UR28M - Help route RevX tracking to right can only please

Hi - Can someone help me figure this routing out please?

I’m trying to get the UR28M’s Rev-X panned hard to one side of the headphones while tracking live vocals, but am not able to keep it from going to both cans.

I have direct monitoring on. I have the vocal audio track panned hard right in the arrangement window/MixConsole, and [u]that is where the dry signal/voice is coming into the cans - hard right
[/u]. I hear the reverb, presumably from the UR28M as I don’t have any inserts on, etc. The vocal track is routed to Mix 1 hardware output, as is the reverb
* (but of course the vocals don’t make it all the way through Cubase when direct monitoring is on, that’s why there’s no vocal signal at UR28M Mix 1 hardware out while tracking, … uhmm, right :confused: ?).
But … the reverb seems to be coming out of both cans.



Is the UR28M reverb not pannable - it has to go to both sides of the headphones?



Thanks in advance for any suggestions, I am stumped!

(* I’m not sure I understand that part about Direct Monitoring … I thought when it was “on” it meant the signal never went “into” Cubase … so I don’t understand how it “knows” to pan the dry voice hard right and send it back out only to the right headphone … but there it is somehow, the dry signal is in the right headphone only :question: I’m wondering if this knowledge gap of mine is related to my inability to figure out how to pan the Rev-X …). AH! Edit: http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=194&t=60677#p371145

If anyone can help with this guys, please do :slight_smile:

I’m afraid I’m going to have to abandon one of the main features I bought the UR28M for, it’s “zero latency” reverb for tracking, if I can’t figure out how to pan the Rev-X off-center while tracking.

I’m going to try to set up my new rig tonight to run the reverb through Cubase, like the old days. Hopefully the latency will be OK, but really hopefully I’ll find there’s a way to route the Rev-X while tracking.

Fingers crossed for good news from one of you guys!

Thanks -


[EDIT: I have bailed on trying to use Reverb-X while tracking in situations where I want the reverb panned off center, with direct monitoring (DM) on , at least for now until I learn more.

It’s not the end of the world, the latency when tracking using Rev-X as an insert is not noticeable to me, so I don’t miss the “zero latency” of DM too much. (Interestingly, also, when used as an insert, Rev-X can be panned off center).

And (as someone else posted), if Control Room doesn’t work with DM on, I’d have to give up the Listen bus to use DM … which I am loathe to do, I love that thing! [Edit - Control does work with Direct Monitoring, as I posted in that thread].

So, it’s back to the stone age … tracking with reverb in the cans from a Cubase insert!]

OK, so having thought about this a few days, I can succinctly pose my question:

Can the Rev-X be panned when used as a hardware effect?

I’ve run out of ways to try to get that done, so the answer is “No” as far as I’m able to figure out, and I’m just moving on from there. If anyone else knows something different, please post here!

May I ask, why do you want to pan reverb on your cue mix?

I’ve been doing this for 30 years now and I can’t ever remember anyone asking for panned reverb when tracking?

This is probably why no one thought about having the preference to do this when designing the 816.


Not making any judgement here just asking?


MC

Sure, no prob!

I’ve been doing this a few years, just to help set the stage. I read an article, in SOS I’d think, about the singer having a hard tuned/timed guide vocal panned left, and their “live” vocal panned right, to help them with timing and pitching. I’ve been doing that since then, using the “live verb” as an insert in the “live dry” vocal track, panned to the same place.

Now that my new interface has has built in dsp effects, I thought it’d be cool to use them, with direct monitoring on, for the same purpose. It took a while to figure out why, but things just didn’t seem right. As it turned out, the dry was vox panned appropriately, but its reverb (integrated in the hardware) wasn’t, it was coming straight down the middle. I found it really helped the singing a lot to have the verb track the dry signal (i.e., panned off right some), and so that’s what brought me here …

Thanks for your interest!

That was probably a very specific issue SOS were talking about and not a normal way of working. Also don’t take SOS as the be all and end all of correct information.

I would suggest you’d be better off learning to sing in the traditional way,99.99999999% of singers have worked since headphones were first used (Incidentally, when the singers of the 40’s and 50’s first started using headphones in the studio, a lot of them had tuning problems to start with as it was a completely new experience to them, they soon got used to it though)

Either get used to singing with phones on or have the one ear on ,one ear off method some singers like. You’ll get better at it the more you do, and I’m sure it wont be long before it feels completely natural.

If you get used to doing it the way you are, then you’re setting yourself up for problems in the future when you work live with in ear monitors or work in other studios.

Like with anything new, it’s always best to start with good practice rather than bad, you’ll only have to undo the bad practice later on , and it will be a lot harder.


MC

Thanks for the words of advice!

I actually tried the one ear on/off at one point, as I much
prefer to hear the “live” voice without cans. I could not make it work for several reasons it seems, mainly because mechanically I couldn’t make it so the headphones weren’t awkward- and unstable-feeing. Also I wasn’t quite sure how to pan the guide vocal I was singing to/doubling to - all the way to the edge I would assume, so it didn’t bleed out of the “off-ear” phone?

It was after trying that unsuccessfully that I moved on. If you had any suggestions for that technique, I’d definitely try them (Beyer DT 770).

Thanks -

[EDIT: I decided to give it another go based on what you said, I tried the off-ear thing again, using the Cue Sends to get the balance of the backing tracks in the earphone I was wearing. It is working better than I recall it did in the past … actually seems do-able now … I’ll give it another go. Thanks!

I’ll just add here, several months later … I absolutely LOVE the one can on/one can off technique. It retrospect, my brain just absolutely could not let me hear my voice properly thru cans. This way I am hearing it directly into the canal of the off-the-ear head phone. It is fun now!

And now a further update, almost a year later.

My go-to technique has been the one ear on, one off, and though I’d gotten quite used to it, it was never something I really loved (OK, so I was wrong in my last post). Part of it was spending the time and effort to set up the panning to the right headphone only (so there wasn’t any bleed out of the “off-ear” can), but also it was always at least a little distracting hearing the backing track into one ear only.

I’m making this post to let people know about another alternative that works GREAT, found at this link: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct15/articles/kick-the-cans.htm

and that I described here: http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=86378 . Hope somebody finds it helpful!