MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Information
Search is fixed!!! Apologies for the downtime.

Stereo (P) EQ - idea bouncing
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> BugBrand Devices  
Author Stereo (P) EQ - idea bouncing
BugBrand
Splitting from the Comp thread to discuss possible ideas.

Petur was suggesting or asking about:
- Input level control
-- I'd be interested to hear what the idea here would be? The unity gain approach of the standard PEQ seems sensible to me - like EQ on a desk that can be bypassed.
-Send/Return pre/post EQ
-- again, not quite sure (based on my unity approach) what this would be to achieve.

On both counts, I'm quite possibly not reading from the same page as you - so please give some ideas of where you're coming from - all interesting.

Some semi-random thoughts on where I've traveled with ideas:

- ganged stereo or linkable mono units
-- I've pinged between these two approaches several times already! Would it be better to have units that can be made single, but with a stereo-linkable option?

- size -- I have thought 5FW for mono ones with an 11FW dual unit perhaps. Or 7FW would pair in a frame with the S-Comp. Or go the whole hog on a full 11FW stereo unit.

- How many bands and what types?
-- thinking big I had perhaps in mind something like: HPF, Lo-shelf, 2 x variable peak, Hi-Shelf, LPF [would have gone for 3 x variable peak but maybe the chips lend themselves better to multiples of 2]
- or have two outer bands switchable HPF or Lo Shelf // LPF or Hi Shelf


As mentioned before, doing something like this properly is way more involved than the mono PEQ. That used DualGang pots for Freq controls and single pots for +/- Gain --- turning those into stereo ganged approaches means using VCAs (many of them) [ruled out the use of multi-gang pots for such applications].
And then I start to wonder, given the VCAs, what features to offer Voltage Control over.. My current thinking would be Freq and Gain, while Resonance/Q would likely not have VC (even though it could do).


Lots of scope for discussion!
Shoot!
otoskope
I think switchable HPF/LowShelf and LPF/HiShelf. Can't really remind myself any time I've used both.

2xLinkable mono is much more useful, imho - gives flexibility, saves money.

Try to keep it to 6FW or less (you wrote 7FW, but I guess you meant 6FW, since 6+5=11, or am I missing something?). My plan is to put 2 PEQ (current version) and the StereoComp in one frame, as a master processor.

Re voltage control - having CV for freq, gain and Q would be fantastic. In case of compromise, Q would go first. But the more the merrier! As always.

/Palle
soup
I'm sure a stereo (p)eq would be great but what I would love is a stereo crossover filter. Especially one with the gain knobs big and on the bottom, dj isolator style ... the possibilities would be endless.
BugBrand
Glad for some replies - thought this was becoming tumbleweed territory!

HPF / Lo-Shelf -- see, I'm not sure about that yet (and I'm not just saying that because of circuit/chip considerations, honest!). Recently I was using Waves Q10 plugin and did use a lo-shelf combined with a high-pass..

I still think that a major drive for me is some form of master EQ and that urges me towards just going for a ganged-stereo approach (partly as I've tried to juggle mono power into 5FW and found it hard with CV on top and balancing the division of VCAs). So, cheaper - not sure!

Quite probably a mono processor would have different requirements entirely - perhaps somewhat simpler overall - or more CV control - or perhaps fewer bands - or ... ... while a master stereo would be more spacious but have more bands.

One thing I hadn't really considered before was having the gain controls unipolar with switches to govern whether it is cut or boost - I'd been thinking more on a - to + control like on the regular PEQ. Not sure.. may be a circuit design driven decision in part.

Still juggling designs in simulation form - some weird things cropping up and giving me pause.


And, yes, I was being silly saying 7FW! Well noticed..
Kazremark
I'm interested in picking up your stereo compressor next time I have some budget for gear. I would be very interested in a stereo EQ to pair with it. For my purposes the combo would be strapped onto the outputs of a drum machine when tracking and on the drumbus when mixing. Limiting the EQ to stereo would suit both of those purposes well.
thermisonic
I always liked the gangable pots on a Nagra IV 1/4 inch tape machine. Very cool design, not sure how easy to implement (probably prohibitively expensive) but it allows you to have two analogue controls either independent or ganged together, with an offset if you like using a small switch built into the face of one of the pots. That would be really interesting on a stereo PEQ.

Rob
BugBrand
Yeah, I've always been against extra-special pots (even multi-gang) - the sourcing is so hard at my low production levels.

I've not moved much forwards on this - though, really, had sketched out a lot of the core work in simulations - just hadn't got momentum to getting any prototyping boards done up.

Kazremark - yep, that's my call exactly - while dual mono possibility would be nice, my realistic brain suggests a ganged stereo would be the more likely choice (you can always use a stereo unit in mono, but not vica versa).
arnoux
I know you are busy on something else now (and I'm very happy about that and can't wait to see your next mail in my in box!) but what I'd really like to see is a BugBrand take on a little analog desk/mixer with PEQs and compressors in the channel strips (or bus compression) with faders, pan, sends and all..

Just pondering..

-
Fabio
BugBrand
Yeah, its an area I've thought of many times before - but there are so many possible permutations that it tends to make my head spin! I mean - how scale-able, whether to include EQ (typical desk or more filtery), how many sends - or make it matrix or ... add VC to things or.. !
arnoux
Yep I know it will start a storm of 1000 ideas, even when I was writing my previous post I delated "cv" pan just before hitting submit..

I saw this and I thought "ah, I'd love to have one of those with a BugBrand core and style in the center of my rig"

https://static.gearslutz.com/board/imgext.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gears lutz.com%2Fboard%2Fattachments%2Fso-much-gear-so-little-time%2F155838d 1264909233-help-me-i-have-calrec-minimixer-mk2-testing-buy-calrec.jpg& h=8c38b1b93051114f0cd753c7d575b63a
BugBrand
Haha, I'd just like to have one of those in my rig!
But, yeah, I get the point for sure.
prscrptn
soup wrote:
I'm sure a stereo (p)eq would be great but what I would love is a stereo crossover filter. Especially one with the gain knobs big and on the bottom, dj isolator style ... the possibilities would be endless.


I agree! ...this and a SComp would be great for final mix thumbs up
leeski
what about making a modular mixer like that Calrec where we can chose what we want in it as i'd like a matrix mixer like the Midas XL88 with a summer too love
adamon
BugBrand wrote:
Yeah, its an area I've thought of many times before - but there are so many possible permutations that it tends to make my head spin! I mean - how scale-able, whether to include EQ (typical desk or more filtery), how many sends - or make it matrix or ... add VC to things or.. !


Very much into the idea of a bug mixer!

My attempt to hold your head in place:
8ish channels (say four mono, two stereo)
Clean-ish (aka a little dirty) preamp (say maybe like PT standard...? I absolutely love that circuit we're not worthy )
EQ: low-mid-hi from the PEQ
Two aux send minimum (how about 3! MY ASS IS BLEEDING )
Stereo compress at final mix stage
No need for VC... I think given the range of stand-alone devices you've done over the past few years, you've covered VC fairly well (again IMHO... seriously, i just don't get it ).

This is all based on what *I* would love love ; in particular, I've always found the need for a ton of aux sends. This is really a problem for me when I play live as I try and play out with smaller mixers to reduce my footprint. I usually perform with a an elektron rig (md and ot) and a few modulars and basically want to route everything to everything. My normal workaround is everything into the ot but that leaves me with way to few sends (I normally perform with with an 8 channel mackie that has a single send) and so I end up mashing thing in/out of headphone/control room jacks but I've always felt it could just all be cleaned up with just one or two more auxs... hmmm..... I've never really felt the need or desire to add a matrix mixer as I feel like that just too far past what I need exactly (not to mention I'd still need the standard mixer too then...).

In my mind, this bug mixer would perfectly fill my needs for a small, portable, intenteded-for-live-use mixer that would give me the basic functions I need and that special bug flavour that makes me feel special... Not to mention how manly would you feel slapping that kind of thing down next to your modular!! SlayerBadger!
BugBrand
I know, I know.. Really, I think the mixer side of things will continue to present too many damn options for me to make headway anytime soon.

I do wonder every now & then about a matrix mixer, but it'd likely be fairly 'limited'.


I definitely want to make headway on the EQ world though! The call for a nice stereo unit is strong (personally speaking). I keep on wondering on the old Pultec sort of thing, but.. today finally got a cheap modern mono version and, yes, seems to sound great, but the tech within has some distinct limitations for me. So - must rekindle the SV-Filter power which I've dwelt on so much - the solutions are there, I'm sure!
wednesdayayay
matrix mixer yes!
cool

it wouldn't need a lot of fancy features just a nice stand alone active matrix mixer would be a dream
DC coupled ins and outs would be ace
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> BugBrand Devices  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group