Avid delisted from NASDAQ

[Fran Guidry]

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2014/02/avid-maker-pro-tools-now-losing-money-faster-delisted-nasdaq/

So is ProTools still the "industry standard?"

Fran

[hank alrich]

Fran Guidry > wrote:

> http://createdigitalmusic.com/2014/02/avid-maker-pro-tools-now-losing-mone
> y-faster-delisted-nasdaq/
>
> So is ProTools still the "industry standard?"
>
> Fran

Yes, in terms of high-level market penetration, and especially at the
level where studio-to-studio compatibility is mandatory.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Luxey]

Don't know what to think.

Pro Tools may be a standard on some big industry/ corporate level. Hollywood maybe, those who have enough money to buy "total package", having 100s of tracks projects being moved from studio to studio,... Question here is, are there enough of those to cover all the costs and whishes for AVID?

On entry level, one that is making money for the rest of the DAW makers, people look for bang for the buck. Is PT delivering? If PT tried to deliver, would not that compromise their relationship with big guys?

Middle ground commercial studios, those I thought ceased to exist in late 90's to early 00's. How many has really left in business (Remember the crowd from R.A.P. 10-15 years ago?)? Are the loyal to PT (PT was not loyal to them, opted for higher ground clientele.)? Can they afford upgrades? Do they need it? If not, will PT provide support for older versions?

Regarding features and capabilities, there's no reason for anybody to even look at PT, isn't it? Compatibility? With/ for what? The interface one carries in his laptop. Outboard and I/o is all different everywhere. So the cheapest native version is good enough. Again, numbers. How many there are engineers, producers, musicians and their projects being sent by majors from studio to studio for this and that reason? Are there enough of those in demand, who can pose the rules and say I'll go/ come to work only if there's PT around?

I won't go about bloodsuckers, coming up promising if you give them money to re-record your thing on PT, based on bloodsucking deals and connections with bloodsucking local and national publishers. There are much more of those than I care to know.

[Scott Dorsey]

Fran Guidry > wrote:
>http://createdigitalmusic.com/2014/02/avid-maker-pro-tools-now-losing-money-faster-delisted-nasdaq/
>
>So is ProTools still the "industry standard?"

Yes, it seems that nearly every studio in the world has a pirated copy of it!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> Don't know what to think.
>
> Pro Tools may be a standard on some big industry/ corporate level.
> Hollywood maybe, those who have enough money to buy "total package",
> having 100s of tracks projects being moved from studio to studio,...
> Question here is, are there enough of those to cover all the costs and
> whishes for AVID?

Probably not, and that's not all. There is big trouble over in
film/video land, too, and along the same lines. App tied to proprietary
hardware, a model long since bypassed by competition that allows one to
choose third party hardware to assemble one's editing system. That's
where Avid's money has been.

That they weren't smart enough to integrate PT with Avid's editing
application also hasn't helped them.

They bought Sibelius and let go the developoment team, handing
development off to the Balkans, a move that resulted in loss of many
customers back to Finale..

There's a pretty long list of top-level managerial stupidity, and now
the alligator of competition is chewing on their butt.

> On entry level, one that is making money for the rest of the DAW makers,
> people look for bang for the buck. Is PT delivering? If PT tried to
> deliver, would not that compromise their relationship with big guys?

PT still works well, and they have allowed to work with third party
hardware. Trouble there is too little, too late, and a world of
competition which used that model from the gitgo. There is no reason for
the little guys to move to PT.

> Middle ground commercial studios, those I thought ceased to exist in late
> 90's to early 00's. How many has really left in business (Remember the
> crowd from R.A.P. 10-15 years ago?)? Are the loyal to PT (PT was not loyal
> to them, opted for higher ground clientele.)? Can they afford upgrades? Do
> they need it? If not, will PT provide support for older versions?

The mid-level is mostly gone, as in almost completely. A few important
outliers remain viable in some markets. Overall, that train jumped the
tracks a while ago and is now in the scrap yard.

> Regarding features and capabilities, there's no reason for anybody to even
> look at PT, isn't it? Compatibility? With/ for what?

PT has been the digital analog of the 2" 24 track, allowing one to move
sessions between facilities much more easily than if using seperate DAW
apps. At my level it mattered not, as PT facilities wanting overdubs
would send me WAV files that I'd load into Logic. That's easy and works
fine, but these were small projects, and there wold have been zero
compatibility between plugins, necessary for much larger projects.

> The interface one
> carries in his laptop. Outboard and I/o is all different everywhere. So
> the cheapest native version is good enough. Again, numbers. How many there
> are engineers, producers, musicians and their projects being sent by
> majors from studio to studio for this and that reason? Are there enough of
> those in demand, who can pose the rules and say I'll go/ come to work only
> if there's PT around?

Only at the top. There still is a top-level of incredibly capable
facilities, though fewer than before.

> I won't go about bloodsuckers, coming up promising if you give them money
>to re-record your thing on PT, based on bloodsucking deals and
>connections with bloodsucking local and national publishers. There are
>much more of those than I care to know.
>

When hardware progress will require me either to upgrade Logic or change
apps, I will move to Reaper. Those folks are onto something intelligent,
sensibly priced, with outstandingly responsive support.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/27/2014 10:16 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> PT still works well, and they have allowed to work with third party
> hardware. Trouble there is too little, too late, and a world of
> competition which used that model from the gitgo. There is no reason for
> the little guys to move to PT.

But the little guys want to work like the pros. And unless you're
satisfied with Garage Band or Reaper, buy an M-Audio interface and you
get a functional copy of Pro Tools thrown in. So why the heck not?

The real pros use the top of the line HDX systems and are, for the most
part, quite happy with the performance. With the DSP card, they get
sufficiently low monitor latency, they have decent hardware to choose
from, and they get all the bells and whistles - nobody uses all of
those, but there must be a somebody somewhere who finds each bell or
whistle really important for what they do.

From a business standpoint, Pro Tools is a pretty small part of Avid.
It's the video side of Avid, where they used to be top of the heap,
that's being swallowed up by less expensive and, for most users, equally
capable programs.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Nate Najar]

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:


>
> The real pros use the top of the line HDX systems and are, for the most
>
> part, quite happy with the performance. With the DSP card, they get
>
> sufficiently low monitor latency,

Aside from the fact that pro users have been using PT so long it is "what they know," this is the big reason why PT is the standard. And using a console or interface monitoring or any other number of workarounds can work, albeit a little kludgy, the PT way is the most elegant and more importantly, seamless.

Without tying hardware to software there's no way the other DAW's can do this either.

[geoff]

On 28/02/2014 6:37 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/27/2014 10:16 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>> PT still works well, and they have allowed to work with third party
>> hardware. Trouble there is too little, too late, and a world of
>> competition which used that model from the gitgo. There is no reason for
>> the little guys to move to PT.
>
> But the little guys want to work like the pros. And unless you're
> satisfied with Garage Band or Reaper, buy an M-Audio interface and you
> get a functional copy of Pro Tools thrown in. So why the heck not?

Cos Reaper is better !

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/27/2014 11:43 PM, geoff wrote:

>> But the little guys want to work like the pros. And unless you're
>> satisfied with Garage Band or Reaper, buy an M-Audio interface and you
>> get a functional copy of Pro Tools thrown in. So why the heck not?

> Cos Reaper is better !

Better is relative. It depends on what you want. Certainly Reaper is a
better deal for the money if you're buying software and hardware
separately, but when you buy Reaper, you're buying into a constantly
developing product. Sure, you can keep the same version for a year or
two (I have) but it's always being changed, and the "community" keeps up
with the changes. If you ask on a forum about how to do something in an
older version, the first response will almost certainly be, or at least
contain "get the latest upgrade."

One good thing about Reaper upgrades is that historically they don't
break things. I can't say that about Pro Tools over its history. But Pro
Tools' version of "break things" is that the plug-ins that you bought
last year don't run on this year's version, or the projects you recorded
five years ago won't open with this years version.

And some people only know Pro Tools and don't want to study the
alternatives. Hasn't anyone ever asked you "What Pro Tools do you use?"
- not meaning what version, but are you using Pro Tools, or Cakewalk, or
Cubase or Studio One or Reaper or Logic (without knowing at least some
of those names).

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

>
>
> One good thing about Reaper upgrades is that historically they don't
>
> break things. I can't say that about Pro Tools over its history. But Pro
>
> Tools' version of "break things" is that the plug-ins that you bought
>
> last year don't run on this year's version, or the projects you recorded
>
> five years ago won't open with this years version.


So let me ask a question of clarification.

I thought all these DAWs store the AUDIO as standard wave files and as such are totally compatible with each other in the sense that the individual audio tracks can always be transferred from one DAW to another as a wave file.

So when you speak of compatibility issues are you taking about things like the fader automation EQ settings etc and edits cuts etc etc i.e. details of the mix? or ?

Mark


>
>

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>I thought all these DAWs store the AUDIO as standard wave files and as such are totally compatible with each other in the sense that the individual audio tracks can always be transferred from one DAW to another as a wave file.

All of these DAWs can export the audio to standard .wav files so you can take
them to other studios. But the internal project files are proprietary formats.

>So when you speak of compatibility issues are you taking about things like the fader automation EQ settings etc and edits cuts etc etc i.e. details of the mix? or ?

All of those things are in the project files, but until you do an export the
audio is in the project files as well. So if you have a project that is in
Pro Tools format you either need to take it to another studio running Pro Tools
or to a studio that has the utilities to extract the stuff you want out of
the project files.

Pro Tools format, though, has become the 24-track 2" of the 21st century;
it's a common format that everybody expects to deal with for project
interchange. So consequently most studios can deal with it in some way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/28/2014 8:59 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/27/2014 11:43 PM, geoff wrote:
>
>>> But the little guys want to work like the pros. And unless you're
>>> satisfied with Garage Band or Reaper, buy an M-Audio interface and you
>>> get a functional copy of Pro Tools thrown in. So why the heck not?
>
>> Cos Reaper is better !
>
> Better is relative. It depends on what you want. Certainly Reaper is a better
> deal for the money if you're buying software and hardware separately, but when
> you buy Reaper, you're buying into a constantly developing product. Sure, you
> can keep the same version for a year or two (I have) but it's always being
> changed, and the "community" keeps up with the changes. If you ask on a forum
> about how to do something in an older version, the first response will almost
> certainly be, or at least contain "get the latest upgrade."
>
> One good thing about Reaper upgrades is that historically they don't break
> things. I can't say that about Pro Tools over its history. But Pro Tools'
> version of "break things" is that the plug-ins that you bought last year don't
> run on this year's version, or the projects you recorded five years ago won't
> open with this years version.
>
> And some people only know Pro Tools and don't want to study the alternatives.
> Hasn't anyone ever asked you "What Pro Tools do you use?" - not meaning what
> version, but are you using Pro Tools, or Cakewalk, or Cubase or Studio One or
> Reaper or Logic (without knowing at least some of those names).
>

What Mike said.

The "upgrade to the latest version" is particularly annoying and avoids the
question. I'm still using Adobe Audition 1.5 and like it so much that I'm going
to dedicate a quad core XP computer to it. It runs under 7, but I don't see any
benefit from doing so. It will be a computer with a dedicated function. They're
really cheap, so why not?

[Neil Gould]

wrote:
>> One good thing about Reaper upgrades is that historically they don't
>>
>> break things. I can't say that about Pro Tools over its history. But
>> Pro
>>
>> Tools' version of "break things" is that the plug-ins that you bought
>>
>> last year don't run on this year's version, or the projects you
>> recorded
>>
>> five years ago won't open with this years version.
>
>
> So let me ask a question of clarification.
>
> I thought all these DAWs store the AUDIO as standard wave files and
> as such are totally compatible with each other in the sense that the
> individual audio tracks can always be transferred from one DAW to
> another as a wave file.
>
> So when you speak of compatibility issues are you taking about things
> like the fader automation EQ settings etc and edits cuts etc etc
> i.e. details of the mix? or ?
>
These are the proprietary factors that make a project portable from one
studio to another. Having WAV files is less convenient, because any
processing work would have to be reproducted, which means spending money on
duplicative tasks.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Bill[_20_]]

In message >, mcp6453
> writes
>The "upgrade to the latest version" is particularly annoying and avoids
>the question. I'm still using Adobe Audition 1.5 and like it so much
>that I'm going to dedicate a quad core XP computer to it. It runs under
>7, but I don't see any benefit from doing so. It will be a computer
>with a dedicated function. They're really cheap, so why not?

If I remember right (and I have trouble even remembering wrong) I don't
think Audition 1.5 uses more than one core, and are you not at the mercy
of the inbuilt Windows audio code?

Audition 3 sits side by side with 1.5 here so that I can take advantage
of different audio interfaces.
--
Bill

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/28/2014 3:26 PM, Bill wrote:
> In message >, mcp6453
> > writes
>> The "upgrade to the latest version" is particularly annoying and avoids the
>> question. I'm still using Adobe Audition 1.5 and like it so much that I'm
>> going to dedicate a quad core XP computer to it. It runs under 7, but I don't
>> see any benefit from doing so. It will be a computer with a dedicated
>> function. They're really cheap, so why not?
>
> If I remember right (and I have trouble even remembering wrong) I don't think
> Audition 1.5 uses more than one core, and are you not at the mercy of the
> inbuilt Windows audio code?
>
> Audition 3 sits side by side with 1.5 here so that I can take advantage of
> different audio interfaces.

The reason I'm putting it on a quad core computer is it's the fastest one I have
that I'm not currently using. I seriously doubt the extra cores will matter to
Audition.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/28/2014 12:28 PM, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

> Please excuse my ignorance, but I fail to see how console monitoring
> can be considered a workaround, let alone a kludgy one. After all,
> isn't that how it was done in the days of tape? Am I mistaken, or
> wouldn't there be some folks out there for whom monitoring from the
> console is just how it's done?

It's how I do it. But remember, there's a generation, maybe two by now,
who have only experienced computer-based recording. They don't have a
console, they don't have room for a console, and they don't want any
part of their recording chain to go through that nasty, noisy, distorted
analog signal path.

I think that a console is essential in a studio. The fact that most DAWs
try to emulate it on the computer screen is a nice try, but it's just
not like working with the real thing. You can have a true no-latency
input monitoring path, you have all the buttons for routing and
switching, and you have real knobs when you want them. I'll grant that
with the availability of volume envelope curves and the structure of a
lot of modern music, a full set of faders may not be necessary, but it
just looks and feels right.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/28/2014 10:06 AM, wrote:
> I thought all these DAWs store the AUDIO as standard wave files and
> as such are totally compatible with each other in the sense that the
> individual audio tracks can always be transferred from one DAW to
> another as a wave file.
>
> So when you speak of compatibility issues are you taking about things
> like the fader automation EQ settings etc and edits cuts etc etc
> i.e. details of the mix? or ?

Yup. That's where the fun starts. You can indeed import audio recorded
on one DAW into just about any other DAW, and with proper broadcast wave
files, the pieces will come out in the proper time relationship. But
what isn't transportable from one DAW to another is mix, edit, and
signal processing information unless you render the files first and
commit the tracks to coming into the new DAW as you heard them in the
original DAW.

If you decide that an edit isn't correct, or you want different EQ or
different settings on a compressor, you need to go back to the original
unprocessed audio and do the job over again in the current DAW. If it's
simple and there isn't much rework, it's not big deal, but the current
DAW modus operandi is to not commit any decisions until the last
possible moment, but to save all the interim work in case it's OK.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Nate Najar]

I was referring to console monitoring in the DAW world as kludgy because you have to monitor the input, not the return path. With a tape machine, you can monitor the returns (with radar too!) so your input monitoring is based on how you set it at the machine. This way your monitor and playback paths are the same sound. It also facilitates punching in because on playback, when not engaged in erected, you can hear only the play back until you drop into record and then you hear the live input. If you monitor the input off a console before going to the DAW then you hear both the input signal and the playback until you drop into record and that's a little wacky.

PT systems operate like an old style console and tape machine in this regard.

[jason]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:55:11 -0500 "mcp6453" > wrote in
article >
>

>
> The reason I'm putting it on a quad core computer is it's the fastest one I have
> that I'm not currently using. I seriously doubt the extra cores will matter to
> Audition.

The latest versions of Audition will use multiple cores. I don't know how
often that actually comes into play, but I've watched the Win Task
Manager graph while applying a string of effects and all the cores are
definitely being used.

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar > wrote:

> With a tape machine, you can monitor the returns (with radar too!) so your
>input monitoring is based on how you set it at the machine.
>

You monitor from the sync output from the record head, and depending on
how particuar from wishes to be, the sound is nearly but not exactly
identical to that form the playback head.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:35:56 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article >):

> I think that a console is essential in a studio. The fact that most DAWs
> try to emulate it on the computer screen is a nice try, but it's just
> not like working with the real thing. You can have a true no-latency
> input monitoring path, you have all the buttons for routing and
> switching, and you have real knobs when you want them. I'll grant that
> with the availability of volume envelope curves and the structure of a
> lot of modern music, a full set of faders may not be necessary, but it
> just looks and feels right.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

I agree. And Avid makes lots and lots of consoles that function as hardware
console emulators, big and small:

http://www.avid.com/US/categories/Control-Surfaces-Consoles

http://www.avid.com/US/products/avid-S6

http://www.avid.com/US/products/avid-system-5

http://www.avid.com/US/products/Artist-Control


I don't know of a mid-sized or large-sized recording studio in all of LA that
doesn't have some kind of console in the room used concurrently with Pro
Tools. And most of them are mixing in the box, using the console just to
control Pro Tools.

As to Avid being delisted: I suspect we'll see some interesting activity at
NAB. My guess is that they're going to have to cut software prices to remain
competitive. But I think most of their problems center around Avid video
editing, not around Pro Tools per se.

--MFW

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Bill wrote:

> In message >, mcp6453
> > writes

>> The "upgrade to the latest version" is particularly annoying and
>> avoids the question. I'm still using Adobe Audition 1.5 and like it
>> so much that I'm going to dedicate a quad core XP computer to it. It
>> runs under 7, but I don't see any benefit from doing so. It will be
>> a computer with a dedicated function. They're really cheap, so why
>> not?

> If I remember right (and I have trouble even remembering wrong) I
> don't think Audition 1.5 uses more than one core,

There will be use of more than one core, at least for io and diskoperations
and probably also for dll's, ie. plug ins.

and are you not at
> the mercy of the inbuilt Windows audio code?

Audition 1.5 has a very well sounding playback engine, 3 has a different
sounding but also very well sounding engine, I think I had an email answer
to why they stopped supporting rdp-audio properly explaining that they had
used the audio playback engine from Premiere in 3.

> Audition 3 sits side by side with 1.5 here so that I can take
> advantage of different audio interfaces.

The larger snag with both of them is their inability to assume that a
computer has more than 2 gigabyte physical ram leading to random buffer
resets because they "mother your ram use". A 1 gigabyte buffer otherwise
works great, but some of the time it gets reset when you hit F4 to adjust
crossfade-action.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Luxey]

субота, 01. март 2014. 07..33.57 UTC+1, Peter Larsen је написао/ла:
> Bill wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message >, mcp6453
>
> > > writes
>
>
>
> >> The "upgrade to the latest version" is particularly annoying and
>
> >> avoids the question. I'm still using Adobe Audition 1.5 and like it
>
> >> so much that I'm going to dedicate a quad core XP computer to it. It
>
> >> runs under 7, but I don't see any benefit from doing so. It will be
>
> >> a computer with a dedicated function. They're really cheap, so why
>
> >> not?
>
>
>
> > If I remember right (and I have trouble even remembering wrong) I
>
> > don't think Audition 1.5 uses more than one core,
>
>
>
> There will be use of more than one core, at least for io and diskoperations
>
> and probably also for dll's, ie. plug ins.
>
>
>
> and are you not at
>
> > the mercy of the inbuilt Windows audio code?
>
>
>
> Audition 1.5 has a very well sounding playback engine, 3 has a different
>
> sounding but also very well sounding engine, I think I had an email answer
>
> to why they stopped supporting rdp-audio properly explaining that they had
>
> used the audio playback engine from Premiere in 3.
>
>
>
> > Audition 3 sits side by side with 1.5 here so that I can take
>
> > advantage of different audio interfaces.
>
>
>
> The larger snag with both of them is their inability to assume that a
>
> computer has more than 2 gigabyte physical ram leading to random buffer
>
> resets because they "mother your ram use". A 1 gigabyte buffer otherwise
>
> works great, but some of the time it gets reset when you hit F4 to adjust
>
> crossfade-action.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Peter Larsen

BTW, at least in W7 64bit, you can dedicate processes to cores, i.e. you can specifically set which process to be done by which core(s).

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/28/2014 9:20 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> I was referring to console monitoring in the DAW world as kludgy
> because you have to monitor the input, not the return path. With a
> tape machine, you can monitor the returns (with radar too!) so your
> input monitoring is based on how you set it at the machine. This way
> your monitor and playback paths are the same sound.

That's how it worked with multitrack tape decks and consoles. The reason
why it worked was because tape decks have relays in them which, when in
input mode or recording in auto monitor mode, switch the track input
directly to the track output. There's nothing in the path to cause the
input signal to be delayed in the monitor mix.

In a DAW, any DAW, there's no such relay. There could be, but cheap is
important. The input source (say a mic preamp) goes through an A/D
converter, through some sort of digital mixer, through an A/D converter
and out to the headphones or monitor speakers. Much progress has been
made in reducing the delay through all those digital manipulations, but
it's always there, it's finite, it can be measured, and in many cases,
can be noticed.

An HD system does all of this on its own card so the computer isn't
involved in the input monitoring path and the delay is generally less
than 1 millisecond. On a simpler system, mixing is done in the computer
itself and the minimum delay is limited by how large a buffer you need
in order to keep playback or recording from stuttering. It's rarely less
than 3 ms actual time (which is not the same number of milliseconds that
you set the buffer for).

Now a 1 ms delay in the headphones isn't going to affect your guitar
playing, but where this is a problem is with a singer or speaker. In
that case, your voice gets to your ear drum via two paths - one the
natural one through your head and the other arriving through the
headphones. When these are close enough together in timing and
amplitude, you'll hear your voice through a comb filter - it just won't
sound natural. Many people never notice this either because they just
don't care or because they have the vocal in the headphones loud enough
so that it swamps out the natural sound and the comb filtering notches
aren't deep enough to be bothersome. But for singers who don't like a
lot of level in the headphones (they tend to sing more in tune that way)
it's often noticeable and bothersome.

The solution, with a console, is to monitor the the DAW output minus the
input, and add the direct input (from the console's mic input or
external mic preamp into a line input) into the monitor mix. The singer
hears himself with no delay. The automatic delay compensation in the DAW
takes care of placing the new recording so that it will be in sync with
the tracks that were monitored during the overdub.

The kludge is in making that happen. Since the DAW has no way of running
the input of the A/D converter directly to the monitor output (summing
it with the A/D converter through which the DAW mix is playing) you have
to do that by pushing the right buttons. You need to mute the output of
the track you're recording so it won't go into the monitor mix, and turn
the mic input up on the console to put that source back into the monitor
mix. Then when you play back the recording, you need to remember to
un-mute the track you just recorded, and add it into the mix.

Pro Tools, and most other DAWs, emulate the tape deck monitoring mode by
sending the source for the track you're recording directly to the track
output (and DAW mixer if that's how you're mixing) but that's too late.
In order to do that, it needed to go through an A/D converter, a DSP
mixer if you're making your monitor mix in the box, and then back out
through an A/D converter to get to the headphones - and there you have
the input source heading for your eardrums through the dreaded 0.5 to 2
ms delay.

"Zero latency monitoring" only works for large values of zero.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/1/2014 1:02 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

> I agree. And Avid makes lots and lots of consoles that function as hardware
> console emulators, big and small:

Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
monitor path. Mackie had it right with the original HUI - it had a
couple of decent mic preamps and a direct analog path from input to
output, plus a stereo input for the DAW mix. All you had to do was
remember to mute and un-mute the track on which you're recording.

The $300 PreSonus 44VSL interface offers a direct hardware monitoring
option. It's not very flexible, but it works. There's a fixed gain mixer
that sums the four inputs and that goes to one side of a "balance" pot.
The other side of the pot is fed from the DAW mix. You mute the track
you're recording on and you can adjust the level of the source that goes
to the headphone by adjusting the balance between the source and the DAW
mix. A couple of Focusrite interfaces that I've reviewed have
astoundingly low delay in the monitoring path and their DSP mixers are
quite suitable for monitoring a vocal with no noticeable comb filtering.

However, when I'm using Pro Tools Native (which is all I have, thank
you) or Reaper, or Studio One, and I'm using a "normal" A/D converter
like with my Lynx L22 sound card or Mackie Onyx mixer, either have to
monitor externally or accept the input delay in the headphones resulting
from mixing in the box. The Onyx is simple for this, and in fact, since
I rarely have a project that involves more than 16 tracks, I usually
send the tracks directly back to the mixer and just use the computer as
a recorder. But I still have to manually mute/un-mute the track I'm
recording if I want no latency in the input monitor path.

The thing that DAW programmers need to give us is an additional monitor
option that allows for an external input monitoring path for those who
can provide it. This would work like the "auto-input" monitoring on a
tape deck or DAW except that instead of sending the input to the output,
it simply mutes the track output when recording.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>I was referring to console monitoring in the DAW world as kludgy because yo=
>u have to monitor the input, not the return path.

But you don't, you can have both the inputs and the outputs to the DAW
going into the console, so you have zero latency monitoring off the mikes
while still being able to hear the other tracks you're overdubbing from
the returns. Easier with an inline than a side-by-side though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/1/2014 6:58 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me) wrote:

> The solution, with a console, is to monitor the the DAW output minus the
> input, and add the direct input (from the console's mic input or
> external mic preamp into a line input) into the monitor mix. The singer
> hears himself with no delay. The automatic delay compensation in the DAW
> takes care of placing the new recording so that it will be in sync with
> the tracks that were monitored during the overdub.

> The kludge is in making that happen.

> Pro Tools, and most other DAWs, emulate the tape deck monitoring mode by
> sending the source for the track you're recording directly to the track
> output (and DAW mixer if that's how you're mixing) but that's too late.

And over in another forum, Nate pointed out that in Reaper, you can turn
Input Monitoring off on a track during recording and it does exactly
what I want it to do. I was aware of the various options for monitoring,
but there's one labeled "Input Monitor" which, when you don't check it,
doesn't send the input to the track output. All I needed to do was turn
off everything (including "tape auto style" and even with the track
still armed, what was recorded will play back, so you only have to
remember to un-arm the track before recording the next one if you don't
want to have to un-do what you didn't intend to do.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 2/03/2014 1:12 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/1/2014 1:02 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>> I agree. And Avid makes lots and lots of consoles that function as
>> hardware
>> console emulators, big and small:
>
> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
> monitor path.


Just like moving yer head a few inches !


geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>> monitor path.
>
>
> Just like moving yer head a few inches !

A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.

Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
to tweak before you can tweak it. When you're basically mixing cues,
this is fine because you can have everything preset. But when doing an
active mix, particularly with acoustic instruments on mics, I find that
it takes too long to make adjustments.

That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
> >> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
> >> monitor path.
> >
> >
> > Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>
> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.

Yep.

> Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
> one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
> to tweak before you can tweak it. When you're basically mixing cues,
> this is fine because you can have everything preset. But when doing an
> active mix, particularly with acoustic instruments on mics, I find that
> it takes too long to make adjustments.

Actually, it's about familiarity with the console. My team of youngsters
driving the Presonus at the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar get around it
quickly. Once they've dialed-in any EQ or dynamics needed it's back to a
bank of faders controlling levels.

> That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.

No, but the lack of foresight that has enabled them to fail to integrate
PT with Avid's video editing app might be.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
>> one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
>> to tweak before you can tweak it. When you're basically mixing cues,
>> this is fine because you can have everything preset. But when doing an
>> active mix, particularly with acoustic instruments on mics, I find that
>> it takes too long to make adjustments.
>
>Actually, it's about familiarity with the console. My team of youngsters
>driving the Presonus at the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar get around it
>quickly. Once they've dialed-in any EQ or dynamics needed it's back to a
>bank of faders controlling levels.

I do, like Mike, much prefer having one control per function rather than
have to page through a million menus to find things.

But, if you have to use a menued system, the Presonus seems a whole lot
faster and easier to use than the Tascam and Yamaha systems to me. The
layout seems more intuitive but there are fewer steps needed to get where
you want to go even if you know where it is.

One problem with the Presonus, though, is that you need to be able to see
the markings on the console as well as the display, and that means you need
to have a console light. Even if you know where the controls are intuitively.

Now, that said, I haven't used the new Midas digital consoles which people
keep assuring me have a better UI than anything else today.

>> That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.
>
>No, but the lack of foresight that has enabled them to fail to integrate
>PT with Avid's video editing app might be.

I think that was deliberate, I think they have been trying to keep the two
markets apart.

But in the case of PT itself, I think that piracy has been eating heavily
into things in a way that was not happening before PT9.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/2/2014 10:06 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>> Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
>> >one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
>> >to tweak before you can tweak it.

> Actually, it's about familiarity with the console. My team of youngsters
> driving the Presonus at the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar get around it
> quickly. Once they've dialed-in any EQ or dynamics needed it's back to a
> bank of faders controlling levels.

That's probably because they're youngsters. I find, particularly when
working festivals which is what I mostly do these days, that there's no
such thing as "dialing in" EQ. Something's always changing.

>> >That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.

> No, but the lack of foresight that has enabled them to fail to integrate
> PT with Avid's video editing app might be.

Is that the problem? Seems like the most dyed-in-the-wool Avid-vocates
sing Pro Tools' praises when working in video post. But when you read
the fine print, it's mostly about how much capability can be packed into
a small size. They don't need a warehouse sized studio to do complex
post work any more.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/2/2014 10:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Now, that said, I haven't used the new Midas digital consoles which people
> keep assuring me have a better UI than anything else today.

That could well be the case. I had a look at one at the NAMM show and it
looks pretty sensible. The software is pretty much the Behringer X32 but
they did some rework on the user interface to make it more familiar to
live sound engineers.

> But in the case of PT itself, I think that piracy has been eating heavily
> into things in a way that was not happening before PT9.

It still uses the iLok. Are people busting those now? It's only worth
trying to hack for the $600 version, though. If you want to take the
next step up, you have to buy at least one piece of their hardware.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 3/2/2014 10:06 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>
>> No, but the lack of foresight that has enabled them to fail to integrate
>> PT with Avid's video editing app might be.
>
>Is that the problem? Seems like the most dyed-in-the-wool Avid-vocates
>sing Pro Tools' praises when working in video post. But when you read
>the fine print, it's mostly about how much capability can be packed into
>a small size. They don't need a warehouse sized studio to do complex
>post work any more.

No, the problem is that Avid specializes in making high end tools for a
high end production market, and that market just isn't very big and it's
getting smaller every day.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 3/2/2014 10:06 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> >> Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
> >> >one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
> >> >to tweak before you can tweak it.
>
> > Actually, it's about familiarity with the console. My team of youngsters
> > driving the Presonus at the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar get around it
> > quickly. Once they've dialed-in any EQ or dynamics needed it's back to a
> > bank of faders controlling levels.
>
> That's probably because they're youngsters. I find, particularly when
> working festivals which is what I mostly do these days, that there's no
> such thing as "dialing in" EQ. Something's always changing.

We have the advantage of well-seasoned, excellent performers, so in
general settings remain pretty stable through a couple of sets, which is
the format.

I do well understand the other side of that coin. That flipside can
often be a considerable challenge. A dearth of knowledge about sound
doesn't keep some folks from thinking they know about sound. A lack of
attention paid to minor details such as how to use a microphone,
sometimes for years or decades, results in open mouths with closed
minds. Teaching pigs to sing would be a cakewolk in comparision to
getting proper information into heads that think the way they've always
done it is the way to do it.

> >> >That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.
>
> > No, but the lack of foresight that has enabled them to fail to integrate
> > PT with Avid's video editing app might be.
>
> Is that the problem? Seems like the most dyed-in-the-wool Avid-vocates
> sing Pro Tools' praises when working in video post. But when you read
> the fine print, it's mostly about how much capability can be packed into
> a small size. They don't need a warehouse sized studio to do complex
> post work any more.

It's only one of the problems, but part of the problem package.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>>> monitor path.
>>
>>
>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>
> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.

Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).

But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable. Of course you
bneed a powerful cpu(etc) to able able to achive that latency when you
load up a project with hungry plug-ins, but that's more often in 'post'
rather than tracking.

I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>>> monitor path.
>>
>>
>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>
> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.
>

Geez, I live with 10-ish msec latency on headphones. Maybe that's just
me. It has never bothered me.

> Another objection that I have to using digital consoles is a functional
> one. They don't have all the buttons so you have to select that you want
> to tweak before you can tweak it.

Yep. they're for, basically, church sound type things where you can
learn the performers and use the scene-save stuff for leverage.

> When you're basically mixing cues,
> this is fine because you can have everything preset. But when doing an
> active mix, particularly with acoustic instruments on mics, I find that
> it takes too long to make adjustments.
>

No doubt.

> That's not a reason for Avid to go out of business, though.
>

Overleverege is a better reason.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>>>> monitor path.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>>
>> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
>> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
>> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
>> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.
>
> Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
> monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).
>

Even the cheap ones - although you lose EQ and time based f/x.

> But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
> imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable. Of course you
> bneed a powerful cpu(etc) to able able to achive that latency when you
> load up a project with hungry plug-ins, but that's more often in 'post'
> rather than tracking.
>

It's easy to find one powerful enough these days. About any $400 desktop
or $1k laptop ....

> I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
> concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....

10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.

>
> geoff

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> geoff wrote:
> > On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
> >>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
> >>>> monitor path.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
> >>
> >> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
> >> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
> >> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
> >> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.
> >
> > Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
> > monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).
> >
>
> Even the cheap ones - although you lose EQ and time based f/x.
>
> > But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
> > imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable. Of course you
> > bneed a powerful cpu(etc) to able able to achive that latency when you
> > load up a project with hungry plug-ins, but that's more often in 'post'
> > rather than tracking.
> >
>
> It's easy to find one powerful enough these days. About any $400 desktop
> or $1k laptop ....
>
> > I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
> > concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....
>
> 10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.
>
> >
> > geoff

Over at PRW there are several threads about this. In one of them the
description of what's being done shows why some folks are invested in
the very best that Avid/PT offers. Many simultaneous tracks, band on the
floor live, some players isolated, lots of plugs being monitored in real
time, individual 'phone mixes, etc. Lots of money at stake at that
level, and every minute counts.

Losing EQ and time based effects in those settings is not a viable
option.

Then there are comparisons of what an early Digi PT system offered for
how much money compared to the alternatives available at the time. Ten
grand was peanuts in comparision.

There are still people running very many dozens of tracks at mixdown,
handling huge overdub sessions, where latency in a headphone feed just
won't cut it.

Tools for schools. It's not something I need but I well understand why
some folks do.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think that was deliberate, I think they have been trying to keep the two
> markets apart.
>

That acquisition looked like they intended to operate it. As with all
M&A, there was probably debt assigned to the thing acquired.

They could possibly spin PT off. Dunno.

> But in the case of PT itself, I think that piracy has been eating heavily
> into things in a way that was not happening before PT9.
> --scott
>

Really? I rather doubt they could measure it, frankly. You have to know
how many sales would actually be displaced by piracy. Same problem with
CDs - it's completely different actually buying a CD from a store and
downloading it. People will download anything.

There are too many Reaper-class packages that fit the home market
better - or even the small storefront market. One place I know of
used SONAR and RADAR. That might have been for pun.

Nobody much on the 4-track newsgroup used PT - 10 years ago.
Roland/Yamaha standalones yes ( when those still made sense ).

The only PT shops I've run into ( outside of people buying
them and allowing to collect dust ) were the Audities place
and a place that also had an SSL in Orlando, that was also bragging
about its mic locker full of mediocre stuff. The Audities has
gone much more analog ( they got Strawberry Sudio's Helios and a couple
of Stephens) , and the place in Orlando didn't make sense to me to start
with. I just knew about them because some people wanted me to mix
some tracks from there.

But I'm a lousy sample size.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 3/03/2014 2:24 p.m., hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>>>>>> monitor path.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>>>>
>>>> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
>>>> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
>>>> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
>>>> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.
>>>
>>> Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
>>> monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).
>>>
>>
>> Even the cheap ones - although you lose EQ and time based f/x.
>>
>>> But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
>>> imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable. Of course you
>>> bneed a powerful cpu(etc) to able able to achive that latency when you
>>> load up a project with hungry plug-ins, but that's more often in 'post'
>>> rather than tracking.
>>>
>>
>> It's easy to find one powerful enough these days. About any $400 desktop
>> or $1k laptop ....
>>
>>> I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
>>> concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....
>>
>> 10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.
>>
>>>
>>> geoff
>
> Over at PRW there are several threads about this. In one of them the
> description of what's being done shows why some folks are invested in
> the very best that Avid/PT offers. Many simultaneous tracks, band on the
> floor live, some players isolated, lots of plugs being monitored in real
> time, individual 'phone mixes, etc. Lots of money at stake at that
> level, and every minute counts.
>
> Losing EQ and time based effects in those settings is not a viable
> option.

He meant in the actual monitored signal - not in everything else !

>
> There are still people running very many dozens of tracks at mixdown,
> handling huge overdub sessions, where latency in a headphone feed just
> won't cut it.

No need to have any latency at all in the headphones with zlm, and even
with monitoring thru the application one can easily have a huge project
running and still maintain settings that give minute (that's "very
little", not 60 seconds !) latency.

What amount of latency have you found to cause a problem - 1ms, 5ms,
10ms, 50ms ? Or it is just the suggestion that there might be some ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/2/2014 3:03 PM, geoff wrote:

On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
>> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
>> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.

> Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
> monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).

Depends on your perception of "zero" and "good" is. The less expensive
interfaces like the PreSonus 44VSL or TASCAM US-122 series have direct
analog input monitoring available. The Focusrite Scarlett series has a
DSP mixer for monitoring, and get down below 1 ms. Their top of the line
small interface, the Forte, has mic-to-headphones delay of around 0.1 ms
at 96 kHz sample rate. I don't know what the actual number are with a
Digidesign/Avid hardware setup. They've never given me one to measure
and all their supporters say that latency is no problem, but a lot of
people with all sorts of setups say that.

> But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
> imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable.

It depends on what you're doing. If you're playing a guitar or a horn,
maybe a piano, you clearly won't notice a 5 ms delay - though be aware
that if you set a buffer for "5 ms" that doesn't mean that your latency
is 5 ms. It's going to be greater than that, maybe as much as double
that. Some DAWs report latency numbers and they tend to be pretty close
to the actual latency. They usually have the buffer settings in samples
rather than milliseconds so people won't quote a bogus number.

> I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
> concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....

I measured a PreSonus StudioLive at around 1.3 ms. I found this to be
very noticeable as a comb filter on my own voice when listening on
headphones. But many people use these mixers with in-ear monitors and
nobody complains. They're probably turning their own vocal up too loud
in their ears.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/2/2014 8:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> 10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.

Try this:

Connect a mic to an input, send it to headphones, and put on the
headphones.
Turn the headphone volume all the way off
Speak into the mic and start turning the headphone volume up

You'll find a range where you're hearing the comb filter effect start to
come in, and then when you get the headphone level up high enough, it
will go away.

Chances are it won't be way too loud when the comb filtering isn't
enough to be bothersome, but for some singers who don't want a lot of
headphone volume, it is. So, sure, there will be many people who never
notice, or just don't care what their voice sounds like in the
headphones as long as they can hear it. But a recording or headphone
monitoring system shouldn't have a problem built-in that can only be
fixed by making the performer uncomfortable in one way (odd sounding
voice) or another (too loud).



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/3/2014 12:42 AM, geoff wrote:

> What amount of latency have you found to cause a problem - 1ms, 5ms,
> 10ms, 50ms ? Or it is just the suggestion that there might be some ?

In the case of a singer listening to his own voice, 0.5 to 3 ms is the
range where the comb filtering is most noticeable. If the latency is 5
ms or greater, the frequencies that are cancelled are low enough so that
they tend not to be bothersome. When you get into the range of 20 ms or
later, that can start to affect timing or "groove."

So given that a well tuned system may have around 5 ms of monitoring
latency, it may not be noticeable most of the time. But that doesn't
mean it's not a problem that can't or shouldn't be solved.

I remember maybe a dozen years ago in a discussion about latency, Bob
Olhsson wrote that some Nashville producers were having more trouble
getting a good performance out singers with a DAW than when working with
a real console. It's just another data point, and with all the really
high end studios working with high profile artists using their Pro Tools
HD(X) systems, either they've become used to it or it really isn't a
problem. But people using as little hardware as they can get away with
(or all they can afford) may still have a problem sometimes.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/2/2014 10:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> No, the problem is that Avid specializes in making high end tools for a
> high end production market, and that market just isn't very big and it's
> getting smaller every day.

They were on a good path to deal with that. The high volume but lower
budget users had access to a version of Pro Tools bundled with their
M-Audio hardware (and before that, the LE systems from Digidesign) that
was compatible with the systems that big studios were buying., This
allowed the low budget user to do some work at home, then move to a
higher priced facility when only that would do. It was still more
expensive than using Cakewalk with the computer's built-in sound card,
but it was pro tools.

I guess they just couldn't figure out how to sell to a class of users
that aren't on the path to continue to spend more money upgrading their
system with more proprietary hardware and software as they progress.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 3/2/2014 10:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> No, the problem is that Avid specializes in making high end tools for a
>> high end production market, and that market just isn't very big and it's
>> getting smaller every day.
>
>They were on a good path to deal with that. The high volume but lower
>budget users had access to a version of Pro Tools bundled with their
>M-Audio hardware (and before that, the LE systems from Digidesign) that
>was compatible with the systems that big studios were buying., This
>allowed the low budget user to do some work at home, then move to a
>higher priced facility when only that would do. It was still more
>expensive than using Cakewalk with the computer's built-in sound card,
>but it was pro tools.

Indeed, they did this very well with Pro Tools. Not quite so well with
the film editing stuff which is their major cash cow, though.

Which is ironic seeing that Apple made a mess of Final Cut in an attempt
to court novice users at the expense of feature production, giving Avid
a huge opportunity to take away their installed base of users.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 4/03/2014 1:37 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/2/2014 3:03 PM, geoff wrote:
..
>
> I measured a PreSonus StudioLive at around 1.3 ms. I found this to be
> very noticeable as a comb filter on my own voice when listening on
> headphones. But many people use these mixers with in-ear monitors and
> nobody complains.


You sure you were hearing comb-filtering, or just noticing that your
voice sounds different through 'phones than it does through the air,
around your head, and bone-bourne ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/3/2014 2:47 PM, geoff wrote:

> You sure you were hearing comb-filtering, or just noticing that your
> voice sounds different through 'phones than it does through the air,
> around your head, and bone-bourne ?

Definitely comb filtering. Conducting the same experiment with an analog
mixer is completely different and more likeable. But remember the
conditions - own voice, and with the headphone volume at the proper
"wrong" level. It's also different for different people since our
"natural" aural paths aren't all the same. Rock singers probably don't
have this problem. Narrators predictably will. Folksingers are fifty-fifty.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/03/2014 12:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2014 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah, but they're still digital and they still introduce a delay in the
>>>>>> monitor path.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like moving yer head a few inches !
>>>>
>>>> A major misconception. Read the article about latency on my web page.
>>>> It's true that a couple of milliseconds of latency doesn't matter much
>>>> in a basic live sound setup, but as more people, particularly vocalists,
>>>> move toward in-ear monitoring, latency can cause a problem.
>>>
>>> Which is why, in recording scenarios at least, you use the zero-latency
>>> monitoring direct from the interface (good ones offer it).
>>>
>>
>> Even the cheap ones - although you lose EQ and time based f/x.
>>
>>> But that being said I've never found anybody noticing the 5ms my DAW
>>> imposes for software-input-monitoring even noticeable. Of course you
>>> bneed a powerful cpu(etc) to able able to achive that latency when you
>>> load up a project with hungry plug-ins, but that's more often in 'post'
>>> rather than tracking.
>>>
>>
>> It's easy to find one powerful enough these days. About any $400 desktop
>> or $1k laptop ....
>>
>>> I don't know what a typical L number is for digital mixers, and what the
>>> concensus of opinion on it is from performers ....
>>
>> 10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.
>>
>>>
>>> geoff
>
> Over at PRW there are several threads about this. In one of them the
> description of what's being done shows why some folks are invested in
> the very best that Avid/PT offers. Many simultaneous tracks, band on the
> floor live, some players isolated, lots of plugs being monitored in real
> time, individual 'phone mixes, etc. Lots of money at stake at that
> level, and every minute counts.
>
> Losing EQ and time based effects in those settings is not a viable
> option.
>

But of course. That's where I pay 10 msec latency or set cue up on an
analog mixer.

> Then there are comparisons of what an early Digi PT system offered for
> how much money compared to the alternatives available at the time. Ten
> grand was peanuts in comparision.
>

Emphasis "at the time". a generation is now what, 2 years? It's enough
to give you whiplash.

> There are still people running very many dozens of tracks at mixdown,
> handling huge overdub sessions, where latency in a headphone feed just
> won't cut it.
>

There's always *some* latency - there's a buffer on the A/D that needs
unloading and another on the D/A that needs loading. That's a
millisecond ... possibly right there. But I certainly understand that
the threshold of toleration will be different in different conexts.

This is also why there are analog consoles.

And quite seriously - it was better than ADAT in all dimensions
except possibly a digital math problem here or there.

> Tools for schools. It's not something I need but I well understand why
> some folks do.
>

Well, sure.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/3/2014 12:42 AM, geoff wrote:
>
>> What amount of latency have you found to cause a problem - 1ms, 5ms,
>> 10ms, 50ms ? Or it is just the suggestion that there might be some ?
>
> In the case of a singer listening to his own voice, 0.5 to 3 ms is the
> range where the comb filtering is most noticeable.

So that works out to half a foot to three feet, and the cans level has
to interact with the singer's voice just so to get comb filtering to
start with.

> If the latency is 5
> ms or greater, the frequencies that are cancelled are low enough so that
> they tend not to be bothersome. When you get into the range of 20 ms or
> later, that can start to affect timing or "groove."
>
> So given that a well tuned system may have around 5 ms of monitoring
> latency, it may not be noticeable most of the time. But that doesn't
> mean it's not a problem that can't or shouldn't be solved.
>
> I remember maybe a dozen years ago in a discussion about latency, Bob
> Olhsson wrote that some Nashville producers were having more trouble
> getting a good performance out singers with a DAW than when working with
> a real console.


But I would think that for those guys, a console would be the *first*
thing they tried. I'm just doing stuff in garages, bars and spare
bedrooms - I don't have a bespoke studio.

If'n I were them, I'd *start* with a console & then use
monitoring-in-the-box as an experiment only.

> It's just another data point, and with all the really
> high end studios working with high profile artists using their Pro Tools
> HD(X) systems, either they've become used to it or it really isn't a
> problem.

I expect the latter.

> But people using as little hardware as they can get away with
> (or all they can afford) may still have a problem sometimes.
>
>
>

Indeed, although that changes these days too. Low-latency is pretty far
downmarket.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/2/2014 8:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> 10 msec doesn't bother me. I don't feel that pea under the mattress.
>
> Try this:
>
> Connect a mic to an input, send it to headphones, and put on the
> headphones.
> Turn the headphone volume all the way off
> Speak into the mic and start turning the headphone volume up
>
> You'll find a range where you're hearing the comb filter effect start to
> come in, and then when you get the headphone level up high enough, it
> will go away.
>

Yep.

> Chances are it won't be way too loud when the comb filtering isn't
> enough to be bothersome, but for some singers who don't want a lot of
> headphone volume, it is.

Ah, Well that makes sense - I was skeptical about the levels being just-so.

so doctor, doctor it hurts when I do that....

> So, sure, there will be many people who never
> notice, or just don't care what their voice sounds like in the
> headphones as long as they can hear it. But a recording or headphone
> monitoring system shouldn't have a problem built-in that can only be
> fixed by making the performer uncomfortable in one way (odd sounding
> voice) or another (too loud).
>

Fully and totally agreed.

>
>
--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/3/2014 6:40 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> So that works out to half a foot to three feet, and the cans level has
> to interact with the singer's voice just so to get comb filtering to
> start with.

The levels at the ear drum from each of the two paths need to be pretty
close at the ear drum in order for the effect to be really obvious. The
distance in feet isn't really a good way to think of it, it's the number
of cycles and degrees out of phase that matters.

>> I remember maybe a dozen years ago in a discussion about latency, Bob
>> Olhsson wrote that some Nashville producers were having more trouble
>> getting a good performance out singers with a DAW than when working with
>> a real console.

> But I would think that for those guys, a console would be the *first*
> thing they tried. I'm just doing stuff in garages, bars and spare
> bedrooms - I don't have a bespoke studio.

Remember that the idea of a DAW is that it can be just like a tape deck.
With a tape deck, you connect the track output to the console's tape
returns. If you do that with a DAW, though, your tape returns will be
delayed by the amount of the system latency. It just didn't occur to
people to do anything other than disconnect the tape deck's cables from
the console and replace them with the DAW's cables. And of course the
engineers didn't hear any comb filtering because they were hearing only
one source - the microphone.

But I think that what Bob was referring to wasn't the sound of the
singer's voice in the headphones. A clever engineer probably would have
figured out what was happening and patched the direct preamp output to
the headphones. I suspect that the problem in the early days of DAWs was
a greater amount of delay than what would cause comb filtering, but
rather that the singer was hearing the headphone feed enough later than
when he was singing to throw the phrasing off just a tad. I don't know
for sure, though. I wasn't there.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com