Are 500-Series Modules Still a Thing?

[Anderton]

Haven't seen any news, reviews, press releases about new modules...crickets. Are people still into them? Were they ever into them?

 

I don't have any 500-series modules. By the time you get a rack cage and populate it, you're out the cost of a pro-level computer and a bunch of software. I can see where a 500-series rack would be useful for live performance where space, portability, and immunity from crashes matters, so maybe when live concerts start becoming common again (assuming they do), 500-series modules will come on strong.

 

But, I don't know. I just don't hear a lot of buzz about them any more. Or is it just me?

[Nowarezman]

Haven't seen any news, reviews, press releases about new modules...crickets. Are people still into them? Were they ever into them?

 

I don't have any 500-series modules. By the time you get a rack cage and populate it, you're out the cost of a pro-level computer and a bunch of software. I can see where a 500-series rack would be useful for live performance where space, portability, and immunity from crashes matters, so maybe when live concerts start becoming common again (assuming they do), 500-series modules will come on strong.

 

But, I don't know. I just don't hear a lot of buzz about them any more. Or is it just me?

 

There's this guy on Reverb, wrote an article called "5 Reasons to Get Into 500-Series Modules", who says this, "...here's the good news: Compact, cost-effective 500-series modules are a modern alternative. Originally introduced by API decades ago, the concept started taking off in the early 2000s, and shows no sign of letting up."

 

Maybe he knows something we don't - I found his name from the article - some guy named Anderton.

 

:) (yes, that was 2019, I confess.)

 

I really, really want to get into 500-series modules, maybe build some from kits, too. Just my kind of hobby-boy thing. I hope they are still a thing and get cheaper and better. But it's a dream for retirement years, most likely. Maybe not that far off.....

 

I do know this - the synth and keyboard-controller market is catering a lot more these days to people wanting real hardware, CV, true analog, modular, geeky, crazy setups with all sorts of linked-up hardware boxes, zillions of patch cords and blinking lights and hardly a computer to be found.

 

And, I would think that, if the studio hardware market wants to survive, it needs to go smaller and cheaper with hardware units - which the 500-series is famous for. There sure are a ton of them listed on Reverb, that's for sure. I'll be hoping it's not a by-gone thing by the time I can start collecting the things!

 

nat

[KuruPrionz]

As part of a dream studio come true, yes I'd love a couple boxes full of the good stuff.

 

Out here in the real world, they are not a priority or really even a consideration at this point.

I have no experience with 500-Series, I like the idea. I want to hear them and see what it's like to use them. Might not ever happen, I don't know anybody around here using them.

[Mike Rivers]

Seems like every issue of a magazine, there's a review, or at least an announcement, of a new 500-series module. Like software plug-ins, there are many that have the same nominal function, they're just a little different. And where there's a new audio product, there's an open wallet somewhere.

 

Let's face it. There are people who believe that sometimes there's no substitute for real analog processing, and the 500-series concept is a good deal for today's computer-based tabletop studio that doesn't have one room with the Neve console, another room with an API console, and a third with an SSL.

[Anderton]

There's this guy on Reverb, wrote an article called "5 Reasons to Get Into 500-Series Modules", who says this, "...here's the good news: Compact, cost-effective 500-series modules are a modern alternative. Originally introduced by API decades ago, the concept started taking off in the early 2000s, and shows no sign of letting up."

 

Maybe he knows something we don't - I found his name from the article - some guy named Anderton.

 

:) (yes, that was 2019, I confess.)

 

True that. I had just finished reviewing some 500 series modules, and I thought they were very cool. I also thought they'd be ideal for a live solo act. And re-reading the article, the 5 reasons to get into them are still valid...but it seems that overall, the movement kind of fizzled.

 

I made three assumptions that didn't turn out to be correct:

 

1. Live performance would be the "killer app" for 500-series modules.

2. Prices on modules would come down, because the people making analog synth modules would see another potential market.

3. More DIY activity based around them.

 

Well, we all know what happened with live performance, which may have really impacted (2) and (3).

 

I do know this - the synth and keyboard-controller market is catering a lot more these days to people wanting real hardware, CV, true analog, modular, geeky, crazy setups with all sorts of linked-up hardware boxes, zillions of patch cords and blinking lights and hardly a computer to be found.

 

That was the dominant lifeform around the turn of the century. My live setup in the late 90s/early 2000s was dual Ensoniq ASR groove boxes, mixer, some hardware processors, etc. - not a computer in sight. A few years later, I'd slimmed the setup down to a control surface, laptop, guitar, and Ableton Live. I called it the "carry-on concert" because I was doing gigs in Europe at the time, I didn't have to ship anything, and it was a zillion times more efficient and paradoxically, reliable. I don't really have much nostalgia for hardware.

 

However, it will be interesting to see how MIDI 2.0 affects the hardware/software dichotomy. It blurs some of the existing distinctions between hardware and software, and makes integrating hardware into a software environment (and vice-versa) friendlier.

 

And, I would think that, if the studio hardware market wants to survive, it needs to go smaller and cheaper with hardware units - which the 500-series is famous for. There sure are a ton of them listed on Reverb, that's for sure. I'll be hoping it's not a by-gone thing by the time I can start collecting the things!

 

Maybe if "the bloom is off the rose," people will start selling their modules, the prices will go down, interest will go up, live performance returns, and they'll become more of a thing.

[Anderton]

Let's face it. There are people who believe that sometimes there's no substitute for real analog processing, and the 500-series concept is a good deal for today's computer-based tabletop studio that doesn't have one room with the Neve console, another room with an API console, and a third with an SSL.

 

Well, I have console emulation for Neve, API, and SSL consoles Not that I necessarily think it's even close to a true substitute, but it does have some of that transformer/harmonics/crosstalk mojo.

 

The thing about analog is that it's impossible to screw up. It doesn't depend on having good converters, a high enough sample rate, great bit resolution, or any of those limitations that need to be overcome with digital. That said, though, UAD kind of gets around those issues by throwing gobs of processing power at software plug-ins, to where they really do seem to have "that analog vibe" (at least to me). Computers keep getting more powerful and plug-ins keep getting better, and for my purposes, they're more than good enough. But, you're right...analog will always be analog, and always have those analog attributes, regardless of whether digital matches them or not.

[Mike Rivers]

[you're right...analog will always be analog, and always have those analog attributes, regardless of whether digital matches them or not.

 

I'm surprised, too, that the price of 500-series modules hasn't come down much, but many make a point of using premium components - Jensen, Lundhahl, Carnhill, or whatever was in the original that the 500 plays) dollar capacitors, and sometimes potted op-amp modules built with discrete components. There's also mechanical work - all stuff that's cheap as bits when building a plug-in. Though, still, I continue to be surprised at the price of "name brand" software plug-ins. The hardware module might be $700 (and you only get one of them), and the plug-in might be $300 (but you get as many as your computer can handle), so the plug-in is still a better deal, but not a steal.

 

As far as the idea that a rack of 500-series modules might be good for a live guitar rig, well, I dunno. Pedals are pretty cheap and there are hundreds and hundreds of standard brands (how many were in the Sweetwater Guinness Record setup?) and they have familiar controls. It's what guitar players like. However, a famous brand name engineer or producer may very well carry his lunchbox with modules that are part of his sound for certain things, and it's easier to plug into a patchbay than to load and authorize a plug-in on the studio computer (or bring your own computer). But this is a high priced solution for those who can afford it and, to some extent, around which they've built their reputation.

 

There are, indeed, some plug-ins that are are a real steal if you want and like what they do. But somebody's idea of saturation for $19 won't replace the sound of a $90 transformer. That being said - If you're not familiar with a genuine Neve or API preamp, a plug-in will probably be just fine even if it's not a lab-perfect copy.

 

Oh, and another thing that fizzled is the name. Officially, modules are supposed to conform to the VPR Alliance specification, but nobody calls them "VPR." I never did find out what VPR stood for It's not even in the standard., and even API calls them "500."

[Anderton]

 

As far as the idea that a rack of 500-series modules might be good for a live guitar rig, well, I dunno.

 

I was thinking of it more for vocals, and processing the main feed. For guitar, all I really need these days is a Helix.

[Mike Rivers]

 

As far as the idea that a rack of VPR modules might be good for a live guitar rig, well, I dunno.

 

I was thinking of it more for vocals, and processing the main feed. For guitar, all I really need these days is a Helix.

 

Oh - like what the live sound engineer using an analog console might carry a rack with him, or include a VPR rack with the PA system to replace a 2-foot high rack case with half a dozen processors in it. I think it's (still) too expensive an approach for the local bar bands, and they're all using digital consoles with their own effects that are (you'll pardon the expression) good enough for most routine sound reinforcement gigs.

 

The big stars carry their own favorite processors as part of the show, even those who are running digital consoles.

[RABid]

Years ago I started buying a system, portable stereo recording was the goal. 2 preamps, 2 eq's ,etc... Before I bought the last two components that I felt I needed, I got a UA Apollo Twin to connect to my MacBookPro. That did it. Never bothered to unbox the units and put it together, much less buy the last pair of components. The Apollo Twin is smaller, handier, and gives me more variety. The portability and variety of a MacBookPro and Apollo Twin killed the 500 movement for me.

[KuruPrionz]

Years ago I started buying a system, portable stereo recording was the goal. 2 preamps, 2 eq's ,etc... Before I bought the last two components that I felt I needed, I got a UA Apollo Twin to connect to my MacBookPro. That did it. Never bothered to unbox the units and put it together, much less buy the last pair of components. The Apollo Twin is smaller, handier, and gives me more variety. The portability and variety of a MacBookPro and Apollo Twin killed the 500 movement for me.

 

 

This type of system is going to dominate the market. The plugins sound too good (it's become difficult to compete!), there is only one cord to connect the Apollo to the computer, the system is small, light, versatile.

 

There will be other options and some will use them. As plugins improve (and I've noticed that is happening quickly in recent times), this way of working ticks so many boxes it's hard to ignore.

[Dave Bryce]

I do still have a 500 series rack with a few modules - mostly preamps - but I rarely use them.

 

I sold most of my 500 stuff last summer. Don't miss it a bit.

 

dB

[Chip McDonald]

Strange, I thought I made a post here about (pointlessly, I'm broke) looking at Midas lunchboxes on Sweetwater for $207, then I got a sales call from Sweetwater the next day, and a friend sent me a txt with a picture of a 550 he acquired a few days ago - which has created a problem for him having another lunchbox with empty spaces to be filled.

 

But looking, apparently the post is gone....? /*MatrixFails

 

 

If $200-ish racks had happened at the same time as $200 modules, it would have boomed like Eurorack seems to be.

 

A company competing with Universal Audio - such as Steinberg - should come out with a USB-C powered interface that comes in maybe a 3U 500 box, with the preamp as a module (leaving 2 spaces), with the 8 channels of I/O configurable through the lunchbox modules (leaving a pair of aux I/O on the back). Or make it 4x4, 2 channels through the lunchbox and an aux pair. You could then annex the preamp module with an API/Neve/? later, still have a space for a comp and eq, software configurable I/O allowing easy reamping.

[Mike Rivers]

In the spirit of the well known principle of "you can't get just what you want, only more or less" may I present to you the Cranborne Audio 500R8. It's more than you want, but they have the right idea. I think it's a pretty clever box, particularly good for a traveling multitrack recording setup with some signal processing of your choice.

 

[RABid]

They should have just gone Eurorack size.

[Chip McDonald]

In the spirit of the well known principle of "you can't get just what you want, only more or less" may I present to you the Cranborne Audio 500R8.

 

Hilarious! Yeah, that's great. I'd love to have that, pretty much an extrapolation of what I wrote.

 

 

BUT....

 

My angle is to make it more affordable. If Midas can (I know they're China now) make a $200 lunchbox, I'd think a company like Steinberg or Focusrite (or Mackie?) could incorporate the form factor with a scaled down box; effectively what I'm describing isn't much more elaborate than an entry level 4x4 $200 interface, with the addition of the lunchbox form factor/cards. If that could be done for another $100 - $125, it would open the 500 series market to a new demographic, and I think really take off.

 

I'd love to have that Cranborne unit, though, that's pretty ideal/convenient.

[Mike Rivers]

If I recall correctly, API's first lunchbox accommodated 4 modules. It caught on so well that everyone wanted space for more modules, so six or eight became the common configuration. There was also a 1-space rack mount chassis that accommodated two modules sideways.

 

The idea of combining a computer interface with the modules seemed a rather long time coming. Aphex had one before Cranborne but Aphex was bought by Rode about the time that product was introduced and, except for a few products (including the USB 500 rack), has faded into the sunset. Here's a Sound on Sound review of the Aphex USB 500 Rack. Again, more than you're dreaming of.

 

One consideration is that metalwork is expensive. Every hole in the panel adds to the cost, and those module slots have to fit the modules correctly, the power supply needs to meet the current requirements, and how good do you want the A/D/A interfacing to be? I suspect that marketing departments for the lower cost audio interfaces have done a study and haven't found enough interest. But one never knows. If there's a likely candidate, I think it would be Behringer since they make so much stuff and have all the technology off the shelf except probably for VPR compliance. But the Aphex rack was $800, and Behringer would have to make it for about half that in order to have a chance in the market.

[ToddP]

Our experience has been that people talk about 500 type modules a lot more than they buy them. People always underestimate the cost of producing them and overestimate the demand.

They are also problematic when it comes to service, since, for instance, a buzz could be caused by any of multiple companies' products not behaving with the others. Troubleshooting for a manufacturer trying to support a customer becomes quite an ordeal. It leads to "is this really worth it?" conversations.

[Dave Bryce]

In the spirit of the well known principle of "you can't get just what you want, only more or less" may I present to you the Cranborne Audio 500R8. It's more than you want, but they have the right idea. I think it's a pretty clever box, particularly good for a traveling multitrack recording setup with some signal processing of your choice.

I bought one of those last year with great anticipation for it solving a bunch of my problems. Sadly, I had issues with the device's quality (power supply kept shutting down), and I found their concept of tech support to not be in line with my expectations.

 

I actually returned it - something I almost never do. I figured out how to achieve a bunch of what I needed from the Cranborne with an Alesis AI3 and a Radial Workhorse WR-8.

 

dB

[Anderton]

Our experience has been that people talk about 500 type modules a lot more than they buy them. People always underestimate the cost of producing them and overestimate the demand.

They are also problematic when it comes to service, since, for instance, a buzz could be caused by any of multiple companies' products not behaving with the others. Troubleshooting for a manufacturer trying to support a customer becomes quite an ordeal. It leads to "is this really worth it?" conversations.

 

That's kind of what I suspected...