MOTM

>_______
>
>Message: 4
>   Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:34:45 +0000
>   From: elhardt@...
>Subject: Re: future type thoughts
>
>Norman Fay wrote:
>
>>>It seems to me that a quality mixing desk would be an ideal project, b/c we
>surely would all like something really really classy, but many of us can't
>afford it.  A range of modular mixer kits would rule IMO because you could
>build it up piecemeal.<<
>
>I think there is a major conflict in your thinking here. If affording a mixer
>is an issue, then an MOTM mixing desk is not the way to go. Mixers are cheap,
>and you can get quite a bit for not too much money. Piecing together a 
>mixer in
>MOTM modular form would cost you many times the amount.
>
>-Elhardt
>
>
Of course there are a lot of cheap mixers out there,  and you can get 
"quite a bit" for not too much money, at least in terms of having a big 
feature list, but a large format recording mixer, with yer actual "pro" 
sound will cost a *lot* of money, likewise a pro compressor.  There is a 
reason why for example an Oram Sonicomp costs much, much more than 
Behringer Composer Pro, and the reason becomes apparent just as soon as 
you actually start using it.  Likewise "high end" EQs, mic amps etc.   I 
am not aware of a high end studio audio manufacturer who sells their 
gear in kit form, or a mixer manufacturer who allows you to build up a 
pro console one or two channels at a time. I don't think there's any 
"conflict in my thinking".

I must confess I am a bit disappointed with the responses to this.   I 
thought many of the people who are into modular synthesis would have a 
parallel interest in home recording as well.  It seems to me that a 
range of quality studio tools would at the very least enable users to 
get a better recording of their modular down onto tape or disc.  I am 
also sure that if someone did produce such a range, with Synth Tech 
equivalent quality & assembly instructions, it would be a very 
successful line.  Instead people seem to think I am suggesting this as 
an alternative to future synth module development, or even as an 
alternative to already slated modules that are a done deal as far as 
their actual appearance is concerned.  I don't recall suggesting or even 
implying either of thise things.  I hope that in future someone does 
produce a range of kits like I suggested, and personally I would prefer 
it if it was Synth Tech, because I will know what level of quality I 
would be getting, but (shrugs) whatever, y'know?

Whatever....

cya
-- 
Norman Fay

> I must confess I am a bit disappointed with the responses to this.   I
> thought many of the people who are into modular synthesis would have a
> parallel interest in home recording as well. 

Well, of course. (As evidence, I just released my first CD.) But I 
think that feasibility is a factor here. Consider how much hand 
assembly it would take to build a mixer of, say, 16 or more channels. 
One simple mixer channel is roughly as complex as a more-complicated 
MOTM synth module. Personally I'd find it pretty boring to build 16 of 
the same module. (No offense meant to those of you who have built lots 
of the same module--maybe I just have a short attention span.)

Another problem: it wouldn't be cost-effective. Mixers generally rely 
on custom-made controls (knobs, buttons, faders) to make everything fit 
together well. Paul has already mentioned on this list how expensive 
custom-made knobs are for companies of the scale of his.

Consider the Mackie 8-bus (analog version) as a reasonable benchmark of 
a good home-recording mixing console. (Yes, we can sit here and argue 
about the quality of its EQ and pre-amps, but can we agree that it's 
reasonably good? I mean, hey, Sarah McLachlan's albums sound good 
enough to my ears, and she mixes on Mackies. So does KMFDM, for a 
rather different example.) The 32-channel model has a street price of 
about $3000 or less. That's less than $100 per channel, never mind the 
eight busses, the two headphone pre-amps, the numerous monitor 
controls, the six send/return busses, etc. I can't imagine that  Paul 
could sell mixer kits for $100/channel that would compete with the 
Mackie--there are just too many parts. (I'll run downstairs and 
count... Per channel, the Mackie has 17 pushbuttons, 15 rotary pots, 
one long-throw fader, five jacks, and I haven't even gotten to the 
electronics yet. Oh, and consider the power supply, which is a 2U 
rackmount monstrosity.) This is not at all to disparage Paul's design 
talents--I'm sure that he could design a killer mixer channel. But from 
the perspective of a home-recording musician with (presumably) a finite 
budget, economies of scale dictate that the production of mixers is 
better left to larger companies.

Now, if you're talking about higher-end mixers than Mackie, then it 
seems to me you're talking about two different things. In my mind home 
recording and high-end consoles are mutually exclusive, because of 
budgetary and space constraints. I once knew a guy who had a 24-channel 
Trident console in his living room, but I submit that this sort of 
behavior is unusual. :-) Paul is very conscious about the pricing of 
his modules. Again I don't see how he could sell mixer channels at 
prices that would be attractive to enough people to make the investment 
of R&D worth it.

However, mic pres, EQs, compressors, etc. are a different story.

--Adam

Adam Schabtach
adam@studionebula.com
www.studionebula.com