# AD/DA and Monitor Controllers



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 16, 2012)

I am in the process of planning my new studio space.

I know many of you work in a professional environment and I need some advice on a crtical studio phase.

AD/DA Converter and Monitor Controller.

I am currently using RME Fireface 800 with my DAW. It works just fine. But, in the new studio, I will have proper main monitors. I will also have a second pair (near field) of monitors (BM 6A).

I need a monitor controller to do the swtiching, talkback etc. This must be of a very high quality otherwise there is no point spending $12,000 on the speakers.

Earlier, I had thought of getting Lynx Aurora 16 with the AES card and Audient 2802 Summing Mixer/DAW controller/Monitor Controller.

However, it is turning out to be too expensive. 

I was thinking of getting something like Cranesong Avocet which is a high quality AD/DA as well as a great monitor controller.

The problem is Fireface 800 does not have AES output. I will have to use SPDIF.

Do I then need to buy a wordclock?

Or should I just get the new RME AES PCI express 2.0 cards and the cranesong or similar equipment?

Any suggestions/reccomendations will be helpful.


Regards,

Tanuj.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 17, 2012)

My first suggestion would be to work with your consultant, since he knows the room better than your do<G>!

Second - AES and S/P-DIF are compatible, you can use the S/P-DIF outputs to drive AES inputs with no penalty. (Google is your friend here.)

Third, slow down a bit and try not to overthink things. You don't need a fancy console center section, you only need to worry about switching between monitors for now.

You also need to remember that your $12K monitors will still be $12K monitors no matter what you drive them with, There will always be a weak link - you just need to manage it.

So talk to your consultant and find the optimal solution that meets your requirements.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 17, 2012)

the AES/EBU standard is compatible across different connections, but if youre going to spend 12K on monitors, you should invest $20 or so in an impedance matcher for your spdif RCA to xlr, for "no-worries" operation...may work fine without, but you're not really cutting corners burdet wise, so...

also, check out Grace's line of monitor controllers... they make stereo and surround versions, with digital in. You don't need an external wordclock if it's just a single D/A downstream from your interface.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 17, 2012)

Bill,
Regarding compatible equipment for the Reflexion Arts loudspeakers, Philip Newell has put me in touch with Sergio Castro at Reflexion arts itself. 

He had recommended the following last year:

1. Lynx Aurora 16
2. Lynx AES 16e-50 (future proof if I want to network machines)
3. Audient ASP 2802 - since discontinued and rebranded as Focusrite control 2802.

This will allow me to have a really good AD/DA - professional AES standard, a summing mixer, DAW controller and a monitor controller. This is a great set-up!

However, I am trying to restructure my budget as the Euro has gone up tremendously and everything is much more expensive than what it was just a year ago. 

Also, I currently mix completely ITB without any external controllers and do not feel that I need anything else. This new set-up will mean that I change my workflow.

I also dont understand how this mixer will sit because for it to be useful as a DAW controller, it needs to be in front of me. If I have my keyboard, mouse and computer keyboard in front of me, it will make reaching for the buttons on the Focusrite mixer difficult.

If it is placed on the side, it wont be very useful as a DAW controller.

May be, I can get a RME AES card and the focusrite ASP Control 2802. 

The Focusrite already has AD/DA. So I could in theory skip Lynx and also remain in the RME world where the drivers are trustworthy and it works for many film composers across the world.

I dont want to get into something that does not work well for composers running at really low latencies.

RME works really well. At the same time, I do want to make sure that everything sounds great after having spent so much money on the studio!

So, before I speak to Sergio I want to do some more research and find out about real world composer studio applications/practices/experience. 

@Niel - I did check out Grace design - looks great. I just needed to make sure if I need a seperate world clock if there is just one digital connection - from DAW to D/A converter.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 17, 2012)

the only thing I can add, or rather highlight, is that you need to prioritize. Do you need a monitor controller? Do you need a mixer? Do you need an external summing box? These are all things that are nice to have, no doubt, and all will affect work flow, but none of them will affect the sound coming from your monitors.

So which is more important?

Workflow is not trivial, the more smoothly you can translate your ideas into compressions and rarefactions in the air the better.

But the actual compressions and rarefactions are, IMHO, far more important. You have invested heavily in a solid monitoring environment, and if it were me that's where I'd focus.

You have the room.

You have the loudspeakers.

You may or may not have appropriate amplification, you haven't mentioned that.

You have a solid digital audio interface which is well supported.

You haven't mentioned what you are using for D/A conversion, but that's where I'd start. Lavry, Prism, Benchmark and Weiss all make very high quality converters at various price points, as do Lynx and Cranesong, among others.

If you can audition several do so, if not, then you just need to pick one and return to making music.

Another thing you have not mentioned is whether or not you will be recording in this space. If so, you'll need A/D as well as D/A, if not, I'd skip the A/D right now.

I think you've allowed yourself to be drawn off course by some nice-to-haves. Again just my two cents, but in your shoes I would focus on monitoring, since that's the path you started on.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 17, 2012)

Bill,
Thank you for your reply. The Monitoring is solid. Reflexion Arts 239, TAD-2001 HF driver and JBL LF Driver with the Ax2 horn powered by Neva Audio amps and crossover built to high specification in Russia.

The room of course will be top notch. No cutting corners there.

I definitely need something to switch monitors and control the over all volume. But I dont want to buy something cheap that will colour the sound badly. This is the same point I had made originally. 

I dont need a summing box at the moment, nor do I really need a mixer/DAW controller.

For A-D and D-A, Sergio had suggested the Lynx Aurora 16. I will be recording in the control room itself when required. I am not setting up a recording room because of lack of space and I would rather just step out and record at a great facility with the right equipment.

For my needs, I only need a high quality control room.

I suppose, at this point I could just get a Lynx Aurora 8 and a RME AES card.

But, I dont understand one thing. If I get a monitor controller which is the last piece of gear in the chain, wont it colour the sound? How can I minimize this?


Tanuj.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 17, 2012)

You absolutely need a decent monitor controller if you are going to be switching between speakers (esp high-end ones) to ensure proper calibration and clean signal path. A good transformer balanced monitor controller should not introduce anything into the signal path that will adversely affect the sound in any way. Cheap monitoring solutions often advertise "passive" as being uncolored and pure, which is true, but it causes phase and transient problems because of mismatched impedance. The stuff you have been looking at is good - the Avocet and the Grace m901/201 etc all use high quality active circuitry to overcome impedance issues that are present in passive designs. 

If you don't need a lot of bells and whistles look at SPL - stereo talkback or the 2 control. No D/A there but you may not need it.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 17, 2012)

Neil,

I looked at SPL 2Control already. Looks good and it has an all analogue design. 

If I get the Lynx Aurora 16 and RME HDSPe AES then I only need a monitor controller - not another D-A converter.

In this case the SPL 2Control looks like a good solution.

I will also need to buy a pre-amp seperately.

With the original solution, the Audient took care of a lot of things and future proofed the studio. However, I do need to think about the money!


Tanuj.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 17, 2012)

Hi Tanuj,

The Avocet is nice - it can also handle surround if you ever decide to go in that direction. It's also nice to have LED meters on the remote so you know what's going on. SPL is a quality manufacturer also. The price is right if quick, visual metering isn't as important to you in this situation. 

There are so many ways to go with this. It really takes some reflection on your part to pre-visualize how you want to work. 

I'm not sure in which way you meant the word 'pre-amp'. Do you mean mic preamp?

.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm confused...

First of all, every transformer is going to change the sound. So too will impedance mis-matches, except that it is very difficult to have an impedance mis-match in an voltage transfer environment, which is the case unless you are switching at the output of the amplifier, which is a pretty goofy thing to do in the first place! The only thing goofier is transformers at loudspeaker levels... unless they are physically VERY large (think a couple hundred pounds - seriously) they are going to saturate, and distort.

The right answer, and given what you've spent already you probably ought to consider it, is two amplifiers, each matched for the monitors they are driving (or four, or six, or whatever, you get the idea.) Do your switching at line level.

It solves all your current needs, at least as you've stated them, or rather as I've interpreted them.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 18, 2012)

Bill,

The Reflexion Arts Loudspeakers will be driven individually with matched amps by Neva Audio. 

Link: http://philipnewell.net/img/prodsilvestres.jpg

As you can see in this picture, just below the loudspeaker, there is an amp fit into the wall. There is another one under the right speaker and in this case center as well. This makes sure that the cable length to the speaker is the shortest. 

I am not very knowledgeble about the connectivity and what comes first in the chain, so I am trying to learn about these things. I just wanted to understand where in the chain will a monitor controller sit so as not colour the sound too much and provide high quality monitoring while allowing me to switch speakers.

I will be retaining my active BM6A's as second reference.

So lets say we have the following gear:

1. Reflexion Arts Loudspeakers - with individual Neva audio amps per channel 
(stereo)

2. Dynaudio BM6A (Active)

3. Lynx Aurora 16 for AD/DA

4. RME HDSPe AES connected to Lynx via AES

5. Monitor Controller or a mixer which has a good quality onboard monitor controller.

What would be the order of connections? I understand the basic AES connection but I am not sure what comes where between the Neva Audio amps, Monitor controller and the AD/DA

Of course, at the time of installation both Philip and Sergio will guide me but just for my understanding, I want to know.


Thank you for taking out the time Bill!


@Jack - Yes, I meant a mic pre-amp - going for a Rupert Neve duo or quad. I havn't decided yet. 

I would like to have a LED meter but its not terribly important to me as such. You are right in saying that there are many ways to go about it but for me the sound quality and respect for audio protocol is paramount. I want to make sure, I understand what I am buying and what the equipment really does and how it works in practice.

Hence - the thread!

Thank you for replying!


Tanuj.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 19, 2012)

Tanuj,

I think I get where your confusion is coming from. Monitor controllers are all "passive" in that they don't amplify the signal. When we're talking about and active loudspeaker controller, we mean that it has circuitry to balance the impedance between the input (your D/A) and the output (the path to your powered speakers or amps.) - as I understand it - I'm far from an electrical engineer!

What monitor controllers do is route signal, drive headphones, and most importantly, do _Line level attenuation_ of the signal from your D/A converter. If you ran a healthy signal from your D/A at unity straight to your monitors (set at +4dB) with no attenuation you would have A) a heart attack, and B) all blown out drivers. 

The monitor controller goes between the output of your D/A or audio interface, and the input to your active monitors or amplifiers, to control the line level signal going to your monitors.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 19, 2012)

You do not need a monitor controller!

You have separate amplifiers for your separate loudspeakers, it's all good.

Connect your mains to the first two outputs of your D/A.

Connect your nearfields to the second pair of outputs on your D/A.

Voila! - Instant monitor controller.

Anything else is a complete waste of money, excessively complex (especially given that you are just getting your feet wet with respect to a real studio), and completely unnecessary.

Start out simple... you've covered the room and the monitoring chain, work with that for now. You can always spend more money later<G>!


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 19, 2012)

wst3 @ Tue Jun 19 said:


> You do not need a monitor controller!
> 
> You have separate amplifiers for your separate loudspeakers, it's all good.
> 
> ...



This is not correct unfortunately. A monitor controller doesn't amplify the signal, it attenuates it. It's a transparent (if it's good) analog device that does the above when you have no other way to do so - I.e. a lynx aurora that doesnt have a separate volume control. You can do it digitally with software, but depending on what hardware you're using you risk loss of bits and distortion. The ideal way to do it is to go out your DA at 0dBFS and attenuate the signal in the analog domain, passively (does not mean passive electronics in the attenuator, just means NO additional amplification) 

There is also no practical solution to quickly change the volume of your speakers without a controller - imagine trying to turn the knobs on both sides of your amplifiers at the same time, or going around back of your bm6as every time you want to change volume. 

One more thing: ask yourself this: how will you switch between speakers? 

The answer to this and everything else is a monitor controller.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 19, 2012)

I agree about the loss of bits being a potential problem. It is not always worse than the alternative though.

Also, I don't think I implied that a monitor controller provides gain.

I'm also not sure that working at 0 dBFS is the ideal gainstaging arrangement, that depends entirely on the rest of the system.

I'm also going to stick with original suggestion - adding a monitor controller at this stage is not necessary.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 20, 2012)

So as not to get into a full-on heated debate about monitoring, let me just pose a few questions to Tanuj:

Where will you plug your headphones? (on a Lynx or similar converter)

How will you quickly switch between speakers?

What if you want to fold down to mono?

What if you want to dim the volume 20dB?

How will you calibrate a nominal level listening between your different sets of speakers?

There is a reason why when thinking back, I can't remember a single professional facility using just their DAW to monitor in all the years I spent in boutique pro audio. It just isn't a very elegant solution - on all levels. With the exception of Metric Halo, I can't think of any manufacturer that makes a good solution to monitor digitally in the box. 

(edit to previous post - meant to say unity, not 0dBFS, i.e. don't drop your gain digitally at the converter stage - I was losing my train of thought)

Tanuj, you have the budget and have invested in some serious hardware - take care of the monitoring stage properly - for your needs as a composer, the SPL line might have the perfect solution for you, and they are relatively quite reasonable. Talk to your sales consultant about what is best for you.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 20, 2012)

AHA! I think I found the disconnect - it was my impression, from the OP, that Tanuj has somewhat run out of budget, and needed to use what resources he has left carefully.

In that case I'd spend the money on the converters (and hence skip the controller) for a couple of reasons:
1) amplifiers have volume controls (a misnomer, but that's beside the point) and one can properly set the monitoring level using them. In many cases that's even the optimal solution.
2) one seldom, if ever, makes critical decisions with the monitors dimmed - so the loss of a few bits won't matter in that case.
3) one seldom makes critical decisions when using headphones - at least in my experience - and thus that's really not an issue either.
4) one does pay for a LOT of features (like talk-back, how often do you need talk-back in a one room facility) one does not need when purchasing a monitor controller.
5) it is simple enough to switch between monitors using different output pairs on the D/A converter.
6) IF I really needed source switching and a master level control I'd build it. Total parts cost is probably under $100 to build a stepped attenuator and a switch.

If it turns out there is still plenty of money left in the budget then none of that matters!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 20, 2012)

This is not a debating point, just a comment about how I have my set-up set up with a Metric Halo 2882 interface.

First, I'm using two pairs of outputs for two sets of monitors. Switching between the two instantly is simply a key command.

I have Blue Sky System Ones (sats plus sub) connected to a Blue Sky BMC monitor controller. It's digitally-controlled analog - therefore not 100% purist - but it's quite transparent, and it has some very useful features.

Then the amp driving my big monitors, UREI 809As, is connected directly to the interface outputs with no monitor controller other than the built-in digital one. Yeah it's not a purist solution, but those are not purist speakers. The justification for them is that they're an additional reference that sounds very different, but the real reason is that I love listening to them!

As always, don't tell anyone that I like them. I'm sure Bob Katz would come over here and kick my ass if he heard this. 

Now, if someone were to ask me whether it's safe to connect a massive 250WPC amp directly to audio interface outputs with no monitor controller in the path, I'd point at him or her and laugh hysterically - and that's before the barrage of insults for being so reckless.

Yet I've been doing it this way for five years without a single problem.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 20, 2012)

By the way, if I weren't lazy I'd run the UREIs through the BMC. The BMC handles surround, and I'd just tell it they're the rear speakers, so the master volume control would affect them too. Switching between the two speakers wouldn't change - the stereo signal would either appear at outs 1&2 or 3&4 with a key command.

You can program a level offset in the BMC, so that would handle the discrepancy between the two sets of speakers.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 20, 2012)

Nick - your secret is safe with me!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 24, 2012)

Thanks guys,

your suggestions were very helpful. I will now focus on getting a space locked and start the construction sometime soon hopefully.


Tanuj.


----------



## devastat (Aug 13, 2012)

Just a thought, you could also look into Dangerous D-Box. 

You'll get a superb D/A converter, monitor controller for 2 monitor pairs, talkback, heaphone amp for 2 headphones as well as analog summing for 8 channels all in the same package, and it works well with FF800 or Lynx Aurora.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 13, 2012)

I have the SPL Surround controller and I like it just fine. The volume knob is massive. I wish it were relay switches for the money but then again it's not too expensive. I had several Presonus controllers before and they were terrible. A friend has the D-Box and he said the quality of that was surprisingly poor. 

It's worth investing a few bucks in a monitor controller because they get a lot of use – it's the one piece of hardware that gets touched all day long besides the mouse, keyboard and MIDI controller. Also, you can hook up a second pair of reference monitors which is crucial IMO.


----------



## devastat (Aug 13, 2012)

synthetic @ Mon Aug 13 said:


> A friend has the D-Box and he said the quality of that was surprisingly poor.


Quite surprising, a lot of people seems to be raving about it on Gearslutz. Also according to an article in Mix Magazine, Imogen Heap chose D-Box (for its converters) for preview listening sessions of her latest album, so it can't be that bad.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 13, 2012)

Mostly he's complained about construction quality on the D-Box, broken switches and such. But it seems the sound is not up to their usual standard either. I've only used it a few times but the volume knob taper seemed strange to me. 

The monitor controller I REALLY want is inside an SSL Nucleus. Maybe someday.


----------



## devastat (Aug 13, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue Aug 14 said:


> Mostly he's complained about construction quality on the D-Box, broken switches and such. But it seems the sound is not up to their usual standard either. I've only used it a few times but the volume knob taper seemed strange to me.



If i've understood correctly, they use the same internal components in all products, so there should be no difference in sound, only in features. For example the analog summing in D-Box is exactly the same as in the more expensive 2-Bus - only difference is that in D-Box you get 8ch of summing instead of 16ch, but the components are the same. The DA converter in D-Box is the same as in their much more pricey Dangerous Music Monitor etc..

Let's see, I'm getting the D-Box this week so I'll have to find out myself


----------



## dasindevin (Aug 14, 2012)

I would 2nd everyone saying to take a look at dangerous 

the main benefit (with the exception of the D-box) is that you can add pieces as you need them. So if you buy the monitor st, you just need the surround expansion to go 5.1, can add video switching, stellar D/A, and analogue summing (obviously need and budget dependent) - that all integrate seamlessly into the dangerous system

I would seriously consider starting with the monitor ST for you switching; because it will grow with you as your workflow and needs evolve. 

I have had my monitor st for a couple of years and absolutely love it. Just as an added bonus, the controller gets many complements from clients due to the 70's space ship vibe.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 14, 2012)

Yeah I looked at the Monitor ST too, but to get to 5.1 monitoring it gets pretty crazy. I know a lot of people who like the Martinsound Multimax monitor controller for post and scoring (Hans Zimmer, Todd AO, etc.)


----------

