audiokid, post: 439521, member: 1 wrote: Me too, ;) .

Yes, but, not "overdubbing". That's the part left out that is worth discussing. :)

Unless I am missing something, this statement (not pointing fingers) can be misleading for those who track example: 1/ 2 etc channels at a time to build songs. Then hybrid monitoring off a console is no longer solving latency? In fact, its actually introducing more because you are now including a conversion pass through analog counterparts which are subtle to very subjective and problematic issues). Which is why I felt it necessary to advice unaware readers thinking analog console monitoring was the god send message to now fix their latency, might not be after all.

I bought into a console years ago for the very reason you describe. I trusted others who said the same thing, thinking, wow, zero latency... I need to buy another console and start doing it that way to avoid all this latency BS.

Had I actually understood where this all goes sideways... , I would not have wasted my time on that one. But it never stopped me for other reasons beyond this thread... . I later dropped the console monitoring all together and invested in a dedicated monitor control system, thus HD monitoring and truer mixes per-say. Way better....

So to be clear and not a stick in the mud :rolleyes:.... In my comments above, I am simply clarifying additional pro's con's, demystifying (building onto the discussion). :)

To my experience then, monitoring off an analog console works fine while tracking or checking your hardware insert feeds (on the analog side) but lacks for overdubs, mixing and mastering for a variety of other reasons, some to do with added latency and others for poor coloured alterations to your monitors. An analog console can introduce colour and phasing which lies to you.

Just saying...
If it was worth the investment, more and more people would buy consoles and there would be no need to have better interfaces not to mention, dedicated hybrid monitoring systems that work much better.

Again, not trying to kill your excitement. I love consoles. Just saying a bit more about consoles and monitoring.

Pretty much only that, imho.

Each to his own device. :love:

Essentially you're just using your computer and daw at the tape machine until you've tracked everything, then you can either keep it in the box or adjust your output routing and mix down on the console.
It's the same zero-latency live-monitoring for overdubbing as well.
In fact, I built a song one track at a time the other day using the console.

bouldersound, post: 439529, member: 38959 wrote: I am not compensating for input monitoring latency, I am simply not creating it in the first place. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.

This is huge. As musicians it is SO.... important to hear yourself correctly and right in real-time (via monitoring, or any other musical situation), the human ears and brain have the ability to simultaneously work with your instrumentation/performance, you can adjust nuance of guitar notes or vocal timbre in that exact moment but only if you're actually hearing that moment.

My plead behind this is enabling the musician to perform the part at their best, before all.

That being said, I would put the importance of not even allowing latency to be a possibility before any audiophile concern.
Computers, interfaces, and daws are not currently lightening fast/as fast as wire, and they may never be.
Totally understand where the concern comes from with the console colour and possible loss of headroom using one.
However, we are talking tracking of live-performed-music here and a good song is a good song even if the recording console the band used maybe made the highs a little fuzzy but one of the reasons they got that great take was because the musicians were unhindered during their performance.
I might sound over-meticulous but even though it's just a couple milliseconds of delay we are talking, it matters.
It might not matter to a high school garage band that's recording but it will absolutely matter to any high caliber musician.

Take the band the Punch Brothers, give them a monitor off of a daw and they'd be in place to throw the headphones at you but they probably would just walk out cause they're nice guys.

Doesn't latency get introduced, I'll be at even add a minuscule level, as soon as something is playing back from the computer through the drivers and whatever connection you're using, whether it's an MADI, or USB or thunderbolt ?

In Theory wouldn't the only "true" zero latency situation be when all tracks are done live monitoring thru analog hardware. As soon as your playing back from the computer, aren't you introducing latency from the DAC?

Playing back from the tape machine, is an all analog situation. But as soon as audio comes back from the computer or goes into it, there is a conversion and the inherent Latency. This is just my thinking, so perhaps I am off the mark here.

Personally I prefer a tracking live, with the band no headphones. If I'm tracking a song by myself one by one, I just play along to the studio monitors, and either listen to the amplifier signal, in the room, or more commonly just monitor that as well through the studio monitors. That way at least everything is in line, and I can adjust my playing to whatever small amount of latency there is, similar to "playing behind the beat, or playing on top of the beat" in reality my rhythm is awful anyway LOL

kmetal, post: 439545, member: 37533 wrote: Doesn't latency get introduced, I'll be at even add a minuscule level, as soon as something is playing back from the computer through the drivers and whatever connection you're using, whether it's an MADI, or USB or thunderbolt ?

No. Record offset is not the same as input monitoring latency. That's why I use two different terms and spell them out every single time. Yes, it takes time for the audio to get from the hard drive to the interface output and time for live inputs to get to the drive, but that's not audible to the performer. If there weren't compensation for record offset then each new track would be later on the timeline by the out-in round trip delay time, but all DAWs compensate. As long as it's properly compensated for record offset is a non-issue.

Record offset is the out-in delay. Input monitoring latency is the in-out delay. That's a drastically different situation because you can compare when you play/sing something to when you hear it, and if it doesn't match you're going to have an imprecise sense of time.

Plugin delay is yet a third, distinct, type of delay.

Right, but assuming perfect synchronization, if you were playing back tracks through a console via a tape machine, or a computer, the computer would be behind the tape machine. Is this the offset that you're referring to?

kmetal, post: 439550, member: 37533 wrote: Right, but assuming perfect synchronization, if you were playing back tracks through a console via a tape machine, or a computer, the computer would be behind the tape machine. Is this the offset that you're referring to?

Yes but nobody ever compares the the signal as it is read from the drive to the signal as it comes out of the converter. That's completely irrelevant to monitoring while recording. Record offset is that time plus the return trip time. Regardless, it is not audible during tracking or overdubbing and the only consequence is that new tracks would be shifted later on the timeline relative to earlier tracks, and that's known and compensated for by the DAW.

Also the more I thought about it, even a tape machine had a slight delay between the record and repro heads depnding on the spacing (like 1-5ms??) so it's not just a digital phenomenon.

bouldersound, post: 439551, member: 38959 wrote: Yes but nobody ever compares the the signal as it is read from the drive to the signal as it comes out of the converter. That's completely irrelevant to monitoring while recording. Record offset is that time plus the return trip time. Regardless, it is not audible during tracking or overdubbing and the only consequence is that new tracks would be shifted later on the timeline relative to earlier tracks, and that's known and compensated for by the DAW.

Do you know if the computer and hardware would effect how well this is accomplished? Do drivers or ram or ssd type things come into play?

kmetal, post: 439556, member: 37533 wrote: Do you know if the computer and hardware would effect how well this is accomplished? Do drivers or ram or ssd type things come into play?

I don't think so as it's a fixed number of samples. Either the system detects it and compensates or you alter the setting manually until it's right. Barring a bug or a new interface that's all you ever have to do.

kmetal, post: 439536, member: 37533 wrote: Are you sure your daw isn't doing latency compensation on its own automatically/by default?

yes, positive. I've never used it.

audiokid, post: 439566, member: 1 wrote: yes, positive. I've never used it.

If your overdubs are placed correctly on the timeline then record offset (or record latency) compensation is active.

The more I'm thinking about this, the only way that I see truly zero latency overdubbing, would be if you were capturing both the live in the playback tracks, to a separate DAW, or recording device. Whether you were playing them back through the PA or splitting them through some sort of a mixer and headphone mixer, or using one DAW to play back the backing tracks wow mixing in the new tracks, monitoring Through the "playback" DaW and then capturing the whole previously recorded multi track and new performance to another one. This can be made possible without any sort of reconversion, by simply streaming the pre-recorded tracks at the same sample rate digitally to the new computer via some digital connection. I guess what I'm saying is that all the source material has to hit the recording device at the same time whether it's pre-recorded or live or a blend, otherwise there is compensation one way or another. At least in my mind. i've been randomly thinking about this thread and concept lately, because it seems vastly overlooked.

It seems to me as soon as you introduce any sort of DA or adda you're going through a computers electronics and it's inherently latency, however small that may be. Whether it's even perceptible, or problematic is a different story. I could be wrong about this, I'm just kind of thinking out loud.

In my case... I don't have zero overdubbing monitoring latency , but its so tight, I never worry about it. As others share... When I am tracking or mixing / monitoring off the Monitor ST.... I have Zero. The ST is like a console, but better of course. Its transparent and 3 point per-say.

Yes, My compensation is turned off.:) But, now that its brought to my attention, I'm going to start playing with it once my next DAW build is finished,

fwiw, thats the difference between PCIe and AES EBU or MADI. I would never settle for less. Its awesome interfacing. If others are able to achieve what I can on a USB port, thats wonderful news.

bouldersound, post: 439574, member: 38959 wrote: If your overdubs are placed correctly on the timeline then record offset (or record latency) compensation is active.

I didn't know this. Thanks.

It's worth doing a loopback test to see how well recorded tracks line up with playback.

kmetal, post: 439582, member: 37533 wrote: The more I'm thinking about this, the only way that I see truly zero latency overdubbing, would be if you were capturing both the live in the playback tracks, to a separate DAW, or recording device. Whether you were playing them back through the PA or splitting them through some sort of a mixer and headphone mixer, or using one DAW to play back the backing tracks wow mixing in the new tracks, monitoring Through the "playback" DaW and then capturing the whole previously recorded multi track and new performance to another one. This can be made possible without any sort of reconversion, by simply streaming the pre-recorded tracks at the same sample rate digitally to the new computer via some digital connection. I guess what I'm saying is that all the source material has to hit the recording device at the same time whether it's pre-recorded or live or a blend, otherwise there is compensation one way or another. At least in my mind. i've been randomly thinking about this thread and concept lately, because it seems vastly overlooked.

It seems to me as soon as you introduce any sort of DA or adda you're going through a computers electronics and it's inherently latency, however small that may be. Whether it's even perceptible, or problematic is a different story. I could be wrong about this, I'm just kind of thinking out loud.

This really is not the case in any properly set up system.

Rather than try to analyse what does not does not happen in a DAW, it might be helpful to consider the simpler example of an Alesis HD24 hard disk recorder. This behaves like a packaged computer-DAW combination for recording, dubbing (tracking) and playback. Because it is all one unit including the analogue I/O, the timings are set up by the internal firmware so that it is sample-accurate at the analogue I/O connectors. By this is meant that tracks being recorded while other tracks are set for replay will line up exactly in time (to the nearest sample) during the tracking or over-dubbing process and will then be correctly time-aligned with the older tracks. You can record a click on one track, play it back looped to another track input, record that, replay the second track into the third and go on until all 24 tracks have been recorded. If you then look at the 24-track file, the edges of the click on all tracks are at the same time instant.

Most DAWs either behave in the same way as the HD24 by default or can be set manually to do so. Since a DAW system is not a single unit and the sofware does not have any implicit knowledge of the type of A-D and D-A converters being used, some small adjustment may be necessary to get complete sample-accuracy. The "true zero latency overdubbing" that Kyle referred to is indeed true, provided that foldback monitoring of live tracks is mixed externally with the replayed tracks using an analogue mixer.

I think that the confusion generated in this thread has arisen solely from the thought in contributers' minds that foldback monitoring through a DAW introduces latency due to the I/O buffering. This is correct, but not relevant to the topic.

audiokid, post: 439518, member: 1 wrote: In the end, its (is this the right word) "moot"

"moot" means that the point is non-relative, unimportant, not a factor, and that it has no bearing on the outcome of a situation or discussion due to other circumstances.

Let me try again...

A point that is not worthy of discussion or consideration because other factors have resolved or negated its importance...

ex:

"I really need new tires on my car."
"Perhaps, but your engine block is cracked, so the tires are a moot concern."

See? I guess my English degree at Kent State did turn out to be useful after all. :ROFLMAO: LOL...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. :p

audiokid, post: 439585, member: 1 wrote: In my case... I don't have zero overdubbing monitoring latency , but its so tight, I never worry about it. As others share... When I am tracking or mixing / monitoring off the Monitor ST.... I have Zero. The ST is like a console, but better of course. Its transparent and 3 point per-say.
If others are able to achieve what I can on a USB port, thats wonderful news.

Very interesting.
Maybe my move is a ST, not a console.. :eek:
Is there a way to live-monitor multiple inputs (ex while tracking drums) with ST and balance out the inputs you're recording, like a console?
I would hesitate in saying that my Symphony System through USB is anywhere near as fast as your setup.

Boswell, post: 439589, member: 29034 wrote: This really is not the case in any properly set up system.

Rather than try to analyse what does not does not happen in a DAW, it might be helpful to consider the simpler example of an Alesis HD24 hard disk recorder. This behaves like a packaged computer-DAW combination for recording, dubbing (tracking) and playback. Because it is all one unit including the analogue I/O, the timings are set up by the internal firmware so that it is sample-accurate at the analogue I/O connectors. By this is meant that tracks being recorded while other tracks are set for replay will line up exactly in time (to the nearest sample) during the tracking or over-dubbing process and will then be correctly time-aligned with the older tracks. You can record a click on one track, play it back looped to another track input, record that, replay the second track into the third and go on until all 24 tracks have been recorded. If you then look at the 24-track file, the edges of the click on all tracks are at the same time instant.

Most DAWs either behave in the same way as the HD24 by default or can be set manually to do so. Since a DAW system is not a single unit and the sofware does not have any implicit knowledge of the type of A-D and D-A converters being used, some small adjustment may be necessary to get complete sample-accuracy. The "true zero latency overdubbing" that Kyle referred to is indeed true, provided that foldback monitoring of live tracks is mixed externally with the replayed tracks using an analogue mixer.

I think that the confusion generated in this thread has arisen solely from the thought in contributers' minds that foldback monitoring through a DAW introduces latency due to the I/O buffering. This is correct, but not relevant to the topic.

Ok thanks a bunch for clearing that up. I'm not a lot more curious about how each DAW handles this sort of thing behind the scenes. Perhaps I/we were blaming conversion or bad recording technique on phase related issues arising from a misunderstanding of the DAW. I know in my case I've never used any sort of manual adjustment of any of the time related things, so whatever the DA W did by default is what I used, perhaps I should have second-guessed this along time ago.

I'm also glad that my thinking about the "true zero latency overdubbing" type concept was somewhere on the mark, even if "moot" (lmao Donny) I associated it sort of with old-school beetle style sub mixing, just without the sub mix/ summing, part just multirack streaming. Could the same thing be accomplished with 2 DaW's, but using an interface that was using hardware monitoring only, instead of an analog mixer, essentially an interface functioning as a analog mixer for all intents and purposes but mixing both live microphone signal, along with streaming audio, into a separate decoupled interface system?

ChrisH, post: 439599, member: 43833 wrote: Very interesting.
Maybe my move is a ST, not a console.. :eek:
Is there a way to live-monitor multiple inputs (ex while tracking drums) with ST and balance out the inputs you're recording, like a console?
I would hesitate in saying that my Symphony System through USB is anywhere near as fast as your setup.

Dude, But what about all those pre amps eqs???!!! I guess in an ideal world you have both the mixer in the monitoring controller. I know personally I'm starting with the dangerous ST monitoring device, but I'm also not focused on tracking, and have two full-blown commercial studios to do that type of work in.

Lol sorry bro, just vicariously fulfilling my GAS.

Also as far as MaDi and aes ebu, PCI E based devices, versus USB 3.0 and thunderbolt 2/3 it will be interesting to see how the new high band with connections compare. A lot of the PCIe based stuff although connected straight to the motherboards boss, is an older 1X connection type.

So I wonder if the playing field will ever level off, but I have a hard time conceptualizing the newer standards and even con standards of PCI E falling behind usb ect. As far as I know there are no current USB 3 or thunderbolt 2/3
Audio interfaces out there. There's also the option for dedicated usb 3 / thunderbolt pcie cards. So so perhaps this makes a difference considering the busing architecture of the computer it's self.

For what it's worth whatever I've used PCI E-based stuff, like apogee Rosetta or MOTU pcie card based interfaces, The sound always seems solid, and the performance extremely reliable. I versus USB or FireWire always seems to have a little flab., Although this is not very fair comparison due to the various levels of quality and design of the interfaces themselves. But I think that the PCI E offers a solidity to the overall product that doesn't seem otherwise attainable at this point.

That said I'll personally, hopefully, be just fine and completely satisfied with my new USB based interfaces, and moderate buffer sizes.

With focus rights new thunderbolt, and ethernet based interfaces there employing dual converters, to split the latency time in half on a bit level, and then recombining at the analog output. So there is a lot of new interesting stuff going on in design these days, besides budget concerns that is one of my main reasons for holding off on something truly "professional standard" for a couple more years. In the meantime to great opportunity to get an excellent monitoring system complete with controller. Imho

kmetal, post: 439600, member: 37533 wrote: Dude, But what about all those pre amps eqs???!!! I guess in an ideal world you have both the mixer in the monitoring controller. I know personally I'm starting with the dangerous ST monitoring device, but I'm also not focused on tracking, and have two full-blown commercial studios to do that type of work in.

Yeah, not sure I can give up having 16 analog eq's in trade for transparency.. idk?
They're not top notch eq's but they have sweep-able mids, filtering, and sound musical.
Plus, I do as much tracking of bands as I do mixing.
I'll have to see what audiokid has to say on the flexibility of the ST's live-monitoring.
That's sweet! What new interfaces you getting?

it depends on what you're doing but imo, the announced death of the large format mixing console is premature.

in spite of all i've read in these and other pages (for what seems like years now) i still see LFC's in use in major rooms. i've been waiting to see these predictions to come to fruition, but i don't see it happening and companies like Neve, SSL, API and Daking keep producing these behemoths so obviously, someone is buying them.

the two things i see as different now days are the kind of artists being recorded and the economic climate (for mid level studios) and i think that is driving the trend towards itb at the middle markets ....... a hip hop artist or pop singers who work with vst's, samples, machine and keyboard generated tracks have no need for a console.

and if all a guy does is play with themselves, one track at a time, or record canned vst's, or goof around doing bullsh*t mastering and mixing or even the seasoned pro doing an "itb mix", a DAW itb will work. but the second you begin to track live rhythm sections or entire recordings live (which btw is the way most accomplished recordists and musicians prefer to track) you really need the preamps, eq,routing and monitoring capabilities of a large console. yes it can be done itb but it's kludgey and time consuming. a LF console just improves the work flow of a live session. the last thing a bunch of great players want to do is sit around the live room with their fingers up their buts, while the engineer patches in 16 pre amps, 16 outboard eqs and needed dynamics. it's a real inspiration killer and if they are worth their salt you won't see them again!

i just don't buy that any summing console (regardless of cost) is really going to make that much of a difference in sonic clarity / quality over a real large format console but, even if that is the case, i would rather the sonics be compromised with a little color or noise than the performances being compromised. the last thing i want to hear is, "they played like shit but boy is it clean sounding" ..... and at the end of it all, who's going to know if the sound is slightly compromised / degraded? no one! it's all about the playing!

my feeling is; until computers can process audio at the speed of light, there will be a place for a large format console in pro recording studios.

ChrisH, post: 439604, member: 43833 wrote: Yeah, not sure I can give up having 16 analog eq's in trade for transparency.. idk?

It's not like the symphony is a bad interface, if you have the monitoring function already, why fix a problem you don't really have just yet, it's the preamp and EQ that you seem to be lacking. Just use the interface for monitoring Until you have the budget for a dangerous or something like that. Again Imho. I'm vicariously fufilling my GAS, it's obviously your call.

If you were running multiple reference monitors, or multiple DA W's I could see where this choice might not be as clear-cut

ChrisH, post: 439599, member: 43833 wrote: Maybe my move is a ST, not a console

for monitoring, without doubt.
A console is not an ideal way to monitor digital audio off a DAW. There is a reason they make external monitor controllers.

Kurt Foster, post: 439605, member: 7836 wrote: it depends on what you're doing but imo, the announced death of the large format mixing console is premature.

in spite of all i've read in these and other pages (for what seems like years now) i still see LFC's in use in major rooms. i've been waiting to see these predictions to come to fruition, but i don't see it happening and companies like Neve, SSL, API and Danking keep producing these behemoths so obviously, someone is buying them.

I'd use good console pre amps but I would never use the monitoring section of one if I had a Monitor ST. Not even a chance. Once you use an external monitoring system with at least 3 inputs, you would unlikely prefer something so primitive and backwards as a console monitor. I would however, use a console as one of the 3 inputs to an ST ;)
But if we are merely talking about lovey preamps and ability to EQ, move faders, why not.
Are the best console in the world any better than a carefully fitted modular system? I hardly doubt it.
People use analog consoles for all sorts of reasons and will likely always like to have them around in a pro studio. I'd like to have one just to smell lol. :love:Some reasons are most likely because they can, they are used to them, they add a level of class and wow factor, but I doubt they add any more sonics than a good tracking system built for individual/ pro requirements. I bet they don't even compete if you could really measure it out. But for quantity on a budget, a console sure makes sense until they break.
What ever works seems to be the most logical. Its about the song and having a system that doesn't break down, freeze up or fall apart in the middle of the session that makes the most sense to me.

Kurt Foster, post: 439605, member: 7836 wrote: but the second you begin to track live rhythm sections or entire recordings live (which btw is the way most accomplished recordists and musicians prefer to track) you really need the preamps, eq,routing and monitoring capabilities of a large console. yes it can be done itb but it's kludgey and time consuming. a LF console just improves the work flow of a live session. the last thing a bunch of great players want to do is sit around the live room with their fingers up their buts, while the engineer patches in 16 pre amps, 16 outboard eqs and needed dynamics. it's a real inspiration killer and if they are worth their salt you won't see them again!

Just last night I had a band in to set up for tracking. Having a console made it all go so much more smoothly. Since we weren't tracking for real I put the PA on and let them jam out loud for a while. I transitioned them a couple at a time to headphones and then switched the PA off. The drummer needed to hear he kick better so I gave it some click on the console eq. Everything I needed to get monitor mixes happening fast was right there on the console, and there are two reverbs and a delay ready to be used in monitor mixes at any time.

bouldersound, post: 439609, member: 38959 wrote: Just last night I had a band in to set up for tracking. Having a console made it all go so much more smoothly. Since we weren't tracking for real I put the PA on and let them jam out loud for a while. I transitioned them a couple at a time to headphones and then switched the PA off. The drummer needed to hear he kick better so I gave it some click on the console eq. Everything I needed to get monitor mixes happening fast was right there on the console, and there are two reverbs and a delay ready to be used in monitor mixes at any time.

Exactly why StudioLive's are so awesome for live recording and working with bands, etc. And capture is just pain cool. . If I had bands coming in like that, I would be completely satisfied with the new SL's. They are the best of both worlds and incredibly affordable.

audiokid, post: 439608, member: 1 wrote: Once you use an external monitoring system with at least 3 inputs, you would unlikely prefer something so primitive and backwards as a console monitor.

:rolleyes: i don't know why you think the monitoring section in a large format console is "primitive". that sounds like it was something someone who doesn't have many miles logged on a real LFC would say. i'm not talking about a big Soundcraft, Mackie or a Toft type thingie, but a "real" Neve, SSL, Trident, API, etc.

in my experience, the monitor sections in any of the large format consoles i have used were very good. just as good i bet, as any of these monitoring solutions like the Dangerous or the Antelope. The cards for the monitor section in any decent "real" LFC are built as well as any of the "solutions" marketed these days. of course the builders of these new monitor boxes are going to use marketing hype to tout their sonic accuracy but i really don't expect that they will perform that much better if at all, than the monitor sections of a Neve, SSL or API or even an old MCI as long as they're in good repair. i would be curious to hear them perform side by side in a shoot out. i'm willing to bet there's actually very little difference in quality if any at all.

the Neve 5060 monitor is a monitor section from the Neve 5088. even the monitor section on my old JH 636 had multiple inputs and speaker selectors and the actual card themselves are quite large with just as much goodies / circuitry as any of these after market boutique solutions, they run on high volt rails and they feature through the hole construction so they don't become a doorstop when it's time to recap like much of the newer stuff available.

bouldersound, post: 439609, member: 38959 wrote: Just last night I had a band in to set up for tracking. Having a console made it all go so much more smoothly. Since we weren't tracking for real I put the PA on and let them jam out loud for a while. I transitioned them a couple at a time to headphones and then switched the PA off. The drummer needed to hear he kick better so I gave it some click on the console eq. Everything I needed to get monitor mixes happening fast was right there on the console, and there are two reverbs and a delay ready to be used in monitor mixes at any time.

audiokid, post: 439610, member: 1 wrote: Exactly why StudioLive's are so awesome for live recording and working with bands, etc. And capture is just pain cool. . If I had bands coming in like that, I would be completely satisfied with the new SL's. They are the best of both worlds and incredibly affordable.

i could never be happy with one of those things, even if the pre amps did sound good, which imo, they don't. i've seen them up for sale on CL here for less than $800. that speaks volumes.

audiokid, post: 439610, member: 1 wrote: Exactly why StudioLive's are so awesome for live recording and working with bands, etc. And capture is just pain cool. . If I had bands coming in like that, I would be completely satisfied with the new SL's. They are the best of both worlds and incredibly affordable.

I don't need to select a channel to use its eq or access any of its sends on the console I use. I've got a full size meter bridge that effectively shows me record levels of every input at the same time. Oh, and no latency rather than about 3ms (pretty low but not zero).

Kurt Foster, post: 439612, member: 7836 wrote: i don't know why you think the monitoring section in a large format console is "primitive". that sounds like it was something someone who doesn't have many miles logged on a real LFC would say. i'm not talking about a big Soundcraft, Mackie or a Toft type thingie, but a "real" Neve, SSL, Trident, API, etc.

Its not my opinion. Sorry it bothers you as well.

audiokid, post: 439608, member: 1 wrote: Are the best console in the world any better than a carefully fitted modular system?

No. Nor are they any faster than a properly set up modular system. A console requires a patch bay for external gear, and I can patch way faster digitally.
Are consoles more fun. They sure are fun. Love faders.

Kurt Foster, post: 439612, member: 7836 wrote: i could never be happy with one of those things, even if the pre amps did sound good, which imo, they don't. i've seen them up for sale on CL here for less than $800. that speaks volumes.

Me too. Those preamps lack headroom. They're gross for anything requiring a smooth mid range, like the complex harmonics of a high gain electric guitar.

The built in reverbs are of Zoom 16 bit quality at best.

If you a/b the SL against its competitors digital mixers, from A&h, Soundcraft, ugh, Berringer, they all have better pres, better color touchscreen/Lcd visual menus, better effects, and are actually useful in a daw situation because of the motorized faders. The soundcraft digital mixer (3k retail price) even has both MADI and USB recording outs, and AES digital outs for speakers.

The SL was first to the game, that's why so many people bought them initially, but they're fading fast, due to the competition building off their footprint. Everyone I know, I have seen out at gigs, whose have The SL, have moved on to different things, or just held out with their original SL, riding it till it dies.

That said, none of these brand-new, state-of-the-art, did you mixers have come close to the sound quality in a 10 or 15-year-old Yamaha LSR, or CL series mixer. Those are A step into the real realm of professional live sound.
I take a Yamaha over any of those, any day.

bouldersound, post: 439613, member: 38959 wrote: I've got a full size meter bridge that effectively shows me record levels of every input at the same time.

They make a meter bridge for the SL now?

Kurt Foster, post: 439612, member: 7836 wrote: i'm not talking about a big Soundcraft, Mackie or a Toft type thingie, but a "real" Neve, SSL, Trident, API, etc.

Kurt Foster , care to share your insight on Soundcraft 6000's?
Trying to figure out if I should get the one that has been offered for $3000.00 or wait it out for a MCI to pop up, I don't know how they compare or what the competition is in that price range.
Remy always talked highly of the Audiotronics 501 boards.
As I'm just 27 so I did not grow up with consoles, would appreciate the insight.

i've never worked on a 6000 so i can't speak from any real experience. i can say the Soundcrafts i have worked on were punchy and sounded better than any Mackie or Garbageher. 3k is a bit steep for one though.

i attended a NARAS seminar @ the Hilton in SF years ago that Roger Nichols, John Meyer and John Storyk hosted and they had a Delta hooked up to a 24 track in a ball room they had set up as a control room for the class. so i guess they are ok. but still not the same as an MCI or Neve SSL API .....

now with all that said, and after getting folks a bit upset let me say this ....... i do not recommend getting an old MCI. do they sound good? yes very good thank you (when they are kept up). BUT ...... don't buy one. not unless you know how to work on them or you know someone who does. they are maintenance pigs. period. and any LFC is going to get long in the tooth at some point and will need lots of TLC. the intended market for a LFC (all of them) is a facility that keeps service techs on call or better yet, in house. many studios back in the day would run 2 shifts a day and then have maintenance scheduled at night or early am .... in other words, they were repairing these things daily in order to keep them in perfect operating shape. and you need to keep on top of those things. who wants a console that is full of faults? so i do not recommend anyone go out and buy a LFC. not for most of us who hang here. who here has the space or the business to justify such a purchase? it's a different planet from those glory years where for a smaller studio, such a purchase could be justified.

while i do not subscribe to the opinion that summing box's are better than a real LFC, i do agree that they can be as good and they are the best choice for todays modern mid level studios ... whatever that may be.

Kurt Foster, post: 439629, member: 7836 wrote: i've never worked on a 6000 so i can't speak from any real experience. i can say the Soundcrafts i have worked on were punchy and sounded better than any Mackie or Garbageher. 3k is a bit steep for one though.

i attended a NARAS seminar @ the Hilton in SF years ago that Roger Nichols, John Meyer and John Storyk hosted and they had a Delta hooked up to a 24 track in a ball room the had set up as a control room for the class. so i guess they are ok. but still not the same as an MCI or Neve SSL API .....

now with all that said, and after getting folks a bit upset let me say this ....... i do not recommend getting an old MCI. do they sound good? yes very good thank you (when they are kept up). BUT ...... don't buy one. not unless you know how to work on them or you know someone who does. they are maintenance pigs. period. and any LFC is going to get long in the tooth at some point and will need lots of TLC. the intended market for a LFC (all of them) is a facility that keeps service techs on call or better yet, in house. many studios back in the day would run 2 shifts a day and then have maintenance scheduled at night or early am .... in other words, they were repairing these things daily in order to keep them in perfect operating shape. and you need to keep on top of those things. who wants a console that is full of faults? so i do not recommend anyone go out and buy a LFC. not for most of us who hang here. who here has the space or the business to justify such a purchase? it's a different planet from those glory years where for a smaller studio, such a purchase could be justified.

while i do not subscribe to the opinion that summing box's are better than a real LFC, i do agree that they can be as good and they are the best choice for todays modern mid level studios ... whatever that may be.

Good to know.
So maybe my best bet is the SC6000, I'm hoping to talk him down around $2000.00

ChrisH, post: 439631, member: 43833 wrote: Good to know.
So maybe my best bet is the SC6000, I'm hoping to talk him down around $2000.00

i'm not saying that. the Soundcraft will need maintenance too and most likely just as much. ALL LFC's need lots of tlc. it's a big leap getting into one of these beasts and i wouldn't recommend it to anyone. i have to go with Chris on this topic. summing consoles or something like one of the SSL or Focusrite/ Audient hybrid mixing / control surfaces would be a much better solution.

i wouldn't go more than $1k if even that. i've seen some up for sale at $600. you're gonna spend more than that getting it interfaced and in good running order. no one sells a used console that is in "perfect" condition. there's always a few issues.

Kurt Foster, post: 439632, member: 7836 wrote: i have to go with Chris on this topic. summing consoles or something like one of the SSL or Focusrite/ Audient hybrid mixing / control surfaces would be a much better solution.

Interesting, which models are you referring too?
Again, my concern is wanting to live-monitor while tracking

ChrisH, post: 439633, member: 43833 wrote: Interesting, which models are you referring too?
Again, my concern is wanting to live-monitor while tracking

you can use anything for monitoring. but not to sum or mix. once you're there, you should just stay itb unless you have a great console.

http://solidstatelogic.com/studio#&panel1-1

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/focusrite-control-2802

http://apiaudio.com/product.php?id=129&p=8

I think I may try patching my interface straight to my amp for a mixdown session just to try it out. And I think I'll also run some transfer functions on my usual monitoring path through the board to see what the frequency and phase responses and distortion figures look like. It would be nice to have some actual data.

Kurt Foster, post: 439605, member: 7836 wrote: i just don't buy that any summing console (regardless of cost) is really going to make that much of a difference in sonic clarity / quality over a real large format console but, even if that is the case, i would rather the sonics be compromised with a little color or noise than the performances being compromised. the last thing i want to hear is, "they played like $*^t but boy is it clean sounding" ..... and at the end of it all, who's going to know if the sound is slightly compromised / degraded? no one! it's all about the playing!

my feeling is; until computers can process audio at the speed of light, there will be a place for a large format console in pro recording studios.

Not going to lie, I'm really confused now, Kurt.
Are you saying you can monitor in real-time like a lfc with one of those small format summing mixers?
That's my main reason for wanting a console is to get away from daw monitoring while tracking, then once it's itb, it will stay itb.

yes you can. one way is to patch the outs of your DAW interface into a mixer while the inputs are connected to your front end equipment. you will need to get into your DAWs software console (they all have them) and select the correct monitoring path for latency free monitoring. this will provide the outs of the DAW with the signal from the inputs pre D to A.

another way would be to mult/split your front end signals routing them to the DAW and to the mixer. that will avoid all the DAW monitor console bs.

Mackies work well for this because they have lots of aux sends. i had a SR24 with 6 dedicated aux sends. i would take the outs of my front end into the DAW and then take the outs of the DAW to the Mackie for monitoring. this gave me 6 auxs for phones or efx and a stereo buss w/ c/r volume control. you're gonna need a speaker selector if you want to use multiple sets of monitors.

now if you want a console as the front end, it's a different story. that's when you will need to think about getting something serious.

Kurt Foster, post: 439640, member: 7836 wrote:
another way would be to mult/split your front end signals routing them to the DAW and to the mixer. that will avoid all the DAW monitor console bs.

You'd do this with patchbay, correct?

ChrisH, post: 439641, member: 43833 wrote: You'd do this with patchbay, correct?

yes. you can set up your P/B normalized to this configuration so you don't have to spend time when your tracking patching it in.

out of curiosity, how big are your live sessions? how many instruments / tracks do you typically need?

Kurt Foster, post: 439642, member: 7836 wrote: out of curiosity, how big are your live sessions? how many instruments / tracks do you typically need?

Normally 12, but up to 16 rarely