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