Preamp/mixer/patchbay questions

[NewImprov]

I'm dealing with a bit of a dilemma about wiring my studio, and thought I'd float it here to see if I get any new ideas.

 

I run a small recording facility, with a separate control room and recording rooms, basically one relatively large room, 1 smaller room, and 1 small iso booth. I use an Allen & Heath SQ-6 mixer as the heart of the studio, it's a 48-input mixer (24 analog/24 digital) that also acts as an interface and controller to my DAW (Logic X, running on a Mac Mini). I have  a 24 channel analog snake, plus a 16in/8out digital headbox. The preamps in the SQ are, imho, very good, they don't color the sound, and have plenty of gain for any of my mics.

 

I recently added 8 channels of analog rackmount preamps to the setup, in the control room, 2 Channels each of AMEK/Neve 9098 and 7th Circle N72, and 4 channels of Warm Audio WA 73 Neve Clones. I'm pretty happy with these preamp choices, I've had the AMEK and 7th Circle for years (I actually built the N72's from kits), and the Warms are new to me, but sound great, and all of them offer a different character to the SQ-6 preamps.

 

My dilemma is how to best patch the external preamps into my system, and whether it is worth putting them on a patchbay, and, if so, what format? I currently have the first 8 channels of my analog snake patched into preamps, then they are patched into the first 8 channels of the SQ. The next 16 channels of the SQ are the from the digital headbox. the 2nd page of 24 inputs to the SQ are the 16 remaining analog channels from the snake, and USB returns. The 24 inputs on the first page handle most of the full band sessions I do, I very rarely have to track more than 24 channels at once. The mics I want to patch through the external pres, I just patch into the corresponding snake channel, and everything else goes into the digital headbox.

 

Would it be worth putting the 8 preamps through a patchbay? the currently live in a rack, and there are a few open spaces so I could add a patchbay. If I had 16-24 channels of external pres, I'd definitely use a patchbay, but it seems like the cost/benefit is not that great for just 8 channels, and, at least at the moment, I'm not planning to add more external channels. I'm also wondering if having a patchbay would make my studio a little more transparent for freelance engineers, I do have a few guys who rent the space from time to time. All the "pro" studios I freelance at have their entire setup patched out to tt bays.

[KuruPrionz]

Patch bays are intended as "problem solvers" so consider them in those terms and it should come clearer to you if you will benefit or not. 

My situation/needs are different than yours. That said, it's likely that we have some common elements. 

I have a single room, home recording studio with 8 channels in and the potential for up to 8 channels out through a single Thunderbolt 2 cable. 

 

I do some recording with other artists but I'm primarily running a studio to record my own creations. The Presonus Quantum TB that is my interface has 2 inputs on the front and 6 on the back. All the outputs are on the back. The Presonus preamps are clean and clear and sometimes I want something with more character so I have a Focusrite ISA One and a Focusrite ISA Two mic preamps. Both units have front facing DI and rear facing XLR mic and line inputs. The ISA Two has sends and returns for both channels. I also have a Blue Robbie, which is very low noise, smooth and clear sounding but has a bit of tube warmth. That has a volume knob and DI on the front, everything else is in the back.

 

It's much more convenient for me to have all of those inputs, sends and returns front facing so I wired up my own patch bay and just plug mic cables or insert various goodies into the front jacks. I do use channels on the Presonus as Line In and just leave stuff hooked up for the most part. I leave the front inputs on the Presonus available for whatever is needed and I use the last two inputs on the back as line in for electronic drums. It's been a good system so far, although I've not been home to use it for months. That should change soon. I've been using a laptop and an SSL 2+ in the meantime and may have to run both systems at some point, just because I like the sounds. 

 

The less time I spend as the engineer the more I can spend as the artist. The patch bay saves me time. If adding one will save you time or make it easier for your other renters to use your system then it will earn it's keep. If not then ponder if there is anything that will speed things up and go with that. 

[Stephen Fortner]

I’m always of two minds with the patchbay issue. I have three of them: Neutrik 1/4-inch NYS-SPP-L units where you can change the routing by flipping a circuit card around for each channel. It is undoubtedly a time-saver to have a default signal path (plugged into the back) I can override by plugging something into the front. On the other hand, the audiophile in me wants the shortest possible synth between instrument/mic, any desired hardware processors, and recording input.

 

Not that my current setup follows that principle to a tee. Keyboards are mainly plugged into a Crest XR-24 mixer, which serves as a traffic cop although I occasionally use a little of its EQ. Its eight subgroup outs feed the line ins on my UA Apollo. I also have an SSL SiX mixer for its pres and to handle my monitor control. The patch bays are currently not in use, but were when my main interfaces were MOTU HD192 and 2408mk3 boxes.

 

Been thinking about going mixerless by adding more I/O (either an Apollo 16 or a couple of 8-channel pres with ADAT outs as my old Apollo has two ADAT ins) and reinstating the patch bays. Then again I really love being able to reach for the board to tweak gain or change routing. Did I tell you I sometimes have difficulty making decisions?

[KuruPrionz]

30 minutes ago, Stephen Fortner said:

I’m always of two minds with the patchbay issue. I have three of them: Neutrik 1/4-inch NYS-SPP-L units where you can change the routing by flipping a circuit card around for each channel. It is undoubtedly a time-saver to have a default signal path (plugged into the back) I can override by plugging something into the front. On the other hand, the audiophile in me wants the shortest possible synth between instrument/mic, any desired hardware processors, and recording input.

 

Not that my current setup follows that principle to a tee. Keyboards are mainly plugged into a Crest XR-24 mixer, which serves as a traffic cop although I occasionally use a little of its EQ. Its eight subgroup outs feed the line ins on my UA Apollo. I also have an SSL SiX mixer for its pres and to handle my monitor control. The patch bays are currently not in use, but were when my main interfaces were MOTU HD192 and 2408mk3 boxes.

 

Been thinking about going mixerless by adding more I/O (either an Apollo 16 or a couple of 8-channel pres with ADAT outs as my old Apollo has two ADAT ins) and reinstating the patch bays. Then again I really love being able to reach for the board to tweak gain or change routing. Did I tell you I sometimes have difficulty making decisions?

Typically, if we keep our audio cords away from our power cords and use quality cables, audio quality is not compromised enough to hear.

For me, that's the trickiest part. I tend to route audio on one side and power on the other when possible, sometimes that's difficult. 

 

And something that is HUGELY important (although none of the 3 of us in the thread so far have mentioned it), is quality power conditioning. 

I've got a Furman rack mount goodie, the power coming out of my wall in a multi unit condo was tainted and noisy. The Furman brought the noise floor down to virtually inaudible, everybody should have something of that sort and power everything through it. 

Another thing to watch out for is most wall warts are not properly shielded. Very important to keep audio cables away from them! 

 

For every decision, there is the good, the bad and the ugly. Sometimes it's hard to choose and sometimes we end up trying something that doesn't really help at all. 

[NewImprov]

5 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

And something that is HUGELY important (although none of the 3 of us in the thread so far have mentioned it), is quality power conditioning. 

I've got a Furman rack mount goodie, the power coming out of my wall in a multi unit condo was tainted and noisy. The Furman brought the noise floor down to virtually inaudible, everybody should have something of that sort and power everything through it. 

Another thing to watch out for is most wall warts are not properly shielded. Very important to keep audio cables away from them! 

 

For every decision, there is the good, the bad and the ugly. Sometimes it's hard to choose and sometimes we end up trying something that doesn't really help at all. 

Yeah, I know all about funky power, I had to do some serious re-wiring when I moved into the studio in 2018, and it had been built out as a recording studio previously! I have Tripp-Lite Voltage conditioners/regulators on all the major audio circuits, and Furman or Radial power conditioners in all the racks, and it helps a lot.

 

And yeah, sometimes there just isn't a simple elegant solution when dealing with all this stuff. I know I'm already compromising the signal from the external preamps by bringing them into the SQ, because the signal still passes through the SQ's preamp circuitry, even though I have it adding no gain or processing. I've considered adding another line-level interface just for the external pres, but the convenience of the workflow of having everything go through the mixer is a factor.

 

Thanks for the input!

[KuruPrionz]

57 minutes ago, NewImprov said:

And yeah, sometimes there just isn't a simple elegant solution when dealing with all this stuff. I know I'm already compromising the signal from the external preamps by bringing them into the SQ, because the signal still passes through the SQ's preamp circuitry, even though I have it adding no gain or processing. I've considered adding another line-level interface just for the external pres, but the convenience of the workflow of having everything go through the mixer is a factor.

 

Thanks for the input!

Always fun and a learning experience to chat with other recordists. 😇

I've done the mixer thing too but found I'm better off without it. My current stint with the SSL 2+ has me questioning my entire rig. It's only 2 channels in but they are both easily switched from Mic to Line to Hi-Z and the I find it difficult to know exactly what sounds so much better but I'm guessing it's everything from the input signal to the A/D convertor to the D/A convertor and the outputs. The headphone amps on the Presonus sound very good but the SSL sounds notably better, so does playback through monitors although that's trickier since I've also been using some Yamaha MSP5 monitors instead of my USA made Mackie HR824s. Given that the headphones sound better than they did, I suspect that the line outs to the monitors also sound better. I have noted that the Yamahas are easier to mix on, everything sounds clearer and more defined. 

Maybe not quite as much low end but that's a trade off I'm willing to make. 

 

That said, the Presonus mic press are not bad and if you plug in a 1/4" TRS to the 6 inputs in back, they are line level with no preamps and no volume controls. The 2 on the front can be switched from Line to Hi-Z and the volume controls work in Hi-Z, which is good. It becomes a matter of "how much easier is it for everything to have it's own channel" and is that worth it if the other way of working sounds notably better. I should be able to do direct comparisons in January and then I can decide how to move forward. I'm inclined to go with the better quality if I can clearly hear the results. I find that more satisfying than any other aspect.