, from subtle to a fully re-shaped sound field. It fluctuates, from sloth-like to rapid or intermittent through weighted decisions. Buttons turn individual channel movements on/off - you can play these. Gestures add to the movements in some way, perhaps an xy pad or stick.

15 Likes
#264

Adding VCA panning control, like in the WMD Performance Mixer, would enable all the panning modulation you want. Now that’s a nice mixer. I keep wishing it had direct outs so I could record my stems.

image
image1000×1000 122 KB

4 Likes
#265

exception: my Mackie mixer which has a kind of 2" thick hollow bumper around the sides and front which I’ve half a mind to simply saw off once the warranty expires

1 Like
#266

on the subject of size, I want to get people’s impressions on what they’re looking for.

an image to spark some reactions:

image
image1356×1679 467 KB

stuck to devices I think people are mostly familiar with (excepting the Lyra 4, which I put in because it’s a nice in-between footprint). happy to include other devices that people would like to see, if this isn’t enough reference to imagine stuff.

ignoring the z-axis for now, except to say that accomplishing flatness is challenging.

not looking for super precise input, but size is going to have the clearest impact on the number of affordances and features, so getting to know people’s preference would be helpful.

7 Likes
#267

with this db25 expander you get balanced direct outs of each channel plus the main outs.

4 Likes
#268

FWIW, from a purely vanity perspective I think allgining with Grid and 16n sizing would be nice. I don’t think that it should be the first consideration, but it could be a nice little system. Norns, Grid, 16N, and Mixer.

1 Like
#269

Thanks!! I’d forgotten about that after looking at it when I got the PM. I have an ES-8 which I’ve been using to get sound from the modular into the computer. I don’t love the massive snakes required to handle the DB25 connections, but it would give me what I asked for. Maybe when I get (even) more seriously into recording I’ll bite that bullet. Thanks again for the reminder, it’s got me thinking again.

1 Like
#270

What about a target footprint of an arc + grid?

Untitled
Untitled896×355 132 KB

16 Likes