The Fender elves appear to be working (a guess)

[Ken Morgan]

What if...the DAW mixer could be bypassed completely, and mixing relied on a 3rd party (or host DAW) system that was in essence a 16/24 track fully automation capable summing unit with hardware already built in? Not digital emulations, but actual analog circuitry.

Think SE III or other digital mixer operating independently of SP, running its own plug in sets. Doable?

 

[SwitchBack]

What if...the DAW mixer could be bypassed completely, and mixing relied on a 3rd party (or host DAW) system that was in essence a 16/24 track fully automation capable summing unit with hardware already built in? Not digital emulations, but actual analog circuitry.

Think SE III or other digital mixer operating independently of SP, running its own plug in sets. Doable?

How much room would you have for such an 'analog mixer with all analog channel strip components built in'? Remember that the desk not only needs enough room inside for all those analog modules but also enough surface area to harbour all the knobs and buttons of those modules, on every channel and output. This is why the big analog studio's of the 60's and 70's were quite literally big too, because of the cubic feet of gear they carried. It's a romantic thought to build something like that from the bottom up today (some do!), but I predict that it would require an extension to the house too

 

[Ken Morgan]

This is exactly the scenario I was referring to above...basically all that's needed at desktop would be faders and an assignable control knob and a 'channel select' button...with all of the remaining circuitry in a 2-3 space rack tucked away neatly off to the side (Ala McDSP, SSL, old Orion and other forward thinking developers from 25-30 yrs ago.

At his point Im sure I either haven't explained my thoughts clearly, or they are so (backwards/advanced, pick one) as to be outside the realm of conceivable.

 

[SwitchBack]

You know that for a permanent analog 24 channel setup you need 24 units of everything, right? With VSTs you can use as many instances of the plugin as you like at once, but analog requires a separate unit for every position you want to use it. You'll need way more than 2-3 rack spaces.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Really? I never would have guessed

(Insert eye roll here)

I’ll say this one more time: the McDSP is a single space unit with 16 analog compressors, 16 analog EQs…it most certainly is NOT 16 or 32 rack spaces

 

[lokeyfly]

Agreed, yet the FAT channel strip has to run inside the mixer too, which imposes two design limitations compared to strips for DAW only:

I get that. Understood. Its very workable as is, which points to my previous comments further. Only. I dont think I expressed it effectively.

So rather than looking at the limitations look at the advantages, as the FAT Channel in SP offers that same low latency and low cpu taxing, making it the ideal channel strip for monitor mixes even if you don't own a Series III StudioLive mixer. SP's low latency mode may disable a fancy but slow 3rd party strip but never the FAT channel strip. And you can run way more instances of it before hitting cpu limitations

Oh, I agree on all counts. My point about limitation is more about the Fat channel layout in and of itself (as a plugin design).
But that leads to what could be great future possibilities. Such as if Studio Live with all its strengths could also be a host for 3rd party plugins that offer their own inherent benefits. That does mean of course allowing 3rd part plugs to be resident in Studiolive's SE own touch screen, and also be in FSP (as is the Fat Channel). Of course this can be chalked up as wishful thinking. Only since MIDI2 will have advanced capability, and two-way send receive, could the next iteration of Studioluve mixers be far behind in accommodating 3rd party plugins/channel strips? Hopefully there is opening up of that path.

 

[Stuart Welwood]

Use digital circuitry to control the analog circuitry. I think that's what you're talking about. My ADA MP-1 tube guitar preamp does that. The entire signal path is analog, including 2 tubes and an analog chorus made with analog ICs. It's limited, but every parameter is MIDI controllable to some extent. BTW, modifications, like a dual transformer built around on a double core, which raised the tube filament voltage from around 10 volts to 13.1 (should be 12.6), made a big improvement.

All of the audio circuitry would be analog, but exactly what counts as analog? How about switched capacitor filters? PWMs? I doubt it, but?

By using MIDI, many currently available control surfaces could be used. Add MIDI2 and it's PnP.

The practical problem that I see as an engineer comes down to the costs vs. what we get. That question requires a very long answer before getting into building such a thing, and our PCs seem to do an excellent job today.

 

[lokeyfly]

Think SE III or other digital mixer operating independently of SP, running its own plug in sets. Doable?

I know you said in a 3U rack space, so your comment above doesnt describe that. Yes, you mention a control like surface layout with faders to handle the mix. Only mixing will involve so much more tactile control. Me thinks a Studioluve mixer in all its 16, 24, & 36 track layout (all having 36 track availability) would be an excellent host for this. Not to mention affordable, and tactile. Add to that its minimal latency. As I mention to Switchback, it would require integration with an eye on MIDI2, and would likely be Fender proprietary. Add to that, licensing, and its clear I'm a little far up the wishful thinking tree. but one can hope and help the vision along.

Analog circuitry by any standard, new or old still has its own signature. The best mixers inherently have their own color. Be it Neve, SSL-G, SSL-N, Amek, Harris, , etc. Some more punch, some greater bandwidth, compression, quality preamps, and so on. So an all in one analog mixer or audio device will have exactly that. Its own sound quality tradeoffs.
If I'm reading your request the right way.
I believe you were using McDSP as the only example, so I could be over emphasizing multiple manufacturers.

 

[Ken Morgan]

"Analog circuitry by any standard, new or old still has its own signature."

Absolutely...that's kind of the point. people still using large format consoles of any brand typically tend to do so because of that signature. People use LA2s, Pultecs, etc ad nauseam, because of their signature sounds, not because of convenience. Many people mix and match their hardware preamp and mic choices for the signature sounds, not emulations of them. Even though at this stage of life I'm a one man shop recording my own originals and occasional covers, I still have 8 various preamp choices (usually a pair of each), over a dozen mic choices, 4 very different hardware compression choices, etc, each chosen because of their signature sounds.

On a MUCH smaller scale, we use telecasters or Les Pauls, Twin Reverbs or AC30s because of their sounds.

My original thoughts were just that - thoughts. Not stated to re-hash the hardware/plug in wars again by any means, just thoughts. Im wasn't advocating or demanding anything, just expressing an idea in keeping with what I thought the intent of the topic was.

That's it.

 

[SwitchBack]

... could the next iteration of Studioluve mixers be far behind in accommodating 3rd party plugins/channel strips? Hopefully there is opening up of that path.

My guess is that it would be a real challenge. The FAT Channel strip was specifically designed for the StudioLive mixers, probably involving low level programming languages and machine code programming to keep latency and cpu load to a bare minimum. Then they wrapped a VST shell around that code to make it work in S1/SP too. I can't see 'deep' 3rd party VSTs with much higher latency and cpu load go the other way. It would also require implementation of adaptable latency compensation in the mixers, adding insult to injury.

So I think VSTs for DAWs should stay where they are doing beautiful stuff for production mixes and anywhere where latency is not an issue. But for live situations (e.g. cue mixes) low latency is key, which requires dedicated programming or, yes, analog gear. So the real selling point for analog gear is that low/zero latency. For identical sound quality/modelling VSTs will catch up, if they haven't already.

 

[lokeyfly]

"Analog circuitry by any standard, new or old still has its own signature."

Absolutely...that's kind of the point. people still using large format consoles of any brand typically tend to do so because of that signature. People use LA2s, Pultecs, etc ad nauseam, because of their signature sounds, not because of convenience. Many people mix and match their hardware preamp and mic choices for the signature sounds, not emulations of them. Even though at this stage of life I'm a one man shop recording my own originals and occasional covers, I still have 8 various preamp choices (usually a pair of each), over a dozen mic choices, 4 very different hardware compression choices, etc, each chosen because of their signature sounds.

On a MUCH smaller scale, we use telecasters or Les Pauls, Twin Reverbs or AC30s because of their sounds.

My original thoughts were just that - thoughts. Not stated to re-hash the hardware/plug in wars again by any means, just thoughts. Im wasn't advocating or demanding anything, just expressing an idea in keeping with what I thought the intent of the topic was.

That's it.

I gotcha, all good. Only I'm imagining at the cost of even some of these higher end or boutique channel strips alone, thats an expensive proposition. Even for a single channel. There's little to no substitute for analog quality.

The advantage of a more clean, flatter response analog circuit design is that much of those desired traits of analog gear, can with the right design, and desired transients could be modeled, then inserted before hand, via digital design.

If summing is preferred as in your preference, theres little substitute for the real thing. If you can, provide some examples of the McDSP integrated with analog hardware. That could be a clearer vision to break down. I know you mentioned the idea being preferably affordable. Only, I'm not seeing that would give the same sonic results.
Positive, and improvement conversation always the intent. Only the old adage "You want a Rolex, you buy a Rolex." comes to mind.
Just thoughts.

My earlier points consolidated:
● The Studiolive mixer with Fat Channel is already awesome. Low latency with excellent integration. Only, it would be great to include 3rd party software in the same way the Fat Channel is "designed in". MIDI2 being a provided asset.

● There's no substitute for quality summing or higher tier hardware replication, when the actual analog circuitry isnt there in the first place. Can it be modeled? Sure it can, only it still wont be the same.

● Conclusion (from my perspective), the Studiolive SE mixers would make an exceptional host for both summing and track integration with the right modeled software/firmware.

 

[SwitchBack]

And there's still the issue of (trying to) add digital control to classic analog gear. Short of motorised pots "it still won't be the same" very much applies here too. See the XMAX example.

 

[lokeyfly]

My guess is that it would be a real challenge. The FAT Channel strip was specifically designed for the StudioLive mixers, probably involving low level programming languages and machine code programming to keep latency and cpu load to a bare minimum. Then they wrapped a VST shell around that code to make it work in S1/SP too

Again, I agree on all counts. Would you stop doing that!

I can't see 'deep' 3rd party VSTs with much higher latency and cpu load go the other way. It would also require implementation of adaptable latency compensation in the mixers, adding insult to injury.

I know, and like Ken Morgan, I am wishful thinking. Suppose, Dev's take the generic design of the Fat Channel. One of its weakest characteristics is no low pass filter. It simply must have a HPF and LPF. Then Presonus create their own proprietary few additions that model off perhaps a Neve, Amek, SSL and a few others. Results, this is wrapped, and passed on to Fender Studio Pro as it would need to be for mixer-DAW plugin integration. Then, Fender and Presonus get to have exclusive add-on packages for its users. Much like its existing add-on's.

Remember, the basic structure is still Fat Channel. Only expanded upon. This makes an elegant channel strip layout for those who spent years using that layout, and newcomers who want a different option than Fat Channel.
I'm only asking for 3% off the top.(anually) ; )

 

[SwitchBack]

Adding an LPF to the FAT Channel should be fairly easy provided that the folks who developed the FAT Channel are still around. The code will be very similar to the HPF code anyway. Having said that there's probably a bandwidth limiter hard-coded in the mixer's system already to prevent Nyquist issues, so maybe in some form the code exists already.

 

[lokeyfly]

Adding an LPF to the FAT Channel should be fairly easy provided that the folks who developed the FAT Channel are still around. The code will be very similar to the HPF code anyway. Having said that there's probably a bandwidth limiter hard-coded in the mixer's system already to prevent Nyquist issues, so maybe in some form the code exists already.

With no change in sample rates, filter cutoff before the nyqyuist frequency wouldn't change. I agree with you on if development is still there with a Fat Channel redesign. As we know, there has been activity out of Presonus with the fresh enhancements toward Studiolive SE models. To what lies ahead remains to be seen. Lets hope Presonus and Fender are ambitious with MIDI2. The new protocol should keep mfr's hopping and positioning. If it doesnt, then the industry will barely be showing a pulse.

 

[lokeyfly]

I'll read the XMAX example. I'm out for a couple of days as a heads up. Good speak, and hoping for the best!​