Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Monitor Controller Question

D

dijon

Member
I'm planning on upgrading my monitors to a single pair of Focal Solo6 be, which don't have volume controls. I'm wondering if it would be better to add a separate monitor controller or if it's ok to use the volume control on my audio interface (RME Babyface Pro).

With a monitor controller, I'm assuming I set the output on my interface to 0db and attenuate via the controller?

If the answer is to get a controller, perhaps some suggestions?
Click to read more...
 
I have Focal Shape 50s and a baby face pro. I bought a Mackie Big Knob but it's still in the box. I think you'll be fine with just the control on the baby face pro.
 
fakemaxwell said:
Why would you need a separate controller? Wouldn't it just be coming out of the Babyface anyway?
Click to expand...
Exactly my question. Is digitally controlled volume via the interface ok - or, as some say, do i need to maximize the digital output bits and use a controller?
 
I always prefer to have a monitor controller especially for the extra tactile controls you have:
Mono button, dim, choosing between different monitor systems, sub control etc.
Also, for critical listening needs like commercial mastering and mixing, an external analog attenuation stage is surely welcome because, by lowering the volume digitally you are also lowering the resolution.
For composing, or generally non commercial use, the output from the audio interface should be just fine.

I had a Mackie Big Knob for years and liked it. I currently have and love my Avocet II which happens to have a superb DA converter too.
 
dijon said:
Is digitally controlled volume via the interface ok - or, as some say, do i need to maximize the digital output bits and use a controller?
Click to expand...
Are you sure the Babyface's output volume is digitally controlled, meaning it's before the A/D conversion? I've always thought that on most interfaces the volume knob is after the A/D conversion. The Babyface manual doesn't answer this question.
 
Last edited:
dijon said:
Exactly my question. Is digitally controlled volume via the interface ok - or, as some say, do i need to maximize the digital output bits and use a controller?
Click to expand...
The only reason to use a monitor controller is for when you need additional flexibility, like sending to 4 sets of monitors and you want to flip between them quickly. For a single set the Babyface is perfect.

"Maximizing the digital output bits" sounds like gobbledygook written by somebody who doesn't understand what they're talking about (I am assuming that person is not you haha).
 
dijon said:
I'm planning on upgrading my monitors to a single pair of Focal Solo6 be, which don't have volume controls. I'm wondering if it would be better to add a separate monitor controller or if it's ok to use the volume control on my audio interface (RME Babyface Pro).

With a monitor controller, I'm assuming I set the output on my interface to 0db and attenuate via the controller?

If the answer is to get a controller, perhaps some suggestions?
Click to expand...
If you've never experienced a full on digital noise blast from your interface, consider yourself lucky. If or when it happens, you'll wish you were using an analogue monitor controller. I went for maybe 20 years running sound straight from an interface and then a few years ago I nearly damaged my monitors and hearing. Thank god I didn't have headphones on.

A behringer monitor to usb (spl rip) is less than £100 and works perfectly. No need to go crazy, unless you need some kind of surround control type setup. The peace of mind it gives you is pretty much priceless.
 
fakemaxwell said:
The only reason to use a monitor controller is for when you need additional flexibility, like sending to 4 sets of monitors and you want to flip between them quickly. For a single set the Babyface is perfect.

"Maximizing the digital output bits" sounds like gobbledygook written by somebody who doesn't understand what they're talking about (I am assuming that person is not you haha).
Click to expand...
It's actually science, I'm sure you can find some useful info on the matter.

When it comes to top precision and accuracy of reproduction you need to attenuate in analog, not even one serious mastering engineer on the planet attenuates the signal to the monitors digitally.
It is always done in analog, through a controller/consolle.

(Although there are many software solutions that permits you to route audio to more sets of monitors like for example Cubase's Control Room, for critical listening you still want analog attenuation, a monitor controller is not just about routing)

For most applications, quality-wise, onboard digital volume control is just fine, although I find it much less handy and immediate.
 
fakemaxwell said:
If you can direct me to the science that proves that RME, a well known industry standard in interface and conversion, doesn't know how to properly do D to A, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about actual conversion quality. We are talking about monitoring.

Like rrichard63 said, if there is a digitally controlled, or straight analog volume control/attenuation post conversion, then it is a non issue.
If the attenuation is done digitally it is a different story and some elements worth considering come into play which are worth exploring if you are interested.

PS: RME is great! I have one, I have been using RME interfaces for years now - but it is hardly the "industry standard" conversion-wise. It is in the middle of the park I would say. (As for fast and usually problem-less software drivers, then yes, they are at the top of the pile.)
 
Back to @dijon 's original question for a moment. In order for him to decide whether he needs a monitor controller, we need to know whether the volume knob on the Babyface is pre-conversion or post-conversion. RME's documentation doesn't say.
 
I don't know the answer to the convertor question. But I've got the original Babyface and a Behringer Monitor2USB ($149) and I love the thing. It so freaking convenient to change levels, inputs, outputs, and headphones right at your fingertips. I thought about using the big wheel on the Babyface and I'm so glad I went the monitor controller route.
 
I use the big wheel on the Babyface. I would take the big knob out of the box and use if there was a technical reason to do so though (and the jury is still out on that) ... If there is no technical reason, I personally need less on my desk not more lol.
 
dijon said:
Well, I wrote to RME and they got back to me within the hour:



I believe I'll hold off on the monitor controller until I get another set of monitors.
Click to expand...
Hey I think you'll be just fine with your choice...
Unless you are doing mastering or hi end mixing the advantages are not that noticible, excluding the tactile factor, multiple outputs and immediacy (and reacting fast to computer noises of death bursts) :)

Having said that - just to point out and be a very pedantic PITA:
- "limited resolution" is a theoretical issue that doesn't cause any audible issue." is in the eye of the beholder.
RME have no interest in saying the opposite.
"Audible" can't be proven or mis-proven and the science ("theorethical" as they call it) is not being denied.

I would like to see the same question answered by a company that deals mainly in monitor controllers, would be interesting. :)
 
Last edited:
AudioLoco said:
- "limited resolution" is a theoretical issue that doesn't cause any audible issue." is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
I suspect that somebody, somewhere, has done double-blind comparisons. When I have some time on my hands, I'll do a search. My guess is that a lot depends on noise floors -- both of the digital audio being processed and of the circuitry on the analog side of the interface. It might also depend on dithering, but that's above my pay grade.
 
I don't have the Babyface but do have the RME FF800 with no physical knob, where volume would have to be controlled by the TotalMix software fader. Therefore I use a physical monitor controller, the Heritage Audio Baby R.A.M, and love it. It was an upgrade from the Nano Patch and I do hear a difference. FWIW.
 
an analog attenuator remains the simplest solution, and arguably it does the least amount of damage to the signal. That does not mean that one should stay away from digital attenuation, it just means you need to understand the difference.

This goes hand in hand with arguments about the nominal digital level that one should work with. We can choose -12 dBFS or -18 dBFS or maybe even -24 dBFS? The further down you go the more headroom you get, but your nominal signal is now that much closer to the noise floor.

The real question, then, is how quiet is quiet? I've measured analog circuits that approach 100 dB of real world signal to noise, and that is no mean feat. It is also entirely unnecessary, since very few of us are in a position to listen to music with a 100 dB dynamic range, and for that matter few of us have monitoring environments with an NC rating below 20.

Which means that the nice folks at RME are correct, or they would have been if they had worded it slightly differently - it is LARGELY an academic question. There are differences, and I won't suggest that no one can hear them.

This isn't a $300 power cable after all<G>.
 
davidson said:
If you've never experienced a full on digital noise blast from your interface, consider yourself lucky. If or when it happens, you'll wish you were using an analogue monitor controller. I went for maybe 20 years running sound straight from an interface and then a few years ago I nearly damaged my monitors and hearing. Thank god I didn't have headphones on.

A behringer monitor to usb (spl rip) is less than £100 and works perfectly. No need to go crazy, unless you need some kind of surround control type setup. The peace of mind it gives you is pretty much priceless.
Click to expand...
What would you recommend if I need a surround sound control set up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom