Mastersounds Radius 4 analogue rotary mixer (4)
News

The Radius 4 — more rotary mixer magic from Mastersounds

Having laid my hands on the small but perfectly Mastersounds Radius 2 rotary mixer in the Worxlab a few months ago, my mind did the usual logical extension of product names. And turning my head coyly, I asked Ryan Shaw “and a Radius 4?”, to which Ryan smiled and confirmed that it was coming soon. And soon is actually now for the all-British made Radius 4 rotary mixer has just been announced.

“MasterSounds and Union Audio continue their successful partnership with the Radius 4 analogue rotary DJ mixer”

In November 2016 MasterSounds launched the Radius 2 analogue rotary DJ mixer in collaboration with Union Audio to a rapture of global praise. Fast forward seven months and the Radius 4 is now here, a product ready to build upon the Radius 2’s worldwide success.

The Radius 4 has been developed by Union Audio at their Cornwall based workshops. Andy Rigby-Jones, former head of design for the world-renowned Allen & Heath Xone DJ mixer range, has personally designed, built and tested the analogue electronics, whilst MasterSounds founder Ryan Shaw’s family owned metalworking factory manufactures the mixers outer casing.

Each mixer is lovingly hand built, tested and shipped direct from Union Audio, ensuring the ultimate in quality, reliability and performance.

Andy says; “Just like the Radius 2, the Radius 4’s signal path features pure high-end analogue topology for minimal distortion, low noise floor and high headroom, aided by only using components of the highest quality”.

With more than twenty years experience of DJing, as well as a background in design and manufacturing, MasterSounds founder Ryan Shaw says, “The Radius 4 is a fabulous addition to the MasterSounds range and is a response to customers who love the Radius 2’s unique design, but require 4 channels when DJing”.

The Radius 4 offers a fantastic clean, open and dynamic sound on both LINE and RIAA inputs across all 4 channels, as well as great usability. The mixer features easy-reading back lit VU Meters, a responsive Master EQ/Isolator, a smooth natural sounding Hi-Pass Filter, and Aux Send on each channel.

A new and unique feature is the ability to reconfigure the Aux Return Jacks as a Mix Buss Insert, giving the user unparalleled flexibility for FX integration, simply at the press of a button.

And last but not least, the addition of two Mic inputs gives the Radius 4 the club standard specification seal of approval.

This is a premium product for true music lovers that comes in at a competitive price point given the dedication, quality and love that has, and will continue to go, into each hand-built unit.

Prices start at £1450 including VAT, and £1600 including VAT for the even higher specification version.
Both available in black and silver colour options.

Link: www.mastersounds.co.uk

The Radius 4 — more rotary mixer magic from Mastersounds
The full Mastersounds Radius family.

That rotary mixer you wanted…

…is here. The main comment I got back from seeing the Radius 2 was that people wanted a four channel version. So here it is, essentially a Radius 2 with a couple of extra channels. Well it’s not just that — the return path can be modified to act as an insert, so now you can have a fully effected audio path or a combined one. Choice is good. There’s also a couple of mic inputs, making the Radius 4 a better fit for a wider audience, especially clubs.

There are two colour ways (black and silver) as well as two build qualities, a detail I’m getting clarified with Ryan at Mastersounds as it’s not clear from the PR. A standard Radius 4 will cost £1450, with the premium edition coming in at £1600.

Gallery

SNAP POLL

Which would you go for — black or silver? 

Tags
Mark Settle
The Old Owner
I was the editor around these parts for the first two decades of the DJWORX journey. I’m on a creative journey at The Worxlab, and drop in occasionally here. Expect the odd article from me every now and again.
Related
Ableton Live Learning
Previous Learn music before making it with Ableton’s Learning site
Spinbox kickstarter DIY turntable portablism (2)
Next The DIY Spinbox — it’s just a deck in a box

13 Comments

  2. I’m wondering why every rotary manufacturer seems to love leaving out certain features.

    If I was in the market for a rotary I’d like to have a full eq and filter per channel to start with.
    Channel meters would be great and a crossfader would not hurt, too.

    All the hipster manufacturers keep building stuff that rather makes mixing a self-denial than fun.
    Is this a #realdjing issue?
    Are you a less true/cool/real rotary DJ if you love to have features that almost every recent mixer with line faders has?
    Is a rotary mixer only for minimalists?
    I don’t think so. And I think it would open up the market to a broader audience if those mixers were more well equipped.

    Rane was the only manufacturer that built an almost complete mixer in terms of features.

    Also, I wonder why no major manufacturer offers rotary kits for their “regular” mixers anymore.
    Should be a cheap way to enter both market segments.

    2. Many rotary mixers are built with the aim of emulating old (60s-70s-era) rotary mixers, which had very sparse feature sets. From an engineering perspective, reducing the per-channel feature set simplifies the design and allows for better noise performance (every opamp, transistor, tube, or resistor you add to a circuit adds noise.)

      On the plus side, it’s pretty trivial to build a rotary kit for any digital mixer with a removable fader plate or plates. All you need to do is use a multimeter to measure the existing line faders, then get rotary replacements and cut/drill some new metal parts.

      1. Quote:”From an engineering perspective, reducing the per-channel feature set
        simplifies the design and allows for better noise performance (every
        opamp, transistor, tube, or resistor you add to a circuit adds noise.)”
        While this is theoretically true, how come the Formula Sound FF4000, while being fully featured analogue mixer can be better sounding than any boutique rotary, as many users claim?

        1. Because “better” sound is a subjective thing, unlike output dynamic range, which is objective and measurable. More analog signal processing means more chances for the sound to be “colorized” (changed slightly) in ways that could be pleasing or displeasing.

          The famous example of this phenomenon would be tube amplifiers. Many people find the sound of tube amp outputs to be pleasing, using descriptors like “warm”, “fat”, or “analog”. This pleasing coloration of the sound is actually distortion; if you put a sine wave into such an amplifier and looked at the output on an oscilloscope, you would see that the peaks of the output wave are wider than they should be, and the valleys of the output wave are narrower than they should be. Without getting into stupefying technical detail, this is a consequence of the way many single-device amplifiers work (the same thing happens with other square-law devices, like MOSFETs), but because the distortion is pleasing, some people will prefer such designs over equipment that is more transparent (less output distortion.)

          1. Hm, I don’t believe the reduction of features is always with sq on mind, sometimes maybe, but that’s quite absurd as the benefits are not (so) audible on a club intended device ie mixer. I mean no one noticed that, say, Carmen EQ sounds worse than Carmen nonEQ. Or that ARS is worse than Radius for the EQs.

            Also other features are being excluded, like rec out or channel sends or proper metering per channel. Not having complete features at these prices and justifying it with sound quality is a bit fishy.

            1. For the sake of clarity, I want to emphasize that I am attempting to answer your questions from an engineering/design perspective. I am not advocating for or against any particular design philosophy. It makes no difference to me what equipment people want, or want to pay for.

              Sound quality is inherently subjective; what is pleasing to you may be harsh and irritating to the next person. It’s a function of what you like, the shape of your ears, the hearing response curve you were born with, and the hearing damage your ears have sustained throughout your life.

              To reiterate what I said earlier, many rotary mixer designs with stripped-back feature sets are an attempt to emulate old equipment, and (I presume) the character/colorization of same. This is an aesthetic choice. The target market for these mixers clearly does not mind the lack of certain features, and in fact may even seek out the absence of these features.

              As far as the expense vs. features issue is concerned, I think that the desire to emulate old equipment is likely having a large impact. The old Bozak and UREI disco-era rotary mixers used very short, simple signal paths, with expensive, high-quality components (for example, the famed ALPS “black beauty” potentiometers used as the level controls retail around $20-25 each today.) There are technical reasons why these parts cost so much, but the details are likely to be boring to anyone who isn’t an engineer. Additionally, smaller manufacturing runs mean that designers of boutique rotary mixers cannot take advantage of the economies of scale when purchasing parts; this additional expense is reflected in the price.

              Record outputs, channel sends, and per-channel metering all require additional electronics to implement; it may be as simple as a basic buffer stage, or it may be more complex, but adding features always requires more hardware and more engineering time. Engineering time is fantastically expensive (an EE costs about $200K-$300K per year, including benefits.)

              The retail price has to reflect not only the cost of the hardware, but also the development cost amortized across the number of units sold, plus operating costs for the company, plus some kind of profit margin. If the product is to be retailed through some kind of middleman, the profit margin needs to be large enough that everyone along the line can take their piece. Small production runs lead to high per-unit production costs for all of these factors, which are reflected in the final retail price.

              Basically, boutique rotary mixer companies are building a very specific product for a specific customer base. They are not competing with Pioneer or A&H or any other large-volume retailer. If you’re not interested in what they’re offering (short and simple signal paths, high-quality components, minimalist aesthetic) at the price they’re charging, you’re not in their target market.

  4. I like the minimalistic approach it has…. And while the silver is gorgeous, I have to give it to black because I’m biased and just prefer that colour.

  5. Love that the price point hasn’t blown out by the inclusion of a pair of extra channels. Will definitely be lining up one of these when I go to the UK (from Australia) later in the year!