Model 24 mon1/mon2 stereo out ?

[mareil_jule]

Hello, are the two out monitor (mon1/mon2) in stereo ?

when i plug my head phone (Jack 6,35mm TRS) the sound output only on Left ! It's normal ?

Thanks for your responses

Julien

 

[Max Relic]

Hi @mareil_jule,
monitor outputs are balanced TRS mono, as specified in chapter 14 of the manual. These outputs are line level and are not supposed to feed headphones nor passive speakers but external effects, amplifiers and active monitors will work perfectly by design.

 

[mareil_jule]

Thanks @Max Relic !
I'm thinking of powering a headphone amp like a Presonus HP60. Would I have sound in both ears ?

 

[Max Relic]

I'm thinking of powering a headphone amp like a Presonus HP60

The Presonus has a mono button on each channel with which you can hear a mono input signal on both ears. You could opt for sending Monitor 1 to left and Monitor 2 to right and have a true stereo mix. Another option would be to connect the Presonus to Control Room output, if you want to hear the Main Mix in stereo and have independent level control.

 

[mareil_jule]

@Max Relic thank you for the clarification

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Not to steal the thread but one thing has always been a curiosity. If, in fact, you have (for example) a Korg Wavestate that promotes vastly different audio, right out vs left out. The assumption then is since the Monitor 1 and or Monitor 2 is mono summed and you wish to run into a stereo FX processor (let's say a ping pong delay) you've unfortunately collapsed the input of the FX chain to mono summed before it reaches the input of said delay. Of course (provided the FX processor is a stereo-out unit) you at least regain the stereo field from the processor itself but still lose the stereo field from the Korg.

Thoughts and or solutions?

 

[Max Relic]

@Joseph Hanna: The assumption then is since the Monitor 1 and or Monitor 2 is mono summed and you wish to run into a stereo FX processor (let's say a ping pong delay) you've unfortunately collapsed the input of the FX chain to mono summed before it reaches the input of said delay

If you think you absolutely need to stereo process a stereo instrument, attach left and righ outputs of your synth to separate mono channels of the Model then use Aux 1 and Aux 2 as a stereo send to the external processor(s). An alternative is attaching the synth L-R to a stereo channel of the Model and assign it to SUB bus to feed the external processor.

IMO ping-pong delay is best used with mono signal, unless you spend some time carefully crafting times, repeats and feedback filtering in order not to get an acoustic mess.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

If you think you absolutely need to stereo process a stereo instrument.

Ha! I don't think I absolutely need to process a stereo instrument in stereo, although I must admit, for me, it does seem to make some modicum of sense, especially with keyboards like the Wavestate, Mini-Freak, and softsynths like Heavyocity, Spitfire, and ProjectSAM which have entirely different (or very close to it) program material on the left output vs the right. I'm probably thinking more in terms of audio 101 than my thinking of personal absolute needs.

You have however largely piqued my curiosity. In what scenario, like the one we're discussing, would it make sense (as opposed to me thinking I absolutely need something) to collapse a massive broad stereo field down to mono? I must admit I can't, off the top of my head, think of any.

Yes I've tried left and right Monitor sends but across a large session, it's not particularly an elegant solution. It would seem to me, and it's only me, that it wouldn't take much to design a stereo-out TRS solution for each monitor send. Internally that is in fact what the on-board FX section does, A sub-send and return would be just biblically inefficient, at least for me.

I was using ping-pong delay merely anecdotally. Just something that folks could easily wrap their heads around the scenario that provided a wide stereo field. I must admit I don't think I've ever, in 25 years of post-production, used a ping-pong delay.

YMMV

 

[Max Relic]

In what scenario, like the one we're discussing, would it make sense (as opposed to me thinking I absolutely need something) to collapse a massive broad stereo field down to mono? I must admit I can't, off the top of my head, think of any.

At a certain point of the mix, instruments will have to be distributed across the stereo field in order to be distinguishable to the listener's ears (frequency-wise too) and sending a sum of stereo signals to be parallel processed will not gain much more profit to clarity than sending a mono mix, dynamics processing apart. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that one solution fits it all, perhaps the contrary, but at the end of the day it depends on the gear available to you if a strategy is more feasible than another.
Back to the Models, it's worth mentioning that the internal fx bus is mono. IMO hacking the mixer could be done but it would be a tedious work considering the overall size of the circuit board and the likely abundance of SMD components, and the inherent cost of adding at least two buffer stages and a stereo pot to any involved channel strip. Would it be worth it?
Maybe it would be easier adding an insert point to the channel strips and use a separate sub-mixer for effects processing and mixing.
Or why not get a mixer with more aux / submix capabilities?
YMMV

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Yea , the right answer here is another analog mixer. No doubt. I, of course, just sold one. But just for clarity, the plug-ins I use for my cues are very ambient and wide and almost always (because of the wide, wide footprint) limited to a very small track count. I compose (I use that term loosely) mostly for television and complexity is almost always a no-no. Simple sonic and straight to the 40 second goalpost point. The Korg is my lifeline and my Strymon FX’s are just not doable via software. Yea I don't wanna hack anything, so I put up with what I have but it would be nice.

Looking at mixers tonight

 

[Max Relic]

Oh, the subtle art of TV soundtrack. I see it similar to jewelry or thumbnail painting, the skill of condensing entertainment and meaning into such a small space while maintaining intelligibility.
Back to the topic, I think a second mixer with direct outputs and/or assignable busses should be the key point to realize the routing options you will need at some point. Instruments and effects could be directly connected to said mixer effect-wise, from there you should send channels to be recorded to the Model 24 (or 16).
A possible option is to use a patchbay to send instruments and effects to both mixers but it's probably not necessary. I have recent Allen & Heath and Mackie products in my watchlist but I find none of them offer all the options I would like to see in a compact mixer.