#245

a note in terms of stackup: if you really are pushing for some of the dimensions we are looking at, you may well end up with two boards: a control board and an audio/power board. Maybe not, but there’s a decent amount of circuitry to route here, esp for stereo signals, and dancing around pots is not always the right thing to do. At that size, a four-layer board is also looking more sensible by the second.

2 Likes
#246

What if the span knob worked exactly as initially described by @karst from one end of the pot to the middle position, but then expanded the stereo field in a completely different way from the middle point out? If going so far as making it cv controllable, it seems worth giving that knob more power.

Like @zoundsabar I’m heavily partial towards a per channel pan knob. That could be the third zone the span knob expands into: going zone 1 (nearness mode, as originally described by @karst ), zone 2 (middle, mono, still following @karst) zone 3 (stereo controlled by per channel pan knob.). That would incidentally allow for the kind of behavior @Lervais was describing.

3 Likes
#247

This concept sounds very interesting. However, I think it would be very difficult to implement (circuit-wise) in such as small form factor… but I’m no EE.

There are some very cool circuits on Rob Elliots’ page. For example the “Stereo Width Controller - De-Luxe Version”. Here’s a little description from the page:

The next unit shown is far more linear and gives a wider sound stage than the simple version shown above. At one extreme (ccw), the signal is mono. At the other extreme (cw), the signal is subject to 100% negative crosstalk, so the sound is ‘spilt’ into two separate sound sources, with no centre image at all. When in the centre, the stereo image is unaffected, and there is no enhancement at all.

With something like this one could sweep from mono to nearness stereo to super stereo…

#248

Very nice mixer. But it hard not to remark how un-ergonomic the eurorack format can be. Something like this but in a 5U format would be a lot more comfortable.

#249

In theory I like the nearness idea but I think individual pan knobs is a must for any stereo mixer.

13 Likes
#250

No EE either. I was independently wondering whether it’s worth looking into having pan/span (and perhaps other parameters) be under digital control. (In my head an exciting extreme approach would be to make the span control a keyframe (MI frames) style snapshot + interpolation control for each track’s pan. (Where any current pan knob positions can be stored as snapshots, with the span knob/cv interpolating between them.))

On that note, running with the idea of digital control over analog track parameters and thinking about the UX and form factor, @karst would it be impractical to consider using a single rotary encoder per track for gain, tilt eq, and pan, with the space freed up by getting rid of the second knob used for some visual representation of the state of each (3?) track parameter? (With a button or 3 way switch above the master section to select what (of the 3) parameter the encoder row controls. Using push encoders, push could be a quick way to reset the selected parameter on a given track to a center/default value.)

1 Like
#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