audiokid, post: 438223, member: 1 wrote: What are your thoughts on digitized analog stuff like example: The Dangerous Compressor?

Ranges anywhere from gimicky, to 'not quite there yet'. Great concept, but I think overall something that will eventually be phased out. I like the idea of digital line transmission though, like aes Ect. I think conversion should happen at the microphone, and then at the speaker/amp. Everything in between those two points should imho be digital. (Unless for some other need/reason of course). And even then the less power supplies, plugs, and micro electronics in the digital path the better. I mean the build of a Zoom digital verb unit and a lexicon or bricasti are different worlds. We can't except both to maintain the same signal integrity just because they are 'digital' or using standard protocols.

This is what separates the tools from the toys. And man have i learned from a lot of mistakes, others and my own. I'm even thinking of bypassing the tube guitar amp in favor of a fractal axe efx.

I'll tell you what, my new drum kit fits on a USB stick. Lol (BFD showed up the other day) and for $175, I could just about afford new heads on an acoustic set. Seems like I saved myself a lot in the long run, I've been waiting 10 years for my own full copy. I used the freebie 'adapted' version for years in pt.

I'm starting to brainstorm sketches and ideas, for the preliminary planning of my new home/mix suite/workshop. This shows the living room/mix room with an open kitchen, and the two bedrooms in the rear. Gotta add bathrooms and decks and stuff. This is just the idea I've had Jan my head for a year and wanted to at least get the basics out last week. Notice no console, or gear rack, and a huge window looking out into the view. (Sometimes the projector screen will be in front of it) that's a kitchen island/countertop in the rough.

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: Gear is a tough sell to me if its not remote controllable, and doesn't fit in my pocket, or have the ability to be accessed from anywhere. It's strange how my perception has morphed. Ten years ago, it was painful, and almost seemed like a let down to pay money for software, or digital stuff. Now it seems ridiculous to spend big money on physical gear that eats spade and energy, and especially, the type of gear that just sits there most of the time.

(y)

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: I hear ya Chris. when I think of digitally controlled analog I think of things like the bricasti,

(y)
Its actually digital. I tend to like it as an analog pass but you can use it like a plug-in.
It takes up an entire 8 core to make the algorithms and my guess is as computing improves, so with the Bricasti as a stand alone until. I really think room emulation is about the only thing missing in the DAW. The Bricasti is a game changer for those who add the real world to a mix without spending your life savings on a building.

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: I listened for hours/days via iPod directly into amp. Just me and a chair. LIFE SIZE sound. Add motu audio interface, audio slightly worse. Add mackie big knob, sound utterly degraded, imaging phase girth, all effected significantly. Add large desk/mixing console, things got worse.

(y)

I did all that too, had the very best gear here and not one piece I added passed through the chain without noticing a sonic degradation that could be avoided with better results ITB, emulating what the analog hardware claimed to do. Now this is purely speaking about mixing, not tracking. I share a completely opposite viewpoint for tracking. I love analog gear for tracking. I just love Crane Song compression in some tracking situations. Love LA2A's, 1176's. But once the sound is ITB, Samplitude compression is way better to an analog insert.

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: That's when I really discovered the whole master from the coffe table idea in reality. I've seen bob Katz doing in in videos, and there's the classic audiophile room with just speakers, and theater post rooms have a nice open area for the sound to develop, even if they have a console, there's not also a 8'x8' rack of hot noisey gear.

(y)

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: That's when I became obsessed with top notch conversion, and room/acoustics capable of handling full size, full range speakers and materials. This is not to think "Loud" at all. Rather "full" or "life size". It's essentially like watching a movie on a big screen vs say a computer screen or tablet. They all look good and have there place, but something about closing my eyes and the mental picture being like manicans in front me, instead of G.I Joe's, is addicting. Again nothing to do with loud, it doesn't have to be loud. It's rather more "space" or air molecules to work with.

(y)

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote: I cringe when I see the rack-o-saurus walls and tables, and these cluttered rooms just barely bigger than the ssl they have. This is not jealously, rather, I just thinks it's an interference between the ears and music. If my gear can't work for me from the machine closet, it's a tough sell in my new era.

(y)

New advancements for Bricasti DAC.
http://www.bricasti.com/m1.html

Model 1 USB Digital to Analog Converter
The M1 digital to analog converter is a dual mono design; there are two completely isolated channels, each with its own dedicated linear power supply, D/A converter, DDS clocking, and analog circuitry. This design ensures that analog crosstalk is virtually nonexistent, that the necessary power requirements for each channel are well met and isolated from each other and the digital processing is isolated, having its own power supply. With our twin DAC design, the dynamic range for each channel is optimized by using the stereo ADI 1955 D/A converter in a mono configuration. The M1 also includes Bricasti's own proprietary filter technology, further opening new territory with what is achievable in a modern D/A reference.

Its really just coming down to these devices and the DAW. All the hype about hardware, console is simply so far behind now. This is where I am investing my time and money now. A few grand in Bricasti stuff apposed to hundreds of thousand in useless hardware... its a no brainer.

audiokid, post: 438227, member: 1 wrote: Its actually digital. I tend to like it as an analog pass but you can use it like a plug-in.
It takes up an entire 8 core to make the algorithms and my guess is as computing improves, so with the Bricasti as a stand alone until. I really think room emulation is about the only thing missing in the DAW. The Bricasti is a game changer for those who add the real world to a mix without spending your life savings on a building.

Lol just for the record, I knew it was a digital device. My loose idea of analog is something you can reach out and touch, i.e. a box.

The stuff with the trannys and tubes are 80 year old circuits. I'm going to spend some time learning and building these types for tracking. Those things are fun, super loose, and frankly th $900 api lunchbox 512c pre was a bit deflating in real life, after a good 5 years of pining, and mental tracking lol. There's a place for pristine well engineered high spec analog and I will she'll cash for that. But fun 'character' is just not worth 3k a channel to me anymore. My basic rudimentary electronics knowledge has unmasked things for me, and it's created a monster.

I don't see me devising my own pluggin codes, or touch screen boxes, or programming Dsp algorithms anytime in the near future, so this is where I focus my spending, that's were the differences lie in the price points.

I am imagining what the bricasti is to reverb, other boxes are to pre amping, or eq, ect Ect. i know the avid 11 sounds pretty good, better than any of the plug-insI've heard, and I thought gtr rig was well done.

There's something about keeping audio processing away from the computer OS mumbo jumbo, that contributes well.

Lmao- bricasti putting in a power supply for each channel, this is what I'm talking about. Attention to important design details. Having not used a system of this quality thru and thru, I feel like I haven't really experienced a true high end digital mixing experience. Ditto for tape, all I know is Tascam, which is a joke compared to a studer.

In my perfect world, I envision high end analog for tracking - nice mics with a variety of pre amp options - clean (transformer-less), tube, tranny - and several pieces of hardware that would allow me to add processing to the signal if desired - LA2's, 1176's, Pultecs, perhaps a few nice channel strips, etc.
All that would tie together with nice conversion. At that point, I stay ITB.
If I really want to maintain that analog sound on the way out, then a nice rack mount multi channel summing device would do the trick.

It's not that I don't like consoles, I learned on them, and I learned much. They were invaluable in teaching me routing, EQ and Balance. And yeah, there are some days that I do miss the "tactile" experience - pushing actual faders, turning real pots.
But, I don't miss it enough to see myself parking a 12' SSL in my home studio. Beyond the inherent maintenance required for those desks - and it's not a question of "if" those desks will need maintenance, but "when", and the required maintenance is definitely not cheap maintenance - there's also the issue of logistics, of available space... I'm not in a situation where I have a room large enough to be able to install one of those behemoths without both dwarfing myself into a claustrophobic, cramped mixing environment, and without heating the room up to tropical temperatures because of the amount of heat that those consoles and their power supplies gives off.

Forgetting all of the above for just a moment, there's also the cost of the investment - those pro desks, even used models, are NOT cheap; and I need to be able to justify the expense of that investment based on monetary return.
Would it be worth it? It ain't 1980 anymore ( or even 1990 for that matter) when well-equipped studios could still turn a profit.

In 2016 - when "studios" seem to be popping up on nearly every city and residential block - in thousands of basements, bedrooms and attics - are there really enough clients these days who are willing to pay the studio rate that one would have to charge in order to pay for that investment? I think that the answer to that is a resounding "no".... at least for my geographic locale.
Perhaps if I was located in Nashville, or Toronto, or NYC, or Los Angeles, or another metro entertainment mecca, then maybe there would be a large enough potential professional client base to tap into; but certainly not where I live now.

Now, all business models aside, if an individual wants to put in a console like that simply because it pleases them, because that's what they want - regardless of whether or not they ever make a profit from it - then God bless 'em. If that's what they want, if that's what they like, then I think they should. If they have the money to spend, and the available space, then life is too short to not allow yourself the enjoyment of working that way, if that's what floats your boat...

My case is different. I'm mixing rehearsals and studio concerts in addition to tracking and mixdown. I'm perfectly happy mixing a recording with a mouse but live is different. Digital live mixers are interesting but I need 1:1 control-to-function ratio and the benefits of muscle memory more than I need scene recall or huge channel count in a tiny package. And the giant meter bridge is far better than the meters on anything that fits in a rack. An advantage to having a rack of compressors for live mixing is that you can take one step back and see all your gain reduction meters in a glance. In a live mixing situation there are so many things to manage that sometimes you need visual cues.

I couldn't imagine working ITB live. A console for live is all I know. A beautiful thing indeed.

This video illustrates 'getting it right at the source'. I found this pretty cool, its defiantly a preference thing in the end, but just one little part (capacitor) is making a noticeable diff via YouTube!

I don't know what those numerical values mean, but they're fairly close together, not sure how that means on its own scale, but geez, surprising. And this is such a simple circuit, imagine the labor of designing a more complex piece? It really brings to light good design, and how gear isn't equal, even using the same protocol. Everything in the chain effects the sound.

kmetal, post: 438224, member: 37533 wrote:

I listened for hours/days via iPod directly into amp. Just me and a chair. LIFE SIZE sound. Add motu audio interface, audio slightly worse. Add mackie big knob, sound utterly degraded, imaging phase girth, all effected significantly. Add large desk/mixing console, things got worse.

That's when I really discovered the whole master from the coffe table idea in reality. I've seen bob Katz doing in in videos, and there's the classic audiophile room with just speakers, and theater post rooms have a nice open area for the sound to develop, even if they have a console, there's not also a 8'x8' rack of hot noisey gear.

I've experienced this as well on a smaller scale with different monitor switchers.
Keeping this concept in mind is so important but I feel like the majority overlook it, they'll spend $8000.00 on a pair of monitors and then throw a crap monitor box the signal chain not even thinking of the degrading factor.
It's a blessing that in 2016 we can buy each piece of the signal chain as a separate piece (instead of one large console) so we can add one, listen, keep, take out, or switch out.
The accuracy of your playback while tracking or mixing is what matters most.

audiokid What testing did you do with the SPL 2381? Notice any changes?

Given what has been discussed, something like the Toft ATB boards are the best/cheapest deal for quality EQ for tracking, right?
Or what else is there for same or less amount of money? That is still quality made

If your willing to go used you can get some amek channel strips/mixers in that price. It also depends if it has to be analog. My buddy loves his Berringer x-32 and its Dsp eqs and comps, it runs hui too for fader automation.

The toft is a good deal depending on how many channels you actually need, I haven't used one but my buddy did a dozen sessions with one and liked it. I'd take a toft over something like an Isa 8ch pre which is in the same price range, because the eq is there.

I think the toft is a case of good not great. Better than a mackie but falls short, of the B and A level mixers in the class(s) above. I don't think the toft pre amps are transformer coupled, and it's a modified version of the trident eq. It's got no direct competitors in the price range, so its not necessarily a bad deal. It's just at the top end, of the low end pro mixers. I think it's a good no fuss solution, but for my money I'd grab a few neve type stereo channel strips, a couple Dbx 160s, and an 8 fader artist mix. 6ch of high quality drums, will smoke 16 mid level. You might want to ask Davedog about how he likes his toft. I belive he used an 8 or 16 chanel one exclusively for drum tracking.

I think with a mixer like that it's important to forget the namesake, and use your ears, and really talk to someone who knows more about what's going on under the hood. I would imagine this was designed to meet a price point, and there are compromises, it's a question of is it really 3x better than a mackie or old soundcraft or a&h. As far as I'm concerned the money is the kick snare and overhead. Those 6 inputs are where 75% of the foundation for the song is. That along w the bass. Tom mics, and room mics, are important too, but are background roles, and often gated out or not used.

Chances are 4ch of neve/Api and, a nice open clear stereo channel, will give your first class sound on the foundation of the song, plus first class options for vocals gtrs Ect. Ideally to me would be pairs or pres that have eq built into them.

On a limited budget like this I want to put 80-85% of my money where it's going to be heard/noticed 80-85% of the time. If your dead set on a mixer then the toft is a decent option. Overall I think you could do better. Even on the real trident mixing boards, you had to have the power supply rebuilt right away, because the stock ones weren't powerful enough to give proper power to all the bus's, so the consoles headroom was limited by it. Plus they are inline consoles which I found a bit strange the few times I used a trident.

kmetal, post: 438395, member: 37533 wrote: If your willing to go used you can get some amek channel strips/mixers in that price.

Like this?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/360944503021?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true

kmetal, post: 438395, member: 37533 wrote: for my money I'd grab a few neve type stereo channel strips. 6ch of high quality drums, will smoke 16 mid level.

For 6k? Can I get an example?

kmetal, post: 438395, member: 37533 wrote: Chances are 4ch of neve/Api and, a nice open clear stereo channel, will give your first class sound on the foundation of the song, plus first class options for vocals gtrs Ect. Ideally to me would be pairs or pres that have eq built into them.

I already own 4 Api Pre's and 4 Daking Pre's, so I've got the preamp part covered.

when i clicked your link, i noticed a couple of Amek/Neve 9098 pre / eq's for $800 & $900 bucks each. imo those would be way better than either the Toft or these Amek strips you are looking at.

ChrisH, post: 438420, member: 43833 wrote: Like this?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/360944503021?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true

Truthfully, i'm not in AN EK expert, I know about them because my buddy picked up a few modules for a couple hundred bucks each. He always talked about how similar they were in design and sound to believe in that, it basically was AN and EVE. He talked about the Angela, and Hendrix modules, in particular and I believe he got the Angela modules.

ChrisH, post: 438420, member: 43833 wrote: For 6k? Can I get an example

Example.

Ring, ring, ring.

"Hello?"

"Bro, you gotta get over here, I'm laying down this sick beat in my drum room, I'm in the zone dude"

"Gotcha covered bro!"

"I'll be right down w my 2 focusrite octopres"

-OR-

"I'll be right down with my api 3124+, and this http://vintageking.com/calrec-pq-1061-eqmic-pre-racked-pair-used, calrec stereo pair, which has eq."

Which one do you think sounds better?

The 16ch of octopres cost $1,000 and would do "ok". They are good units. The Api/calrec cost $5,965, and would sound at least 'standard' on a comercial class recording. In my opinion eq, is the other half of mic amplication, and they go hand and hand. I'm biased, being so used to guitar amps having eq, and I started w a Portastudio, which has eq for tracking and mixing, and I did a fair amount of live sound over the years. A pre amp is just a volume knob. Now it's certainly got tonal characteristics, or lack there of, but it's basic intended purpose is amplification. Eq, is meant to shape tone (phase). We eq w mic placement, and preamps (to a lesser extent), but nothing like the tone shaping ability of a nice parametric, or eq in general. That's making it custom, tailored sound. Shit, and way more fun to mess w. IMHO.

If i could find it, I'd get 6k worth of calrec. Calrec is neve designed to a T, by neve. Neve was the bbc console maker under contract at a point in time, and there is a British law than they're has to be competition, or can't be a monopoly on the bbc gear supplier. Something to that extent. So obviously Neves have a certain sound, and they loved it, so what they did is create Calrec a new company and build the gear to speck from Neve design plans.

I know you probably meant an audio example, but I don't have any a/bs handy. I could try eventually. But I've sat in the studio for many months just trying different combos and what not. The most expensive in general stuff wasn't always the most appropriate sound, but never sounded bad or handicapped. The other gear was usually more picky and less full/detailed. Usually the mix of the cheap stuff, was lucky to sound as good as the truly professional stuff.

Color/clarity and tone aside, there's a solidity to the sound of true professional gear, that isn't achievable otherwise.

ChrisH, post: 438420, member: 43833 wrote: I already own 4 Api Pre's and 4 Daking Pre's, so I've got the preamp part covered

So you've got the api, what about something like a true pre -8 if you need more pres? If I were you, and had 6k and those pres already. Assuming 8ch is fine, which it is. I'd snag 2- empirical lab distressors, 2-Dbx 160x, and like a UA, or grace channel strip that had eq.

In reality, I'd end up wanting more eq capability if I actually were you becasue your pres don't have eq, I'm tending to favor pre/eq units, and separate compressors. I think that's the best. So the other option is to get a lunchbox type thing, and get some eqs. Maag audio has a killer eq for a decent price. And rane makes the Peq15 which is like $100, but works real well for rock recording. If dbx made an eq, that's what it would sound like. I'd get those if I blew my wad on compression, which I like to use if it's available and needed.

The way I see it these days, is if mucisians friend or guitar center sells it, I probably don't want it. It's not elitist, it's just standard fare, at a high level. If you want cheap, with rare exceptions, you have to go used, or vintage, or sleeper product, to get something that was truly used for pro audio. gear that's known to be common in comercial settings, is usually robust, and holds its value, and often will be worth more than what you paid for it over time. The other stuff just falls flat on its face fincanailly and will never pay for itself in that manner.

Some up to snuff eq and compression is going to make your pre amps and mics shine in a way you didn't think was possible, not the least of which when your pluggin eqs sound better, because they're manipulating a better source signal.

The sonic characteristics of pre amps by themselves is overrated. Mics and eqs are what makes the biggest difference in a sounds variation.

kmetal, post: 438425, member: 37533 wrote: The way I see it these days, is if mucisians friend or guitar center sells it, I probably don't want it. It's not elitist, it's just standard fare, at a high level.

Well, to be fair, GC and MF aren't catering to you, anyway, Kyle. As an audio professional, your standards are higher, and they know that. You've probably forgotten more about pro audio than those GC or MF staff people could ever hope to learn. ;)

Their main bread and butter isn't audio professionals like you. They're not VK... and they aren't trying to be. Their main money is with the home/hobby studio crowd, and they know it - those people who have a total budget of $300-$500, and who simply want to record their own songs - and honestly, for those people, the entry level gear probably does sound the same (or fairly similar) to them as the pro level stuff does, because they can't hear the difference(s), anyway.

You could give the the majority of those budget gear users a Neumann mic, a Neve strip, a pair of Dynaudio's and an Antelope converter, and they likely wouldn't be even be able to discern the quality of those pro level pieces, between the budget gear they use.

And, to be fair, for so many of what those home recording hobbyists are doing, the top-notch gear would be a waste of money, as the quality of that pro gear would be lost on them - so, the budget gear suffices. For those users, and for songwriting demos and pre production, that budget gear is generally perfectly fine. It suits a purpose, without breaking the bank.

And, most people who are actually serious about recording, will either invest the money to get the good stuff and to take the craft seriously enough to learn it, - or, they'll use the budget gear to put together ideas with at home, and then go to a real studio when it comes time to do the pro release quality.

The problem comes in when those who aren't serious about it, end up taking it serious, and thinking they're serious, just because they've invested a whopping $500 into their "studio", and being convinced in their minds ( and ears) that they can accomplish the same quality in their $500 bedroom "studios" the same level of quality that pro studios with real gear and real engineers can deliver... and then to make it even worse, they decide to hang out a sign and start charging other people to record at their "studios", flooding the world with sub-par, mediocre sounding sonics that too many people think sounds just fine - either because they have nothing to compare it to, or, they wouldn't hear the difference anyway, and at that point it all comes down to the money they spend ( or save).

IMHO of course.

kmetal, post: 438425, member: 37533 wrote: In my opinion eq, is the other half of mic amplication, and they go hand and hand. I'm biased, being so used to guitar amps having eq, and I started w a Portastudio, which has eq for tracking and mixing, and I did a fair amount of live sound over the years. A pre amp is just a volume knob. Now it's certainly got tonal characteristics, or lack there of, but it's basic intended purpose is amplification. Eq, is meant to shape tone (phase). We eq w mic placement, and preamps (to a lesser extent), but nothing like the tone shaping ability of a nice parametric, or eq in general. That's making it custom, tailored sound. $*^t, and way more fun to mess w. IMHO.

This is exciting, great EQ is what I think I've been missing all along.
After discussing it with you guys and reading this blog post http://www.recordingreview.com/blog/audio-engineering-principles/analog-eq/ I can't wait to get my hands on some.

kmetal, post: 438425, member: 37533 wrote: I know you probably meant an audio example, but I don't have any a/bs handy. I could try eventually.

Oh, no I actually just meant product examples.

kmetal, post: 438425, member: 37533 wrote:
Color/clarity and tone aside, there's a solidity to the sound of true professional gear, that isn't achievable otherwise.

I've experienced this just with upgrading to professional preamps and conversion, I'd imagine great EQ would be more significant, which I'm stoked for.

kmetal, post: 438425, member: 37533 wrote: So you've got the api, what about something like a true pre -8 if you need more pres?

In reality, I'd end up wanting more eq capability if I actually were you becasue your pres don't have eq, I'm tending to favor pre/eq units, and separate compressors. I think that's the best. So the other option is to get a lunchbox type thing, and get some eqs. Maag audio has a killer eq for a decent price. And rane makes the Peq15 which is like $100, but works real well for rock recording. If dbx made an eq, that's what it would sound like. I'd get those if I blew my wad on compression, which I like to use if it's available and needed.

Some up to snuff eq and compression is going to make your pre amps and mics shine in a way you didn't think was possible, not the least of which when your pluggin eqs sound better, because they're manipulating a better source signal.

The sonic characteristics of pre amps by themselves is overrated. Mics and eqs are what makes the biggest difference in a sounds variation.

Yes, I have a Api 3124 and Daking Mic Pre IV (they sound very similar btw).
Honestly, 8 is more than enough.
My thought process now is I want each of my pre's to have EQ and I'd be okay with 6 preamps total if each one of them was coupled with EQ.

My question now is.. What would be the better route to go sonic wise and financially?
Keep my 8 quality pre's and start buying Eq's to go along with them? Or sell them and buy as many pre/eq combos I can with the $3700.00 I could sell them for ?

Any thought on the R24 Eq's?
http://vintageking.com/arsenal-audio-by-api-eq-r24-equalizer-r240132-used

Or the 7602's?

http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-CHL-7602MK2?src=Y0802G00SRCHCAPN&scid=scplp12369530&gclid=CjwKEAjwjca5BRCAyaPGi6_h8m8SJADryPLhTC4WC16nY7OY6V-PIjyd0e5AUcd-sMjA5pgEh97urxoCnqjw_wcB

Those both seem like great deals.

Kurt Foster, post: 438116, member: 7836 wrote:

in my world, clients wanted / needed to hear playbacks as close as possible to what a mix would sound like. to do that you have to be able to add eq and dynamics to the track both as you are recording and at the playback and to do that, you need a good recording console. DAWs can't do this efficiently, latency being the core issue. i find it amazing that a technology that is over 100 years old, can still do this better. computers still can't process at the speed of light, yet we call this an advancement? lol. one of the reasons i suspect that pro rooms still keep those SSL's and Neve's.

Had the opportunity to track with an analog console this weekend, showed me how an analog console is still in 2016, a must for tracking.
The reason being no monitoring latency, "live monitoring".
Pretty profound experience and so much fun.

ChrisH, post: 439497, member: 43833 wrote: The reason being no monitoring latency, "live monitoring".

Ya the good old days.

Question ... How is there no latency when you are tracking to a DAW though? I always hear a tiny amount of latency, but hybrid is always very tiny, that si also if your interface and converter is awesome .
I'm assuming you are only tracking and not overdubbing? I'm curious how you overcome overdubbing latency when monitoring off a console?

audiokid, post: 439500, member: 1 wrote: Ya the good old days.

Question ... How is there no latency when you are tracking to a DAW though? I always hear a tiny amount of latency, but hybrid is always very tiny. I'm assuming you are only tracking and not overdubbing? I'm curious how you overcome overdubbing latency when monitoring off a console?

Monitoring all live inputs through the board = all-analog path = zero latency. Any monitoring of live inputs in the DAW is switched off.

bouldersound, post: 439501, member: 38959 wrote: Monitoring all live inputs through the board = all-analog path = zero latency. Any monitoring of live inputs in the DAW is switched off.

But is this also the case when overdubbing?

audiokid, post: 439504, member: 1 wrote: But is this also the case when overdubbing?

It will be as long as the DAW is set up to provide zero latency at the analogue I/O connectors when tracking, so that the replayed tracks line up exactly in time with the live capture tracks.

Not all DAWs have that facility. Some can compensate for their own buffering delays but not external hardware delays. Some can auto setup using a loopback on the I/O to account for all delays, where others you have to set manually.

ChrisH, post: 439497, member: 43833 wrote: Had the opportunity to track with an analog console this weekend,

Whacha use?

audiokid, post: 439500, member: 1 wrote: Ya the good old days.

Question ... How is there no latency when you are tracking to a DAW though? I always hear a tiny amount of latency, but hybrid is always very tiny, that si also if your interface and converter is awesome .
I'm assuming you are only tracking and not overdubbing? I'm curious how you overcome overdubbing latency when monitoring off a console?

As bouldersound explained, there's no latency because you're monitoring the track you're currently recording straight from the console instead of the daw, then you have a feed from you're daw to the console for your pre-existing tracks or click track.
So basically you never hit the monitor button on your daw, all your monitoring is done straight from the console before the signal goes into the daw or any conversion.

kmetal I used a Soundcraft 6000 that I'm most likely going to buy, it's pretty sweet, good condition, all modular, good eq, 8 buss', clean pre's, small enough footprint for my space. I don't know of any other board under 10k that would be better quality.
They're needing more channels than the 16 it provides.

Sweet man. You'll probably like it better than that toft trident style you were thinking.

I've heard of people/studios using soundcraft ghosts for tracking too.

Congrats glad you found something u like.

Did u get any new monitors yet to replace the opals? I was gonna pm ya, I'm in the market for new speakers wondering what you decided on.

audiokid, post: 439504, member: 1 wrote: But is this also the case when overdubbing?

Yes, as long as the record offset compensation is set correctly. This is typically automatic, but as stated above that doesn't always work, in which case you have to align things manually by looping some signal out and back and adjusting the appropriate setting in the DAW. This is kind of a separate issue from input monitoring latency. The DAW can compensate for record offset. Input monitoring latency is inevitable once the audio goes digital, though they're getting that down to more workable levels these days. An all-analog path is inherently free of latency.

[

kmetal, post: 439513, member: 37533 wrote: Sweet man. You'll probably like it better than that toft trident style you were thinking.

I've heard of people/studios using soundcraft ghosts for tracking too.

Congrats glad you found something u like.

Did u get any new monitors yet to replace the opals? I was gonna pm ya, I'm in the market for new speakers wondering what you decided on.

kmetal Thanks, man!
Yeah, the studio I worked at went from a Toft ATB to the Soundcraft, they still had the Toft there, as far as build quality and "feel" of the moving parts the Toft seems like a toy in comparison, it's also non-modular.

I'm actually going out to Vintage King in Los Angeles this coming month to find a pair I like by hearing them in person, I will fallow up.

bouldersound, post: 439501, member: 38959 wrote: Monitoring all live inputs through the board = all-analog path = zero latency. Any monitoring of live inputs in the DAW is switched off.

ChrisH, post: 439512, member: 43833 wrote: As bouldersound explained, there's no latency because you're monitoring the track you're currently recording straight from the console instead of the daw, then you have a feed from you're daw to the console for your pre-existing tracks or click track.
So basically you never hit the monitor button on your daw, all your monitoring is done straight from the console before the signal goes into the daw or any conversion.

In the end, its (is this the right word) "moot" or a lie to yourself... because you are compensating the latency, using an inferior coloured monitor system OTB. Which is why we who get it, also go one step further and dump the console monitoring. Its a big topic, interesting but although I do appreciate your joy of monitoring off the console, its not ideal and actually almost as bad as round trip processing. (I'm not trying to spoil the party on analog mixing. I love working OTB, but monitoring OTB through a basic console its far from true or as superior to ITB. This is documented and its also why people go to great lengths to invest in excellent monitors, monitor controllers, ADDA converters and PCIe interfacing (AES-EBU or MADI).

If you are tracking to a DAW, using an exterior console to monitor off of, you are in fact dealing with latency including subject to the analog counterparts which is the greater issue.
Its all fine until you are overdubbing. Then you are no further off than the weakest link of your chain.

audiokid, post: 439518, member: 1 wrote: In the end, its (is this the right word) "moot" or a lie to yourself... because you are compensating the latency, using an inferior coloured monitor system OTB. Which is why we who get it, also go one step further and dump the console monitoring. Its a big topic, interesting but although I do appreciate your joy of monitoring off the console, its not ideal and actually almost as bad as round trip processing. (I'm not trying to spoil the party on analog mixing. I love working OTB, but monitoring OTB through a basic console its far from true or as superior to ITB. This is documented and its also why people go to great lengths to invest in excellent monitors, monitor controllers, ADDA converters and PCIe interfacing (AES-EBU or MADI).

If you are tracking to a DAW, using an exterior console to monitor off of, you are in fact dealing with latency including subject to the analog counterparts which is the greater issue.
Its all fine until you are overdubbing. Then you are no further off than the weakest link of your chain.

Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here.
I'm not talking signal quality, I'm talking the latency/timing delay that is caused by all daw monitoring/computers.
When you take the computer out of the equation while tracking, the musician/band can monitor themselves in real time, while they're tracking guitars, vocals, live performance, ect..

ChrisH, post: 439516, member: 43833 wrote: I'm actually going out to Vintage King in Los Angeles this coming month to find a pair I like by hearing them in person, I will fallow up.

Bro....sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!

audiokid, post: 439518, member: 1 wrote: In the end, its (is this the right word) "moot" or a lie to yourself... because you are compensating the latency, using an inferior coloured monitor system OTB. Which is why we who get it, also go one step further and dump the console monitoring. Its a big topic, interesting but although I do appreciate your joy of monitoring off the console, its not ideal and actually almost as bad as round trip processing. (I'm not trying to spoil the party on analog mixing. I love working OTB, but monitoring OTB through a basic console its far from true or as superior to ITB. This is documented and its also why people go to great lengths to invest in excellent monitors, monitor controllers, ADDA converters and PCIe interfacing (AES-EBU or MADI).

If you are tracking to a DAW, using an exterior console to monitor off of, you are in fact dealing with latency including subject to the analog counterparts which is the greater issue.
Its all fine until you are overdubbing. Then you are no further off than the weakest link of your chain.

I thought the idea of the tracking console was to use it for its pre amps and eq just plugging into the interface, and monitor like usual from the outs on the interface, with or without the monitor controller or switcher.

I think I'm confused.

ChrisH, post: 439519, member: 43833 wrote: Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here.
I'm not talking signal quality, I'm talking the latency/timing delay that is caused by all daw monitoring/computers.

Me too, ;) .

ChrisH, post: 439519, member: 43833 wrote:
When you take the computer out of the equation while tracking, the musician/band can monitor themselves in real time, while they're tracking guitars, vocals, live performance, ect..

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.

"It's not just about ergonomics, though: many people find that when they get rid of their desk, the stereo imaging improves, as the sound from the nearfields no longer bounces off the console to cause comb filtering."
"I'm simply saying that you have many different options when configuring a hybrid setup, and it pays to consider what best suits the way you work. If I have anything in front of me now other than the obligatory computer input devices, I'd personally rather it was my monitor controller, bus compressor(s) or other key pieces of hardware than a bank of faders I rarely use."

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

kmetal, post: 439520, member: 37533 wrote: I thought the idea of the tracking console was to use it for its pre amps

Pretty much only that, imho.

Each to his own device. :love:

audiokid, post: 438209, member: 1 wrote: I'm in the process of building my 4th DAW system and its starting with this.
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdspe_madi.php

or, depending on my second choice of converters, this:
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdsp_aes32.php

Just so I clarify my understanding here -- This RME card becomes the default soundcard of the DAW -- and does all AD/DA conversions etc..... and it is the RME card that is managing the inputs to the DAW - that's what your Daw sees.
And if you were using say the focusrite 18i20 that Kmetal bought you'd not be plugging that into the DAW but running the outputs of the focusrite into some kind of patch bay that would then send it to the RME card ----- so basically the 18i20 (or whatever interface preamp etc you used) would be invisible to your DAW? If this is true would you then be running out from the RME card to some sort of monitoring patchbay/apparatus to give you your various "live" monitor feeds or recording mixing monitor feeds? Is this how this would look?

DogsoverLava, post: 439522, member: 48175 wrote: Just so I clarify my understanding here -- This RME card becomes the default soundcard of the DAW

Yes, or whatever best you can use, which is best when the interface is on its own internal PCIe port. To date, MADI or AES EBU seems to be the best all round "multitrack ADDA" interface I've tried. Nothing I've used has come close to this speed or stability of an internal interface on a desktop PCIe port. Stability is top on my list. Stability is much more important to me over over latency. As track count increases, USB chocks and will eventually bottleneck, thus freeze and drop bits.
I'm sure latency issues will improve in the coming years. But if I want "low latency without needing to use compensation methods, this is how I do it. That way, no matter whether I am hybrid or ITB, (tracking, mixing, overdubbing or mastering... my latency is always the same which is near zero. Which makes overdubbing a breeze. Makes editing ITB a breeze. Makes mixing OTB and having to switch between tracking and overdubbing/ song writing easy and natural.

DogsoverLava, post: 439522, member: 48175 wrote: and does all AD/DA conversions etc..... and it is the RME card that is managing the inputs to the DAW - that's what your Daw sees.

Yes.

DogsoverLava, post: 439522, member: 48175 wrote: And if you were using say the focusrite 18i20 that Kmetal bought you'd not be plugging that into the DAW but running the outputs of the focusrite into some kind of patch bay that would then send it to the RME card

If I wanted less interfacing issues, absolutely. USB interfacing is terrible in comparison to AES or MADI PCIe. It works but only up to a point. Its better for capturing one way. Suffers going both direction at the same time. Which means anything to do with round trip and mixing, overdubbing etc.:cry:

DogsoverLava, post: 439522, member: 48175 wrote: so basically the 18i20 (or whatever interface preamp etc you used) would be invisible to your DAW?

indeed.
Okay for live work, remote etc. But if possible and it was our intention to improve without worrying about the costs to do it as good as we can... I would pass and save my pennies for better all round mulit-track studio experience.

DogsoverLava, post: 439522, member: 48175 wrote: If this is true would you then be running out from the RME card to some sort of monitoring patchbay/apparatus to give you your various "live" monitor feeds or recording mixing monitor feeds? Is this how this would look?

In the perfect world I would be using a monitor controller that was designed for hybrid tracking, mixing and mastering. An analog console would never be on that list. If it was, it would only be to check what the console sounds like, never to actually mixdown to a DAW. The best monitoring is at the capture side (destination SR of the mixdown), right before it goes online. (y)

PS, and when it is actually "online" . Which is also why a "dedicated monitor controller" is so damn important in the Pro Audio arena.

Monitoring off the console also introduces whatever inherent phase or headroom issues there may or may not be within the console itself, that are actually on the recorded material. That's one of the main reasons why I'm not into it.

As a newbie into a to D a W summing system I'm definitely going to play with summing with the mixer (Tascam m30 and portastudio lol), (for fun) because that's all I have laying around out at the moment (if that doesn't get sold too), but I would still want to monitor directly off DA W twos interface outs, or switch between the mixers monitoring section in the interface, depending if I was using the mixers master bus. But again I'm completely green when it comes to analog something. So take my opinion with a big 'ol bag of salt

From what I understand, USB is really meant for about 16 tracks, if I had the budget I would not be purchasing USB interfaces, but it is what it is for now. Once you get into AES in madi, that's where you get the higher track counts, ethernet also has incredibly high track counts but is new on the block. That said they're using ethernet based audio on Super Bowl broadcast and what not so it is somewhat reliable, although I believe they are building a lot of redundancy into the interfaces.

At 192k The 18i20 is reduced to 10 in 10 out, ditto for the motu. I'm curious to see if sample rate affects the choking point of the interface.

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.

If you're monitoring inputs through converters you've automatically got some delay between the playing of a sound and the hearing of it. Sometimes that matters and sometimes it doesn't, but it's there regardless.

The compensation I mentioned is applied to all inputs being recorded. It's a necessary function of digital multitrack recording regardless of what hardware or software you're using. This is a different thing from input monitoring latency.

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.

If you're monitoring inputs through converters you've automatically got some delay between the playing of a sound and the hearing of it. Sometimes that matters and sometimes it doesn't, but it's there regardless.

The compensation I mentioned is applied to all inputs being recorded. It's a necessary function of digital multitrack recording regardless of what hardware or software you're using. This is a different thing from input monitoring latency.

Your just using 'hardware monitoring' or 'input monitoring right? Does that disable any effects on the previoulsy recorded tracks, so it avoids any sort of processing latency? That's how DP does it at the studios. boz said different programs handle things differently, earlier in the post. Jw how Vegas handles it.

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.

Not sure if you are directing this at me but I'll chime in as you were. :)

bouldersound, post: 439529, member: 38959 wrote: It's a necessary function of digital multitrack recording regardless of what hardware or software you're using.

Like I said, other than playing with buffers, I do not have concern. I know exactly what you are talking about. Its not a difficult thing to comprehend to me. I simply have good converters and an interface that is smooth and fast.
Example: I have built song with 80 tracks , 32 I/O and run 256 buffer, can punch-in/out doing midi or acoustic overdubs for 5 minutes on a 2 bar loop, lots of plugs going at 178BPM and never loose a bit, without ever doing any latency compensation to my DAW. Maybe I should look into that though. I have just never needed to compensate for latency other than buffer settings.
Thats what an RME PCIe AES 32 does with good converters with a good driver in a properly configured DAW's can do.
I'm not saying do as I do but I don't have half the issues that most people describe. If I did, I would go back to tape and a console lol.

audiokid, post: 439534, member: 1 wrote: Not sure if you are directing this at me but I'll chime in as you were. :)

Like I said, other than playing with buffers, I do not have concern. I know exactly what you are talking about. Its not a difficult thing to comprehend to me. I simply have good converters and an interface that is smooth and fast.
Example: I have built song with 80 tracks , 32 I/O and run 256 buffer, can punch-in/out doing midi or acoustic overdubs for 5 minutes on a 2 bar loop, lots of plugs going at 178BPM and never loose a bit, without ever doing any latency compensation to my DAW. Maybe I should look into that though. I have just never needed to compensate for latency other than buffer settings.
Thats what an RME PCIe AES 32 does with good converters with a good driver in a properly configured DAW's can do.
I'm not saying do as I do but I don't have half the issues that most people describe. If I did, I would go back to tape and a console lol.

Are you sure your daw isn't doing latency compensation on its own automatically/by default?

kmetal, post: 439533, member: 37533 wrote: Your just using 'hardware monitoring' or 'input monitoring right?

I'm not using any input monitoring from the DAW or from the interface control panel, though both can do it. Inputs are monitored strictly through the console.

kmetal, post: 439533, member: 37533 wrote: Does that disable any effects on the previoulsy recorded tracks, so it avoids any sort of processing latency? That's how DP does it at the studios. boz said different programs handle things differently, earlier in the post. Jw how Vegas handles it.

Effects aren't affected. Input monitoring through the console completely bypasses the interface and DAW. The DAW is free to do its thing without interference.

By the way, Vegas has had plugin delay compensation from the start as far as I know. One time when I was thinking about using parallel compression I assumed it wouldn't work due to time misalignment, but when I tried it I was shocked to find it all nicely in phase.