jrosenstein
New member
LooneyTunez said:
If you're worried enough about impedance mis-matches not to just run a simple potentiometer, I doubt that a headphone amp would be a better option.
How do you control the volume of your Active studio monitors?
- Thread starter ambi
- Start date
If you're worried enough about impedance mis-matches not to just run a simple potentiometer, I doubt that a headphone amp would be a better option.
LooneyTunez
New member
While there aren't too many details out there for the HP4 (yet), it looks to me that it is more than just a headphone amp. It does have control room outputs, which are probably going to have a compatible impedance.
Ambi, you asked elsewhere what I use to control the volume. Rather than hijack that thread I will answer here (perhaps you might want to delete your post from that thread).
I use a behringer mixer to control some event active monitors. In hindsight I would not get this setup, which is why I dont recommend it. On the other hand my partner is happy enough with the convenience of it all and isnt so concerned with sound quality.
It shouldnt be that hard to build a simple passive preamp like what jrosenstein suggested. It should get the job better than a cheap mixer. Otherwise just use a mixer and live with some small signal degradation. You may not even notice it.
I use a behringer mixer to control some event active monitors. In hindsight I would not get this setup, which is why I dont recommend it. On the other hand my partner is happy enough with the convenience of it all and isnt so concerned with sound quality.
It shouldnt be that hard to build a simple passive preamp like what jrosenstein suggested. It should get the job better than a cheap mixer. Otherwise just use a mixer and live with some small signal degradation. You may not even notice it.
Last edited:
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
Guys, at the risk of getting too "tech-y" here, there is NO SUCH THING as a "passive" pre-amp.
The term "pre-amp" is short for Preliminary Amplifier. An amplifier is NOT a PASSIVE device, or it couldn't AMPLIFY anything.
In all analog electronic circuits, everything that is ACTIVE is either an AMPLIFIER, an OSCILLATOR, or a POWER SUPPLY - and it can be argued that a power supply is just a specialized AMPLIFIER.
PASSIVE components are things that require no Power Supply in order to operate, such as resistors, capacitors, inductors and switches.
Radio shack used to make some 20 dB and 30 dB pads that were in the form of a RED mini-jack. Looks just like any other mini jack, except it's RED, and has the resistors inside to attenuate the input signal by 20 or 30 dB.
I don't remember the part #, but if you're interested I may be able to get it off the few of them I have in my studio in the junk box.
You would need to get whatever adapters you need to mate them up to your sound card, but that little bit of circuitry should do less to cloud up your sound than the Mackie, and DEFINITELY less than the Behringer (yeccchhh!!!)
If I were using active monitors, I personally would recommend using a stereo L-pad between the sound card and monitors, since I firmly believe in always monitoring at a constant 85 dB SPL, measured with "C" weighting - this requires riding the level as you make changes to the mix, but it's the only way I've found to get consistent bass response in mixes. The other downside of my method is it's not cheap if you get decent components.
For my KRK passives, I use an SAE preamp into a Yamaha "Natural Sound" power amp, and I ride the level with the SAE volume control.
Just my $.02... Steve
The term "pre-amp" is short for Preliminary Amplifier. An amplifier is NOT a PASSIVE device, or it couldn't AMPLIFY anything.
In all analog electronic circuits, everything that is ACTIVE is either an AMPLIFIER, an OSCILLATOR, or a POWER SUPPLY - and it can be argued that a power supply is just a specialized AMPLIFIER.
PASSIVE components are things that require no Power Supply in order to operate, such as resistors, capacitors, inductors and switches.
Radio shack used to make some 20 dB and 30 dB pads that were in the form of a RED mini-jack. Looks just like any other mini jack, except it's RED, and has the resistors inside to attenuate the input signal by 20 or 30 dB.
I don't remember the part #, but if you're interested I may be able to get it off the few of them I have in my studio in the junk box.
You would need to get whatever adapters you need to mate them up to your sound card, but that little bit of circuitry should do less to cloud up your sound than the Mackie, and DEFINITELY less than the Behringer (yeccchhh!!!)
If I were using active monitors, I personally would recommend using a stereo L-pad between the sound card and monitors, since I firmly believe in always monitoring at a constant 85 dB SPL, measured with "C" weighting - this requires riding the level as you make changes to the mix, but it's the only way I've found to get consistent bass response in mixes. The other downside of my method is it's not cheap if you get decent components.
For my KRK passives, I use an SAE preamp into a Yamaha "Natural Sound" power amp, and I ride the level with the SAE volume control.
Just my $.02... Steve
What about a card like the Aardvark Q10, i was considering this a while ago.
It has the volume control for monitors built into it. wouldn't this be the absolute best, because you are doing it before it even leaves the card?
No i don't need 8 inputs most of the time. And getting 2 great channels of preamps and mics and building on that would be best, but i will want to record more tracks eventually for drums or whatever, or maybe a band. i may even want to go to a buddies house and record some drums a week after i get the setup, so it's not necisarily really far down the line, just time to time. To get the RNP, a preamp to control the monitors, and a delta 66, it would cost me about 2000 canadian dollars (estimated, maybe a bit more). That would give me a max of 4 inputs, with spdf for future upgrading, and 2 great channels of preamps, so i could only record 2 signals at a time. The Q10 would cost about 1600-1700 Canadian, and i would have 8 good preamps (not as good as the rnp, but good), better converters and a better clock, 8 inputs, a word clock port, midi, and spdf. PLUS it has headphone/mixer outputs and volume knobs for each. So i would be getting more for less, it seems? i can always add a single high quality preamp in the future to do the bulk of main signals, for the 2 i will be usually recording, and have another 8 just incase. This would also reduce the signal chain. Instead of soundcard-preamp volume control-monitors. It would be soundcard-monitors. And the same with the input signal, no outboard preamp (unitl i add one).
Does this sound like a good option? I was heavily considering it before, but changed my mind to a smaller cheaper card like a delta 44/66. But once you factor in the preamps and the volume control for the monitors, it's really no cheaper, and it seems to me that i'd be getting less. The only downfall is the preamps would be a little worse, BUT the converters would be better. I could put the extra money i saved from this towards a better mic, which i'm told will make the most significant difference...
Any good?
It has the volume control for monitors built into it. wouldn't this be the absolute best, because you are doing it before it even leaves the card?
No i don't need 8 inputs most of the time. And getting 2 great channels of preamps and mics and building on that would be best, but i will want to record more tracks eventually for drums or whatever, or maybe a band. i may even want to go to a buddies house and record some drums a week after i get the setup, so it's not necisarily really far down the line, just time to time. To get the RNP, a preamp to control the monitors, and a delta 66, it would cost me about 2000 canadian dollars (estimated, maybe a bit more). That would give me a max of 4 inputs, with spdf for future upgrading, and 2 great channels of preamps, so i could only record 2 signals at a time. The Q10 would cost about 1600-1700 Canadian, and i would have 8 good preamps (not as good as the rnp, but good), better converters and a better clock, 8 inputs, a word clock port, midi, and spdf. PLUS it has headphone/mixer outputs and volume knobs for each. So i would be getting more for less, it seems? i can always add a single high quality preamp in the future to do the bulk of main signals, for the 2 i will be usually recording, and have another 8 just incase. This would also reduce the signal chain. Instead of soundcard-preamp volume control-monitors. It would be soundcard-monitors. And the same with the input signal, no outboard preamp (unitl i add one).
Does this sound like a good option? I was heavily considering it before, but changed my mind to a smaller cheaper card like a delta 44/66. But once you factor in the preamps and the volume control for the monitors, it's really no cheaper, and it seems to me that i'd be getting less. The only downfall is the preamps would be a little worse, BUT the converters would be better. I could put the extra money i saved from this towards a better mic, which i'm told will make the most significant difference...
Any good?
Where does it say the converters are better? Reviews of the q10 suggest that the noise floor is bit high compared to other 24bit soundcards. I havent see any specs of what akm converters they use, so I would expect them to be similar to those on the delta 66 rather than the higher quality ones used on the delta 1010 or echo layla.
It still should sound pretty good though and probably better than a delta 66 because of the clock or analog design as you mentioned. Can you listen to it at your local shop and compare to other soundcards?
The pres appear comparable to a mackie mixer. Some people would consider that pretty good, others would say they are pretty ordinary/average - its all relative. Whether that is good enough compared to an RNP or grace 101 is up to you. The effect of the pre can also depend on the mic. Eg an SM57 apparently sounds heaps better when using a high quality pre versus a mackie.
The q10 seems like a pretty good package if you need lots of features. Again its quality versus quantity. You need to be sure about your needs. You seem to change your mind lot about how many channels you need and what quality you are after.
ps have you decided against passive monitors with an integrated amp?
It still should sound pretty good though and probably better than a delta 66 because of the clock or analog design as you mentioned. Can you listen to it at your local shop and compare to other soundcards?
The pres appear comparable to a mackie mixer. Some people would consider that pretty good, others would say they are pretty ordinary/average - its all relative. Whether that is good enough compared to an RNP or grace 101 is up to you. The effect of the pre can also depend on the mic. Eg an SM57 apparently sounds heaps better when using a high quality pre versus a mackie.
The q10 seems like a pretty good package if you need lots of features. Again its quality versus quantity. You need to be sure about your needs. You seem to change your mind lot about how many channels you need and what quality you are after.
ps have you decided against passive monitors with an integrated amp?
Last edited:
yea well i'm fairly flexible with the number of inputs, i could put more inputs to use, but if i had to get only 4 inputs, with 2 good preamps i could make do as well. I haven't desided against a passive preamp with an amp, i'm going to look into both options fully. I was just considering the Aardvark as an option considering it has the volume control built in, if i happen to go that route.
L'espion Noir
Member
i use my soundcard
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
Ambi, first of all I've felt your pain - decisions vs. dollars have plagued most of us who were "born without silver spoons in our mouths" -
Here is a link to a good but technical explanation of pads - This site has a lot more, just back up to williamson-labs.com/ and brouse to your heart's content.
http://www.williamson-labs.com/attenuator.htm
Scroll down to section (F) on bridged T-type attenuators. The L-pad I mentioned only works with same in and out impedances, so a T pad would be better.
However, in your case I would probably go with the Q10 as its bang-for-buck is hard to beat. The less garbage your sound has to go through to get to your ears, the better. Granted, the quality of that garbage is important, especially the BALANCE of quality (both channels as identical as possible, meaning tight specs on components)
For one thing, in order to build a suitable T-pad for stereo that won't shift things around as you change levels, you need expensive matched/ganged potentiometers that are non-inductive - these by themselves run into the hundreds of dollars and are hard to find. Second, unless you are experienced in building high performance circuitry, you would have a hard time keeping from adding noise/distortion to your signal.
Still, a little education never hurt - but when you're done, I'd get the Q10 and make some music... Steve
Here is a link to a good but technical explanation of pads - This site has a lot more, just back up to williamson-labs.com/ and brouse to your heart's content.
http://www.williamson-labs.com/attenuator.htm
Scroll down to section (F) on bridged T-type attenuators. The L-pad I mentioned only works with same in and out impedances, so a T pad would be better.
However, in your case I would probably go with the Q10 as its bang-for-buck is hard to beat. The less garbage your sound has to go through to get to your ears, the better. Granted, the quality of that garbage is important, especially the BALANCE of quality (both channels as identical as possible, meaning tight specs on components)
For one thing, in order to build a suitable T-pad for stereo that won't shift things around as you change levels, you need expensive matched/ganged potentiometers that are non-inductive - these by themselves run into the hundreds of dollars and are hard to find. Second, unless you are experienced in building high performance circuitry, you would have a hard time keeping from adding noise/distortion to your signal.
Still, a little education never hurt - but when you're done, I'd get the Q10 and make some music... Steve
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
I use my DAW's "monitor volume" knob, and if I'm feeling really radical, I use the volume controls on the back panel of the monitors themselves.-Richie
Can you do a lot of adjustment with these volume knobs on the back of the monitors? i always thought they didn't do much?
So could i say have my windows volume at 100 percent, and turn the volume knobs on the monitors way down so they are right at about 80-84 dba for mixing, and then i can just use the windows volume to make it more quiet, and not have to worry about accidentally reseting the windows volume to 100 percent and having my monitors explode/deafen me?
So could i say have my windows volume at 100 percent, and turn the volume knobs on the monitors way down so they are right at about 80-84 dba for mixing, and then i can just use the windows volume to make it more quiet, and not have to worry about accidentally reseting the windows volume to 100 percent and having my monitors explode/deafen me?
they're just a small trim knob usually with about 10db of gain difference in the knob. (YSM1p's knob range is -9 to +6)
it's not enough to make up for the huge level mismatched encountered when connecting monitor speakers to a +4 unit.
ambi, i just realized something - if you're getting a Delta 44 or 66 or 1010, you can set the output level to -10. I did that on my old 44 and it allowed me to keep my digital levels in the right ballpark, eliminating the need for any other sort of volume control. i just can't do that now that i have a MOTU 1224 (always set at +4)
it's not enough to make up for the huge level mismatched encountered when connecting monitor speakers to a +4 unit.
ambi, i just realized something - if you're getting a Delta 44 or 66 or 1010, you can set the output level to -10. I did that on my old 44 and it allowed me to keep my digital levels in the right ballpark, eliminating the need for any other sort of volume control. i just can't do that now that i have a MOTU 1224 (always set at +4)
really?
Hmmm, so that would just set the outputs to that right?
If i set the inputs to -10 wouldn't that mean i'd just have to turn up my preamp an addition 10 db to make up for the loss?
That would be very nice... -10 on the sound card and -9 on the speakers could do the trick..
That delta 44 is looking more and more inviting if i can bypass that volume problem, and it sounds like i can...
Hmmm, so that would just set the outputs to that right?
If i set the inputs to -10 wouldn't that mean i'd just have to turn up my preamp an addition 10 db to make up for the loss?
That would be very nice... -10 on the sound card and -9 on the speakers could do the trick..
That delta 44 is looking more and more inviting if i can bypass that volume problem, and it sounds like i can...
i think +4 gives the best quality, but it depends. i couldn't notice any quality difference between any of the settings. you're best off to just set things to match your gear.
if you have nicely quiet preamps with reasonable headroom, you could set the Delta to +4 inputs. on the other hand, if they preamps happen to get noisy at high levels or have poor headroom in general, you might be better off at consumer or even -10.
if you have nicely quiet preamps with reasonable headroom, you could set the Delta to +4 inputs. on the other hand, if they preamps happen to get noisy at high levels or have poor headroom in general, you might be better off at consumer or even -10.