the modern desk/console in 2021...

[pucho812]

What is really needed in a desk in 2021... I may have even rambled on about this already who knows.

but I am having a day dream on building a desk again, I have enough drawings, sketches and other things to start making it into something and maybe into a diy project for those that want to go down that road.

So what do desks in 2021 really need? are they really needed? ours at the studio is needed to a degree. It makes tracking sessions very efficient to manage and sounding great, but it can easily be skipped for the mix process if one desires. It's not a necessity in 2021.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Two things that a desk must provide are:
A good monitor section, with the ability to monitor many sources in addition to the mix, like Aux sends, external sources,...
A good headphones mix system.
IMO, when these two points are fulfilled, the main reason to have a desk is the wow factor.
When my desk goes to oblivion, I won't replace it with another, but I'll buy or make the monitor section and use one of the headphones systems with personal mixers. I already use the Behringer system, that works fine, except it lacks the AI that would allow to turn its knobs and push its switches when some Neanderthal muso can't.
For the rest of the tasks, a bunch of good preamps and a converter is all I need; maybe some outboard, I'm not sure, it's now more than two years I haven't plugged any outboard, I've used only plugs for EQ and dynamics. The only exception would be my Guantec reverb.
As much as I loved building desks, I can't justify objectively the money and effort. But I understand the subjective quality of such a project. ther are a few examples here of beautiful realizations.

 

[john12ax7]

The ultimate would be a modular system that allows users to install whatever fits their needs.

A very 2021 thing would be a center section that integrated DAW control.

 

[Harpo]

The ultimate would be a modular system that allows users to install whatever fits their needs.

A very 2021 thing would be a center section that integrated DAW control.

...maybe horizontical modular in blocks of 8 instead of the common vertical modular desk, so you are free to decide if you like FI 1, 2, ... 23 auxes or whatever better.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The ultimate would be a modular system that allows users to install whatever fits their needs.

A very 2021 thing would be a center section that integrated DAW control.

That's basically what Argosys and a few others propose... Can be a real DIY project but not much electronics.

 

[pucho812]

The ultimate would be a modular system that allows users to install whatever fits their needs.

A very 2021 thing would be a center section that integrated DAW control.

That's the tricky part. The big issue to that is not the integration but the support. For example say I wanted to add eucon, as part to the development kit and papers you sign, I am not allowed to make eucon hardware but I can integrate eucon into software. Now even if I manage to crack eucon hardware and work with pro tools at a eucon level, there is nothing stopping avid from changing that and eliminating eucon protocol in versions down the road. They already have stopped support for hui devices and although you can use hui in pro tools still, you are limited in functionality.

Two things that a desk must provide are:
A good monitor section, with the ability to monitor many sources in addition to the mix, like Aux sends, external sources,...
A good headphones mix system.
IMO, when these two points are fulfilled, the main reason to have a desk is the wow factor.
When my desk goes to oblivion, I won't replace it with another, but I'll buy or make the monitor section and use one of the headphones systems with personal mixers. I already use the Behringer system, that works fine, except it lacks the AI that would allow to turn its knobs and push its switches when some Neanderthal muso can't.
For the rest of the tasks, a bunch of good preamps and a converter is all I need; maybe some outboard, I'm not sure, it's now more than two years I haven't plugged any outboard, I've used only plugs for EQ and dynamics. The only exception would be my Guantec reverb.
As much as I loved building desks, I can't justify objectively the money and effort. But I understand the subjective quality of such a project. ther are a few examples here of beautiful realizations.

Yes. a robust monitor section is key. A good headphone mix system can easily be integrated via 3rd party vendor. But having a good headphone amp so you can monitor along side the monitor section if required is key.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Yes. a robust monitor section is key. A good headphone mix system can easily be integrated via 3rd party vendor. But having a good headphone amp so you can monitor along side the monitor section if required is key.

Actually I monitor the headphones via the same personal monitor as the musos.

 

[pucho812]

Actually I monitor the headphones via the same personal monitor as the musos.

I do that too at times, but once mixes are setup to their liking. I switch back

 

[Brian Roth]

More than a few years ago, one studio owner I know decided to go with this for his headphone cue system:

https://proav.roland.com/global/products/m-48/
Apparently he could remotely diddle individual cue box settings from the control room. in case a dumb musician was incapable of understanding how to work the remote box.

Bri

 

[groselicain]

I'm in the middle of a studio build and still don't see how you run a serious room without a console. I'll give you my list of criteria—granted, these are just mine, but I figure anyone that wants to maximize profitability is going to be looking at the same things. After all, the days of exclusively running a mix room or tracking room seem to be behind us.

1. Auxes/Cues - For tracking, it seems to me that the more you can offer pre-tape for headphones, the better. I know a lot of folks are sending post-tape, but the latency of AD-DA adds up cumulatively as far as I can tell. I'm looking for anything that can give me a total of 4 mono + 1 stereo sends for headphones on tracking. That's based off of the old Furman headphone system, which may be very outdated by this point. Additionally, I think that's a fair metric by which to measure a console's abilities at mixdown.
2. Automation/DAW control - This is exclusively a mixdown requirement, but I feel like I addressed that above. As more and more artists/bands figure out the capabilities of the modern DAW-equipped studio, the more I find myself getting calls about revisions. At the moment I mix through a Chandler Mini-Mixer, and I'm content with what it affords me as a mixer. That said, I feel like pulling my hair out when I receive notes that require excessive rides when I'm feeding outboard dynamics from my DA on a per-channel basis. At the moment, I vacillate between API's 2488 and Neve's Genesys for my studio. Granted, I don't personally want to go that route, but I know that I have to make concessions to keep receiving income. For that to happen, I require some ability to write fader moves.
3. Automation/DAW control, continued - Maybe this is a personal quibble, but I do not understand how anyone making an inline console can omit automation of the line/B input. API's 2488 does this, for example. If I'm in mixdown and know I'm on a desk with automation, I don't want to have to plan routing to get around the fact that half of my channels won't have fader automation. Surely others will agree.
4. Character - If any studio is still committed to having a console as the centerpiece of their room, they must want a sonic identity. At this point, I don't feel it's even necessary to list my caveats about EQs or preamps—we all know what we like, and the average guy or gal booking time is just looking for a serviceable room at the end of the day. That said, I don't see why anyone should build a console in 2021 that doesn't have a sonic imprint. Perhaps that need only exist at summing and all other inputs of the console can remain neutral, but I can't think of a reason someone would pay to work on a console that's invisible.

I hope that adds to the conversation and doesn't just echo what's already been said or muddy the waters.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I'm in the middle of a studio build and still don't see how you run a serious room without a console. I'll give you my list of criteria—granted, these are just mine, but I figure anyone that wants to maximize profitability is going to be looking at the same things. After all, the days of exclusively running a mix room or tracking room seem to be behind us.

1. Auxes/Cues - For tracking, it seems to me that the more you can offer pre-tape for headphones, the better. I know a lot of folks are sending post-tape, but the latency of AD-DA adds up cumulatively as far as I can tell. I'm looking for anything that can give me a total of 4 mono + 1 stereo sends for headphones on tracking. That's based off of the old Furman headphone system, which may be very outdated by this point. Additionally, I think that's a fair metric by which to measure a console's abilities at mixdown.
2. Automation/DAW control - This is exclusively a mixdown requirement, but I feel like I addressed that above. As more and more artists/bands figure out the capabilities of the modern DAW-equipped studio, the more I find myself getting calls about revisions. At the moment I mix through a Chandler Mini-Mixer, and I'm content with what it affords me as a mixer. That said, I feel like pulling my hair out when I receive notes that require excessive rides when I'm feeding outboard dynamics from my DA on a per-channel basis. At the moment, I vacillate between API's 2488 and Neve's Genesys for my studio. Granted, I don't personally want to go that route, but I know that I have to make concessions to keep receiving income. For that to happen, I require some ability to write fader moves.
3. Automation/DAW control, continued - Maybe this is a personal quibble, but I do not understand how anyone making an inline console can omit automation of the line/B input. API's 2488 does this, for example. If I'm in mixdown and know I'm on a desk with automation, I don't want to have to plan routing to get around the fact that half of my channels won't have fader automation. Surely others will agree.

All these points are actually in favour of a virtual mixer.

1. Character - If any studio is still committed to having a console as the centerpiece of their room, they must want a sonic identity. At this point, I don't feel it's even necessary to list my caveats about EQs or preamps—we all know what we like, and the average guy or gal booking time is just looking for a serviceable room at the end of the day. That said, I don't see why anyone should build a console in 2021 that doesn't have a sonic imprint. Perhaps that need only exist at summing and all other inputs of the console can remain neutral, but I can't think of a reason someone would pay to work on a console that's invisible.

This is a matter of taste and MO.
I am of the school of thought that the signal path should be the most transparent possible and that colour should be given by the artists and the mixer's talent (and FX).
Others may not agree and they would be right.
Still I wonder; how significant is the sonic imprint of the mixer in the finished record?
At Barclay studios, we had two radically different mixers, an API and a Neve. Some SE"s swore by the Neve, others by the API, but the really good ones didn't care much, they were good with both.

 

[groselicain]

All these points are actually in favour of a virtual mixer.

I won't disagree that my first point leans in that direction on paper, but how do you envision implementing a virtual mixer without at least one level of digital conversion before the audio reaches the performer in reality? Regarding the second and third points—I guess I should've clarified my position. A virtual mixer works just fine when it comes to outboard dynamics if the user has enough hardware inserts to accommodate what's required. For me, I've never had or even really wanted to add that many DAs and ADs into my racks to make that work, let alone taxing my computer with doing all the delay compensation. So with my setup, automating in a virtual mixer changes the levels that my outboard sees—not something I want.

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I only let the computer be the tape machine. I'd love to be able to write my fader automation to it as I would thirty years ago, but nothing else.

Still I wonder; how significant is the sonic imprint of the mixer in the finished record?
At Barclay studios, we had two radically different mixers, an API and a Neve. Some SE"s swore by the Neve, others by the API, but the really good ones didn't care much, they were good with both.

This is a fine question, and very valid. The way I see it, API and Neve may not sound alike—but they both have their own characteristic sound. If they were removed completely from the equation, I believe we might be having a different discussion. But as you said, others may not agree and they would be right.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

If your set up is based around having a good sounding, decent sized room in which folks are supposed to play together, then the character of the desk can play a huge role. Unless we're talking classical recording etc. Musicians feed off what they're hearing on the floor and in the cans.
Capturing everything transparently and leaving any sonic character to the mix engineer will no doubt result in a different performance. For better or worse.

Same situation if everything is an overdub, there's no feedback from the overdubbing musicians to the first track laid down by the drummer or whatever.

Not everything we like about how records were made in the old days is purely nostalgia. A lot of those records made on old desks still sound damn good.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Personally I think the best approach is modular. However modularity seems to have been the reason so many vintage consoles are unreliable and expensive to manufacture. So many ribbons, card edge connectors, etc.
I like the hybrid approach that has evolved. A lot of people are working with a mixture of summing mixers or small desks like the SSL Xdesk and RND Centerpiece. Then extending those mixers capability with 500 series racks full of EQs, Dynamics and pres.
This makes more sense to me as it sidesteps the problems of large format desks but makes no compromise in sound quality.
There are of course things you just can't do with a setup like this.
There is little or no provision for artist mixes (the Xdesk does have a cue though). And there are many sophisticated solutions for cue mixes now which put more control in the artists hands. Though you end up having to mult the inputs(or feed the outputs of the DAW to the artist mix. 2-5ms of loopthrough isn't going to hurt anyones timing)
You don't get submaster/tape assign buttons like in the olden days. But most everyone is using a DAW as a tape machine now. And which track goes where can be managed in the DAW.

The big win here is you don't need a crew of guys and a forklift to install a mixer.

 

[john12ax7]

The digital control side can be hard to future proof, whether it's eucon or hui, as you are at the whims of other manufacturers. I've considered building a mixer in the past and the easiest solution I came up with was to integrate an actual control surface. Take something like an Avid Artist Mix, use as is or hack it up and put in a new frame. You could use an SSL Sigma on the back end for full analog automation.

 

[pucho812]

I use the daw as a tape machine now days too so you are not alone there. I thought about adding a control surface but then you are stuck to physical dims of the surface used.
One way to future proof things is a plug in controlling the hardware. As long as the plug in strays updated to whatever the current versions are, should be good. SSL did that. it is great.

 

[Brian Roth]

Going back to Pucho's first posting in this thread....

I "grew up" with desks where everything was pretty much self contained in the desk...mic pres, EQs, monitoring, etc. External things like limiters (and maybe an Allison gate) would be patched in as needed. External mic preamps and "boutique" EQs were unheard of back then. although I developed a fondness for the original ITI parametric EQ as an outboard.

So, in the context of a desk for 2021, how much functionality should be there? Mic pre? EQ? And going further into later desks (such as SSL or Amek and Neve) dynamic processing?

In the CR monitor mix/cue domain I've become fond of a "split" system vs. inline.

Bri

 

[ruffrecords]

I think 'modern' is the wrong to describe it. The problem is, these days, studios range from a simple bedroom setup to giant professional studios. Throughout that range, the features and functions required of a console vary enormously. Added to that, the workflow throughout the range varies just as much. So it seems to me there is not going to be a one size fits all 'modern' console. I think first you need to define the market segment it is aimed at.

Cheers

Ian

 

[pucho812]

Well I say modern because things have changed so much. As mentioned something as simple as 24 multitrack sends, are they needed in 2021? Yes we do but do we need a full 24? There in lies the question.
being able to scale things would be key. So doing something that could easily be expanded and or scaled down is essential.

 

[zvukofor]

It needs to follow the workflow.
Which one's workflow — that is the question.

As much as i like to record with analog console, i'd hate to mix using analog console only - a lot of automation and FX, not to mention track count... What do i personally want from a console is: a knob-per-function workflow, i want to know what's happening on a mix only by taking a look at the whole console easily, and i want nice nonlinearities from overloading its channels. I'm perfectly happy using either SSL4k or Midas Heritage (tho i miss dynamics in this case), or some big live Soundcraft desks.

Still want to see a good DAW control (beside basic faders), there're only Avid, Console1 and now SSL with their dedicated controller... but they're pretty closed systems, what if i want to use different compression or EQ? — going back to faders only...
Integration with a DAW is a key to sleek workflow, but that often means closed system, again, or... hell, we can't have a good EQ controller which is not looking like a real EQ - and what EQ do user prefer?.. a full bag of troubles - that's what any controller developer gets only first looking at the problem, not to mention UI feedback, control protocol, etc...

Often thinking about "what is my dream console of 202x", and asking fellow engineers and musicians about it, i still has no definite answer to this question.
I do love digital for EQ and routing and ability to use presets, but i miss knob-per-function UI and good enough nonlinearities.