Need fresh air. TotalDigiControl = TDC.

[Igor]

Hey guys, I have to say something. Seems like all we stay at same place.
IMO, the forum entered in stagnation, how many clones can we do, hey!
Fairchild squeezed to Lunchbox format? Another 1290? We have over 10 versions of 1176.
I am sick to answer the questions "which Rxx should be here?" Open the BOM and see schemo!!!
Nobody actually care about how it works, 90% of people here want to make cool audio gear for free
without even knowing Ohm Law.
Remember ol' good times at recording.org? CJ dissections? Distr**or and Tr**nt D**r rev-eng?
Ha! Where all this fun gone?
I prefer to be direct than politically correct.

Please keep this topic clean and write reply's on subject only. OT's will be hardcore banted.

Well. To topic.

TDC = Total Digital Control. I do it for me first. You can enjoy from benefits and jump to the train.

Idea is to have _universal_ plugin configureable for different units.

Result? Gotcha remote controlled analog session!

Blank front and power switch rack unit; the rest connected at back; controlled from PC/Mac;
total automation and full recall in milliseconds. Scenes, presets, etc.
Universal for manufacturers and easy for users.

At this moment I can bring to TDC the next stuff:

4 types of pre's
Fairchild, 1176, LA2 (3), (4), Fester's TG, MixBuzz1, 33609, 2254C compressors
Sontec, Pultec, Helios and my own EQ's
Mastering Transfer Chain
CRM module
Relay based 8x8 stereo and 16x16 mono patch matrixes
Full format mixer

Etc etc.

The plugin should be universal and run at any platform, so, it will be VST.

Optionally, I will be very happy to have an option to run user interface at Android device.

Plugin should send the code to USB dongle which connected to up to 8 controlled by SPI units.

Need more, add another dongle.

Plugin should be fully configureable by unit manufacturer and interfaces for specific units should be distributeable.
In simple, I mean, if I do the unit with 5 bits of GAIN control located at start of address, than phase, phantom, pad,
8 bits total, I can take a "rotary knob" or "fader", define the scale (what I see at every bit's setting),
write GAIN in nice bold red font, than, pull 3 toggles and assign them to corresponding phase/pad/phantom bits,
mark them in bold red or whatever.

Hardcore, but each control should have user assigneable truth table - bits state vs scale writings.

All user interfaces should be saveable. If I programmed the plugin once, it should be distributeable.

Further is worther.
I want to take 6 Sontecs.
Each have 5 bands, 5 pages/screens of: (gain)-(boost/cut)-(freq)-(filter type).
/To control one this kinda EQ I have to add about 80..96 bits register/. OK.
Than link them for surround, adjust for basic than unlink and adjust each separately.
Than save total preset or preset for every EQ.

I really don't care if UI will look as sh*t, but plugin should work like Russian T-34.

End user should have plugin + dongle for low cost; unit's manufacturers cover plugin R&D expencies.

Think, $40-80 for single user license+USB dongle is OK;
developer should cover the cost of R&D, freeware is cool but never works as supposed.


Of course, all fun goes to winner, this way, the developer will get some controlled gadgets built by me
for positive stimulation of right coding as well as maybe another manufacturers will cover the project...
I enjoy of making digi controlled stuff for reduced cost plugin and help the developer with all I know.

Again, nothing works right if done lazy "in beetween" for free.

This way, if you building digi controlled unit, buy plugin configuration interface from programmer.
If you're end user, take the dongle for low cost and enjoy.

This is just to get an idea of course. Open for discussion.

If you programmer who can not gust start but FINISH the project,
interested and can do it in 3-4 month, write to my mail/facebook/skype.

 

[grantlack]

igor-
this has been a pet project of mine for a long time yet, i had done some musing about it in the "ultimate analog desk" thread several months back but with no perceived interest i got a little overwhelmed with the sheer size of the task.  i'm curious as to what chips you'd be using in your units, data protocol, &etc as it would have a major influence on how things would be handled on the software end.

after a long soul search, i arrived at the conclusion that OSC is probably the best method of controlling such a monstrosity.  it has the potential for 10-bit resolution, travels over cat5, and would allow for each element to be network addressable.  there's only so much that can be achieved on an expandable project like this without some network-based protocol, and the serial approaches fall pretty well short of the target.

EDIT: i missed the part about SPI wrt the dongle, we should discuss the merits of different approaches &etc over an e-beer.  facebook will fill less quickly than pm .

 

[andre tchmil]

Hey guys, I have to say something. Seems like all we stay at same place.
IMO, the forum entered in stagnation, how many clones can we do, hey!
Fairchild squeezed to Lunchbox format? Another 1290? We have over 10 versions of 1176.
I am sick to answer the questions "which Rxx should be here?" Open the BOM and see schemo!!!
Nobody actually care about how it works, 90% of people here want to make cool audio gear for free
without even knowing Ohm Law.
Remember ol' good times at recording.org? CJ dissections? Distr**or and Tr**nt D**r rev-eng?
Ha! Where all this fun gone?
I prefer to be direct than politically correct.

Please keep this topic clean and write reply's on subject only. OT's will be hardcore banted.

Well. To topic.

TDC = Total Digital Control. I do it for me first. You can enjoy from benefits and jump to the train.

Idea is to have _universal_ plugin configureable for different units.

Result? Gotcha remote controlled analog session!

Blank front and power switch rack unit; the rest connected at back; controlled from PC/Mac;
total automation and full recall in milliseconds. Scenes, presets, etc.
Universal for manufacturers and easy for users.

At this moment I can bring to TDC the next stuff:

4 types of pre's
Fairchild, 1176, LA2 (3), (4), Fester's TG, MixBuzz1, 33609, 2254C compressors
Sontec, Pultec, Helios and my own EQ's
Mastering Transfer Chain
CRM module
Relay based 8x8 stereo and 16x16 mono patch matrixes
Full format mixer

Etc etc.

The plugin should be universal and run at any platform, so, it will be VST.

Optionally, I will be very happy to have an option to run user interface at Android device.

Plugin should send the code to USB dongle which connected to up to 8 controlled by SPI units.

Need more, add another dongle.

Plugin should be fully configureable by unit manufacturer and interfaces for specific units should be distributeable.
In simple, I mean, if I do the unit with 5 bits of GAIN control located at start of address, than phase, phantom, pad,
8 bits total, I can take a "rotary knob" or "fader", define the scale (what I see at every bit's setting),
write GAIN in nice bold red font, than, pull 3 toggles and assign them to corresponding phase/pad/phantom bits,
mark them in bold red or whatever.

Hardcore, but each control should have user assigneable truth table - bits state vs scale writings.

All user interfaces should be saveable. If I programmed the plugin once, it should be distributeable.

Further is worther.
I want to take 6 Sontecs.
Each have 5 bands, 5 pages/screens of: (gain)-(boost/cut)-(freq)-(filter type).
/To control one this kinda EQ I have to add about 80..96 bits register/. OK.
Than link them for surround, adjust for basic than unlink and adjust each separately.
Than save total preset or preset for every EQ.

I really don't care if UI will look as sh*t, but plugin should work like Russian T-34.

End user should have plugin + dongle for low cost; unit's manufacturers cover plugin R&D expencies.

Think, $40-80 for single user license+USB dongle is OK;
developer should cover the cost of R&D, freeware is cool but never works as supposed.


Of course, all fun goes to winner, this way, the developer will get some controlled gadgets built by me
for positive stimulation of right coding as well as maybe another manufacturers will cover the project...
I enjoy of making digi controlled stuff for reduced cost plugin and help the developer with all I know.

Again, nothing works right if done lazy "in beetween" for free.

This way, if you building digi controlled unit, buy plugin configuration interface from programmer.
If you're end user, take the dongle for low cost and enjoy.

This is just to get an idea of course. Open for discussion.

If you programmer who can not gust start but FINISH the project,
interested and can do it in 3-4 month, write to my mail/facebook/skype.

 

[Rochey]

I've been chewing on the digital control of analog for quite a while.

Good luck to you Igor - at my rate of work (with full time TI job and new Baby), it'll be a long time before I have a complete product.

Keep us updated.

 

[gyraf]

May I suggest an extension to this system: I'd like to see a system that will mechanically remote-control existing units - either by robotics-controlled grabbing a knob and turning it, or use flex-wires going from individual stepper motors to "hands" that can be tightened around an existing knob (for reference, see those mechanical systems for foot-pedal-controlling knobs on guitar amplifiers).

Integrate this with a web interface and -cam, open a streaming input to a local AD/DA converter, and you have the possibility of online gear rental and/or -demo/showcase. Possibly use low-res audio for online knob turning/setting up, and ftp-upload of high-res files for final (paid) processing during off-hours.

Jakob E.

 

[Balijon]

igor-
this has been a pet project of mine for a long time yet, i had done some musing about it in the "ultimate analog desk" thread several months back but with no perceived interest i got a little overwhelmed with the sheer size of the task.  i'm curious as to what chips you'd be using in your units, data protocol, &etc as it would have a major influence on how things would be handled on the software end.

after a long soul search, i arrived at the conclusion that OSC is probably the best method of controlling such a monstrosity.  it has the potential for 10-bit resolution, travels over cat5, and would allow for each element to be network addressable.  there's only so much that can be achieved on an expandable project like this without some network-based protocol, and the serial approaches fall pretty well short of the target.

EDIT: i missed the part about SPI wrt the dongle, we should discuss the merits of different approaches &etc over an e-beer.  facebook will fill less quickly than pm .

I second using a ethernet-network based communication protocol.
I would suggest to use/support the by Euphonix developed Eucon protocol. The architecture of Eucon is very flexible to support bidirectional object oriented communication and is widely adopted by most leading manufacturers:

Benefits of EuCon Control..
High-speed Ethernet networked control including Gigabit Ethernet
High-resolution (12bit) fader & knob control
Control includes EuCon, HUI & Mackie Control Protocols
EuCon transports trackball & keyboard over Ethernet simplifying cabling
Works with Mac or PC
Controls multiple workstations & applications simultaneously
Control switches to match software application
Industry leading DAWS such as Pro Tools, Nuendo, Logic Pro, Pyramix and Sonar support EuCon
Allows hardware surface direct access to software application command sets
Allows DAW plug-in control from channel strips

Please have a look at: http://wwwdev.euphonix.com/pro/news/img/reviews/euph_aes_eucon_paper_oct06.pdf
Eucon is now owned by Avid (which may be a concern) and has a development program for 3rd parties.

Theo

 

[Balijon]

May I suggest an extension to this system: I'd like to see a system that will mechanically remote-control existing units - either by robotics-controlled grabbing a knob and turning it......
Jakob E.

This may be less complicated as it may look, 3-axis CNC robots are mature and not very expensive, we have the knowledge here in the 'Machine-Shop'.
It should not be too hard to create a version that rides along 19" profiles.
You can concentrate on one stepper-motor with positioning-feedback to turn knobs.
If you standardize/retrofit to a 'standard-knob', you only have to create a 'contra-knob'.
It would be a great solution for total-recall, it would be limited for automated adjustments during the mix.

If you add a CCD camera to the concept, it could 'read/digitize' your (manual) settings too...and can be used as a setup-help for new modules that you add.

Theo

 

[moamps]

....IMO, the forum entered in stagnation, how many clones can we do, hey!
Fairchild squeezed to Lunchbox format? Another 1290? We have over 10 versions of 1176.
I am sick to answer the questions "which Rxx should be here?" Open the BOM and see schemo!!!
Nobody actually care about how it works, 90% of people here want to make cool audio gear for free
without even knowing Ohm Law....

This topic should be moved somewhere else from The Lab, IMO.

Milan

 

[grantlack]

May I suggest an extension to this system: I'd like to see a system that will mechanically remote-control existing units - either by robotics-controlled grabbing a knob and turning it......
Jakob E.

This may be less complicated as it may look, 3-axis CNC robots are mature and not very expensive, we have the knowledge here in the 'Machine-Shop'.
It should not be too hard to create a version that rides along 19" profiles.
You can concentrate on one stepper-motor with positioning-feedback to turn knobs.
If you standardize/retrofit to a 'standard-knob', you only have to create a 'contra-knob'.
It would be a great solution for total-recall, it would be limited for automated adjustments during the mix.

I've visited this in my travels as well, for full automation one could place several manually. Make a 1u/2u/etc rectangle out of u-channel, with slotted vertical pieces loose inside the channel. Attach steppers such that they can be manually adjusted along the slot (y axis) and by sliding the rail across the frame (x axis). Shim motors where necessary, secure all mating points, add rack ears, boom! Done. well with the physical aspect anyway...

 

[wowi]

Hi Igor, this is more or less, what we all are dreaming off. But as a software developer i have to say: You need a guy with a loooot o free time to get this working. Writing a VST with a configurable Surface is pretty standard, there will be a lot of guys in prodigy, who have done this.
But developing a configurable and distributable System like you described is just another story. There wil be a lot of things like designing communication, try and error and microcontroller programming.
I am shure, its possible, but i think, there has to be a little group of developers to do this. I'll keep my fingers crossed that this thing is going on and i wish i had the time to join in.

Wolfgang

p.s. Jacob: When i read the first post from Igor, i knew you would come up with your "extension" 

 

[smallbutfine]

Hi Igor,
I second Wolfgang's opinion about this.
I don't think a single programmer/developer would be able to complete such kind of project in a few months to a mature and stable state. But I like to stay corrected.....

Best regards,
Martin

 

[901]

Interesting that you mention to have optionally a user interface running on an Android device. I guess you are thinking mainly tablet and not so much phone, right?

This would be really cool, but it strongly calls for a wireless protocol (bluetooth or wifi).

 

[Balijon]

I think it is best to split the challenge in layers.

For the networking/communication layer there are a number of technologies available:
- USB-serial as you mentioned, I regard as too limiting and proprietary (for starters the USB cable length is too restrictive)
- Midi (with all its limitations), look at midibox.org / www.ucapps.de.
They have all the basics for PIC's to perform all kinds of duties and setups, they have created a complete OS/kernel 'MIOS' and ecosystem to load software over Midi. So if you decide to go Midi, your foundation/eco-system is there.
- Eucon/OSC, look at the mini-Ethernet-processor-modules with a Linux kernel running on them. In fact they are mini-computers build around a RJ45 ethernet-interface. They provide the complete connectivity & protocol stack, webserver etc.. vendors like Lantronix with the XPort and Digi with the Connect-ME provide a complete platform platform. Have a look at: http://www.beyondlogic.org/etherip/ip.htm for an overview.
These devices make it relative simple/light to implement Eucon and/or OSC or even Midi/Hui-over-ethernet.

You need to connect from the communication controller to the elements that 'do' something... Here you have to make an architecture decision: One controller serves multiple modules (you need a (serial-)bus like RS422, Modbus etc..) or every module has it's own dedicated communication controller (one on one).
I favor a dedicated (one on one) approach, but it has a cost attached.
Within the module you have to decide if you go parallel or serial (and then which I2C, RS232, RS422, etc..) communication.

Your collection of 'do' elements have to build on top of the previous layer.
- relays / Fet-switches / analog-switch-IC's
- VCA's / MDAC's / Digital-pots
All those need some driver/interfacing. It should be easy to 'stack' combinations based on the feature-requirements of the module. Some generic-tunable-design building-blocks would be most welcome.
I would be most interested in your design thoughts on how to replace analog pots in sections like Baxandall-volume-control and (-log)frequency-control-pots. I think it might be a challenge to provide a good resolution at reasonable cost.
I have been looking into 16-bit-MDAC's as an alternative for VCA's, like used on the SSL-Duality and Hoef HF16 'automix-module', I can find very little implementation information besides the data-sheets. Maybe Andy Millar or John Roberts can shed some light here.

Theo

 

[gyraf]

For multiplying DAC's as gain controlled amplifiers, see e.g. the Otari MTR-100?

 

[ArnauTS]

i'm trying arduino to controll encoders, don't know if anyone done it already but it seems like a good and expandable microcontroller.

 

[madriaanse]

Here's an idea. Make a universal controller using a stepper motor that can be bolted to any rotary switch/pot with a 1/4" shaft. It would immediately be compatible with TONS of gear. Make sure it can move a beefy Elma. Good luck.

M.

 

[promixe]

Hi guys,

You need to connect from the communication controller to the elements that 'do' something...

It sounds like Igor has the "doing" part under control, i.e. he only needs help with the communication/software part, from your DAW host to a unit's local SPI message.

This is what I posted in another forum a few months ago:

I thought about this a lot and what's most appealing to me personally is going the WEB route. Pretty much every computer device on the market (including phones, etc.) has a browser built in. These browsers are optimized for HTML5/Java speed and are very stable. It's a lot easier to code an interactive web page that IMMEDIATELY works on every platform/CPU/device rather then coding a cross-platform application code, maintaining it is another story. You use a auto discovery protocol, something like Bonjour to automatically assign your audio device a domain name, you go to 1.yourstudio.com and there is your control interface for it. My controller for THAT1570/5171 would work like that:

There is no serial-to-USB or serial-to-Ethernet adapter you need to plug in, in fact, you can plug the audio device into any router or even control it being in a different country, while listening to the changes through ISDN stream. =) On the audio device side you run a tiny embedded web server with your web pages loaded in and the server translates what it gets from the client into SPI. Hardware-wise you'd need something like PIC32 or AVR32 chip with Ethernet-MAC built in + a separate Ethernet PHY chip.

SSL is doing it like that with their consoles, primarily for preset/recall management, configuration, etc.

This may seem too complex of an idea, but the most work would be on the audio device side, while on the user side there wouldn't be much to do because you would just use existing technologies (TCP/IP, browser, HTML5/AJAX). Now, if you needed absolute precision or sample-accurate control of your device then this idea wouldn't work as there is a typical 3-6ms delay between push of a button on the screen and SPI message out of the chip (given typical home LAN latency). Again, this is what seems ideal to me personally, because it looks daunting to code an application for OSX, getting it to work right, then doing a Windows version (even if reusing half the code, which then would compromise Mac's Objective-C workflow), then Linux, iPad crowds get left in the cold, then next version of Windows comes out and here I am redoing the app because some API I relied on is now discontinued. =) Then there is extra hardware on the client side that needs to deal with RS-232/RS-485 (something like a USB adapter, that you forget at home when rushing to an important remote recording gig). =) Don't discount the benefit of wireless when going TCP/WEB route. I was playing a concert a few months ago, the sound guy was walking around the venue with an iPad adjusting everything on the fly with his Yamaha setup.

An RTAS/VST/AU plugin could be coded that would run inside of a DAW and maintain TCP/IP stream into your device.

Of course, OSC is the next option I would consider. But not all hosts support OSC yet (which is ridiculous in 2011, I think =). And don't underestimate what HTML5 can do, don't think of old klunky slow pages loading in every time you move a slider. =) The HTML5 technology is ready for what I'm talking about, just no one has done this yet.

Forget about EuCon unless you're Yamaha or Mackie or some other huge-a** inefficient corporation (Tonelux is an exception, as I think they got their hand on Eucon officially).

Another feature I started developing was what I called "Dynamic Resource Allocation", which distributes your available hardware on the fly between audio tracks. Say you have a vocal that you're compressing with your "TDC"-enabled N*ve 2254 and you use a particular setting on it. Then there is a guitar solo coming up where there is no vocal - well, the 2254 switches all its settings and routes the guitar into it. It's like having a pair of 2254s now. Then as the vocal comes in again, the 2254 switches back into the vocal mode. The switching of sources would occur in the DAW. This is the most basic example of this feature, but there is a lot more of course that could be done (as well as more to think about =).

PS: Regardless of whether you want the web interface for the hardware or not, I personally think going TCP route is THE ONLY way to go if this is to be inter-operable with most hosts and having no limit on deployment. The rest of the transports are VERY limited, be it cable length, maintenance, potential obsolescence, speed, etc. I don't think TCP/IP is kicking the bucket anytime soon... =)

PPS: This is the module I use - WIZ812MJ . Costs $20 fully assembled, ready to kick, just put your firmware in it and there is your TCP/UDP link outputting SPI messages into your hybrid-analog-digital device. =)

PPPS: As far as the "universal" plugin being VST - you'd need wrappers to make it work in Pro Tools and Logic (which is already a majority of DAW user space). And as far as the "sontec situation" - I CLOSELY looked into SNAP protocol and using it as a point of departure it'd be a piece of cake to do what Igor is describing. I was modelling control of a 128 channel console with comp and eq on every channel + real time metering into DAW. =)

 

[Balijon]

Promixe, I really like your approach!

. And don't underestimate what HTML5 can do, don't think of old klunky slow pages loading in every time you move a slider. =) The HTML5 technology is ready for what I'm talking about, just no one has done this yet.

+1! I also agree with your vision that going Ethernet/IP (wired/wireless) is the (only) way to go.

Forget about EuCon unless you're Yamaha or Mackie or some other huge-a** inefficient corporation (Tonelux is an exception, as I think they got their hand on Eucon officially).

I really like the object oriented approach and it is well supported by main vendors (where OSC is not). If they pretend to be 'open', we should probe them.

Another feature I started developing was what I called "Dynamic Resource Allocation", which distributes your available hardware on the fly between audio tracks. Say you have a vocal that you're compressing with your "TDC"-enabled N*ve 2254 and you use a particular setting on it. Then there is a guitar solo coming up where there is no vocal - well, the 2254 switches all its settings and routes the guitar into it. It's like having a pair of 2254s now. Then as the vocal comes in again, the 2254 switches back into the vocal mode. The switching of sources would occur in the DAW. This is the most basic example of this feature, but there is a lot more of course that could be done (as well as more to think about =).

I was wresting with the same idea, I like the analog routing concept of the SSL-Matrix-console, but on a much larger scale and not going DA/AD to the DAW too much, I would like to stay analog. This would call for comprehensive analog routing, what are your thinking lines in this?

PS: Regardless of whether you want the web interface for the hardware or not, I personally think going TCP route is THE ONLY way to go if this is to be inter-operable with most hosts and having no limit on deployment. The rest of the transports are VERY limited, be it cable length, maintenance, potential obsolescence, speed, etc. I don't think TCP/IP is kicking the bucket anytime soon... =)

+1! I don't expect that we will be switching the Internet off soon... Although we do need to go IPV6.

PPS: This is the module I use - WIZ812MJ . Costs $20 fully assembled, ready to kick, just put your firmware in it and there is your TCP/UDP link outputting SPI messages into your hybrid-analog-digital device. =)

Looks very promising from a pricing point, does it come with a HTML-5 webserver-stack or do you want to run that on a different machine? What kind of software/firmware-stack do you propose?
I have been looking on Embeded-Linux Ethernet-controllers (like Lantronix with a webserver), but they are a lot more expensive.

Theo

 

[grantlack]

+1! I also agree with your vision that going Ethernet/IP (wired/wireless) is the (only) way to go.

i'd be wary of wireless if it's anything udp-based, there's a general lack of error-checking and wireless isn't known for being iron-clad.  with a constant stream of data that might not be a problem to drop a packet here and there (moving averages can help correct this), but for things like on-off states it might be a little sketchy.  not that this couldn't be dealt with.  if you send several redundant packets for the 'one-shot' information, you increase the likelihood that it will be received properly.

I really like the object oriented approach and it is well supported by main vendors (where OSC is not). If they pretend to be 'open', we should probe them.

i'm afraid i'm with promixe here.  once avid got its hands on eucon, any pipedreams of getting ahold of the sdk for a startup company or personal project went out the window.  they aren't even interested in supplying it to some well-established companies.  no hurt in trying though, i suppose.  html5/js is quite compelling, there's a daw that already has a runtime environment equipped for basic network-based control.  unfortunately iirc plugin/automation envelope parameters aren't yet integrated.

PPS: This is the module I use - WIZ812MJ . Costs $20 fully assembled, ready to kick, just put your firmware in it and there is your TCP/UDP link outputting SPI messages into your hybrid-analog-digital device. =)

Looks very promising from a pricing point, does it come with a HTML-5 webserver-stack or do you want to run that on a different machine? What kind of software/firmware-stack do you propose?
I have been looking on Embeded-Linux Ethernet-controllers (like Lantronix with a webserver), but they are a lot more expensive.

Theo
[/quote]

i'm curious about implementation with this as well.  i've done some light work on soc's w/ integrated wifi for biomedical research, but that was almost a year ago  :-[.

 

[detonator]

Just love the ideas. Take the Lexicon MX series for example, THE did à Same sort of thing. And what about The Duality desk. I spoke with the designer of this console at an exhibtion. It's an analogue desk, but digitaly controled. So it's possible