|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 10:49:03 GMT -6
popmann Haven't you talked about the advantages of analog cue systems? I guess I could just go test it out myself...but what fun would that be? 
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 4, 2014 11:39:42 GMT -6
Describe what you are looking for.. lowest latency? With my alphalink setup I'm able to "monitor" pre stream. In other words, i can mult the signal out to headphones and to the DAW at the same time. I get around 4ms latency, about the same as a true analog system. If you can do that, don't need a specialized analog system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 11:47:34 GMT -6
No - I've got zero latency with Maestro...Thought I remembered Popmann saying one should "always have analog connections when monitoring"...just wanted to know what he was talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 4, 2014 13:17:35 GMT -6
Tracks get done quicker. Better. You don't have zero latency with Maestro, fwiw. You have converter level latency...which is fine for a lot of people, I guess.
What I'm talking about is monitoring the analog input signal...which requires an analog desk and some way to mult the preamp output. I use Y cables...obviously using the preamps of a full desk you can simply monitor the input there before it goes to the recorder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 17:02:47 GMT -6
Ah...putting a mixer before the convertors...
Where are the specs on the Maestro latency? Just like to know how much...
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 4, 2014 17:44:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 4, 2014 18:16:51 GMT -6
The buffer is irrelevant to using Maestro. But, 1.5-2.5 sounds about right for double rate round trip. About a ms each way.... Longer latency for 48. Which is why everyone runs those tests with it on 96khz.  |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 18:45:08 GMT -6
Hmmm...interesting. I can't particularly hear a latency, but maybe I do perceive it...I've often kind've felt a little disconnect - like, it's just not the same as playing it with the headphones off. Is that what I'm perceiving?
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 4, 2014 18:45:35 GMT -6
It makes a difference for the better for sure JK. I don't always use my console cue mix (because I'm lazy sometimes). But if I'm working on something I want done right, I always do. Absolute zero latency. It's a noticeable difference come mix time for tightness. And for pitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 18:48:10 GMT -6
Damn...very interesting. So, I would go into a small mixer, use that for monitoring and from the mixer into the converter? There's no degradation of the sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 4, 2014 19:08:36 GMT -6
It becomes a problem long before it's noticeable.
A friend of mine switched from a NuBus mix system to a PCI in the middle of an album and suddenly the group's vocals started taking twice as long to get acceptable takes. He switched back with no idea what had happened but later learned the latency of the PCI cards was slightly longer. From that point on he just used an analog feed having learned the lesson. People talk about liking tape better but I often wonder how much is better performances as opposed to noise and saturation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 19:10:48 GMT -6
This is really an interesting topic to me...
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on May 4, 2014 19:14:41 GMT -6
It makes a difference for the better for sure JK. I don't always use my console cue mix (because I'm lazy sometimes). But if I'm working on something I want done right, I always do. Absolute zero latency. It's a noticeable difference come mix time for tightness. And for pitch. i was having slight pitch/timing issues and I narrowed it down to latency. Bought a little Oram Series 8t mixer and butter now. I paid $2250 for it and it has 8 quality pres, 8 killer eqs and a very good monitoring section. Actually ran the apogee 1/2 outs into the board to see if it colored the signal or degraded it. Not only did it not degrade it but the stereo image became wider. I also tested the headphone out against the apogee and it was identical. I also tested running my pres into the line ins compared to running straight to DAW and there was no audible difference. Best $2250 I've spent in my little setup. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 4, 2014 19:23:51 GMT -6
Also, you guys probably know this...
But some singers ( I am one) is affected by the phase of the vocal coming back into the cans.
So I always make sure to have the phase (polarity) the right way when tracking my vocals and monitoring through cans.
I also use a really good headphone amp, makes a huge difference to me rather than interface headphone amps. HUGE! especially when placing mics on sources.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on May 4, 2014 19:29:42 GMT -6
popmann Will this be any different than using direct monitoring in cubase with the Mr816??? I guess not
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 19:30:31 GMT -6
It makes a difference for the better for sure JK. I don't always use my console cue mix (because I'm lazy sometimes). But if I'm working on something I want done right, I always do. Absolute zero latency. It's a noticeable difference come mix time for tightness. And for pitch. i was having slight pitch/timing issues and I narrowed it down to latency. Bought a little Oram Series 8t mixer and butter now. I paid $2250 for it and it has 8 quality pres, 8 killer eqs and a very good monitoring section. Actually ran the apogee 1/2 outs into the board to see if it colored the signal or degraded it. Not only did it not degrade it but the stereo image became wider. I also tested the headphone out against the apogee and it was identical. I also tested running my pres into the line ins compared to running straight to DAW and there was no audible difference. Best $2250 I've spent in my little setup. Cough...cough...$2250? Ouch...Any way to do this on the cheap? |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on May 4, 2014 20:41:35 GMT -6
Im sure you can I just don't know of the quality mixers on the cheap (I thought that was cheap!) Maybe someone else can chime in on some cool little cheap mixers.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on May 4, 2014 20:44:14 GMT -6
It becomes a problem long before it's noticeable. People talk about liking tape better but I often wonder how much is better performances as opposed to noise and saturation. Ive often wondered about this myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 20:49:23 GMT -6
Wow - looked that mixer up...yeah - that's a fantastic price for all of that!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 4, 2014 20:55:10 GMT -6
It makes a difference for the better for sure JK. I don't always use my console cue mix (because I'm lazy sometimes). But if I'm working on something I want done right, I always do. Absolute zero latency. It's a noticeable difference come mix time for tightness. And for pitch. this is what drove me OTB and to a console. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 4, 2014 21:05:24 GMT -6
Damn...very interesting. So, I would go into a small mixer, use that for monitoring and from the mixer into the converter? There's no degradation of the sound? There can be a degradation of sound if your passing through the mixers line drivers to the converters. A quality console will usually be a benefit though. Think Jeff's missing links. But if you were passing audio through a cheap Mackie or something, you would defiantly hear degradation printed to disk. It would pay to make sure your using a high end solution to pass audio through. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 4, 2014 21:09:29 GMT -6
You can't get cheaper than my Behringer 1U solution. No...there's no effect on the sound quality--it's not in the recording chain....at all...believe me...I didn't trust that the Y cable wouldn't screw with something. You don't think I'd have let that go untested do you? Ha.
I mean-I didn't buy the little line crappy mixer for this--it was repurposed from an old synth rig where it was a line mixer for a rack of modules...I'd have likely spent a little more and gotten a Rane or such that would be a little cleaner...but, it doesn't matter in terms of sound quality of the recording.
I actually noticed it most as a bass player....fretless...I was like "why can I do it in one take intonated fine with the amp....and with the DI, I can't keep it in tune?" Because with the amp, I was listening without the digital feed--I was listening to the amp itself....with the DI (prior to hooking up the analog mixer)...the only way for me to hear it was digitally. I actually did some examination of the pitch of the tracks--it was consistent--I was near just intonated with the amp--but, with the digital feed I was either ON....or off by an exact number of cents in one direction. Which is why it sounded so bad. If it were just kinda sloppy with a fretless, eh--it's just "rubbery"--but, it was that I had my normal solid intonation on say 70% of the notes and then certain notes I just--missed by an exact amount.
I also, a few years ago when I started to do the wrap up project for my "home studio era"....I was like "why did my vocals start getting weirdly pitchy when I switched to a digital recorder?" I mean, I KNOW I'm a better singer now than I was 15 years ago...with a better ear for pitch intonation...but, pulling up all those old tapes, it was clear--while I had half the voice I do now, the old tape recordings sounded like a shittier singer....with better intonation. And since I basically grew up in a studio singing in headphones....it wasn't the actual headphones, which some singers ALSO have issue with.
Anyway--that line mixer is part of my move to digitally agnostic. Meaning--I no longer put the monitoring in the digital system's hands. I can run huge buffers...don't care how efficient the drivers are at the lowest latencies...how flexible the control panel (which is controlling a hardware mixer on the interface if you don't know) is....and wow--the work flow of just always having mics "hot" in the phones whether you're recording or not...Having that volume and relative volume of the return mix have ZERO effect on the actual recording levels...
I don't know if I could deal with computer recording without an analog cue mixer. I lived with it in digital hardware, because there was no way TO get anything north of the 1.5-2ms converter latency in an embedded system...until the end of that run when I was cutting fretless and vocals with no live feed in the cans...I'm amazed people put so much money into these jury rigged recording systems that you have to go from one app to another to adjust the cue...
Which is what Steiny' 816 does, Lolo....it just lets you control their hardware digital mixer from inside Cubase. That's sweet, workflow-wise....but, no--it's still a digital cue.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 4, 2014 21:14:52 GMT -6
SSL X Panda is one to look at as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 4, 2014 21:19:59 GMT -6
POP
Explain the Y cable setup. Are you going from your pre to the cue mixer and the converter out of the Y cable?
I just run line in to a strip on my console then aux it out to a headphone amp. And yes I'm printing the post line signal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 4, 2014 21:22:14 GMT -6
I've got a cheap little 2 channel Behringer mixer (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/502/)...So - popmann, you're saying I could take a Y cable out of my mic pre - take one to the AD converter and the other to the little Mixer and just use it as true zero latency monitoring? Then I guess I would route a stereo out of the two mix back to the mixer? I mean, if it's not in the chain, what does it matter about the quality? Can I sell my expensive Hearback system now?  |
|
