Fair enough. One advantage to DAW monitoring, though, is that you can actually hear yourself playing within the mix - panning, volume, EQ, etc. I find that a little more "fun" to play with sometimes, especially when I've got a couple of tracks already recorded and I'm laying down the harmony part.
At the end of the day, though, having as many options for routing and monitoring as possible is definitely the best choice.
Fair enough. One advantage to DAW monitoring, though, is that you can actually hear yourself playing within the mix - panning, volume, EQ, etc. I find that a little more "fun" to play with sometimes, especially when I've got a couple of tracks already recorded and I'm laying down the harmony part.
How do you mean? Of course you can hear the background tracks while direct monitoring the input... The purpose of DM is exactly to hear the tracks and the input at the same level of latency.
Am I getting you wrong?
A little bit, yes. I'm talking about hearing your tone blended into the mix, panned (for quad-tracked guitars, say), EQed, compressed, etc. That is, you're hearing your guitar signal as it comes through the master bus.
Latency is already not an issue with a good system, so for me, personally, monitoring directly at the interface isn't an advantage.
Ah, you're saying you like to hear the fx applied through the DAW in real time! As for multitracking a sound, this should be a different issue tho, you're anyway going to hear the already-layered tracks. But of course, if you want to hear the effect of the layering, you need to hear the "produced" sound
