AVB vs. CUEMIX. Upgrade Question

[wonder]

I have recently purchased some upgrades to be able to feed the Live Room with 16 channel headphone mixers for each musician.

I do a lot of live band recordings and having 16 channels vs 8 (or even just a 2Mix) is going to be a good upgrade.

As of now, I'm using a 2408mk3. It uses CUEMIX (not CUEMIX FX) and for the vocals, I'll run the vocal line through an outboard reverb to the singer's preference.

I emailed Magic Dave and he suggested I look into the new AVB series.

I'm looking to get into another interface to increase my input/outputs. I am just getting used to CUEMIX as I used to use an external mixer to route my headphone cues. But that digital board has died.

Dave mentioned the AVB app does a LOT more than CUEMIX ever did but I did some research and noticed some odd things.

1. "DIRECT HARDWARE PATCH THRU" is no longer an option when using the AVB interfaces. Is this true? If so, this is a big deal for me IMO. ZERO latency monitoring is paramount for my situation.

2. Talkback feature on CUEMIX is a big plus. AVB doesn't have a dedicated talkback feature.

3. THUNDERBOLT. My Mac Pro (circa 2008) doesn't have Thunderbolt. I could purchase a TBOLT interface and prep for the future when I eventually get a new mac. But thats a while down the road. I'm afraid USB can't realistically handle 24 inputs at 48k/24bit.

My question is...would your suggestion be to go ahead and dive into the AVB systems? Or add another 2408mk3 to my current one and stick with PCI based system?

I'd LOVE to get into CUEMIX FX and utilize the onboard DSP of a unit with CUEMIX FX so I don't have to use the Analog section of my 2408 and stay in the digital realm with ADAT. But alas, 2408mk3 is only CUEMIX. Not "FX".

Any suggestions are appreciated.

[mikehalloran]

Have you read this thread? There's a firmware update for the AVB series that adds functionality.

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 26&t=61618

[wonder]

Thanks for the link. Some informative stuff in there.

While I'm aware the AVB runs on USB and Ethernet, my main concern is the Direct Hardware Playthru for "No" latency headphone mixes.

As of now, my CUEMIX is feeding the live inputs directly back to my headphone cues. And while convenient, the mixes sound fairly harsh ... to which I'd like to be able to add some compression and EQ and Verb to sweeten the mixes a bit ... hence the want for CUEMIX FX or the new AVB functionality with DSP processing.

Ive read online about Direct Playthru not being available on the AVB systems and there being latency. Which would kill the reason for upgrading.

[EMRR]

If you are using Cuemix, you aren't really using DHP. Cuemix works for situations where you aren't using DHP. At least in my mind. I used PCI series with an analog mixer, DHP turned on, and never once opened Cuemix, because you don't have to. AVB line, you have to use the AVB mixer since there is no DHP.

[wonder]

Interesting.
Well then maybe I'm just using cuemix for the ease of sending inputs to specific outputs?

If DP were easier to MASS CHANGE aux sends, I'd route everything in DP.

?

[Shooshie]

If you are using Cuemix, you aren't really using DHP. Cuemix works for situations where you aren't using DHP. At least in my mind. I used PCI series with an analog mixer, DHP turned on, and never once opened Cuemix, because you don't have to. AVB line, you have to use the AVB mixer since there is no DHP.

You sure about that? I'm under the impression that CueMix is DHP. You can take away the computer and still use CueMix in the box. That's DHP.

Shooshie

[monkey man]

Actually, Shoosh, I'd call that DHR - Direct Hardware Routing.

DHP is, as far as I'm aware, a longer path that goes through the 'puter (DP?) but bypasses whichever plugs may be instantiated along said path... whatever that is.

IOW, DHR would be the standard I-to-O routing done in CueMix, and DHP the slightly-more-circuitous route that allows interrupting of the former set of paths by the engaging of the recording process on a given track or set of tracks.

The AVB system currently permits the former, DHR usage, but not the automatic interruption during recording that DHP allows.

At least, this is my basic understanding of it. IRL, this would mean that using DHR one would always hear the "live" signal whilst monitoring, on top of the playback one (whatever's already recorded on the track/s concerned), regardless of whether or not the recording process is engaged. Obviously DHP would allow overriding, depending on your "Input-Monitoring" settings in DP (blend, override or whatever), of the playback signal in favour of the live one upon instantiation of actual recording... if this makes sense.

As always, I'm the first to admit that I could well be wrong about this. I do hope I'm not 'though or I may be in for some serious shocks when my AVB system arrives. Even 'though I've done a deal with the wholesaler whereby he'll accept a return if I simply cannot get it to work for me, I have to first buy a shedload of DB-25 connectors (with snakes) in order to connect the units to my synths (from another retailer), and these won't be returnable, so I'm risking losing a bunch of hard-saved dough if I'm completely wrong about all this. If I'm only slightly wrong, I think I'll be OK, but completely wrong? Forgeddaboudit!

[bayswater]

MOTU hardware documentation only refers to arrangements where signals on the hardware inputs on audio devices are routed directly to the hardware monitoring outputs "bypassing the computer" altogether. It does not distinguish DHP, DHM, etc.

Does the signal pass through Cuemix? I don't think so. Cuemix is not a mixer or an effects unit in and of itself, but software that controls the MOTU digital hardware mixer and effects in the same manner that the front panel controls do, but with greater ease. The signal doesn't pass through it any more than it passes through a MCU.

Does it really matter if the new AVB units have DHP? Doesn't the built in mixer provide the routing necessary to get a near zero latency signal to monitoring equipment? Doesn't it more or less do what we've always done to overcome latency when tracking: monitor from the mixer.

[monkey man]

Hmm... I think you might have confirmed my suspicion that the DHP aspect merely allows for mixing the existing track/s' content (from DP) with the hardware-direct-routed live input, Stoivo.

I thought I read somewhere more than 10 years ago that a more circuitous route was involved for this, and to me it made sense 'cause the existing track/s' output had to be mixed with the CueMix input signal for the given track, something that I assumed, based on what I read at the time, must've been taken care of natively.

Judging by what you've said 'though, as I suggested, I'm now wondering if it all gets mixed in CueMix. Then again, with the "override" Input-Monitoring selection in DP, there'd only be a switching between the direct and recorded signal (no mixing), and you'd think this wouldn't require any additional routing (in the background) of the input signal to or from the 'puter...

Definitely confused now.

In the end, all that matters is that I can do the direct-routing monitoring thing a-la CueMix. Hopefully this would suffice for wonder too.

On this last point, and to answer your final question, Stoiv, the difference is that when you hit record or the point at which you've programmed a drop-in, you still hear any existing programme material in the absence of DHP. The only workaround I can think of are to either:

1) Route existing audio to an easily-mutable channel such as one on a hardware monitoring mixer, or
2) Erase audio files in, say, the SE or TO, which'd be a painful and clumsy way to go.

Unfortunately in my case the latter method might be my only option due to a shortage of channels on my desk. Once again, I do hope that wonder can work around this more easily and indeed that some intelligent soul (hint, hint!) can provide a preferable alternative at some point.

OK... great to see you, mate. Logged in just to follow up on this AVB thing, so I'm off like a bucket of prawns, Stoivo. Cheers mate.

[bayswater]

On this last point, and to answer your final question, Stoiv, the difference is that when you hit record or the point at which you've programmed a drop-in, you still hear any existing programme material in the absence of DHP.

Well that won't do. So this would happen with any interface that does not do DHP? Seems odd.

Anyway, good that you're dropping in and making my brain work early on a Sunday morning.

[HCMarkus]

When "dropping in" (punching in), you don't hear the previously recorded material because it is overwritten as soon as you begin recording.

You hear the previously recorded material PRIOR to punching in. I use the master fader in DP to adjust the mix level (including the pre-recorded material on the record-enabled track, which may also be adjusted further for monitoring purposes) to match the mic or other live input from CueMix.

[monkey man]

Yup. I got out of "bed" (the couch in my case - don't ask, long story) before falling asleep in order to address this, Sir Markus. I'd hoped to be able to correct my post before you guys saw it.

With the Audio Patch Thru option set to "auto", track info is only passed prior to drop-in.

Shows how little I've actually used DP... in fact how little I've recorded. Only my old cassettes, really and my lil' brother for a Slash cover he insisted on doing years ago. I'd literally forgotten how DP behaved in this regard.

EDIT: How would I ensure I don't hear the latency-delayed live signal as well, HC? Would it be as simple as switching off the little blue IM button? I hope so. This'd make my day, actually.

Funny, I should have assumed that this sort of basic functionality would be there. I'm so conditioned through bad-purchasing decisions not to assume anything these days that said restriction seems to know no bounds.

On this last point, and to answer your final question, Stoiv, the difference is that when you hit record or the point at which you've programmed a drop-in, you still hear any existing programme material in the absence of DHP.

Well that won't do. So this would happen with any interface that does not do DHP? Seems odd.

You're right, Stoivo. Monkey see, Monkey won't do!

See my late-night revelation above.

Anyway, good that you're dropping in and making my brain work early on a Sunday morning.

An unintended consequence of sharing the quagmire that's resulted from the menagerie that constant-titty-tutes the frazzled hotchpotch that is the spurious neural conglomeration between my very-wet ears, Stoivo.

A strong coffee would surely be preferential, methinks...

[Shooshie]

An unintended consequence of sharing the quagmire that's resulted from the menagerie that constant-titty-tutes the frazzled hotchpotch that is the spurious neural conglomeration between my very-wet ears, Stoivo.

Mmmm... constant-titty-tutes.
Whatever those are.


Shoosh

[bayswater]

It means Nicky's mind is wondering into places few of us go.

[monkey man]

I'll believe you Stoivo, even it thousands wouldn't. LOL

An unintended consequence of sharing the quagmire that's resulted from the menagerie that constant-titty-tutes the frazzled hotchpotch that is the spurious neural conglomeration between my very-wet ears, Stoivo.

Mmmm... constant-titty-tutes.
Whatever those are.


Shoosh

Well, after 24 years of celibacy, I reckon I could do with some of those (tutes).

Many tutes required here, me reckons.