Crowdsourced mixer design

[ganders]

Could the height be reduced slightly if the 1/4" jacks were horizontal instead of vertical, like the 16n’s 1/8" outputs?

Edit: Not that I personally would mind much at all how thick a mixer is…

[karst]

it would reduce the height needed, but would take up room in the x or y axis instead.

I’ve been trying to avoid side or rear jacks just to make the potential of dropping this thing into a readymade or diy case easier, but if sandwich only doesn’t bug people then we could move in that direction.

---

back on the earlier idea of modularity, what’s the difficulty involved in, say, splitting the channels portion of the mixer from the master and connecting the two with a ribbon cable or something?

could we split those sections into two pcbs so that creating a master pcb that can, say, support 1/4” (in whatever alignment) and transformers and whatever else could be done more easily?

[mqldng]

Arriving late to the party but just my tiny 2¢.
If faders are not a must, dual concentric potentiometers (à la Happy Nerding) may save quite a bit of space

[karst]

going ahead and trying to figure out how viable the smaller version of a nearness mixer is.

moving the gain knobs up above the faders totally ruins the ergonomics (not enough room between the rows to get your fingers in there), but if it’s ultimately better to ditch the gain knob in favor of a switch (and that switch is tiny) it actually frees up a lot of room. minijacks for master outs now too, and a new span cv jack.

I think I really prefer this size if winds up being viable, but continuing to poke at a larger layout as well.

[jlmitch5]

what’s the switch under the master outs do?

[karst]

figured it might be nice to pick which output level you want as well, for those maybe mixing from this back into their racks.

[Lervais]

Not very constructive, but I really like the direction this is taking and hope it becomes a reality!

[hermbot]

This looks really slick! It’s looking great and I already want one.

@karst

minijacks for master outs now too

What drove that, depth?

[renegog]

one idea i had regarding the critique of having left and right inputs being far away from each other (if you wanted to patch in with stereo cable splitter or something) could be to have two rows of inputs which span from Side to Mid, with the top row of jacks for Right and the bottom row for Left.

Something like this:

with the top image you’d control two channels panned respectively with one fader, which is more limited. the bottom one the jacks are just offset but still each have their own fader. I’m not sure about this it might be more confusing than it’s worth, but figured i’d throw it out there.

[jlmitch5]

Also…wonder if the value of these toggles could be on trimmers so that users could set what they want the gain level to be for each channel (or even push it down all the way to make them effectively mute switches).

[Zedkah]

A little luke warm on mini jacks for masters out but perhaps the circuit board could be designed with points for wiring 1/4 inch jacks as a mod…

Also - just an idle thought here -but how about sacrificing one of the 9 channels - The centre one(?)- for a summing mixer strip. Something like Intellijel Unity Mixer Dual 3:1. Would this help with summing send groups for effects? or just make a mess of things? I don’t have such a module so i dont know really if this adds some good utility but Im sure if I suggest this someone can suggest something better.

Full appreciation to Karst btw!

[synthetivv]

These designs look cooler and cooler. I’m not sure I understand the purpose of having an output per channel, though… unless… each output was normalled to the next, Veils-style, so you could make a bunch of submixes by using all the inputs and only a few of the outputs. (Sorry if that’s been the idea all along and I missed it.)

[21echoes]

I’m also loving this, but also pretty worried about using this for already-stereo sources. Is there a world where instead of a tilt knob it’s a pan knob?

[zoundsabar]

I admire your nice and coherent design, but for me, there’s no way I’d be interested in a mixer that has fixed panning. If I wanted that I could use the direct outs of your mixer into an actual Nearness to achieve the same thing. However, there’s not a way to achieve flexible panning on a per channel basis with your fixed pan design, even with another module attached, which seems constricting to me. The idea of a Nearness/mixer with level, Tilt EQ, and Width controls is interesting, but too niche for me. It seems to be of great interest to many others, so I applaud your work and am eager to see something real come of it.

My own request would be even at the expense of requiring extra space, I’d like a panner per channel. They could even be those smaller black ridged shaft/knobs. And there’s probably no reason the Width control wouldn’t work with panners, rather than fixed pans.

By the way, I love the direct outs!! They would be SOO flexible, as you point out in your first post (and in a follow-up) on this design: as post fader, pre-EQ sends; as stem feeds to a recorder for further manipulation in post; and as feedback feeds for using the mixer as an instrument. And that’s an interesting suggestion just above from @synthetivv on having direct outs from each channel cascade into the next. I wonder how that might add even more flexibilities for added submixing.

[jlmitch5]

Had a realization that the mixer does actually allow for variable pan with some creative patching.

If you mult out a mono signal into two symmetrical ins (1/9, 2/7, 3/6) the faders of those two channels act as a balance. With the left all the way down it is “hard” panned right, etc. it’ll only ever get as wide as that pair allows but it’d give you some control

Same thing with stereo channels. If you put them in symmetrical ins, the faders act as balance.

It may even be cool to normal these symmetrical “pairs” together so you could take advantage of this without multing/splitter cables.

[karst]

@hermbot

What drove that, depth?

depth, simplicity, and cost were the reasons to try it out, but nothing shown here is binding. I’m just trying variations and seeing what looks functional, ergonomic, and at least not impossible to implement given my limited knowledge.

@renegog

critique of having left and right inputs being far away from each other

to be honest, I’m loathe to break up the visual metaphor of the nearness concept over something that could be solved reasonably well with existing splitter solutions (or with some custom made cables). I know this thing will be a new way of running cables from a single stereo instrument, but it doesn’t seem overly onerous to me.

@jlmitch5

toggles could be on trimmers so that users could set what they want the gain level to be for each channel (or even push it down all the way to make them effectively mute switches).

someone smarter than me is going to have to chime in on this (while they’re at it, I have a bunch more questions on handling gain in this thing), but I agree that this could be a good idea and having the ability to modify one-half of the switch into a mute would be awesome.

@synthetivv

each output was normalled to the next, Veils-style, so you could make a bunch of submixes by using all the inputs and only a few of the outputs.

@Zedkah

summing mixer strip

love both of these ideas. I need to sit with them for a minute to understand their impact on the design. I have never used a veils or a mixup, so it might take me a little bit to digest the possibilities fully. if these ideas spark anything in anyone, feel free to propose a layout/workflow.

@zoundsabar

there’s no way I’d be interested in a mixer that has fixed panning.

totally heard and understood. I fully expect this not to solve everyone’s needs. the mixer representing a relatively fixed space that you bring sounds into to interact together, with the span and whatever other audio mangling acting as modifiers of that is exciting to me. hopefully, if we can get this off the ground, the underlying work could enable alternative architectures without having to start from scratch.

for instance, it would be very easy to imagine

@21echoes

a world where instead of a tilt knob it’s a pan knob

and ‘span’ is now master level and now you have a more ‘normal’ user-definable stereo mixer but with the same direct outs architecture.

@zoundsabar

pre-EQ sends

how important do you feel this is? I always imagined this as post-EQ, but haven’t spent much time thinking about it. I do think that having an effect (tilt eq or something else) apply to the direct outs would give a lot more shaping opportunities for feedback loops.

[zoundsabar]

@karst

@zoundsabar

pre-EQ sends

how important do you feel this is? I always imagined this as post-EQ, but haven’t spent much time thinking about it. I do think that having an effect (tilt eq or something else) apply to the direct outs would give a lot more shaping opportunities for feedback loops.

I’m cool with post-EQ sends, assuming the center knob position of the tilt EQ is flat. Being able to record EQ is not a bad thing at all! Especially if they are part of the performance. I wrote that because I thought that’s what you were proposing.

Your notes here on the pan issue seem justified to me. Keep up the good work! I should note that panning the tracks to a spread of values from left through center to right would recreate your dream mixer, and answer my wish too, at the cost of a knob.

[karst]

this is cool way of thinking about it and I think it demonstrates the flexibility represented here.

I’ll also add that unless you’re always using all nine channels (or always planning mix more than 3 stereo instruments) patching stereo signals like this and then adjusting total width to taste with the span knob should offer decent control.

[sonoCircuit]

Just had an idea to add a bit more flexibility with stereo signals, without overcomplicating the design.

The idea would be to add a second row of input jacks below the first, however, their fixed panning values are the opposite of the top row. So wherever you patch a stereo signal it will stereo but the width within the field will be different. eg. top jack left is hard panned left, bottom jack left is hard panned right and so on reducing the width until the central fader (mono) and increasing again until the ninth fader.

In essence the bottom row is a flipped version of the top row but the volume of each pair is controlled by one fader.

This of course would not be limited to stereo signals… creative patching ahoi.

[marcus_fischer]

this might be of interest for this discussion…

Audio Gear Obsession SUMMINGFACILITY // High end mixer for Eurorack & line...