#329

okay, more quickly cobbled together drawings to spur conversation

here’s some 1/4” jacks in a grid, heavily inspired by the crow design. 8-in/8-out, but other counts and configuations are maybe more ideal.

no usb jacks on the sides shown, but the idea is this would need external controllers and some script/text file configuration. could obviously be more robust (crow-like, running lua scripts locally) or could be simpler (text file controls audio routing, nothing more).

image
image2732×2048 361 KB

also maybe this is the right way to approach modularly adding channels, since each vertical ‘strip’ is so straightforward.

personally, I like this. either this or some of the more ‘mixer-like’ pure analog designs are what get me excited. stuff that sits in-between leaves me feeling a little empty, but I might be alone in that.

10 Likes
#330

I love this idea and the crow-esque design, however, i would likely want some sort of visual feedback/ led situation. maybe even decoupled led’s like grid/arc :slight_smile:

4 Likes
#331

I recently learned about this the other day; http://midimuso.co.uk/index.php/cv-12/

I wonder if we could take inspiration from it, and design a board which has a bunch of headers on it, where users could attach whichever control surfaces they wanted (faders, buttons, encoders/potentiometers (?)), which would be assignable in software? I imagine certain things would have to remain fixed, like the number of inputs/output channels.

I’m trying to think about ways a mixer could be designed to be as open as possible, but leaving as much room for flexibility, while also remaining in the realm of hobbyist DIY-able. Maybe not having a fixed layout could help with that?

#332

this seems pretty perfect
I don’t think I would want LEDs as I’d be using a controller which would reflect the state of the mixer but I suppose some people might be controlling it via software or something else

#333

I think having LEDs that indicate levels would probably be really helpful (even just a single one to show clipping), but I’m unsure about other assignable LEDs.

if each input and output had a single led (which could do metering, but also other stuff), would that be enough?

might be worth thinking through some basic routing/apps/scripts for this kind of assignable mixer and see what we think would be required.

1 Like
#334

that’s enough for me. :slight_smile:

just enough feedback to operate without an external device, should i want to :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#335

This would be huge for me… not a deal breaker per se, but definitely nothing out there that does this.

In that same vein, one more thing: is it possible/feasible to implement a high-quality A/D monitoring the input channels? This might open possibilities for scriptable dynamics engines, triggers, etc.

#336

I like this design. It’s exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned a simple minimalistic box earlier in this thread, it’s really cool to see a nice render :slight_smile:

When you say it has no USB port, is it that it’s not visible in this image or it has no port at all and communicates via OSC ?

FWIW, I second the idea of having some discrete programmable LEDs for a visual feedback.

1 Like
#337

I didn’t draw any USB ports, but it would certainly need them.

2 Likes
#338

I’m trying to understand this direction.

If what people want is n-in / m-out digital audio into some processing element that can do arbitrary mixing and signal processing, controlled from MIDI and/or OSC… Why aren’t the numerous existing ways of doing this working for you?

One can easily find the hardware to do this. Two quick examples:

  • MOTU ultralight mk4 (8 in + 10 out) and an Intel NUC
  • Audio Injector Octo (6 in + 8 out) and a Raspberry Pi 4

Either of these will run SuperCollider - and have more than enough power to mix the inputs with EQ. SuperCollider is easily scriptable (in sclang) and natively supports both MIDI and OSC. Once set up - either can boot and run without display, keyboard, or mouse - and respond via MIDI and/or OSC as you see fit.

Since I don’t see a lot of people doing this with the existing solutions… I’m wondering what about the “just ins & outs” designs in this thread excite people. Is it?

  • Small, single enclosure?
  • Precoded / scripted for mixing?
  • Anticipation of cheaper price?
7 Likes
#339

I think (not sure) part of it is the idea of the mixing remaining analog (under digital control)?

#340

I think all the potential benefits you list are valid, although the single enclosure bit is the most compelling to me.

the more interesting bit to me would be finding better ways to make routing and customization of the behavior accessible. maybe lua is the right path for that since it dovetails so nicely with the existing ecosystem (and the skills people have been learning), maybe there’s another, better path.

my perspective on everything in this thread (which I fully acknowledge is limited) is trying to find the right place where the interface (direct and indirect) feels like it will present unique creative interaction.

this is also why I am completely unmoved by every objection in this thread that insists that the thing being talked about already exists if you work out the spec sheet. I don’t think this effort is about bringing the right spec sheet to bear at all, nor do I think that we’re trying to find unique ‘market fit’, this is about figuring out what the community would be excited to use.

2 Likes
#341

I’m totally with you that this thread isn’t about finding market, about finding a single magic thing, or a single anything! Let a thousand flowers bloom! If seven of the ideas presented here get built and used by even one musician each - success!

My aim wasn’t to say “this already exists” or object - it was to understand what about the existing things that don’t compel people to creative action. You can plug a multi-channel interface into norns and script those channels with SuperCollider and Lua(*)… but no one does.

(*) It might take some hacking of the standard norns build to get it handle the additional interface - I don’t know as I’m not a norns user. The underlying OS and SuperCollider certainly handle it with ease, and “out of the box”. Then again, perhaps this is very much the problem: Is an issue missing creative applications?

6 Likes
#342

I’m 100% with you. Sometimes there’s only enough room in the hole for one tree, even if it’s a kumquat tree.

That metaphor sounded a lot better in my head. You know what I mean.

2 Likes
#343

I suggested way up but as its advanced a bit ill add again a couple of ideas
my suggestion is to hav one stereo/mono Chanel PCB and one “control” PCb with buss and I/o and there are a couple of really cheap boards at JLM which would be very cool - db to 8 Chanel ect
A DIYRE slot - absolutely
That 1646 Lin drivers for Chanels
Im putting some big ass transformers in mine off a guy who does his own - they’re 75eu each but shhhhhesh are they dripping with tone
im 100% going to be doing this for my needs regardless of whether this community project eventuates so im happy to share anything I Come up with
Im personally not concerned with digital side of things

1 Like
#344

I think one of the most important things people really wants is it to be minimal(ish) and beautiful so it will be nice to use, people just love nice objects and they give inspiration to use it again instead of behringer/mackie ones. There are tons of mixers for any price and functionality but not that much really that pleasant to an eye.

4 Likes
#345

Can you talk a bit about the 1/4” motivation? I ask because adapters and adapting cables are a thing, and this design adds a lot of bulk. But maybe that’s a good thing…

Would love it if something like this also handled modular/line level conversion.

#346

I won’t speak to @karst’s motivation, but for me any mixer that has 3.5mm jacks and modular level bias is “just another eurorack mixer” and that’s not what I’m in this for. I want something to sum and route the audio from all of my sound sources - euro being just one of them - so 1/4" jacks are the way to go.

4 Likes
#347

for me, it all comes down to how you expect this thing to be used. both sizes are valid approaches, but suggest different priorities to me.

selfishly, I’m largely working with line-level gear with some mic, instrument, and euro levels mixed in. in that instance, the larger jack seems to cover the most bases.

if you’re wanting something that primarily works with eurorack levels, then doing a 3.5mm layout makes sense. if that’s the goal though, I’d also lean towards turning the thing into a full-on euro module with USB jacks brought up to the surface.

purely from an ergonomic perspective, when you have patching occurring on the face of the device, making something that prevents the heavy use of adapters is preferable to me (I feel the same way about TRS jacks and using stereo splitters). I’d rather make something bigger that has more pannable mono channels than use stereo jacks anywhere.

somewhere in lines there’s a convo around jacks where @tehn asks for input on this question and I think that directly informed norns having 1/4” jacks instead of other options (something I’m very pleased with). it might be early in the minimal mixer thread or somewhere else, but there’s good info in that chat as well.

edit - https://llllllll.co/t/1-4-vs-1-8-connections/3029

3 Likes
#348

Makes sense, thanks!

If I were to use something like this, I’d likely be using a combo of 1/4” line level inputs and 3.5mm modular level inputs, so I find myself on the fence.

1 Like