how do you integrate your bunch of DIY HW in your setup?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

electrisizer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
172
Location
germany near frankfurt
what do you think is the best method and why?

summing box, hardware plugings, console, other procedures?


actally i have connected everything to multichannel soundcards outs/ins and use the DIYs as "hardware plugins".
but perhaps i want back to console with 8 bus architecture  :-\
 
Well I've not a lot of diy gear right now, but I'm using a multichannel soundcard attached to a mackie 24·8, using it mostly as a summing mixer, with the hardware inserted between the DA and the mixer (not balanced insets in the mackie), sometimes I use the mackie for mixing, but I'm still getting used to it...

Actually thinking in upgrade my desk or go to a passive summing box, the second option goes stronger every day, So, if it's not a great console, I'm not sure if it is worth it. (the best use for my mixer is to impress people, sad that it can be done with a mackie), maybe in some months I get used to the mackie and everything looks different...
 
me too i'm scratching my head on this...

the main question, for me, is the need of a post-insert automation when mixing.

for doing this, you have two options: 1) buying an expensive console with a reliable automation system 2) using the daw automation.

at the moment i only can go for the second route, obviously for budget limits, but then there are some workflow options to choose from when using the DAW automation.

the easiest way would be DAW--> D/A --> Hardware processing -->summing mixer --> A/D --> DAW

but doing this, it's not so ok to use our proudly built DIY dynamic processors, because every level automation will work against the compressor/expander.

the solutions i'm thinking are:

- using the DAW inserts to patch the hardware via D/A A/D converters.

- making all the dynamics processing in parallel, for example with the lead vocal track, I would duplicate it going to two different D/A outputs, then one of them is going to the hardware processors, and the other one is straight to the summing bus. so when I'll do level automation on the vocal, I have the processed channel fixed, and the unprocessed is taking all the rides from the DAW automation.

my thoughts are that the first way is added too much conversion, so some sort of degradation could be possible. and the second way there is an increase in track number, both inside the DAW and on the summing mixer.

really would like to know your opinions on this!
 
I used a hybrid system first (outboard via ADDA) and then moved on to a console. Much better, no problem with latency, glitches, and the monitoring is in the analog domain. For volume automation past outboard there are several options, a really inexpensive one is the Niche Audio Control Module, a simple MIDI controlled levelling unit (8 I/O) each. Works fine for me. ;-)
 
living sounds said:
For volume automation past outboard there are several options, a really inexpensive one is the Niche Audio Control Module, a simple MIDI controlled levelling unit (8 I/O) each. Works fine for me. ;-)

Didn't know about this, googling it looks like discontinued, sad, but, a DIY solution for 24 channel of these would be just awesome, I got to learn about it...

It would be a great way to use the computer just as a digital media storage, with all it's benefits, and some fancy features (some plugins are really nice).
 
They're all discontinued, but they are availbile for very small money used. Mackie build a VCA automation, Behringer did, too, and several more high end manufacturers as well I believe.

 
I've never thought about MIDI automation. That seems the ultimate solution for having post-insert level automation, without spending a fortune!

It's such a shame the Niche unit is no longer manufactured! It could have been a great solution plus its price was unbelievable!

I think I'll investigate on the DIY option from the midibox forum, seems a great alternative.
Or even better, because the signal passes only through the fader, like it would do normally on the console.
So maybe less signal degradation?

Thanks a lot guys this forum never stops to teach me! I was almost sold to stay ITB/hybrid for mixing, but this option takes me again on the road to an analog console with automation. yeah
 
hey there thanks for answers... it seems im not alone with thinking about the best solution these days....
my problem with hybrid system is latency and too much conversion with possible headroom problems.

for example the worst case...

microphone - AD to DAW - DA - hardware EQ insert - AD - DA harwade compressor insert AD - DA hardware master chain - AD  ::)

i dont need only a LOT of converters but even very good converters to have at least a worthwhile tonal gain... then always having all levels of DA and AD in sight is a very complicated and bothersome procedure. if one has only some hardware gear thats OK, but having 12-16 EQs, 3-4 compressors... hybrid system is overextended (to my mind)

so my plan is to go out of DAW in stems only one time DA, doing my EQs and sum all the stuff through a summing mixer with 8 bus architecture for my compressors.
 
dirtyhanfri said:
living sounds said:
For volume automation past outboard there are several options, a really inexpensive one is the Niche Audio Control Module, a simple MIDI controlled levelling unit (8 I/O) each. Works fine for me. ;-)

Didn't know about this, googling it looks like discontinued, sad, but, a DIY solution for 24 channel of these would be just awesome, I got to learn about it...

Seems to me that you could use the TI PGA2310 to control the level of a pair of channels, with gain up to 31.5 dB and attenuation down to -95.5 dB in 0.5 dB steps, plus a separate mute. Can you discern 0.5 dB steps? If not, then your design is simple. Assume balanced in and out. Use a THAT differential input chip into the PGA2310 then out to a THAT line driver. Use your favorite micro to handle MIDI messages and controlling the PGA2310s over an SPI port.

Max SCLK frequency on the PGA2310 is 6.25 MHz. You need twelve '2310s, and each has a 16-bit control word, so the daisy chain is 192 bits and at 160 ns per bit it takes, what, 30 us to update all of the gains? That should be fast enough.

Handling the MIDI messages in your micro is an exercise left to the reader. A bonus would be to implement it as a USB MIDI device.

-a
 
Rochey said:
Beat me to it Andy!

Funny, I saw this thread as I was thinking about doing Yet Another Monitor Controller. I saw the thread that was in the "mixers" subsection and it seems like that's not moving forward.

So I was cleaning my room (new cabinets! yay!) and I have a bunch of audio interfaces and such that I'd like to connect to one box so I can drive my studio monitors. I have a Rane MLM82a which works well enough, but it has just one two-channel output. Each of the outputs also has its own level control, so matching left and right's difficult. Plus it can't drive a pair of headphones. And another stereo out would be nice.

So I sketched up something with four pairs of balanced line ins (THAT-something or INA217), two line outs (THAT or DRV134) as well as a headphone amp (TPA6120A2). The PGA2320 (can't figure out the difference between the '10 and the '20) would be in line with each output. An encoder for output level, buttons for selects for each output, a "dim" button and the trick is that the micro "knows" the output level for each output.

Then I thought: well, it needs S/PDIF input (either coax or optical) and therefore it needs a DAC, and maybe word clock sync or something, and then I thought, "why not USB?" so the features kept creeping and creeping ...

-a
 
Andy,

been there and got that T-Shirt so many times!
Feature creep always kills me.

The '20 is virtually the same device as the '10. It was designed while we had sourcing issues a few years back.
I believe it burns a little more power, but gives better THD (you should confirm in the datasheets, I'm on the road, with really poor internet access).

If I was designing a system today, I'd go for the '20.

/Dafydd
 
electrisizer said:
hey there thanks for answers... it seems im not alone with thinking about the best solution these days....
my problem with hybrid system is latency and too much conversion with possible headroom problems.

for example the worst case...

microphone - AD to DAW - DA - hardware EQ insert - AD - DA harwade compressor insert AD - DA hardware master chain - AD  ::)

i dont need only a LOT of converters but even very good converters to have at least a worthwhile tonal gain... then always having all levels of DA and AD in sight is a very complicated and bothersome procedure. if one has only some hardware gear thats OK, but having 12-16 EQs, 3-4 compressors... hybrid system is overextended (to my mind)

so my plan is to go out of DAW in stems only one time DA, doing my EQs and sum all the stuff through a summing mixer with 8 bus architecture for my compressors.

I also was thinking on that problem, although i wouldn't have so much outboard-gear. But i want to keep the flexibility, so i don't think about analog summing. In the moment, i am checking for the best way for me to integrate outboard. if i have a multiple-inserts on one channel or in the master chain, i consider to patch the chain on the patchbay, so i have DAW -> DA -> EQ -> Compressor -> AD -> DAW to minimize multiple DA/AD-conversions.

I also consider to build some Crush'n'Blend/Send'n'Blend-Stuff to have parallel-possibilities on the outboard side.


 
Rochey said:
Andy,

been there and got that T-Shirt so many times!
Feature creep always kills me.

Or when you're doing R&D on a new product, and the "ideas" guy is always saying, "Can you add this and that? It's only firmware ..."

The '20 is virtually the same device as the '10. It was designed while we had sourcing issues a few years back.
I believe it burns a little more power, but gives better THD (you should confirm in the datasheets, I'm on the road, with really poor internet access).

If I was designing a system today, I'd go for the '20.

The data sheets say that the '20 is better in pretty much all respects. The '20 is available only in the SMT package, which is fine for me.

-a
 
I do all my mixing ITB (produce dance music so samples and instruments are all digital sources)
I fire 4 sub groups from cubase through my ADAT into my DIY summing unit with a Neumann amp on it, (This gives a little transformer flavour)
I use my GSSL as my main compressor on the stereo out of the summing unit, then fire this back into the DAW through my RME interface.
I'm currently working on a Nite EQ to add to the set up, I think the combo of neumann summing, GSSL & Nite EQ is sufficient analogue outboard to glue my digital productions.
 
My home mix setup has all my DIY stuff innit... And my AD/DA failed a little while ago. Too busy in the work-studio to do much more than buiild mic's right now but I had 32 DA's feeding my patchbay... 32 channels of DA' normalled to 32 channels worth of LCR assignable passive summing normalled to a couple API 3124 pre's normalled to a SB4k then back into the DAW to print.... I found that a convenient way to work was to insert various HW comp's and eq's between DA and summing-mixer inputs and calibrate everything to a unity gain level for starters.... Then adjust from there. Also have a couple HW verbs and delays that I typically patch inbetween a DA and the summing mixer so I can send from the DAW but sometimes desire to send from post-hw compressor or whatever...

In this setup all my compressors are post automation fader.... This is where I cal everything to unity and dial in the threshold accordingly for GR... Such that I can trim the entire mix to hit the outboard post fader compressors harder or softer for more or less GR.... Usually try to keep it to a db or 3 of GR.... I've got the DA/AD on DAW inserts too if I really want a pre-fader HW insert that is patchable in the patchbay but found that I don't use them like that that much...

Gotta get new AD/DA now but don't want to to spend the money...

Doing so much tracking at work and mixing totally ITB that I have moved my DIY over to mic world for now (and enjoying that considerably) although I do have several DIY EQ's and Comp's on my to-do-shelf... And a plate reverb... And... And...

I think once my mic locker is really up to scratch (almost there now with some very nice DIY kit many thanks to this wonderful community) i'll focus on a bunch of input channels... Like mic/line/EQ... Really think quality tube path will be the way to go and a bunch of em.... Like 32 or more... I mean, for me it'll either be neve, api, or tube... With pmpeq/meq in the path....

Cheers,
jb
 
Hi,
my setup is quite easy: Mackie 32-8 bus direct outs to Motu2408 plus 2x Behringer ADA8000 (24 channels). DAW outputs (24 Channels)to patchbay and tape returns (balanced) of the Mackie. With this setup I can insert all my outboard when mixing & recording. Direct monitoring (zero latency), talkback, 6 aux busses, 32 to 8bus analog summing all included. I don´t use the EQ very often. Some people say, the Mackie Mixers are crap. Concerning hardware and servicing I agree. I measured the preamps and must say, that the specs are quite impressive (very neutral in sound, ultra linear frequency plot). Well, if I need colour, I´ve got my outboard.
regards
Bernd
 
Back
Top