#185

No idea tbh! Would be great if so.

In many ways I’m still just after a stereo Dude…

7 Likes
#186

I just bought 6 of those AliExpress stereo mixers and I’m gonna cram them into a box and mult their inputs to make a basic 4x6 stereo matrix. It’s probably going to be dirty as hell but for $65 (+ jacks & enclosure) I ain’t complaining… If I end up getting as fancy as designing an aluminum panel / enclosure, I will deffo share!

#187

For a long time, mine has been something like a MixWizard 12:2 without all of the extra stuff, roughly the size of an MPC 1000 (anything smaller, at least horizontally, I think would kind of suck for playing live). Could look a lot like this:

mixer
mixer974×713 208 KB

8 mono input channel + 2 stereo input channels, pan knobs, no EQ, 1/4" inputs, XLR master bus outputs, no aux returns (just use a channel input, there are plenty) no master slider (what good is that even? my entire relationship with master sliders for the past 20 years is just to make sure the left/right sliders are sitting at 0 evenly at all times) and sliders could even be replaced with knobs, which would cut it in half vertically. I’d be fine with channel LEDs to indicate clipping, but I can work around it if they’re missing.

But, this idea is very purpose-driven, would be (for me at least) the ideal solution for one person playing live for an audience (however meager those audiences often are), standing/sitting at a table, with a few electronic sound sources and some effects (which almost all use 1/4" outputs), who carries their gear to the show in a case/backpack on public transit.

One of the things that’s apparent from the many features listed in this thread is that people need mixers for different applications, and a mixer designed for many tasks isn’t likely to be minimal. A crowd-sourced mixer design really might be well-served with a specific use in mind (performance, studio recording, podcasts, eurorack (aren’t there many of those already?), etc) if the goal is something minimal, otherwise we’ll just get another of the band-rental console mixers of many, many features that have flooded the market for years.

5 Likes
#188

Or, if not purpose driven, come to a concensus on a level of “base” features such as outputs or stereo busses for the mixer design which can be segregated from the reconfigurable or modular bits that encompass what we can’t agree on.

#189

In my experience it is used to prevent the mix / master bus from being overloaded.

It can be annoying, that’s for sure.
I prefer the master level to be controlled by a single potentiometer.

1 Like
#190

okay, survey results. you can read the full results here (just click ‘see previous responses’), but I’m gonna also summarize below. huge thanks to everyone who took the time. if you’re curious, go read through the final open-ended responses, there’s some good stuff in there.

as noted, the questions here were far more based on a more standard mixer concept than some of the more inventive ideas in this thread. hopefully these results just

a surprising amount of consensus on some items, so let’s start with the clear cut stuff…

mono, stereo, or a mix of both?
some of both: 65%
stereo: 23%
mono: 12%

notes

this question didn’t force the hard decision of only stereo or only mono, but we can still see that mono was the clear third place option. also didn’t dig into the distinction between stereo channels vs. panning mono channels, so those will all be discussion points going forward.

pan/balance or no?
yes: 61%
no: 39%

notes

a nearness-like concept got mentioned a few times in the open ended section at the end, which I think points towards another potential approach that I’m curious about

knobs vs. faders for volume control
knobs: 72%
faders: 28%

notes

at least one person who picks knobs said that faders would allow them to forgo mute capability

channel eq type
tilt eq: 81%
none: 8%
3-band: 5%
2-band: 3%

notes

simple eq is the clear winner, simple master eq was also mentioned on the last question.

audio jacks
3.5mm: 63%
¼”: 29%
combo XLR: 8%

notes

this one surprised me, but minijacks take the day pretty handily.

preamps/phantom power
no: 86%
yes: 14%

notes

one question that was probably needed but I missed including was about support of different levels (instrument, line, eurorack). my assumption for now is that line+eurorack is a good place to start, but would love to hear other takes.

headphone jack
yes: 79%
no: 20%

notes

one person wanted two headphone jacks and headphone cue was mentioned in the comments, but this one seems pretty straightforward. I am assuming that independent headphone level is also important.

that’s it for the obvious stuff, now we get into some muddier results…

number of channels
six: 44%
eight: 22%
four: 14%
five: 9%

however, if you group results, you get a cleaner picture

six or less: 67%
seven or more: 33%

notes

there’s still the tricky matter of how you count stereo channels, but the appetite at least trends towards less total channels.

aux sends
2x stereo sends / stereo returns: 35%
2x mono sends / stereo returns: 22%
1x stereo send / stereo return: 14%
2x mono send / mono return: 11%

notes

easily the messiest result. some comments mentioned that they’d take less than their ideal number here for simplicity, so maybe this is the kind of feature that gets determined by footprint and cost.

solo/mute needs
mute only: 58%
neither: 31%
need both: 10%

notes

this one is at least clearly in the direction of a more minimal featureset

I/O on top or back

back: 60%
top: 40%

notes

even though back ports clearly wins this, I think this will wind up being a form factor thing.

metering
clipping per channel, full meter on master: 52%
metering on master only: 41%
full metering per channel: 5%

notes

again, not a clear winner but a clear willingness for less fully featured channels.

if we take this whole thing at face value, that gives us a mixer that looks something like this:

  • 3.5mm jack inputs and outputs
  • 4-6 channels (with some split of mono and stereo inputs)
  • at least one aux send, more if possible (assumed pre-fader for now)
  • panning/balance per channel
  • mute button/switch per channel
  • simple clipping warning per channel
  • knobs controls for everything
  • single knob eq per channel
  • ability to input and output line and eurorack level
  • headphone output w/ level control
  • more detailed meter on master

winds up looking like:

6 or 7 features per channel

  1. level
  2. pan/balance
  3. tilt eq
  4. aux send
  5. mute button
  6. clipping led
  7. level switch/knob

4 to 6 features for the master channel

  1. level,
  2. headphone level
  3. meter
  4. aux return
  5. tilt eq
  6. output level switch

so maybe minimal, maybe not…

there were other request made in the final question of the survey around some additional master channel features (a saturation/drive, tahn softclipping, simple comp) which could be considered as well.

I’m gonna shut up and listen how others react to this whole thing. If people are generally into this, I think the next step is following @TomWhitwell’s advice and figuring out how much of this can be easily done using the eurorack supply chain and figuring out footprint stuff.

I’m personally interested in digging into @bmoren’s nearness mixer idea. I have the beginnings of an idea that needs input, will share once I get some sketches down and people have had some time to digest the survey.

26 Likes
#191

just thinking, if it’s to be a mixer for mainly modular and unbalanced line levels from various small instruments, each channel input could (should) simply be stereo with two TS jack sockets with a normalled “L only = mono”. (Also not sure if a single trim knob can control levels from consumer line to modular.)

Also, it’s a pet peeve of mine, but without faders, it’s not a (performance) mixer ^^
(Only huge and really smooth knobs can partially make up for that).

4 Likes
#192

Wow! I wasn’t paying attention when the survey was put together but I doubt my impression would have changed anything. Great survey :raised_hands:

3 Likes
#193

In the event of this information being useful to anyone, this is my favorite rotary potentiometer series for performance :
BI Tech / TT Electronics - P260 & P261

2 Likes
#194

I’m intrigued by the consensus on tilt eq. They always seemed to me to fall between two chairs, neither detailed enough to be useful in tidying up a busy mix nor fun enough that they are a worthwhile performance parameter?

For tidying a mix up a 100hz switch would be on for all but the kick and bass and a single parametric swept mid could dig out or poke up bits of the mid range. Useful and certainly would tidy your mix but you are not likely to mess with it mid set.

For performance a hp/bp/lp filter is course enough that it’s worth waggling while people are watching. Or the pioneer notched hp/lp thing?

But, to argue against myself, again, most of the stuff that would be getting mixed will already have a low pass filter of it’s own that will be within reach. If the aim is for clarity and simplicity adding another isn’t the obvious solution.

It turns out that this whole making a mixer game is not as easy as they make it look.

I’m happy to be persuaded either way on tilt but it raises a bigger issue since it’s the only thing that there’s anything approaching consensus on. It feels like this thread is designing a single mixer when a more monomey way to approach it might be to try to make something that can be configured and re-configured to mix according to a users’ use case. I hadn’t initially thought it should be digi but this does suggest that would be the most suitable solution? That way the knob can be a tilt if that is how you mix or something else if it’s not. People could post their mixer configs and the object could improve and evolve long after it is screwed shut.

I’ve not a clue how to implement this and even if it’s doable there’s still plenty to scrap about in terms of how many knobs/ins/outs/etc but I’m wondering if the idea of making a single mixer that satisfies the needs of a diverse group of largely self taught musicians who use completely different instruments is a bit of a tall order?

Obviously we agree that it needs to be fancy brushed steel with no markings though, that’s a given right?

2 Likes
#195

The survey is interesting. Thanks for organising, @karst.

It’s interesting in that it does a few things at once. One is it points towards a weighted mean: the thing that would satisfy most survey responses, whilst still not being all things to everyone. In fact, it would probably be disappointing to a lot of people in different, individual, aspects. But it is a kind of consensus. It also feels like a faster horse, so to speak.

I think monome were invoked earlier in the thread, and I really liked @gahlord’s take on things upthread. Particularly noting that whilst monome were namechecked early on in reference to ‘industrial design’, their industrial design stems from a broader perspective, where (imo) a clear, deliberate idea is reified in a very precise manner. There’s a certain degree of authorship going on: look at all the things Arc (for example) both is, and is not, and how clearly it’s defined by what it isn’t as much as what it is. Both its presences and absences are crucial to its haeccity. (And: by trying to explore a single idea to its full conclusion, rather than to be many things to many people, there’s an internal coherence to the devices (arc/grid in particular, I guess). They are blank slates for people to build tools with… but they have really firm boundaries, and that is a strength, imho).

I think if you want to head down that route, you have to examine what the idea of mixing sound is for you, and the ways you could manifest your understanding of it. So there are some interesting discussions around joystick and space earlier on - or the idea that faders are critical to a ‘performance’ mixer, to name some examples. A lot of these ideas are at the edges of the survey responses - but they might be more strongly held than the middle ground is.

Those strong edges get you things like Nearness, which is polarising, but that’s a good thing: people largely immediately know if the idea is interesting to them, or not at all. But you don’t get a Nearness from the middle ground, as it were.

Nothing’s convinced me yet that you can design something that will satisfy everyone here. But given that, doesn’t it make a little more sense to push at edges that are further from “a Mackie 802” than nearer?

(I dunno. I’ll be honest and say that I’m also having flashbacks to the original big 16n thread, both in terms of trying to synthesize everything going on, and already trying to route these ideas into reality in my head, which is… going to be a fun exercise for whoever wants to engage in the matter battle of brining this to life…)

18 Likes
#196

A better solution for that is to go gentle on input channel volume. Riding the master to my mind just encourages bad habits that are easily avoided.

#197

I’m not sure we’re having a faster horse conversation, it feels more like we’re designing a pony.

re: the monome perspective with regards to a mixer, I’m not sure it really connects with me fully. not that I don’t think it’s a valuable conversation to be had or that a re-definable audio router/mixer wouldn’t be powerful, but I do think there are many many things lost in a pure blank slate approach and many more lost in building devices that potentially don’t work in a standalone context.

somehow that feels even more stark when the basic functionality is combining streams of sound, where maximal flexibility and control focus might even detract focus from the things that are creating the sound in the first place.

that’s skipping over the additional issue of choosing an approach for this that requires more various and continuous forms of support (analog design vs. software and integration work).

All that said, this is right in line with my thoughts at the moment.

I do think there’s a thing is a very conventional mixer that exists between, say, a Bastl Dude and a Mackie 802 that would be nice and should exist, but I think enough different things are going to be deal-breakers to enough people that the effort of bringing it into existence is of questionable value.

I’d like to keep pushing at these edges and I hope others are interested as well. There’s no real need to collapse the world of possibility so early in the conversation (this thread has existed for three days) and minimal & focused does not have to mean standard & greyscale.

6 Likes
#198

okay, here’s a first take on a full size mixer based on @billyhologram’s nearness concept.

IMG_0157
IMG_01572732×2048 262 KB

descrip
descrip1984×1173 315 KB

a bunch of reasoning on the decisions made

goal was something patchable, playable, would handle line and eurorack duty, and could potentially serve as a feedback/no-input instrument. a lot of the open-ended feedback in the survey helped me get to this point.

I originally went with seven channels and aux sends (odd numbers feel right for the nearness approach), but the controls for the sends felt more convoluted than just including post-fader outs for every channel so that the extra channels can serve as return channels if desired. wound up fitting nine channels.

I wanted faders. I have no issues with knobs, but the horizontal space needed to use big enough knobs wound up being more problematic than using the vertical space taken up by faders. using faders also made me comfortable ditching mute buttons, since multiple channels can be silenced so quickly. these are 60mm faders, so they should have decent travel and ergonomics.

gain per channel to give some flexibility on the signals that can be used and should (I think) make it more flexible as a feedback machine.

tilt eq per channel, but I think that could be some other kind of shaping feature. maybe because this thing is so far from a normal mixer, eq per channel is less necessary anyway. maybe a tahn softclipping instead?

no metering on the channels. maybe it would be possible to use led faders and use them that way? seems like an expensive solution, but something worth exploring.

big knob is reserved for ‘span’, which can take the channels from mono to full width (credit to @bmoren for calling my attention to this).

small knob above is for controlling master level. I’d love to be able to ditch it entirely, but hedging my bets here.

headphone level and dedicated output included.

one extra knob for something, maybe some additional waveshaping.

both sets of jacks on the master out. unsure if the bigger ones would fit, they’d certainly grow the height of the whole thing.

it’s a very early take and I have to imagine there’s a bunch of sticky stuff regarding cross-patching signals between channels at different gain levels. I also don’t really fully understand all no-input mixer sound generation techniques, so my enthusiasm here is outstripping my understanding. that side could really use some gut checks.

size comp

next to norns and a block representing the grid

IMG_0160
IMG_01601992×1992 703 KB

32 Likes
#199

Again, it’s probably not what you’re looking for and I’ve no idea how to create that but what about a 15 x 15cm box that can easily sit on the desk. 16 x 3.5 Input jacks on the top, various digital + analog outputs on the sides. Then you control the mixing device with a midi device of your choice, faders, knobs. You can use it as a matrix mixer or a regular mixer I don’t know. Just my two cents, the idea here is to reduce the costs of faders and knobs by putting the controls outside of the device itself. Any external controller would work, with wire or wireless via OSC or Bluetooth midi. The box is just the hardware connector. Sandwich panels with The mixing is not analog here, it would have to be processed internally. Also some
LEDs on top of that for checking the meters, or LEDs integrated to the jacks similar to Expert Sleepers, I don’t know :slight_smile: image Sorry for my poor drawing, it’s just an idea, I’m not in front of my computer haha.

It’s a kind of programmable/mappable Bored Brain Patchulator. A Swiss-knife for mixing desktop devices and Eurorack sources, providing loads of inputs and outputs in various formats. the user chooses the controller for that.

But I like the previous designs too, they’re fantastic. I’m just concerned about the costs… I know Schaeffer AG, I had many panels done there and only for the top panel of the latest design posted I think it would cost at least 80 euros.

4 Likes
#200

For me this is very close and feels like a combination of much of the elegance seen elsewhere within the ecosystem.

My suggestions would be;
-CV control on span.
-RIP style output.
-a switch on each channel to give the option to bypass the nearness state and centre.
-global reverb on extra knob.

Wonderful.

3 Likes
#201

awesome ideas flowing here! it was exciting to see the results of the survey and the mock up considering those results :)) I think the mock up is pretty rad and the span knob was one of the cooler, more unique ideas, especially considering performance. I imagine filtering and making things narrow and then BOOM wide and full freq. super cool. also agree that faders seem pretty important regarding performance but knobs would be well suited for levels that just get parked where they sound best. I think the nearness concept is super awesome but is making me think that some of the split cables we’ll use for our stereo sources may have to get stretched wider and could even be messy. I do think the nearness style and the span knob seem spectacular to me but I do want to consider the connectivity of an organized setup. 100hz roll off buttons seem crucial too and wouldn’t take up much space. what are the outputs for? I feel like im missing something. I guess for multi tracking? id also like to vote for one more pair of ins, keeping it an odd number but it would fill the needs quite a few of us have for blending more stereo signals. it would also be IDEAL but not necessary for the stereo channels to share controls between the left and right sides, which sort of relates to my concerns with the patching/organization of the nearness style. I wonder if its possible to use something like mini span knobs per stereo channel so the closer cw, the more narrow and ccw would be full width. could even be stepped with the number of steps matching the number of channels we decide on so everything can be snapped into a unique space on the spectrum and not sit onto of the other channels. don’t know if im explaining that properly. anyway, love the discussion and cant wait to see how this develops further :slight_smile:

#202

my motivating thought was that instead of messing around with aux sends, each channel gets it’s own output that can be sent to an effect and then routed back to a separate channel. you lose sub-mixing capability, but I like this better.

in addition to that, it opens up a bunch of possibilities in cross-patching feedback within the mixer itself, using the whole thing as a large 9-channel audio attenuator, any probably a bunch more things I haven’t even considered.

just to be clear, each input here is a mono input. the channel you patch audio into determines that audio’s place in the stereo field, with the span knob acting as an additional modifier of that.

for normal mixer duty, you’d still be using the master stereo outs, rather than the individual outs.

3 Likes
#203

These are great pots! :control_knobs:

1 Like
#204

Totally. Thanks for the clarification. I have txn and get the nearness vibe but to have the left channel of stereo synth 1 be all the way left and it’s right input go to the far right side of the mixer and everything else trickling in between seems like a messy cable situation so hopefully we can think of a way to use the nearness idea without being that messy. I think my mini spans satisfy the requirements of all of us but don’t know how to do it. The physical plugs wouldn’t have to be nearness style (I know that kinda sounds like I’m defeating the nearness vibe here) but that the mini spans would be viewed that way instead. The more left, the more mono. Don’t wanna get caught up on exactly what nearness does and how it’s laid out but instead the functionality of it. The stepped knobs position would be the visual representation of the width instead of where it’s physically patched or having to use regular pan knobs and set them all accordingly, esp on two mono channels acting as a stereo pair. Just ideaz