1 Topic by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-06-08 09:25:15)

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Topic: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

For my personal taste the pre-fader implementation has the highest benefit, because by this you can still use the mute buttons on the outputs without impacting/canceling loopback operation.

I think it would be cool if the loopback operation in TM FX would default to pre-fader for all interfaces and on top of that be switchable between pre- and post fader if this would be possible from technical perspective.

I assume the implementation is not trivial, most likely the firmware and TM FX would need to be changed for the switching part if this would/could ever be implemented.

But, what's your opinion? In which "mode" do you see most advantages for your work / your use cases?

Here a diagram to make the two different implementations more clear:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/er6z3qq7ly30xgp/Loopback%20Pre-Post%20Fader.jpg?dl=1

Not that you wonder, I copy/pasted the mute button from TM FX and placed it into the block diagram over the symbol for the output fader to make clear, that mute operation is also behind the fader symbol.

Currently pre/post fader is implemented on the following interfaces (some examples):
pre-fader: UFX, UC, UCX, UCX II
post-fader: BBF *, Digiface USB, MADIface Pro/XT,  UFX II/+

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2021-03-09
  • Posts: 27

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Thanks for the clear illustration!
I see no advantage in the post-fader Loopback implementation. Maybe RME has recognised this and changed it in the new UCX II.

BUT: isn't that all software? Even what you call the "TM FX HW Output Fader" ? (with HW you mean hardware, I guess). Is it really hardware or hardwired?
Or could the Loopback behaviour be changed for other existing RME interfaces by a firmware and TM FX update?

3 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-06-09 13:33:04)

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Thanks lightbox, I didn't think of this case.

1st I was tempted to raise the request to change this for UFX+ (and UFX II), but if some customers - like you - would prefer post-fader, then such a change might be counter productive.

@RME: then it really would make sense to make this configurable, would that be possible ?

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2021-03-09
  • Posts: 27

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

For submixes, wouldn't it be nice to have the loopback functionality possible on any of the outputs? (just one mono or stereo of course)
Then the pre/post question would solve itself -> POST

5 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-06-10 07:20:12)

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

VayouApp wrote:

For submixes, wouldn't it be nice to have the loopback functionality possible on any of the outputs? (just one mono or stereo of course)

This is already the case, every HW output (no matter whether mono or stereo) supports looback operation.

VayouApp wrote:

Then the pre/post question would solve itself -> POST

No, because some (EDIT: RME-) interfaces have it implemented for each of their HW outputs to be either pre- or post-fader.

This is the reason for this thread to ask, what people would prefer.

Another question is - if switching would be possible - whether this would be possible on a per output channel basis or whether you would need to choose between pre/post fader for all outputs at once.

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2021-03-09
  • Posts: 27

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

ramses wrote:

This is already the case, every HW output (no matter whether mono or stereo) supports looback operation.

Sorry, I forgot this, just used it on the main so far...

ramses wrote:

... some interfaces have it implemented for each of their HW outputs to be either pre- or post-fader.
...

if the competition can solve and offer it this flexible, it sounds like this should be possible for RME too. All the more with the reputation of RME and the powerful TM...

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Sorry, but you misunderstood. Some RME interfaces have implemented loopback pre or post fader as I wrote in my 1st posting. As of today there is nothing compareable to TM FX from other vendors.

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2021-03-09
  • Posts: 27

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

ramses wrote:

Sorry, but you misunderstood. Some RME interfaces have implemented loopback pre or post fader as I wrote in my 1st posting. As of today there is nothing compareable to TM FX from other vendors.

sorry for my misunderstanding!

I see, it's inconsistent.

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

I had some drawings according to this topic and put this all together and wrote a new blog article, available here:

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ion-EN-DE/

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2019-10-01
  • Posts: 675

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Thanks, Ramses!!

Really helpful !
And very good info to know which models have pre or post fader implementation!

RME Gear: Digiface USB, HDSP 9632
  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

MetalHeadKeys wrote:

Thanks, Ramses!!

Really helpful !
And very good info to know which models have pre or post fader implementation!

Thanks, very nice from you :-)

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Manuel
  • Manuel
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • From: Madrid, Spain
  • Registered: 2007-10-03
  • Posts: 243

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

I would like to buy the UFX II but the post-fader loopback implementation is a big turn-off. Any chance a switch could be implemented in software?

13 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 27,140

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Turned out to be too complicated under the hood. Sorry.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,880

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Manuel wrote:

I would like to buy the UFX II but the post-fader loopback implementation is a big turn-off. Any chance a switch could be implemented in software?

How many loopbacks do you need ? Usually not that many ..
What about routing your submix to another unused output and using loopback there ?

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

15 Reply by Manuel (edited by Manuel 2022-01-12 22:19:04)

  • Manuel
  • Manuel
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • From: Madrid, Spain
  • Registered: 2007-10-03
  • Posts: 243

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

MC wrote:

Turned out to be too complicated under the hood. Sorry.

(apologies as I hadn't enabled notifications for this thread and posted the same question in multiple places hoping to get an answer more quickly—please ignore.)

Thanks for clarifying, Matthias. So basically the decision to use post-fader for the UFX II/+ was not a fun decision to make, I gather, but one that had to be made for technical reasons. No problema.

This had me confused for a while because of what you said in a reply to another user who actually wanted post-fader (can't please everyone...):

MC wrote:

This [pre-fader] is the right way to work. Otherwise you would ruin your recording by changing [output] volume all the time.

But I 100% agree with your reply big_smile and having worked with both the old UFX (pre-fader) and the Babyface Pro (post-fader), it can be confusing at first because both devices share the same familiar TM interface.

ramses wrote:

How many loopbacks do you need ? Usually not that many ..
What about routing your submix to another unused output and using loopback there ?

You are correct, I've never needed more than one. Of course with pre-fader, besides not "wasting" I/O, the main advantage is you are always sure you are getting the full-scale signal. Your proposed solution should work for me as I am nowhere near using all available I/O. I can always set and hide my "re-purposed" channels to prevent myself from moving the fader from unity.

  • gigi
  • AD/DA expert
  • Offline
  • From: Berlin
  • Registered: 2010-02-27
  • Posts: 34

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

ramses wrote:
Manuel wrote:

I would like to buy the UFX II but the post-fader loopback implementation is a big turn-off. Any chance a switch could be implemented in software?

How many loopbacks do you need ? Usually not that many ..
What about routing your submix to another unused output and using loopback there ?

I still see this as a workaround, and I wouldn’t consider the need for pre-fader loopback a particularly niche use case.

I’m in essentially the same situation as Manuel: I own a UCX and am considering upgrading, but the post-fader loopback implementation on the newer interfaces is a significant drawback for my workflow.

For me the issue isn’t sacrificing an additional channel; it’s the extra routing and control complexity.

Normally, I send a mix of (10-12) hardware inputs and playback channels to my Main Out, where my loudspeakers are connected. I control that mix dynamically from a hardware fader surface.

So how exactly would the suggested parallel-submix workaround work in practice? Would I have to control the levels going to a separate submix, enable loopback on that output, and then route that mix back to the Main Out for monitoring?

If so, I see two issues:

1. I no longer have a mix that I can mirror through the Control Room section to my headphones.

2. Wouldn’t routing the signal through loopback and back into the monitoring path introduce an additional buffer/delay, however small?

With pre-fader loopback, none of this is necessary: the Main Out mix can be recorded independently of the physical output fader, while the same mix remains directly available for speakers and headphones. That seems like a very natural studio use case to me.

reso

17 Reply by waedi (edited by waedi 2026-08-13 17:19:24)

  • waedi
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Swiss Zürich
  • Registered: 2020-12-08
  • Posts: 7,681

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

To me a cable-Loopback is the natural use case.
And Totalmix Loopback is a replacement for cable-Loopback, therefore it has to be post-fader.

If the monitors have a thru-out or the monitor controller has a second output one can record from there.

M1-Tahoe, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver and blue
  • gigi
  • AD/DA expert
  • Offline
  • From: Berlin
  • Registered: 2010-02-27
  • Posts: 34

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

I see your point, but if a cable does the trick, then post-fader loopback itself is just a commodity.

My concern is more about the functionality of TotalMix’s Control Room section. TotalMix lets you mirror the submix you are sending to the Main Out also to your headphones, which I find one of the particularly useful features of the Control Room, while, at the same time, keeping the recording level independent of the monitor level. With post-fader loopback, however, the mirroring functionality of the control Room Section loses much of its usefulness.

Your solution, as I understand it, would be to use an external hardware monitor controller with independent level control for loudspeakers and headphones, plus a separate split for recording. With the UCX, I can do all of this directly in TotalMix, which is why I personally find the pre-fader implementation much more useful.

  • Kubrak
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2023-08-03
  • Posts: 1,584

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

gigi wrote:

For me the issue isn’t sacrificing an additional channel; it’s the extra routing and control complexity.

Normally, I send a mix of (10-12) hardware inputs and playback channels to my Main Out, where my loudspeakers are connected. I control that mix dynamically from a hardware fader surface.

So how exactly would the suggested parallel-submix workaround work in practice? Would I have to control the levels going to a separate submix, enable loopback on that output, and then route that mix back to the Main Out for monitoring?

If so, I see two issues:

1. I no longer have a mix that I can mirror through the Control Room section to my headphones.

2. Wouldn’t routing the signal through loopback and back into the monitoring path introduce an additional buffer/delay, however small?

And what about assigning Phone2 to unused output, Mirror it to Main, set its fader to 0dB and loopback it?

OK, it is a woraround, but it would do, what you need without any effort. Except to set Phones 2 appropriately once. It does the trick.

FF UCX II, Digiface USB, Babyface Pro FS
  • gigi
  • AD/DA expert
  • Offline
  • From: Berlin
  • Registered: 2010-02-27
  • Posts: 34

Re: Loopback pre- or post-fader, what's your favourite?

Kubrak wrote:

And what about assigning Phone2 to unused output, Mirror it to Main, set its fader to 0dB and loopback it?

OK, it is a woraround, but it would do, what you need without any effort. Except to set Phones 2 appropriately once. It does the trick.

Oh yes, thanks for thinking this through! I think I get it now.

In the Control Room section, I assign Phones 2 to an unused output (e.g. ADAT 7/8), set its fader to 0 dB, and mirror Phones 2 to Main as well. That keeps all three submixes (Main, Phones 1, Phones 2) synchronized.

Then, by activating loopback on Phones 2, that signal becomes available on the corresponding input (ADAT 7/8) which I can then record.

I’ve just tried it on the UCX, and it works exactly as you described.

So yes, that would do the trick. I’d just have to get used to having an additional Control Room channel and a dedicated loopback channel, giving up a phisical input. On the UFX, I’d also need to remember to keep the Phones 2 fader open (although that could actually be useful, since it gives a separate fader to control the recording level if needed).

Thanks, that’s a much more elegant workaround than I initially thought!