MOTUnation.com

James Steele wrote:

supersonic wrote:As far as monitoring goes I found that products such as Presonus Central station and Big Button from Mackie alter the sound too much for them to be used in mission critical situations.

I must say, I'm impressed because you must have the hearing of a dog. I don't know about the Mackie Big Knob, but the Central Station is very clean and it is used for monitoring, not coloring anything during the actual bounce. I'm honestly trying to be sincere here and not confrontational, but what "mission critical" situations are you talking about? Are you sure you could pick out a Central Station versus some of the other monitoring boxes in a blind A/B test? You're DAC's must be impeccable also I guess as I might imagine if you regard the Central Station as inadequate for "mission critical" situations and you can hear it, then you I'm sure are using the very best DACs as well. Certainly you're not using the stock Traveler's right? Wouldn't that be more of a problem than a Central Station?

Honestly, I guess I take all this stuff with a grain of salt because I know pros who are producing music for tv and features and they're using boxes like the Central Station and they make a living at it. TV and features might not be mission critical?

Just sayin'. +1

I only use Monster "Jazz" cables, because the "Rock" cables are just too harsh.

I really want to say here that I am not trying to jump supersonic. I'm really being sincere when I say that some of this very high end monitoring boxes seem like overkill. And they're not affecting what's actually being recorded, right? Because I can believe some of what I hear about summing boxes and perhaps desirable coloration... in fact I think a regular here posted some audio files of two mixes with a summing box and one completely ITB, and I could sort of hear something there although the difference could end up being a preference. The ITB mix was certainly good sounding as well.

I don't know... I'm thinking that in day to day use the difference between Central Station (I mention it because I own one... not to disparage the Big Knob because I don't own one) and one of the higher end monitoring boxes must be very very slight. So slight I don't know if I could hear it, or if it would make a difference in how a mix turned out. And if you can hear a difference, what IS the ambient noise floor of your studio in db? Because you might need one of those studios where you can hear the blood rushing past your temples in order to hear a difference like that.

Now you've got me curious, too. I know how a monitor can make a difference in a mix, especially if you're not used to it, but a knob?

Years ago I attempted to mix a project with a pair of Meyer S1's, which were fantastic monitors, but they had little low-end. They were designed to be used with other low-end equipment, of course, but we didn't have a subwoofer of their quality, so we decided not to use a subwoofer in monitoring. Our mixes turned out bass-heavy on consumer gear, so we had to redo everything. But that's a monitor. I seriously doubt that a knob is going to so impair one's judgment of the mix at hand. If so, they must be making them of clay or something!

While I am largely inclined to agree with your Shooshie, I must point out that those "knobs" usually have at least a little bit of electronics attached to them!

But when we compare the amount of distortion found in other parts of the recording chain (notably converters, mics and speakers, not to mention multi band compression and extreme limiting) I confess that I often wonder whether any difference in line-level audio fidelity is significant enough to warrant spending the kind of money some insist is required to gain true excellence in a monitor controller.

But to return to the original topic of this thread... seems most folks 'round these parts have dumped their mixers, don't it?

HC makes a point in that there is indeed additional wiring and/or circuitry that the signal must pass through before reaching the monitors with these boxes. My understanding is that CS is passive... at least the actual audio path. So I imagine much depends on the quality of the components: potentiometers, switches, etc.

For example, when I first went mixerless I used a cheap $30 Behringer compact mixer as a "volume control" for my monitors. I thought it was okay until I patched in the Central Station and I did indeed notice the difference. But then again we're talking the jump from a ultra cheap Chinese-made mixer that sold for $30 to a specialized monitoring only solution that cost about $500.

From what I've read and often experienced, once you're over a certain price point, the difference becomes more and more difficult to hear and unless you are independently wealthy and have an unlimited budget you hit a point of diminishing returns. So my main question is whether or not most of us would hear the difference between a monitoring controller like CS and one of the more big-buck esoteric options?

Back again of course to the main thread, I think mixerless is the way to go. I remember how fearful I felt about it in the beginning and I had to take it in steps by first moving my board into storage so I could have it again if I panicked. It wasn't long, however that I decided to sell it. I don't know if my thread is still on the board here, but at the time many of you who had already made this step helped me through the anxiety I had. For me it was one of those moments that I knew inside I had to push myself to let go of my comfortable, old way of doing things and I'm glad that I did.

I think you will not regret losing the mixer, but I will tell you it's okay to feel aprehension over it. I suggest you do what I did and keep the mixer and cables you need to connect it around for a while. It will ease the transition and make you feel like you can go back if you want to. You'll probably do what I did and find yourself selling the mixer about a month after you start working completely ITB.

I agree with James on this. The transition difficulties are more in your head than in the gear. I find moving faders with a mouse just as easy as moving them with my fingers. The only difference is when you're used to using more than one finger on more than one fader - but that's what automation is for.

The ITB vs OTB mixing controversy is something else. I personally believe that one is not necessarily better sounding than the other, but instead certain mixers color the sound in a certain way that some people prefer over ITB mixing. It's not the process that makes it sound different, it's the device. It's the reason I've kept most of my outboard gear. There are times when you just want the sound of a particular analog device. If you love the sound that your mixer imparts on the sound, keep it just for that. If it's not adding anything special, ITB is the way to go, IMO.

Phil

I am mixerless.

I have other things I'd rather spend money on that I believe have a bigger contribution to final product.

James Steele wrote: Back again of course to the main thread, I think mixerless is the way to go. I remember how fearful I felt about it in the beginning and I had to take it in steps by first moving my board into storage so I could have it again if I panicked. It wasn't long, however that I decided to sell it. I don't know if my thread is still on the board here, but at the time many of you who had already made this step helped me through the anxiety I had. For me it was one of those moments that I knew inside I had to push myself to let go of my comfortable, old way of doing things and I'm glad that I did.

I think you will not regret losing the mixer, but I will tell you it's okay to feel aprehension over it. I suggest you do what I did and keep the mixer and cables you need to connect it around for a while. It will ease the transition and make you feel like you can go back if you want to. You'll probably do what I did and find yourself selling the mixer about a month after you start working completely ITB.

Well spoken (or well typed!).

That's what I'm feeling right now as I await the replacement PCI-424e card and the Central Station/CSR-1 both due to arrive mañana.

I will keep the mixer and cabling for a while for "safety", but from what I've read on this thread, it appears that about 80% are happily mixer-less.

Thanks...

Buzzy

HCMarkus wrote:

James Steele wrote:

supersonic wrote:As far as monitoring goes I found that products such as Presonus Central station and Big Button from Mackie alter the sound too much for them to be used in mission critical situations.

I must say, I'm impressed because you must have the hearing of a dog. I don't know about the Mackie Big Knob, but the Central Station is very clean and it is used for monitoring, not coloring anything during the actual bounce. I'm honestly trying to be sincere here and not confrontational, but what "mission critical" situations are you talking about? Are you sure you could pick out a Central Station versus some of the other monitoring boxes in a blind A/B test? You're DAC's must be impeccable also I guess as I might imagine if you regard the Central Station as inadequate for "mission critical" situations and you can hear it, then you I'm sure are using the very best DACs as well. Certainly you're not using the stock Traveler's right? Wouldn't that be more of a problem than a Central Station?

Honestly, I guess I take all this stuff with a grain of salt because I know pros who are producing music for tv and features and they're using boxes like the Central Station and they make a living at it. TV and features might not be mission critical?

Just sayin'. +1

I only use Monster "Jazz" cables, because the "Rock" cables are just too harsh.

Even though James made it clear he was just asking a straight-forward question, I feel the need to come to supersonics defense a bit here. While I have no experiences with the Central Station, I had a somewhat comparable situation with the Bluesky Sub 8 (not exactly a Behringer-type brand.) I wanted to use its internal crossovers to patch in my NS10s. But in doing so they lost a good amount of their excellent transient response (which is one of the main reasons I like monitoring on them.) And with that a bit of imaging goes by the wayside as well.

Now in a mediocre room you may not notice, but my room sounds pretty darn good, and so while it was subtle, it was still obvious. So I bypassed the Sub8 crossover and got my transient response and imaging back. I assume he heard similar things when he tried the Central Station. Absolutely plausible to me.

As for knobs, well yes, they are attached to pots, aka variable resistors, and yes, of course those can affect the sound.

With all respect, Kubi, I would propose that a crossover network is a far more complicated thing, with many more variables and potential pitfalls and caveats than a line-level attenuator. That said, we must each come to our own conclusions, for if we do not perceive things the way we wish to hear 'em, we will not do our best work. Bottom Line: If it sounds good, it is!

I guess it's just a bad assumption on my part to think that anyone putting out a knob for controlling various aspects of audio would use highest-quality potentiometers and crossover circuitry. Clean solid-state pots have been around since... what, the 60's?

Shoosh

HCMarkus wrote:With all respect, Kubi, I would propose that a crossover network is a far more complicated thing, with many more variables and potential pitfalls and caveats than a line-level attenuator. That said, we must each come to our own conclusions, for if we do not perceive things the way we wish to hear 'em, we will not do our best work. Bottom Line: If it sounds good, it is!

That's certainly correct. But even small changes in sound can make a difference, especially when it comes to monitoring. I certainly agree with you on your bottom line!

Shooshie wrote:I guess it's just a bad assumption on my part to think that anyone putting out a knob for controlling various aspects of audio would use highest-quality potentiometers and crossover circuitry. Clean solid-state pots have been around since... what, the 60's?

Shoosh

Even once you only consider "quality parts", every single process affects the signal one way or another, even one as simple as a monitoring knob.

I once talked at length to Hutch Hutchison of Manley Labs, who turned almost poetic when talking about a specific IC. He had categorically refused to use ICs in his circuits until he came upon this very one. Yet other companies like Millenia use ICs all the time. At the Manley or Millenia level, they all work with "quality parts", but as expert designers they are also aware that every decision will have an effect on the end result. So the trick is to assemble a combination of design and parts that will give you what you want, while being aware that every choice will also have consequences you may find less desirable. You work around that until you like the overall end result. And this is true for simple circuits like amps or attenuators, as well as more complex ones like compressors or EQs. If it weren't so, we'd all just go out and buy a standard set of monitors, a standard set of cables, a standard volume pot, a standard amp, etc. and be done with it. Obviously, that's not the way it works, there's a myriad of gear offered at every price point for every task, and they all accomplish their task differently with different sonic results.

While I am willing to grant that some pieces of gear simply sound better than others, I sometimes wonder how much the electronics market is like what we see in hard drives... many enclosures, but a small number of manufacturers' parts similarly arranged inside. How about in the plug-in market... is it not likely that many plugins use the same basic code to process audio with different skins and interfaces on top? Kubi, your point about the organization of parts within circuits requiring keen skills is well-taken, but much of the "great sounding" gear is extremely simple under the hood and uses time-tested designs.

I naturally rail against religion in the selection of audio gear, but find that most consumers' (audio pros are consumers too) choices are guided largely by appearance, meaningless information, and unverifiable manufacturers' claims. I won't be so arrogant as to exclude myself from this group. We just spend an awful lot of time worrying about things that, in the greater scheme, have nominal impact on our music. There always seems to be an awful lot of preaching going on in the audio world.

Why is it manufacturer's uniformly fail to publish meaningful specs for their gear, i.e., what does a "frequency range" spec tell us? The answer is to be found in those who will argue strenuously that a null test is not dispositive proof of identical audio files. How many of us actually take the time to compare different gear under conditions that allow meaningful comparisons?

I'm plugging my Monster "jazz" cable back in, and am gonna' jam my blues away for a while. If it sounds good, it is, so I'm gonna' tune up first.

Oh, just for the record, I certainly am NOT one of the people who doubt null tests. If it nulls it's identical, and any perceived differences will have to be explained otherwise (mind got tricked, playback situation differs in ways not considered, null test was flawed and files don't actually null, or something like that.)

As I alluded to, I would be fascinated to see someone reliably pick out CS versus another monitoring controller in a blind A/B test. That would make a believer out of me.