DIY automation Ider

[safe as milk]

"What is scary is that we never hear back from anyone that has shown an interest and has supposedly started on this quest. Nervous breakdown maybe? "-bluzzi

yeah, that's pretty much it in a nutshell !
plus i got sidetracked doing new mic-pres to fit in my mci console.
just got to do the eq's then i'm back to the automation.

if you check those pics i put up on twin-x of the fader
i can send on that fader to someone with a complete midibox
to test it out?

that would get things moving...tee...hee (pun intended)

cheers
justin

 

[Bluzzi]

Same here. I'm finishing an LA2A, 2 GR preamps, and 2 1290 preamps. Got my hands full and I'd also like to get back to music. Remember that?

A project like this would take the co-operation of a few people I believe.

jim

 

[smallbutfine]

Hi dualflip,
I guess the projects around this one are abandoned due to the effort it takes to do such a full fledged solution.
For me it turned out to be cheapest and best to rely on already available solutions.
BUT still i highly recommend to get a midi digital controller and leave the analog faders unautomated.
This way you can use tracking levels manually and switch the analog faders to 'off /full state' by a simple switch and leave automation to the inserts. You need a ultrimix like box in the inserts for downmix automation. I recommend a DCR based solution for best neutral sound instead of the vca solution offered by the behringer / niche / mackie products (where mackie proviedes the best sound with the ultramix)
I still haven't found out a alternative to my hoef DCRs for DIY, but IF id do, I consider a steering with midibox doing  DCR based automation.
Should be the best and cheapest solution:
Leaving downmix *control* to digital BCF2000, HUI, US2400 or similar / midi with analog signal flow puristic thru inserts and DCR.
Leaving tracking control to manual / non-motorized analog faders.
One switch per channel fader to move from tracking to downmix and vice versa. Preserves tracking level on the console, gives full volume to the insert at downmix. Needs post fade insert.

Anyone an idea for a good sounding >=128 step DCR solution for DIY purpose? ???

Kind regards,
Martin

 

[smallbutfine]

DCR = digitally controlled resistor
I am looking for a passive solution though in opposite to an active one (vca).

There are only two readily available solutions I know of.
One was the already mentioned austrian Hoef product, HF-16. It was used in quite some big consoles of the analogue era in european broadcast, it is still in production but hard to find - has to be bought from the company in austria itself I guess (at least that's where I got it years ago).
I *guess* the much cheaper Niche Audio system is also based on passive attenuation, but I heard the midi automation is less than desireable ('steppy' sounds, fades not so good).

I'm not sure why this technology has not been followed more in comparison to vca....I remember there were some MAX DCR chips that were not really that suitable for high end audio (signal quality?).


Kind regards,
Martin

 

[smallbutfine]

No, from what I read, the tonelux are some kind of flying fader modules with all the bells and whistles,with line receiver, cv-controlled flying real fader, line driver.
DCR's are purely passive, stepped resistors, digitally controlled. More like a relay controlled resistor array....

Kind regards,
Martin

 

[TomWaterman]

Tonelux uses a modified OEM JL Cooper midi controller, he improved the resolution of the motor control I believe and then used it to control a standard moving fader (I think TKD), so they are purely passive 10k log faders with motor control as far as I'm aware unless he changed the design recently. Very expensive too.

My friends down at audient have just designed a system similar from scratch that runs on Hui. It works very well. JC and Steve there have done great work on the digital portion of the control. They are using ALPs faders and doing everything in micros, with MIDI and perhaps forthcoming USB in/out.

16 channel system, up to 32 faders max for 4 banks of PT Hui.

-Tom

 

[smallbutfine]

Thanks Tom for the info about the Tonelux....from the pricing and appearance in the (not *that* informative) tonelux webpage I guessed the modules are more advanced than they actually are.... ???
The magic seems to be the in the midi part (PT compatibility and such....).
As you said: very pricey indeed...
Kind regards,
Martin

 

[SIXTYNINER]

really a magic box
6T9R

 

[juniorhifikit]

I've been tossing this idea around for a while as well.  Paul's Shadowmix system is really the most elegant realization of the concept, and the price reflects it.  I personally can't afford it, and also don't need mutes and pans, thus my DIY approach/needs will be much simpler.  When I get the time, I'm planning on frankensteining a Behringer bcf2000 ($150 on ebay) with some different faders (dual path).  The HUI protocal is just a midi ping back to Protools to say "Hi, I'm a HUI and I'm here".  I don't know what it is exactly but the behringer does this.  I don't really even care about faders, as I've been mixing without them so much for the past 10 years.  A box with motorized pots would work for me.  Haven't yet compared the motor specs between the behringer's faders and the crop of currently available motorized pots.

I hope we can make this a reality, or at least advance the idea among us DIY'ers.

really a magic box
6T9R

Which box are you referring to?

 

[SIXTYNINER]

hi i mean remote control for pro tools ,logic ,cubase,nuendo ecc.....

also you can check (ever if you don't have already got)
the motor mix by cm labs , commands midi protocol pdf
before go out of market the ex nasa engineer
let the full command protocol for free
inside this pdf all command codes are fully described
i'm also interested about how build a remote control
if you don't found it send me a pm with your email
and i send you the pdf
cheers
6T9R

 

[gemini86]

I have a bcf2000 and I don't know if it's just the fader motors, or the actual resolution of the data coming back from the DAW (i don't claim to know what I'm talking about when it comes to digital, or anything else for that matter) but on playback (which is what you would want the automation for?) the stock unit is VERY choppy, the faders are not smooth at all. They record really well in the software, showing a smooth path when reading the movement of the faders, but that never translates back to the unit.

again, don't know if this a problem in the design, or just cheap faders, just thought I'd provide some first hand experience with the bcf2000. (I too have thought about frankensteining it into a small DIY mixdown console)

 

[smallbutfine]

Well, I happen to have a BCF2000 for a long time by myself, and I noticed the sloppyness at playback as well.
This is one reason I avoid motorized audio faders until I can afford very good ones actually. For the price of the bcf you cannot really expect the faders to move perfect for a thing they are not intended to (audio).
My tascam 24fader controller moves much smoother (while still not 'perfect'), but it is another story, because it works after a completely different principle and faders are not capable of doing audio at all by design.
Btw, most motorized pots are too slow to work in the realtime area of complex movements as well (because they were designed to do simple volume fades for hifi remote control)...
There is no cheap way to do it right I guess...

Kind regards,
Martin

 

[gemini86]

does anyone know if the choppyness of the faders on the bcf is due to the actual part? or is it a design thing? It would be good to find out, cause if you can just upgrade to some decent bornes units, you've already got yourself a master controller.

:-\

 

[smallbutfine]

Well, due to the general design of the box, fader choppyness can have 2 reasons, bad bad midi lags or choppy faders....
since the midi receipt works fine on the LEDs of the BCF and on my tascam completely, I would bet it's the faders themself. I really would like to hear something different from anyone....but I am pretty sure this will not happen, unfortunately. 
Again, as a sending controller it is fine! Playback is choppy, and 'overdubbing' a fade is *not* comfortable but possible (i.e. grabbing the fader in movement).

Kind regards,
Martin

 

[juniorhifikit]

yes, would be interesting to know about the choppiness.  For my uses, I'd really only be using the bcf2000's control board for the midi comunication, the HUI ping back to Protools, and the motor driver circuit.  Faders would be replaced with quality dual-path, and the rest of the buttons/knobs ignored.  I'll look for a broken unit on ebay - kind of like Frankenstein's grave robbing!

 

[Shorty]

Good chance I'm about to have at a Harrison S-10B in the very near future.

(I'll also be automating a Tascam M-3500 in the same fashion minus the onboard automation)

Here's how I'm doing them..... To be used with Pro Tools, Sonar, Reason, etc, via HUI mode

We have a Tascam FW-1884 with 2 FE-8 Expanders, for 24 faders, transport, flip modes, etc, which will serve as our automation brains.
I am also going to explore a pair of US-2400's, or others like Behlringers, etc, (All cheaper options),
IF they can be daisy chained and all bank together properly - The FW does, but the expanders are expensive

The Harrison is already automated internally,
and therefore I will be building a relay board, the faders will be selectably 'powered' by either the Harrison, or the Brain modules via the relay board/s
which will allow me to use a single button like a PBNO in order to select the POWER feed to the motorized portion of the faders,
This will allow me to select between the onboard automation, or the ProTools automation with a single button

This should allow the the fader to continue operating the boards audio, and internal automation in the Harrison, when selected
Or I can switch it, and then the motorized portion will then be controlled by the Brain, such as the FW, etc. which interfaces with PT, etc Automation

In the Tascam, the faders will be replaced with P&G's or ALPS....
And being that it is true analoug, I may also build a relay board for the Tascam,
which will interupt the Log if I should need to, and via the daw I can suspend automation should I need to.
Should make a flexible unit.

This seems to be a simple enough method to get the job done,
In my case the big want is fader automation, pans, sends.... which all can be flipped to the faders via the FW,
So for me, it is more important that the brain actually translate the controls to the fader, which will be the big dictator of which brains get used
(Starting with the FW-1884 cause I know it does this well, but I imagine the US does the same thing? I'll have to check.)
The FW-1884 is an expensive option, and also has analoug features which could be implemented or not,
but, as I said, the expanders are as much new as the main unit, and imposibble to find used.
There is a small dog, FW-1082, but the faders are 80mm and the pans, sends, etc, will only translate to pots, and not the faders.

I should be knee deep in this in the next month,
Maybe sooner on the Tascam board if I stir up the faders for it.

I will highly document the process, parts used, results, and photos and try to find this thread again or just start a new one.

Really, this is a simple project for any analoug board,
the kicker is the cost of a decent fader that features a linear track for servo position, log track for audio, and a touch track.
Penny & Giles PGFM3220 is perfect for this application, at $388 each.... so that's kind of a kicker.
32x8 board would run $11,640 List for those faders with the 25% discount. So there's obvious need for a cheaper fader.
Though I do know there are cheaper alternatives even in P&G's, ALPS, etc.........
I have also thought about modding the faders themselves, stacking or otherwise, to link an anoloug fader to a ALPS fader I have about 15 of.
This would be a sloppy option, but hey, I have them. Maybe for a stupid little 8 channel mod or something.... but not a serious console.

Then it's simply a matter of mounting the components of whatever brain you want controlling things for you.

Kinda glad I found this thread, it's right along the lines of what I've found to be viable means of doing this.

Though, again, my focus is aimed at the faders (And flippable brains to translate other functions to them)
rather than automating an entire console, which would get a lot trickier unless it was already there, like the Harrison,
which I could actually implement pan knobs and whatnot by tying in with the donor surface

Just my rants....

 

[Bluzzi]

Not to spoil everyone's dreams here but I have not yet heard of any single individual out there that has started or written about doing this sort of project having ever gotten close to finishing or successfully finishing such a project.

Regardless of cost I think you are going to find that automating faders is not a simple task. Its a multi-disciplinary project needing large skills and experience in Motor control, Real Time  Automation Software and of course Electronics.

The method of "piggybacking" a digital system fader to an analog fader to not have to write the software etc. sounds like it may have some success but it relies on one fader motor moving 2 faders when it was designed to move 1. Its worth a try though. At least there a lot of the work has been done by companies with deeper pockets and research tax grants.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this was going to be a time and money pit so I abandoned it. Then I was going to go for a Mute automation as that is a million times easier and still that is not that easy.
Still holding off on that one too.

All that said, I truly hope someone proves me wrong and builds a DIY moving fader system. So far no one has.

Why not try and build a 2 fader automation system first. Even if you buy the P&G at $388 each its a cost of under $1000.00 for all parts. I mean a full automation system. Autosensing, read, write, latch etc..
Just calibrating the faders alone is a huge task. If you can get to work with 2 then you can start to look for a cheaper fader solution.

Jim

 

[Shorty]

That's why using something like the FW-1884 is so viable. Let's consider the M-3500

Let's say you buy a FW-1884 and 2 FE-8's, that's 24 faders plus a dedicated master,
It will flip pans, aux sends, etc to fader, so the fader itself can handle multiple tasks.
I have about $2800 into mine. A very cheap 24 fader control surface with functions that my Control 24 lacks.
(Add about another 800 to this surface for another 8 channels, to give me 32, leaving the busses out of this)

Now, take that (the FW) and slap it inside a analoug console, like the Tascam M-3500,
The FW is handling all the automation. No programming or anything necessary....
It's cheating for DIY, but it is automating the console. All the techy stuff is done.
As long as the faders are to spec with those that were in the unit, there is no tweaking necessary (ie, throw, v, res, etc)
There are a wide variety of faders to spec with those in the Harrison, Control 24, FW's, US-2400's, Behlringers, etc....

I should have the Tascam this weekend hopefully.

Then I'll pull a fader out of the FW and see what it has in it, cross with a compatible log/servo/touch and get on it.
Then it's just a relay board, or individual interupts per channel (or both),
so if I am automation chasing and don't want to alter my analoug I can interupt the channel/s
Follow me? analoug poriton ties into the analoug board, interupt goes on that, servo controls go to donor surface, touch goes to donor surface.
If I want to suspend automation, I do it via the daw, where it should be done anyway.

That's it. Plug the surface into the computer, and it runs like it was intended to, doesn't even know it's in a mixer.

It's not exactly a DIY project the way I intend to do it, but it will work.

Once I get the boards next to each other I'll spec the FW faders and find a P&G or ALPS or other that will suit this project and start with one.

A tech friend of mine knows much more than me and has worked on Harrison's, SSL's, NEVE's, API's, etc at Flyte Tyme, Paisley, etc
I came to him wanting to do this when I ran across a potential purchase of a pair of the Harrison S-10B's,
and so far from how I've layed this out, and initial schem's, he believes it is very viable.

I guess I'll start with a single fader in the Tascam and see what happens.

That'd be fitting.... a Tascam FW-1884 inside a Tascam M-3500.... heh heh,

I'll update.... I've been itchin to get on this.... just waiting on a modded PCB in the M-3500 to get stuffed.

 

[kml23956]

Do you have the M-3500 manual?  This is on my list once I fix all the other issues with the analog section.  Then there is the issue of power from the power supply.  Have you looked at that to see if it will drive the faders?

 

[Bluzzi]

Yes this approach may be the only possible way to do it within a reasonable budget and time.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The intention is to retrofit a FW digital fader to an analog mixer? In other words you will somehow attach the FW digitally controlled fader to the analog as "piggiback" right?

I would say if that works even flimsily you will be somewhere where no one has gone before!

At that point it becomes a purely mechanical problem only (if the FW design allows you to place faders remotely without any negative results).

So yes if the FW faders are strong enough to pull along their analog conjoined twin then I'd say you will have an avenue with hope of success.

Keep us all informed.

Jim