What does this record monitoring switch do?

**Muddy T-Bone** · 01-26-2013

Another stupid newbie question that I can not find the answer to in the manual. What does this switch in the photo do? It's labeled on/off/auto.

It appears that REAPER is set to defaut to record monitoring OFF.

My guess is the meter on the track is monitoring recording when set in the ON position.

Thanks in advance

**Armistice** · 01-26-2013

If I don't have that switched to ON, I can't hear what I'm playing in monitors/headphones.. Haven't worked out the AUTO setting yet though.

**mjbphotos** · 01-26-2013

If you want to wet monitor the track you are recording, turn it on. Most people use direct (dry) monitoring - monitoring from your audio interface - so that latency is not an issue.

**gecko zzed** · 01-27-2013

What mjb says ^^^

Generally, hardware monitoring through your interface is less risky than software monitoring through your DAW.

However, when it comes to midi and VST, if you are recording midi, you can only hear what you are doing with software monitoring, i.e. that button pressed.

**dainbramage** · 03-08-2013

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

Generally, hardware monitoring through your interface is less risky than software monitoring through your DAW.

Would appreciate if you could explain this. I'm used to monitoring wet through DAW. Why would it be risky? If it is because of latency one would think it was more work having to move the takes back because of having monitored through interface? Also, if you're using plugins it seems better to listen through them while recording. I am sure you're right but please explain.

**bouldersoundguy** · 03-08-2013

Originally Posted by dainbramage

Would appreciate if you could explain this. I'm used to monitoring wet through DAW. Why would it be risky? If it is because of latency one would think it was more work having to move the takes back because of having monitored through interface? Also, if you're using plugins it seems better to listen through them while recording. I am sure you're right but please explain.

To lower monitoring latency you need to use a smaller buffer, but a smaller buffer puts you at risk of recording dropouts and glitches. You have two conflicting needs. With hardware direct monitoring you can set the buffers to whatever works best for recording while having little or no monitoring latency.

You shouldn't have to move anything at all if your DAW is properly configured. If you do you have what's called record latency or record offset. You can test that by connecting an output to an input and recording the playback to another track. It should line up perfectly, or very nearly so. There should be an adjustment somewhere in your software's settings.

Generally it's best to monitor without processing that may cover up performance errors or imperfections, especially with vocals. Sometimes effects are part of the sound, such as with guitars, but I would suggest getting as much of that ahead of the interface using pedals etc.

**Armistice** · 03-09-2013

Originally Posted by dainbramage

Would appreciate if you could explain this. I'm used to monitoring wet through DAW. Why would it be risky? If it is because of latency one would think it was more work having to move the takes back because of having monitored through interface? Also, if you're using plugins it seems better to listen through them while recording. I am sure you're right but please explain.

Some people, me included, can relax a bit more with a touch of 'verb on the voice whilst recording... so that's a case of monitoring via the DAW unless your interface has onboard effects, as some do.... however, as boulder points out, doing this might actually mask imperfections in the performance...so there's a line to walk...

These days I go dry via the interface for that very reason... even though my interface can do effects... I'd rather know up front.

**gecko zzed** · 03-09-2013

Originally Posted by Armistice

Some people, me included, can relax a bit more with a touch of 'verb on the voice whilst recording... so that's a case of monitoring via the DAW unless your interface has onboard effects, as some do.... however, as boulder points out, doing this might actually mask imperfections in the performance...so there's a line to walk...

These days I go dry via the interface for that very reason... even though my interface can do effects... I'd rather know up front.

Reverb on the monitor does sometimes make it easier for the singer.

The main problem with it is that it can make the singer sing flat.

If someone insists, I can feed reverb through, but I prefer to go dry.

**bouldersoundguy** · 03-09-2013

Some reverb on the voice while tracking can be helpful. Your brain is used to hearing sounds reflecting of nearby surfaces and the right reverb can make it easier to hear your pitch and tone. Too much can blur your timing. In Pro Tools we found a way to use the ITB reverb though not monitoring through the software. I'm not sure how to do it on another DAW. In the other studio using Sony Vegas we track through a big console which allows reverb in monitors.

Compression on vocals in monitors can make the singer overcompensate by being too dynamic. That counteracts the effect of the compressor and can strain a singer's voice. I would rather have all the dynamics the singer is doing come through so they are more likely to use good mic technique. When I break this rule I use a high threshold so the compression only affects the highest peaks.

While you can track with some effects there's certainly no reason you have to. I would rather have zero latency monitoring and no effects than have latency and effects.