Still interested (and even more so). Thanks!
Thanks for the update!. I’m less interested now, because I only use USB. For that purpose the rest sounds like quiet a large increase in BOM and part/assembly time/cost.
To be fair I wasn’t really sure about it anyway because I prefer (endless) encoders over faders and knobs most of the time, so I guess I’ll go with something that has encoders
just want to say: makes perfect sense; kudos. seems very useful for the euro crowd
Still interested, even more with cv out.
Would prefer non-SMD DIY
I’ll tell you that it’s not a massive increase in BOM cost. The resistors cost under a cent each. The op-amps cost about 25c each at volume. Excluding the jacks, the CV components add about $2.50 to the BOM cost; the jack sockets are, I’ll admit, a little more expensive… but the biggest cost after the PCB is still the faders. As for assembly complexity: yes, that’s true. We’re still thinking about that.
Interested for sure, cv output is not relevant to me but I’d probably buy one of these anyway, who knows if I’ll need it in the future.
DIY is more fun for me, also saving money. Partial is of course preferred, but I want to work on my SMD chops anyway.
Big thumbs up and gratitude for y’all working this out, bravissimo.
I am not concerned about additional costs and building complexity (does not seem to be that complex…).
What makes me hesitating is the physical behaviour on the table with 16 CV cables patched in and the whole device not being housed in a grid like block of aluminium. I would not want to hold it with one hand while I am moving the sliders with the other hand and imagine that this would be less troublesome with just one midi cable going to something like the FH-1 or a i2c expander module with 16 cv outs.
I can see the appeal of 16 CV sliders though. Maybe it’s my reluctance to devices incorporating too many functions and loosing playability in return.
This coming from the guy who dives deep into the Teletype and ER-301?
Seems like good rubber feet would solve this. Also, something like a beatstep pro has a lot of cables coming out of it and many people use those.
Mark me down as interested.
I’m wondering. In the current design, the CV outputs are just buffered coming straight from the faders?
If they were on a separate module, then they would be generated from some digital signals. This could potentially open the device up to being programmed differently, like changing the ranges, slope shape, or with the addition of a button or two pattern recorders. Adding a clock input could make it into a step sequencer, though you’d probably want LEDs as well.
Just a thought. I don’t even own any euro (yet)
i would also prefer that to a giant 16 pairs snake which impedes proper cable management and easiness of transporting a patched system; but i guess it’s less straightforward than the current proposed implementation.
That’s basically what the Expert Sleepers FH-1 can do with any USB MIDI device.
count me in, happy to build myself.
stoked that it’ll do both midi & cv
With the CV integrated, I am definitely a customer for this.
My interest is piqued
Partial diy as i suck at smt, or assembled.
This would be amazing with the cv outs. 100% interested!
Thanks everybody for input, it’s really appreciated and useful. I’ve been tied up with Actual Work so have not moved anything forward in the past week and a bit - hence it was a good time to let this thread grow.
I am working on deliberately not making this:
and so its unlikely functionality will change much; there will certainly not be any more significant features added.
The relatively naive CV out solution (buffered via the faders direct) is designed as “just enough for a surprising number of use cases, and much better than nothing”. And if you don’t want to use the sixteen jacks along the back: nobody is making you use them! It still works fine as a MIDI box (and, for the people who’ve mentioned devices like the FH-1, for instance, it would work fine patched straight into that). I would also not make judgments about the final hardware based on images you’ve seen of prior versions - I know there’s been talk amongst ourselves of aluminium top-plates, for instance, which change the weighting a lot. But similarly, don’t imagine it will change hugely significantly beyond materials used and minor dimensional changes. I can confirm, form-factor wise, it is still the width of a 128 grid, and still slightly shorter. I’ve always been using the 128 as a constraint, size-wise.
There’s nothing to stop people exploring building external expanders with added functionality (such as controllable ranges/curves, wider ranges, yadda yadda); but I am not designing and making two complex electronic things at once. Making two things at once is no fun at all, and is more than twice as hard as making one. Making one, in our spare time, is hard enough.
Don’t forget, if you have opinions of your own about this design, you are welcome (when they’re published) to all the open source files and to make your own modifications/forks.
So: next steps for us are probably finalising a few choices to get prototypes built, and we’ll see how that goes.
I love everything you are saying here!
May you be blessed with copious amounts of “free time”.
Also still very interested. I think all the features will be very useful to me.