Project Overview

Audiovisuelle Universalstation (AVUS) is the result of researching common hardware struggles musicians and performers face and deciding not to focus on any singular type of persona in the field. 

Instead, the project caters to any and all artists who need to develop custom workflows and setups while not having the monetary and logistical facilities to acquire lots of gear.

To handle this broad aim and target demographic, AVUS makes use of existing standards like Euroboxes, Eurorack, and MX switches. This maximizes adaptability and allows its users to tune their setup in a way that makes sense to them no matter the venue – putting art over logistics.

Demo Video

Product Details

Key Features

AVUS focusses on three concepts: Modularity, Connectivity, and Flexibility.

The basis for modularity is achieved by using several exchangeable control panels instead of a single, larger face plate, allowing layout changes. Not only the internals cater to this, but the boxes themselves make it easy to integrate additional devices while keeping logistical concerns low.

Connectivity is centered around a large selection of ports and the idea to expand with further input/output modules when needed, turning the box into a data hub that can moderate the communication of linked devices.

Flexibility is the sum of all other characteristics – including storage and portability, expansion and customization options, and ease of troubleshooting and repair due to the modular concept.

Input-Output Schematics

In the current setup, the Box consists of an external control layer above an internal processing layer, to which any native or converted USB signal can be added. This might include video feeds and obviously sound to or from an audio interface or a venue mixer.

A special control option is the use of a smartphone, utilizing its touchscreen and array of sensors like accelerometer and gyroscope to send expressive data wirelessly via OSC protocol.

Layout / Blueprint

In this configuration, the taller module row consists of three encoder modules with three knobs and vertical faders each. Two modules with ten Buttons each make up the bottom row alongside a magnetic charging pad for iPhones in the center.

What's in the box

A market-ready version of AVUS would require a webshop offering a range of options around the product. This includes everything from specific, pre-assembled devices to single modules and DIY kits to upgrade existing hardware. Some examples of this concept are Framework’s Marketplace, AIAIAI Audio’s headphone builder, and Teenage Engineering’s OP-Z expansion modules.

One crucial factor to consider here is backward compatibility. Both software and hardware need to stay consistent within the system to ensure long-lasting usage without forcing users to switch to newer versions.

Further Development

With this being the first prototype, there is a lot to be done about cable management and space usage in general. A goal for the second prototype would be to fit into a flatter Eurobox, since backpackability is one of the original hard constraints set for portability.

Construction-wise, an internal box-mounted shelf with secondary layers could be the next step. This would make the system even more flexible by eliminating the need to screw the rack into the box walls, paving the way for a new set of custom usage patterns.

Finally, it's easy to come up with additional modules like I/O expansion, different button layouts, displays, or active ventilation. Some less serious ideas in the vein of a big knob, drink holder and ashtray have also been tossed around. All of these would require a solid module management and linking system closer to true Eurorack devices. Ultimately, magnetic connectors seem to make most sense.

Background Info

Target Audience

As stated in the overview, this system is not intended for a single artist persona, but instead caters to a range of people united by a common set of workflow needs.

AVUS is a tool for creators who know what they want and how they want to achieve it. As the research for the project revealed, it can be hard to commit to a small group of devices, especially for less well-equipped artists and venues. This is solved by giving granular control of how complex and powerful the setup has to be: Any user can update their equipment in a precise and hassle-free way.

Keeping the system's entry level as low as possible also means that younger, less financially secure artists are still able to integrate it into their often more spontaneous and chaotic lives. One such scenario could be a hobby visualist joining some secluded rave at short notice and being able to get there without the need of a car or hired transportation.

Product Need

In a crowded audio hardware market and an epidemic of gear acquisition syndrome, AVUS could hand the power of choice and control back to the users and have an ecological benefit at the same time. Artists being able to pick only what they need and deciding how they want to integrate it could open up the cycle of buying and testing gear before ultimately choosing against it for some small reason.

Product Innovation

While not being as innovative as some experimental device promising a new workflow or escape from a creative rut, AVUS excels with its uncomplicated concept. It is not trying to reinvent the wheel, and the mix of custom-made components and standardized off-the-shelf-products comes with obvious benefits.

Graphic Design

Naming the project Audiovisuelle Universalstation and abbreviating that with AVUS came with a great visual opportunity that matches the overall use case and utilitarian appearance. To keep this section short:

Like the Automobil-Verkehrs- und Übungsstraße with the same name, now used as A 115 between Potsdam and Berlin, the device's graphics make use of official German road signage. Some of it is recontextualized and generally simplified to allow it to be cut from black vinyl sheets and applied externally to the box.

The font for presentations and marketing material is DIN 1451, also taken from German road signs and adding another standardized aspect to the project. Colors are neutral, with RAL 7001 Silbergrau as an effective middle gray to add darker or lighter shades. This includes optional highlights in blue, red, or yellow, inspired by ISO 3864 and given a bit more punch.

Research Insights

Considering the amount of time spent on the research phase, its results were not meaningful enough for the project to offset the effort. Several interviews and immersion exercises led to one main conclusion:

Gear is a sensitive topic, and people tend to be very particular when it comes to setups and their control-to-cost-ratio – cost including financial, logistical, and cognitive concerns.

The key takeaway from this conclusion is one that could have been confidently stated before:

Everyone is different, but shares similar problems around affordability, space management, transportation and control. This excludes wealthier, more established artists, who were neither part of the research demographic, nor the intended target group.

Design Thinking Process

Since the structure of the HPI Design Thinking templates became less and less suited to our more intuitive approach throughout the semester, this section is used to highlight some popular arguments against the method.

„Design Thinking packages a designer’s way of working for a non-design audience by way of codifying design’s processes into a prescriptive, step-by-step approach to creative problem solving, claiming that it can be applied by anyone to any problem.“ – Designer Natasha Jen, in her 2017 talk Design Thinking is Bullshit

„[Design Thinking] dilutes design into a structured, linear, and clean process. Critics argue that real design is messy, complex, and nonlinear, it isn’t derived from a stack of Post-It notes and a few brainstorming sessions.“ – Designer Shane Ketterman for Toptal

„Design Thinking! It’s almost a discipline. It’s almost a practice. It’s almost a mental framework. It’s almost a job description. It’s almost an effective tool. It’s almost a trade school major. It’s almost a way to design. It’s almost a way to think.“ – Software Designer Alan Cooper via X

Some of these quotes directly relate to our experience with the process, the main issue being that it hindered organic creativity. To make matters worse, there was an unreasonable amount of time spent not only on the exercises themselves, but also on comparing every group's results even when those stopped being relevant to the other projects.

Reflection

From a broken laptop and unfortunate absences to slow communication, the group work came with its own set of challenges. Since the beginning, we were plagued by uncertainty regarding what to focus on, not even resolved by further feedback sessions with Angelica. This led to an inefficient shift in the team's roles and responsibilities, since the existing and newly gathered knowledge around the topic could not be distributed evenly despite our extensive research.

Ultimately, expectations had to be lowered several times throughout the semester, which is not at all unusual, but still hurts, especially when it could have been avoided with better time management and earlier decision making.

The device works though, and seeing people play around with it at Werkschau was highly rewarding considering the time spent programming the Arduino, generative ambient patch and interactive projection in the days and nights before.

The course itself was well-received, but came with some frustrations shared by most of the other members we talked to. Without going to deep here, at the core of it was inadequate expectation management, mostly due to a disconnection of the course description and reality. 

„A large part of the class time will be spent on developing and building a physical prototype for their final project.“

This did not come true, with most groups having to devote the final week of the semester to individual work, while being stressed out about electronic components arriving in time and figuring out the soldering. Some form of introduction to the actual physical assembly and its pitfalls would have been extremely helpful and was almost completely left out, apart from half a day of looking at existing hardware and how to make a button work on a breadbord, which was not sufficient. Teaching ourselves the necessary knowledge is something we are confronted with all the time and well capable of, but combined with the confused timeline missing room for trial and error, a lot of things ended up rushed.

This is not by any means an attack towards Angelica personally, as she is not likely to be familiar with the common structure that could have avoided this issue: A small workshop course parallel to a section of the semester, taking pressure off the main course and allowing its members to gather the experience needed to make informed design decisions. Any future iterations of similar product-interface-design-combinations should consider this as an option.

Finally and most jarringly, the course description did not mention any sort of connection to the new DAW plugin we were supposed to work with, so the design challenge in the first week felt like it came out of nowhere:

„Design a physical interface which improves the experience of making music with the software sampling device visco.“

Choosing this course and going into the semester with some broad idea of an area of music hardware we would like to dive deeper into, and then being confronted with what sounds like a think tank for the plugin's developers came as somewhat of an unpleasant surprise. This was not helped by the vague communication that followed our reactions to this – some groups understood this challenge as mandatory, while it was back-pedalled towards others as more of an optional orientation.

Technically, it seemed, this course was meant to yield several plugin-specific MIDI-controllers, good for one thing only – another restriction in the way of organic creativity (see Design Thinking Process).

To conclude, this is not supposed to come across as nit-picky, since restrictions can be effective and cooperations with existing businesses can be valuable. None of these issues would have been a big deal, had they been communicated properly. The length of this critical reflection is mainly driven by frustration, since the time and energy lost to navigate the resulting mess could have been better invested into the actual projects.

That being said, the experience was generally pleasant and the input was usually interesting, albeit not always integrated too well. We learned a lot about music culture and hardware history; the field trips to industry spaces and events like Superbooth were among the most fun and helpful parts of the process.

Angelica did a good job of introducing us to this world and trying to get everyone up to speed, and although the well-planned course structure was a bit tedious at times, it seemed to work out for most people.

The assigned groups proved to be difficult for some, but uniting Interface and Product Designers is a promising approach that should be the natural consequence of the interdisciplinary style at FHP – we are excited to see future iterations that integrate our feedback.

Gallery / BTS