The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
are people still using splitters for headphone mix?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
are people still using splitters for headphone mix?

So i'm still using a 24 channel Radial splitter and running to
a mixer for headphones.

Are people still doing this, or is monitoring through the box the
new, better way to go?

I'd love to hear opinions on which you think is better, and why.

Last edited by joecandy; 2 weeks ago at 06:25 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Gear Head
I have the outputs of my Lynx Aurora running to a Behringer powerplay distribution, feeding personal mixers via cat5. Makes it really easy to route busses through my DAW. If the clients aren’t totally technologically inept, I barely have to worry about their headphone mixes because they can do their own.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Feed a hearback direct from the last 8 outputs of HDX. If I’m running a smaller setup I’ll use UAD Console on my Twin.

I’ve never used splitters - not common in a studio situation, you’d usually be monitoring via the desk if you were doing it “old school”.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 

depends on session/size of ensemble/personel/budget/genre etc.

- if working itb (rarely), i prefer doing my cue mixes on an external digital desk which is getting fed from a digital split.
- in (most) any other situation, i'm using digital desks capable of huge channel/aux counts, so no need for splits/additional desk.
- if working on a digital desk with limited auxes, splits are digital (for obvious reasons) and a second digital desk gets used for cue mixes.
- i'm occasionally using analog splits (and an analog cue mixer) but in situations when the main analog desk has limited aux count.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
Hey guys, thanks so much for the replies!! I will look into the Behringer Powerplay.
I hope to hear from more of you on this subject.
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
I see the powerplay system popping up all over the place. They're (relatively) cheap and sound good. At least better than the Aviom and the (old) Hearback system.



Splits are off the converters and RME totalmix software.



Herwig
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoet View Post
I see the powerplay system popping up all over the place. They're (relatively) cheap and sound good. At least better than the Aviom and the (old) Hearback system.



Splits are off the converters and RME totalmix software.



Herwig
The Hearback sounds “good enough” to me for headphones. The Behringer is fine too (not really spent a lot of time listening to it) but the build quality is not something I’d want in a professional studio. For a self run setup where you know it’s going to be treated well, it should be fine.

The Aviom is a league above both. But also way more expensive, and complicated - some musos struggle with the hearback!
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The Hearback sounds “good enough” to me for headphones.
Good for you, I find it to have a "harder" sound than analog cue sends or the Powerplay system.

Quote:
The Behringer is fine too (not really spent a lot of time listening to it) but the build quality is not something I’d want in a professional studio. For a self run setup where you know it’s going to be treated well, it should be fine.
I see them around almost all top pro studios in my country. Maybe not because of build quality but they are cheap enough to simply replace them when/if they go south on you.


Quote:
The Aviom is a league above both. But also way more expensive, and complicated - some musos struggle with the hearback!
I've used the Aviom system quite a bit as a musician and never liked the sound of it.


There's also the Roland system, but that's outrageously expensive.

Furman still sounded best to my ears.


Herwig
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The Aviom is a league above both. But also way more expensive, and complicated - some musos struggle with the hearback!
I’ve used both the Aviom and Behringer. I understand the “B” word gets a bad rap, but I’ll be damned if that powerplay system isn’t one of the best values out there. It’s the only Behringer gear I own but I find the build quality to be just as good as the Aviom. The thing is pretty solid. In fact the Behringer is made of metal, and the Aviom is made of plastic. And it does the exact same thing for a fraction of the price.
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 

the roland m-48 imo beats most any other personal monitoring system - it's been around for many years; too bad it doesn't get much attention...

https://proav.roland.com/global/products/m-48/

and yet, i still rather hire a monitor tech than let folks dial in their stuff, unless i'm using this (which is in an entirely different league):

https://www.klang.com/en/products/klang_fabrik

both systems are quite expensive...



p.s. the roland (mostly) needs a madi-to- reac converter.
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Gear Addict
 
Suspects's Avatar
 

The Hearback "Pro" system has significantly better converters than the original Hearback system; it's also 16 channel and a lot more money. We do a split of the first 16-outputs of our HDX system - one side goes to a patchbay to feed monitors and whatever analog inserts we want to use, the other side goes directly into the Hearback Pro Hub. We generally use Pro Tools outputs A1-2 to feed the Main Mix in the control room; this is mirrored in inputs 1-2 in the Hearback system. So any time you hit play in the control room, you automatically get at least a basic mix going in the phones. For a lot of our clients who are playing/singing/rapping to just a stereo track, this works fine. If you need to sent additional elements to the headphone system (i.e click, more lead vocal, etc.) it can be done easily using sends in the Pro Tools session...


Dave/Suspect Studios
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoet View Post
Good for you, I find it to have a "harder" sound than analog cue sends or the Powerplay system.


I see them around almost all top pro studios in my country. Maybe not because of build quality but they are cheap enough to simply replace them when/if they go south on you.


I've used the Aviom system quite a bit as a musician and never liked the sound of it.


There's also the Roland system, but that's outrageously expensive.

Furman still sounded best to my ears.


Herwig
That's all fair - a good point on replacement of Behringer options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnschaefer View Post
I’ve used both the Aviom and Behringer. I understand the “B” word gets a bad rap, but I’ll be damned if that powerplay system isn’t one of the best values out there. It’s the only Behringer gear I own but I find the build quality to be just as good as the Aviom. The thing is pretty solid. In fact the Behringer is made of metal, and the Aviom is made of plastic. And it does the exact same thing for a fraction of the price.
I was pleasantly impressed with the Powerplay. It just feels a bit cheap to me by comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suspects View Post
The Hearback "Pro" system has significantly better converters than the original Hearback system; it's also 16 channel and a lot more money. We do a split of the first 16-outputs of our HDX system - one side goes to a patchbay to feed monitors and whatever analog inserts we want to use, the other side goes directly into the Hearback Pro Hub. We generally use Pro Tools outputs A1-2 to feed the Main Mix in the control room; this is mirrored in inputs 1-2 in the Hearback system. So any time you hit play in the control room, you automatically get at least a basic mix going in the phones. For a lot of our clients who are playing/singing/rapping to just a stereo track, this works fine. If you need to sent additional elements to the headphone system (i.e click, more lead vocal, etc.) it can be done easily using sends in the Pro Tools session...


Dave/Suspect Studios
I've thought about upgrading ours - I'd definitely go for Hearback Pro over anything else, often 8 sends isn't enough.

I do a similar thing to you, but for overdubs I route everything to a mix buss, and then send THAT to the cans. Live overdubs then have their own send. Mix buss and overdubs come direct to my monitoring on 1/2, and as we progress they get tucked into the main mix.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump