Help me figure out how to get rid of this feedback loop

It gets more complicated when you ant something on your master bus, and want to monitor through it.

The problem is fixed in the routing of the UA console. The feedback is becuase the spdif out is the master (UA Console mixer)….and the spdif back IN (post processing is naturally sent to said master. You will need to define your main out of your DAW to lets say Console out 3+4….then in console assign the 3+4 outs to spdif out….then the spdif return can go to you pr master (in Console) without a feedback loop.

Make your brain hurt? Does mine every time. And you need to remember how to do the routing becuase interface mixers tend to get reset sometimes—maybe accidentally flipping to another snapshot or whatever.

Why wouldnt you define the SPDIF IN and Out as an external (hardware) insert in your software….then the only console config is to make sure none of the SPDIF is being sent to the master. Then you can insert whatever this unit is as needed anywhere in the mixer. Also doing this will render properly. Youd have further routing in Console and your DAW with trying to connect outputs around to get a rendered file, which Id guess is the goal?

It's the reason I returned the Carbon...

I think you need to defeat the “mirror”….no matter where thats taking place—Console or the DAW.

The fundamental comcept….you will never be able to do what you want without a software defined hardware insert in your DAW defined as the physical digital IO. Like youll never get ito send a mirrored master out and think youll be able to return that to the DAW….because it will always loop—think about it, anything youre feeding back to the DAW will go back out tothe device via the “mirror”….and feedback loop ensues.

Doesn’t the Trinnov have an analog output to feed your monitors?

Why are you bringing your Trinnov monitor signal back into the Apollo?

I thought the Trinnov was an FFT EQ modified signal destined for monitor inputs only?

I’m confused by your application of the Trinnov unit - are they digital I/O only?


If digital only then I guess it’s aimed at monitors with digital inputs or more likely, as the Trinnov is high end kit, it’s designed with an Avovet or Grace Designed monitor controller in mind both which have very high quality dedicated monitoring AES connected D/A’s built in.

More money!!

Would be your absolute perfect solution though Apollo > tracking/mixing - Trinnov > Avocet or Grace monitoring

I’m sure the Trinnov DA and analog outs are fine…but why use that if you have better DA and analog outs available.

On an analog mixer, here’s a simple way to visualize:

Turn down master fader.

Put the trinnov returns on 2 channels, muted and not routed to master bus, faders down to prove it. Then go direct out feeding your speakers. Unmute and Slowly bring up faders. If there’s feedback, then it’s still going to 2bus. Hopefully that works and easy to understand.

Next is a little trickier version: instead of direct out, route to aux outputs. Slowly unmute and raise faders.. ok.

Final version: you can keep those faders down, so they don’t ever accidentally feed the 2bus.. and make those aux sends “pre fader”.

Ok… so if you do this on a board it helps your brain for ITB:

in the computer…….

your master bus feeds the trinnov, AES. The Returns of AES go to 2 muted channels, faders down(SPDIF1/2). Make sure those channels are not feeding the outputs for the 2bus(in Apollo software).

Figure out how to route those 2 (AES-IN/SPDIF IN) channels direct out to any 2 open ch outputs.. connect your speakers there. I don’t know Apollo so I’m no help there. Hopefully that’s possible in the Apollo software, life will be easier.

Last resort if still not working: In the DAW you can make a stereo track (or pair of mono tacks) that is muted, recording inputs from AES(spdif1/2), record armed, monitoring on, faders down. Make sure it’s NOT routed to Master 2bus. Make direct out to the 2 open channels for speakers. Unmute and slowly raise the fader. I’m not sure if it will allow feeding direct out on an armed track, but I hope so (should since monitoring with plugins is a thing, and so is multiple headphone mixes) If this is the way, make the track a special color, mute and save it as a track template you can load into any project.(that way it’s muted and you won’t blow your ears by accident loading it)

Good luck! If none of this works, might want to ask UA or even Black lion





(Edit: man this is tricky, have been editing this a lot LOL)

I need to compare. But you’re saying to use the worst spec’d DA I have? It works fine with the Hilo as the DA, and I think I’m going to set it up where I can hear the Trinnov affected signal AND the non treated Apollo DA by toggling with the RAM.

It’s an interesting conversation, because ultimately you want your DA to have a really flat frequency response and then the Trinnov actively corrects for frequency response, thereby (maybe) mitigating any limitations? I know there’s headroom and stereo image etc. to consider too. But still.

Why would it mitigate the limitations of a mediocre DA? And I could be completely overthinking that. I just assumed the Burl was better and before that I think I was using a Dangerous…I’d just be surprised if it was anywhere near that level - but now I gotta try.

I guess as long as you know that you’ve got a true frequency spectrum, you’re getting the right info to mix…but I like having a system that you know when you have it right - it sounds amazing. So, gonna try it…

I think something can sound better and be less accurate for sure. And vice versa. We’re talking smallish differences, but the Burl probably was more “exciting” DA compared to the Hilo. Like it seems to have a little extra top and bottom (the Burl). So could you classify that as “being less accurate?” I think so.
The top end on the Burl is what led me to thinking about a different DA. Everything was totally fine, and I was getting great translation, but I just felt like I wanted something with a little less “tape eq curve.” I guess the question is - if the Trinnov is supposedly correcting all of this, then why do any DAs sound different? I can’t answer that. But they do. Again - we’re all talking minute details here…
Oh - yeah there’s a definite difference with and without the Trinnov. Similar to with and without Sonarworks or whatever, but I can also the image shift into what feels the right spot too. When I play my Axefx, I turn it off to avoid any extra latency (you’re monitoring this after the processing) and occasionally I’ll forget to turn it back on and start a mix. But I always no something is funky because I start having some issues with the bottom end…I say a loud “well, shit” and switch it back on and adjust.