interfaces: is there a huge difference ?

CoolCat

CoolCat

Well-known member
I was time-travelling back to 2007 or so reading old slams on some equipment, back when people said USB sucks and Firewire is so much better time frame etc..etc..

It made me think about the slamming/slandering of interfaces sounding that bad, horrible, crap. or clear and perfect Is it true?

I cant recall all of my interfaces.
EMU1820m, Focusrite Saffire, Tascam 122, Tascam 1641, Line6UX2, Line6UX8, MOTU Ultramicrosomething...
I cant say theres a super huge difference in sound. Its not like the difference between some laptop speakers and active monitors, the interface and USB/Firewire and AD/DA therein never seemed to really jump out. All are 16/24 capable, 44.1 to 96k which I never really heard the difference of 44.1 to 96k much,


Anyone else want to list their past and present interfaces and give a short comparison in sound?
 
My first was an ISIS interface which came with Logic. This was around the turn of the century. I had great results with it, but it was so flaky to install. Once it was going, it was fine. But to reinstall on another computer, or on an upgrade, was the stuff nervous breakdowns are made of.

I then changed to a Presonus Firepod. That was a dream to install, and is rock solid. However, it is not with its own problems, which are mostly hardware. The power switch failing is not an unusual occurrence. Otherwise, the quality of conversion is good, and it is dead quiet.
 
Our (son and I) first decent rig was a 2496 card and a Xenyx 802 mixer (still have both. Mixer runs 24/7 in a bedroom micc'ing up wildlife in the garden. Been running at least 4 years!).

First USB AI was the M-Audio Fast track pro. Not at all bad except for dire pre amps! No gain and what there was was noisy! A pair of AKG P150 helped a lot there as did a Sontronics STC-2. Son still has the FTPro in France and uses it with a battered old XP laptop. He also uses it powered, 'stand alone' to send a locally controlled mic signal across stage to a PA system.

Next up, a Behringer BCA2000. Wonderful concept! When it worked it worked well. 2 very decent pres, HZin, noise gate, MIDI in,out&thru. ADAT FCS! and all up for £150. Trouble was, the drivers were shit as was the basic reliability. Replaced one mic pre chip (with an NE5534) but the other channel died and I couldn't be arsed...Berry had dropped it anyway like a hot spud.

Other S/H AIs came and went, still have an 8i6 but my mainstay is the NI KA6. This makes a liar of all the USB naysayers, ultra low latency (32samples) and drivers made from granite. Pres are very clean if a tad low on gain.

Fergot! Sound quality. Over some 10 years, son, who has excellent hearing, never gave any comment on the various interfaces that moved thru chez nous? The monitors were consistently Tannoy 5As and the cans 80quid Sennhiesers, cannot recall the model, open backs. Logic would dictate that any competently made pre amp or interface would have a pretty transparent sound and certainly this seems the case with all our gear.
Dave.
 
Just like to add..Never tried recording at 96kHz but it is a future possibility because I would like to investigate ultrasonic hedgehog sounds but I cannot afford the reference quality 50kHz capable mics at the moment!

Dave.
 
I remember the Firewire vs. USB debate. Personally I always thought that's just Apple marketing bullshit, nothing else. This has been verified by the more recent interfaces universally being USB.

As far as "interfaces" go, almost 15 years ago now, I got a Behringer ADA8000 and a PCI ADAT card. The PC around those two has changed once or twice but the system is still in regular use and works perfectly.
Very recently I got a Behringer UMC204HD and am currently trying to figure out whether it's good enough for what I need (have not had time to do enough recording with it).

I believe a lot more has to do with proper recording and processing techniques. Years and years ago in a project I was involved in (as a musician although in the early stages I was sometimes there to click "REC")... I correctly predicted that the "lead" guy would not want me to record/mix/engineer it (despite the fact that I had WAY more experience doing all of that) and probably insist he do it HIMSELF... so I decided I'm not going to care and just play my instrument instead*.
A few parts were recorded with the ADA8000 system, most parts with I think a Presonus multi-channel (Firepod? 8? 12? All I remember is I think the front panel was blue) USB (os possibly Firewire) interface and some parts possibly with something else still. Expensive (some $1000 individual) and reputable microphones were used. The end result... It ALL sounded like shit, because the guy who mixed it did a terrible job. It was mastered by another, fairly well-known, guy but I guess there was nothing he could do either. The end result was shit.

It's possible to get bad results with "good" (expensive) hardware and excellent results with relatively low-end gear.

* That's exactly what I want to do anyway, I just want to do it knowing that whoever's rec'ing/mixing/mastering it is not going to BUTCHER the sound.
 
Last edited:
I've used 6 different ways, included 3 or 4 actual interfaces, to get sound from the air or instrument into the computer.

  • Behringer 302 with UA202 (or something like that - too lazy to walk upstairs again)
  • Roland UA-25
  • M-Audio C-600 (cooked itself twice because it never slept when the computer did while running from the wall-wart)
  • Zoom H2 (not an interface but recorded pretty well and so I copied files to the DAW)
  • Zoom H6 (mostly used as just a recorder but did a couple proof-of-concept tests with it in interface mode)
  • Focusrite Saffire Pro 26
They all worked reasonably similarly and I can say without hesitation that their contribution to the end result was somewhere down the list after the performance quality, "recording engineer" ability, "mix engineer" ability, microphone or instrument used, recording/mixing room, etc. Are there differences in specific equiment's ease of use, suitability for the purpose, compatibility with the rest of the equipment, reliability, driver/os support from the manufacturer, and so on? Well, yes, and I think those kinds of discussions can be worthwhile, though rarely stay on point.
 
thanks. its kind of a sanity check as gas comes and goes.
thats a decent sample group you listed.
a lot of it seems to be the converters, i was thinking this morning. and the old debate is it the chip or the chip and the analog etc... but ive done those tests using commercial recordings through even my cheapest line 6 ux2 and it sounded near all the others.

ive noticed preamp power and headphone amp power differences but if the headphone ohms are right and the mic+source has enough volume (good tracking) theres not much difference in the preamps in clean, just my notes taken.

as you said a good performance with the gain and mic placements even the lower cost interfaces of today can do good work, especially HR.

i just started this post because i was wonderin'....would a new interface be like WOW! its been 7yrs will the New 24/44.1 interface be clearer than my old 24/44.1...96..etc.. interface!! ???
 
You can probably find a big difference between the cheapest interface in the world and the most expensive, but comparing things in the same price category, you will be hard pressed to find much of a sonic difference.

None of the sound differences in interfaces will keep you from being able to create a wonderful sounding song.
 
Farview said:
You can probably find a big difference between the cheapest interface in the world and the most expensive, but comparing things in the same price category, you will be hard pressed to find much of a sonic difference.

None of the sound differences in interfaces will keep you from being able to create a wonderful sounding song.
Click to expand...

And! What does a 'less than stellar' AI DO to the signal? Adds noise and distortion, but not a lot even a cheap one.
Compare that to the 'good old days' of noisy valve preamps fronted by bandwidth challenged transformer and tape machines, 55dB s/n IF you were lucky and THDs in the ones and threes! Even a really cheap AI (it was the UCA 202 you could not be arsed to look for!) gets you a -80dBFS noise floor and distortion at 0dBFS better than 0.01% often ten times better.

Dave.
 
CoolCat said:
I was time-travelling back to 2007 or so reading old slams on some equipment, back when people said USB sucks and Firewire is so much better time frame etc..etc..

It made me think about the slamming/slandering of interfaces sounding that bad, horrible, crap. or clear and perfect Is it true?

I cant recall all of my interfaces.
EMU1820m, Focusrite Saffire, Tascam 122, Tascam 1641, Line6UX2, Line6UX8, MOTU Ultramicrosomething...
I cant say theres a super huge difference in sound. Its not like the difference between some laptop speakers and active monitors, the interface and USB/Firewire and AD/DA therein never seemed to really jump out. All are 16/24 capable, 44.1 to 96k which I never really heard the difference of 44.1 to 96k much,


Anyone else want to list their past and present interfaces and give a short comparison in sound?
Click to expand...


I never liked any of the USB or fire wire interfaces. I started with ADAT when I went digital, Then Madi optical, and now I'm Dante. I did get some firewire and usb interfaces, but those integraded mic preamps are junk compared to the ones in my amek board. Recently, I bought a Yamaha TIO-1608 and connected it as a dante interface for a "B" studio for some 48Khz mix work I'm doing with local guys who track in the only studio in town, but apparently the "K-mart studio @$40/hr" can't mix well (yes, I bash them because there are several musicians besides me that has nicer mics, and other equipment). Eventually, I'll get a TF-1 to complete it and use it for my live use. I haven't used the mic preamps in it, just the line out for the monitors, but I'm impressed with the latency and its nice that the control software doesn't need the mixer to control the preamps. As far as recording, I try to do it on really nice gear. Been down the road of buying so-so stuff and then have to replace it or modify it so it will work very well. I also look at it like this: what ever I do in recording I record it and its there forever! So do I want to immortalize something that it would sound better if I rent or buy something different? For me, I would personally get the nice sounding stuff. I noticed there is artificial pricing on these electronics, but that could be just the overhead of putting the electronics out.
 
Started off with a big black tape recorder from Radio Shack with one High Ball mic from the Pulpit. It was the start of a tape Ministry for shut ins. That led to a better recorder that lead to the DAT system. That led to a Laptop with a writable CD Rom. All of this was before mp3 were used as they are today.

For my personal use, I use a Tascam 16 x 8 used as a pre amp that runs into a Zoom H6 and a Tascam DR-40 digital recorders. This gives me 8 tracks. Very seldom do I record straight into Reaper unless it is just something short and not for resale. It works out great for remote recording as well.
 
ecc83 said:
And! What does a 'less than stellar' AI DO to the signal? Adds noise and distortion, but not a lot even a cheap one.
Compare that to the 'good old days' of noisy valve preamps fronted by bandwidth challenged transformer and tape machines, 55dB s/n IF you were lucky and THDs in the ones and threes! Even a really cheap AI (it was the UCA 202 you could not be arsed to look for!) gets you a -80dBFS noise floor and distortion at 0dBFS better than 0.01% often ten times better.
Click to expand...

that might be interesting in the $39 thing UCA202 for a data point.
reading a review one said it has 48v for phantom and not 27v etc...some things like that to look for.
But if we assume someone did some studying before buying a new interface and has the 50-80db mic pre and 48v phantom and a decent headphone amp and the converters pass the playback test.... is there a real reason to upgrade a interface?
USB2.0.

If not, Im curious what year did the interface improvements "level off" in quality of sound and performance?
Was it 2005, 2004? 1996?

in 2004 SOS wrote "a lot of manufacturers stuck out on a limb because no one supports USB 2.0 yet"
Firewire 400 vs 800... lol year 2004...also talking about 44.1,48,96, 192

So ever since USB2.0 the complaining about it seems to have "leveled off", little improvements since.
The benefits of Firewire reduced to not much difference.

So if a person gets GAS for a new interface USBC? Thunderbolt? would be the main reason as all else is unchanged since 2004-2005? converters,preamps, sample rates, dist and noise specs on even the cheap ones are plenty good.

Havent heard anyone raving about Thunderbolt and USB-C interfaces much on the forum?
 
Last edited:
this Thunderbolt seems like a real improvement worth paying for.

Reason 1:
SOS-
Want to hear your audio input processed with plug-in effects in real time? Go right ahead and use your favourite VST, AU or AAX plug-ins, just as you would at mixdown.

this speed and roundtrip is pretty impressive and tangible it seems.

clip> Latency results when testing the Presonus Quantum...1ms!??! damn?

when I chose this setting at 44.1kHz, Reaper reported that the input latency was 0.9ms and the output latency 1.0ms, giving a reported round-trip latency of just 1.9ms. I tested this figure by looping an output back to an input, and found that a re-recorded audio file lined up perfectly with the original, confirming that it is accurate. Even raising the buffer size to 64 samples yields a round-trip latency of just 3.4ms, which is better than any other Thunderbolt interface I’ve tested manages at 32 samples! In short, then, the Quantum doesn’t just equal its Thunderbolt rivals under Mac OS: it significantly improves on them. What’s more, I formed the distinct impression that it was also more resource-efficient than many rivals, allowing me to run larger and more complex Pro Tools sessions before the dreaded CPU overload warnings appeared.
 
" Havent heard anyone raving about Thunderbolt and USB-C interfaces much on the forum?"

Probably C.C. because there are, AFAIK no USB-C interfaces about yet. TB AIs are becoming more common at the high end but there are few if any PC's with TB* as yet.

The historical reluctance to get into USB 2.0 was typical of the audio industry's inertia. There were some decent USB 1.1 interfaces around you know? The M-A Fast track pro was one, could have had better preamps (easily!) but latency was pretty low and facilities pretty good for the money? 2 in 2 out+ MIDI and S/PDIF plus inserts and 'stand alone' operation.

My PERSONAL take on the dire 2.0 interfaces that came out (dire in terms of crap drivers) was that the 'Money Men' saw the raw speed advantage of USB 2.0 as a panacea and two fingers to macs and FW**
They got some 3rd party hacks to write the drivers then unleashed an unfinished product on the by then expanding HR market.

When those clever RME peeps took a look at 2.0 and did it PROPERLY they proved that USB 2.0 was every bit as fast and useful for audio as FW 400 (not the extinct FW800 but they have fixed that too!) .

As to sound quality? Ever since SoS did their (infamous?) mic pre shootout people have been more guarded in their outlandish ('night and fekkin' DAY!') comparisons but the rot is creeping back in. Folks always seem to have a big problem divorcing what THEY hear (or think/want to) and what most people would hear in domestic surroundings and also make claims without a shred of demonstrable evidence. (peer reviewed, double blind A/B? Don't make me laaarf!) .

*And of those that there are there is little evidence that they have been tested with the rather unique data format needed for audio.

**FW worked with audio on macs AFAIK with few problems. The situation with PC was a mess. Unless you had a TI chipset it was a lottery whether a FW AI would work at all and even if it did it might be slow, glitch of lock everything up at random intervals. Laptops, the few that HAD FW, had only a 4 pin port and so you had to lug a PSU even for 2 tracks. Inconvenient in a field!

I see (Slate Audio) that there is now ANOTHER connector/protocol? PCIe. "Here we go round the mulberry bush again" ??

Oh! BTW. There is ALREADY a problem with that fabulous Quantum TB AI with at least one user. See SoS forum.

Dave.
 
lol...the mulberry bush....upgrade!!

but the ability to record using standard favorite plugs real time is something older stuff cant do, so thats real improvement.
as you say its not the norm yet. what 5yrs till it is standard?


will it sound better? probably not
will the converters and mic pres be better? probably not....
will i buy a new high dollar pc to have Thunderbolt , just so I can use a few plugs during tracking?...probably not.

still damn good specs for Latency. ..recording any plug vst realtime is cool though.
 
From what I've read, USB-C is still a mess, much like the FW implementations on PCs. I expect it, and even TB, on PCs might remain that way for a while because the PC market is still so price driven that it [lowest cost components] determines the baseline hardware/chipsets in use at almost every level. So, don't hold your breath, and don't assume just spending a boatload of money on a PC, alone, is going to guarantee success with the new technology. (See the other thread with the video about realtime performance - you can put a $10 ASIC on a board that might even be the same one that's used and works well on a Mac, for instance, but if everything else on that mb is barrel-scrapings, it won't matter.)

I think I'm going to have to start saving for a new Mac and Focusrite Clarett :(...
 
It seems any USB 2.0 and Converters , MIDI, I/O are pretty much unchanged going back to the 2004 era.
Analog has been around long before this so the PreAmps are still preamps and the headphone amps are what they are.

So basically theres not a huge reason to upgrade interfaces for sound or performance, maybe slight, differences.
Ive no intentions for upgrading to a Thunderbolt computer system just to upgrade a interface that I may or may not notice as a huge improvement. The latency thing is interesting.

especially my small HR needs.... thanks for all the inputs.
 
Last edited:
CoolCat said:
So basically theres not a huge reason to upgrade interfaces for sound or performance, maybe slight, differences.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there might be slight differences. You might have a perceptably fatter, smoother, less harsh sound coming out of a $3,000 converter vs. a $150 interface. Thing is, for the difference in change you can get bigger improvements just about anywhere else for the same money or less. Microhphones, monitors and acoustic treatment come to mind.

Converters can make a difference, but you need to have everything else taken care of. It's the last thing you need to worry about. Used with care, relatively modest home recording stuff can sound great. Keeping your input levels in check with the capabilities of the chain is key. That $3,000 converter is likely to have a lot more headroom than the USB deal.
 
snow lizard said:
Yeah, there might be slight differences. You might have a perceptably fatter, smoother, less harsh sound coming out of a $3,000 converter vs. a $150 interface. Thing is, for the difference in change you can get bigger improvements just about anywhere else for the same money or less. Microhphones, monitors and acoustic treatment come to mind.

Converters can make a difference, but you need to have everything else taken care of. It's the last thing you need to worry about. Used with care, relatively modest home recording stuff can sound great. Keeping your input levels in check with the capabilities of the chain is key. That $3,000 converter is likely to have a lot more headroom than the USB deal.
Click to expand...

I agree, most parts of the audio path are now virtually transparent and only a huge amount of ££s will (maybe!) show a difference.

One area mentioned where I think very big advances have been made in the last 20 years or so is in loudspeakers and especially affordable, active monitors.

Decades of work by a relatively few dedicated firms, Quad, Spendor, Kef, BBC(!) Rogers and a few more have transformed speakers from the 'Boom & Tish' boxes of the 60'&70s to a handful of accurate, low colouration tools.

If any reader here has $1000s burning a hole in his wallet, put it THERE chap! Then, once you have something a bit impeccable 'telling you the truth' save up for room treatment.

If, on the other hand you want something to impress your mates with 'B&T' at elevated sound levels, there are plenty about but as The Man said about Swing? You ain't never gonna know!

Dave.
 
I ran some little test on my Line 6 UX into Reaper.

Track 1 was the Mic direct (ch2= dry)
Track 2 was the Mic through PodFarm (parallel 9&10 = real time FX- using a Preamp Plug & LA2A compressor plug)

I measured 1ms difference between Dry and "RealTime FX".
1Milli-second sounds impressive and looks impressive on the waveform.
Anyone have the Clarett or Thunderbolt that could post a sample like this, Im curious if they've improved this latency using the real-time FX?
I might have asked it before but am curious.

My interface is 2009 ish and USB 2(using a USB3 port) Windows 10 and the Reaper ver preceding this months current version.
Driver 32 44.1, buffer 128, bit24, "extra small" buffer is normal setting.
Seems I can still hear some slight phasy-ness if the two are equal volume but I usually only have one on at a time usually with real time fx turned on. In short its the best it can do....

1ms .....can a new Thunderbolt interface improve this latency? Or would a newer pc help more?

Im also wondering if the UA Apollos "real time FX" are the same and maybe 1msec is about as good as it gets?


Below is just me saying TEST into a mic. The top waveform is DRY and the lower waveform is the same going through real-time fx (preamp and la2a plug)
 

Attachments

  • PodFarm Latency.png
    PodFarm Latency.png
    39.9 KB · Views: 4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top