Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital recording experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. I had been looking at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low latency in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of the Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implementation on some Windows machines. Has anyone here tried to use Thunderbolt on the HP Spectre x360 - 13-ac076nr (Z4Z25UA)?
Potential Thunderbolt issues caused me re-consider my whole approach. Do you find that it's simply not practical to monitor live overdubs through the DAW due to delay introduced by the computer? I suspect that is the case because all the interfaces I've looked at allow for direct monitoring by reconfiguring its signal routing. I imagine it would be way simpler to set up the interface routing once and forget about it but perhaps adjusting that is a necessary part of recording in a home studio. If so, then maybe spending double for the Clarett isn't justified since I'll need to manage latency through the interface routing anyway. If that's true, then the Scarlett 4i4 would work fine and provides two additional preamps. Or since I plan on initially using the free version of Studio One, maybe it would be better to get the PreSonus Studio 26c or 68c, which are only $200 and $300 respectively and come with Artist. All information/advice/suggestions on audio interfaces and dealing with latency in live monitoring are welcome. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/3/2019 12:37 PM, Bob Simon wrote:
I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital recording experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. Do you have any experience recording, particularly with a computer, and doing overdubs? You have a good reason to be concerned, but it's good to know how much you already know. I had been looking at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low latency in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of the Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implementation on some Windows machines. Thunderbolt on PCs is really rare. I can't offer you any personal experience because it's so rare that I don't have one myself. I wish it had been better adopted and was as mature as it is on the Macs (though Apple is starting to drop it them selves) but I'd consider the alternatives. I just got a press release yesterday for the 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett USB interfaces that have upgraded preamps and lower latency with USB than previous versions. The Scarlett's no slouch. I have a review of the first edition on my web site, and I can tell you that, using its built-in DSP monitor mixer, I measured less than 1 ms of latency from mic input to headphone output, and that's certainly good enough to work with, even for recording vocals. Potential Thunderbolt issues caused me re-consider my whole approach. Do you find that it's simply not practical to monitor live overdubs through the DAW due to delay introduced by the computer? With an interface that has a built-in monitor mixer, when you set it up correctly, the input source gets split in two directions inside the Scarlett box. One goes to the computer for recording and the DAW software compensates for the time delay in that route so your overdubs come out in the right place in the project. For monitoring the input, the signal never leaves the box, but gets sent straight out to the monitor mix with just the delay time through the mixer, which is really quick since all the arithmetic is done in dedicated hardware. I imagine it would be way simpler to set up the interface routing once and forget about it but perhaps adjusting that is a necessary part of recording in a home studio. If so, then maybe spending double for the Clarett isn't justified since I'll need to manage latency through the interface routing anyway. The way it works, you set up a monitor mix in your DAW for all the tracks that you've previously recorded (or at least the ones you want to include in your monitor mix for overdubbing), and that appears as a stereo channel in the interface's mixer. That's what gets mixed with the input source(s) when you're doing your overdubs. Since most DAW mixers default to input monitoring when recording - where the track you're recording gets thrown into the mix of all the other tracks - you'll need to be sure to mute that track in the DAW mix so you don't hear it twice. DAWs aren't smart enough to do that for you so it's just something you'll need to remember. Otherwise, the concept works remarkably well. And because you don't need "zero latency monitoring" within the computer, you can set up an ample size buffer (the DAW will recognize that and deal with it) so that you won't have any trouble with recording. If that's true, then the Scarlett 4i4 would work fine and provides two additional preamps. Or since I plan on initially using the free version of Studio One, maybe it would be better to get the PreSonus Studio 26c or 68c, which are only $200 and $300 respectively and come with Artist. PreSonus interfaces are pretty good, but if you're concerned about the quality of the mic preamps, which I suspect you are since you were considering the Clarett, I'd lean toward the Focusrite. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:28:51 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/3/2019 12:37 PM, Bob Simon wrote: I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital recording experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. Do you have any experience recording, particularly with a computer, and doing overdubs? You have a good reason to be concerned, but it's good to know how much you already know. Mike, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. In particular, I note your favorable impression of the latest generation of the Scarlett. All my recording experience up till now has been analog only and all my equipment is at least 20 years old. I have a Tascam M-1516 board and TSR-8 tape deck along with a small rack of Proteus sound modules, effects, and a compressor. I'm semi-retired now (with a background in network engineering and VMware) so I have the time and interest to upgrade my studio for digital audio recording. I had been looking at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low latency in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of the Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implementation on some Windows machines. Thunderbolt on PCs is really rare. I can't offer you any personal experience because it's so rare that I don't have one myself. I wish it had been better adopted and was as mature as it is on the Macs (though Apple is starting to drop it them selves) but I'd consider the alternatives. I just got a press release yesterday for the 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett USB interfaces that have upgraded preamps and lower latency with USB than previous versions. The Scarlett's no slouch. I have a review of the first edition on my web site, and I can tell you that, using its built-in DSP monitor mixer, I measured less than 1 ms of latency from mic input to headphone output, and that's certainly good enough to work with, even for recording vocals. Since my HP has Thunderbolt, latency using it would be significantly less since Thunderbolt has direct access to the PCIe bus. USB requires the signal to traverse a USB controller. But given the uncertainty of how well HP implemented Thunderbolt in my machine, I'm persuaded to use USB 3.1. information on recording and monitoring snipped If that's true, then the Scarlett 4i4 would work fine and provides two additional preamps. Or since I plan on initially using the free version of Studio One, maybe it would be better to get the PreSonus Studio 26c or 68c, which are only $200 and $300 respectively and come with Artist. PreSonus interfaces are pretty good, but if you're concerned about the quality of the mic preamps, which I suspect you are since you were considering the Clarett, I'd lean toward the Focusrite. I had imagined that there might be work flow benefits if the interface and DAW were made by the same company. No? In any case, it sounds like you believe that any such advantage is small compared to the better quality of mic preamps in Focusrite interfaces. Did I interpret that correctly? |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/3/2019 2:36 PM, Bob Simon wrote:
I had imagined that there might be work flow benefits if the interface and DAW were made by the same company. No? In any case, it sounds like you believe that any such advantage is small compared to the better quality of mic preamps in Focusrite interfaces. Did I interpret that correctly? You did. There's some useful integration features between the newest series of PreSonus StudioLive consoles and Studio One, but if there's not much they can offer other than the fact that the Studio One recognizes the PreSonus interface that you have and can pre-configure the channel input and output layout. And on the newer interfaces with digitally controlled mic preamps, you can adjust the gain from the DAW program without reaching over for a knob or opening the interface's control panel application (which you'd have to do to set up a monitor mix in the interface's mixer anyway). We're a long way from the days when actual latency (as opposed to the number that's advertised or read off the numbers in the DAW software) was ten milliseconds or so. It's not hard to play with a couple of milliseconds of latency unless you're a really fussy drummer. You won't hear an echo or doubling with "normal" latency. Where it gets annoying is when you're singing or speaking, and you hear your voice through your head, mixed at your eardrum with what's coming back through the interface. In the range of 1.5 to 3.5 milliseconds difference, unless your headphone volume is considerably louder than your natural voice in your ear, you'll hear comb filtering on your voice, which makes you sound funny. Some people never notice it, some are really bothered by it. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
Bob Simon wrote:
I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital record= ing experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. I had been look= ing at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to= my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low laten= cy in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the = DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of th= e Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implement= ation on some Windows machines. Has anyone here tried to use Thunderbolt o= n the HP Spectre x360 - 13-ac076nr (Z4Z25UA)? Get a small cheap mixer for monitoring, so you don't have to monitor through the computer. Some interfaces have such a thing built in, but there is no reason not to just get a Mackie 1202 or something to have for the job, because someday you'll want it for something else anyway. If you are monitoring yourself directly, with only the backing tracks coming from the computer, then you don't care about the latency through the computer at all. If you're using the preamps in the mixer for your record feed you care about having a decent mixer, but if you're just using the mixer for monitoring it can be absolute crap and you'll be fine with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 8:55:11 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Get a small cheap mixer for monitoring, so you don't have to monitor through the computer. Some interfaces have such a thing built in, but there is no reason not to just get a Mackie 1202 or something to have for the job, because someday you'll want it for something else anyway. If you are monitoring yourself directly, with only the backing tracks coming from the computer, then you don't care about the latency through the computer at all. If you're using the preamps in the mixer for your record feed you care about having a decent mixer, but if you're just using the mixer for monitoring it can be absolute crap and you'll be fine with it. Scott, Thanks! I have something similar already, a PV8. I've used this with headphones for monitoring at band practices when I couldn't get the mix I wanted from the group's board. Plus, it provided hearing protection when the guitar player got too loud. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/4/19 6:55 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Simon wrote: I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital record= ing experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. I had been look= ing at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to= my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low laten= cy in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the = DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of th= e Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implement= ation on some Windows machines. Has anyone here tried to use Thunderbolt o= n the HP Spectre x360 - 13-ac076nr (Z4Z25UA)? Get a small cheap mixer for monitoring, so you don't have to monitor through the computer. Some interfaces have such a thing built in, but there is no reason not to just get a Mackie 1202 or something to have for the job, because someday you'll want it for something else anyway. I differ on this point. I had a 1402 in front of my audio interface for years. When I finally realized how to use the monitor mix in software I realized that the mixer was entirely superfluous. Some can't let go of the feel of faders, I get it, but that's really all a dedicated mixer has to offer given the software that comes with a well designed interface. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/5/2019 11:32 AM, Tobiah wrote:
I differ on this point.Â* I had a 1402 in front of my audio interface for years.Â* When I finally realized how to use the monitor mix in software I realized that the mixer was entirely superfluous.Â* Some can't let go of the feel of faders, I get it, but that's really all a dedicated mixer has to offer given the software that comes with a well designed interface. There are two things here to consider. One is the workflow - not having to go to a computer screen whenever you need to adjust a mix. That's something that some people just find to be easier than fooling with a computer when you're trying to make music. The other is latency, and whether this is a problem, and how big of a problem, depends on what you're recording and how up-to-date your hardware and software is. I won't repeat what I wrote in an other post here other to say that sometimes it's no problem at all, other times it can be a big problem, and it's a problem that's completely solved by an outboard analog mixer. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/5/19 9:30 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/5/2019 11:32 AM, Tobiah wrote: I differ on this point.Â* I had a 1402 in front of my audio interface for years.Â* When I finally realized how to use the monitor mix in software I realized that the mixer was entirely superfluous.Â* Some can't let go of the feel of faders, I get it, but that's really all a dedicated mixer has to offer given the software that comes with a well designed interface. There are two things here to consider. One is the workflow - not having to go to a computer screen whenever you need to adjust a mix. That's something that some people just find to be easier than fooling with a computer when you're trying to make music. All I ever adjusted with the mixer was the input gain, and that's available to me on the front of my interface in knob form. The other is latency, and whether this is a problem, and how big of a problem, depends on what you're recording and how up-to-date your hardware and software is. I won't repeat what I wrote in an other post here other to say that sometimes it's no problem at all, other times it can be a big problem, and it's a problem that's completely solved by an outboard analog mixer. I consider the direct monitor feature of my interface to be equivalent to using a mixer. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/5/2019 12:59 PM, Tobiah wrote:
All I ever adjusted with the mixer was the input gain, and that's available to me on the front of my interface in knob form. What do you do if the person being recorded asks to hear something different in his headphone mix? For simple mixes, an interface with a direct analog input monitor signal path and a pot that adjusts the balance between the input and the DAW playback works well most of the time. This is great for a single artist who's recording himself. While an interface with a screen-driven monitor mix offers more flexibility which you might need some of the time, it also has the inconvenience of using a computer and mouse all of the time. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 7/5/19 10:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/5/2019 12:59 PM, Tobiah wrote: All I ever adjusted with the mixer was the input gain, and that's available to me on the front of my interface in knob form. What do you do if the person being recorded asks to hear something different in his headphone mix? There are two phones outputs on my interface. Each one can be sent it's own mix comprised of any of the hardware inputs or DAW outputs. For simple mixes, an interface with a direct analog input monitor signal path and a pot that adjusts the balance between the input and the DAW playback works well most of the time. This is great for a single artist who's recording himself.Â* While an interface with a screen-driven monitor mix offers more flexibility which you might need some of the time, it also has the inconvenience of using a computer and mouse all of the time. I concede that physical faders are nicer to fiddle with than software faders. Then again, I can save a software mix to disk to be recalled with individual projects. I'm aware that some mixers can do that. I just decided I like getting to digital as soon as possible. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
In article , Tobiah wrote:
On 7/4/19 6:55 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Bob Simon wrote: I am getting ready to buy my first audio interface. With no digital record= ing experience, I need some advice on monitoring overdubs. I had been look= ing at the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface (connected to= my HP Spectre x360 with Thunderbolt 3) because it has especially low laten= cy in hopes that I would be able to monitor my live overdub tracks via the = DAW. However, Focusrite Tech Support suggested I get the USB version of th= e Clarett instead because there are problems with the Thunderbolt implement= ation on some Windows machines. Has anyone here tried to use Thunderbolt o= n the HP Spectre x360 - 13-ac076nr (Z4Z25UA)? Get a small cheap mixer for monitoring, so you don't have to monitor through the computer. Some interfaces have such a thing built in, but there is no reason not to just get a Mackie 1202 or something to have for the job, because someday you'll want it for something else anyway. I differ on this point. I had a 1402 in front of my audio interface for years. When I finally realized how to use the monitor mix in software I realized that the mixer was entirely superfluous. Some can't let go of the feel of faders, I get it, but that's really all a dedicated mixer has to offer given the software that comes with a well designed interface. Not all interfaces have an analogue monitor mix arrangement, though. Many do, and agreed that if you have it that you don't need an external mixer for that. Still it is a handy thing to have around. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Qs on Monitoring Overdubs and Choice of Audio Interface
On 6/07/2019 5:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/5/2019 12:59 PM, Tobiah wrote: All I ever adjusted with the mixer was the input gain, and that's available to me on the front of my interface in knob form. What do you do if the person being recorded asks to hear something different in his headphone mix? For simple mixes, an interface with a direct analog input monitor signal path and a pot that adjusts the balance between the input and the DAW playback works well most of the time. This is great for a single artist who's recording himself.Â* While an interface with a screen-driven monitor mix offers more flexibility which you might need some of the time, it also has the inconvenience of using a computer and mouse all of the time. Alternatively just listen to the 'monitor mix sans vocalist in question, and slip in ear-cup slightly off ear if necessary ! geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Live to ProTools... Interface choice? | Pro Audio | |||
Interesting choice for small monitoring speaker | Pro Audio | |||
ADAT, interface newbie questions | Pro Audio | |||
[Newbie] Playback latency, direct monitoring, tascam us-122 | Pro Audio | |||
[Newbie] Monitoring input signal | Pro Audio |