Better Console Concept: Dual In-line console for Re-Mixing DAW-based records?

[grievousangel]

Hello All,

I've been considering building a console suited for what some call 'stem' studios. Technology has placed DAW's in almost every musicians or project studio owners hands. Usually the resulting record sound is OK but lacks something??? IMHO, there is a real need for studios to re-mix / re-master many of the DAW projects. Everyone reading this, already knows this I'm sure. So, what console work flow is better suited for this type client?

I want to build this console. Maybe Left-half for Tracking; Master Center Section; Right-half for Passive Summing (Re-mixing functions). Would a Dual In-line fit into this concept? If so, would a Right-side be necessary?

I like CAPI products for much of this console. I like API & Neve textures. Is transparent sound quality at re-mixing level the best choice? I think not in most cases.  BUT, at the converter level, the ADA needs to transparent as possible. What suggestions for this DIY analog console do ya'll have?

Thanks,

GrievousAngel

 

[ruffrecords]

http://www.speck.com/lilo/lilo.html

Cheers

Ian

 

[jensenmann]

https://www.adt-audio.de/Mischpult.html
https://www.adt-audio.de/Faderbox.html

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I've been considering building a console suited for what some call 'stem' studios. Technology has placed DAW's in almost every musicians or project studio owners hands. Usually the resulting record sound is OK but lacks something???

My left brain tells me it's necessary defining what is lacking, before jumping to the conclusion some piece of hardware with supposed mojo is the answer. I am a console user, but not for sonic reasons; it's because of ergonomics. Faders are better HI instruments than mouse (hence the flourishing of dedicated DAW controllers), and DAW's lack the much needed monitoring section present to some degree in any mixer (hence the flourishing of monitoring controllers). Also, I have been facing the struggles due to computer limitations  (which a mixer and some outboard can alleviate).
I wouldn't want to add in the signal path something that's supposed to make a significant sonic imprint on everything that goes through it.

IMHO, there is a real need for studios to re-mix / re-master many of the DAW projects. Everyone reading this, already knows this I'm sure.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there... Need for a remix suggests the mix was not good.

So, what console work flow is better suited for this type client?

Aah, now there's a new factor; I would suggest one that impresses the customer by its size and looks, maybe the name, if you can afford Neve, API, SSL, whatever...

I want to build this console. Maybe Left-half for Tracking; Master Center Section; Right-half for Passive Summing (Re-mixing functions).

That is the definition of a "split" console.

Would a Dual In-line fit into this concept?

??? An in-line cannot be a split, in my world.

If so, would a Right-side be necessary?

It's your choice, depends on how your brain is organized, how big your control-room.

Is transparent sound quality at re-mixing level the best choice?

IMO yes.

I think not in most cases.

You want dirt, put a dirtifyer somewher in the chain, on the channels where it may make sense, not on everything.

BUT, at the converter level, the ADA needs to transparent as possible.

Agreed.

What suggestions for this DIY analog console do ya'll have?

Have you ever designed a mixer? JR has a saying about them, that goes along the lines of "mixers are the most difficult easy products to design". You should start reading the document that has reached the "Bible" status, the Steve Dove articles, and the several threads in this group; very few of them result in actual products being built, although a recent thread shows a respect-inspiring large-scale console.

 

[grievousangel]

I owned a Tascam M5000 (Like ~$48KUSD in 1995.) that was a split Dual In-line console. left section, center and yes a right. 40 channel strips with dual linear faders, i.e., a 40mm in middle an d a 100mm on bottom of course. Had dual EQ, etc. One could flip faders and EQ. Really a nice console and a big sound  (HUGE rack mount power supply (One man could not lift off dead floor!)

My first console build was using  Opamp Labs components while I was in college.  OK sound but had significant 'solid state' thermal noise floor.

Live sound wise, I  liked the Soundcraft Venue II 40 x 8 x 2  with matching Venue II (40 x16 x 2) monitor console. Was in my budget

Billy....

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I owned a Tascam M5000 (Like ~$48KUSD in 1995.) that was a split Dual In-line console. left section, center and yes a right. 

Usually, split means the recording channel and the monitor channel are in different areas of the mixer, when in-line means the two channels coexist in a single module.

 

[john12ax7]

If you want to cater to DAW folks then a big issue is recall.  And I would think there needs to be some vibe,  or else people are less likely to break out of the box. It should sound different, arguably better,  than summing ITB.

If it's just an ergonomic thing  there are already good solutions imo.

There are some newer mixers that integrate DAW control.  Perhaps have a look at the Neve Genesys.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

It should sound different, arguably better,  than summing ITB.

That's the catch; objectively, ITB mixing is better than any analog solution, because it by-passes an unnecessary D/A conversion, because the frequency response is perfect, because the S/N ratio and dynamic range are unaltered, however, many claim superiority of OTB.
I won't discuss or criticize this opinion, but it is clear that the difference lies outside the traditional objective benchmarks that are frequency response, low-noise and distortion. To my knowledge, nobody has really been able to define what measurable parameters constitute the "better sounding" part of OTB vs. ITB. Did those who managed to get a better sound OTB than ITB got this result by serendipity?