What's new

Setup A or B? Audio - routing.

Paulogic

Active Member
It has probably been asked before but I don't find anything regarding this item.
As you can see in the picture, I drew 2 possible routings for audio to AI, Mixer, Speakers and Headphones.
Which one is the most preferable? A where the AI is the "master" or B, where the mixer is used as master unit.
(or how do you call the machine that is used for control of the routing ?)

Setup.png
 
The advantage of “B” is that you have fader / volume control over the output to your amp and speakers. You also could add EQ or other overall shaping or FX. The disadvantage is potential additional latency, or noise / colouration from the board.

I use a passive, allegedly uncoloured volume control between my audio interface and the amplifier, made by SPL, a German company. It looks like this: https://spl.audio/en/spl-produkt/mtc/?v=fa868488740a

Mackie used to make a Big Knob (their name, not mine!) that performs, I think, roughly the same functions.

If you like the idea of a control of some kind, the routing in setup B could work. Either way, you want something that does not amplify or indeed affect or change the sound in any way — something intentionally passive. It’s basically an attenuator with multiple outputs.

Or you can go with setup A, which should work too.

I wouldn’t feel that there’s a “right” or “wrong” here, no matter what you choose. The SPL module is expensive and, in the end, not absolutely necessary. What’s necessary is to make great music.
 
no one throw stones please, but the answer is "it depends".

Option A is the shorter path, and therefore, in theory, the less prone to coloration or artifacts, and it will be easier to manage.

-BUT-

Option B provides more flexibility, and if you are careful with levels it can sound every bit as good, assuming a decent mixer.

In both cases you can add additional devices to the DAW, although they will be a stereo mix, but that can't be avoided.

My suggestion would be to try both (easy enough).

Since you asked, absent some kind of monitor controller I'd go with option B even if I ended up using the mixer mostly as a glorified monitor controller.
 
one other thought, per John's comments...

It is easier to design and build a passive device that is close to transparent (no such thing as transparent really, but audibly transparent is a thing!) That does not mean that an active device that is audibly transparent can not be done.

I could write a book, but I will spare you...
 
Thanks.

I have always used the B setup but wondered is the A solution was better.
I choose for B long time ago to not need a AI with a lot of inputs. I can select whatever source to route to the subgroup and record, while still hearing the rest. Only error I could make is routing the AI's output back to the input.
I'm using a small Yamaha MG12 mixer which does the job very well. Newer mixers seem to miss subgroups or already have an USB interface build in, which I don't need/want. I like my UR22C
very much. (Long time UR serieus user here !)
 
Top Bottom