I want a better recording interface

[Sedaxel]

I´d swear it doesn´t.

I played several modelers with 470k, and also compared back in the day with my Helix LT the difference between input impedance settings... and I was perfectly fine with both 500k and 1M.

Even so, as I said above, I still prefer the specs to state 1M... but it´s now a much less important feature for me.

My EVO4 states 1M, and it sounds perfectly fine (the JFet seems to work very good... I´ve noticed clear difference in some youtube clips vs other interfaces DI input). But I´d bet it would be just as good if the specs said 500k, honestly.

 

[Someoldqueenorother]

I have a cheap interface now and it just doesn’t seem to be great for plugging in a guitar. It’s input impedance is 500k and 1M is what it needs to be. The past year I’ve been using my HX Stomp for the guitar interface and recently discovered some issues with that. To be honest it’s not a good guitar interface for recording.

Basically, i just need something with 2 mic inputs, a guitar input and MIDI. Actually, I’m not even sure I need the 5 pin MIDI jacks as everything works via USB but I may grab an older synth from Craigslist or something.

What’s good these days that isn’t wildly expensive?

The RME Babyface Pro FS and UCXII are audio interfaces I've had and they are superb and they are spendy. In the cheaper world, there isn't anything with the latency performance nor the audio quality of these two.

Totalmix is complex. Is it overkill for you? Probably.

Can you get acceptable performance out of a cheap interface? Yes. I think the IK Axe One is a stonking little interface. I like the tonal options with the Z-Tone controls and went to that interface after buying the Buffer Boost as I like a bit of top end rolled off. The JFET input does make a difference compared to non-JFET input interfaces I have.

If I were you, I'd go with the Motu M2 or M4 depending on your mic needs and I'd buy the IK BUffer Boost to use as a DI pedal.

 

[Orvillain]

I don't think many here are willing to put down several grand for an audio interface, when one costing a few hundred is already well in the realm of "good enough".

The first two TNBD albums, I recorded on an M-Audio Profile 2626. I did genuinely love that card at the time. But it was noisy, rife with boot problems, would often crash, didn't sync well with other gear, and generally was a bit shit. But fucking hell I loved it, and I connected a borrowed Digi 002 to it via ADAT, got enough channels to record drums, and smashed it outta the park.

I mean, look at this dickhead:


Carting a bunch of borrowed arse into a bloody charity furniture warehouse to record an album. What a life. That's fucking glory right there.

Eventually though... I just needed better sound quality, I needed to upgrade, needed more I/O, etc etc... The UA and RME stuff is just nice to use. And it really does make a difference.

I had a UA Apollo x8p, and it was stellar. But I felt for the hype of low latency, and sold it and got a Presonus Quantum. It was okay. Noticeable drop in audio quality. I then got an Antelope Discrete 8 Pro. As a standalone set of preamps, it is great. As an audio interface, particularly on Windows... often it is just sub-par performance-wise.

My UFXII was costly. But I don't really imagine needing to move on from it for 10 years.

My first outing with RME was not good - but it was all down to graphics card IRQ clashes.

 

[Sedaxel]

The RME Babyface Pro FS and UCXII are audio interfaces I've had and they are superb and they are spendy. In the cheaper world, there isn't anything with the latency performance nor the audio quality of these two.

Well... I guess that should be true. And I´m not saying it´s not. BUT... according to measurements, the Babyface Pro FS is in the same ballpark as cheaper SSL, Audient, Motu... These graphs are from our friend Krause. Take a look at how similar is the RME to the EVO4, and how it is outperformed by several units in every measurement:

Of course, I know that numbers don´t tell the full story... but I´m still to see measurements that confirm the supposed higher audio quality of RME/Antelope/UA interfaces over the cheap brands ones.

In another youtube analysis, which sadly didn´t include any RME unit, the guy tested the signal degradation in the line-in preamps of several units:

Ans the same for the mic preamps:

These numbers are merely anecdotical, though, since the same guy states that all those interfaces had very small signal degradation after A LOT of re-recordings, and it´s maybe imposible to notice it after a few of re-recordings.

Latency is where RME stands out, more than audio quality, in my opinion (and in conclusion to all the measurements I´ve seen). It´s maybe 2 or 3 ms difference vs an EVO4, for instance. If that´s so important, then yeah... We know that nowadays, interfaces are just fantastic almost in every price range, so a tiny improvement costs a lot.

 

[Sascha Franck]

These numbers are merely anecdotical, though, since the same guy states that all those interfaces had very small signal degradation after A LOT of re-recordings, and it´s maybe imposible to notice it after a few of re-recordings.

I've been doing loopback recordings up to 10-20 rerecord-generations with some interfaces, the result being that pretty much all of them are just doing fine. Sure, if you really want that last ounce of audiophile quality, you may bother, and in case money's no objection, you just go for the best quality - but others than that, for most of us mere mortals, it simply shouldn't matter anymore. Even the low end offerings are doing just fine these days.
As said before, I think other factors are much more important before you think about getting a high class audio interface. Invest into some nice monitors or headphones, get a better DI input device (if required), buy a nice mic, check (and maybe treat) your room, etc. All of these are much more important than spending a thousand bucks for an interface vs. 200.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Well... I guess that should be true. And I´m not saying it´s not. BUT... according to measurements, the Babyface Pro FS is in the same balpark as cheaper SSL, Audient, Motu... These graphs are from our friend Krause. Take a look at how similar is the RME to the EVO4, and how it is outperformed by several units in every measurement:

View attachment 43812

View attachment 43813
View attachment 43814
View attachment 43815
Of course, I know that numbers don´t tell the full story... but I´m still to see measurements that confirm the supposed higher audio quality of RME/Antelope/UA interfaces over the cheap brands ones.

In another youtube analysis, which sadly didn´t include any RME unit, the guy tested the signal degradation in the line-in preamps of several units:

View attachment 43816

Ans the same for the mic preamps:

View attachment 43817

These numbers are merely anecdotical, though, since the same guy states that all those interfaces had very small signal degradation after A LOT of re-recordings, and it´s maybe imposible to notice it after a few of re-recordings.

Latency is where RME stands out, more than audio quality, in my opinion (and in conclusion to all the measurements I´ve seen). It´s maybe 2 or 3 ms difference vs an EVO4, for instance. If that´s so important, then yeah... We know that nowadays, interfaces are just fantastic almost in every price range, so a tiny improvement costs a lot.

I somewhat agree that I think people online get a little carried away with RME, but also I think these graphs are somewhat cherry picking specs without much context.

There are a few things that would give me pause with an EVO4, even though it has it has some ok specs in some areas.

For instance, the D/A only outputs 11dBu, and the ADC only has a headroom of 8dBu. I personally find 18dBu to be a bit low, and would really go for less than 22dBu (which gives 18dB of headroom over 0VU=4dBu). 24dBu or higher is even better. I don’t think I could work with 8dBu and 11dBu except for some basic things.

Generally the Julian Krause comparisons are of “lower end” interfaces, and while some might fare a bit better than others, overall the differences in real world situations will be minor for most people. Most could pick any one of those, and as long as a few of the criteria that the individual needs are met, they’re going to be unlikely to notice an issue. There are more unbelievably affordable options than ever these days that also perform really well, so it’s hard to go wrong. But I also think it can be worth spending a bit more for some people. Lynx Hilo/Prism Lyra/RME adi-2, recent apogee stuff are all fantastic. For purely D/A, the Topping D90 holds its own against anything.

For a lower priced interface, I’d just check the criteria you care about most. Sonically I think it’ll be hard to notice a difference. With the lower end of stuff, I’d also pay particular attention to which ones are most stable too

 

[ctreitzell]

I remember incredible recordings made with first gen Digitech Mbox's because the user knew what they wanted and how to capture it, not to mention the music was great ().

Digitech? No, DigiDesign I think is what you meant

 

[Sedaxel]

If money wasn´t a problem, everything would be boring as hell... wouldn´t it?



Well, actually, even when I think the id24 would be perfect for my needs and economy, I ended up ordering a Midas MR18 because I also need a mixer for me future basement home studio, so I went the "mixer and audio interface" route. Let´s see if I end up annoyed by not having the workflow of a simple to use interface with handy knobs and whatnot.

Also, the MR18 will be useful for gigs and for playing in the basement with friends... I just hope the Midas Pro preamps are good enough for recording so I don´t miss having a dedicated interface.

 

[ctreitzell]

For instance, the D/A only outputs 11dBu, and the ADC only has a headroom of 8dBu. I personally find 18dBu to be a bit low, and would really go for less than 22dBu (which gives 18dB of headroom over 0VU=4dBu). 24dBu or higher is even better. I don’t think I could work with 8dBu and 11dBu except for some basic things.

Input headroom is potentially the game-breaker for any AI! Sir, you know what you are talking about =-D

But I also think it can be worth spending a bit more for some people. Lynx Hilo/Prism Lyra/RME adi-2, recent apogee stuff are all fantastic. For purely D/A, the Topping D90 holds its own against anything.

Examples of someone who has been looking deeply!
In late 2018 I began my research on what "high end" interface I want for my DAW build. I had used MAudio, Digi MBox 2, PreSonus FSM (2 cascaded) in my home rigs. At work, it was all Digi 96IO. At the university I spent a fair amount of time working in, it was mostly Focusrite and some RME. I was in Cambridge, UK and really wanted to go Prism; UA was newish at the time.

In the end, I went RME UFX+
That was 100% because of driver stability. Lynx was too pricey. Prism drivers were notorious for being flakey; UA not recommended on Windoze, etc...

The RME drivers are simply incredible for stability reasons. Not the easiest install and not the easiest learning curve. Total Mix is not easy, either. I'm still running the UFX+ with zero issues.

 

[Sedaxel]

For instance, the D/A only outputs 11dBu, and the ADC only has a headroom of 8dBu. I personally find 18dBu to be a bit low, and would really go for less than 22dBu (which gives 18dB of headroom over 0VU=4dBu). 24dBu or higher is even better. I don’t think I could work with 8dBu and 11dBu except for some basic things.

As I´m always learning from you, I´d love you to help me understand this. What problems do cause having that limited headrooms? I´m struggling to understand those numbers (I can´t find the 8dBu number in the manual of the EVO4, so I guess you´ve calculated it). I´m sure I´m doing something wrong in my recordings if you find this only valid for basic things! I want to find out, if that leads me to improve my work.

 

[HomespunEffects]

That MOTU M2 is looking pretty good. Plus having MIDI In and Out instead of one MIDI jack seems better.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Digitech? No, DigiDesign I think is what you meant

Duh, yes. thanks. It's been too long.
I still have my original Mbox and 002 mixer interface btw. I keep telling myself I can still use them for the preamps, etc. but it never happens.

 

[ctreitzell]

Duh, yes. thanks. It's been too long.
I still have my original Mbox and 002 mixer interface btw. I keep telling myself I can still use them for the preamps, etc. but it never happens.

Sorry to point that out =-)...altho we have recently moved on to Røde WGII for that

I still have MBox2 and use it with various household laptops for Zoom meets when we need better micing

 

[HomespunEffects]

Ok, so it comes down to which is specifically better for using as a direct guitar input for plugins?

 

[ctreitzell]

As I´m always learning from you, I´d love you to help me understand this. What problems do cause having that limited headrooms? I´m struggling to understand those numbers (I can´t find the 8dBu number in the manual of the EVO4, so I guess you´ve calculated it). I´m sure I´m doing something wrong in my recordings if you find this only valid for basic things! I want to find out, if that leads me to improve my work.

analog input headroom

guitar signals can easily peak analog inputs (I think up to +22dBU)...+18 dBU is just barely acceptable
UA knew this, hence +25dBU input headroom

but UA drivers on win was a no go in my research

 

[ctreitzell]

That MOTU M2 is looking pretty good. Plus having MIDI In and Out instead of one MIDI jack seems better.

MOTU was always an avoid brand for my DAW (SAWStudio; I still use it daily, but it is very long in the tooth)

The only people I ever knew who used MOTU all switched over to Metric Halo. MOTU was always very mac targeted IME. I have seen a few MOTU units in guitar racks used as a class compliant mixer....not in person, tho...online

 

[FuzzyAce]

Ok, so it comes down to which is specifically better for using as a direct guitar input for plugins?

I do think the Motu is great in this respect, but admittedly I more times than not use a R. Neve RNDI-1 for that.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

As I´m always learning from you, I´d love you to help me understand this. What problems do cause having that limited headrooms? I´m struggling to understand those numbers (I can´t find the 8dBu number in the manual of the EVO4, so I guess you´ve calculated it). I´m sure I´m doing something wrong in my recordings if you find this only valid for basic things! I want to find out, if that leads me to improve my work.

The 8dBu spec was on their website, guessing the manual will have everything too.

If you’re reamping, you’ll want to be able to output a decent enough signal level. Especially because many reamp boxes attenuate the signal by some amount, and even the best ones might get 1:1 or only a little more.

Same goes if you’re using analog HW, you won’t be able to hit it with a particularly loud signal. and it can be annoying if the A/D and D/A aren’t aligned to the same calibration because your levels will change when going out and back in. Depending on your monitoring, you might want to send a slightly louder signal to them too (even if you’re attenuating with a monitor controller you may want to optimise the range of levels and background noise and resolution etc).

The same sort of thing is true for the A/D, having more headroom just means you can accept a wider range of sources without issues. If you have great SNR specs AND a lot of headroom you can record with plenty of space for peaks and no noise to worry about. If you have less headroom to work with, the same input signals will be closer to clipping. Having adjustable calibration is even better, and quite common these days.

When you read that -18dBFS stuff online, it’s usually with the assumption of having 22dBu of headroom. That means 0VU=4dBu=-18dBFS. I tend to think of 22dBu as a kind of ballpark “standard”. Having a bit more to work with is better, and I wouldn’t lose much sleep over having a little less. But it’s a spec worth paying attention to, especially when mixing and matching gear.

 

[ctreitzell]

I do think the Motu is great in this respect, but admittedly I more times than not use a R. Neve RNDI-1 for that.

Wow! Very nice!

I'm not crazy about the RME mic pres; when I record guitar, I use a Sound Devices 722 because the limiter is simply awesome and I find the mic pres are a just a fraction sweeter than the rather anemic RME pres. Particularly with acoustic.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

analog input headroom

guitar signals can easily peak analog inputs (I think up to +22dBU)...+18 dBU is just barely acceptable
UA knew this, hence +25dBU input headroom

but UA drivers on win was a no go in my research

Guitar DI’s probably won’t get much above 13dBu unless you’re using boost pedals in front. I think UA have typically used 22dBu but they might have changed to 24dBu on their more recent upgraded converters.