|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 5, 2014 20:08:08 GMT -6
Well, obviously not...but does anyone have experience in upgrading their system and really hearing a huge difference? I'm using a Hearback system via ADAT - which I assume is prosumer...Any suggestions or magical suggestions? It occurred to me that my recordings might improve if I can actually really hear myself.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 5, 2014 20:33:03 GMT -6
Good question John. There's practically a cottage industry in headphone amps for audiophiles, so I'm sure that there must be a basic, better, best thing going on in pro audio too.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 5, 2014 20:51:48 GMT -6
True, Martin John Butler. Or maybe the answer is higher end headphones? Been using Beyer DT-770's and some AT's. Is there a world of difference with great headphones?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 5, 2014 20:52:17 GMT -6
Damnit! Someone take my money!!
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 5, 2014 21:39:01 GMT -6
headphone amps make a big diff, jim williams is supposed to give me a schematic for an insanely high Q one next time i see him, very cheap and easy to build... he says....between building lunar tracking modules for nasa lol
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 5, 2014 21:43:45 GMT -6
Bring it on...Preferably in Telefunken Cream.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 5, 2014 21:54:48 GMT -6
I've never found a huge difference in headphones, just the obvious differences, one's kinda boomy, one's clinical, one's beautifully transparent but lacks bass, etc..
For recording I chose the Sony Professional line. The AKG's were good, as they've always been, but I was able to A-B them back and forth as long as I liked, and the Sony's were just better.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 6, 2014 13:22:50 GMT -6
Hey popmann - do I remember you saying you much preferred using something like this analog vs. ADAT?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 6, 2014 16:39:26 GMT -6
I will never use a digital cue again. That said--I don't think you're asking that question--I'm talking about what's in your head can't be converted to digital prior to it being in your phones--I've never used one of these personal mixing systems, but I'd assume they're using digital tech if they're taking ADAT in--that a budget choice. I ALSO don't like ADAT for anything....for sample rate limitations. I think you're referring to my discussing you could make the Hearback work to monitor double rate projects by using the analog inputs instead of ADAT. It's still a digital connection because where did that 8ch snake come from? Right.
But, I'm not picky--I use a little Behirnger line mixer I've had for a decade+....you absolutely can buy really nice headphone amps, intended for "hifi" listening....I don't know why little nuances of imaging or depth would affect a performer, but I believe in all kinds of mojo shit...so....give it a shot--thing about cues is--if it improve the performance for WHATEVER reason, real or imagined....its a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Dec 7, 2014 19:10:18 GMT -6
I have this and I dropped some upgrade IC's in it and it rules. I'm not a fan of the OPA604 in anything. I did some listening test between a few different opamps. I'm not sure what I landed on but I know LME had some nice options for sure. Super easy. www.matrix-digi.com/en/products/4/
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 7, 2014 20:11:03 GMT -6
It's still a digital connection because where did that 8ch snake come from? Right. Explain a little further? You mean that since the remote connects via CAT5, it's gonna be digital in the end no matter what, right? Didn't think of that - guess ADAT or analog won't matter in the end anyway, right?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 7, 2014 20:50:54 GMT -6
digital would be BETTER in terms of latency, because it's one less round trip ADA. I thought the problem was that the ADAT didn't function at double rate....thus you were going to use the analog connections. Maybe I misunderstood when you were asking about that. Why wouldn't you simply plug your phones into your interface? Both the Apollo and Symphony boxes (don't remember which you're using this week ) have two individually addressable headphone outs. Do you cut whole bands? If not--you're over complicating this rig for no real gain.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 7, 2014 21:19:57 GMT -6
I like being able to assign a click, vocal and tracks to separate channels and be able to control it from the recording position. I've been using the Apollo/Burl combo for over a year now...As far as headphone amps, I find that the Apollo and symphony don't have enough gain...and the fact that the performer can't dial what they want in themselves. That makes it much less complicated.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 10, 2014 14:26:25 GMT -6
That Larvy thing is absurd. I remember when it came out....it's effectively achieving what a Y cable and any analog mixer does. For the price--I think the Dangerous Monitor has a cue input to blend in for overdubs (less money and an entire monitoring section)....or you could get a pretty nice summing unit, which as long as it's one with level adjustment, you are a Y cable away from the cue thing--AND it's a nice summing mixer for fixing the phantom center come mixdown.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 10, 2014 15:52:59 GMT -6
Going to a top end power amp instead of these little headphone amp boxes will yield a hugely punchy sound with tons of headroom. Not as ergonomically simple though.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Dec 10, 2014 15:59:11 GMT -6
|
|