[lewdslewrate]

(i put this on live sound by mistake - sorry)

hi...i am aware this will display my lack of digital savvy...but you
guys are the best to ask!

Scenario: mic inputs to Focusrite ISA818 pre. ADAT from pre into a
yamaha AW2400 recorder. (i also feed analogue to an o1v to use as a
monitor mixer). Please advise: What is the significance of the input
meter on AW2400 showing level?....i can increase visual meter reading
by increasing preamp gain...this does not seem to affect recorded
level! The recorded level seems to be dependent only on the preamp
gain settings (ISA828). With input fader on recorder at unity or zero
the input level recorded is essentially unaffected..... only the
visual levelon recorder input meter changes! i can have no input
level shown and have a hot level recorded. Do I have any control on
the ultimate input sensitivity if coming in via ADAT? For the ADAT
input do I ignore the input level meters and work with the gain
displayed on the preamp?
Any help appreciated

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

lewdslewrate wrote:

(i put this on live sound by mistake - sorry)

hi...i am aware this will display my lack of digital savvy...but you
guys are the best to ask!

Scenario: mic inputs to Focusrite ISA818 pre. ADAT from pre into a
yamaha AW2400 recorder. (i also feed analogue to an o1v to use as a
monitor mixer). Please advise: What is the significance of the input
meter on AW2400 showing level?....i can increase visual meter reading
by increasing preamp gain...this does not seem to affect recorded
level! The recorded level seems to be dependent only on the preamp
gain settings (ISA828). With input fader on recorder at unity or zero
the input level recorded is essentially unaffected..... only the
visual levelon recorder input meter changes! i can have no input
level shown and have a hot level recorded. Do I have any control on
the ultimate input sensitivity if coming in via ADAT?

The relevant control is the one that takes place before the AD converter. It
appears to me that what the recorder displays is your monitor mix. Void if I
somehow goofed in my understanding of your setup.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


For the ADAT
input do I ignore the input level meters and work with the gain
displayed on the preamp?
Any help appreciated

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/4/2011 12:06 PM, lewdslewrate wrote:

Scenario: mic inputs to Focusrite ISA818 pre. ADAT from pre into a
yamaha AW2400 recorder. (i also feed analogue to an o1v to use as a
monitor mixer). Please advise: What is the significance of the input
meter on AW2400 showing level?....i can increase visual meter reading
by increasing preamp gain...this does not seem to affect recorded
level! The recorded level seems to be dependent only on the preamp
gain settings (ISA828).

Want to run that buy us again? First you said you could
increase the meter reading by increasing the preamp gain,
but that doesn't increase the recorded level? Then you said
that the record level seems to be dependent on the gain
setting of the preamp?

Are you talking about the preamp gain on the Yamaha in the
first instance and on the Focusrite in the second instance?

When you connect the Focusrite output to the Yamaha recorder
via the ADAT interface, you're bypassing all of the analog
stages of the recorder. I would think that the meters on the
Yamaha would be indicating the digital signal level which
indeed is only a function of the gain setting on the
Focusrite preamp.

With input fader on recorder at unity or zero
the input level recorded is essentially unaffected..... only the
visual levelon recorder input meter changes!

Unfortunately I can't find a manual or block diagram of the
discontinued AW2400 on line so I can't take a look at what
that meter indicates. It's odd that it follows the fader.
Perhaps it isn't actually reading the record level, but it's
showing the level coming back into the mixer section of the
Yamaha, and that would be affected by the fader.

In any case, if you read the meters on the Focusrite preamp,
that should give you a good indication of the actual digital
recording level level. Set the gain on the preamp so that
the green LEDs are lighting up most of the time, the yellow
LED only flashes occasionally if at all, and the red LED
never flashes and you'll have a decent digital recording
level. The gain control on the ISA828 is the ultimate record
level control when using the ADAT input.

This may be more than you want to know now, but there's a
rear panel calibration adjustment for the meter on the
Focusrite preamp that changes the relationship between the
analog level out of the preamp and the digital level sent to
the ADAT output. As it comes from the factory. It's probably
fine.

Are you aware of the need to synchronize the word clocks of
the preamp and recorder? There may be a setting on the
recorder to use the ADAT input as the word clock source. Or
there may be a BNC word clock input or output (or both)
connector on the recorder. You have to get the clocks
synchronized one way or the other or else you'll have clicks
in your recording.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Unfortunately I can't find a manual or block diagram of the
discontinued AW2400 on line so I can't take a look at what
that meter indicates. It's odd that it follows the fader.

N, it is logical that it displays the actual mix on the AW4200.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/4/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

discontinued AW2400

N, it is logical that it displays the actual mix on the AW4200.

I could never follow the logic when people ask that console
meter bridge meters display post-fader level? How is it
useful to know that? It's most useful to know the level
going into each mixer channel, whether from the outside
source when tracking or from the recorder playback when
mixing, so you know what you're starting with.

I think this comes from the mentality that says "If I see
that all the meters are going up to the same level I know
the mix must be right." (the unspoken part being "I don't
even have to listen to it."



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:31:52 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:



I think this comes from the mentality that says "If I see
that all the meters are going up to the same level I know
the mix must be right." (the unspoken part being "I don't
even have to listen to it."

Judging from the crap being released today, nobody is listening at any
stage of the production.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

discontinued AW2400

N, it is logical that it displays the actual mix on the AW4200.

I could never follow the logic when people ask that console
meter bridge meters display post-fader level? How is it
useful to know that?

Well, for one thing, post-fader level shows the impact of all channel
processing on the signal. Admittedly, less useful if all channel processing
consists of only an input pad. ;-)

It's most useful to know the level
going into each mixer channel, whether from the outside
source when tracking or from the recorder playback when
mixing, so you know what you're starting with.

It's also useful to know what you're feeding into the mix buss from each
channel. I feel that the more ways to view the material, the better,
especially during a mix. But, that presumes that one can readily determine
what one is looking at, a challenging arrangment for analog consoles and
their UI imitators in the digital world.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/5/2011 11:54 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Well, for one thing, post-fader level shows the impact of all channel
processing on the signal. Admittedly, less useful if all channel processing
consists of only an input pad. ;-)

Also less useful since most console "clip" LEDs actually
monitor both the mic preamp output level and the channel
output level and will light up if, for example, you crank in
10 dB of 1 kHz on the snare channel when it's already only a
couple of dB below clipping. So you do get an indication
that you've done something dumb.

It's also useful to know what you're feeding into the mix buss from each
channel.

Well, perhaps if the mixer isn't designed properly and the
mix bus doesn't have sufficient headroom. But you probably
can't really eyeball integrate what you see on the meters to
tell you that you're about to clip the bus.

I feel that the more ways to view the material, the better

It can't hurt, but not if it means sacrificing monitoring
the level right at the start of the chain.

But, that presumes that one can readily determine
what one is looking at, a challenging arrangment for analog consoles and
their UI imitators in the digital world.

Right, one usually can't. But it's useful to know, for
example, that the reason why you can't hear the guitar in
the mix is because it's not getting to the console.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2011 11:54 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Well, for one thing, post-fader level shows the impact of all channel
processing on the signal. Admittedly, less useful if all channel
processing consists of only an input pad. ;-)

Also less useful since most console "clip" LEDs actually
monitor both the mic preamp output level and the channel
output level and will light up if, for example, you crank in
10 dB of 1 kHz on the snare channel when it's already only a
couple of dB below clipping. So you do get an indication
that you've done something dumb.

Sure, but I thought we were talking about meters, not clip indicators.

It's also useful to know what you're feeding into the mix buss from
each channel.

Well, perhaps if the mixer isn't designed properly and the
mix bus doesn't have sufficient headroom. But you probably
can't really eyeball integrate what you see on the meters to
tell you that you're about to clip the bus.

I'm not all that concerned about clipping, since it's fairly easy to avoid.
As I see it, metering and other visual indicators enhance the listening
aspect of mixing, allowing the brain to integrate the two bodies of
information.

I feel that the more ways to view the material, the better

It can't hurt, but not if it means sacrificing monitoring
the level right at the start of the chain.

But, that presumes that one can readily determine
what one is looking at, a challenging arrangment for analog consoles
and their UI imitators in the digital world.

Right, one usually can't. But it's useful to know, for
example, that the reason why you can't hear the guitar in
the mix is because it's not getting to the console.

Going back to the original issue of whether the metering is pre- or
post-fader, one should be able to determine that an instrument isn't getting
to the console in either case. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/5/2011 7:37 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Sure, but I thought we were talking about meters, not clip indicators.

Yes we were, until the conversation drifted over to
"information about what's going on inside your console."

I'm not all that concerned about clipping, since it's fairly easy to avoid.

Right - if you know where you sit level-wise. Best way to
learn about that is to have INPUT meters to refer to now and
then, and CLIP INDICATORS to call your attention to a
problem that needs attention.

As I see it, metering and other visual indicators enhance the listening
aspect of mixing, allowing the brain to integrate the two bodies of
information.

OK, so you're one of those. No point in discussing it
further. I don't want to watch the meters while I'm working,
I only want them to be there when I want them. In fact,
often when I'm mixing, I'll close my eyes so I don't get
distracted by things going on around me (like meters and
blinking lights).

Going back to the original issue of whether the metering is pre- or
post-fader, one should be able to determine that an instrument isn't getting
to the console in either case. ;-)

Not necessarily. You could have the channel muted or have
the fader down and not see the meter even if you have signal
going to the console. But if you see the meter and don't
hear the channel signal, then you know either something's
broken or you aren't mixing right.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/4/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

discontinued AW2400

N, it is logical that it displays the actual mix on the AW4200.

I could never follow the logic when people ask that console
meter bridge meters display post-fader level? How is it
useful to know that?

It is not that I disagree, it is just how they make hardddisk-recorders. To
get display of input level put fader at "0". The rationale is probably to
ensure that you can see something happen when you move a fader.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[lewdslewrate]

On Sep 6, 4:51*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
discontinued AW2400
N, it is logical that it displays the actual mix on the AW4200.
I could never follow the logic when people ask that console
meter bridge meters display post-fader level? How is it
useful to know that?

It is not that I disagree, it is just how they make hardddisk-recorders. To
get display of input level put fader at "0". The rationale is probably to
ensure that you can see something happen when you move a fader.

* Kind regards

* Peter Larsen

Thanks to all who took trouble to respond to this. Two points arise:

1): i now know what those red faced icons on forums are for! Being
new to digital and the layers of controls, i got lost in trying to
figure where the ADAT was inserted into my mixer...(the block dig was
unclear). To my shame...the issue was indeed PFL/AFL options. I
still need to have it all laid out in front it seems
2): good tuition is often around the subject so your replies have
been helpful in addressing this error/question but also in other
aspects you have shared.

I throw myself at your mercy if ever you see my forum name again...

p.s. we know we have come to this late in life....but we respect you
professionals and try our best to do things right.
many thanks

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2011 7:37 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

As I see it, metering and other visual indicators enhance the
listening aspect of mixing, allowing the brain to integrate the two
bodies of information.

OK, so you're one of those. No point in discussing it
further. I don't want to watch the meters while I'm working,
I only want them to be there when I want them. In fact,
often when I'm mixing, I'll close my eyes so I don't get
distracted by things going on around me (like meters and
blinking lights).

Well, I'm a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" type. When doing a live
mix, I'm a "more information is better than less information" type. When
mixing in post, I hear the content many times, sometimes "blind", sometimes
not. The only constant is that there is always sound involved, and the main
issue is how long it takes to get to the desired end result, so once again,
AFAIC more information is better.

Going back to the original issue of whether the metering is pre- or
post-fader, one should be able to determine that an instrument isn't
getting to the console in either case. ;-)

Not necessarily. You could have the channel muted or have
the fader down and not see the meter even if you have signal
going to the console. But if you see the meter and don't
hear the channel signal, then you know either something's
broken or you aren't mixing right.

If your console doesn't readily indicate when you have a channel muted (or
conversely, which channels are active) or whether the output is off, its UI
sucks big time. But, even in such a case, the op needs to know their
console, and those items would be the first thing to check, metering or no
metering.

--
best regards,

Neil