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

[john12ax7]

What would be the optimum vertical rack height? 4space gives extra room without being too big. 500/200 combo would imply 5 space, but how feasible is it with adapter plates given the size differences? 6 space would allow 2 500 series on top of each other but perhaps too big.

 

[gemini86]

API 200 card is 5.75" long, as apposed to the 500, which is 5.94 something...

http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=44160.msg552110#msg552110

The pinout is also very different, fingers in different location and on a .1" spacing, rather than 500's .156.

Already mentioned before is the smaller width of the 200, but not mentioned is the card is mounted closer to the left edge of the face, something like 1/8". If you want to start a new format, make it NEEEEWWWW! Nothing incredible was made for the 200 series that isn't made for the 500 series also.

 

[bruce0]

While I am invested in API format gear, I can see the need. But why re-invent the wheel. 

There is a whole set of DIN standard Subrack formats, in various standardized depths and heights, 3 and 6U for sure, and I think 9U too.  And there are companies out there that make racks that adjust to fit this stuff.  It can be expensive, but in group buys I am sure it can be managed.  Generally fits 19" racks, and is measured in HP's (horizontal pitch) and has standard widths that are on the order of the widths you are speaking of.  Furthermore, there are various connectors on the back that would avoid the whole "gold finger" connector thing, which is a real pain in the neck, and replace it with a standard format connector potentially, or stick with card edge connectors. (http://www.vectorelect.com/ is one company, but there are lots of others search DIN subrack)

Alternatively there there are existing card standards from various consoles, some famous, some less so.  Before re-inventing, copy.

But I have to say that I think the great thing about what is happening, in no small part due to this board, to the API standard is good for DIY, and good for the board, and for analog audio.  And to dilute that might be an error. 

Can you chain modules vertically, or create a "channel strip" of modules, and thus gain the advantage of additional board space and front panel space, without re-inventing the format?  Jeff's Classic API buckets can be stacked.

Some sort of method to connect auxiliary cards or front panel space (faders etc) but allow the core units to stay API, might be better.

And while I have said too much already.... I just can't shut up.

I think that if there is to be a new architecture, the way power is distributed needs a look.  I think a single supply with isolated DC-DC converters locally in every card/rack could put a permanent end to the ground loop noise problems ( so instead of having 3 different voltages on 5 different rails, or more, just perhaps a high current 48 volt supply and an isolated DC-DC converter locally.)

The analog purists may cringe, but you can still be analog with isolated power supplies, and stop fighting the ground problem in large consoles.

I am totally wrong on this? I have drifted well beyond my expertise level here.

 

[mulletchuck]

I do wish that the 51x modules each had an on/off button in them.  Right now, you have to just pull them out of the rack.  I'm still in a small space location and power consumption is still a bill at the end of the month.   

 

[Balijon]

Thank you for your post Bruco0!

I think that this forum reflects well what has happened in the music industry.
Commoditization:
In many area's consumer priced-products have reached quality levels beyond expectations that were thought impossible some years ago, especially in the digital domain. Some industry standards are immensely strong like 19"/U housing formats.
The Harley-Davidson effect:
The individual 'dress-up' as you like and need effect, changes the market. The days of large desks with a 'one-size' fits all approach are over, we want to 'dress' as we go. The power of the 500/51x format has contributed huge to this effect. If Neve builds modules on a API format, something really has happened.... 
Pay as you grow:
DIY and modularization next to a dynamic 'used market', make it possible to match financial resources more manageable and accessible than traditional major investments related to buying and selling of a complete (large) desk.
Hunt for tonal-character and color:
The modular approach provides a platform to specifically choose your tool for the job, just like a microphone has done for decades...
This has become more important as more items in the chain become neutral, like digital recording vs multi-track-tape-recorders.
Plug and Play:
The 500/51x format has largely contributed in a new flexibility that is easy to use for the enduser, providing a stable platform (although based on a old standard with it's limitations) with many vendors supporting it. It has become the USB of analog-audio (and yes, there are 'Firewire' alternatives, for all the good reasons, available).

The big change taking place, is the move from additional 'lunchbox' to 'basic infrastructure'.

The discussion in this topic started around the question to which extend we can 'stretch' the current 500/51x standard on a height-
dimensional level. Obviously we have the 'double-width-module' variation adopted.
Clearly the 500/51x success 'wave', triggers other areas that we want the concept to expand and explore too. Personally I would like to move from 'the Rack' to 'the Desk'. For this application, i need modular dimensions beyond the current 3U/5.25" size, just like API needed them too for their channel modules.

A 6U/10.5" size would be easy to adopt, as it is similar to 'double-width' only oriented differently, so that one is relative easy.
It becomes a little more complex if you want a 6U 19"rack to be partial fitted with 10.5" height-units and 5.25" height-units, but solvable with some additional brackets.

John12ax7 and my question is about an intermediate height format between 3U/5.25" and 6U/10.5".
Logical options would be 4U/7", 4.5U/7.875" and 5U/8.75".
- 4U&5U would adapt well to the 19" racking standard.
- 4.5U would adhere to used API module sizes, which modular architecture is build on increments of 1.5U/2.625".
x.5U height 19"-equipment is also not uncommon within the ICT.
As the 1.5" module-width does not fit 19" rack's optimal (8/10/11-modules in a 19"-rack), both are sub-optimal anyway.
-> So the 'simple' question is: Do we stick with API or do we stick with full-Rack-U's?

Related to this additional height variation, is a second related question:
Would the differential size to the 3U/5.25" module make sense as a separate module-height-size?
In case of 5U/8.75" this would be 2U/3.5", in case of 4.5U/7.875" this would be 1.5U/2.625".

All around is the 500/51x format ideal? No, but not always the best technology wins, but the one that is most adopted does.
(like VHS won from Betamax & V2000 because they supported porn....)  8)
I think we should open a requirements topic for a potential new and more modern (DIN-subrack? based) standard.
It would be most valuable if we could create an overview somewhere of various vendor dimensional standards used.
Like: API 1.5"/1.25" width, Neve 1.75"/1.4"width, SSL/Midas/DDA 1.6"width, Raindirk 1,575"width...etc.

Theo

 

[john12ax7]

Some good discussion so far. For me I tend to lean towards 1.5" width and a standard size rack height so 4U or 5U but not 4.5, simply because they integrate so well with commercially available products and can be used inline. Inline is key, which is why I don't care for double wide for mono 500 series units.

I've attached a pic with Andrew from Purple Audio. This is sort of what I envision, a combination of rack and 500 series that could be turned into a basic console. You can see on the left 4U high units with same 1.5" width. Gives you so many customizable configurations. The backplane on the new taller unit doesn't necessarily even need to be API compatible, but the 1.5" width is pretty critical imo.

 

[john12ax7]

Here is the pic

 

[mulletchuck]

sweet, bruh!  *hands john12ax7* a copy of EAGLE*  make it happen.    :

 

[ruckus328]

(like VHS won from Betamax & V2000 because they supported porn....)  8)

Well there you have it, the new format should definatley support porn then.....

 

[kepeb]

I was under the impression that the small 'lunchbox' 500 format was popularized and primarily addressed size and portability.

I wouldn't have jumped on board otherwise
go beyond 3U and its not a 'lunch box' its a suitcase!
two of these and we're back to full size rack wheeled flight cases. what's the point.

if its about building customised modular desks that are less portable then I think that is also pretty much covered from every angle already too.

 

[Balijon]

if its about building customised modular desks that are less portable then I think that is also pretty much covered from every angle already too.

Yes, customizable desks are part of this discussion.
The general theme here is: we are moving beyond the lunchbox to flexible infrastructure.
We have equipment requirements that does not fit the 1.5x3U format anymore, and need to be 'in-line'.
Please help us with some links.

btw 3U 11-module 19"-racks are not quite 'lunchbox' anymore IMO.

grT

 

[[silent:arts]]

you can't do a standard fitting all needs.
one reason we have so many different standards for the same purpose

there have been many discussions here before about a DIY module standard, with no result.
some want MIDI and/or USB etc, some want tube voltages (and current), some want pins for a 48 routing matrix, summing busses etc.

think about the needed PSU if you want to make sure the rack can have either 11 tube modules or either 11 routing modules etc ...

a universal module standard fitting all needs will never exist.

 

[kepeb]

OK,
apologies if my last post came off as a downer.
so as to make more of a thoughtful contribution I will explain.

It appears what you are suggesting is an adaptable card/standard connector format ala 500/51x.
this could be used to house any number of different units (comps,pres,eq,faders,routing,fx), like 51x.
but bigger. right?

there is already the 500, 200 and standard rack units and more, lots of which are redundant.

In an ideal situation, I would have a desk comprised of choice DIY 500/51x preamps,choice 500 Eq's below then a permanent bank of faders and routing of my choice/design at the bottom.
then the modular option to fill an additional 500 rack above my pre's with comp/vu meter choices.
It may be harder to visualise without a picture/concept but what you are looking at is an empty bucket of a desk with just faders/routing at the bottom.

these dreams are probably always going to be far beyond my budget but very similar ideas are already far into development (see jsteigers modular desk 500 format thread and nishmasters current desk design ideas right next to this post)

the option to then remove one of each pre/comp/eq/etc and put them temporarily into a 'lunchbox' creates a familiar 'on location' customizable stereo setup, or bank of 8 pres for recording with ease.
all this will fit on the passengers seat of my tiny rusted out shitbox of a car and can be carried by one person.

lets not forget the balanced xlr format which was (relatively) recently standardised internationally and is recognised, and easy to interconnect with other gear is on all 1U gear. just flip this rack sideways, put on a fader and incorporate it into aforementioned desk all the options are already there. I really don't see the need for yet another format unless it fills a gap.

also with 2U power 1U interface and the 511, you can take a mini case and record an entire band on your laptop with high end gear (la3as,1073's,312's etc.)

I'm sure others will disagree.

what units specifically would this format accommodate?

 

[john12ax7]

Kepeb, I can totally visualize your console concept, we share some of the same dreams 

As far as units the S800 eq might be the perfect candidate to start, or EQs in general as you are forced to used concentric pots and switches in 500 series.

I posted this in the S800 thread on diy-racked but how about this for a proposal:
A 19" rackmount chassis 4U or 5U high with XLRs on the back. Modules would be 1.5" wide and screw in on the front ala 500 series. We could even dispense with the edge connector for now and just wire manually to the XLRs. The advantage and niche this fills is the metalwork and power supply infrastructure for multiple units is already done. Isn't the 51x power supply a beast? You could even use that to power a 51x rack and a new 4U or 5U rack. New units can be developed with a pcb and a 1.5"x4U (or 5U) front plate and then just wired into an existing rack.

 

[kepeb]

direct wired to chassis xlrs, Without any card edges/connectors or plug and play type modues... its not modular.
what you are talking about is a 4/5u rack case with eq's in. vertically.
there are plenty of 2u - 4 x s800 units here on the forum that i have seen, you could likely even use the same pcb's.

besides this i dont think s800 is an impossibility in 500.

EDIT:
I hope the other forum member doesn't mind me linking to his blog
http://blog.benlindell.com/?category_name=s800

4x s800 in 2U

 

[Balijon]

As far as units the S800 eq might be the perfect candidate to start, or EQs in general as you are forced to used concentric pots and switches in 500 series.

I dislike the concentric's and 'shaft-through' switches too, always a problem in purchasing...
I would like to use the 4U/5U/6U size for (basic) fader/aux/routing purposes too, to build basic desk infrastructure as kepeb's dream.
But far more modular than building 'big-desk's' (like Tree Audio), more like Purple-Audio is developing, more pay-as-you-grow.

Until now every build in this area is more or less unique from a housing and backplane-connecter perspective.
I would prefer the bottom 3U section as-is in the 51x standard, using the fine developed solutions available.
The top 1U/2U/3U extension section, I would like to use for 'special' backplanes, like busses, matrix, midi high-voltage etc.

Theo

 

[kepeb]

I would prefer the bottom 3U section as-is in the 51x standard, using the fine developed solutions available.
The top 1U/2U/3U extension section, I would like to use for 'special' backplanes, like busses, matrix, midi high-voltage etc.

Theo

Indeed, what I had thought for this, in light of the recent tube 500 designs was a second connector strip (same as 51x) mounted flush directly beside the current 500/51x 15/18pin connector.

This way, units requiring additional/different connections would have the board mounted on the opposite side (right from front) of the module on an additional connector strip for HT, routing or midi or digital or whatever. utilizing both 18 (or a 36 + 18 for double sided) pin strips if necessary.  this way you can expand further but still maintain full compatibility with standard units.
as with 51x.

By the way, if someone picks this up seriously I want in. you heard it here first

 

[ruffrecords]

Since this topic seems to have broadened to include mixers/consoles/desks and that is my particular area of interest, I thought I would chip in with my twopennyworth

For me, a major concern is the availability of flexible mechanical components at reasonable prices and this really means going with some existing standard that is made in quantity by several manufacturers. Unfortunately the 500/510X series does not meet this criteria as there is no standard for the mechanical construction and components parts are rarely available. So instead I have chosen to use the DIN sub-rack and Eurocard system. Components are readily available from a number of manufacturers on both sides of the pond and because they are made in quantity the prices are quite reasonable and the most common kits are available from the standard distributors like Farnell.

Other advantages that I see of using the DIN standard sub-rack are:

1. Both backplanes and individual connectors are supported plus a very wide range of connectors variants is supported. I have standardised on a 32 way 0.2 inch pitch connector which gives me more ways than a 510X and a spacing that allows me to place tube HT voltages on adjacent pins.

2. Highly variable module widths.

3. Standard Eurocard has almost exactly the same area as a 500/510X PCB

4. Standard front panel fixings.

5. Pre-drilled blank panels readily available (ideal for prototyping)

6. Different rack depths are available allowing you to build in power supplies for example without consuming modules space.

One manufacturer even does a 3U+1 sub-rack that allows you to fit 3U modules with either a 3U or 4U front panel.

Cheers

Ian

 

[bruce0]

Ian

In using the DIN rack based systems have you had any trouble with getting chassis' to be tight enough not to vibrate in the studio?  I have played around a little with some systems that seemed designed to rattle!  Though I have to say the DIN based attempts I have made are quiet

(I am not talking about electronic noise here, but actual rattles from modules, rails, etc.)

 

[ruffrecords]

Ian

In using the DIN rack based systems have you had any trouble with getting chassis' to be tight enough not to vibrate in the studio?  I have played around a little with some systems that seemed designed to rattle!  Though I have to say the DIN based attempts I have made are quiet

(I am not talking about electronic noise here, but actual rattles from modules, rails, etc.)

No, I can't say I have ever noticed any problems with rattles. There may well be some variation between manufaturers though - I know several of the more popular ones now seem to include little locating pips on the cross bars that help them sit firmly in place. Most manufacturers do versions designed for railway usage where vibration and rattles are a serious problem.

Cheers

Ian