PLAN B analog blog

I would completely agree that adding the 5.1 to the basic mixer would
be asking people who might not have use for that to pay extra for
something they might not need. so if you/someone were to do it i think
the expansion idea would be best. I suggested it as an add on as it
would be nice to have both the stereo and 5.1 output available at the
same time and have them linked.

as far as use goes i personally was thinking that this would be cool
to use in a live performance situation, not so much a film thing but
music. and i would hope that as DVD audio progresses we will see more
multi channel releases. but then again that would be the (one)reason
to have both outputs available at the same time as you could recorded
a quad/5.1 and a stereo mix of the same performance/piece at the same
time. the other cool thing about having both stereo and 5 discreet
outputs would be for cv mixing. a summed pair of output for whatever
happens in the mixer as well as the 5 discreet outputs of cv stuff.

which also brings up the idea that a mixer/panner like this would be
pretty awesome as a control voltage mixer. 

i'd be curious to see if other folks might be interested in this as well.

--david


--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you can figure
that out)" <peter@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the argument that keeps popping up with me:
> 
> I'm thinking that 5.1 would be most appealing  to those doing 
> film work.  Understandable.  But....would these individuals rather 
> use the plethora of 5.1 panners available in most digital audio 
> systems?  If we went ahead and committed to this, would those 
> who aren't working in the 5.1 field be interested, considering the 
> additional costs which would be required to replicate it with 
> analog?
> 
> I'm not trying to come across like a capitalist here, not at all.  It's 
> just a matter of functionality vs the cost of same.  I worked for 
> M&K Sound for 3 years and if anyone knows 5.1, it's Ken Kriesel, 
> considering he assisted Lucasound in drafting the THX pm3 
> spec. I gained a lot of information about surround panning, the 
> special considerations for the cursed center channel,  effective 
> dovetails, etc.   It would require the model 18 to grow in size and 
> cost considerably.  Possibly the best solution would be to 
> release a dedicated 5.1 panner onto itself.
> 
> -P
> 
> 
> --- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "david 
> rothbaum" <david@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes that makes sense. In thinking about it would be quite 
> complicated.
> > and the more common stereo would be best for most 
> applications. but
> > the 5.1 thing would be pretty great.
> > 
> > Perhaps on an 5.1 expansion model for the mixer it could be 
> connected
> > via a ribbon cable and have a switch that would route the 4 
> inputs of
> > the model 18 to the 5.1 module outputs thus making them 
> discreet on
> > the 5.1 module while also retaining the stereo information and 
> outputs
> > on the mixer. somewhat akin to how the doepfer sequencer 
> and sequencer
> > expansion modules work.
> > 
> > and also to make it even cooler, more expensive and 
> complicated. it
> > would be great on the 5.1 module to have joystick controllers to
> > control the positioning of each channel! that way you would not 
> be
> > restricted to 360 panning and could mix 5.1 like you would in a 
> DAW.
> > would you be able to make that kind of spatial positioning 
> voltage
> > controllable?
> > 
> > and i guess the last feature would be the .1 input/output. for 
> this it
> > would be cool to have a switch where that output could either 
> be a
> > summed output of the 4 inputs or a separate input with its own 
> vca.
> > 
> > sorry if this is not the proper space to bring all this up. but the
> > idea of a 5.1 module seems very cool to me.
> > 
> > perhaps i should start a new thread for dream modules...
> > 
> > thanks,
> > --david
> > 
> > 
> > --- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you 
> can figure
> > that out)" <peter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding 5.1 outputs on the mixer:
> > > 
> > > I see this as a dedicated5.1 panner module. 5.1 processing 
> is 
> > > not a simple as it sounds and the costs involved I thik would 
> > > make the model 18 out of reach for most that didn't 
> nessisarily 
> > > need tha functionality.
> > > 
> > > - P
> > >
> >
>