Viitalahde wrote on Sat, 07 March 2009 06:04 |
What are you using? |
Quote: |
Since this is going get into general console discussion anyway, let me ask one more thing: How many of you are using something more extended as a "console" than a monitor volume controller? |
dcollins wrote on Sat, 07 March 2009 15:32 | ||
Shallco 2k5 bridged T. |
Quote: |
Since this is going get into general console discussion anyway, let me ask one more thing: How many of you are using something more extended as a "console" than a monitor volume controller? |
Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 14:03 |
I've simply been turning the monitor volume up & down. This needs to be changed. |
Gold wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 11:25 |
That's what I do. I think it works well enough. To my mind it's mostly a Go/No Go test. An exact level match is impossible once more than a tiny amount of processing has been applied. |
dcollins wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 15:15 | ||
Same here. DC |
Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 15:12 |
Something just crossed my mind.. The comparison attenuator is clumsy, no way around it. My converter upgrade is not completely done yet. While processing, I monitor the captured audio through the Lynx Two D/A. While editing, I'm on the HEDD DAC. The built-in attenuator of the Lavry DA-10 has felt wrong for me since I've always used a passive attenuator, but this feature could be used for exactly this purpose. Previously I was sure I'd get a Blue D/A. Now I need to re-think. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 00:22 |
I have since spoken with another E.E., however, who explained that balanced inputs usually are very sensitive to imbalances in the two signal legs and other parts of the input Z. So much so, that, for mere audio frequencies, it is often better to go single-ended |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 17:29 |
But for most contemporary equipment, with a balanced input in the range of 10-20kOhms and output impedance much less than 100 Ohms, the "mismatch" caused by connecting the "low" side of the source directly to ground (as versus the driven output) may very well be less significant than the difference in the input impedance due to normal tolerances in the input resistors of the balanced amp. It probably depends on whether the parts are super-high accuracy (like 0.1 percent tolerance) or are hand-selected/hand- adjusted. |
Gold wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 20:16 | ||
I can't see how normal 1% resistors found in most pro audio gear would be a worse common mode match than grounding a leg. |
Viitalahde wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 10:12 |
Still thinking of level-matched (or at least a close matched!) comparison between the signals. I'm monitoring through the DAW, but I quess I could also split the AES/EBU signal from my A/D for a dedicated post-A/D monitoring D/A. A Lundahl splitting transformer and a Lavry DA10 would be pretty ideal. The idea is just to have a more hard-ware method of monitoring than routing a software mixer. Just going through a period of improving my working methods. Who knows where I'll end. But I like to do it from time to time. |
Viitalahde wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 10:12 |
Still thinking of level-matched (or at least a close matched!) comparison between the signals. I'm monitoring through the DAW, but I quess I could also split the AES/EBU signal from my A/D for a dedicated post-A/D monitoring D/A. A Lundahl splitting transformer and a Lavry DA10 would be pretty ideal. The idea is just to have a more hard-ware method of monitoring than routing a software mixer. Just going through a period of improving my working methods. Who knows where I'll end. But I like to do it from time to time. |
mcsnare wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 08:15 |
I know it sounds stupid, but having a very close level match between source and processed available with just a button made a huge diiference to me. |
David Glasser wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 15:42 | ||
I can't imagine working any other way. |
mcsnare wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 15:15 |
I know it sounds stupid, but having a very close level match between source and processed available with just a button made a huge diiference to me. I did the switch + volume knob for a long time and it's just not the same IMO. Dave |
mcsnare wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 15:15 |
I know it sounds stupid, but having a very close level match between source and processed available with just a button made a huge diiference to me. I did the switch + volume knob for a long time and it's just not the same IMO. Dave |
Viitalahde wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 23:42 |
Still thinking of level-matched (or at least a close matched!) comparison between the signals. |
mcsnare wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 09:15 |
...having a very close level match between source and processed available with just a button made a huge diiference to me. I did the switch + volume knob for a long time and it's just not the same |
Cass Anawaty wrote on Sat, 07 March 2009 14:53 |
I use the Goldpoint SA1X. Very happy with it. |
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 28 October 2008 21:03 |
Both of the prefabbed balanced Goldpoint boxes are less than $600 and are as clean and high end as you will ever need. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 07:01 | ||
|
Peter Beckmann wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 17:53 | ||
I totally agree. I do the level match by running a duplicate track in Protools HD of the source material and routing it to different AES output. Then I have that connected to one of the other digital inputs on my Avocet. Bingo, instant switch between source and processed. I level match either in the Avocet, or since I have a Command 8 in front of me I can just push a fader up to match the level. Big plus for me is I'm monitoring it all thru the same D/A Peter |
fuse wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 09:35 |
SPL Volume8 Simple, transparent and can do 5.1(+1) or 2.2 with an Prism Orpheus hooked up to it. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 18:08 | ||
I've got the SPL Surround Monitor Controller SMC 2489, it's a really good unit. After a few years the knob and switches have started getting a little noisy. time for a disassemble & cleaning job. afaik the switches on the Goldpoint are superior. JT |
lowland wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 01:17 | ||||
Please let us know how you get on, Jerry. It's likely to be an SA1X or the dual-output equivalent for me at some point. |
Cass Anawaty wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 12:25 | ||
I've got one of those as well. The image shift at low volume levels drives me insane--does yours do that? |
TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 14:43 |
It's the reason I still hold onto my older Lucid DA9624 as the monitor DAC for my capture DAW's loopback. It has an onboard attenuator so I can just set the level to where I want it and then this gets fed to one of the inputs of my Coleman M3PHmkII monitor controller (which receives on another one of its inputs a direct feed from the source). The stereo pot on the attenuator doesn't track perfectly but the differences in the positions varies only very subtly (no more than a 1/4dB - and with a few labelled positions that I've found are perfectly accurate). I find that the downside's of the older conversion and the less than perfect tracking are more than offset for me being able to do really quick level matched a/b's. |
Quote: |
Dave, does this 'single button' solution have some kind of AGC going on? Im trying to understand how this could work. |
Crispin HT wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 20:15 |
Hi Andrew, |
Crispin HT wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 20:15 |
We have an analogue monitor with a balanced passive attenuator calibrated in 0.25dB steps. |
Crispin HT wrote |
This passive attenuator presents a constant impedance to the source. After this is a balanced active stage that isolates the attenuator from the effects of cables and loads, so that the unit should sound the same no matter what room it's in. |
Crispin HT wrote |
...This means that as you switch the monitor gain alters, but the path is identical, that is no extra electronics are switched in or out. |
Crispin HT wrote |
With our digital type consoles, the same DAC is used, and as the digital router changes source, the analogue attenuation post DAC changes as above. In this way you are also using the same monitor DAC. |
Crispin HT wrote |
I can't say that we are truly transparent: nothing is. But we come quite close, and any colouration is constant, irrespective of source, destination or trim applied. |
Crispin HT wrote |
Hope this helps you visualise how our monitor A/B works. |
mcsnare wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 21:03 | ||
Most mastering consoles (including the one I use) have a volume knob for the pre-process compare, sourced after the first input stage but before the inserts. After you get an idea of your basic printing level you A/B and set the volume to match. I might tweak it a few times after I dial in some processing, but the it's far easier to set it a few times and then hit a button al the other times you compare, than it is to hit a button AND try to adjust volume at the same time for all the times you compare. I do a lot of comparing. Dave |