Monitoring through input on Print Track vs Master Fader

[jyellen]

My mix template is set up so that I monitor both my Surround and folded down Stereo mix via the Print Tracks while in Input mode. I was recently watching one of the Protools Expert videos where they mention this is not ideal and one should rather monitor via a Master Fader. However, there was no reason given in said video as it was off topic. However, this has piqued my interest so I was curious to hear from the experts why this is so. I'm willing to rework my template if it makes sense to do so :)

Here's a sample of my 5.1 signal flow:

dialog track -> 5.1 dialog bus -> 5.1 mix bus -> 5.1 Mix Print (monitored)

from what I understand the recommendation in question would be:

dialog track -> 5.1 dialog bus -> 5.1 mix bus -> 5.1 Master Fader (monitored)...as well as 5.1 mix bus ->5.1 Mix Print (via send)

Thanks in advance.

[albee1952]

If you have a method that works, don't feel the need to change because a video tells you to Just one opinion

[paulo m]

My templates have both options. A master fader(aux) that handles the volume of all the stems busses and another one that controls the return from the print tracks when recording. This way I can monitor "off-tape" style when recording by using only the fader assigned to the print tracks. You need to have only one fader up at any time of course, if they share the same physical outputs. If you have a monitor controller, you can assign different physical outputs to each master fader (aux), so that you can toggle sources on the controller easily. This allows AB comparisons to check that what you´re recording at the print tracks is the same of what you´re sending from the stems busses. It detects errors very quickly, like mistakes in routing etc.

[jyellen]

From what I understand it has something to do with Latency...can anyone speak to this? I understand latency very well but don't understand why uising input monitoring in this way is worse than a master fader. The guys who made the video (Mike Aiton and Mike Thornton) are well respected professionals and I value their opinion.

[TVPostSound]

Originally Posted by jyellen

From what I understand it has something to do with Latency...can anyone speak to this? I understand latency very well but don't understand why uising input monitoring in this way is worse than a master fader. The guys who made the video (Mike Aiton and Mike Thornton) are well respected professionals and I value their opinion.

Hi
Please point me to the video you're referring, so I can give an informed response.

[jyellen]

I heard it in this video but it's a very long video and I can't seem to find it again short of listening back through the whole video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMwfAmoPFaA

[bewk]

I think there's a bit of the "why" in this video. It may have more to do with delay compensation on HDX for re-recording; which I think Thornton and Aiton both have. Also, this is based on PT 11 code. Not sure if it still behaves this way with current versions.

Here's where M.A. discusses the routing for stems and printmasters in his template. Some great advice in there for people trying wrap their head around prepping stems for localization.

-Chris

[Sonopolis]

Well in older versions of PT there was the problem that you could not scrub through inputs, but I guess that is not what they are referring to.

[Cheesehead]

I have my template set up the same way as yours.
It works great and has done for years.
I don't experience any great latency.

As my Father in law used to say "If it isn't broke, don't fix it"

[jyellen]

Thanks all for your "input" (yuk yuk...sorry, that was bad).

I ended up redoing my template for other reasons and implemented the MASTER FADERS this time. We'll see how it goes.