Guest articles, insight and comment

Due to several hacking events we have sadly had to close our main Wordpress Blog. It seems that some people think it's more fun destroying than creating. Anyway, please follow us on Facebook so that you can get alerts on new features and articles. Our page is here - please 'like' to follow!

The new RP Blog is here

eccentric's guest blog on the music industry

Eccentric's Blog

API 500 series …what’s that all about, then?

Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s (here I go again…) just about every major studio had a rack of SCAMP modules in their control rooms. Made by the excellent Audio and Design company (best known for their F760 ‘Compex’ dual/stereo compressor limiter) these were slim processing modules designed to slot into a 19” ‘mother’ rack or lunchbox, capable of taking a dozen or four units respectively.

Modules included an excellent compressor (based on the Compex), a couple of pretty useless gates and some very useable deesser, panners (based on the ‘Panscan’), phasers, flangers and miscellaneous goodies.  And the concept was very logical; in that much of the cost of a piece of outboard comprised the power supply and metalwork, driving multiple units from a single power supply and sharing a single rack bought down costs, reduced space and offered a mass of processing in a relatively compact space.

For a decade or more, the Scamp Rack rules the roost and then, almost overnight, fashions changed and the system seemed to become redundant. Which is actually a real shame, as I think a whole generation of recordists would be delighted to rediscover the quality, variety and astonishing value to be had by ferreting out, dusting down and resuscitating a long forgotten Scamp rack. After all, they could probably pick up four or six top class compressors, a panner, deesser and other goodies for less than a grand. The trouble is, fashions have changed and their ignorant, elitist friends on Gearslutz would not be impressed.

Audio and Design were not alone in promoting the mother rack/sub-unit concept. In the UK, a company called Rebis made a budget version and in the States DBX offered their excellent 900 series modules, now best known for the 902 deesser, although the 903 compressor is a well-kept secret (and original 160X in subrack format). Other proponents included the original Inwards Vac Rac, now highly collectable, and…API.

API offered subrack systems pretty much by default. Like the early Neves, API console design incorporated separate eq and compressor modules into a ‘building block’ design (API mic pres tended to be built into the routing modules, so were never available as stand-alone modules). Fans of API consoles started to demand these modules for  processing purposes apart from the consoles, so a basic ‘lunchbox’ was produced to house two or four modules (the lunchbox was so called as it resembled the compact sandwich-boxes builders and others took to  work). As well as API modules, these would accept compatible ‘thumbnail’ eq’s made by related companies (APSI, Angus etc) and some small volume eq’s from a few bespoke manufacturers. So the API lunchbox format came into life by default, in order to provide a convenient home for existing modules, rather than by design as did Scamp and others.

When API was taken over by the current owners in the mid 1990’s, the company was a shadow of its former self. Indeed, Funky Junk were the first pro audio company to become involved with distributing and promoting the range, either here or the States, and grew API sales from a pathetic £8,000 turnover in Europe in 1996 to over £250,000 by the time that we surrendered distribution for personal reasons in the early 2000’s. Along the way, we persuaded API to open an account with my friend Mike Nehra at Vintage King, who has since gone on to become the world’s largest API dealer.

So API became a market leader in the outboard eq, mic pre and compressor market, with the 500 (lunchbox) series leading the way. A few other companies had always made compatible modules, particularly Brent Averill (now BAE), who’s 312 mic pre was closely based upon the original API design. And then, about five years ago, a few companies realised the potential of offering their own designs to fill the thousands of empty slots in existing API lunchboxes and racks around the world. API finally agreed to ‘approve’ 500 series modules from other manufacturers (an academic exercise really, as no approval was needed – the format had no copyright or patent) and the floodgates opened. Now, barely five years on, there are countless 500 series modules available, a veritable sweetie shop of confusing choices for the bedazzled buyer.

I have no intention of reviewing the options here. Maybe I’ll do a comparison one day when I have a spare millennium on hand. The main purpose of this examination is a simple examination of why the 500 series has merit, why for some it may have no merit and generally what to look for when choosing suitable units.

As we saw earlier, the economics of subrack systems make sense. Sure, entry level costs are quite high, in that a rack and power supply (or powered rack/lunchbox) are required before any modules can be used, but costs have come down a lot over the last decade (partly at our suggestion. When we distributed API throughout Europe we suggested a dramatic reduction in lunchbox prices as an incentive for customers to buy into the platform). However, once a rack has been acquired, a variety of relatively low cost modules can be fitted, and the more purchased, the greater the economy of scale becomes.

But is this a logical way to go? Here my feeling are mixed.

The original imperative for 500 racks was that by and large, the superb API eq and mic pre could ONLY be purchased in a 500 series format. Of course, API do now do four channel mic preamps (3124+) and two channel rack mount eq (5500) but by and large, API remain committed to marketing their products in 500 series format. So if you want a selection of API eq’s and mic pres (and the odd compressor), then the only realistic choice is a lunchbox or 500 rack. But with many other choices, the logic is less clear cut.

In my experience, most professional engineers require ‘one box, one job’. So if, for example, they want A-Designs (Quad 8) mic preamps, most would buy a Pacifica 2 way rack mount unit.  However, there’s no doubt that the 500 series offers a bewildering degree of choice for those who want more variety.

Personally, I’m a bit ‘old school’ and subscribe to a growing body of opinion that the glue that gave so many classic albums of old such a well-balanced sound was the fact that all the mic preamps and much of the eq was consistent – the engineer used the desk preamps and equalisers for pretty much everything, giving the finished result a unity and consistency of sound that knitted everything together in the mix. So whereas I’d be happy with a 500 rack of, say, ten API 550 512 preamps or ten 550A (or B) equalisers, I’d become frustrated with half a dozen different preamps or eqs competing and giving  different flavours on a recording.  Going back to the classic Scamp racks, for example, I think it’s no coincidence that most we see are fully loaded with largely compressors and gates. In the pre SSL and Neve VR days (manufacturers who incorporated gates and compressors into their later desk channels), the need for an outboard rack of compressors and/or gates was obvious and this is where the Audio Design units came into their own.

Having said this, we’re now seeing some excellent modules designed for 500 series racks that are not available in stand-alone format. The Retro Double Wide, for example, or the new BAE Neve style 1073 offer compact format quality processing in an easy size that can add real muscle to the audio armoury. Similarly, like good chefs, all audio engineers have their own recipe for sound, so the option now exists for either mixing and matching a variety of processors in a compact space or for multiple compressors, eqs or processors on a cost effective basis. Once upon a time, if you wanted (say) ten good compressors in your rack, this might occupy 20U and cost £15000. Now a ten way 500 rack will cost less  than half that at occupy three U, a very important consideration in today’s scaled-down control room. But there are compromises. Firstly, some 500 racks won’t offer sufficient power to deliver juice to the more sophisticated units, which is why BAE and other produce racks with external power supplies. Secondly, accessing side chains, direct outs, links etc can be limited and thirdly, some units are scaled down or electronically compromised, despite the manufacturers claims.

I’ve been very unimpressed with a number of the Gearslutz blather about some 500 modules, and wonder whether those posting glowing reviews have ever actually used the units (or alternatively, whether they’ve got much experience of decent pro outboard).  As with every bandwagon, many of those hurtling onto the gravy train are destined for a short life as the true wheat is gradually sorted from a plethora of chaff. And finally, please be aware that build quality and serviceability are crucial with audio equipment. A broken module is no more use than an empty slot. Some 500 series modules are too miniaturised, lack decent transformers and try to pack too many components into too small a space.

Hopefully, this overview helps to explain the history of the current fad for 500 series modules. In the coming weeks and months I’ll put a bunch of modules through their paces up at SNAP! Studio and jot down my own opinions and comparative reviews.

Eccentric. 01.02.2013

Eccentric's New Year Blog

Late last year, I made two predictions for 2013

• Night would continue to follow day, and...
• HMV would go bust.

Surprisingly, both have come true (but please don’t ask me for next week’s lottery numbers).

HMV have been appallingly managed for at least a decade. What sums this up as much as anything was that when grossly overpaid fat cat CEO Simon Fox waddled off to run Trinity Mirror, the national comic publishers, his successor was headhunted at great cost from that other titan of the High Street, Jessops Photographers. Trevor Moore, the new head honcho, introduced the same cutting-edge strategy that he implemented at the camera –shop chain with similar results…a collapse in sales followed by bankruptcy.

While the national press drone on sympathetically about HMV being a victim of technological change, unable to compete with digital downloads and on-line sales from Amazon, the truth is altogether more prosaic – those running HMV had not the first idea of the needs, mindset or culture of music lovers. As with so many (now defunct) major record labels, the money men believed that a pot of gold lay at the end of the musical rainbow, and this could be excavated by endless growth, acquisition and marketing strategies based upon monopolistic practices and the throttling of ‘competition’.

In HMVs case, this meant buying up competing chains, such as FOPP, expanding into every vacant High Street slot that came available and using their increasingly dominant position in the market to demand ever better deals from their suppliers (record and film companies) as a means to bludgeon the independent sector to death. The strategy was successful. Small, local shops could not compete on price, particularly on new releases and best sellers – bread and butter sales which pay the rent and effectively subsidise the eclectic back catalogue that is the lifeblood of true music lovers everywhere.

The major labels and distributors colluded in this savage assault on independent record stores. Whereas it might be logical to assist the small shops by offering them lower prices and extended terms, the suppliers did the opposite by putting all their eggs in the supermarket and chain-store baskets. Sure, a few enlightened independent labels did their best to support small shops by offering exclusive, usually vinyl, releases but to nothing like the extent that they should.

And the upshot? HMV decimated their competition. And now that HMV have gone, we have… we have nothing left.

Of course, Simon Fox’s great salvation strategy for HMV was to rebuild the company fortunes by selling… what? Cut price CD’s? HMV branded downloads? Special edition DVDs and CDs? No. His lightbulb moment was the belief that his 239 High Street Mega Stores could be reborn on the back of Dr. Dre headphone sales, Chinese memory sticks and high-tech-tut. In other words, this grossly overpaid buffoon sought to reinvent HMV as a latterday Woolworths, and I guess he was successful in at least one respect – HMV have followed their illustrious forebears into Carey Street. Both are now history. So much for the past. What of the future?

Well, here’s another prediction. Half of HMVs defunct stores will be purchased by a venture-capital group for peanuts, within the context of a deal with major suppliers offering reduced prices, extended credit terms and possibly even an equity interest. Because the major labels simply cannot afford to lose the monopoly sales opportunities that they themselves allowed HMV to create. But choice will become even more limited as the ‘new’ HMV abandons any stores that are even marginally loss making and increasingly becomes an outlet for major labels rather than offering any cross-section of choice for customers. So once again market forces will be distorted by the monopoly that HMV became. Like Clinton’s cards or Thornton’s chocolates, HMV will, to all intents and purposes, be ‘Universal/Sony/Warners Records’, promoting a narrow choice of ‘in house’ brands to the exclusion of consumer choice or demand. Because with birthday cards or chocolates, if you don’t like the Clinton or Thornton’s offerings, there is plenty of alternative choice down the road. But with records and CDs, if HMV don’t have what you want, it’s our tax-dodging chums at Amazon or nothing.

Gone will be the days of in-store promotion, knowledgeable staff, extensive back-catalogue, varied in-store and window displays or the opportunity to check out minority releases. HMV will cater for any colour or shade of taste you want, as long as it’s black, black, black.

In the short term, our industry will suffer. Most small labels will lose money from the store collapse and some may well go bust. The larger labels will lick their self-inflicted wounds and carry on, demanding a stake of future action along the lines suggested above. Yes, they’ll lose dosh from the liquidation and no doubt try to grab this back from unwitting artists who weren’t consulted and didn’t agree to the debt-for-equity swaps and extended credit the majors gave the retailer. Universal will take a long term hit, I gather, because EMI (now owned by Universal) hold forty of the most expensive high street leases on larger branches. Indeed, having grossly overpaid for EMI last year, I bet Universal are regretting ever having got involved with such a basket case – all the news is negative. But it was that old ‘bigger is better’, ‘economies of scale’ and ‘screw the competition and customers alike by becoming a monopoly’ school and vampire business philosophy at work again.

So, what can a small label do to combat the megaliths? How about this…? High Streets up and down the country are overflowing with charity shops, something that will increase as more and more chain stores feel the pinch and fold (and of course, if an owner leaves a shop empty, he’s liable for rates and taxes, whereas of he allows a charity shop to take the space, he avoids these). Is it beyond reason for a union or cooperative of independent labels to join together to form a distribution network and offer to stock Oxfam, say, with racks of new releases and prime back catalogue at a reasonable selling price (£3.50 - £5.00) and a decent 25/30% margin? The distributor could supply CDs on sale or return (or consignment – paid as sold), management software and listening booths.

Overnight, hundreds of new outlets would offer music lovers around the country an alternative to the chain-gang…er chain stores and what’s more, instead of the retail margin fattening shareholders, venture capitalists of multinational tax avoiders, worthwhile causes would benefit. And it might just put the reason and soul back into modern music.
It’s a thought…


Special guest bloggers, podcasters and vlogers

Fran Ashcroft

Phil English

Russell Cottier


We are fortunate to have some amazing contributors who both help with our interviews but many also produce some great recording industry articles. Since we closed our old blog we will move the articles in to this new area. If you'd like to be a contributor please get in contact!

You can follow us on Twitter here.

More blog articles