Headphone mixer survey, Aviom, Hear, Langevin etc

[hitp]

Hello,

Just wanted to see who of you are using some sort of headphone mixing station in your rigs. Aviom, Langevin, Mytek, Hear, Furman 16 . . . etc.

How you set up and any comments on it's use. How do you set up in ProTools say with the outputs of the 192. Is is just assigning multiple outs (Control + Click + select). I am assuming it would all be pre-fader or through some multi send routing.

Also work flow . . how do you set up for tracking? By templates? And once tracking is over switching for overdubs. Also do you usually send as many instruments as you can to give musicians flexibility. Or do you do a basic 2 track mix and add select things like Click and "more me" tracks?

Any pros and cons of using this setup? Thank you for sharing!

[c-tone]

In my opinion, these types of systems are really only useful for live band tracking, so that each guy can have his mix the way they want it. Otherwise, in an overdub situation, it is best to just put the headphone mix together for the musician, with a single stereo mix. That way as you add more tracks, it doesn't get more and more convoluted with separate channels, levels, panning, etc. Keep in mind that people can end up dialing in some very strange mixes for themselves which aren't conducive to great performances, and it is good to keep a handle on that for them.

I use the Hear Technologies Hearback system sometimes, and while it works fine, I don't like the fact that if you want the ability to pan individual channels, you basically cut your channels in half. I like to give each band member in a live tracking situation control over each element, such as one mono channel for guitar, one mono channel for bass, one mono channel for another guitar or keyboards, one for live vocals, one for click, a stereo drums mix, etc. The trouble with that is that you end up with an essentially mono headphone mix, except for the stereo drums, which doesn't sound great or inspiring, and also can be muddy and less clear than if they could pan instruments as they please. I would prefer ideally about 8 mono channels with panning and one or two stereo channels for a personal headphone mixing station. The Aviom system has this, but it can be confusing and counter intuitive to use at first.

[tal herzberg]

Aviom = life saver!!

[hitp]

Thanks guys! Tal how does the Aviom sound? I heard the Hear at a dealer and it sounded a little tinny. Maybe just the wrong phones. Does the Aviom have good enough fidelity and punch. I currently use power amps with resistors and this sounded a lot better than the Rane headphone amps we were using. Hopefully the Aviom will sound just as good.

I also have been looking at the Manley Langevin and that sounds pretty good.

[rnd]

I've used the Aviom and Hear as a player (guitar) and the Furman as both a player and producer. I ended up putting together a Furman system for one of my clients because I didn't want to take a chance with latency issues and possible complaints from the musicians. However, now that I've used all 3 of these systems as a player I would not hesitate to use either the Aviom or the Hear setup. They both sound great and the latency issues are blown way out of proportion IMO. The Furman sounds great, too, BTW - and is probably the most flexible - but the wiring is definitely more cumbersome than the other 2 systems. I currently have the bottom end, 2 channel Furman system for headphones in my studio, but will likely upgrade to the Hear system. I knew I should have run ethernet tie lines!

[Tom Pfaeffle]

Aviom vote here- been using it for three years- musicians love it-full band sessions run smooth

[sleiweke]

I just switched from the Hear Back system to the Furma HRM-16 & HDS-16 system. Sounds great and it is analog so no latency. Very musician friendly. Yes, the cables are bigger but the flexibility and features far outweigh an inconvenience that a bigger cable brings.

[hitp]

Any of you guys tried the older systems like Mytek and Langevin systems. I find IC driven systems to sound small compared to the old fashioned setup of a power amp driving phones. What this system obviously lacks is the flexibility in giving musicians the best mix possible when tracking. Again so many factors and your milage may vary. Still cue over ethernet cables are a joy to install. A big pain of having to wire up a ton of ELCO connectors.

Thanks for all the people who chimed in so far . . . please keep those suggestions coming.

[Will Russell]

I have the Aviom setup and LOVE it and so do my clients.

[c-tone]

I find IC driven systems to sound small compared to the old fashioned setup of a power amp driving phones. What this system obviously lacks is the flexibility in giving musicians the best mix possible when tracking.

I think that if you have a powerful high quality amplifier plugged directly into a high quality headphone box with very little in it (like just volume), you will get a bigger and better sound than some of these other options. The question is, what do you need it for? Like I said, if you really want to go for it, get a flexible system like the Aviom for live band tracking, and then just get a great stereo amp for your overdubbing headphone set up, and you will have all bases covered. In the end, the actual balance and mix of the instruments will be more important to the musician than the overall fidelity, and these systems are all going to be pretty decent. Letting the musicians dial in their own mixes gives you one less thing to worry about when tracking a bunch of musicians simultaneously.

I also like the Mytek system. I think it is functionally laid out the best off all of these choices, but I have seen several of them go bad during sessions and need repair.