It had to happen sooner or later: the computer has supplanted the turntable, so why not a mixer intended for two computers?

That’s the idea behind the just-announced Rane SIXTY-EIGHT. It’s intended for use with two computers via two independent USB ports, plus controller support (intended primarily for Serato’s tools, but presumably adaptable to other software) for up to four virtual decks.

Now, as a way to manage four decks, it seems like absurd overkill – hasn’t Traktor done four decks for years? But if this solution is indeed software-agnostic, it could be a boon to advanced computer musicians wanting to use computers, or DJs wanting to mix Ableton Live on one machine and a DJ app on another. Of course, you could simply do that with normal audio outputs, or even digital outputs that aren’t USB – in fact, many of the Apple machines (among others) come with digital outs.

Where the SIXTY-EIGHT starts to get very interesting – beyond just for Serato users – is its effects buses, which allow you to sub-mix up to six channels into a bus, insert analog effects or even computer effects (via USB), and use beat-synced internal effects on the box. And I’ve been impressed with the quality of Rane’s mixers in the past, too. It’s not its prime audience, but I can imagine the SIXTY-EIGHT being used by someone, somewhere, doing live computer performance and using the Rane as a powerful mixer/effects for two computer sources.

But ultimately, I have to admire the SIXTY-EIGHT not so much for what it does, but what it means: it means DJ mixers are entering the computer age.

It just happens that what some of us really long for is easier, HD-res video mixing — audio’s easy. We’re working on that, too. Full specs from Rane:

• Two independent USB 2.0 High Speed ports, each supporting twenty-two, 32-bit floating-point audio channels at 48 kHz.
• Real-time support for two computers.
• Support for 2, 3 or 4 Virtual Decks on one or two computers.
• Direct control of over 30 Scratch Live Library, Cue and Loop functions.
• Unique FlexFx bus:
Process a sub-mix of up to six audio channels.
Six internal effects with seamless on-beat switching between effects.
External analog insert support for legacy hardware effects.
USB insert support for computer-based effects.
• Four full-featured input channels:
Four stereo Phono/CD inputs of Line, Phono or S/PDIF.
Four stereo auxiliary inputs.
Four stereo USB playback options.
• Two mic inputs: one with phantom power and one with line-level.
• 3-band full-cut EQ, plus new High-pass / Low-pass Filter.
• Flexible USB recording options, record from any PGM or output.
• Internal universal switching power supply (100-230 VAC)
• Unit size: 14.3″H x 12″W x 4″D (36.4 cm x 30.5 cm x 10.2 cm)
• Weight: 11.3 lb (5.2 kg)
• Shipping Size: 7.75″H x 12.75″W x 19.25″D (19.7 cm x 32.5 cm x 49 cm)
• Weight: 12 lb (5.5 kg)

http://rane.com/sixtyeight.html

It’s long been the case that if you wanted to run Pro Tools, you needed hardware from Digidesign. That’s why it was a surprise when Mackie announced new audio interface-mixer hardware that they said they had made work with Pro Tools M-Powered, which previously worked only with M-Audio gear. Digidesign parent Avid had made statements that they would champion “openness,” but it wasn’t clear at the time if that would extent to allowing third-party gear to work with Avid’s software crown jewels.

We get our answer today from LOUD. There is a catch – you’ll have to pay extra for the connection – but it does seem that the two will work together.

LOUD Technologies Inc. (parent company of Mackie®) today announced it has signed an agreement with Avid® that licenses the use of Mackie’s new Onyx™-i Series Firewire Recording Mixers with Avid Pro Tools® M-Powered™ 8 software.

To enable use with Pro Tools M-Powered 8, users will need to purchase the Mackie Universal Driver upgrade ($49.99 USD) at www.mackie.com. Once the driver is downloaded and installed, the Onyx 820i, 1220i, 1620i and 1640i mixers can be used with Avid Pro Tools M-Powered 8 software.

Of course, I imagine all of this prompts a collective eye roll from some of Avid’s competitors, since DAWs from MOTU, Cakewalk, Apple, Ableton, Steinberg, and others are all designed to work with a wide range of hardware – no fee-based driver upgrade needed. But for lovers of Pro Tools, this does mean a new choice, and it’s definitely a departure from tradition. If Pro Tools is your favorite DAW, this seems like very good news, as it’s an extremely versatile-looking interface-mixer that fills a gap M-Audio themselves hadn’t filled. Anyone with the new Onyx-i hardware want to let us know if you’re likely to bite?

http://www.mackie.com/onyxiseries

In pointing out Behringer’s clone of Apple’s homepage, I may have left some things unclear. I was honestly surprised to find a number of people rushing to Behringer’s defense. I wasn’t trying to score cheap and easy points against the brand, but while venting frustration, I may have underestimated the response of people who own Behringer gear. If you do, and it’s working for you, as always – that’s a good thing.

The conversation got me excited, and I stepped into the comment fray. I shouldn’t have in this case, and unless asked to, I’ll stay out of this conversation. I enjoy being involved in those threads, but there are times when I should keep my writing to this space and let you have at it in the space below – the one labeled “comments.”

I think the reason Behringer inflames some people boils down to two things. Those people may have been burned by gear that proved not to be a bargain, or offended by a history of gear designs copied from recognizable models, or both. The former, of course, can happen with any vendor, but it does illustrate that saving money doesn’t always save time or money. Caveat Emptor is therefore true with any vendor. The latter is really the sticking point. Here’s a loose timeline of the cases in question:

Behringer and Mackie: In 1997, Mackie sued not only Behringer but distributor Samson and retailer Sam Ash. Mackie claimed that Behringer mixers were intended as exact copies of Mackie mixers – not only of external look and feel, but circuit design and individual components. In 1999, Behringer and Samson claimed a decision by the US Copyright Office “vindicated” the company. That supposed vindication is fairly empty, however. The US Copyright Office didn’t say that Behringer’s circuit designs were original. Instead, they said that the circuit board designs weren’t covered by the US Copyright Office. That has more to do with peculiarities of US intellectual property law than it does a vindication of Behringer.

Behringer and Roland/BOSS: In 2005, Roland sued Behringer for duplicating the look and feel of its guitar pedals. The blog Music Thing had a nice visual of just what this looked like. In this case, there was no claim about underlying circuit design, but the look and feel or “trade dress” is covered legally. Again, Behringer was not exactly vindicated. The two companies reached a settlement. The terms remained confidential, but Behringer did modify the look of its pedals.

Behringer and Line 6: What’s more disturbing to me is that, after reaching a legal settlement with Roland, Behringer simply moved on to a different vendor. In 2007, Behringer introduced a new line of pedals copying Line 6 instead of BOSS. Again, Music Thing’s Tom Whitwell did a visual comparison. Less extreme, but demonstrating Behringer continues to try to steal Line 6 market share by looking like Line 6, even the prize for the web design competition (the V-AMP) is intended to clone Line 6’s POD.

These are not the only cases of Behringer products that are designed to look like someone else’s products. As noted in comments, even the screenshot of the Behringer website is of monitors intended to look like those from KRK. Part of why I’m taking up the Behringer stories is that Music Thing isn’t around to do it any more, but here are some of Tom’s best hits:

In 2006, Behringer again copied Mackie, answering Mackie’s ONYX with mixers-plus-digital-I/O called the XENYX. (They copied the look and feel of older Mackie mixers rather than newer ones, but this was also clearly intended to look like Mackie’s product.)

Some amount of cloning, of course, should be forgiven – it’s expected practice for software emulations to mimic the look and feel of classic analog gear, so I can’t really fault Behringer for that. (That said, of course, I still think there’s far too much of that, and far too little original thinking about how to lay out controls and design interfaces.) The difference between cloning a classic product and a currently-shipping product is that making something look like something else that you can buy new suggests you want to create confusion. There are laws around that – “trade dress” – but more importantly to me is the question of whether it’s ethical.

Please, if, in comments, you want to fill out this timeline or offer more details of each case, on either side, I’m happy to hear it.

Apple and Behringer: In the case of the Apple site, while I wish websites in general would stop cloning Apple’s design – good as it may be – Behringer crossed a line by copying product pages, the color weight, gradient values, pixel weights, and radius of the Apple site. My small images in the story didn’t do that justice. This is not about the “cult of Apple.” Let me make myself plain: please, stop making sites look like the Apple site. Behringer’s case I think was worse than most, but I’d be happy if other sites flirted less with some of the particulars of Apple’s designs. Apple’s solution is not always the “best” design solution. There are others.

(Side note: the basics of Apple’s current website design really have been tremendously influential – so much so that it’s easy to overlook how much of this is derived from Apple. The earliest version of the current look dates from around 1997. But you can be influenced by a design and make it your own, rather than copying every detail or copying every detail poorly. To pretend otherwise would be to say design doesn’t matter, and I can’t do that.)

Let’s consider the larger issues:

Cheap can be great. One thing I won’t do is discriminate against musicians because what they’re using is cheap. “Ghetto fabulous” I believe is the proper term. Far from that, I hope on CDM we can find every opportunity to champion finding ways of doing cool stuff with cheap things. However…

Cheaper doesn’t always save you money. Because value is important, because you’re on a budget, you don’t want to throw your money away. Assume for a moment the allegations that Behringer cloned Mackie’s mixers down to individual circuits and components were true. That still doesn’t cover issues like manufacturing quality assurance or support. Larger than any one vendor – Behringer or otherwise – we urgently need to consider value. We can’t afford disposable gear. Our musical electronics are made out of toxic materials, and they impact the environment as they’re made, shipped, and disposed. And we need them to last for our music, too. I’m certainly guilty of having made this mistake, but it’s something that – as a community – we can all do better. Again, perhaps you have a good relationship with Behringer gear, which is great.

Copying is good; plagiarism, not so much. There’s a huge benefit to making copies and improving on them. A certain amount of copying is part of design. There is a difference, however, if the copy is intended to create confusion, to substitute for something else dishonestly. It’s the difference between Kia competing with the Honda Accord, as mentioned in comments, and someone making a car that looks exactly like an Accord called the Monda Schmaccord, and steals the design of its drivetrain. Likewise, in music, sampling can be a beautiful thing. Taking someone else’s work and trying to pass it off as your own is something different.

I believe it’s essential to draw these lines. It’s only going to get tougher from here. If you think these isolated Behringer cases were bad, brace yourselves: an army of music technology cloning companies is waiting in the wings.

My plea to Behringer: kick your copying habit, if you can. I could forgive you if you didn’t keep doing it over and over again. That suggests to me, and many others, that it’s malicious, that you hope consumers won’t notice and will buy your cheaper version because, cosmetically, it looks the same as something else. If it really is different, and if it really is better, then that only makes this more of a tragedy.

I’m going to leave the Behringer discussion at this point, having provided some of the historical background. But I certainly won’t let go of these other issues. And the uprising of Behringer support says to me that CDM and I do need to spend more time talking about affordable gear, affordable software, and — not necessarily because it’s “cheap” or “free” — free and open source hardware and software. I welcome your suggestions.

Single Knob Filter [Project Page]
SKF-VST at Google Code [Source, VST Download]

It’s apparently a big improvement on an Ableton forum solution that used 127 different filter instances in a rack.

I’m aware of the goodness of Single Knob Filter thanks to the Aurora open source DJ mixer project (see yesterday’s write-up); they assign an instance of the plug-in on each of the Aurora’s two mixer channels. Aurora’s Matt originally had the SKF plug-in in their Ableton template, but I encouraged them to replace it with Ableton’s Auto Filter for cross-platform compatibility and ease. That said, for plain DJ filtering, this it the One True Knob.

Now, go forth and use it on some crazy experimental noise soundscape you’ve been working on, just to spite cliche.

Via the DJ Destruction blog.

About halfway through, he gets to some hands-on demos with the internal effects and controllers, which demonstrates some of what makes the ZERO8 unique. Thanks for sharing this one, Adam!

Adam’s rig — the mixer, a DJ app (Virtual DJ), and use of the internal mixer and effects — qualify him as what is likely the target audience for the ZERO8. And you can see he’s pretty happy using it in that way.

We have heard some dissent, though, from people who wanted to use the ZERO8 for live laptop performance with Ableton Live, or with DJ sets that push the envelope a bit into the live performance area. In fairness, that may not have been the ZERO’s target audience, but as it is a target audience for CDM, I’ll be interested to see what gear can fit the bill.

Also, I don’t like to bring up anecdotal evidence, but do any ZERO owners out there know if Korg was able to resolve the “hiss problem” we heard readers complaining about?

What about the alternatives?

For various reasons I remain interested in the Ecler line. I don’t think it’s immediately comparable to the ZERO, but its focus on combining MIDI control and mixing features make it very interesting to the Ableton crowd. That’s nothing against the Korg kit, but in this emerging category, it may be closer to what this niche wants. I hope to look more at that soon. See our previous story (which also includes commentary on the Korg, so I’m not the only one making the comparison):

MIDI + Mixing: Ecler EVO4 DJ Mixer Specs, EVO5 Update

At least now we know what the thing looks like:

I like the design — it’s not hard to imagine digital musicians and laptopists/electronicistas having good fun with this as much as traditional DJs. The MIDI controls look a little disappointing, though.

Previously (with lots of comments):

MIDI + Mixing: Ecler EVO4 DJ Mixer Specs, EVO5 UpdateMIDI + Mixing: Ecler EVO4 DJ Mixer Specs, EVO5 Update

That’s the approach taken by DJ-focused mixer maker Ecler. Their EVO5 (shown at right) does all of this, but at a hefty price premium — about U$1900 street. (That price could be more worth it, however, with updated firmware capabilities — more on that in a moment.) A rumored EVO4 at a lower price (expected at a non-cheap, but possibly mortal-compatible US$1000-1500) has been making the rounds on the Web. Today, Ecler confirmed those details and promised the final unveiling at Musikmesse next month in Germany and here Stateside for Remix Hotel Miami later in March.

No photo or official pricing yet (meaning if you’ve seen a photo, it’s an unauthorized leak or fake), but here’s what Ecler has to say:

The EVO 4 equips the latest digital audio technology with 24 bit stereo A/D and D/A converters and 96 kHz sampling rate.

The mixer is powered with 25 assignable MIDI controls on channels 1 to 4 and a dedicated MIDI panel with 4 rotary and push encoders.

However, the main strength of the EVO 4 is a double effects processor at 24 bit 96 kHz. Processors EFFECTS 1 and EFFECTS 2 are placed on each side of the mixer for an intuitive and ergonomic use, and both of them feature DRY/WET crossfader and 3 parameter controls. Both processors feature 18 sound effects, including different kind of filters, delays, beat crusher, sweep, flanger, phaser and loop sampler with automatic beat detection, to name a few.

Last but not least, the EVO 4 is equipped with an output limiter protected with password for a safe use of the PA system, as well as extra large ergonomic EQ knobs, loop to external effects units, faders and crossfader shape adjustment and much more.

The EVO 4 will be available next June

I was especially interested in the ability to combine MIDI functions with mixer functions. Some complained that the EVO5 did only one or the other — but a firmware upgrade announced last week addresses that, allowing you to send MIDI and process audio signal simultaneously on the same channel, if you so desire.

The EVO4 is a little different, says Ecler USA’s Jon Ghoddoussi:

On the EVO mixers (the EVO5 as well), you can choose to put channels 1/2/3 in MIDI mode, and then leave channel 4 in normal AUDIO mode to accept the signal from Ableton (or whatever). I believe this is the smartest method.

That could be appealing to people looking to merge a laptop-based setup with a hardware-based setup. And — as with a lot of DJ gear — I think the odd hard-core electronic musician, not just DJ per se, could find real use for this. (If you want DVJ capabilities — with MIDI controlling visuals while traditional audio mixing functions are handled normally on the same controls — the EVO5 appears to be the way to go.)

I expect to see more Ableton Live support — alongside traditional apps like NI’s Traktor, for which Ecler is a certified provider — showing up in templates and the like for both mixers.

We’ll keep tabs on this as it emerges. I think the ways in which digital DJing is evolving are just beginning to get interesting. 

Ecler USA

EVO by Ecler [Worldwide site]

… and scratching:

The review isn’t without the odd caveat: for one, you’ll need to pluck down a couple grand to get the complete setup because the Rane mixer employed is required, though rndm ultimately says that’s worth it for the integration payoff. And available transitions and effects are limited in range and prefer to run on dedicated GPUs (think MacBook Pro, or a PC laptop with a dedicated NVIDIA or ATI card). But as you can see, the results are incredibly slick, and there’s no question video on vinyl now has a tool to beat. Check out the complete review and technical details on our visualist sister site:

Hands-on Review: Serato’s VIDEO-SL for Visual Vinyl Turntablism

Imagine every single piece of gear you have on your wish list. Then imagine a baby grand piano, lacquered in white. Then imagine — you know, for the sake of practicality — you want to use the piano as a projection surface. And sound system. And then imagine you just mash all those ideas into one gear-packed baby grand piano, and you’ve got the beautifully freakish BabyGrandMaster:

Baby Grand Master

It’s not just a gimmicky DJ piano. It’s a “video instrument”, blending visuals and audio. The last time we saw something somewhat like this was the keyboard with PC Miko, though since that’s just a Windows PC packed in a keyboard, only the marketing concept in principle made it a “VJ/DJ” product versus, well, a PC in a keyboard. And, of course, the Baby Grand Master starts to make the Miko look oddly affordable and practical.

This isn’t just some random tinkerer, either. It’s the creation of a veteran of the Emergency Broadcast Network group, as seen on Create Digital Motion today, meaning if you want to add missiles, it’s probably possible.

The specs:

Video:

1. Dual Pioneer DVJ-X1 DVD Players
2. Edirol V-4 Video Mixer
3. 3 Marshal LCD Monitors
4. Slot loading assembly
5. Ultra reflective white projection surface

Audio:

1. Allen and Heath Xone 92 Audio Mixer
2. Dual 15″ Subwoofers
3. 18″ Subwoofer
4. 12″ Subwoofer
5. 3 Bullet Tweeters
6. AB 1100 Watt Power Amplifier

Drivetrain:

1. Moog Slip Ring Assembly
2. 8 Foot Rotating Turntable
3. Wall Mount Variable Speed Control

Still not impressed? Options include hydraulic legs and lid, neon underlighting and running lights, fog and laser assembly, and an even more enormous “concert grand” stretch version. If this weren’t April 23, I’d be looking for the April Fools’ disclaimer, it’s so extreme.

All that’s missing: an actual piano. (What, no mapping the hammer action to visual clips?)

Josh Randall of Harmonix/Guitar Hero fame tipped us off. He writes: “From Gardner Post, ex-EBN member. He was the guy behind all of EBNs amazing gear…like the rocket launching golf bags and mobile video attack systems…(huge truck with lots of tvs on it) He’s been telling me about the baby grand project for a while…and he finally posted this site.”

EBN is Emergency Broadcast Network, a terrific multimedia group. Even if this particular creation isn’t your thing, you should check out their work — I think it’ll be right up the alley of the typical CDM reader.

I’ll try to go visit the actual instrument when I’m up Gardner’s way; more soon.

On the visual side: Create Digital Motion, why I think projecting on pianos is fun, and why we should do this the cheap way.

For many living in the age of the computer, a performance mixer has gotten more useful, not less. It’s a no-brainer for DJs mixing records with digital, but it can be useful for other electronic musicians, as well. (For some of the readers of this site, that might mean mixing in hardware synths, multiple laptops, circuit-bent toys, Game Boys, and … well, you tell me.) What’s interesting is that, along with this change, the mixer itself is starting to evolve, integrating audio interfaces, control functionality for use with software, and other features. Gimmicks — or features that transform what a mixer does?

Today, Korg formally unveils its KM-202 and KM-402 mixers, each of which integrates a KAOSS touchpad. The KAOSS Pad becomes most powerful, of course, as an effects unit. Added to a mixer, that gets really interesting. (That’s one two-channel mixer with crossfader, one four-channel, in case you haven’t already guessed.) The new KM series boasts a number of nice KAOSS Pad features:

1. Integrated effects with X/Y touch control: Filters, phasers, delays, reverbs, etc., adding up to 100 effects borrowed from the new “pocket KAOSS” we saw earlier, the mini-KP.
2. Loops and synths: Effects are already intriguing, but this also doubles as a real-time looper and synth.
3. Route mic input for effects and even vocoding.
   
4. Tap tempo for BPM sync.
5. Per-channel assignments: Here’s where the mixer comes in really handy. A KAOSS button allows you to freely assign the KAOSS Pad effect to whatever channel you like.

The usual KAOSS Pad features apply: a release function so you don’t have to keep your finger on the pad if you don’t want to, plus assignable memory presets so you don’t have to scroll through presets. It’s in a somewhat cramped space, so controls are fairly minimal, but in this case that may be part of the appeal.

And, oh yeah, it is a mixer, too:

1. Digital EQ: 3-band DJ-style EQ, but with six selectable EQ types — so you have different models from which to choose.
2. I/O: Mic in, line, phono; master and booth outputs.
3. Headphone/booth monitoring switch: Set up a cue mix, which is terrific as many computer audio interfaces don’t offer it.
4. Adjustable crossfader curves.

I think this mixer could wind up being a huge hit with live laptop artists, or live performers with mixes of other loopers and sound sources but no laptops, as well as the usual DJ crowd. They’re still another piece of gear to tote, and many will prefer to stick to the laptop for mixing and effects, but there are a number of reasons these should at least warrant additional investigation. Here’s a look at why, plus a comparison with Korg’s recently-announced ZERO4 and ZERO8 mixers:

Worth Carrying?

For DJs, the appeal is obvious: instant effects, X/Y control, and all the basics needed for DJ mixing. But electronic musicians of all styles (and not just the “Dance” label applied by Korg marketing) have long been addicted to KAOSS Pads. By integrating them with the mixer, you can add instant effects, EQ, and even the occasional fingertip synth sound, all with instant-access X/Y control. That may sound like overkill given the sonic capabilities of a computer, but there’s nothing quite like having instant-on, full-mix effects when you’re in the heat of a performance. And I find DJ mixers are ideal for mixing in additional hardware sound sources — DJs .

Now the bad news: as with the mini-KP, there’s no MIDI. Unlike the mini-KP, however, I think the lack of MIDI is mitigated by the fact that this is integrated in a mixer; it’s more likely that you’d use this for hands-on hardware control over the final live mix, and worry about MIDI for all the more sophisticated computer stuff in your laptop.

Korg’s Mixer Lineup

Korg is suddenly in the mixer/DJ business. The idea of the KM series is clearly to do a very simple 2-channel or 4-channel mixer with the built-in equivalent of the mini-KP KAOSS Pad. And that’s all they are: mixer plus KAOSS effects. The Korg ZERO4 and ZERO8 mixers also have mixing and effects, but with some additional features the KM lacks:

1. Computer audio interface. Via FireWire, the ZERO4/8 can input audio and MIDI from a computer, with color-coded dials to tell you which input you’re on. (This is on top of level, phono, and “guitar” high-Z ins.)
2. Controller functionality. The entire ZERO mixer will double as a MIDI controller for software. I hope to examine exactly how this works soon on CDM.
3. 11 EQ curves to the KM’s 5, and eight channels on the ZERO8.
4. Channel-independent tempo: This is something I haven’t seen before: each individual channel can have its own BPM, set by manual input, tapping, or auto-bpm sensing. (Not sure about MIDI sync, but I believe that’s possible, as well, though perhaps not for each channel.) Hey, Ableton, could we have this in Live, please?
5. Integrated BPM sampler with dedicated controls. There is some sampling functionality on the KM, but there are dedicated loop-length controls on the ZERO series, and since you can sample from any channels, the ZERO8 has more complex potential.

That said, the ZERO4/8 don’t just lack the KM’s nifty KAOSS touchpad: they also have far fewer effects. The ZERO’s also have some tough competition, though we expect it to be more expensive, in the form of Ecler’s Italian-designed EVO5, not to mention their previous NUO4. If you’re interested, let us know, and we can arrange a shootout.

I’m very interested to look closer at the ZERO series, and I expect they may work well for a certain audience. The control layout looks clean and friendly, the displays and color-coding are really lovely (not to mention the strangely retro master meters), and I do like the concept of “live control” mixers and consoles.

But it’s really the KM series that I find appealing. Minimalism is something sorely lacking in this business, and that’s what this line really promises. It also looks like a mixer that could easily complement a computer live.

I hope to crash Korg HQ out on Long Island next month, so stay tuned.

Pricing/Availability

ZERO4/8
Pricing US$1300 street (ZERO4); ZERO8 unknown
Availability: May/June
ZERO 4 Product Page
ZERO 8 Product Page

KM 202/402
Pricing: TBA
Availability: June
Not yet on the Korg site at press time; see press release