"When you use multiple players, this takes the number of tracks for your tracking session and all the levels associated with that for monitoring and multiplies it by 2."

Maybe I'm missing something, but in the old days I seemed to remember building cue mixes off of the multitrack returns, Then adding the close mic'd (or di,or whatever)from the instrumentalist to the cue mix or mixes. When selecting sel-sync for monitoring during a punch, you still get levels to cue mix coming off tape, and the level of the mic'd signal to cue mix. Today with the software and using a mixer, We've had to move the multitrack returns to GUI for playback, thereby creating the cue mix in the app, and feeding the outs of the computer to the cue mix. Seems like half doz of 1, 6 of the other....

-jb

********Maybe I'm missing something, but in the old days I seemed to remember building cue mixes off of the multitrack returns, Then adding the close mic'd (or di,or whatever)from the instrumentalist to the cue mix or mixes. When selecting sel-sync for monitoring during a punch, you still get levels to cue mix coming off tape, and the level of the mic'd signal to cue mix.********

If your memory is serving you correctly, you were not monitoring tape and you were not monitoring the way a multitrack is designed to be monitored if you did it as described above.

Sorry.

I'm not giving any more classes on proper multitrack monitoring today....

I'm wearing a party hat and I'm leaving the studio to go celebrate New Years ....happy new years!

***If your memory is serving you correctly, you were not monitoring tape and you were not monitoring the way a multitrack is designed to be monitored if you did it as described above.****

Sorry.

I'm not giving any more classes on proper multitrack monitoring today....****

tmrpro.........Actually this WAS the way to monitor from tape. Selecting sel sync and arming the tracks to be recorded switched the multitrack to use the record heads for playback instead of the repro portion of the headstack. At least this is the way the Studer 800, Studer 827 and Otari MTR 90 mkII's worked. Thanks for the schooling.

-jb

******When selecting sel-sync for monitoring during a punch, you still get levels to cue mix coming off tape, and the level of the mic'd signal to cue mix. ******

The word; "and" is used as an additive. Let me explain something to you, adowrx:

If you are adding the "mic'd signal" to your cue mix, YOU ARE MONITORING THE INPUT OF THE INCOMING SIGNAL FROM THE MIC PRE...

...not the OUTPUT OF THE TAPE MACHINE....

...THAT is NOT describing the use of auto-input and it is not the way the consoles that you have described were designed to be used for monitoring purposes in a tracking situation unless you had a particular reason outside of the normal workflow that required you to listen to the mic-pre.

If what you said above is not what you meant, then you need to better explain your methods of monitor routing....

...If this is what you meant, then you will never notice a difference between Vegas' method of montioring without real auto-input and the method that you have decribed above, because there is no difference. That is why you have described it as "6 of one, half a dozen of another".

*****The word; "and" is used as an additive. Let me explain something to you, adowrx:

If you are adding the "mic'd signal" to your cue mix, YOU ARE MONITORING THE INPUT OF THE INCOMING SIGNAL FROM THE MIC PRE...

...not the OUTPUT OF THE TAPE MACHINE....

...THAT is NOT describing the use of auto-input and it is not the way the consoles that you have described were designed to be used for monitoring purposes in a tracking situation unless you had a particular reason outside of the normal workflow that required you to listen to the mic-pre.

If what you said above is not what you meant, then you need to better explain your methods of monitor routing....

...If this is what you meant, then you will never notice a difference between Vegas' method of montioring without real auto-input and the method that you have decribed above, because there is no difference. That is why you have described it as "6 of one, half a dozen of another". ****

tmrpro, I also should have (and meant) to state that All the Tracks should be in Sel Sync, so as not to have a delay between repro head and record head, and yes I did not mean to imply that the live performance to be punched would be folded back off of the tape machine, but it derives from a pre or post fade send from the console. So, the musicians would hear the prerecorded tracks via record heads, the punched tracks via record head, and their live performance routed thru the console to their cans, and to tape. Obviously the prerecorded program material would be derived from the output of the MT.
-jb

******Obviously the prerecorded program material would be derived from the output of the MT.******

AAAAAhhhhh!!!!! ......Now it is clear and we can agree to agree.....
:)

Thanks for clarifying that, JB.

Then would you also agree that the multilateral methods of monitoring with Vegas in its current configuration would interfere with the normal workflow of an MT session?

****Then would you also agree that the multilateral methods of monitoring with Vegas in its current configuration would interfere with the normal workflow of an MT session?****

It was a Royal pain when I first began to use it, I found a way to deal with it, and moved on...and actually I've recently integrated SX 2.01 into our work environment and that was not pretty at first due to other issues (especially having a cheap USB dongle sticking out of the back of the road DAW). I DO wish Vegas would integrate most if not all of the functions on the wish list. It could definitely be a killer app. I look at it this way. For the price it is very functional. I've paid upto 4 times as much for a preamp, other hardware, etc. and when you consider that a whole studio production environment (except for midi and a couple hundred other functions) are not yet integrated, I do feel it is a nice quick tool.

-jb

I think it's a really good app for the $$$$ too! :)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just confused....

JB, what does this mean?

******So, the musicians would hear the prerecorded tracks via record heads, the punched tracks via record head, and their live performance routed thru the console to their cans, and to tape.******

When I looked at this again, I got confused again.

So you are using auto-input for the players to hear prerecorded tracks and themselves on the punch with the addition of hearing themselves off of the mic-pre ("live performance routed thru console to cans & tape")?

I'm only curious JB, in this monitoring configuration described, you have indicated that you were not exclusively monitoring tape. The result of doing this leaves the engineer with the potential of level variations between 2 scenarios:

1. Tape Heads (playback & performance when stopped or punched)
2. Mic-Pre (console to cans & tape)

This is what happens in the scenario you've described:

The player (when the tape machine is stopped) hears the level that is routed through the tape machine off of the tape machine's input; combined with the level that is returned prior to the tape machine's input. This summed level that the player is hearing live is unique (& will drop exactly by the tape return's cue mix additive level when the tape is started and will increase by that amount when the track is punched in) Furthermore, the player's performance level would be unique and totally different from the unique level that the player hears of his/her performance on playback from the track.

That's freaky..... lol

I'd hate to have to perform an instrument in a room full of players under these monitoring conditions.

****So you are using auto-input for the players to hear prerecorded tracks and themselves on the punch with the addition of hearing themselves off of the mic-pre (live performance routed thru console to cans & tape)?***

They are hearing themselves live the entire time, the pre recorded tracks up until the punch and the pre recorded tracks after the punch. I did not specify whether the console was in-line or split.........and also upon further review I mentioned Studer A800, 827 and Otari MTR 90 which you then refered to as consoles. Uhhhh, you meant to say MT Recorders, didn't you?

>>>>>>****So you are using auto-input for the players to hear prerecorded tracks and themselves on the punch with the addition of hearing themselves off of the mic-pre (live performance routed thru console to cans & tape)?***

They are hearing themselves live the entire time, the pre recorded tracks up until the punch and the pre recorded tracks after the punch. I did not specify whether the console was in-line or split.........and also upon further review I mentioned Studer A800, 827 and Otari MTR 90 which you then refered to as consoles. Uhhhh, you meant to say MT Recorders, didn't you?<<<<<<

Whether you're monitoring using an inline configuration or not doesn't relieve my confusion as to why, with a fully functional method of Auto-Input concerning each of the MT recorders you referred to, were you monitoring signal source + tape return through the cue mix? This creates a summed result of the performer:

1 Source (mic-pre) + 1 Tape Return (auto-input) = 2 x original monitor level when punched in. This just makes no sense to me at all and it would be very difficult for the player to perform under this monitoring condition.

I just want to be clear as to how that can be ok, because it makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

******cue mix coming off tape, and the level of the mic'd signal to cue mix******

I'm not confused about the functionality of the MT recorders, I'm confused about your method of monitoring at the console, whether it is split or inline, if you are running source and tape return into the cue mix there is a summed monitoring result that will increase the performer's volume by however much level you have in the tape return's cue mix when the tape machine is stopped and when the tape machine is punched in and it is NOT the way Studer or Otari intended for the use of auto input.

The best part of all of this is the stupidity of arguing it in the first place. Any multitrack recorder MUST include, at least as an option, auto-input monitoring. There is NO argument, nada, zip. The double monitoring method we are forced to use now is great for many purposes, especially for recording yourself, or one track at a time.

But to argue AGAINST auto input?

silly

its like arguing against using speakers, or arguing against having ears. I mean do you argue with a car salsemen whether or not the car oughtta have a steering wheel?