I want a better recording interface
- Thread starter HomespunEffects
- Start date
Someoldqueenorother
Groupie
- Messages
- 93
Sure, I know about the measurements. I'm going on my experience with various units which were paired with the same monitors and power amp for a number of years until they were finally retired. My first audio interface was a Soundblaster Pro, moved up to an M-Audio Delta 66, and then released how much better things sounded when I used an external DAC in the form of the TC BMC2. From there, all sorts came and went: RME Hammerfall cards, Multiface 2, Steinberg UR22, Motu M4, RME Babyface Pro FS, RME Digiface USB with ADI-2 FS DAC/ADC, the UCXII, even the Yamaha O1X...
The best I had was the Digiface USB connected to the ADI-2 FS converter. I had the Motu M4 at the same time and spent hours comparing them. The bottom end and top end with the MOTU was very good, a marked step above most of the cheap stuff. The RME combo was just better. Soundstage, imaging, clarity, you name it.
I don't have any of that now. I'm sat here with a choice of an IK Axe One and an NI Komplete Audio 6 Mk 2. Why? Because I simply don't need the better stuff right now. One day, I will :)
And you're quite right in saying that the difference between the cheaper stuff and the high end is getting narrower (or words to that effect). The MOTU M4 is a bloody great interface. I know many swear by Audient but the latency figures on their devices put me off.
ctreitzell
Roadie
- Messages
- 108
Ha! I still have my Delta66
I certainly used it a lot!
Someoldqueenorother
Groupie
- Messages
- 93
It was a sad day when I upgraded and had to say goodbye.
Great info there. Thank you!
Desertdweller
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,446
I recorded two albums with a Delta1010. Old tech but was awesome at the time.
Desertdweller
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,446
I have a MOTU M6 now and I think it’s outstanding. I had a FireWire Ultralite a decade ago that was excellent too. I’d still be using it if I’d have bought it USB instead of FW!
- Messages
- 8,596
Those were the first units a studio friend picked up when he was starting to move on from the ADAT machines. So they were also the first interface I used being involved in a lot of session tracks with him. It pushed me in the direction of getting my own interface and learning recording software. In my case it was Protools and the Mbox that got me going.
- Messages
- 6,304
That’s what I did when I was upgrading my interface. Just bit the bullet. You can talk yourself in circles in some tiers of the market in a price to performance comparison. It’s kind of a nightmare tbh. lol Since every piece of gear you own is going to route through the thing for 10 years I figure it’s better to spend a little up front and just be done with it. Solutions over stopgaps etc. Just pumped the breaks for a couple months on stupid OD and fuzz pedals that I need more of like a hole in the head.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 7,303
For a real-world experience, the EVO 8 I have seems to have largely the same specs on paper as the EVO 4. I haven't noticed any relevant difference to the Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 2nd gen I had been using for years. Focusrite doesn't list the ADC specs in the manual tho.
The EVO 16 claims 0dBFS = +10.5dBu so slightly better. Overall that interface is pretty mediocre for the money.
Interestingly the Audient iD line claims +18dBu = 0dBFS.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,345
It says here that A/D headroom is 18dBu and the line outs are 16dBu with 108/109dB A Weighted SNR. I think to begin with Audient had somewhat attempted to align their specs of their different interfaces to something similar but that's changed recently. I think it's easier to build different products for different sections of the market, and have better specs to market with by adjusting them a bit. The Evo stuff seems fine to me, but as usual it's that kind of "you get what you pay for" situation.
I´m sure I´m going to show my ignorance again... but I don´t stop struggling with these numbers.
In that Focusrite manual, I can´t find the 18 dBu headroom number explicitly stated... so you must have calculated somehow (hence my ignorance).
I see, for the mic input +8.5 dBu max input level (vs +16 dBu in the EVO4).
Then for line inputs 1 and 2, +22 dB (u?) input level (for the EVO, it´s the same as the mic value, +16 dBu).
Inputs 3 and 4, +16 dBu (which equals EVO4 value).
Instrument input, +12 dBu (vs +10 dBu in the EVO4).
I´m almost sure that it´s "maximum input level" what you call headroom. But as it´s not the first time I can´t find the numbers you mention, I start to suspect I´m misunderstanding something...
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,345
Ha no it was a type on my part, had another manual open at the same time when I was comparing specs. 22dBu is the headroom for the Line Inputs.
Headroom=Max input level, it tells you what the loudest possible signal the converter can take before clipping. Mic inputs typically don't need to accommodate high levels because the signal coming from a microphone is pretty weak - once it's been through a mic preamp, the gain is raised to something louder.
Good! I thought I was going crazy with this...
Space Pickle
Newbie
- Messages
- 14
I'm stuck trying to decide between an RME UFX III or a Madiface II XT...do I care about the built in line I/O or not? Do I care about having ADAT or not?
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,345
how many channels of MADI do you need? It’s impossible to say without knowing more specifics about your rig, what you need and how you intend on using it. A friend of mine was about to buy a Madiface II XT but I convinced him a UFX III would be better for his rig.
ctreitzell
Roadie
- Messages
- 108
you don't need ADAT...until you do
if there is expansion expected, you might want
I suppose if you receive a significant windfall and need, then you can spend later
I occasionally need 8-10 physical analog I/O...I haven't used the ADAT beyond optical I/O for DAT tape transfers
if there is expansion expected, you might want
I suppose if you receive a significant windfall and need, then you can spend later
I occasionally need 8-10 physical analog I/O...I haven't used the ADAT beyond optical I/O for DAT tape transfers
Space Pickle
Newbie
- Messages
- 14
Don't need any at the moment...I'm building a home studio and pretty much starting from scratch with the gear, want to go with outboard as opposed to plugins. It isn't client-focused, it's just going to be about me and my bands, so I'd like to be able to leave as much stuff set up and plugged in as possible. I'm never going to need 192 channels of audio going in at once.
I want to be able to track though hardware, then send tracks out of the DQW and mix through hardware as well.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,345
How many channels do you see yourself needing for both recording and mixing? I don't really see either option RME being a wise choice for you.
For instance, if you intend on running 16 stereo stems out through hardware to mix, you'd need 32 channels of A/D and D/A. If you're going with the MADI face then you'll need something that supports MADI, on its own it has no analog I/O to do what you need (it has 2 in 2 out but you'd presumably need something for your monitors). The UFX only has analog I/O to do like 4 stereo pairs of HW inserts, so you'd need to expand with MADI/ADAT/AES etc.
Whatever you decide to go for would be a fairly considerable expense to do what you have in mind. I'd try and get as much analog I/O as you can in a single device than trying to chain multiple devices together. Doing that is fine if you already have bits of gear that you need to use, but if you're starting from scratch I wouldn't recommend that route.
I think Antelope are pretty dreadful as a company but depending on what you're willing to put up with an Orion (somewhat affordable) or Galaxy (64 channels, but £7000 odd). If you want to go with a better brand (and honestly, I would not recommend Antelope to anybody) then be prepared to spend £10,000+ (and factor in the extras like d-subs, patchbays, racks, cabling, and all the other HW gear itself).
If you're looking at doing stuff expandably, I'd probably look at something Dante based these days as it's a lot more widely adopted than MADI.
Just in case someone has curiosity, I´ll post latency measurements of my Midas MR18 (just received it, and it was some discussion on the Fractal forum about latencies... supposedly being bad).
I measured everything in Reaper, since I still didin´t figure out how to setup ins and outs of the MR18 in RTL Utility. So I used an splitter and connected everything to have parallel direct and processed paths, recording the signals with a 2-channel interface (my EVO4), etc.
When working as a standalone mixer, latency is 0.7-0.8 ms. Just as the manual states.
When working as an audio interface, Windows 10, 48 kHz, 64 samples, safe mode off, 2x2 mode (not the 18x18 mode), I can measure around 6 ms.
So not bad at all.
I measured everything in Reaper, since I still didin´t figure out how to setup ins and outs of the MR18 in RTL Utility. So I used an splitter and connected everything to have parallel direct and processed paths, recording the signals with a 2-channel interface (my EVO4), etc.
When working as a standalone mixer, latency is 0.7-0.8 ms. Just as the manual states.
When working as an audio interface, Windows 10, 48 kHz, 64 samples, safe mode off, 2x2 mode (not the 18x18 mode), I can measure around 6 ms.
So not bad at all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
