Routing at top or bottom of channel strip?

The prototype Mark III tube mixer will be built on a frame that has a 3U space at thr top and the 6U space below it and the faders at the bottom. There are two ways I can juggle the modules that make up the channel strip.

The conventional way would have the mic pre at the top (in 3U), then the EQ in the next 3U down and lastly the routing in the final 3U .

Alternatively I could place the routing in the top 3U. The 6U below would be a complete channel amp - mic pre plus EQ. My personal preference is for this arrangement. First because it means channel amps are stand alone units so you can have different types with different EQs and just plug and play. Secondly, I can rack complete channel amps and sell them. Thirdly, routing is pretty much set and forget so having it at the top of the strip is not really an inconvenience. People tend to change EQ and mic gain more frequently than anything else.

Opinions?

Cheers

Ian

For personal use do whatever floats your boat, for commercial use it should follow some accepted convention. Happiness is not having to explain to customers why your layout is unconventional.

Layouts have been well explored and there is a tension between doing what makes the electrons happy, and what makes the humans happy. Since electrons don't pay for the product, the human operator usually wins any conflict.

JR 

Hello

Both option are valid and used around
I tend to follow your personal preference Ian, with routing at top (including pan ?)
But it also depend of bus count...

Best
Zam

Stick them at the top

Routing switches are a monstrous waste of space, IMHO, and the whole concept needs revisiting. IIRC the SSL 4000B had two rotary switches - a great space saver but only allowed routing to two buses. It didn't last, nor did the routing panel on the Neve 8108

Nick Froome

Routing at the top.  Definitely.

zamproject said:

Hello

Both option are valid and used around
I tend to follow your personal preference Ian, with routing at top (including pan ?)
But it also depend of bus count...

Best
Zam

Click to expand...

The prototype will be a simple 8 into 2 so routing would include PAN, AUXes (2), Solo and mute. There is just the one stereo bus. The frame will be 12 modules wide which is enough for 8 channels and 4 bus amps. Later I hope to build the nest size up which would be 24 modules wide at which point there would be space enough for more bus amps so ir would probably be 16 into 4?

Thanks for all the replies. Consensus seems to be leaning towards routing at the top.

Thanks everyone.

Cheers

ian

I've owned consoles with routing in both locations and I didn't develop a preference for one over the other.  I'd say do whatever makes sense for you as the designer.

ruffrecords said:

The prototype will be a simple 8 into 2 so routing would include PAN, AUXes (2), Solo and mute. There is just the one stereo bus. The frame will be 12 modules wide which is enough for 8 channels and 4 bus amps. Later I hope to build the nest size up which would be 24 modules wide at which point there would be space enough for more bus amps so ir would probably be 16 into 4?

Click to expand...

Ok... then I change my mind
To me routing at top make more sense with high bus selector count, to not hold room at the bottom frame where easier access is for more obvious operations (like you say)
PAN and AUXs should be fine both location, but I definitely will put solo and mute at fader bay.
So if you have no room at fader bay for those switches/selector, I'll put your routing module at bottom...

Anyway, 9U (angled?) is not that deep even with 4U fader addition, as far as you don't need to lengthen on the desk for upper section access everything is viable  :

Best
Zam

@Zam

Solo and mute at fader bay is possible. I plan to use a single toggle for this like the Studer 169.

The current console shape was partly dictated by Frank Rollen. The original design was deeper but Frank had a problem at that time handling aluminium sheet larger than 500mm by 500mm. So the profile has about 4U horizontal for the faders, then 6U at about 45 degrees and lastly a 3U vertical space (looks a bit like some early Helios consoles). If I extend the depth of the profile to about 600mm  I can get all 9U in a straight line at an angle of about 30 degrees (more like a Neve Kelso). Maybe that will be the Mark III version 2 ??

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

Solo and mute at fader bay is possible. I plan to use a single toggle for this like the Studer 169.

Click to expand...

That's ok for small desk where you don't need to roll the chair to solo two distant modules  8)
You'll be fine regarding your frame configuration.
I guess you study the logic and on-off-(on) switch since we talk about it month ago
Did you plan to replace FET by relay ? as it's semiconductor in signal pass  :

ruffrecords said:

The current console shape was partly dictated by Frank Rollen. The original design was deeper but Frank had a problem at that time handling aluminium sheet larger than 500mm by 500mm. So the profile has about 4U horizontal for the faders, then 6U at about 45 degrees and lastly a 3U vertical space (looks a bit like some early Helios consoles). If I extend the depth of the profile to about 600mm  I can get all 9U in a straight line at an angle of about 30 degrees (more like a Neve Kelso). Maybe that will be the Mark III version 2 ??

Click to expand...

Do you need 3U vertical for just PAN and two AUXs knobs ? 2U should fit but maybe you need 3U for other modules/option (like Vu at master and monitor modules)

Best
Zam

zamproject said:

That's ok for small desk where you don't need to roll the chair to solo two distant modules  8)
You'll be fine regarding your frame configuration.
I guess you study the logic and on-off-(on) switch since we talk about it month ago
Did you plan to replace FET by relay ? as it's semiconductor in signal pass  :

Click to expand...

Definitely a relay. No semiconductors in the signal path!

Do you need 3U vertical for just PAN and two AUXs knobs ? 2U should fit but maybe you need 3U for other modules/option (like Vu at master and monitor modules)

Best
Zam

Click to expand...

No, but there is also pre/post switches and an insert switch. For larger versions with more inputs I would want to use the same space  for four  buses and four AUXes. Also you are correct about needing space for meters.

3U is 133mm. You lose 10mm top and bottom due to fixings to extrusions. Front panel is 35mm wide so there is only 113mm x 35mm into which you can fit controls.

Cheers

Ian

Having EQs closest to you is a good thing.

Since you mentioned selling modules separate,  have you considered separating the pre and EQ? I'm not saying you should,  but wondering about demand for pre+eq vs  buying them independently.

john12ax7 said:

Having EQs closest to you is a good thing.

Since you mentioned selling modules separate,  have you considered separating the pre and EQ? I'm not saying you should,  but wondering about demand for pre+eq vs  buying them independently.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. It is fairly easy to separate out the pre and one of the mixer options I mentioned earlier has a 3U pre and a separate 3U EQ. The pre is active and I have been providing 3U  rack mounting lunch boxes with four tube pres and a built in power supply to studios for the last couple of years. The new designs will allow 8 pres to be fitted in a 3U rack instead of 4.

All my EQs are passive so they need an amp for gain make up and that is normally provided by one of the amps in my pres. So it is straightforward to combine a pre and an EQ into one unit but not so easy to provide an EQ on its own.

Bottom line is a lot of people want to buy pres or pres with built in EQ.  Very few people seem interested in EQ on its own. I designed PCB versions of my three main EQs with built in tube gain make up and I have sold practically none of them.

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

Bottom line is a lot of people want to buy pres or pres with built in EQ.  Very few people seem interested in EQ on its own. I designed PCB versions of my three main EQs with built in tube gain make up and I have sold practically none of them.

Click to expand...

Wasn't aware of this,  so certainly makes sense to combine them.

I always wanted consoles mixer to havecthe strip go from top to bottom as follows

Auxes, busses, panning as a module.  Then  the Pre, eq, dynamics as a modules.  Lastly faders.

pucho812 said:

I always wanted consoles mixer to havecthe strip go from top to bottom as follows

Auxes, busses, panning as a module.  Then  the Pre, eq, dynamics as a modules.  Lastly faders.

Click to expand...

That is basically the plan (pre and EQ may be separate or combined into one module). I really must get around to doing a tube compressor.

Cheers

ian

ruffrecords said:

I really must get around to doing a tube compressor.

Click to expand...

Can't agree more 

Best
Zam

Here is a picture of the frame I am talking about:



You can see the 3U space at the top sporting a couple of the new 35mm modules. The sloping 6U section is below that, then there is space for a scribble strip and the horizontal bit is for the faders.

Cheers

Ian

Hi Ian

Look great.
Unfortunately I see an issue, difficult to tell as you put so many effort for all this  :-\
The angle is too "vertical", I mean it's great for modular syth and peripheral at side of a control room, but doing this way the vertical space will mask a lot at listening spot, monitors will certainly request to be set up way upper horizontal eyes and ears plan,
There is also the side panels as the frame is short (19" ?), reflection can be problematic in the vertical plan

I'll definitely invert the frame position...
What is the current height ?

BUT if this console is designed to be a side car, not the centre piece of the control room, this make total sense

Definitely not a critics, I just try to help and anticipate

Best
Zam

Yes, I also was envisioning it rotated 90 degrees.