The Ultimate Analogue Desk

[Gettestudios]

I have also posted this question on the Pro Audio design forum. Please let me know if i am in error with posting this topic here.

Background: I am in the research phase of building the impossible "the Large format Audio Console" It would be a from the ground up approach utilizing both existing technology (tried and true analogue design) and well pushing the envelope of what is posable with modern use of control technology. I know many before me have posed the question of large format console design and build, not many if any actually follow through for what ever reason (Financial, Time, or just plan easier to get the loan for the big desk by "insert" brand) I believe it is not only posable but also likely if accomplished it could rival anything currently available on the market for the mere fact, it will not be built/designed to meet a cost to prophet margin. With so many talented Designers on the web/in this forum, i am sure the result would be something to admire.

The Basic spec of the desk: 72 Input/48 Buss/16 Aux/5.1 and 7.1 mixing capability, Console Fully automatable every pot/fader/switch. And of-course extensive knob per function DAW control as well (for those who want it)

My promise to the forum: I will make all design and software (for auto) freely available to any member as well as all supply resources to include metal work. So that any one could build it themselves.

Lets begin...

Offering the same extensive automation found in DAW's. Such as EQ and Comp auto.(Something the SSL Duality even falls short of)

The question is: Outside of Cost factor,(which would be lower then motorized pots) How would the use of VCA's (such as That 2181/2180A) in every Pot position on a desk (IE: EQ Section would have a VCA for gain, VCA for Q, VCA for freq) effect signal quality?

An example Desk CH with the typical Pre/Gate/Comp/EQ would have 23 VCA's (excluding the AUX sends)


Obviously, the creative aspects of this kind of control is endless, (My mind is running away with the possibilities) just curious to your thoughts on it...

Joel

 

[abechap024]

Dude, I was thinking of something like this, mainly the total automation part. It would be wickedly wicked. and totally do able!

AC

 

[Morning_Star]

I have a great design idea for a digital mixing desk.  I think that companies should use digital rotary knobs for channel faders instead of motorized ones.  Much like the knobs on the D-Command.  This would allow instant recall no matter of current knob position and would show it's value and automation via digital meter.  Does this make sense to anyone but me?

*patent pending* lol.

 

[tmuikku]

I have a great design idea for a digital mixing desk.  I think that companies should use digital rotary knobs for channel faders instead of motorized ones.  Much like the knobs on the D-Command.  This would allow instant recall no matter of current knob position and would show it's value and automation via digital meter.  Does this make sense to anyone but me?

*patent pending* lol.

Isn't the whole point with faders that you can easily see all the time what position each fader is? I think it would be impossible to get look on what each status is when the desk is wider than say 19" Also you can move at least 8 faders with your own hands simultaneously, try that with pots.

Except of course with automation. But in that case why put pots at all? Just put room full of electronics and use only computer as user interface.

If one doesn't need automation (do it in daw): Just do fancy software with couple of hi res cams and augmented reality goggles. Settings are saved with the cams. When time for recall just put gogles on and see what position each pot should be and do manual recal! Mucho cheaper and works for outboard too ( patch panel recal would be different sotry i imagine.. ).  2c

 

[helterbelter]

Hi Joel,

First of all: Welcome !

Well,  in your post, there are a couple things that I want to comment to. I don't know at what level your skills in electronics and/or programming are. Mine aren't that fantastic, so keep that in mind

The Basic spec of the desk: 72 Input/48 Buss/16 Aux/5.1 and 7.1 mixing capability, Console Fully automatable every pot/fader/switch. And of-course extensive knob per function DAW control as well (for those who want it)

72 input ? I think an 8 channel desk would be an achievement on it's own.  If you manage to get 8 channels right, with total control (instead of total recall), AND good sound.... I'm sure you'll get a very well paid function in the SSL designing staff.

Besides, 72 channels and 48 buses.... Who needs that these days ? The recording went DAW, and cd's don't get sold anymore, reflecting to recording budgets. (why would you buy a Maibach if a Mercedes does the job just as good ?)

Offering the same extensive automation found in DAW's. Such as EQ and Comp auto.(Something the SSL Duality even falls short of)

The question is: Outside of Cost factor,(which would be lower then motorized pots) How would the use of VCA's (such as That 2181/2180A) in every Pot position on a desk (IE: EQ Section would have a VCA for gain, VCA for Q, VCA for freq) effect signal quality?

This is the reason why there are people that don't like the sound of SSL. ( consoles/ compressors).  VCA's add distortion.  As a matter of fact, SSL has made an eq with VCA's,in the early 90's. 8 channels programmable 8 band graphic EQ. I don't know how it sounds though. It's  used in the 5000 and 8000 consoles.

An example Desk CH with the typical Pre/Gate/Comp/EQ would have 23 VCA's (excluding the AUX sends)

I don't think 23 VCA's will be enough for your application, but maybe you could use DCR's for some parts. I'd use DCR's instead of VCA's when continuous control isn't a necessity. For the gain of the pres for instance.

.........
Ah, well.... I'd go with motorpots all the way. Mostly because your idea of the console would get extremely expensive anyway, why settle with rotaries and vca's to save a few euros.

Powerconsumption would be no problem either. 72 channels/48 buses/16 auxes and full automation via VCA's would require a private powerplant too. And don't forget the humungous AC needed to cool that console !

 

[jensenmann]

Buy this desk and save a lot of time:  http://www.adt-audio.com/UsProducts/MagnumV3/MagnumMainPage.html
No need to reinvent the wheel. If you don´t have the cash to buy this console then you don´t have the cash to DIY your own large desk either.

 

[Samuel Groner]

About once a year this forum sees such a thread. I don't recall that anyone has come up with anything more than a couple of rough drawings. Just be serious: if you want to do this on your own you'll need to take two years off and have 200k $ to spend--if you have the knowledge. If not say five years and 300k $. And these are conservative estimates (even designing a dependable PSU for such a beast is a major challenge).

Samuel

 

[Michael Tibes]

I didn't wanna spoil the party, but that's exactly what I thought...

Michael

 

[Gettestudios]

Wow what a response.. Thank you for welcoming to the board.

So many why's and not enough why "not's" Such is the case for many. Cost? you would be amazed just how little it could cost if approached with the right mindset. The prophet margins in pro audio is insane (cost to manufacture/build to price sold at dealer) Aside from pots/faders name the most expensive component of any major console?

For example: Lets take the simple and all important Opamp. The key to any console design and most would agree the heart of how a desk will sound. Monolithic offer a decent sound at a good price point and even some of those could get pricy. The ultimate is obviously discrete (IE: the 990) but at a huge cost factor. BUT hold on, how much did it actually cost to manufacture/build one? Think about it, allot of company's (even DIY'ers) offer a form a 990 at an average cost of $60. Most of the companies who offer it, also manufacture Audio gear that uses the 990. So to lower cost of manufacturer, the small company decided to build the 990 themselves, thus lowering cost and increasing profit margins. WHO Said we had to buy a 990, lets build one for our desk and lower the "cost" of components, my guess is that a 990 BOM would be less then $4.00.(the more you build at one time the less the number per unit gets) SO who here has the knowledge on how to build one? and who is willing to share it? hmmmmmm....

Skill Set? Well i first started tearing apart and destroying electronic equipment at the component level at about age 11, was a very lucky kid, i had an electronics engineer as a next door neighbor who had enlightened me to the simple concepts of electronic design(color code, Ohm's law etc..) I still consider myself a hack, just a hack with many years of experience....

The IDEA of using pots/rotary in place of faders, is noble and does harken back to the origins of console design. However noble, i personally prefer faders.

Yes the use of VCA would use huge amounts of power, So you are right, motorized pots it is. ( I was already thinking of using  a liquid cooled design to keep it cool and keep the console operating in its ideal working temp, but more on that later)

POWER SURPLY: a challenge yes, but with so many good examples already built, it would just be a matter of utilizing the the design that meets the desk requirement along with some refinement.

WHY BUILD IT. HMM just BUY IT. That is the easy answer, even the console you directed me to does not fit my ideal of a desk. 72/48/16 May be over kill for the majority of engineers here, I however do not like the sound of mixing in the DAW, i only use the DAW as a recorder editor. 48 Busses? well 24 for the DAW and 24 for the 2" studer, i hate having to patch between the 2, but i may consider dropping down to 24 busses, it does make sense, ok, 72/24/16. That works (just can not be lazy any more,,,

SSL Design staff? Hmm that would be interesting... Yes this a challenge, but some one else has done it before and some else will do it again in the future. Think about it, what motivated a small organ company to build a recording console? or a young Neve to design his first console? It all started somewhere. In order to do anything you have to first begin.

I see that the question may be, is it actually going to be built, in short YES. it may take some time, but it will be done.

So is anyone interested?

Lets start at the front of the signal chain with that ever ending debate of MICPRE design. In large format consoles the ideal micpre is as transparent as one can get. For more reasons then just sonic integrity, if you have warm pre's the console will sound muddy and bright pre the console sounds sterile. (there are many examples of desks that suffer from this) A clean uncolored path would also allow the use of the myriad amount of outboard micpres to be captured through the console honestly. SO, with that said, the design needs to be as simple as posable (least amount of components) the simpler the design the less likely to "color" the signal as it passes through. The tendency here is to go to a discrete design. Even after my above argument on how a discrete Opamp could be built in house, i personally feel that discrete's serve a better purpose else where in the signal (IE Buss/maybe EQ and comp) chain. I feel they do offer a unique sonic signature, one that can get "overdone" if used in every Micpre on a console.  A monolithic that i have been impressed with is THAT1570 ic. It is very clean sonically, has good distortion numbers and offers a very simple input and output stage design that meets the afore mentioned criteria. Other options of-course are out there (IE:1512, opa series, etc) What are your thoughts?

Joel

 

[JohnRoberts]

I've already answered you on another forum...  but

Yes, this is more difficult than you think...  People (you) don't even appreciate how difficult it is to make a simple analog console on the scale you specify. Making everything digitally controlled on top of that while simple in concept, makes the already difficult, massively difficult.

First study the work that is already there, and if you still believe this is easy make a small 8 input two or four bus proof of concept to prove us wrong.

JR

BTW it's spelled bus not buss.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In the spirit of your request, yes, the THAT that dig controlled mic pre chip set is OK, and there is also a TI variant that would probably work acceptably. These canned solutions are the relatively easy part.

Digitally controlled EQs generally involve slightly more complex topology. to simplify the control aspects. There are several examples of credible digitally controlled, state variable based parametric EQ.

I applaud your enthusiasm, but don't share you judgement of the degree of difficulty.

JR

 

[Gettestudios]

Hello JR Never said this was easy nor did i say this will not come with failure. With each step made even the wrong ones leads me closer to the goal. I will look at the other forum to see your reply.

It's a huge undertaking that i welcome. Even you at some point in your career (very admirable from what i have read) had at some point made the decision to just do it. YES a challenge, Yes allot of study, yes allot of headache and who knows how many PCB's will be bounced of the walls in frustration or how many times i scream when the compiler crashes when compiling the Automation software. It is the long road i welcome.

BUT i do understand fully your disbelief...

Joel

 

[Samuel Groner]

Aside from pots/faders name the most expensive component of any major console?

You'll probably need four layer PCBs with the digital control stuff. Very expensive at low volume and the large area.

My guess is that a 990 BOM would be less then $4.00.

I don't want to be rude but you're estimate is way off. Just the pins and sockets cost as much or more (I buy them in k quantities), and you've not even bought the dual input transistor, the special ferrite beads and the PCB... It is of course possible to design a cheaper discrete opamp which you might be able to build for 10$ in larger quantities, but you'll need to skip the 2520 footprint and accept a couple of electrical compromises.

So is anyone interested?

I'm happy to share my knowledge to some degree but don't expect me to spend serious time (or even money) on this.

Samuel

 

[Rochey]

This is very admirable. A wonderful challenge if you have the time and patience for a multi-year project, and a large budget.

Having worked with virtually every console manufacturer on the planet at one time or another (I'm an audio guy at a IC manufacturer) - I can tell you the following things:

- Console design is NOT as simple as hooking separately designed modules together. Chasing system-wide gremlins is very common. (try raising 80+ faders on J series SSL... SHHHHHHHH)

- Profit margins are NOT insane. This is one of the main reasons so many of the console manufacturers are going bankrupt/changing ownership etc.
-- e.g. Klark Teknik now owned by Behringer, SSL now owned by Red Lion 49, Euphonix now owned by Avid , Allen and Heath private/harman/private, Sony Oxford - now oxford digital, with no consoles. Digidesign (technically more than mixers...) now owned by Avid. StudioMaster now owned by Soundking in China. Soundcraft owned by Harman. The list goes on...

- Making any decent audio circuit digitally controllable is a whole world of added cost. I say "decent" because things like PGA's (Programmable Gain Amps) for consumer products are relatively easy to make in silicon (e.g. we use them in all of our TLV320AIC products)... but a Mic Pre-Amp PGA is very tough to do, even if you buy a chip off them shelf to do it... ($8 each, even in 1Ku's!).
Go discrete, and you enter the world of FET or Relay switching. It's ugly. really ugly.
Motorised pots? Ha! ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

Good luck. I genuinely support your efforts, however, there's a reason why folks like SSL have multiple teams of designers making consoles, designing metalwork,
In fact - most large format consoles focus more on the industrial side (i.e. multichannel connections, power supply redundancy, control redundancy etc) than the audio signal chain.

Please. prove me wrong. I would like nothing more than to be proved wrong on this one.

 

[Gettestudios]

Sam- My guess was an un-researched guess, so i apologize in that regard, my point was to get people thinking beyond the cost factor. I admittedly over shot my point with no intention of devaluing the work or the cost of the discrete Opamps. But even then at 12 per unit it is a huge cost savings over just simply buying them.

The PCB's, My design notes are simply keeping all audio on one card and all control on another. keeping PCB design as simple as posable. Infact, if i continue to work on a digitally controlled aspect i may even locate all analogue cards in a rack. Your thoughts?

 

[Shorty]

What's your fader budget?

NOT considering any quantity discounts, your faders alone will be nuts

If building with quality, there really is no substitute for P&Gs if you ask me....
ALPS, TKO, WW, Etc all fall short, if not other than in durability... (Most in quality also)

72 Input Faders (MONO) $10,656
48 Bus Faders (STEREO) $15,456
8 Master Faders (MONO) $  1,512

Total Fader Cost, P&G    $27,624

You could get a hold of Dale

Dale Manquen at MANCO
1694 Calle Zocalo
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 529-2496
[email protected]
www.manquen.net

I'm sure you'll find that it would be cheaper to buy an entire Flying Fader, or Uptown kit from him though, and just implement that.
Starting from scratch with automating, particularly to PT, can be a bit tough.

Over here we took an existing automation setup and embeded it in a board.
We also set up a Harisson S10-B with relays to cycle back and forth between automation of PT and automation of the Desk

Look at http://www.ucapps.de/ for some ideas about automation, however these are not ideal for PT.

Keep in mind you are talking about a LOT of automation.
Short of some highly intensive / extensive developement, custom multilayer PCB's, TONS of IC's..... you'd be better off grabbing some prefab automated guts and build around em

 

[0dbfs]

Well, one thing to consider is budget and schedule. Those are serious items to consider if it will ever get done. Huge driving factors in any project are time and money. Good/Fast/Cheap, pick any two.

Parts, labor, R&D.

If it costs 1,000 to produce a single input channel strip then you are already in at least 72k for 72 of your input channels. Now, with 16 auxes, 48 busses, and X number of PGM out's you are in for about 66 or more output modules. Maybe you can design your bus masters into your input strips to save on real-estate.

So, if you budget 100,000 and three years, you will need to spend about 3k every month for three years.

How much do quality 100mm P&G's (with motors) cost? How about motorized pots (16 of those for each input strip for your aux sends?).. What about developing the software for the total-automation (or even just fader/mute automation)?

Console frame/metal-work.
Patchbay integration. 10 or 12 96 point bays with wiring? The redco's with the convenient DB25 connectors on the back are in the 800.- range each.

I would start by giving yourself a budget per channel (that you can manage in your specified time-frame) and design to those requirements. Addressing front panel layout will tell you a lot about how many switches and pots are required for each channel (and the cost per channel).

Maybe committing to delivering a simpler four bus 8 channel console with minimal features would be helpful in identifying some of the roadblocks. Chances for success are much higher, and doing so would not prevent you from moving on to a large format desk. API makes a 1608 and there are a handful of Neve keslo, melbourne, and similar small format consoles of high caliber and quality.

Best,
jonathan

 

[Rochey]

Maybe committing to delivering a simpler four bus 8 channel console with minimal features would be helpful in identifying some of the roadblocks. Chances for success are much higher, and doing so would not prevent you from moving on to a large format desk. API makes a 1608 and there are a handful of Neve keslo, melbourne, and similar small format consoles of high caliber and quality.

This man speaks sense.

 

[Gettestudios]

This is very admirable. A wonderful challenge if you have the time and patience for a multi-year project, and a large budget.

Thank you!

Having worked with virtually every console manufacturer on the planet at one time or another (I'm an audio guy at a IC manufacturer) - I can tell you the following things:


- Console design is NOT as simple as hooking separately designed modules together. Chasing system-wide gremlins is very common. (try raising 80+ faders on J series SSL... SHHHHHHHH)

- Profit margins are NOT insane. This is one of the main reasons so many of the console manufacturers are going bankrupt/changing ownership etc.
-- e.g. Klark Teknik now owned by Behringer, SSL now owned by Red Lion 49, Euphonix now owned by Avid , Allen and Heath private/harman/private, Sony Oxford - now oxford digital, with no consoles. Digidesign (technically more than mixers...) now owned by Avid. StudioMaster now owned by Soundking in China. Soundcraft owned by Harman. The list goes on...

My guess with my lets say limited experience is a good amount of the overhead is personnel not component cost (R&D etc)

- Making any decent audio circuit digitally controllable is a whole world of added cost. I say "decent" because things like PGA's (Programmable Gain Amps) for consumer products are relatively easy to make in silicon (e.g. we use them in all of our TLV320AIC products)... but a Mic Pre-Amp PGA is very tough to do, even if you buy a chip off them shelf to do it... ($8 each, even in 1Ku's!).
Go discrete, and you enter the world of FET or Relay switching. It's ugly. really ugly.
Motorised pots? Ha! ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

Yeah i hear ya, and well it sounds like fun followed by huge headaches and pain.....

Good luck. I genuinely support your efforts, however, there's a reason why folks like SSL have multiple teams of designers making consoles, designing metalwork,
In fact - most large format consoles focus more on the industrial side (i.e. multichannel connections, power supply redundancy, control redundancy etc) than the audio signal chain.

Please. prove me wrong. I would like nothing more than to be proved wrong on this one.

i will give it everything i have to do so...    

 

[Morning_Star]

Isn't the whole point with faders that you can easily see all the time what position each fader is? I think it would be impossible to get look on what each status is when the desk is wider than say 19" Also you can move at least 8 faders with your own hands simultaneously, try that with pots.

Except of course with automation. But in that case why put pots at all? Just put room full of electronics and use only computer as user interface.

If one doesn't need automation (do it in daw): Just do fancy software with couple of hi res cams and augmented reality goggles. Settings are saved with the cams. When time for recall just put gogles on and see what position each pot should be and do manual recal! Mucho cheaper and works for outboard too ( patch panel recal would be different sotry i imagine.. ).  2c

You could easily tell fader position with the digital read out.  I hate when you have digital recall on a fader or knob that is not motorized and it reads a different reading than the actual setting.

Of course it's easy to move lots of faders at the same time.  I've already though about that down side but I think the pluses over rule it.  

These are the type of knobs I'm talking about.  They have no start or stop and the readout is very easy to see.  You could make the fader position meters vertical though.