Welcome Guest  |  Login  |  Forum Registration

Whats next in Firmware/Hardware now that SSL is tits up

DJ Dynamight

DJ Dynamight 9:28:43 - 20 September 2013

Hey Shaun! I would prefer all magnetic faders.

Detroitbb

Detroitbb 3:55:17 - 20 September 2013

I prefer the stacked option for rotary faders… provided, of course, that the knobs still have enough space to be gripped without hitting the knob above/below/beside it.

That being said, the Empath Rotary layout really was best.

{name}

Mark 7:18:01 - 21 September 2013

My vote for the knobs would be staggered. The “stacked” idea looks cooler, but operationally…since they wouldn’t line up with the channel strips…I think “stacked” would be a nightmare.

I don’t personally care about the crossfader, but I think with “staggered” there would still be room for it right?

Detroitbb

Detroitbb 7:59:10 - 21 September 2013

Mark - 21 September 2013 07:18 AM

I don’t personally care about the crossfader, but I think with “staggered” there would still be room for it right?

I was looking at the 2016 and 64 and trying to imaging the rotary knobs in the 64’s ‘fader area’ - and it looked like the staggered layout would possibly be too tight for the crossfader. But further inspection leads me to believe that layout might be best for the space concerns expressed. Enough room would available for the crossfader and not too tightly packed with the other rotary knobs.

The plus, as you pointed out, would be it would easily line up with the existing EQ/filer/level meters. The minus is that it wouldn’t exactly mimic the four deck layout in the Serato software.

I might actually be leaning towards the staggered version… even though it violates my personal symmetry preference!

Maybe Shaun (or someone else at Rane) could take some 2016 fader knobs and set them on top of a 64 with both layouts and take a couple of pictures so we can get a visual look of the actual size constraints. How about it, guys?

{name}

thebuttonfreak 1:01:34 - 22 September 2013

Either symmetric         o o
                                  o o

or   maybe               o   o
                              o       o

Both of these are meant to be symmetric, formatting won’t do it though.

Shaun Whitcher Rane Forum Admin

ADMIN
Shaun Whitcher 2:07:34 - 22 September 2013

Detroitbb - 21 September 2013 07:59 PM
Mark - 21 September 2013 07:18 AM

I don’t personally care about the crossfader, but I think with “staggered” there would still be room for it right?

I was looking at the 2016 and 64 and trying to imaging the rotary knobs in the 64’s ‘fader area’ - and it looked like the staggered layout would possibly be too tight for the crossfader. But further inspection leads me to believe that layout might be best for the space concerns expressed. Enough room would available for the crossfader and not too tightly packed with the other rotary knobs.

The plus, as you pointed out, would be it would easily line up with the existing EQ/filer/level meters. The minus is that it wouldn’t exactly mimic the four deck layout in the Serato software.

I might actually be leaning towards the staggered version… even though it violates my personal symmetry preference!

Maybe Shaun (or someone else at Rane) could take some 2016 fader knobs and set them on top of a 64 with both layouts and take a couple of pictures so we can get a visual look of the actual size constraints. How about it, guys?

I’ll take a few pics Monday and post them here. Send me an email reminder, if you don’t see them up by tuesday please shaunw at rane.com smile

Detroitbb

Detroitbb 10:57:58 - 22 September 2013

Thanks, Shaun!

DJ Joshua Carl

DJ Joshua Carl 2:04:58 - 24 September 2013

so the trade off would be

o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
0 0 0 0
—-|—-
Smaller knobs less of that “rotary feel” and a bigger chance of hitting the other knob.
BUT, the alignment would make sense esthetically and functionall

but. off set, the entire line… and it still might work (OBVIOUSLY NOT THIS IS EXTREME… MAYBE OFFSET A 1/2 INCH)

    o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
  o o
O     O
  O O
——|——

DJ Joshua Carl

DJ Joshua Carl 2:07:55 - 24 September 2013

THIS WOULD WORK TOO….
mostly because it would match the layout of Serato DJ…
but it would take some getting used to


o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
  O   O
  O   O
  __|__

Detroitbb

Detroitbb 3:13:52 - 24 September 2013

DJ Joshua Carl - 24 September 2013 02:04 PM

but. off set, the entire line… and it still might work (OBVIOUSLY NOT THIS IS EXTREME… MAYBE OFFSET A 1/2 INCH)


o o o o
o o o o
o o o o

O     O
  O O
——|——

I have been thinking of a layout like that (as well as alternately with the middle knobs at the top and the outer ones at the bottom). The key would be spacing the two ‘close’ rotaries far enough apart from both one another and from the outer knobs.

Hopefully Shaun will be able to shed some light on that with his anticipated photo-shoot!

 

Shaun Whitcher Rane Forum Admin

ADMIN
Shaun Whitcher 1:27:42 - 25 September 2013

OK, guys. I got a few pics. Thanks for the e-mail reminder. With the dB Fest starting tomorrow in Seattle, things have been insane.

*disclaimer* the pics are from my phone and terrible.

Which do you like best?

Image Attachments
photo-2.JPGphoto-1.JPGphoto.JPG
Detroitbb

Detroitbb 11:59:20 - 25 September 2013

Thanks for the pictures, Shaun!

I like the third one (all straight across) the best, but it wouldn’t work as a person’s fingers would hit each other if they had a grip on the knob next to it. Essentially, there isn’t enough space in that layout.

The first picture looks awkward with it’s asymmetrical layout. It’s workable, but not very pleasing.

The second ‘stacked’ setup has the space needed between the knobs, but leaves one wondering which EQ is for that particular channel - confusion isn’t a good thing for a mixer layout.

I went ahead and made a mock-up of what Joshua Carl mentioned. It’s important to note the offset of the middle channel knobs (away from one another) that leave enough room to use both at the same time without fingers touching. I didn’t offset the top/outside knobs slightly towards the center, but that might be ideal. Alternately, you could flip the layout so the outside knobs are now at the bottom and the middle ones at the top. I think both of these two layouts allows for the requisite space needed as well as still mostly lines up with the EQ section in an intuitive way.

EDIT: I added a quick image of the other layout.

Image Attachments
photo4.jpgphoto5.jpg
DJ Joshua Carl

DJ Joshua Carl 1:05:51 - 26 September 2013

pow!
Detroitbb I think that 2nd one is perfect!

you could arguabably go with even a BIGGER knob with that design! (which you know people will love)
and having the 2/3 knob up top keeps the fader area clean and open, while maintaining the alignment of the eqs

if would also be ideal for 2/dj sets.
IE.
dj 1 gets the high knobs, dj 2 gets the low knobs.

i REALLY think we are on to something here, and with no NEW rotaries in the game, yet edm being at the top of the heap.
being able to swap out that package would be amazing.

DJ Joshua Carl

DJ Joshua Carl 1:08:00 - 26 September 2013

BTW Ill be out to Seattle to visit Oct 10… :-)

Shaun Whitcher Rane Forum Admin

ADMIN
Shaun Whitcher 5:26:06 - 27 September 2013

Liking # 2, as well. Looks like it has the most space between other mixer knobs. Thanks for the edits smile

Joshua, you better be visiting Rane while you’re out here yo!

  • Page 2 of 4
  •  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   
   

To participate in this discussion we need a few basic details from you

Publicly visible when you post in this forum discussion
Passwords must be at least 5 characters long

User Log-in


  Forgotten Password