OT: Y-cord = loss of fidelity?

[jlcnyc]

calling all audio experts -
in an effort to work around latency issues - a friend suggested the following setup:

using a Y-cord out of my mic pre (UA -LA 610), sending the signal to my convertor (Rosetta 200) AND sending the signal to a mixer to monitor latency free.
This setup works (no weird level or hum/buzz issues)..... but I'm wondering.... Are there any technical reasons to avoid this setup?
Does the use of a Y-cord effect/compromise the quality of the signal that the Rosetta is receiving from the pre?
I've done an A/B test and the results are certainly similar.....but I'm looking for "scientific" arguments (if there are any)

any thoughts?

thanks

[chaos1]

Here is a quick answer.
General engineering rule: You can split an output to multiple inputs, but you cant combine multiple outputs to one input..
You shouldn't be doing any damage or getting any noticable signal loss.
There are many technical reasons, but they dont necessarily apply to you. Most having to do with impedance. Anytime you split or combine a signal you change the impedance, but as I said it doesn't really apply in your situation.
You have a great pre(I have one in my studio as well) and you have A/B'd, so...trust your ear.

Hope that helps
Todd

[albee1952]

The output of the LA610 will be feeding (essentially) a load of half the impedance of feeding a single device. That said, as it is a line output with plenty of voltage behind it, I doubt you will hear any degradation. When you feed a mic into 2 inputs, it will change ever so slightly but still not enough to matter except in super critical situations where you would likely be matching the absolute best gear(cost no object). Now you actually can "Y" cord 2 mics together but it does require about 6db more gain at the preamp and the mics should be the same model(no tube mics with external power supplies). This can work good for close mic'ing say 2 rack toms or 2 floor toms when you are short of inputs. Reverse the polarity of one mic cnnector and you get the famous(but extinct) "differential mic) setup used by some 70's bands to allow for stupidly loud stage monitors. Try that with 2 mics-one in front of a speaker and the other behind. Change the distance of the rear mic for all kinds of tone changes like Jimi page(but only using a single input). Aren't we supposed to have fun with this?

[JFreak]

Yep; technically there is a small penalty for doing this, but in real world it's almost nothing. If you're scared about this issue, you should be using active splitter which does the job with absolutely no quality penalty -- but (depending on your budget) it's usually far more costly than useful.

[jlcnyc]

thanks for the replys.
I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a fundamental audio mistake

If anything.... I seem to perceive a SLIGHTLY thinner sound (less mid) on the split signal.(although it also could just be a performance issue)
I definitely realize that this "small penalty" won't make or break my tunes.... I'm a "big picture" kind of guy when it comes to music.
....but attention to detail is what got me here (apogee, UA) in the first place!

(I will research the active splitter - just out of curiousity)

thanks again

[theom]

I'd get an active splitter form somewhere with a return policy.
Or a transformer splitter. With the transformer type there is gerarally a direct out and a transformer isolated out. Send the direct to the a/d in and the tranny out to your monitor.
But then again you may not hear a big difference so then return the splitter.

Splitting with a y cable should only be a -3 to -6dB drop in level but it is more complicated than that because of the impedance load. This can affect tone.

[jlcnyc]

thanks for the info

ok...who manufactures "active splitters" for audio?
I googled but became throughly confused.

I found splitters at Pro-co sound, the ms-2 sounded like what I would need, but I'm assuming that it is passive (only $75)
I guess that a passive splitter is basicaly no different than my y-cable?

just curious

thanks

[theom]

thanks for the info

ok...who manufactures "active splitters" for audio?
I googled but became throughly confused.

I found splitters at Pro-co sound, the ms-2 sounded like what I would need, but I'm assuming that it is passive (only $75)
I guess that a passive splitter is basicaly no different than my y-cable?

just curious

thanks

A passive splitter IS diferent.
It isolates the second output. and does not affect the loading as much.

[JFreak]

who manufactures "active splitters" for audio?

BSS is nice

[chaos1]

By the way,
there are ways to monitor virtually latency free...this is from one of my other posts...

As far as the high buffers go...It's a little trick I picked up...you can record in "low latency" mode still using effects (ie...a reverb on vocals) if you assign the main outs(rather than a "send" channel) to an aux that has the effect...then you control the wet/dry signal in the effect...with virtually no latency!
Another trick I use for that (once again using a vocal track for example) is to open a mono aux with the input being the mic, and then rout that aux to the reverb aux. On the track that is being recorded, send the main out to stereo 1&2 and the reverb aux (hit ctrl+select) that way you can monitor playback through the same reverb!

Granted...this is using a 002R...I have no experience with the Mbox2... but I would guess the same principle applies...if not...sorry I wasted the post space