PLAN B analog blog

All,

In working the prototypes, I have made some feature 
enhancements to the yet-to-be-released Models 16 and 18 sets:

Model 16 set:

Set?  Yes, this is one of the changes.  I have been messing 
around with the breadboard prototype and while it  was waaay 
cool, it wasn't quite cool enough.  To remedy this, I have added 
FOUR ADDITIONAL FILTERS TO THE MATRIX for a total of 12 at 
the following center freqs:

25Hz, 50Hz, 100Hz, 200Hz, 350Hz, 550Hz, 1.1k, 1.6k, 2,2k, 5.2k, 
7.5k and 11k.

Additionally, I've added LEDs to each of the filters showing it's on 
level.  

The individual non-attenuated outputs have now become a 
separate expander module called the 16A Matrix Bus.  A user 
can now determine whether they want this functionality or not.  
Personally, I would - non-attenuated outputs are extremely 
useful.

These additions are not only requiring a larger footprint for the 
M18 - to enhance node separation each filter in the matrix must 
now to go from single pole to two pole, and then of course there 
is the additional circuitry required for the LED drivers.  This 
withstanding, the target price for the model 16/16A will come in 
less than the Doepfer A-129 pair in USD.

Model 18A:

After working and testing with this prototype, I've come to realize 
that the 18A Expander without attenuators for the panning control 
was lame.  What was I thinking?  So - the Model 18A Expander 
has grown to 8HP and now has four bipolar attenuators, one 
each for the four panners.  Despite it's size, the Model 18A is one 
of the most complex circuits I've ever worked on, containing no 
less than 12 VCA's and four on-board voltage processors!

You can see renderings and descriptions of the new 16/16A and 
18A at:

http://www.ear-group.com

Go to the Plan B tab and click on the appropriate module number 
in the Module Summary list.

Estimated release dates for the Models 18 and 18A are April 
2006. As far as the Models 18, it will go into full production 
design in May, with it's estimated release date concurrent with 
the Milton 2 (M21) release in  June or thereabouts.

- P

Both of these are amazing looking modules.  I'm very curious to actually 
hear them.  Thats a hell of an improvement on the model 16.  This is goiing 
to be a great module.  I'm hoping to put together a plan b system with some 
effects modules by AS and doepfer.  I have to say, I'm just a bit worried 
prices may be out of my reach.  The improvements keep coming but I'm hoping 
the prices stay reasonable.

One little comment...I really prefer the model 18 integrated mixer panel in 
the yahoo photo folder over the 3 separate model 18 modules.

Tim

>
>In working the prototypes, I have made some feature
>enhancements to the yet-to-be-released Models 16 and 18 sets:
>
>Model 16 set:
>
>Set?  Yes, this is one of the changes.  I have been messing
>around with the breadboard prototype and while it  was waaay
>cool, it wasn't quite cool enough.  To remedy this, I have added
>FOUR ADDITIONAL FILTERS TO THE MATRIX for a total of 12 at
>the following center freqs:
>

I would agree with tim here. though also the addition of another couple
of inputs (6 total would be great). and yet another idea would be in
addition the the stereo outs you could add quad outputs or even 5.1
outputs. and have the pan function in 360 when in quad mode and
standard l/r in stereo. Probably hugely difficult and very expensive
but that would be pretty darn cool i think. 

--david


> One little comment...I really prefer the model 18 integrated mixer
panel in 

> the yahoo photo folder over the 3 separate model 18 modules.
> 
> Tim

Let me say this about that:

On the Model 16 expansion:

It's only money!  

No seriously -these addtional channels  will effect the cost, can't 
lie about that - but not that much.  Bottom line, the M16 will come 
in less expensive than the Doepfer A-129 set and will have more 
features (albiet another intended use, but you *can* do VC 
control of the A-129 matrix).

The big thing about adding the additional 4 is it affords me 
justification the use of two pole filters - which sound really good.  
They have a sharper edge - 12dB rather than the softer 6dB 
slope.  So why not just do it on the eight filter variety?  With octave 
filtering alone, 12dB taper you tend to get holes in the spectrum 
due to those sharper edges, meaning when all the filters are full 
up there is still a measurable amount of coloring going on.

On the Model 18:

OK, I hear you and to a certain extent, I agree with you.  The all in 
one design of the original concept, I must admit, was over the 
edge on the 'ooOOOOooow' factor as compared to the tri-set 
series.  Tell you what - if I get indication that the all in one unit is 
what you would rather see, then I'll be happy to go that route.  It 
doesn't prohibit  me from releasing the four channel alone with 
the VC as another module set. But know that this -  one module, 
the original design, will be in the high 3 to 4 hundred dollar 
range.  There's no way around that. - there's goign to be a lot of 
bubble gum and strings in there.  So, that being said, I am 
posting a new poll. If I receive an positive response to go that 
route, then I will.  This is coming in a timely manner as I am just 
now beginnning the PCB layout for this project.

Look for the new poll notice in a few minutes.

- P






--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "Tim J" 
<bob_aloha@...> wrote:
>
> Both of these are amazing looking modules.  I'm very curious 
to actually 
> hear them.  Thats a hell of an improvement on the model 16.  
This is goiing 
> to be a great module.  I'm hoping to put together a plan b 
system with some 
> effects modules by AS and doepfer.  I have to say, I'm just a bit 
worried 
> prices may be out of my reach.  The improvements keep 
coming but I'm hoping 
> the prices stay reasonable.
> 
> One little comment...I really prefer the model 18 integrated 
mixer panel in 
> the yahoo photo folder over the 3 separate model 18 modules.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >In working the prototypes, I have made some feature
> >enhancements to the yet-to-be-released Models 16 and 18 
sets:
> >
> >Model 16 set:
> >
> >Set?  Yes, this is one of the changes.  I have been messing
> >around with the breadboard prototype and while it  was waaay
> >cool, it wasn't quite cool enough.  To remedy this, I have 
added
> >FOUR ADDITIONAL FILTERS TO THE MATRIX for a total of 12 
at

> >the following center freqs:
> >
>

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

quad, or dual stereo?

the model 16 is mono.  the model 18 is quad in, stereo and 
mono out..

- P



--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, Brad Hawkins 
<monkeyfinger@...> wrote:

>
> quad, or dual stereo?
>

Hi Peter,

the new version of Model 18 is exactly that I would need as a groundtaking module in my system! It is a very good redesign with all important components of the first plan (18, 18A and 18B).

Do it now, please :-)

All the best

Axel

"(i think you can figure that out)" schrieb:

--- 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
>

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
>

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
> >
>

> film work.  Understandable.  But....would these individuals rather
> use the plethora of 5.1 panners available in most digital audio
> systems?


YES


so do it quad and us that gig can use it

OR

it's 2 stereo outs


???   doesn't that make sense?

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
> > >
> >
>