Monitoring tracks

Atkron205

Atkron205

Member
I just upgraded to a UR824 interface, I figured out how to route the signal from the master to the headphone outputs. My question is this: If I enable monitoring on the tracks that I have already recorded, with the output from the master routed to the headphone outputs as well am I monitoring it twice? should I turn off the monitoring on the tracks that are just being played back? Thanks:D
 
If it's like Sonar, yes. If it's for monitoring live hardware inputs, existing tracks wouldn't need it. Actually, I've never tried using it on a existing track. Try it. What happens? Do you get signal from both sources?
 
Effectively you are monitoring twice.

You would probably notice the slight delay on the software monitoring via Reaper. This is the disadvantage of software monitoring. The advantage is that you can monitor any effects on the track.
 
mixsit said:
If it's like Sonar, yes. If it's for monitoring live hardware inputs, existing tracks wouldn't need it. Actually, I've never tried using it on a existing track. Try it. What happens? Do you get signal from both sources?
Click to expand...

I think so, up until now I have only used Reaper for post production mixdown , never recorded with it. So I am very ignorant to this. I think I need to enable the monitoring for the track being recorded then turn it off for playback. and leave the master track enabled all the time, but not sure. Thanks sir. :facepalm:
 
Atkron205 said:
I think I need to enable the monitoring for the track being recorded then turn it off for playback. and leave the master track enabled all the time, but not sure.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any good reason to use software monitoring instead of direct monitoring unless you specifically want to hear effects on the track being recorded. However, it's not going to do you any harm.
 
gecko zzed said:
I can't think of any good reason to use software monitoring instead of direct monitoring unless you specifically want to hear effects on the track being recorded. However, it's not going to do you any harm.
Click to expand...

The direct monitoring is what I want, in the manual for the 824 all the references for direct monitoring are for Cubase applications unless I am missing it. Thanks
 
Are we talking about the input monitoring in Reaper? Not whatever weird routing software comes with the interface, right? You just want to know what happens if you record a track in Reaper and leave Reaper's input monitoring on for that track when you play it back?

I think that kind of depends on some preference settings, but by default you'll hear both the recorded audio and whatever is played into that input until you disarm the track from recording. I wouldn't really call it "double monitoring". You're only hearing the recorded sound once whether monitoring is on or not.

The comments about hardware or direct monitoring are about the track being recorded and only apply when it is record-armed. [Edit - no, I don't like that statement. Your interface doesn't know whether you're recording or not. If you enable hardware monitoring, it pretty much just mixes the analog input signal from before it goes to the AD with the analog signal that Reaper sends through the DA. You will always hear anything plugged into the inputs AND the pre-recorded tracks.] I would argue that if you've got good enough latency through your system, there's no good reason to use hardware or direct monitoring even when you're not wanting to monitor through effects.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Are we talking about the input monitoring in Reaper? Not whatever weird routing software comes with the interface, right? You just want to know what happens if you record a track in Reaper and leave Reaper's input monitoring on for that track when you play it back?

I think that kind of depends on some preference settings, but by default you'll hear both the recorded audio and whatever is played into that input until you disarm the track from recording. I wouldn't really call it "double monitoring". You're only hearing the recorded sound once whether monitoring is on or not.

The comments about hardware or direct monitoring are about the track being recorded and only apply when it is record-armed. [Edit - no, I don't like that statement. Your interface doesn't know whether you're recording or not. If you enable hardware monitoring, it pretty much just mixes the analog input signal from before it goes to the AD with the analog signal that Reaper sends through the DA. You will always hear anything plugged into the inputs AND the pre-recorded tracks.] I would argue that if you've got good enough latency through your system, there's no good reason to use hardware or direct monitoring even when you're not wanting to monitor through effects.
Click to expand...

I just wasnt sure if I needed to enable the monitoring on the track being recorded. I was just starting to play with it and my laptop crashed, the new PC I have coming will be faster with 20 gigs of RAM. I hope latency will not be a big issue. So when I arm the track I will get the signal from the master track, the tracks being played back should also route to the master track, correct? so do I have to use the track monitoring at all? Thanks Ash.

Sweetwater Custom Computing Creation Station CS200v4 Desktop Computer | Sweetwater.com
 
Last edited:
When I want to direct monitor, I exclusively use my interface's routing software. When I want to monitor with FX, I exclusively use software monitoring via Reaper. But I never do both at the same time...well not on purpose :)

Via my interface's routing software its just a matter of routing an input channel to some output channel (I assume that's what you mean by "routing to master"?).

And via Reaper its just a matter of clicking the monitor icon on the track. I don't fiddle with Reaper's routing matrix and sending tracks to specific outputs (in case that's what you meant by routing to master).
 
Tadpui said:
When I want to direct monitor, I exclusively use my interface's routing software. When I want to monitor with FX, I exclusively use software monitoring via Reaper. But I never do both at the same time...well not on purpose :)

Via my interface's routing software its just a matter of routing an input channel to some output channel (I assume that's what you mean by "routing to master"?).

And via Reaper its just a matter of clicking the monitor icon on the track. I don't fiddle with Reaper's routing matrix and sending tracks to specific outputs (in case that's what you meant by routing to master).
Click to expand...

The direct monitoring with the interface is what I am trying to figure out, still working on it. I went to the master track in Reaper and added a hardware output for the headphone outputs I have my headphone amp connected to. the UR824 will do direct moinitoring but the only references I see are with Cubase programs, I may be missing something, the manual sucks!:D Thanks
 
So I've just had a look at the UR824 specs and downloaded the manual.

It seems that the UR824 is one of those interfaces in which you can't control direct monitoring directly from the interface itself; you need to set it up with the interface's software, i.e. dspMiXFX. I agree that the manual sucks, at least from my first reading of it. However, you should not need to mess around in Reaper to get stuff happening. It's the interface's software where this all happens.
 
You get to pick how you monitor live input. Use EITHER direct via the interface software OR Reaper, NOT both. It's really that simple. None of that has to do with the playback really.

I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that direct monitoring is the right way to go in most cases. Especially if you have to fuck around with whatever half-assed routing software your interface supplies, it's just not worth the trouble. Modern machines and interface drivers can give you plenty low latencies. I literally monitor through Reaper all the time, both in the studio and in a live setting on several different machines with several different interfaces, and I never have a problem unless I'm running a whole lot of really slow plugins - lookahead compression, etc. I do this to other people all the time, too, and nobody ever complains.
 
Oh OK I think that i might see your point of confusion. Some DAW software supports ASIO direct monitoring. Reaper isn't one of them. Its some sort of software magic that allows you to do the direct monitoring via Cubase and a few other DAWs instead of doing it via the routing software.

So you'll have to direct monitor via your interface's routing software or do software monitoring via Reaper.
 
gecko zzed said:
So I've just had a look at the UR824 specs and downloaded the manual.

It seems that the UR824 is one of those interfaces in which you can't control direct monitoring directly from the interface itself; you need to set it up with the interface's software, i.e. dspMiXFX. I agree that the manual sucks, at least from my first reading of it. However, you should not need to mess around in Reaper to get stuff happening. It's the interface's software where this all happens.
Click to expand...

I have searched the manual and all I see is stuff for Cubase. Thanks for the reply!:thumbs up:
 
ashcat_lt said:
You get to pick how you monitor live input. Use EITHER direct via the interface software OR Reaper, NOT both. It's really that simple. None of that has to do with the playback really.

I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that direct monitoring is the right way to go in most cases. Especially if you have to fuck around with whatever half-assed routing software your interface supplies, it's just not worth the trouble. Modern machines and interface drivers can give you plenty low latencies. I literally monitor through Reaper all the time, both in the studio and in a live setting on several different machines with several different interfaces, and I never have a problem unless I'm running a whole lot of really slow plugins - lookahead compression, etc. I do this to other people all the time, too, and nobody ever complains.
Click to expand...

Cool, I figured out to get what I want going through Reaper, Do you send the master track to the headphone buss? I did it this way to get the track being played back. or do you just enable monitoring for whatever track you want to hear? Thanks Ash.:eek:
 
I haven't read your manual, so I don't know what you have to do to get sound to the headphones. You do have to have some hardware send on Reaper's Master track in order to get any sound out of it at all. On the interfaces I own that have headphone outputs, they automatically route whatever is going to the main L/R output to the headphones. Are you saying that you actually have the headphone available to choose from when you go to assign those hardware sends, or do you configure that in your interface software?
 
ashcat_lt said:
I haven't read your manual, so I don't know what you have to do to get sound to the headphones. You do have to have some hardware send on Reaper's Master track in order to get any sound out of it at all. On the interfaces I own that have headphone outputs, they automatically route whatever is going to the main L/R output to the headphones. Are you saying that you actually have the headphone available to choose from when you go to assign those hardware sends, or do you configure that in your interface software?
Click to expand...

yes, the 824 has 8 outputs. if I go to the master track outputs in Reaper, I can choose any of them to route to, they are set up in pairs, 1,2. 3,4, etc.
 
Tadpui said:
Oh OK I think that i might see your point of confusion. Some DAW software supports ASIO direct monitoring. Reaper isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. I use direct monitoring via ASIO in Reaper.

I wonder if there are some differences in concepts and terms being used here.
 
If it's through the DAW it's almost certainly not direct monitoring. Direct monitoring is controlled by a knob on the interface or by the interface's control panel. The whole point of direct monitoring is to bypass the trip through the computer and the DAW.

I suppose there's a remote chance some DAW can control some interface's DSP direct monitoring arrangement, but if the interface has a simple knob to balance the inputs with the playback there's no way for the DAW to access that feature.

It's a simple choice. If you want the lowest latency (I consider 5ms to be the absolute maximum allowable) and you don't want to lower your buffers to the point where you risk dropouts use direct monitoring and turn off the DAW's input monitoring. If you need to hear inputs after they've been processed by the DAW you've painted yourself into a corner and you have to use the DAW's input monitoring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top