11 Slot DIY API 500 series rack

[[silent:arts]]

how would you do it ?

 

[sahib]

There will not be a price difference between 11 and 12 slot racks in terms of the rack case. The additional cost will be due to the additional set of connectors and the PCB. At this very moment we are not able to give you a firm price but I am working on it. As you will appreciate it depends on the quantity to get a price break.

However, as Volker indicated it is promising to be considerably lower than the ones available on the market, as it has always been our aim.

11 slot prototype is hopefully going to be completed within a few days. I was sent the cutting files for approval today and I corrected few things. So the sheet should be under the laser tomorrow.

Finaly, both units are designed as flat pack, self assembly. Screw holes on the side panels are countersunk therefore in case of inserting it into a chassis the clearance should not be a problem.

 

[Cpartipilo]

NICE!!  i like self assembled cases.  That will bring down shipping considerably.

Especially for us in this side of the pond.

 

[mohthom]

how would you do it ?

Rat's nest 

If I understand correctly, the traces will still be present for the breakouts as well as for XLRs - it's not an either/or is it?
Either install the multipin connectors and have a crazy mass of wiring somewhere . . .
Or don't install the multipin connectors and be very organised.

I guess I'm making a couple of assumptions on how much space is in there (i.e. there has to be some clearance behind the XLRs, right?  IIRC, about 20mm?), but with some creative wiring and two DSUB sized holes in the back or the rack unit, shouldn't this be possible?  Just like a Y-split!

 

[dandeurloo]

sorry if I stirred up a mess of dreaming here.  I guess I thought the same type of thing we could cascade through Dbus to another rack.  Something like:

pres-eq-comps-mixer

I thought this is what the 12 space was for so it could be built into a desk as a modular mixer?  Kind of in steps as the project progresses as long as the connections are there. 

But I would say if the price is cheap enough I wouldn't mind getting this one ASAP for traveling and maybe explore a mixer future down the road.  I am just really hoping someone will make a DIY project or commercial High quality small format mixer that suit my need finally.

If we could all only have a API console. ;D

 

[jsteiger]

...If we could all only have a API console. ;D

Oh...but we can...and we will... ;D

 

[[silent:arts]]

51X module specification

 

[Biasrocks]

51X module specification

I apologize if this has been discussed.

Why no connections for the Gain Trim and -2 outputs?

I realize that these probably see little use, but why not include them.

Mark

 

[[silent:arts]]

...
I realize that these probably see little use, but why not include them.

you have given the answer already

 

[jsteiger]

51X module specification

I apologize if this has been discussed.

Why no connections for the Gain Trim and -2 outputs?

I realize that these probably see little use, but why not include them.

Mark

I apologize too as I'm way late to this party. Busy with other things.

Just a thought, could all of the unused pins be bused together with jumper points between each connector? Also maybe an allocation for a Molex header between each? This would allow the user the option for a balanced insert point on each module. For say a 2 stage preamp or an "input channel". Or with the jumper option, you could fit the jumpers and have a couple of full bus tracks for summing. Daisey chain the buckets together and sum elsewhere.

Maybe this should be dedicated to an entire PCB for the console aspect only, not mix the ideas.

Jeff

 

[[silent:arts]]

??? ???
mail me a draft drawing what you exactly mean.
I will have a look what I can implement.

 

[jsteiger]

??? ???
mail me a draft drawing what you exactly mean.
I will have a look what I can implement.

Volker, I will put some things together. After a little more thought, I believe the "console" backplanes should be a separate and different beast(s). I also think an important goal is to utilize the same enclosure for each PCB/task. Different boards will be no problem.

Also, on the PCB for input channels, I think the spacing and position for the card edge connectors must not be the same as 500 series. This will eliminate problems of accidentally plugging a standard 500 module into the "input channel" rack.

Cheers, Jeff

 

[TheJames]

Not sure how many of you have seen this...I noticed it a while back...

http://petesplaceaudio.com/MARK_VIII.html


Purple has the most *******ized 500 series racks and modules on the market from what I recall seeing on their site.

DB-25's are cool...But when making 11 and 12 slot racks, a different style multi-pin sure would be convenient.

Making a modular mixer system starts to get a little complicated because of routing and inserts and what-not.

For instance...I load up three 12 slot chassis.  1 with mic-pres, 1 with compressors, and 1 with EQs.

For ultimate flexibility, I need a routing module with:

2 sets of inputs, 1 from the mic pre chassis and another from an aux (read line) input.
1 set of I/O for the EQ rack
1 set of I/O  for the compressor rack
1 set of outputs for sending to a mixing/summing module

Now you need some routing logic (read lots of switches/relays) to select:

Mic-pre only
Mic-pre to comp then EQ
Mic-pre to EQ then comp
Mic-pre to comp only (as not everything has a bypass switch)
Mic-pre to EQ only (as not everything has a bypass switch)

And let's not even think about the mic-pre I want is in slot 2, the comp I want is in slot 10 and the EQ I want is in slot 5.

Then after that mess you've got summing to do.  Maybe I want to sum a couple of channels down to one track for recording a multi-mic'd guitar amp.  Maybe I want to create some monitor mixes.  Maybe I want to sum my whole mix.  That's where the mixing/summing module comes into play.

How many inputs?  How many outputs?  Passive?  Active?  Faders?  Pots?  Automation?  It gets to be pretty silly after awhile.

And all of those options take up design time, add cost for stuff that some people won't use etc.

Just think about it pretty carefully before running head-first down that path.

 

[Cpartipilo]

I say keep it simple, super cheap and let people use a patch bay!

If you want something more complex i'm sure a new backplane could be made.  After the initial batch then the guys might be able to design different boards for the same case with different options.

For the 1st project i'd say keep it as simple as possible.

 

[jsteiger]

Very good points, all of them.

But, a lot of the routing things mentioned and options should be handled by normalled and half-normalled points at the patchbay. It is impossible to pull off a project of this size without one.

Also, on my board, I don't use the mounting screws for any of my 500 modules. If I want a 560 on the snare top instead of a 550, quick hot swap the modules and your are done. Or with no eq, I need to insert a jumper card.

A project like this can never be all things to all people.

This process has been occupying my brain for the last 2 years I have been wrenching on my desk.

It's a very big project and not for everyone. But completely within reach, IMHO.

Cheers, Jeff

 

[jsteiger]

I say keep it simple, super cheap and let people use a patch bay!

If you want something more complex i'm sure a new backplane could be made.  After the initial batch then the guys might be able to design different boards for the same case with different options.

For the 1st project i'd say keep it as simple as possible.

Hah. I type too slow. 

Yes. All of these thoughts would be new a completely separate boards.

Jeff

 

[dandeurloo]

Also, on my board, I don't use the mounting screws for any of my 500 modules. If I want a 560 on the snare top instead of a 550, quick hot swap the modules and your are done. Or with no eq, I need to insert a jumper card.

Is any worried that to much swapping in and out may wear down the conections on the cards?


Also, I agree if the metal work can be the same and swapping out cards foe future expansion or new design that could use the same metal work to work on a mixer of sorts would be a great idea.  Help keep cost down like Ford vs. GMC.

 

[[silent:arts]]

Yes. All of these thoughts would be new a completely separate boards.

which is no problem.
special modules for routing and / or summing sound interesting.
but I doubt you want to fit a routing module next to a MicPre and EQ, you would like to have it in the "console style". where an extra Backplane with the same metalwork makes sense.

 

[jsteiger]

...Is any worried that to much swapping in and out may wear down the conections on the cards?

Also, I agree if the metal work can be the same and swapping out cards foe future expansion or new design that could use the same metal work to work on a mixer of sorts would be a great idea.  Help keep cost down like Ford vs. GMC.

Funny(not really) how you don't hear much about Ford these days but GM is still on the verge of going under. We must let them go. They should not run that company like Government. I am tired of all this bailout BS. Nobody is bailing me out of anything.

Anyhow, no worries on the cards. They get swapped out but not as much as a patchbay cable. I just give them a little wipe with some DN5 every now and again. The gold fingers are still fine as can be.

Interchangeable PCB backplanes in the same metal enclosure is a very key point. Very versatile system.

Cheers, Jeff

 

[mitsos]

If I want a 560 on the snare top instead of a 550, quick hot swap the modules and your are done.

When you say hot swap, do you really mean you pull modules out without powering down? Is that OK to do?