Audio Interface For Discrete Monitoring

[Iceking007]

Hello,

I am looking for an audio Interface for the purposes of monitoring outputs to mix tracks in Audition.  Most of the products I see available are heavily weighted towards sending a signal into the computer for the purposes or recording.

However my primary focus is discrete audio output.  As a minimum I will require 6 channels (in order to mix 5.1) but 8 or even 10 would be a bonus for future proofing (if ever I wanted to dabble at 7.1 mix or something else crazy).  I'm not an audiophile so I'm not 'in tune' as I'm sure all of you are, so I'm looking for something tangible I can understand rather than: "just spend $2000 on RME ###### that's the best.". Additionally I have no delusions of grandeur about mixing 5.1; I don't need any lecturing please I'm just looking for guidance and attempting to outlay my goals so that you can better understand and inform me, even if I use the system for only 3 channel to start with it's nice to have that future proofing.

Secondary to that, I also would prefer to not have unusable inputs/pre-amps/ADC/DAC etc, I may perhaps use this for one or two channel recording (but I certainly don't need 32 channels like every unit seems to have).  I do have external mixer/recorders (background of independent motion pictures/digital recording), but in the off chance I want to record Foley on the system or who knows, have a musician friend come over and play around it's a nice feature to not lose sight of.  If there's an audio output only device, I would certainly trade off the ability to input for the dedication and simplicity, but I'm not finding that anywhere.

Lastly, it would be great to have at least one headphone 6.3mm (1/4 TRS) or at least 3.5mm off the front panel, separate dedicated volume knob for phones and main monitor outputs (all of them in one dial).  I will just have this on a desk not in a rack but I can work with/custom make any solution so that is not an issue.  For connectivity, well that's a whole other topic in itself, I use Windows PC and my current editing system has USB3, esata, (and I believe a FireWire something, I don't use it), however I'm not adverted to going with Thunderbolt or PCIE if that's required.

Alright I believe I have covered everything, thank you for your time.

P.S.  I will also be looking at getting some powered monitors, any suggestions/recommendations would be appreciated.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Iceking007  wrote

I'm not an audiophile so I'm not 'in tune' as I'm sure all of you are, so I'm looking for something tangible I can understand rather than: "just spend $2000 on RME ###### that's the best.". Additionally I have no delusions of grandeur about mixing 5.1; I don't need any lecturing please I'm just looking for guidance and attempting to outlay my goals so that you can better understand and inform me, even if I use the system for only 3 channel to start with it's nice to have that future proofing.

Secondary to that, I also would prefer to not have unusable inputs/pre-amps/ADC/DAC etc, I may perhaps use this for one or two channel recording (but I certainly don't need 32 channels like every unit seems to have).

I am moderately confident (having had yet another look at this) that unfortunately the box you want simply doesn't exist, or if it does, it's a standalone boutique D-A converter, probably with no headphone output, and will cost about $10k+...

The box that's got closest is, you might not be surprised, an RME one, but it doesn't cost $2k - currently £745 here. It's the Fireface UC. You get the discrete outputs, and you have headphone monitoring. There's not a huge amount of obvious input facilities to get alarmed about either. If you want more outputs, then another eight can be arranged via the ADAT output, and there are a couple of cheap fan-out boxes that will facilitate this with ease - think Behringer ADA8200, etc.

And all RME's stuff is ultra-reliable; I use a couple of Fireface UFCs, in post and for location recording. Never had a single problem with either of them. Because of the way the matrixing works, you have loads of flexibility; you can route pretty much anything anywhere.

Of course if you actually want to spend $2k+ then the firm to look at is Apogee - the Symphony I/O Mk II. Just ignore the inputs...

[Iceking007]

Yes I've been looking at that Fireface unit also, as well as:

Zoom UAC-8 (I'm leaning towards this despite not a heavy following of the Zoom products)

Tascam US 20x20 or 16x8

Roland AU1610

Is kinda my list at the moment.  I have been looking at PCIE cards (you'd think it'd be simple and relatively inexpensive but I guess there's no market for my needs) but all the PCIe cards go to DB pins or other standards and then you need another $1500-###### for a breakout box so to speak.

If I had the money I'd go with an SPL unit, I'd like to stay under $1000 CAD which sadly isn't much at all.

I did come across this (https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HDSP9632--rme-hammerfall-hdsp-9632)  which might be suitable but even then it's about the same price point as what I'm looking at, but with less features and no appeal/tactile controls.

I'm also seriously considering going with the Yamaha studio monitors.  They seem to be touted as being very flat and great for this type of work, an "industry standard"; plus they are quite affordable.

Hopefully I get more input, doesn't anyone mix anything other than stereo?

(Even so stereo would have a basis of knowledge... you have to connect your monitors somehow)

Thank you ACP.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Iceking007  wrote

I'm also seriously considering going with the Yamaha studio monitors.  They seem to be touted as being very flat and great for this type of work, an "industry standard"; plus they are quite affordable.

Hmm... I didn't mention monitors at all, and it's a minefield. Dealing with your point first - flatness as such is the least of your worries; your room will rapidly see to that. Having a suitable room for them, and positioning them correctly within it will make far more difference than the actual degree of 'flatness', which your room will screw around with probably more than you realise.

What monitor speakers are supposed to do, above all else, is to be truthful. And really, that's what you are paying for. And the one thing that the Yamahas aren't that good at, I'm afraid, is absolute truthfulness. What was said about the original NS10's (which did actually have some good technical points) was that if you could get a mix to sound good on them, it would sound absolutely great on anything else! Which meant that they tended to emphasise those things in a mix (mostly in the midrange) that people found disturbing (without actually realising it), and prompted you to do something about them. And this is why a lot of people have them; not as main monitors but as a final check, as they can be a bit painful to work with all of the time. Ear fatigue sets in earlier with them than most monitors!

The other thing about monitors is that ideally, you should try them in your room first, and see what your initial feelings are. The way that everybody 'learns' monitors is to play tracks that you already know sound good, on them. This can be very revealing, and cause people not infrequently to change their minds about them. I had a 'torture test' CD that I used to evaluate speakers and rooms, and I think that if you're serious about this, then create one of your own and at least take it down to your dealer, and ask to be able to play it. Even in an acoustically sub-optimal shop you'll find surprising differences between them. But fundamentally, what monitors are supposed to do is to reveal what's really there, and not massage it away like most hi-fi speakers do.

You will not be surprised though to hear that pretty much, you get what you pay for; there are very few real bargains to be had.

At this point, people usually ask what I use, so I'll preempt you by saying that in post, it's a pair of Neumann KH420G's in an acoustically controlled environment. I also have a pair of old Tannoy Devons downstairs, and Adam P11A's for location monitoring. Indeed, you could do a lot worse than consider the latest version of the Adams - the A7X. They can be picked up for about the price you should be paying for entry-level monitoring. The other monitors that you pretty much can't go wrong with are Genelecs, but they tend to cost a bit.

My serious advice is to save up a bit, and initially get something better than the Yamahas - buy them second!

[Iceking007]

Hmm, that's something to consider, yes I did realize that about monitors (wanting them to throw all the nasty stuff in your face... what I meant by "flat" is they don't "inflate" or alter the sound).  The problem is, yes; ideally I should spend $100,000 and build a whole room and have the best cleanest equipment etc but the fact is I can't.  As an Indi film maker I have to use what I have and work with what I can afford.  $10k camera, $10k audio hear, $5k lighting, $15k grip... plus, plus, plus.  All this out of my pocket and I'm still wanting to get a second camera.

I don't think you'd argue that a pair of monitors aren't better than headphones (sorry double negative), but are "cheap" monitors better than no monitors?  Is a shitty room better than working on the street or in a dumpster?  The room I can improve overtime, find flaws and work to make it perform better.  The speakers I can upgrade.  But I need something to begin with, some work is better than no work, as we don't all start with the best "Porsche", "Ferrari", "name your car".

I'm not competing in the world Grande Prix but is there no mid way point for me to start at.  I was reading this one person's post on his decision for monitors.  He was looking at similar products I have and mentioned the Adams A7X; they were out of his price point so he was looking at the F7s.

He also looked at, as am I:

Focus Alpha 50

The JBLs (I'm not really interested in the JBLs)

KRK RP5 G3 (which I like but they flatter bass more)

In the end he chose the Yamaha's, and he did do sound tests as you suggest, and as I was going to do as well.  Everyone's ears are different but why do you say it's hard to listen to the Yamaha's?  And wouldn't that be good?  Couldn't you use your headphones and home theatre speakers and then final tweak with the Yamaha's?

Is audio from "Hollywood" movies good to use as a test and train your ears on the speakers?

Sorry I don't think this is going to be a simple thread.

So how much would you budget for monitors if you were starting out today on a tight budget?  I'd need a minimum of L C R

Thank you for the input.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Iceking007  wrote

Everyone's ears are different but why do you say it's hard to listen to the Yamaha's?  And wouldn't that be good?  Couldn't you use your headphones and home theatre speakers and then final tweak with the Yamaha's?

Several things: It's not hard at any instant to listen to Yamahas, but listener fatigue will set in earlier with them - you're having to work harder without realising it because of what they do to the midrange. That's not good because it stops you working effectively - you find yourself having to take breaks more often. In many ways, especially if you're working with video, then yes, you are almost better off doing the picture assembly with a pair of home theatre speakers and not going anywhere near 'proper' monitors at all until you do the sound sweetening. What generally doesn't work though is using headphones - your imaging will be a mile out. The one thing that's generally possible with headphones is dialog editing, but for the actual mix, you need speakers.

Is audio from "Hollywood" movies good to use as a test and train your ears on the speakers?

Not really. It's shaped towards cinema audiences and even though they've pretty much stopped using the 'academy curve' for everything, it's still pretty unbalanced.  What you really need is a wide range of material that you know sounds good on other systems. What you are learning is how you adjust your audio so that it sounds more like what you're hearing elsewhere. It's only when you've learned this that you'll be able to create mixes that 'translate'. This is in general why people tend to stick to monitors for a long time before changing them - once you've learned them, they just 'work' for you. And that in the main is why it's worth waiting a bit to get a pair that you can really get on with - you'll be stuck with them a while!

As for 'how much', then Durin's article suggests that nothing less than $150 is worth listening to. I'd personally put that figure at more like $400, bearing in mind what I just wrote...

[Iceking007]

Yeah the Adams are $3k ($1,000/ea), I just can't justify that.  I mean if I got paid or was a professional sure, but I think I could make better audio with a $2k microphone and cheap speakers than the other way around.

Do you like the Focal Alpha 50s? They would cost me half that of the Adams.

So you don't use headphones at all to mix?  Some professionals day they use both.  Focal sells $1700 headphones!

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Iceking007  wrote

Do you like the Focal Alpha 50s? They would cost me half that of the Adams.

The Alpha 65s get good reviews, and anything smaller is going to compromise the bass a lot.

So you don't use headphones at all to mix?  Some professionals say they use both.

You can't possibly do a loudspeaker mix on headphones. You never have been able to, and you never will. The relationship between the drivers and your ears is completely different, and you'd get the sound stage completely wrong. Headphones are fine for content editing, and many people claim that they use them for 'headphone' mixes (think binaural), but they invariably sound 'wrong' on other systems. I'd say that the chances of getting any headphone mix to translate to any other system as slender indeed. And for anything to do with video, they're no use at all.

[Iceking007]

Okay, let me ask you some less subjective questions.

-Is it practical to get brand X for the center and rear surrounds, and brand C for the left/right and sub? (Assuming that brands X and C are in different price points)

-Is it a potentially good idea to get two sets of lower end monitors to compare back and forth rather than one set of expensive monitors?

-Is it worthwhile getting 3 way monitors for a first set or are 2 ways sufficient?

-What where your first monitors?  How many channels did you buy?

-What do you mix primarily (3.1)?

-I will see if I can test some monitors first, perhaps the local audio shop sells monitors and not just high end speakers and amps; the owner is very personable and reasonable.  What is it I'm looking for/how will I know?  Our whole lives we listen to "end user speakers" so we can hear flavors and say what we like.  But if you're shopping for monitors, are you just choosing the worst sounding speakers then?  Something that sounds awful but you hear it on such great crystal clear detail?

I am planning on doing some room acoustic treatments.  A few years back I was planning on building a music/multimedia room so I researched that extensively and understand the importance of it.  That all fell through because I was broke so I never did but my drum set ) :  .  I am planning to build an extra large box for the ceiling, large boxes front and rear, 4 medium boxes for the side walls, and I'll have to plan something for bass traps.  I've been hearing large monitors are no good for small rooms so that is why I've been looking at 5/6" range, I think 8's will be too large; I can always add a sub for bass.

I'm also (if I ever get home) planning on building a mix disk.  I'm compiling some movie clips for dialogue and action/SFX, coupled together with some instrumental/music clips.  I will plan to listen to that multiple times to become familiar with it on various sound systems I have and then use it to compare if I can live demo monitors (doubtful I will but I'm planning for that anyways).

Thank you continually.

[SteveG_AudioMasters_]

Iceking007  wrote

-Is it practical to get brand X for the center and rear surrounds, and brand C for the left/right and sub? (Assuming that brands X and C are in different price points)

Let's get the sub out of the way first - that's the LFE channel and that stands for Low Frequency Effects - in other words, not normal programme content. As for the rest, you need to match the L,C and R speakers, but don't worry so much about the rear surrounds, which generally have far less critical programme content in them anyway. A lot of people use d'appolito monitors for the C, because you can run them on their sides underneath screens. The most important consideration is that the L, R and C should be full-range monitors.

-Is it a potentially good idea to get two sets of lower end monitors to compare back and forth rather than one set of expensive monitors?

No! You'd just be listening to two different sets of compromised performances, and you wouldn't know where you were at all! One decent pair, and something like the modern equivalent of Auratone cubes would be a better bet - the cubes sound far more like a domestic TV would. Something like Avantone Pro MIxCubes would be the thing to go for - still quite revealing.

-Is it worthwhile getting 3 way monitors for a first set or are 2 ways sufficient?

Depends on whether you are monitoring near or mid-field. If it's near-field, then two-ways are going to integrate the bass-mid and treble closer to the speakers. If it's mid-field (say 2 yds+) then you get better power distribution across a three-way system, and it will generally run louder without too much distress.

-What where your first monitors?  How many channels did you buy?

-What do you mix primarily (3.1)?

Buy? I built the first pair of monitors I owned, and it was a lot of hard work. They were KEF-based, but the crossovers needed a lot of attention, and it took a lot of acoustic measurements to get them even vaguely 'right'. Bear in mind that professionally I'm an acoustician as well as a recording engineer, so that wasn't really a problem for me, as I had access to the right facilities. They lasted a long time, and I had a pretty good idea of what the compromises were. In other words, I learned them pretty well. Since I was doing a lot of speech at the time, and the tops were almost BBC LS3/5As, they were really good for that. I've still got the drive units somewhere, and one day I'll build them back into something for the living room.

Most of what I mix nowadays  is music, and since a lot (most) of it ends up on CDs, I only do it in stereo. The system is actually 2.1, as there's a sub used as part of a sneaky bit of room correction - it's active bass control, and mainly removes one or two difficult bits rather than adding anything - the Neumanns do a pretty good job of the bass on their own.

[_durin_]

Cinema Sound recently did a great studio monitor showdown at https://www.cinemasound.com/showdown-the-best-nearfield-monitor-the-results-will-shock-you/   While no Yamaha speakers were included in the comparison, you may get a good sense of budget vs. performance expectations.

[Iceking007]

Thank you durin, that is a very indepth post; I think I understood 10% of it lol.

So they recommend the JBL LSR 305 MKII, which are very inexpensive.  Hmph, I suppose I must concede, I don't like JBL, and I really liked the white Yamaha's, but quality is more important than my opinion.