API 'The Box'

[ruffrecords]

lets go over what we need and want. If it were up to me, we would build 16 channels of line input only modules that have direct out and or  8 buses, a few auxes all tied together to a master section, we can do solo's and cuts too if we like.  The master section should have the usual master section equipment. There done. Everything else eq's, pre's, compressors we already have so why bother trying to work that into  something we don't need. this also eliminates cost. I

As a mixer designer I am fascinated by people's descriptions of the mixer they would like. Your description raises a number of questions.

First you say you want 16 line level inputs with direct outs and/or 8 buses. From the design and cost point of view there is a huge difference between the three. Line inputs with direct outs is trivial - but is the direct out pre or post the fader? That makes a cost difference. 9 buses will be expensive; there's the routing for a start not to mention the bus amps. Is there a pan between the 8 buses? Is there a stereo bus as ell for mixdown?

Then you say you want 'a few' AUXes. How many is that? Are they pre or post fader or switchable to either? Are they all mono or do you want a stereo one as in The Box. Exactly what will you use them for??

Cheers

Ian

 

[ramshackles]

I don't understand the purpose of a per channel direct out on a line-level mixer?

 

[JohnWatkins]

Well, if we're going to talk about ideal mixers, I'll throw my opinion in.  I want to build one soon.  Here's what I would do and why;

8 channels with mic pres, to supplement the outboard pre's in live, full-band recording situations.
16 additional line level channels for a total of 24 summing at mixdown
2 auxes for sending separate mixes to remote headphone amps or a tape machine (one with mini-faders?)
2 headphone amps
3 switchable monitor outs
solo and muting, with some sort of logical recall (if we're dreaming big)

It would be really cool (and I haven't really thought this through, so maybe not possible) if you had a group of 500 series slots that were completely routable.  So, you could add preamps to the line level channels, or add eq to the preamp channels, add another headphone amp, etc.

 

[pucho812]

lets go over what we need and want. If it were up to me, we would build 16 channels of line input only modules that have direct out and or  8 buses, a few auxes all tied together to a master section, we can do solo's and cuts too if we like.  The master section should have the usual master section equipment. There done. Everything else eq's, pre's, compressors we already have so why bother trying to work that into  something we don't need. this also eliminates cost. I

As a mixer designer I am fascinated by people's descriptions of the mixer they would like. Your description raises a number of questions.

First you say you want 16 line level inputs with direct outs and/or 8 buses. From the design and cost point of view there is a huge difference between the three. Line inputs with direct outs is trivial - but is the direct out pre or post the fader? That makes a cost difference. 9 buses will be expensive; there's the routing for a start not to mention the bus amps. Is there a pan between the 8 buses? Is there a stereo bus as ell for mixdown?

Then you say you want 'a few' AUXes. How many is that? Are they pre or post fader or switchable to either? Are they all mono or do you want a stereo one as in The Box. Exactly what will you use them for??

Cheers

Ian

O.k. yes there is a stereo buss for mix down. Auxes can be pre or post fader, busses can have a pan why not. direct outs and busses will be post fader. I know that starts to raise the cost of things easily. What I am envisioning is something similar to any pro audio mixer except it does not have mic pre's eq's or compressors.  Leaving those out  drops costs as well as allows one to already interface  their pre existing gear into it to make complete channel strips.

I don't understand the purpose of a per channel direct out on a line-level mixer?

The direct out per channel is to allow you to go into your DAW or whatever device you record to. Yes can go from the mic pre directly into the daw but by having direct outs and having them post fader you have one final control of volume level before going into the daw.


You know have you guys see things like the tree audio console, not their roots tube console but their 500 series console or the ocean audio 500 series console. I am thinking along those lines if that helps envision things.

 

[ruffrecords]

O.k. yes there is a stereo bus for mix down. Auxes can be pre or post fader, buses can have a pan why not. direct outs and buses will be post fader. I know that starts to raise the cost of things easily. What I am envisioning is something similar to any pro audio mixer except it does not have mic pre's eq's or compressors.  Leaving those out  drops costs as well as allows one to already interface  their pre existing gear into it to make complete channel strips.

OK, that's getting clearer. I am still not sure why you would want 8 buses with only 16 inputs, in fact I am not sure why any project studio would need 8 buses.

The direct out per channel is to allow you to go into your DAW or whatever device you record to. Yes can go from the mic pre directly into the daw but by having direct outs and having them post fader you have one final control of volume level before going into the daw.

I can understand buses being post fader but I have never understood direct outs being post fader. If you use a fader to set the level you cannot use it for a monitor mix. Maybe a trim control for the direct out leaving the fader free for mixing?

You know have you guys see things like the tree audio console, not their roots tube console but their 500 series console or the ocean audio 500 series console. I am thinking along those lines if that helps envision things.

The Ocean 500 series has 4 AUXes but only two buses and is $599 per module. 16 will cosst about $9500. The mix unit is $850 and you will need a couple of racks at say $500 each so a system will cost over $10,000 plus the power supply.

I can't find any pricing info for the Tree 500 but someone on gearslutz reckoned it would be $75K fully loaded.


Cheers

Ian

 

[pucho812]

Maybe I am over thinking things again. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

As another old mixer/console designer I try not to get involved in "the perfect mixer  only needs....". I spent decades at trades shows listening to customers telling me the one single extra feature my mixer needed to be perfect for them.  8)

Effective mixer design for the mass market is about satisfying the most feature requests, while keeping the least wanted features out of the build.

This is not a new concept so one should study the vast number of mixer designs that have gone before. While they may vary in execution, feature sets and signal traffic flow will tell a story.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

This is not a new concept so one should study the vast number of mixer designs that have gone before. While they may vary in execution, feature sets and signal traffic flow will tell a story.

JR

One reason I started this thread was that I thought The Box is actually a reasonably new concept. At its heart it is little more than a couple of good mic pres and a 16 channel ( not passive) line mixer. Judging by the number of threads on stand alone mic pres and passive summers that is probably what most project studios need. You can argue about the details but that's the essence of it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[helterbelter]

Well, if we're going to talk about ideal mixers, I'll throw my opinion in.  I want to build one soon.  Here's what I would do and why;

8 channels with mic pres, to supplement the outboard pre's in live, full-band recording situations.
16 additional line level channels for a total of 24 summing at mixdown
2 auxes for sending separate mixes to remote headphone amps or a tape machine (one with mini-faders?)
2 headphone amps
3 switchable monitor outs
solo and muting, with some sort of logical recall (if we're dreaming big)

It would be really cool (and I haven't really thought this through, so maybe not possible) if you had a group of 500 series slots that were completely routable.  So, you could add preamps to the line level channels, or add eq to the preamp channels, add another headphone amp, etc.

That sounds pretty much like what I'm currently building using ssl 5000 series modules....
However, building it from scratch, using (diy) 500/51x modules would have been a lot easier to do though. Speaking in hindsight.
But the most important thing... is that you have enough money to finish up the project.

anyway, 8 recording channels with micpres, eq's (or at least free slots for eq's), 2 or 3 Auxes and panning + 16 (or in my case 8 stereo-)line channels with the auxes and panning, into 3 or 4 subgroups..... I think this is all that you need in a console in this era of DAW.

Back to the API box : For the mentioned price, I'd at least would expect more free slots on a few linechannels for expansion to 8 full channels. But that price is out of my league anyway, I don't make a living out of music anymore, nowadays it's just a hobby.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is not a new concept so one should study the vast number of mixer designs that have gone before. While they may vary in execution, feature sets and signal traffic flow will tell a story.

JR

One reason I started this thread was that I thought The Box is actually a reasonably new concept. At its heart it is little more than a couple of good mic pres and a 16 channel ( not passive) line mixer. Judging by the number of threads on stand alone mic pres and passive summers that is probably what most project studios need. You can argue about the details but that's the essence of it.

Cheers

Ian

Build it and they will come... or not.  ;D

Sorry nothing personal...

A dangerous whatever box with a mic pre or two?  Don't put too many mic pre's inside. Consumers can not accept that it is possible for more than 2 quality preamps to coexist inside a single chassis. 

JR

 

[alexc]

In the context of diy mixers, I think the key is to play to diy's strengths.

Absolutely no point trying to better even a small frame do-it-all console.
ie. preamps, eqs, aux, directs, bus, extensive monitor sections etc ..

You can buy them at a whole range of price points and will likely be better than anything you could build.

Unless you are an expert builder and have an expert designer on board, that is.

---

So 'my' idea of diy mixing is distributed - one section for monitoring diy channels, another section for summing to the mixdown. All done minimum signal paths.

**** monitoring rack

The monitoring section needs, imho, a direct out (simple mult of input) to go to daw, a sensitivity control, some auxes (preferably 4), mute and a simple rotary level control.

A solo bus and stereo mix bus with mute and simple rotary level - all good.

Optional is some headphone amp and some level display and for the sophists - relay switched balanced insert on the mix bus.

This unit is likely located in the racks, near all the diy channels.

eg. 8 input channels per rack, balanced with discrete debalancing


***** summing fack+ fader pack 

The summing section needs, imho, needs a modest number of stereo stem inputs with just solo, mute and large linear travel fader. eg.8 stereo stem inputs

Then, a second section which is just a larger number of daw returns to sum, no controls but with that submix to have a solo, mute and submix large travel linear fader.

All those stems sum to a single mix bus with mute and large linear fader. That should have 2 seperate output amps, each with seperate relay switched insert.

An aux mult of each would also be good to send for headphone box as would be a couple of VUs.

And the kicker is, the linear fader pack should be able to be 'remoted' from the main rack.

----

This gives you an expandable set of monitoring boxes to accomodate all your precious vintage bits, without ruining all that with unneccesary stuff.

The stem mixer gives you all the control, in front of the daw and lets you further use 500 series modules.

I also like not having to power up a huge console when doing more limited tasks.

!
THATs what I would like to see        Hey - everyone has an opinion!

 

[ruffrecords]

So 'my' idea of diy mixing is distributed - one section for monitoring diy channels, another section for summing to the mixdown. All done minimum signal paths.

**** monitoring rack

The monitoring section needs, imho, a direct out (simple mult of input) to go to daw, a sensitivity control, some auxes (preferably 4), mute and a simple rotary level control.

A solo bus and stereo mix bus with mute and simple rotary level - all good.

Optional is some headphone amp and some level display and for the sophists - relay switched balanced insert on the mix bus.

This unit is likely located in the racks, near all the diy channels.

eg. 8 input channels per rack, balanced with discrete debalancing

So this is a line level stereo mixer in its own right with 4 AUX sends per input etc. I am confused as to its purpose and how many channels it would have. Is it just used for tracking? What is connected to its inputs?

***** summing rack+ fader pack 

The summing section needs, imho, needs a modest number of stereo stem inputs with just solo, mute and large linear travel fader. eg.8 stereo stem inputs

Then, a second section which is just a larger number of daw returns to sum, no controls but with that submix to have a solo, mute and submix large travel linear fader.

All those stems sum to a single mix bus with mute and large linear fader. That should have 2 seperate output amps, each with seperate relay switched insert.

An aux mult of each would also be good to send for headphone box as would be a couple of VUs.

And the kicker is, the linear fader pack should be able to be 'remoted' from the main rack.

----

This is clearer, basically a summer for mixdown with specific facilities (solo/mute); stereo stems with their own faders plus a bunch of other inputs with a single fader, all mixed to stereo with linear faders throughout and two separate outputs. A couple of VUs I understand but " aux mult of each would also be good to send for headphone box " I don't understand at all - can you explain?

I get the feeling you have separated the tasks of tracking an mixdown into two separate mixers. Is that right?

Cheers

ian

 

[pucho812]

Hey lets look at some on the market options. For about 1300.00 USD(yes I know that's not cheap) you can get a tonelux OTB16. 16 channels(mono that stereo link to 8 stereo) with level and pan that actively sum to stereo.  Yeah it does not have faders or an option to connect faders but so what, the price is nice compared to other 16 channel active summers and way less expensive then the box.


so almost half of the box(the api thing) right there is covered. hardly close to the 18K price tag they are asking... How does the OTB compare with the API summing? I have never used the API summing boxes so I wouldn't know but the OTB sounds really good.

solo in place, mutes... that can be done in software.

No we need a monitor section and 4 input channels.

monitor section can be any monitor section available on the market and those range in price, same goes for input channels. As we have gone on with before, most people have DIY input channels(mic pre's, eq's, etc) We can forget about those and focus on a master section, can get a good master/monitor section for anywhere from 500 - 2K USD or like some people have done before DIY one.

so with already available market products can get similar function that the box does at way below the price of the box.

 

[alexc]

Sure - it's all done. No originality in my thinking, here.

The closest in my mind is something like the API 8 channel input rack and the Neve 8816+fader.

Ian - my thinking is the 'monitor rack' is mono channels in, say 8 or so in a unit, with a single stereo mix bus. It's purpose is to monitor the recording of tracks thru vintage diy! Like mics and instruments.

For that you need auxes and a monitor mix and not much else! Nice to put a limiter on it's bus.

On the sum box, a send to headphone monitoring bix is useful because most headphone boxes have a 'blend' or 'more me' function which mixes 2 stereo stems  ie. the monitor mix and the daw sum mix.

Not that complex to understand ?  ???

Yes - seperation of tracking/monitoring and mixdown of daw/stems into seperate physical locations.
The only mic channel I need is talkback at the sum box.

Great thread to discuss all this btw - thanks!

Regards
Alec

 

[electrisizer]

lets go over what we need and want. If it were up to me, we would build 16 channels of line input only modules that have direct out and or  8 buses, a few auxes all tied together to a master section, we can do solo's and cuts too if we like.  The master section should have the usual master section equipment. There done. Everything else eq's, pre's, compressors we already have so why bother trying to work that into  something we don't need. this also eliminates cost. I

As a mixer designer I am fascinated by people's descriptions of the mixer they would like. Your description raises a number of questions.

First you say you want 16 line level inputs with direct outs and/or 8 buses. From the design and cost point of view there is a huge difference between the three. Line inputs with direct outs is trivial - but is the direct out pre or post the fader? That makes a cost difference. 9 buses will be expensive; there's the routing for a start not to mention the bus amps. Is there a pan between the 8 buses? Is there a stereo bus as ell for mixdown?

Then you say you want 'a few' AUXes. How many is that? Are they pre or post fader or switchable to either? Are they all mono or do you want a stereo one as in The Box. Exactly what will you use them for??

Cheers

Ian

im desiering the same mixer idea like pucho

a lot of people have 500 racks full of modules... Integration of all that modules in a large format console style would be nice.

for the moment i have patched the modules in front of an old allen&heath System 8 console. but the console slowly needs a complete recap or exchange of parts.... so why not building a new one - specialized for 500 Integration. and to me - the 8 bus structure makes sense as i have patched all the dynamic processors in there... all FX are @ aux (unforunatley there are only 3 mono aux at the system8). ist a pleasure to work on a console and reach every processor with one pushbottom/switch. with Dynamics @ Group busses you can do parallel or serial compression and fast A/B your compressors ect.


say we have 5 x 500 series boxes

my mixer layout would be

left side of the mixer
2x preamp boxes (16ch) -> AD converters

DA converters -> 2x EQ boxes -> Line mixer, routing fX/

right side of the mixer
dynamics from 5th 500 box
summing/bus/mastersection

so mixer dimension would be 2x19" for the left with max. 22ch (51x boxes). 1x 19" for the right side.

hey - thats the classic bus style console design 

as for youre questions:
channel modul must have the with of a 500 modul
then
decoupling amp
aux - 8x mono pre fader
(no direct outs for channels, as the out of 500 boxes either preamps or eq ARE direct Outs)
fader (why not using alps Motor fader? cost around 20,- euro)
Solo/mute SW (yes it can be done ITB, but OTB is faster...)
LCR switch
8x pubottoms for the Groups, 2x for main

bus wires from channel PCB to channel PCB (or better backplanes?)

summing section
OP amps for aux return
discrete api style for groups (Jeff has already PCBs) with direct outs/returns, LCR, faders (post insert), VUs (insert return), Solo/mute SW
all summed to 2 bus, basic master section

 

[ruffrecords]

@electrolizer

Thanks for your descrition of your ideal mixer. Most of it I understand. I have just a couple of questions.

1. Why do you need 8 pre-fader AUXes? Where do they go and what happens to their returns?

2. You have 16 A/Ds, so I assume you have 16 D/As feeding the line mixer. You say 2 EQ boxes; does this mean 2 x 500 series boxes i.e 16 EQ channels?

3. Basic channel signal flow is:

Preamp -> A/D -> DAW -> D/A -> EQ -> line mixer

Apart from the 8  AUXes is their just a stereo bus for the final mix?

4. I guess that tracking gain is set by the preamp?

Cheers

Ian

 

[Spiritworks]

The API series of components using the 8200, 8200A and/or a master module - was it the 7800? was really a nice step in the right direction. I guess they figured the new "Box" was a suitable replacement.
I am currently working on putting together a side-car/summing mixer setup in which I will use an 8200 & 8200A, which will give me 16 channels summed to a stereo output. Solo, mutes, direct outs, insert return and two aux, if I remember correctly.
I will have three 51x racks - one for mic pres, one for EQs and one for dynamics. So, potentially I can have eleven channels running through pres/EQs for stems with the remaining five for returns.

 

[electrisizer]

@electrolizer

Thanks for your descrition of your ideal mixer. Most of it I understand. I have just a couple of questions.

1. Why do you need 8 pre-fader AUXes? Where do they go and what happens to their returns?

2. You have 16 A/Ds, so I assume you have 16 D/As feeding the line mixer. You say 2 EQ boxes; does this mean 2 x 500 series boxes i.e 16 EQ channels?

3. Basic channel signal flow is:

Preamp -> A/D -> DAW -> D/A -> EQ -> line mixer

Apart from the 8  AUXes is their just a stereo bus for the final mix?

4. I guess that tracking gain is set by the preamp?

Cheers

Ian

hey ian,
thanks for answer

1. i never use post fader aux. dont see any sense as my dry signal is controlled by the fader and the AUX/wet signal by the AUX Pot. but i could live with both, but dont need a SW to select.

for aux return: if we have 2x 500 11 slot boxes fitted with 16 EQ modules there are 6 mixer channels left. you can take this for 6 aux returns. sometimes its nice to route the aux/wet signal to a dynamic processor sitting on the bus too.

thats the comfortable way

OR the aux return is via return gain Pots/op amp input patched to the master 2 bus at master section

2. Yes 16 Eq modules in 500 slots. its nice to have these 500 EQs absolutley in front of you because these puppies are so small...

3. this is the signal flow! its my signal flow at the moment too with my dying allen&heath
i like to record clean and straight from preamps, and i can take my preamp box away for out of house recordings. its a good thing to be modular there.

4. the master section. yes im pleased with one stereo master bus for summed AD signal. you can either do monitoring via interface or (as i have) with a passive source selector/switcher. for sure its elegant to have a master section with all the goodies, but i think its way too complicated to design for me...


hmmm ian how about designing a "poor mans API 1608" i imagine there would be ALOT of interest out there. some things already exist like summing section or bus section via jeffs classic api stuff.... THAT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT

cheers nico

 

[ruffrecords]

hey ian,
thanks for answer

1. i never use post fader aux. dont see any sense as my dry signal is controlled by the fader and the AUX/wet signal by the AUX Pot. but i could live with both, but dont need a SW to select.

So,when using reverb for example, if you fade a track, only the dry level changes and the wet stays the same or do you operate the fader and aux pot together? What happens if you fade to zero you are left with just wet.?

hmmm ian how about designing a "poor mans API 1608" i imagine there would be ALOT of interest out there. some things already exist like summing section or bus section via jeffs classic api stuff.... THAT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT

cheers nico

Now there's an interesting idea. It might just happen but if it is semiconductor based it won't be designed by me. Watch this space 

Cheers

Ian

 

[braeden]

'1000' series idea is great, that's all I'm saying. I think we definitely need pre's & EQ for each channel though.