Any thoughts of expanding vertically the 500 series 51x rack? 4 space or more?

I like how the 51x uses an 18 pin connector to give more options. What about expanding the rack so it is perhaps 4 vertical spaces instead of 3? Something that is backwards compatible, but would have an extra 1.75" of space for more advanced modules to have more pots without trying to cram everything so close together.

that would break the ability to use all 500 and 51x series modules cuz they'd have nothing to mount to at the top of the modules.

I'm saying build it in a way that you can mount regular modules. Here is a conceptual way in which it could work. The regular 500 series makes use of a small adapter plate for support while the larger one makes use of a bigger pcb. The adapter plate is similar to how you would join two half rack width modules together. The edge connectors are the same for both.

If there was a demand, yes we would do it but I don't see it turning into a standard format. Also I do not see the need to expand vertically when you can horizontally.

I would welcome this.

The API 536 / 544 module that Bojl is working on, is another example to house configurations that require a larger size.
http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=39204.0
I am working on a module where I would like to fit a 100mm fader + a few rotary control's (like Pan), there is no way you can cramp this into a 500/51x format.

If the 536/544 module-size = 2x 500/51x height (likely 1.5" wide x 10.5" tall, can someone confirm this?)
and the 200 module-size = 0.5x 500/51x height (PCB is 2" x 5.75", faceplate is 1.5" wide x 2.625" tall.)

I would suggest: 1.5x 500/51x height = faceplate 1.5" wide x 7.875" tall, as a format.
With backplane connectors to fit 500-bottom + 200-top arrangement. (so you could fit a 200 unit above a 500 unit in the same rack)
i suggest we could call this the 700/71x format

Theo

would be nice to fit some DBX modules inside too.
don't forget some further PSU features for Tube modules.
Some MIDI / USB bus would be nice ...

... but please keep it backward compatible to standard API 200 & 500 & DBX modules 8)

[silent:arts] said:

... but please keep it backward compatible to standard API 200 & 500 & DBX modules 8)

Click to expand...

That is exactly why I would propose for a 500+200=700 format and to standardize backplane connectors and locations based on a 500 + 200 configuration. Keep it simple, don't invent anything new if you don't need to.

If we are on this topic anyway....
Since I am working on modules that will need bus connections between the modules, I would favor some standard for an additional right-hand backplane feature connector (18-pins), and in a '700' format preferably two...

grT

there is already the V700 standard  ;D

[silent:arts] said:

there is already the V700 standard  ;D

Click to expand...

Yep, ADT is doing great stuff!
I do not believe the backplane-connectors are compatible to the 500/51x/200 arrangements.
I would vote to stay as close as possible to the standards currently used in many projects, as you already stated.

looks like we do not need to invent to much stuff.
Some community blessing would be welcome!

Theo

As input for the 71x format and possible rack arrangements discussion.
I was thinking something like this:

[silent:arts] said:

there is already the V700 standard  ;D

Click to expand...

Wasn't aware of that brand  :, the build quality looks like the shizzle...,
nice set of candys as well, reminds me of those Gummy bears haha....

The ADT V700 format is unique in every aspect...
http://www.adt-audio.com/Audio_Modules/Module_Construction.html

The single slot 5U cassette is the standard housing for almost all the processing units and amplifiers of the V700 audio module system. The single slot module is 45.7 mm wide, 212.5 mm high and 220 mm deep.

The gold plated, 50-pin connector has a standard connection schema for all the power supply rails, the audio inputs and outputs, and the control ports as well. All units require an audio supply voltage of +/- 25 V for optimum performance but work with slightly reduced headroom with any voltage above +/- 18 V. The difference in headroom between 25 V and 18 V is approx. 3 dB. Internal low drop voltage regulators and filters avoid crosslinking of audio signals across the supply voltages. A separate lamps and relay supply (24 V) separates the audio supply from click noise and disturbances due to switching processes. Microphone amplifiers require an additional 48 V phantom power supply voltage.

Click to expand...

Theo

Looked at the DBX 900 standard recently?

emrr said:

Looked at the DBX 900 standard recently?

Click to expand...

I think the last time, before today, was somewhere in 1982 when I used the 900 chassis for DBX-911 noise reduction on a 24-track.... and I had a 'PA-rack' with (beloved!) 903/904 modules. 

Are there any projects that build on the 900 standard?
So far I could only find a thread where someone wants to fit a '500-module' in a 900-rack: http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=44224.0

grT

Something like this?  http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=40610.msg503046#msg503046
2 in, 2 out, +/- 16V +/- 24V +40V +48V, dedicated + 24V lamp & relay power, stereo link, etc.
Dual Mid 1084 built and being used, API 312 + 550b prototype being tested now with photos as soon as the front panels arrive, Trident channel strip on the drawing board.
Best,
Bruno2000

Nice job Bruno! Respect!

If I had a blank sheet of paper to build a new standard, I would go for a 1.75"x1.75" grid approach (which is 1U height in 19" equipment).
My current background is in ICT, so it is 19" brainwashed....
- This would fit best with existing 19" equipment and racks.
- 10 modules would fit a 19" rack side-by-side well (I know we are not thinking in 10 increments)
- one could even use 19" rack modules side-ways (vertically) in a standard 19"rack (will take 11U height and a set of 'cross-bracktes/sub-chassis')
- you could apply 19" rails for building mixers, as 19" racks horizontally (19" rails are widely available)
- 9.5"x1U is also used for certain equipment.
- 1.75" would provide a little better real-estate working-space for placing 'double-row' pot's and switches.
- You can still be 'modular' within a 19" or 9.5" housing, 2/4/6x1.75" for example.

The down-sides:
- 0.25" extra width (compared to the 500/51x standard), add's up with high-count channel desks
- The rack mounting takes relative a lot of real-estate: 1.5" total not counting the 'play' of the rails
- So many DIY designs are 500/51x format based

and then of course, there is the choice of the backplane multi-connector....

grT

Balijon said:

I would suggest: 1.5x 500/51x height = faceplate 1.5" wide x 7.875" tall, as a format.
With backplane connectors to fit 500-bottom + 200-top arrangement. (so you could fit a 200 unit above a 500 unit in the same rack)
i suggest we could call this the 700/71x format

Click to expand...

I like this idea of a 500+200 arrangement. Isn't the 200 narrower though? Also I think the height should be some standard 1.75 multiple for racking purposes.

john12ax7 said:

I like this idea of a 500+200 arrangement. Isn't the 200 narrower though?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, the API-200 is narrower. Edit: it is 1.25" wide.
http://www.apiaudio.com/l200r.html

I took the 200 info for the extension discussion from one of the build projects here (9k preamp) that was 1.5" wide and 2.625" tall.

grT

I would be most grateful if someone could provide an overview of the various API module-panel dimensions, used in various desks.

grT

I have a couple of pairs of top/boottom plate and two back plates of 511 left over from the second batch. All I need to do is the two side plates. Very busy this week but I can knock a prototype by the end of next week. I'll discuss with my 511 bros.