Can you route 1-2 to patchbay? eg via Presonus Quantum

[Darryl Ramm]

What? Oh come on. I've explained the offset of the ports numbers and names multiple times in this thread already. The early part of my very first reply on this thread mentioned that.

As I've suggested already you need to play around with IO setup and just learn how to do stuff. I would have hoped you would have opened up the Pro Tools Reference Guide and read about IO setup there, or looked online for tutorials.

The names in Pro Tools IO setup mean nothing, they exist for you to look at. If you don't like the names being offset from the port numbers then rename them, but then they won't match the labels on the back of the box. And there is *nothing* special about I/O having name Main Outputs or Output 1&2 it makes no ****ing difference. Rename them after fruits if you want. It's actually a good idea while learning/playing to go in and change all the names and see that does nothing except change what you see.

The names do not mean anything to do with what a "monitor" is. And it's unclear what you exactly mean by that anyhow. But monitor routing here (besides I think possible monitor level control in the interface... read the interface doc) is entirely what signal routing you set up in Pro Tools. Just the outputs you are using and any monitor path/fold down. If you don't understand Monitor Path, Audition path etc IO settings then RTFPTRG.

I've offered multiple suggestions for what you should try and I'd have expected at most doing those to take an hour or two including time to learn stuff. You don't reply to say you've tried *anything* I have suggested, and keep repeating how lost you are. The reason I'm suggesting you doing these things it to help get yourself un-lost. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm going to leave you to flounder by yourself. I don't mind helping folks but this exceeds my patience.

[tj7]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

I've offered multiple suggestions for what you should try and I'd have expected at most doing those to take an hour or two including time to learn stuff. You don't reply to say you've tried *anything* I have suggested

Darryl -
I haven't forced you to help me, and I'm unsure of why you're getting cross here. Please look at my last post.

I specified that:

"I've established that my patchbay is not at all faulty, so no hardware probs there. Cables are fine as well."

"I have done searches (including youtube tutorials) for "presonus + patchbay", "pro tools + monitoring + output" etc etc etc etc and no matter what search terms I use, I am finding absolutely zero information out there
as to how to free up channel 1-2 from being assigned as monitoring outputs (which is surely why I can't get these channels to behave the same way as 3-8 for assignment via patchbay)."

So I'm not sure how you've concluded that I haven't followed any suggestions. I broke down my entire patchbay and checked these problem channels - the patchbay and cables are ALL fine. Hardware fault is NOT why I am getting a different behaviour from channels 1-2.

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

There will likely be nothing complex at all about why what you are trying to do will not work. It might be you are confusing output names, have the output level in the interface hardware turned down or in mute, or have a bad cable or patch bay port etc.

There is no difference in volume setting or anything, anything at all. The *exact same thing with the exact same gear with the exact same cables* works just fine between channels 3-8. As soon as I try to get channel 1 or 2 to patch out to gear that IS working just fine between channels 3-8, I get zero signal. Nada. Zilch. As above, the gear is ALL fine. I have checked.

I have been looking at the PT reference guide, specifically the i/o setup section. No luck so far.

https://www.audiotechnics.hu/PTRG/Pr...es/content.htm

The only conclusion I can muster for this is that 1-2 are doubled up with monitoring, but you're saying this has nothing to do with it. Therefore I remain mystified but am still trying to work this out.

Not your problem.

You don't have to reply to this and honestly, I'd rather you did not if this is a hassle for you and it's making you cross. I don't like putting people out.

[Darryl Ramm]

I suggested you *start* with with a new empty session, default all the I/O properly (which you had not been, and OK lots of folks get confused by that) set signal gen on mono tracks and check the outplays are workings and check the levels (to see if you have the monitor level turned down in the interface)... and I expected you to do that and speak up about what you have done and are seeing not go silent then come back saying your confused.

I am happy to let you go off by yourself but I sure do not appreciate the silliness of you saying you are doing what I've suggested when you clearly have not, or sure not communicated if you have done it

Read this again, carefully:

The names in Pro Tools IO setup mean nothing, they exist for you to look at. If you don't like the names being offset from the port numbers then rename them, but then they won't match the labels on the back of the box. And there is *nothing* special about I/O having name Main Outputs or Output 1&2 it makes no ****ing difference. Rename them after fruits if you want. It's actually a good idea while learning/playing to go in and change all the names and see that does nothing except change what you see.

The names do not mean anything to do with what a "monitor" is. And it's unclear what you exactly mean by that anyhow. But monitor routing here (besides I think possible monitor level control in the interface... read the interface doc) is entirely what signal routing you set up in Pro Tools. Just the outputs you are using and any monitor path/fold down. If you don't understand Monitor Path, Audition path etc IO settings then RTFPTRG.

[tj7]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

I suggested you *start* with with a new empty session, default all the I/O properly (which you had not been, and OK lots of folks get confused by that) set signal gen on mono tracks and check the outplays are workings and check the levels (to see if you have the monitor level turned down in the interface)...

Ok, ok. Sorry, Darryl, I missed this. Yes I have tried repeatedly to go back to default settings and start from there.
I'm not having any issues with output / monitoring for *any* channels. They all apparently are fine. I am *definitely* getting audio into track 1-2
when I use mic 1-2 inputs on the interface.

However.

After re-testing and tearing out some more hair, I've at last managed to isolate the problem to CH 2.

I can patch out of *1* just fine, after all. Signal to compressor via patch bay, all good. When I try same from channel 2, it's dead.

So the problem IS evidently hardware after all. You were right, Darryl.

Of course, all of my infuriating confabulation about monitoring set up etc has, as I have been repeatedly told her, nothing at all to do with it.

At least I can do what I need to via channel one - I'll have to get out the multimeter again and do more tests to establish what has died in my channel 2 chain.

I feel like such a dunce. I really did try to check all of this but I obviously did not do so properly.

Thanks for all the help! I appreciate it!

[Darryl Ramm]

OK that was a great find!

Some suggestions. Make sure the cables are not faulty, or intermittently faulty, say the cable on channel 2 does not have a short or open circuit in it. Obvious try to swap for know good cables that you likely already have.

Some TRS sockets can be quite prone to failure, including from the TRS plug getting bumped hard etc. The metal contacts inside the socket might get bent back and not make contact with the plug properly, sometimes internal parts where they are riveted together come apart and you might find parts of the contacts floating around inside or maybe fallen out of the socket. Sometimes folks tightening the mounting nut applies too much torque to the socket and damages things. Does plugging in the TRS plug into the problem socket feel exactly the same as other sockets? Grab a flashlight and look inside the sockets and compare what you see in the problem socket to other sockets on the interface.

If you have an multimeter you can also check the AC voltage (when driven by signal gen) between +ve signal and -ve signal as well as between +ve signal and ground and -ve signal and ground (those last two should be the same voltage, just opposite polarity). Sometimes only one side of the balanced signal will fail and knowing that might help diagnose stuff.

If you are OK opening up the interface box you might be able to see problems from there. Be careful of live mains voltage. It might be something as simple as a disconnected wire or bad solder joint that has cracked or a cracked PCB trace. But if it it's still under warranty and you don't want to risk poking around I'd just send it back for warranty service.

If you have a multimeter you can put signal gen on that output, know what AC voltages you are expecting (measuring between the +ve side and the -ve side of the balanced signal as well as ground like before) and then use the multimeter probes to back track from the TRS socket to where it connects to. Look for loose wires, breaks, dry joints, etc. If nothing is happening on the PCB going to the socket then it's a problem that likely needs a service technician to solve.

---

I suspect you had more problems here troubleshooting this that you really needed to have because IO setup in particular was causing you some confusion, maybe combined with thinking there is somethings special about those monitor outputs when in your interface there is not. Many many folks go though years of using Pro Tools and don't have a really good grasp on working with I/O settings. And IO Settings is just one of the really nice things about Pro Tools. Yes it could do with improvements in some areas, but oh its so lovely to be able to nicely setup a custom I/O setup. So this is worth spending some time to really learn. Again the best way there is probably to just play around with the settings, changing all the names, playing with all the buttons on the setup IO pages, understanding the monitor output/fold down etc. (like actually get a quick test session to do the redirect/fold down). Read the Reference Guide as you play around.

And yes orthogonal to all that I do hope you also play with hardware inserts and learn how to use those. It will make your sessions a lot neater/cleaner and more obvious to folks you are collaborating with.

[tj7]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

OK that was a great find!

Indeed!

Thanks Darryl.

TBH my inclination is to leave well enough alone, but at some point my curiosity about this channel will get the better of me and I'll thoroughly investigate. I have this thread to refer back to, when I do that!

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by tj7

I didn't even know about HW inserts until I started this thread, so yes I have all 8 x line in/outs running through my patch bay ins+outs and everything has been fine, aside from 1-2.

I've established that my patchbay is not at all faulty, so no hardware probs there. Cables are fine as well.

I feel rather inept here, as I can see you've tried to explain but I'm not getting it...

As attached, it appears that the problem is visible on my outputs setup (as attached). Monitoring has somehow been assigned to channels 1-2 - which I don't understand, as monitor L-R is clearly an entirely separate, dedicated output on the presonus.

But it looks like 1-2 has been doubled up with my monitoring?

How do I separate monitoring from this so that it is *not* doubling up with my main line outputs?

Even more confusingly for me, the output page shows a displacement of tracks - ie Line Out 1-2 is actually 3-4 etc. Wha? Even *mooorrrreee* confusingly, this is not reflected practically as channels all correctly correspond as far as the hardware goes. ie I have line in/outs 3-4 assigned to my patch bay, mic pres run into those, and when I select inputs 3-4 to record into in pro tools, I am getting exactly those inputs happening. Yet the output pathway screen shows that line out 3-4 is actually assigned to 5-6.

I have done searches (including youtube tutorials) for "presonus + patchbay", "pro tools + monitoring + output" etc etc etc etc and no matter what search terms I use, I am finding absolutely zero information out there
as to how to free up channel 1-2 from being assigned as monitoring outputs (which is surely why I can't get these channels to behave the same way as 3-8 for assignment via patchbay). Again, I can see monitor outputs on the presonus are *totally separate* to 1-8 ins/outs. Hence I am utterly confused as to why within my PT I/O settings, 1-2 and monitor out have become one and the same. None of this makes any sense to me... so I'm honestly feeling very dumb and embarrassed here. I feel like an utter, utter dunce. Why can't I make head or tail of what is surely a fairly simple, knowable thing?

[BTW I've done some homework on HW inserts and can say that I think I'll be content just leaving everything as is (assuming the issue with 1-2 is permanent / fixable, I assume it has nothing to do with HW insert use). This is because it looks like HW insert use makes sense when you have a permanent routing set up, ie input 3 is *always* hooked up to rack unit A etc. That isn't the case for me - I have more rack gear than I can run at once - which is why I have a patch bay. Input 3 might be used for a preamp when I am tracking, and then later I might want to use 3 for something else such as a reverb unit.]

Lets try this :

The reason for the two number numerical offset in the Outputs section of the PT I/O is specifically because they are physically separated on the Interface itself (i.e. on the Quantum the Main Outs L-R are separate from the line out 1-8)
BUT the Presonus software that is reporting to Pro Tools it does not make them separate in the Analog outputs numbering section that sits as a horizontal header at the top of the page

Yet PT sees the Main Outs L-R as separate in the vertical "Name" column as being first, and then it sees Line Outs 1-2 as being second , and that is why line Outs 1-2 lines up with 3-4 in the Horizontal Analog numbering header because analog numbers 1-2 are already being used by Main Outs L-R ---make sense ?

Again it is because the presonus software is not reporting them as being separate in the Analog outputs section numbering header
.


And with that in mind is why as Darryl pointed out this will be much less confusing if you simply re Name the inputs and outputs Since you are using a patch bay you could simply leave the Main Outs L-R as listed in the outputs section But then for the "line outs" and ins section you might rename Line Outs 1-2 something like PB-1-2 (for Patch Bay). PB 3-4 etc. Or to get away from numbers Maybe PB -A-B (for line out 1-2) and PB -C-D (for 3-4) etc.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by K Roche

Lets try this :

The reason for the two number numerical offset in the Outputs section of the PT I/O is specifically because they are physically separated on the Interface itself (i.e. on the Quantum the Main Outs L-R are separate from the line out 1-8)
BUT the Presonus software that is reporting to Pro Tools it does not make them separate in the Analog outputs numbering section that sits as a horizontal header at the top of the page

Yet PT sees the Main Outs L-R as separate in the vertical "Name" column as being first, and then it sees Line Outs 1-2 as being second , and that is why line Outs 1-2 lines up with 3-4 in the Horizontal Analog numbering header because analog numbers 1-2 are already being used by Main Outs L-R ---make sense ?

I know what you are trying to say but lets be careful here. There is nothing at all in the outputs that are actually "separated". I think it's important to be clear what exactly is going on and avoid terms like "separated" which may imply to people there are some differences between different outputs when there is absolutely not.

All these outputs are the same, there is nothing special about them. All you have is a set of output ports that are all the same. The device driver gets to tell CoreAudio the default names for these ports. They are just text strings intended for application to use to show users, they don't make *any* difference in CoreAudio or the capabilities of the I/O. Outputs say called "Monitor" don't have anything special about them, and are not anyway different than any other outputs in this case (they might be in some other interfaces if the interface also provides say hardware mixing/monitor management capabilities).

All that is happening here is Presonus in their lack of wisdom decided to name the output ports in the confusing way they did. Anybody with half a brain at Presonus, who cared about typical customer experiences with other DAWs would not have done this. And worse, having a quick skim through the documentation for this interface is beyond disappointing, it's all Presonus going on about their own StudioOne DAW with this interface. All not going to help at all, and very likely to frustrate and/or confuse users of any other DAW. The documentation is utter **** for those other DAW users. I used to have a better option of Presonus, would frequently recommend them here, especially because of experience with their live mixers, but based on how stupidly annoying that documentation is I will no longer recommend anything from them. Feels like Presonus just gave up being competitive and are just want to live in a StudioOne world, good luck with that.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

I know what you are trying to say but lets be careful here. There is nothing at all in the outputs that are actually "separated". I think it's important to be clear what exactly is going on and avoid terms like "separated" which may imply to people there are some differences between different outputs when there is absolutely not.

All these outputs are the same, there is nothing special about them. All you have is a set of output ports that are all the same. The device driver gets to tell CoreAudio the default names for these ports. They are just text strings intended for application to use to show users, they don't make *any* difference in CoreAudio or the capabilities of the I/O. Outputs say called "Monitor" don't have anything special about them, and are not anyway different than any other outputs in this case (they might be in some other interfaces if the interface also provides say hardware mixing/monitor management capabilities).

All that is happening here is Presonus in their lack of wisdom decided to name the output ports in the confusing way they did. Anybody with half a brain at Presonus, who cared about typical customer experiences with other DAWs would not have done this. And worse, having a quick skim through the documentation for this interface is beyond disappointing, it's all Presonus going on about their own StudioOne DAW with this interface. All not going to help at all, and very likely to frustrate and/or confuse users of any other DAW. The documentation is utter **** for those other DAW users. I used to have a better option of Presonus, would frequently recommend them here, especially because of experience with their live mixers, but based on how stupidly annoying that documentation is I will no longer recommend anything from them. Feels like Presonus just gave up being competitive and are just want to live in a StudioOne world, good luck with that.

Darryl I am not sure why you are confused about the wording of my post Perhaps you might re read it .

I thought I clearly state that while the "physical" outputs on the Presonus unit itself are "physically separated" (Which they in point of fact most definitely and "absolutely are separate ). I also clearly state that in the software they are not. So I don't see my use of separate in that specific wording and context as being problematic ?

While I understand what you are saying and agree , but because the level of confusion on the part of the OP is pretty basic as to the "why" of the number offset difference in the output section of the I/O matrix. I felt a very basic explanation might be of help.

And I agree it is an oversight on the part of Presonus. As a side note interestingly I ran into this very issue in a somewhat different context when trying to run the Studio One's hardware insert plugin, in order to run my to external hardware effects units connected to my Avid Carbon
I had to offset the outputs by two more numbers than the inputs (Which I do not have to do in Pro Tools ) And unfortunately Prosonus support was not no help and had no clue that that was case.

[Darryl Ramm]

Because as I explained when you say words like “physically separated on the interface” it can sounds to people like you are saying there is some sort of actual technical separation there and all that is is just the bloody labels printed next to the ports on the back of the box. There is no other real technical “separation” anywhere it is all just naming/labelling. Yes labeling is a type of separation, but it is clearer to say that than “separation”. I totally believe you understand all this, I am pointing out it is not the clearest way to explain it.