|
Post by sirthought on Feb 20, 2020 11:57:51 GMT -6
I'm thinking this new product from Cranborne could be an affordable and effective option for some studios. Get one N22 in the control room and a N22H for the end point with headphones, audio is carried analog over affordable CAT5 cable. www.cranborne-audio.com/n22h
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2020 14:22:38 GMT -6
I'm thinking this new product from Cranborne could be an affordable and effective option for some studios. Get one N22 in the control room and a N22H for the end point with headphones, audio is carried analog over affordable CAT5 cable. www.cranborne-audio.com/n22hWhoa, this thing seems pretty rad. Hadn't heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 20, 2020 16:58:30 GMT -6
Whoa, this thing seems pretty rad. Hadn't heard of it. Yeah, I'd never heard of people using CAT5 for anything other than digital audio/video. But it apparently can handle four channels, so for a smaller setup you could run to some isolation booths or another room really easily with a small amount of cable, that's pretty cheap. It can handle mics, headphones, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 2:35:54 GMT -6
Oh, CAT5 is capable of transmitting far above audio hi-speed network signal, works fully OK for analog audio to a certain degree. And it's cheap, easy to manage for longer cable run (or one can even use already installed network cabling as improvised audio lines) and I cut some CAT5 cables for getting litz wire for DIY gear building, when I ran out of it. Works flawlessly for that purpose ...
Letting musicians mix their own monitors is certainly not always a good idea. I heard mixes people made for themselves that were horribly unsusable for what they tried to achieve. Mixing is not for everyone and musicians don't have to understand even the basic concepts ... I guess it is faster to communicate their monitoring requirements in dialogue and do it for them with full control to ensure the monitor mixes are usable ... The argument that they should know what they need because that is what they already do in the rehearsal room and on stage is not valid IMHO. I heard a lot of horribly sounding rehearsal setups and bands playing to whatever they get on stage, including no monitors at all even on bigger open air stages and listening to what comes in from PA occasionally (depending on wheather and wind direction) ... In the studio their expectations are very different. Depends all on individual experience of course ...
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 21, 2020 7:39:22 GMT -6
Oh, CAT5 is capable of transmitting far above audio hi-speed network signal, works fully OK for analog audio to a certain degree. And it's cheap, easy to manage for longer cable run (or one can even use already installed network cabling as improvised audio lines) and I cut some CAT5 cables for getting litz wire for DIY gear building, when I ran out of it. Works flawlessly for that purpose ... Letting musicians mix their own monitors is certainly not always a good idea. I heard mixes people made for themselves that were horribly unsusable for what they tried to achieve. Mixing is not for everyone and musicians don't have to understand even the basic concepts ... I guess it is faster to communicate their monitoring requirements in dialogue and do it for them with full control to ensure the monitor mixes are usable ... The argument that they should know what they need because that is what they already do in the rehearsal room and on stage is not valid IMHO. I heard a lot of horribly sounding rehearsal setups and bands playing to whatever they get on stage, including no monitors at all even on bigger open air stages and listening to what comes in from PA occasionally (depending on wheather and wind direction) ... In the studio their expectations are very different. Depends all on individual experience of course ... I might consider it but for the fact that the conduit going from the control room and branching out to the main room, booth and secondary outside booth panel, is PACKED full with twin 56 channel snakes, db25 snakes, speaker lines, tie lines, HDMI, USB etc etc cables... so far I'm lucky without any interference from the non-audio to the audio lines. With my luck, if I threw cat-5 or cat-6 on top of that there would be massive noise buildup. HA! But there's no room, so I don't have to worry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 7:52:55 GMT -6
Oh, CAT5 is capable of transmitting far above audio hi-speed network signal, works fully OK for analog audio to a certain degree. And it's cheap, easy to manage for longer cable run (or one can even use already installed network cabling as improvised audio lines) and I cut some CAT5 cables for getting litz wire for DIY gear building, when I ran out of it. Works flawlessly for that purpose ... Letting musicians mix their own monitors is certainly not always a good idea. I heard mixes people made for themselves that were horribly unsusable for what they tried to achieve. Mixing is not for everyone and musicians don't have to understand even the basic concepts ... I guess it is faster to communicate their monitoring requirements in dialogue and do it for them with full control to ensure the monitor mixes are usable ... The argument that they should know what they need because that is what they already do in the rehearsal room and on stage is not valid IMHO. I heard a lot of horribly sounding rehearsal setups and bands playing to whatever they get on stage, including no monitors at all even on bigger open air stages and listening to what comes in from PA occasionally (depending on wheather and wind direction) ... In the studio their expectations are very different. Depends all on individual experience of course ... I might consider it but for the fact that the conduit going from the control room and branching out to the main room, booth and secondary outside booth panel, is PACKED full with twin 56 channel snakes, db25 snakes, speaker lines, tie lines, HDMI, USB etc etc cables... so far I'm lucky without any interference from the non-audio to the audio lines. With my luck, if I threw cat-5 or cat-6 on top of that there would be massive noise buildup. HA! But there's no room, so I don't have to worry. Actually, if shielded twisted pair CAT5 cable, which is pretty standard, is used for transmitting balanced audio signals, it is not very susceptible to interference, noise etc., and does not induce into other cables from my experience. But I get the point that more cable is more possible source of problems. :-) Certainly true.
|
|
|
Post by jaminem on Feb 21, 2020 8:11:39 GMT -6
If you're looking for the most cost effective way of send multi channel audio down a network cable, it doesn't get more affordable than the Ward Beck stuff ward-beck.com/collections/qtp-bobcat-seriesCat 5 to xlr $40...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,787
|
Post by ericn on Feb 21, 2020 8:56:53 GMT -6
Oh, CAT5 is capable of transmitting far above audio hi-speed network signal, works fully OK for analog audio to a certain degree. And it's cheap, easy to manage for longer cable run (or one can even use already installed network cabling as improvised audio lines) and I cut some CAT5 cables for getting litz wire for DIY gear building, when I ran out of it. Works flawlessly for that purpose ... Letting musicians mix their own monitors is certainly not always a good idea. I heard mixes people made for themselves that were horribly unsusable for what they tried to achieve. Mixing is not for everyone and musicians don't have to understand even the basic concepts ... I guess it is faster to communicate their monitoring requirements in dialogue and do it for them with full control to ensure the monitor mixes are usable ... The argument that they should know what they need because that is what they already do in the rehearsal room and on stage is not valid IMHO. I heard a lot of horribly sounding rehearsal setups and bands playing to whatever they get on stage, including no monitors at all even on bigger open air stages and listening to what comes in from PA occasionally (depending on wheather and wind direction) ... In the studio their expectations are very different. Depends all on individual experience of course ... You forgot the first rule of wedge mixers everywhere, what you want to hear and what you need to hear are often very different! The Rolls Royce of headphone cue mixers? Midas XL4 with an experienced cue mixer behind it!
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 21, 2020 9:31:11 GMT -6
If you're looking for the most cost effective way of send multi channel audio down a network cable, it doesn't get more affordable than the Ward Beck stuff ward-beck.com/collections/qtp-bobcat-seriesCat 5 to xlr $40... This essentially what the Cranborne products are doing, except theirs have a headphone jack, volume knob and a couple other tweaks. Plus, I think it's cheaper, depending on the final setup.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 22, 2020 15:50:53 GMT -6
So....how much do people like/hate the Behringer system?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 22, 2020 17:14:19 GMT -6
For a period of time, a year or two ago, I was considering trying to get a full blown system to allow for individual mixes for each person in the band. I ultimately decided against it for a few reasons, and decided to just stick with the "more me" format, where I provide the same stereo mix of everything to everyone in addition to a stereo feed of each individual performance to each individual performer.
However, if I had decided to go the route of individual artist mixes, the Motu Monitor 8 is the route I would have taken for several reasons. The mix takes place entirely within the rack unit, so a HP feed is the only cabling that has to make its way to each performer.
Also, as each of those mixes is controlled over WiFi, via each person's smart phone, it means that I also would have access to each of those mixes to correct whatever they've screwed up, without having to get up and go look at their indivial mix station like you might with a Hearback system. Also, it would have been a lot cheaper.
As for the scenario John was describing when he intially posted this thread, I still think that the best solution for the "artist and engineer in one room" scenario is to use good studio quality IEMs with shooting range muffs over that. Then you have the necessary amount of isolation to truly tell what the mics are picking up.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 22, 2020 17:33:32 GMT -6
However, if I had decided to go the route of individual artist mixes, the Motu Monitor 8 is the route I would have taken for several reasons. The mix takes place entirely within the rack unit, so a HP feed is the only cabling that has to make its way to each performer. Also, as each of those mixes is controlled over WiFi, via each person's smart phone, it means that I also would have access to each of those mixes to correct whatever they've screwed up, without having to get up and go look at their indivial mix station like you might with a Hearback system. Also, it would have been a lot cheaper. I have a Monitor 8, and ultimately decided it was too complex to manage AND run a session. Have a 2nd to keep an eye on it? Great. I built the AVB bones I would need to make it run as I'd want, and damnit, you'd have to study the Cliff Notes before every session to stay on top of it. I really like the idea of it, but it fails my 'distraction' test....the one where I'm supposed to be listening to music and producing versus futzing with some sidebar technology. Also, it fails the loud drummer test, not enough drive to get necessary volume....plenty for anything else.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,787
|
Post by ericn on Nov 22, 2020 18:15:27 GMT -6
I am surprised how many Behringer systems were used on mid level tours live. They seam to survive and people seam to get them and like them.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 22, 2020 20:17:20 GMT -6
However, if I had decided to go the route of individual artist mixes, the Motu Monitor 8 is the route I would have taken for several reasons. The mix takes place entirely within the rack unit, so a HP feed is the only cabling that has to make its way to each performer. Also, as each of those mixes is controlled over WiFi, via each person's smart phone, it means that I also would have access to each of those mixes to correct whatever they've screwed up, without having to get up and go look at their indivial mix station like you might with a Hearback system. Also, it would have been a lot cheaper. I have a Monitor 8, and ultimately decided it was too complex to manage AND run a session. Have a 2nd to keep an eye on it? Great. I built the AVB bones I would need to make it run as I'd want, and damnit, you'd have to study the Cliff Notes before every session to stay on top of it. I really like the idea of it, but it fails my 'distraction' test....the one where I'm supposed to be listening to music and producing versus futzing with some sidebar technology. Also, it fails the loud drummer test, not enough drive to get necessary volume....plenty for anything else. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I decided against the Monitor 8. I initially got caught up in the cool technology factor, thinking it would be neat, but I ultimately decided "more me" was the best middle ground, which is what I was already doing. And no additional money spent... For what it is though, it's still a pretty cool product if that's something you need to do.
|
|
|
Post by javamad on Nov 23, 2020 3:54:28 GMT -6
So....how much do people like/hate the Behringer system? I have it in my studio. I feed it via adat out from my 2 BF Apollos. It works well in live off the floor tracking in small groups. When you are overdubbing to a dense mix though it can lack definition I have had some artists that don’t really know how to set it up... that system where you can send mixes is a great idea! Even better would be the ability to listen in and adjust real time, overriding their controls!
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Nov 23, 2020 8:39:38 GMT -6
I use a combo of a MOTU 16A for wi-fi controlled cue mixes and a Presonus HP60 headphone amp in the tracking room. Output 1-2 on the 16A is the control room monitor out, then 3-8 are the aux bus outs, usually configured as 3 stereo mixes. The Presonus has two stereo inputs that each amp can set the balance between, plus a dedicated stereo in for each of the 6 HP amps. By default, I leave all 6 HP amps set to monitor the control room monitor out, which is the simplest you hear what I hear way of working. For a trio tracking in the same room, I'll flip each HP amp to monitor it's individual stereo input, take the iPad into the control room and set balances sitting next to each performer. During tracking, the control room output has a drop down where you can listen to the main mix or each of the stereo cue mixes. I'll keep the iPad sitting next to me to flip between cue mixes so my mix is on the main screen with the DAW. So the HP system is just those 8 cue lines to the tracking room feeding the HP60, the rest gets done by plugging the MOTU into a wi-fi router.
|
|