#56

maybe controversial, but i’d rather have panning than sends/returns.

if it’s gonna have returns (which i like! just saying it’s hard to fit everything on a small form factor), i preferred the prior design with return levels to this one with the drive knob

2 Likes
#57

Fun thread. I’m of the mind that EQ is rarely needed for me in terms of a mixer; worse yet is when I do use it and forget that I’ve made an adjustment and then go through an entire recording without noticing some key frequency has been dialed out. I love minimal mixers of just tons of inputs, pan, and level.

No need for an insert but love multiple routing options. Mackie is nice with this, a 1624 VLZ has three separate outputs, all switchable on and off, along with unexpected back panel stuff, like each channel has its own output.

The conversation about mixing CV is interesting. I regret not getting on the Poltergeist (discussed above) I would love that too. CV control of pan and fade would be great. A channel strip like the dotcom VCA++ across an entire section would be great:

image
image967×1157 279 KB

Maybe add in an EQ section where you have the headphones and outputs. But a whole row of twenty of these would be terrific. Note that CV is incorporated in pan and VCA. All that’s really missing for me here is dynamic muting and alt send.

#58

Good grief I need this. Won’t even look up the cost. Those joysticks look like little Buchla Bongs!

1 Like
#59

If that single knob eq was a lpf/hpf that could be very handy imo. Though seperate lpf/hpf knobs would give you band-pass which would be a very quick way of giving space.

4 Likes
#60

So, product manager hat on - I think fundamentally, many of us might have very different opinions of what a “minimal mixer” (tossing a nod to the originating thread) is. Before we start discussing features, it feels like it might be a good idea to get on the same page about that. Are we referring to minimal in features? Minimal in size? Minimal in aesthetics? Some combination of that?

4 Likes
#61

One idea to riff off the nearness approach to panning is to take the ‘fixed’ spread of the nearness and attach it to a single knob for the width of the stereo field, almost cold mac survey style. It’s something that came up in the nearness thread a while back, discussion on these ideas starts somewhere around here: Prototyping Nearness, a minimal panning mixer module

  • Center is no panning,
  • Full left turn is max vol on the outer channels decreasing as they move toward the center channel. (inverse/negative nearness distribution)
  • Full right turn is max vol on center channel with decreasing levels as them move toward the outer channels (original nearness distribution)

hopefully that makes sense?

15 Likes
#62

Interesting how this has progressed while I’ve slept over here on the other side of the world.

I’ve got some radically different ideas for this though, which I’ll sketch up over the weekend I think, based around norns as the beating heart of a modern, minimal, digital mixer.

But I do like the how the analog design above has progressed.

Question for discussion : what do we feel about break-out boxes for i/o? So the mixer becomes the control surface box in front of you, connected (via ribbon, whatever) to the i/o box mounted more strategically near gear. The i/o box can be as big as needed to cater for big jacks (could even come in different flavours - 1/4", XLR, 1/8", etc.), freeing up the control surface box to be more minimal.

#63

Forgive me what is probably a basic question, but what to the X/Y CVs control in the your 4 Joystick Quad Mixer concept? Trying to wrap my head around how the stereo signal is being treated on the way to becoming quad.

1 Like
#64

I think this would be a radically different (and good!) idea, to be honest.

That, or taking DB25 as input - essentially, anything to reduce cable mess! But having different i/o options handles the problem that some people want XLR’s for mics, others are fine with 3.5mm for eurorack.

#65

A good question…

Like on the Buchla 204 “Quad Spatial Director”, there would be four mono ins: 1, 2, 3, 4, and one quad out: Front Left, Front Right, Rear Left and Rear Right. Each of the four mono input signals could be panned around to any of the four channels, which I’m imagining would be around the four corners of the room. All four mono ins would be mixed into the same quad output, but each input could be panned to its own location in the room, as desired, using the joysticks.

Stereo signals could be patched into two adjacent mono inputs. In basic usage the two adjoining joysticks could be manually swung to the desired positions, which could be separated by any amount, as directed by the joysticks. The stereo inputs can be near each other in a corner of the room, or on opposite walls. They can pan together, or one channel can race ahead of the other, spinning more rapidly, or it could go in the opposite direction. One channel could sit in the middle of the room while the other bops back and forth, randomly, between the various corners.

Each signal is completely separately controlled, but the controls can be linked by similar hand movements.

(slightly edited for clarity)

#66

Just catching up with this, but I believe this is a beautiful idea. I think this community has rightly identified a tremendous gap in the open hardware arena. Open mixer would be wonderful.

edit I do have one immediate idea, maybe if the PCB could be designed as modular stages, and then combined into a final universal sum circuit? Like if someone required, 2 mono, 3 mono, mix of mono or stereo etc. There could be a pan module, or send/return module depending on need? If the layout was standardized all you would have to do is modify the .dxf file to taste to add more stages.

Don’t want to over complicate this or bring it closer to euro territory. The idea of this as a stand alone box is very appealing

edit 2 let me over complicate this lol. Is the idea this would be done using opamp circuits entirely? Or is there any sense in exploring digital control? Adding a teensy, single encoder, and OLED screen could add lots of possibilities.

4 Likes
#67

oh my these are lovely, the first one in particular is pretty much exactly what I have been looking for minus one more fx send.

#68

when i saw @markeats sketches for a design it reminded me in the back of my mind of something from long ago… and then i found this:

:grinning:

2 Likes
#69

mixercrop3
mixercrop31323×1020 117 KB

a remix of this idea, very hastily (and messily) drawn…

six mono channels, simple-eq (tilt), pan, 3-way switch for mute/solo, two stereo sends, master 3-band eq (those knobs could be repurposed for return levels, drive, etc. if that’s more interesting), ARS-style meter in the corner.

edit - slightly updated for legibility

11 Likes
#70

Thanks!

One suggestion: vertically orientated mute/solo switches would
(a) allow easier comparison of mute/solo states between channels at one glance
(b) allow slightly easier state change of multiple channels in one swiping gesture (although this really depends on the type of switch being used).

EDIT: +1 for having at least 2 stereo input channels, or even a configurable system.

1 Like
#71

agreed on both counts. vertical space is challenging, so orienting switches vertically might necessitate the move to a smaller switch design, but I’m totally guessing on the size represented here anyway, so it’s good enough for now.

plenty of (surface) room for extra jacks for channels 5 & 6 to be stereo.

mixercrop5
mixercrop51439×1044 123 KB

8 Likes
#72

I personally wouldn’t mind digital control. This would also make it possible to make the less live-oriented controls (EQ, pan, maybe the second send) shared between channels, sort of like the Zoom LiveTrak series.

1 Like
#73

This is very nice.
I know we are talking conceptually but:
Could one control the A and B return volume levels?
Does the main volume pot allow for gain of low signal levels as well?

#74

minimal as in “small” can’t happen magically: the current sketches ate impossible due to mechanical space requirements. 1/4" jacks eat space (ask yourself why norns has a large void at the top… i do value negative space, but the jacks were a major design constraint)

also having an IEC plug with internal power supply is a big ask: tons of large components are needed for clean power.

think of existing designs. most companies don’t make things big just to be big: quite the opposite in fact. bigger commonly means more expensive because more material. but sometimes smaller can mean more expensive because the mechanics are fiddly or complex.

22 Likes
#75

I figured as much. Just to ground this a little bit more (I imagine there’s plenty of impossible things hiding in the sketch), is the reference point of ~32mm from the rear of norns to the first knob/button a fair guidance for clearance?

If so, the design above would need to grow a tiny bit, but less than an inch. I don’t think an internal power supply is a must-have either.

edit - I should point out that the thing I’ve made isn’t really all that tiny (determining scale from the sketch is not the easiest). It’s roughly 11.5" x 7" (7.5" with more clearance for the jacks), so much quite a bit larger than a grid.