News:

Happy New Year!


JAY X

¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« on: February 01, 2016, 05:42:22 AM »
Hi!

The title sets the question... or, in other words... when  doing multitrack recording,  ( a drum kit), it is enough to have just a stereo return?

Today in  daw recording setups, many recordings go direct to the audio interface, (500 preamps or the like -> interface inputs), and monitor with the audio interface monitoring facilities, or an external monitor controller...

Jay x


JohnRoberts

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2016, 12:09:47 PM »
in line is a console configuration. "In-line" vs "split". The difference being a dedicate tape monitor section vs monitoring inside the input strip (cheaper and smaller footprint).

I would rephrase you question  to is it worth monitoring digital media in real time? The answer is probably not, since modern digital media is quite good. At some point you might need to confirm that there is some there there...(audio actually printed to media).

JR

John Roberts
http://circularscience.com
Tune it, or don't play it...

fazer

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2016, 04:59:05 PM »
With inline monitoring you can monitor a tape playback and adjust levels for noise floor and sonics of driving the tape at different levels.   This could be listened to by the Engineer while the headphones sent from the mic so the players could hear there mix without delay from the tape repro head back to the monitor.   With a DAW it just is not necessary to have an inline monitor.   There is no tape noise.   But if you have a tape deck and are willing to go through all the demands and problems, then it is hard to work without an inline or split monitor for that purpose.   

Whoops

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2016, 10:42:50 PM »
You should explain better or rephrase your questions.

JR explained the diference between in line or split in console monitoring configurations.

But nowadays I only feel thats relevant if you are recording the multitrack to TAPE.

If you are recording to the Computer then you dont need to have monitor channel paths in your console, you only need input channels, and that is presuming that you really want to have a console.
Thats a matter of taste and workflow because you dont even need a console at all if you have enough outboard or audio interface mic preamps
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:03:00 PM by Whoops »

nielsk

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2016, 09:14:50 AM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

ruffrecords

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2016, 10:57:42 AM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

Agreed but there is another aspect. When overdubbing you need to be able to build the cue mix from both the already recorded tracks and the new live ones and these all need to be time aligned. In the days of tape this was achieved by sel-sync where the cue mix of already recorded tracks was taken from the record head. Presumably modern DAWs can ensure that recorded tracks are time aligned with ones already recorded.

Either way, as John says, in-line monitoring was just another way of organising a monitor mix. This had nothing to do with a cue mix. There used to be a separate section of the mixer for the producer so he could mix the live and recorded tracks  for his own purposes. A cue or foldback mix was created separately by the engineer for the musicians to listen to. All the in-line mixer did was incorporate the monitor mix in with the channels themselves. The cue /foldbakc mix remained the same.

Cheers

ian

Spino

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2016, 06:39:56 AM »
All this and more: the flexibility to work on a console with separated cue mix and room mix, all at the reach of your fingers (in a daw you can have that only through a difficult managing of auxes). For example: soloing a singer when he was tracking vocals was a matter of pushing a single button. Or the fact that in the analogue world everything was perfectly aligned to begin with. The hassle I had to went through to make sure that a 100 track digital mix that was routed everywhere through a studio in the days when delay compensation was not known, is still in my nightmares. Today, whenever I watch any tv set, nothing keeps out of my mind that in the days of digital, audio will never be lined up anymore.

bruno2000

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2016, 11:18:28 AM »
In my world, yes.......
Old School
Best,
Bruno2000

Whoops

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2016, 12:39:34 PM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

I've worked both ways, but to be honest with a Protools HD systems neither I or musicians hear any delay in their headphone cues.

What I found over the years is that what really helps musicians to achieve good performances is to give them the ability of doing their own personal mixes and not controlling their individual mixes from the control room.  Having something like the Avion or Hear Back personal mixing systems is a setup in a studio and that I find really improves performances. Musicians love it also.

Using and analog console can be a choice and can be nice to have, but the reality is that nowadays you don't really need it if you don't want to go that route and also saying that you need to cue from an analog desk to achieve a good performance thats really exaggerated and thats not what happens in most of the biggest studios in the world were good performances are captured everyday.

In another end of the spectrum, not having a Pro Tools HD system and Avion, as those are expensive, I also had good results with the normal Pro Tools software using RME fireface 800 interfaces, and sending outputs straight from the Fireface to the Behringer PM16 personal mixing systems (much Cheaper Avion Copy). No delay in cue mixes that any musician complain or notice.

Saying this I'm not saying that it cant be nice to have an analog console, Im just saying that nowadays it's a matter of choice.
I love to mix a record in a analog console when there's budget and time for it, but for recording I really don't find it personally gives me any benefits .

kambo

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2016, 08:48:14 PM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

I've worked both ways, but to be honest with a Protools HD systems neither I or musicians hear any delay in their headphone cues.


i have pig ears... i cant play guitar through any protools any any daw....
if u are recording a real performer, u need 100% analog setup with tape returns to headphones, and to your monitors...
u dont wanna say " oooh sorrry, there was a glitch" play/sing  again!....
thats very very unpro approach....






Whoops

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2016, 09:01:33 PM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

I've worked both ways, but to be honest with a Protools HD systems neither I or musicians hear any delay in their headphone cues.


i have pig ears... i cant play guitar through any protools any any daw....
if u are recording a real performer, u need 100% analog setup with tape returns to headphones, and to your monitors...
u dont wanna say " oooh sorrry, there was a glitch" play/sing  again!....
thats very very unpro approach....

You're wrong real performers nowadays are recorded to Protools HD with Avion personal mixing systems and are more than happy.

someone that says "if u are recording a real performer, u need 100% analog setup with tape returns to headphones, and to your monitors... "  is a person that is completely out of the recording industry!




kambo

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2016, 09:12:43 PM »
If you want good performances from actual musicians, introducing ANY delay into their monitoring (cues) detracts.
There is no better way to generate a cue mix than from the analog inputs through an analog headphone system...

I've worked both ways, but to be honest with a Protools HD systems neither I or musicians hear any delay in their headphone cues.


i have pig ears... i cant play guitar through any protools any any daw....
if u are recording a real performer, u need 100% analog setup with tape returns to headphones, and to your monitors...
u dont wanna say " oooh sorrry, there was a glitch" play/sing  again!....
thats very very unpro approach....

You're wrong real performers nowadays are recorded to Protools HD with Avion personal mixing systems and are more than happy.

someone that says "if u are recording a real performer, u need 100% analog setup with tape returns to headphones, and to your monitors... "  is a person that is completely out of the recording industry!

haha :))))

edit:  so you are not trusting my pig ears :) thats not nice at all  8)


« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 09:30:29 PM by kambo »

nielsk

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2016, 09:41:55 AM »
I have not had any problems using Pro Tools and the like DAW overdubbing and monitoring via the converter outputs.
For tracking sessions cues being generated from inputs works best, while using converter outputs is usually tolerable.
However there have been substantial problems using digital cue systems like the Aviom , they introduce significant delay, and when added to converter delay it can get to the point where many extremely accomplished musicians become physically uncomfortable. It only takes a few milliseconds of delay between what one hears from their instrument and the headphones to degrade performance.
There are several high quality analog multi-channel cue systems out there, I can't see any good reason to use a cue system that introduces delay.

Whoops

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2016, 11:19:51 AM »
I never had any problem with latency while recording using Protools HD and Avion System that Ive been using in the last 10 years.
I record  Pop, Rock and Jazz records with extremely accomplished musicians.
Also in most of the big studios I've recorded thats the same setup used, as it's in most of the biggest studios in the world, Avion is quite standard.

Exception was at Abbey Road that instead of Avion they had their own analog personal mixing system, called Nemesis if I remember correctly, although I used the sends to the Nemesis from Protools HD with no problems at all.

Just my 2 cents


kambo

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2016, 12:46:36 PM »
physically uncomfortable. It only takes a few milliseconds of delay between what one hears from their instrument and the headphones to degrade performance.

especially recording with click track, and where there is no background music yet!
very very uncomfortable!

JAY X

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2016, 02:36:43 PM »
Hi!

I was checking my threads and i almost forgot this one!!

From the answers, is it possible to conclude that today even for recording,  it is not necessary  a mixer. As there are out there very good preamps and equalizers in the 500 format or simmilar...that go straight to the protools inputs... so it is possible to record a full drum kit, just with outboard preamps, and monitor the recording with the interface mixer....like in the motu interfaces...¿right?

jay x

Whoops

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2016, 04:59:39 PM »
Hi!

I was checking my threads and i almost forgot this one!!

From the answers, is it possible to conclude that today even for recording,  it is not necessary  a mixer. As there are out there very good preamps and equalizers in the 500 format or simmilar...that go straight to the protools inputs... so it is possible to record a full drum kit, just with outboard preamps, and monitor the recording with the interface mixer....like in the motu interfaces...¿right?

jay x

Yes,
totally Correct!


JAY X

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2016, 11:19:31 AM »
Hi!

On the other hand, synth gear maniacs need mixers to jam with their toys....and may record their outputs with direct outs... and/or add eq or processing....patching cables in a matrix mixer... adding fx there and there... 8).... so maybe a mixer with insert snds and returns maybe useful....from there the limit is....¡no limits!  ;D

jay x

JAY X

Re: ¿Is Inline monitoring today necessary?
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2016, 11:13:32 AM »
Hi!

i just found a multichannel interface /recorder that may fit my needs regarding recording: allen6 heath ic16D and cymatic audio utrack 24. This one features an internal monitor mixer. And both work as audio interfaces.  Really cool!!

Maribap

Is Inline monitoring today necessary
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2016, 05:17:53 AM »
sh*t hot mate
are you going to tour of the back of it next year?