Put distortion ("color, warm up or saturate the signal") on the channels and buses.

[Dave Labrecque]

...the 500 Series standard...

I've taken an interest in this as a starting point for my future lunchbox obsession/money pit:

https://www.cranborne-audio.com/500adat

[cgrafx]

I've taken an interest in this as a starting point for my future lunchbox obsession/money pit:

https://www.cranborne-audio.com/500adat

That actually looks pretty cool and a really nice way to get analog gear incorporated into a DAW.

[John Ludlow]

I've taken an interest in this as a starting point for my future lunchbox obsession/money pit:

https://www.cranborne-audio.com/500adat

I think that looks very cool. Much more sophisticated than the Neve 500 Series 'lunchbox' I bought several years ago:

https://rupertneve.com/products/r10

It would allow you to do I/O in two digital pipes, rather than 16 analog cables. Well - I suppose if you have mic preamp modules, you'd have some XLR going in too. Of course, for your modules that are analog, it will have to do the d/a conversion, and a/d to go back. So, you'd hope to be convinced that its converters are as good as the ones you normally use.

I don't know whether converters ever have a 'sound' of their own, since mine are all RME. But, if they do, you'd want to be sure that the Cranborne's and your everyday converters get along, distortion-wise.

Presuming all is well there though, the conversions have to take place somewhere along the line anyway. And ADAT sure is a lot tidier, cable-wise, than a slithering mass of of microphone cables, which is what I'm working with. I suppose that, if I were smarter, I'd have a devoted snake.

Plus, if you can find a digital 500 series module for it, for whatever purpose, you can skip conversion to and from for it altogether. Pretty clever box.

[Pedro V]

Dave,

I misinterpreted because you put an emoticon and my English...

Forget it

All very well...

Thanks.

[Dave Labrecque]

Plus, if you can find a digital 500 series module for it, for whatever purpose, you can skip conversion to and from for it altogether.

Which would contradict the whole reason for using a 500-series chassis, no? My guess would be that such modules don't exist (for that reason). And I gotta think the Cranborne box wouldn't accommodate them. (I'm too lazy to actually check the specs.)

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave,

I misinterpreted because you put an emoticon and my English...

Forget it

All very well...

Thanks.

No worries. Thanks.

[Pedro V]

I'm trying the PSP Mix Saturator 2. Give it a listen, I think it works very well....

I put it on an Aux, you send it for example a little of the toms that are difficult to tame, they calm down and come out.

https://www.pspaudioware.com/products/psp-mixpack2

[John Ludlow]

Which would contradict the whole reason for using a 500-series chassis, no? My guess would be that such modules don't exist (for that reason). And I gotta think the Cranborne box wouldn't accommodate them. (I'm too lazy to actually check the specs.)

I can think of use cases. But not a single example of one in the real world. Maybe it's a bad idea. I'll stop defending it.

I spent an hour or so watching Cranborne videos. They're kind of addictive. I really like the C.A.S.T. idea. Do you plan to make use of it? I'm imagining issuing each musician an N22H that would carry 2 low impedance signals (2 mics, or 1 mic and a DI'd inst) plus a headphone amp that would be pointed at their personal SAC monitor mix outs (which they could control via SAC wifi using a cheap pad). So, all their IO would travel on that one cat5 and sit right next to them.

I don't see much value in mixing in analog. But the C.A.S.T. stems could run through whatever analog components (preamps) within the 500 Series box, were desired and then be digitized and sent to/from your normal converters, 8 or 16-wide, using ADAT - and from there to SAC. Or, it could be channeled out the channel xlr out into some other, non-500 Series, preamp instead. I guess you'd still want a patch bay. Interesting stuff.

I hope that you will let us know how this turns out for you.

I checked on prices. It's not too bad, really.

[Dave Labrecque]

I can think of use cases. But not a single example of one in the real world. Maybe it's a bad idea. I'll stop defending it.

I spent an hour or so watching Cranborne videos. They're kind of addictive. I really like the C.A.S.T. idea. Do you plan to make use of it? I'm imagining issuing each musician an N22H that would carry 2 low impedance signals (2 mics, or 1 mic and a DI'd inst) plus a headphone amp that would be pointed at their personal SAC monitor mix outs (which they could control via SAC wifi using a cheap pad). So, all their IO would travel on that one cat5 and sit right next to them.

I don't see much value in mixing in analog. But the C.A.S.T. stems could run through whatever analog components (preamps) within the 500 Series box, were desired and then be digitized and sent to/from your normal converters, 8 or 16-wide, using ADAT - and from there to SAC. Or, it could be channeled out the channel xlr out into some other, non-500 Series, preamp instead. I guess you'd still want a patch bay. Interesting stuff.

I hope that you will let us know how this turns out for you.

I checked on prices. It's not too bad, really.

My measly brain is struggling to understand the benefit of moving audio to CAT cables four channels at a time, using a piece of hardware on each end (=$). When I look at my 2000's-era Furman headphone distribution system (one stereo and four mono signals plus power over two, daisy-chainable CAT5 cables), I get that it's a lighter-weight approach than a six-cable XLR snake (plus power). But I'm not clear on the intent with C.A.S.T. I haven't seen any noise specs, so I'm wary of any uses besides monitoring--which is what the Furman HDS is limited to. I guess I need to read more about C.A.S.T. to have a useful conversation.

Okay, I got curious and perused the Cranborne C.A.S.T. section a bit. One thing that seems elusive is info on the required cabling. I gotta think straight up (UTP; unshielded) CAT5 cable is not going to keep out RFI and EMI to the degree that (shielded) XLR cable would. So I'm going to assume we'd need to buy the good stuff: FTP CAT5 at least. After A LOT of googling, I was able to find only a couple instances of true U/FTP cable (no CAT5, only CAT6 that I could find), which is (so far as I can tell) the accurate, technical category for network cable with no overall shield but four individual-twisted-pair shielding. Looks like it's about half the cost of studio-grade cabling (I used Belden 8451 for the comparison), so there's a bit of savings there. But when I figure the cost of the C.A.S.T. hardware (1.25 boxes per four-channel run), I gotta wonder if it's worth it. I guess there are applications where it would be worth the lighter logistics, but otherwise... I don't see it as the way to go for permanent installs.

What am I missing?

BTW, it's interesting to note the C.A.S.T. approach vs. the old Furman approach: the former has the engineer sending a discrete stereo (or two mono) stem(s) to each "station" over four terminating cables. The latter has the engineer sending one stereo and four mono stems to multiple "stations" over two, daisy-chainable cables. I can see applications for both, I suppose; but I like the option to give the talent some mix control.

I also see that Cranborne have some of their gear with C.A.S.T. interfacing (RJ45) ports. Like a couple of their mic pres. Not sure how that's useful.

Extra credit: do we think the boxes are doing anything besides just acting as fancy cable adapters? If so, what is that doing to our signal? Knowing Cranborne, probably not much to worry about, I suppose. But, still...

[John Ludlow]

Dave, I don't know anything about the Furman headphone distribution system. Maybe it's better. The thing I like about the individual boxes for each musician is that it resolves the problems created by having everyone's cans plugged into the same source. Or else, guessing at studio-build time where the ideal place to run those cables will always be later. Plus, it supports individualized monitor mixes for the musicians. Headphone cables stretched across the room at ankle height in different directions from a central location is one of my pet peeves. This way you could hand each one their IO box, and even duct-tape it down where it was right next to them. I hate the slithering cable situation that my sessions often become where it's hard not to step on a cable anywhere you go - and it's eventually difficult to identify which is handling what signal. C.A.S.T. seems to resolve all that - which I like. On the other hand, you may have, long ago, resolved that for yourself.

You make some good points regarding signal loss. I presume that the headphone amp is converting low impedance signals so that the loss would at least be minimal. Plenty good enough for personalized monitors. Surely less than, essentially, headphone speaker cable draped around the room. But I don't know about the relative loss for the other two. Your knowledge of the nuances of CAT cabling is impressive, by the way. I'm going to have to remember where this is for later reference!