Recording/monitoring chain balance

[chrysb93065]

Maybe a bit more info is needed. Are you tracking in the control room (is it a one-room facility)? If so, then room treatment is absolutely next. If you have a separate tracking room, then STILL treat the control room, as you mentioned tracking was secondary. Your mixing environment will be critical to clean mixes. Everything you listed is definitely functional, although mostly 'pro-sumer' level. However, very professional results can be obtained with what you have.

[Lemonsqueezer]

I have access to other facilities for tracking and sometimes mixing. But occasionally I will have someone round at home to do a vocal overdub or an acoustic guitar part, that kinda thing. This is a one room affair. So i usually track though headphones (Sennheiser HD-25-1's) and then check it back through monitors after the take.

I also write electronic music, mainly downbeat IDM and minimal. And I also do the odd bit of live recording.

[Lemonsqueezer]

[tINY]

adequate monitors and acoustic treatment are going to be paramount....

What's the room like? That will drive a lot of your acoustic needs.




-tINY

[Kiwiburger]

Sometimes the best thing is to simpy throw together what you have, and buy the minimum gear necessary to get started. Then, you can work on assessing the weakest link in the chain. Otherwise you can suffer from the 'paralysis of analysis' and forever be dreaming of the next big purchase that will complete your studio ...

Make a mix - see what it sounds like. It should become obvious what is letting you down the most. Quite often its very boring basic stuff. It might be tempting to think that a new preamp or converter will solve the problem, but rarely is that the real problem.

Getting back to your title question ... monitoring is critical, because nothing affects a performance more than bad monitoring ... or nothing coaxes out the best possible performance more than excellent monitoring. I'm a huge fan of investing in analog zero latency headphone monitoring (as opposed to the near-zero digital options that are marketing features of every interface these days. Near zero is not Zero latency - therefore these should All be marketed as Combe-Filter monitoring ... think about it).

When you track vocals, or guitars (esp Bass), bone conduction and acoustic leakage is a big part of what the performer hears while tracking. If you send them a phasey delayed dry sound, this can be disturbing. Disturbing the talent is not a good thing. Not even subconsciously.

A simple mixer can give you zero latency monitoring. Whether you want some reverb in the monitor mix is highly debateable - but it's all about keeping the talent happy (and in tune and in time). This can be done with software, if you know how to set up a blend of analog dry sound and digital wet sound (which can afford to be a little delayed).

Everything else matters - it's just a question of priorities. Nobody will know exactly which brick wall you are going to hit next, except for you when you hit it.

FWIW.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by tINY

adequate monitors and acoustic treatment are going to be paramount....

What's the room like? That will drive a lot of your acoustic needs.

I have pretty much decided that working on the monitoring is the best thing I can do to begin with as it will aid all other decisions.

This is going to include speaker stands, a cheap omni test mic and as much DIY treatment as I can manage within the my own set of constraints.

[Lemonsqueezer]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Getting back to your title question ... monitoring is critical, because nothing affects a performance more than bad monitoring ... or nothing coaxes out the best possible performance more than excellent monitoring. I'm a huge fan of investing in analog zero latency headphone monitoring (as opposed to the near-zero digital options that are marketing features of every interface these days. Near zero is not Zero latency - therefore these should All be marketed as Combe-Filter monitoring ... think about it).

I think I understand you. In my set up I get about 5ms latency when I select the option in Protools. Now for sending a guide track to the vocalist for their overdub this is all OK until I give them some of themselves via the DAW.....as they go through 2 steps of conversion.

So for example I could go through a Mackie 1642 VLZPRO that I have and avoid this. For me there are some downsides to this option, but these probably would be quite small. The preamps in the 002 might be better than the Mackie. The direct outs on the Mackie are post fader and EQ, it does have an option for tapping off the inserts but I have found this option to be a poor mechanical connection.

For me with what I equipment I have then it would seem the monitoring options on my Trakmaster PRO would be the best way to implement latency free monitoring and preserve the signal chain. Though of course then I can't use the 002 preamps for this task, but then hey why did I get the Trakmaster. I guess it then becomes difficult to set up reverb with this option....but the verb can come from the DAW and the latency would be irrelevant and could even be compensated for by reducing the pre delay, but I would imagine that this is not necessary.

Thanks for provoking me to think about this aspect. An oversight on my part.

I'll go wire it up later thumbsup

[tINY]

The interfaces with digital cue mixers built in are as latency free as any analog mixer.

A delay in effects is probably not an issue if it's less than 15-20ms. But that much on the dry signal can cause problems.




-tINY