DIY Console Fader Automation

I'm looking for any good ideas on automating console faders. Since, uptown automation and others are a bit too costly for my console, I was thinking of maybe trying to build my own. I would really love to hear some good ideas and not re-invent the wheel if could avoid it.

Thanks

Hi,
I'm also very interested in that subject, but my programming-abilities are quite limited. Have you already seen this thread:
DIY Automation Ider ?
I thought it could be done like this:

- Use Midi-protocol
- Faders send pitch-bend control-values, so you'd need 1 MIDI-channel per Fader
- for read and write just use the sequencer's midi-part
- use a single pic-controller for each channel with a communication-protocol to deal with a master-controller (so that would be a modular kind of system and probably easier to develope)

I have already done some research, but what I didn't find enough info on is how to control the motor. There is a lot of talking about PWM-control for the Motor, but I don't understand the reason for that. Well, I think there's many ways to do it, but I don't nkow which is the best...

Hold-on, it's hard to activate this lever switch wearing my knitted asbestos penguin-suit. . . . CHLINK-chick-chick-ker-Chunng!

There. Now that I am in the fallout shelter, I can recommend:

ProTools or Logic or Digital Performer, or another DAW!!

Use your consoles at unity as an "amplified passive summing matrix" and do all of the rest in the box- some kind of box. The plummeting price of automated analogue consoles is indicitaive of the lack of need for another automated fader system.

Time for one of these '87 MRE's. Yummy- yum yum! They don't make generic carrots the way they used to. . .

Mike

Killjoy !

Entschuldigung :green:
I have watched many an SSL 4K slowly go to waste over the last 10 years. even when there is no longer an Ultimation fader parts source, people will use the monitor faders as a "passive summing matrix with active amplification". Now THAT sounds like something I should design. Hmmmm. . .

Hey, you really should try some of this vac-packed Roeschti! It's the bomb.
Mike

Hello !!!!!
Did anybody of you thought about using a cheap B ,,,,,,, Midicontroller with the "motorfaders" to adappt(conect) them to your exsiting faders to pull and push them? they seem to have a lot of power to do this job.i think about to try it it soon.hope it works.i will tell you
thank s lothar,berlin

Won't work. You need two fader paths. One for position sense/correction one for audio. Anything that doesn't pass audio only has one.

Oh, and the laws have to be right.

This really has been pondered by everyone who ever DIY's before, and Nobody has done it apart from George massenburg and a few other people who ended up selling them.

Then you can't trim it, nor can you apply subgrouping (the BIG features of console automation systems) unless you ground-up write some pretty staggeringly complex computer code.

Honestly it's so complicated, and you have to do touch-sense-release, servo-release after target aquisition, and dozens of other theoretically simple but in actuality complicated tasks. -Even with the professionally -produced offerings, you have to calibrate the computer interface every so often... and writing the calibration software is a colossal challenge in itself.

-Then it has to be something that the user can actually USE... -Remember that lots of people think that moving fader software from SSL, GML, Amek and Neve sucks the rod... Not a single one of those manufacturers makes a moving fader automation system which is universally accepted... only Martinsound really gets that award.

Just building something that replicates moves reliably within 3dB (!!!!!!!!) is a BIG task, and not easily achievable.

Here's my considered response:

Forget it.

Many have tried, none have suceeded. Unless you 'cop-out' and do something like adapt a Behringer controller and replace the faders with dual-track faders with audio tracks and the associated buffers.

I confidently predict that nobody here will do this and get anything which is remotely enjoyable, or beneficial in anything other than on a theoretical level.

Evan that way, Sodderboy's suggestion is more practical.

Keith

I looked at this a few years ago and came to the same disapointing conclusion.

Forget it!

I am using my analog board at unity as mentioned above. Works way better than any moving fader system (although it would be sexier to see those knobs moved by invisible hands).

I also looked at doing mute automation. Now that is much more doable and cheap too. Also very easy to implement with MIDI. But again the DAW can take care of this. On my board there is already mute automation components and all I have to do is apply a 5v to flip/flop the mutes. I tried manually and it works.

Automating faders is not hard its the recall that gets hard! Also are you in update mode? Or read, or write over etc..

Stick to using a DAW and with the time and money make some preamps and compressors and you'll still have some time for music (which is what we all want isn't it?)


jim

Yeah, The MIDI mute was a piece of cake, which I implemented on my Trident 80. Also, I do the unity gain mixing as it stands, but I am hoping to do the mixing with the console instead of the DAW. IMO the gain structure is more easily obtained in the analog world then with the DAW feeding the console.

I really don't think the concept will be that difficult you just have to think outside the box(no pun intended). I just thought I would throw the idea out before I started on this arduous path.

I may even consider hacking a JL Cooper or Berhinger to get things started. I know that Paul Wolfe from Tonelux is using some form of the JL Cooper design for his fader automation package. Since, I have the mute automation done I'm only looking to automate the faders only.

At any rate, keep the thoughts flowing. :idea:

I have a tascam DM24 that I automate with midi. I realize this is still digital but it's got touch sensitive 100mm faders with motor control and midi encoding built in. I prefer to move faders when I'm mixing. I'm not opposed to automating in the DAW for some stuff but I believe that I work better and faster moving a fader.

I have two pages of 16 faders. The faders on page one have a controller value assignment that is different than the faders on page two. I have a template for the automation I can import when I need to move onto that part of mixing. The template is 16 midi tracks with each containing automation for 2 channels (1+17, 2+18...). Each pair of faders is on thier own midi channel.

It works great and recall has a number of possibilities. I can use the snapshot recall of the console as a baseline for any eq, dynamics or external routing. Also at the beginning of the track I will store the fader postitions for the beginning of the song. That way if I stop and rewind to the start the faders will not be in the wrong spot. My DAW software has some kind of "look back" function that will upate the midi controllers to the most recent value so the faders are always in the correct position no matter where the track starts playback.

What does this mean to you? I don't know but there are two generations of Tascam digital consoles that have been released since the DM24. Maybe you could find one or two for cheap and use the motor control to move your faders and get a recall system. The faders seem to move smoothly and with a fair amount of force.


Good luck.

Ozzie, I'll help in any way but it looks like you are fearless and already on your way.

Mute was on/off logic that was easily handled by a PIC (which you probably used as controller).

But if Mute automation is hang gliding off a cliff then fader automation is like landing a 5 foot diameter module with pinpoint accuracy on mars.

That doesn't mean you can't do it but how long and how much it takes to do it in a way that results in a system that is faultless. I do not want to discourage you just try and suggest that if you play music like me the time is better spent playing and writing.

But on the other hand if its the challenge and thrill of building your own fader automation system then I understand. Of the few people I contacted that were thinkng or actually were building their own I have heard of none that finished. You would be the first and my hero!

One of the things I've wondered is how to get more resolution out of the MIDI spec. How would you get more than 127 steps from 1 MIDI note volume? Or would you use other MIDI data? Or an entirely other way to hold the continuous data stream from the faders? What about fader motor stutter? You see I had a while back started to think about it too.

In any case keep us in touch with your project. (I have a hard enough time figuring out how to get Mute working in my DAW).


jim

I think I'd avoid trying to homebrew a flying-faders sort of system. I dunno if I'd try to DIY any automation system. My Soundcraft 2400 came with the Soundcraft tape-based automation system (broken). It was a VCA system, and the original audio-taper faders were converted (via a 12-bit A-D converter) then went through a lookup table to convert to log for the VCA's (8-bit DAC). That might be a more realistic project to DIY. It also had mute automation, and that is pretty easy. Anyways, this sort of system would be posslble. Another possibility is to find the Mackie MIDI VCA box, and interface it to your board - in place of the faders. Then use faders to generate MIDI and you can record that MIDI, edit it if needed, and play it back to the VCA box.

I'm running an HD24 and a pair of DA88's on my 2400 so I don't really have the DAW fader choice - if I want automation I need to do it at the board.

I was thinking of replacing the old processor box with a set of CAN-bus networked daughterboards on each VCA/fader interface board, and a CAN to MIDI processor board, but what I ended up doing was being lazy and getting a DA88 synchronizer so I can record automation data (and 14 tracks of audio) on the DA88's and leaving 24 tracks of audio on the HD recorder - and fixing the original automation computer.

Another option is to talk to the guy in Germany that collects these things (Soundcraft 2400's). He may have a VCA fader automation system removed that you could use either as a base or just as-is. I think he removes those parts.

-Dale

Dale, you can interface your HD24 with lightpipe to a DAW. I'm doing just that with 2 RME boards (total 48 ADAT lightpipe I/O). I use my HD24XR for AD/DA and when I have complex mixes then I use the DAW and its automation. I have just stsrted doing this and so far everything works. There is a lag in the audio versus the faders but you get used to it.

The reason I may still consider mute in the future is to altogether do away with the DAW as I don't mind doing some mixes without it. Mute would be handy.

The RME or similar solution above is still cheap and it works NOW!

jim

Jellinghaus Music Systems (JMS) did it in the 80´s.

They used the normal faders (log) had an analog log/antilog-converter, 32/(64)ch multiplexer, 8-bit A/D and a 6809 controller board which sent the information via MIDI.

In mixdown the MIDI-infos were sent from the computer to the 6809-board, D/A converter, demultiplexer, 32(64)ch S/H and the output was fed to VCA-boards, SSM or dbx 2150.

This system was also sold as OEM-product to D&R and another mixer-manufacturer.

I have all the docs incl. binary-dumps since I was involved in this project.

The only problem:
The software was written for an Atari and as far as I know there was never released one for the PC (even when Dirk Matschuk was working on a PC-based version).

So if somebody is willing to program a software for the PC there shouln´t be much problems to have such a system.

analogguru

how to get more resolution out of the MIDI spec. How would you get more than 127 steps from 1 MIDI note volume?

Click to expand...

- Faders send pitch-bend control-values, so you'd need 1 MIDI-channel per Fader

Click to expand...

pitch-bend is 7 x 7 Bit so you'd have 16383 steps.

how long and how much it takes to do it in a way that results in a system that is faultless

Click to expand...

couldn't that been done in a group-work? i think a few people could be interested here and if these throw together their knowledge, what do they have to loose?

Stick to using a DAW and with the time and money make some preamps and compressors

Click to expand...

Jim, insert your DIY-compressor in a channel, set it up the way you want it and then move the virtual Fader in your DAW. What do you think happens?...

Chris

Analogguru,

I think that the other manufacturer might well have been Amek, since they used an audio fader for their "bolt-on" original supertrue (before 'supermove' and their later moving-fader supertrue) automation.

Here's the deal if you build your own hybrid: Among visiting engineers, nobody will like it.

If it's for you and nobody else to use, then that's okay I suppose, but bear in mind that resale will be zero.

Yes, I like moving faders, this week I'm finishing a project in Pro-Tools, and I'm using a 'Command-8' USB moving fader controller to do the fader automation, since I do agree that things can be input more swiftly and intuitively with a fader than with a mouse.

But to make something that works, then to be able to incorporate touch-sense, and have read/write handover is tricky.

Then trim of moving faders is a bitch. Flying faders NEVER got it to work correctly, the ONLY manufacturer who makes a REAL working system with real-time "hear-it-while-you-do-it" is SSL, and everybody hates those two (Ultimation and 9000 series) automation systems... and I'm fully inclined to agree.

If it's to be a learning experience then by all means go ahead, but if you're eager to make an easy-to-use system with ANY sort of real power, you really should probably just forget doing it yourself.

This is as complex as building your own car. -Sure, you COULD do it, but it wouldn't be as good as an off-the shelf one, even if you buy someone else's engine, a third-party transmission, and have all the glass custom made for you...

You'll end up with something significantly more expensive and MUCH less useful. -It may not look that way to you right now, but that's the truth.

And no offence intended to Analogguru, but nobody who I knew ever liked that system (assuming it was the same as the early AMEK supertrue... which is in fact possibly not the case). Certainly, of several of the MANY automation systems out there, Here's what I typically hear people say:

NECAM: how crap it was and how often it failed.
NECAM II: how often it failed.
NECAM 96: How can one company STILL make crap automation?
Flying faders: How easy and very good it is.
Melkuist: How limiting it was
Diskmix: See Melkuist
GML: How good it was
GML: How fussy/unreliable it was
GML: How bad it was (see a pattern here?)
SSL E/G VCA automation: how much people like it
SSL E/G series How bad it sounds (admittedly only ever heard from moving fader snobs)
SSL Ultimation: how irritating it is
SSL 9000: how overly complicated and confusing it is
Uptown: How good it is for the price
Supertrue: -How 'less-than-intuitive' it is... and why can't we get Flying Faders instead???

Keith

[quote author="chriss"][

Stick to using a DAW and with the time and money make some preamps and compressors

Click to expand...

Jim, insert your DIY-compressor in a channel, set it up the way you want it and then move the virtual Fader in your DAW. What do you think happens?...

Chris[/quote]


I didn't say it was perfect! If you want you can insert the compressors into the DAW path. Its clumsy but you can do it. Its a compromise for sure and the reason I am in this thread is because of my interest or "wish" for a moving fader system.

The mechanical/electronic part is probably very possible with all the brains here but the software is an altogether different beast. I write software for a living and although its not the kind that we would use for automation I know the process from 15+ years experience doing it everyday. Building an LA2A or a preamp is a small task and if you run into a problem one can post a question to try and get help here or with a friend technician. Building a moving fader system involves you being almost on your own! Unless you can get GML to hand over all the software and schematics and take it from there.

Maybe you are better off looking for a new or used moving fader system for cheap and try to improve it? I hate to sound negative but I think its easier to build your own mixer, and that is regarded as a gargantuan task in this forum as well!

With time and money one can accomplish it. In my case I would rather live with what I have and make music.

jim

hello people!!!
i did not want to confuse you.i think you missunderstood me.i didn t want to chance my faders in my mixer against the b.... midifaders.i ment it much more simple.i thought about connecting the midifaders (still in the
b.... box)mechanichaly to my one s in the mixer.(i have 100mm fader s ,the same size like the midifader s) it will take some mechanical work to connect them. i thougt about to control it out of my
cubase program than the midifader s will move and will pull and push my audiofader s . even recording the automation could be possible when i aktivate the automationrecording in my daw and move my fader s as i like ,the midi fader s will move the same way because the are connected to each other. and this is what my daw is going to rec.
because the are so cheap ,i could fit all fader s including the supgroups (with a dummy trac in my daw)with such a "adapter".than i have the possibilty to use every harddicrecordingprogram that has midi to control my fader s.may be it s crazy but i thought it s a good idea.please excuse my limited english.
thank s lothar

[quote author="Bluzzi"]Dale, you can interface your HD24 with lightpipe to a DAW.jim[/quote]

I don't have any PC (or Mac) anywhere near my studio - I mix and record totally out-of-the-box. Gives me an excuse to have 20 or 30 compressors in my rack... :grin:

Ok, I understand what you are asking about now. The damping of having both sets of faders connected together - and of any mechanical linkage - would likely upset the servo control of the motorized faders, and they would probably be very sluggish - or unstable. It might work ok if there is no friction added from the linkage, but any friction is likely to cause instability of fader position.

-Dale

Lothar,

Your English is fine! :grin: :thumb:

Well, that's certainly non-invasive, and it may work...

But of course "instructing" the fader positions will be difficult. You can't touch the audio faders without "fighting" the Behringer servos.

And the friction of the coupling to the audio faders will be considerable, and may cause the Behringer unit to stall/release, thinking that you're touching the fader cap... depending on how it determines user touch.

Of course, for that reason also, the mechanical coupling between the two has to be stable and repeatable, but if you get it to work, let us know!

:thumb:

I say try it, -but don't be surprised if it's more complicated than you think.

Keith