|
|
|
|
|
|
by ssl-3
49 days ago
|
|
|
I'm astounded to hear that you consider this your first hardware project. That is, to be clear, rather fucking amazing. At first, I wanted to ask why all that work is done locally instead of just controlling a mixer over the network. Because, I mean, when networked audio is already happening there's almost invariably some kind of mixer involved somewhere, but think I get it: Controls for mixers are all over the place, but AVB and Dante are fixed and unitized and it's easy-enough to find those streams (and/or for someone to make them available) on a network. That makes your method very universal in application. Even when the monitor feed is an analog split (as is still often the case), it's easy-enough to convert that to Dante or AVB with a stage box [which can be rented] so the performers still control their own ears. Nice, dude. And yes, I want one. (Whether I can afford one or not is a different thing entirely, but the want is resolute.) |
|
|
It's a great question, and indeed a centralised mixer is pretty much the common approach as it allows for economies of scale. I guess there's a philosophical bent, the same reason I run my own SMTP and IMAP servers instead of Gmail: I like distributed systems. The practical bent is that, in my studio (the target market!), I only really need one or two of these, so the economy of scale doesn't apply. And interestingly with things like Lawo .edge we are seeing distributed mixers come into fashion.
And as you point out, being protocol-agnostic means that it can fit into a lot of scenarios, which might be useful (say) if it were to be a hire product.
Feel free to drop me a line if you want to chat more, I'm lukeh at padl dot com.