Design the perfect 4000 EQ

[amillar]

In response to an evil suggestion from Cilp6  (given that I've got too many other unfinished things to do!) here's a thread for us to kick about ideas for the design of the "perfect" 4000 channel strip EQ.

Here's my first thoughts on the logistics:

• The 4000 knobs are not big enough for a decent eq, so to suit all possibilities they need to be "range switched" and "function switched" (e.g. bell/shelf/ G series)
• There aren't many switches
• But, if we weren't too worried about TR working it would be possible to make the bell/3 switches cycle through multiple options
• Q. How would we know what option we had selected?
• A. Multicolour LEDs on the EQ routing card!
• Or it may be possible to add extra push/push switches to the Frequency and Q pots, if someone has a supply of cue send pots to butcher

Having simply sorted that  what features would people like?

Cheers,

Andy

[amillar]

Having simply sorted that  what features would people like?

Immediate thought: rather than the mid bands having symmetrical shapes in boost and cut, should the cut be more of a "notch" shape?

Must stop thinking about this and get back to the day job!

[Artur D'Assumpção]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your contributions and excitement! I am sure we all share the same enthusiasm as you. In my opinion It's really fantastic to see an original SSL designer coming in and be part of this amazing community. After all, this is what it is all about, the love for these fantastic consoles. We're all like a big family!

This would definitely be super awesome! We've all been working for the past few years on adding here and there some replacements and improvements to this amazing console and keeping the legend alive. Whenever possible we always make an effort and try to manufacture these replacement/improvements specifically for the benefit of the SSL community and all its members.

An SSL EQ revamp designed by you with the contributions of the community would in my opinion the pinnacle of the commitment and collaboration between us all. I would love to see this come alive and, and if it comes to that, help out with the manufacturing process.

Anyways here's my ideas:

- should be as much retrofit as possible.  - Any drastic modifications typically is scary for some members and there's always the fear of loosing value on the console. With I mean with this is that it should be easy to roll back if someone wishes to. The success of this is also directly related to the simplicity of retrofitting.

-should support TR, or at least we get someway to get it to work over the TR bus, even if the legacy software wouldn't know how to interpret it. This is because our new designed computer (XK-System) will eventually come out and we can add support for this new EQ card and new TR "object" ids. But for this to work, it must be over the TR bus and be able to live with all the other TR bus members.

Regarding specifically EQ, personally, I would be happy if I had a genuine 242+292 card, with all the curves and a switch to alternate between them. Much like later consoles had something close to this, but now perfected. Of course I am not against any further improvements/options, but just this for me would be great!!

We could also take advantage of modern technology (e.g. SMD) to be able to design a EQ card with roughly the same size, but with added functionality, better SNR, and sound quality overall.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Artur

[Clip6]

What a way to wake up to this thread. Andy I'm really starting to like you!

I'm thinking not one eq to rule them all but flavored like eurorack synth world. So many osc flavors.

The fx383 would make a great test bed/jig. Probably to expensive but power I/o already wired.

Really cheap and easy would be a 611 module. We need to find you one.

You need a paypal or Go Fund Me page so we can help you on this.

What ever you build I'll take 2.

My idea would be a Sansamp eq/distortion module. See the new module from Overstayer.

Maybe get some input from a well know SSL user like Cenzo,Spike or Alan Moulder.

So excited. Thank You.

[amillar]

Many thanks for those kind words...but I think any actual production of real objects might need to be a team effort  I'm dreadful at finishing things...that's why I never went solo after leaving SSL: I've huge respect for those like John East, Paul Frindle, Crispin Herrod-Taylor, and Graham Hinton who did it. What I am very good at is working in a team to make things happen!

(You also need a drive to sell yourself which I don't have. The closest I came to launching my own product was a two channel bass guitar amp which I originally designed for myself, everyone who heard it loved it but in the end I got bored discussing sales and marketing contracts. Oh, and it also helps in the audio field if you have the chutzpah to charge a ridiculous amount of money for your products - I'm far too honest to do that! But give me two people, one who likes slowly and carefully building things and one who is interested in money, and it's amazing what can be achieved!)

Always open to the offer of a 611 though (even if unloaded) When I left SSL I very nearly took the one that I'd had sitting by my desk as my sample for 8 years, but again was too honest in the end - which was probably silly as I bet it just went straight in the skip.

Anyway, back to the ideas...I had a thought while I was on a walk today, a way of making a better 611 eq while still keeping it TR compatible would be to fit a pull switch to the gain pot, so that it was either boost OR cut. This would make the whole thing much more flexible and less sensitive (the big problem with the 292 eq), including making it easier to have separate boost and cut curves. How is this TR compatible? Simple(ish), the switch also switches the TR send so it indicates the "boost" direction or the "cut" direction as it did originally. What I can't decide is whether counter-clockwise always becomes zero so you are always starting form flat, but means that increasing cut involves turning clockwise which is counter-intuitive. Rackmount EQs, with loads of front panel space, are MUCH easier!!!!!

Artur - totally agree that SMD does make adding extra functionality (like the above) so much easier. Although I do also strongly believe in keeping the signal path as simple as possible.

Cheers,

Andy

[viguier]

Aouch....

One of the best threads from this forum....

GREAT ideas, can't wait to see what kind of produt(s) will be produced from this "brainstorming"

These ideas are with a whole new channel or just the EQ card to switch into any channel ?

Paul

[oyanliz]

Very interested on this!!

[marcmozart]

I'm "EQ"ually excited...

Just throwing in that I can market and sell shit to pro audio users.

(not literally "shit", more like you would use the word "shit" in New Jersey)

[amillar]

You are all very evil - I am supposed to be checking that the new Crossrail rail link across London is going to be safe, and instead I'm thinking about Wein bridge EQs again 

I THINK I have worked out how to get the mid bands to be their traditional shapes in boost but a more useable "notch" shape in cut. It does involve tapping into the TR send of the "gain" pot, so that it can be sensed when the pot is turned towards cut. This can then switch a relay to reconfigure the EQ. If I get time I'll try running some simulations to see how well this works!

Actually (still thinking aloud as I write this) it could be really clever - by also sensing the TR feed from the Q pot - and be a normal cut shape at low Qs but a notch at high Qs. That would be pretty cool.

Cheers, Andy

[amillar]

By the way, the way to make a REALLY good plug in card - without any changes to the 611 - is to make a card with the following:

• Analogue-to-digital converters on each control inputs
• Feed the digital lines into programmable logic devices (PLDs or FPGAs - these could contain the ADCs)
• Feed the digital outputs into MDACs (and relays where needed) to control the analogue

You could also have DIP switches on the board to choose configurations - these may also be needed to select the 611 type (due to the slightly different pot arrangements).

You can then have a real  analogue EQ which can be configured in the programmable logic to be whatever you wanted it to be - in particular you can be very flexible with the feel of the controls. And if you were clever - e.g. by using flash ADCs and parallel MDACs - you could do all this without any pesky digital clocks flying around to mess things up.

It wouldn't be financially viable to do this (the boards themselves would be cheap but the development cost wouldn't be!) but it's nice to dream occasionally...and might trigger some more viable ideas.

Cheers,

Andy

[Artur D'Assumpção]

Hi

My honest view on this is that anyone who embarks on a project such as the nature of this is not purely for the profit goal...and it can't be. Simply there isn't the volume to bring a new SSL product to the market enough to justify to pay stock manufacturing, deal with business licenses and distribution, support, marketing, publishing, etc. We've seen several projects attempt this and fail honorably... This is small scale and the business model must be thought in a totally different perspective (e.g. start a kickstarter to develop and manufacturing a pre-defined/pre-paid number of units). 

We're all a community of users that love their consoles love to make music and we're eager to help each other, collaborate and come up with awesome ideas to keep these consoles rocking! And that's the spirit that moves us to come up and develop this type of ideas.

I had also to follow this approach with the XK-System, since developing time can't really be factored in final cost or it would be super expensive. If it wasn't for this I had already given up...

Just my opinion,

Artur

[amillar]

Fully agree! I work on the principle that if something's fun and interesting to do then I won't worry if it financially makes sense as long as it doesn't interfere with family life and the day job. (The last time I actually remember making any money out of audio was around 1993 - someone did force money on me for repairing their bass amp a couple of years ago, but I spent that on parts to repair guitars at my kids' school.) The problem comes when a project gets so big that the only way to do it is to give up the day job for a while - and for me that's when the cost would start becoming an issue.

But if someone wants to have a go at my digital control / analogue signal idea and has the time and energy to do it then I'll be right behind and enthusiastically supporting them! You could make a really amazing beast this way.

Cheers, Andy

[Clip6]

Let the mockups begin

Name could be AM400...just a start.

Lexan overlay could be made in very small quanity and cheap like the master fader on the G+.

[Artur D'Assumpção]

I'm curious, what are the functions for this mockup? What features does it have?

[Artur D'Assumpção]

Fully agree! I work on the principle that if something's fun and interesting to do then I won't worry if it financially makes sense as long as it doesn't interfere with family life and the day job. (The last time I actually remember making any money out of audio was around 1993 - someone did force money on me for repairing their bass amp a couple of years ago, but I spent that on parts to repair guitars at my kids' school.) The problem comes when a project gets so big that the only way to do it is to give up the day job for a while - and for me that's when the cost would start becoming an issue.

But if someone wants to have a go at my digital control / analogue signal idea and has the time and energy to do it then I'll be right behind and enthusiastically supporting them! You could make a really amazing beast this way.

Cheers, Andy

You got perfectly my idea!

Lets see what everyone comes up in terms of ideas for features vs what's doable without over-engineering!   I confess I am curious what will come out of this thread

Cheers,

Artur