TascMan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 548
- Karma
- 89
- Age
- 55
- From
- Lancaster, PA USA
- Gear owned
- DM3200 UH-7000 3030R2R
I don't use PTs, but I did look up this issue in their forums. Apparently, Input Monitor Auto-mute is essentially nonexistent and has been a feature request from AVID's users for quite a while. I could have that wrong, as, again, I don't use PT. But, I copied a reply to the issue from one of their users that might help you when it comes to dealing with input monitoring.....
" In pro tools I use a workaround, have done ever since I realized the problem around day two of owning it.
I select the relevant tracks, then I can, using the option/shift key combination, record arm them all at once. i also switch these live tracks to a different set of outputs on my audio interface so they appear on a specific set of channels on my mixing desk.
Performers hear themselves via aux sends from their live inputs on the desk, not through PT. They hear previously recorded material played from PT via the desk and the same aux sends.
I can pfl their live inputs on the desk, I can also pfl their live but through PT returns to the desk separately to previously recorded tracks, to check audio quality. It works for me, although not quite as slick as in tape days, monitoring the live signal as it comes back off tape. But having established the workflow, it's second nature to me now, and it causes me no problems.
I also use MOTU gear, for when I need more than the 16 i/o (on my 003). And sometimes I use another DAW too. But of course if I use a DAW that lets me turn off input monitoring, and if I use MOTU's cuemix to send the live inputs straight back out for latency free monitoring by the performers, one problem still remains.
If I do not ALSO monitor the live sound after it has passed through the DAW, I leave open to chance the possibility that the signal might be somehow be damaged and I would not know until the performance finished and I played it back. Poor (incompetent) routing might mean, for example, that signal meant to be recorded on one track gets recorded on another, so (ie) bass guitar and snare end up on the same track (=disaster).
My paranoia about this possibility (having done it!) means I do not ever want to turn input monitoring off. I just have a workflow in which the performer does not hear their post-DAW live signal, they only hear their live signal straight from the live inputs on the desk. But I can check the post-DAW live signal to keep my paranoia under control.
Where necessary to get the performance needed, I patch the direct out of (for example lead vocal) into another channel on the desk, so I can compress, eq, put on delay, reverb, whatever to make the performer comfortable in their cans. In this case, I record both the clean and effected vocal tracks.
I'll most likely use the clean signal to work with, but having the version that the artist was comfortable with gives me a useful reference point."
The point he makes about patching the vocal to another input on the desk would work perfectly with the DMs.
Hope that helps
" In pro tools I use a workaround, have done ever since I realized the problem around day two of owning it.
I select the relevant tracks, then I can, using the option/shift key combination, record arm them all at once. i also switch these live tracks to a different set of outputs on my audio interface so they appear on a specific set of channels on my mixing desk.
Performers hear themselves via aux sends from their live inputs on the desk, not through PT. They hear previously recorded material played from PT via the desk and the same aux sends.
I can pfl their live inputs on the desk, I can also pfl their live but through PT returns to the desk separately to previously recorded tracks, to check audio quality. It works for me, although not quite as slick as in tape days, monitoring the live signal as it comes back off tape. But having established the workflow, it's second nature to me now, and it causes me no problems.
I also use MOTU gear, for when I need more than the 16 i/o (on my 003). And sometimes I use another DAW too. But of course if I use a DAW that lets me turn off input monitoring, and if I use MOTU's cuemix to send the live inputs straight back out for latency free monitoring by the performers, one problem still remains.
If I do not ALSO monitor the live sound after it has passed through the DAW, I leave open to chance the possibility that the signal might be somehow be damaged and I would not know until the performance finished and I played it back. Poor (incompetent) routing might mean, for example, that signal meant to be recorded on one track gets recorded on another, so (ie) bass guitar and snare end up on the same track (=disaster).
My paranoia about this possibility (having done it!) means I do not ever want to turn input monitoring off. I just have a workflow in which the performer does not hear their post-DAW live signal, they only hear their live signal straight from the live inputs on the desk. But I can check the post-DAW live signal to keep my paranoia under control.
Where necessary to get the performance needed, I patch the direct out of (for example lead vocal) into another channel on the desk, so I can compress, eq, put on delay, reverb, whatever to make the performer comfortable in their cans. In this case, I record both the clean and effected vocal tracks.
I'll most likely use the clean signal to work with, but having the version that the artist was comfortable with gives me a useful reference point."
The point he makes about patching the vocal to another input on the desk would work perfectly with the DMs.
Hope that helps
someone help me please!
