External audio interface - scam, or necessity? (intel mac)

P

pazu

New member
I'm thinking they are a scam. I've read all sorts of reasoning, unsupported by actual evidence in every case thus far - such as, mini plugs are junk, not enough money spent on the internal soundcard, fan vibration affecting the sound, unshielded junk circuitry, cheap componentry - and I have analyzed my recordings, finding no evidence of any issues such as this. My tentative conclusion is that these assertions are preposterous generalizations unsupported by real world evidence.

Now I'm not saying that external audio interfaces don't have their usefulness. I will say that USB isn't necessarily stable in the first place, particularly if through a USB multi-port adapter. I can also see how higher sample rates like 24b 96k can be helpful in getting to 32b floating editing, whereas my internal digital conversion is limited to less than that.

I just need to see the evidence before I spend money on another piece in my signal chain. Am I happy with my sound or with my recordings? Heck no! Firstly my playing needs improvement, my recording techniques need improvement and my compositions need improvement. My DAW technique definitely needs improvement. These issues however, aren't going to be resolved by an external audio interface.

Anybody have any solid real-world evidence to suggest that my intel mac's internal soundcard is doing a poor quality job of converting my analog signal to digital? In order to justify the expense and addition to my home audio signal chain, even though it isn't much of an expense, I need a logical reason.

Thanks for any thoughts, I am happy to be proven wrong, in fact I am asking to be. Let the sound card chips fly where they may! :)
 
Sorry, I think this is going to be fun. Honestly? Ears will tell. Buy the cheapest junk $70 interface in the world and hook it through your USB and your ears should tell you it's better than your internal sound card. Step up to something in the $500-800 range and you start to get into the semi-professional realm where things sound amazingly good. To get better, you have to go boutique. For home recording, not normally advised, although some here have Antelope, RME and others...

AFA actual specs, you'll have to just to some web searches. Get the specs on several levels of audio interface. Then compare them to the AD/DA converters built into your mac (if you can find that spec). Compare S/N ratio, THD, etc. You'll find there IS a difference. Depending on the mac it could be a lot, it might not.

Happy Recording :)
 
However you make a few points. Getting your techniques down will be helped with a system that will give you a balanced, accurate feedback. Not only you AD, but DA. The mikes you use, the monitors you use, the acoustic treatment of your room as well as other factors will all add into getting your mixes to your ears correctly. You are correct on the starting point is getting the performance correct. Follow that with good miking technique, signal chain, effects/dynamics management, and some good old fashioned listening skills, and you'll get there.
 
Oh it's supposed to be fun, let's fire it up :)

I've had a scarlett over here and noted no difference, none in recording vocal or guitar. We will have to 'agree to disagree' as to whether the cheapest $70 external audio interface is going to outdo my mac's internal sound card :)

Stuff like THD and signal-noise ratio, in the analog days of home recording, were major hurdles however these days I think the differences here to be minimal, barely consequental - with 24 bit recording there's so much headroom that these issues shouldn't even surface after the DAW. One dirty pot or mislaid cable in the signal chain can make a huge difference however.

I ask because I'm looking for a definitive, inarguable reason to spend the money. There's plenty of boxes out there that I could buy. Perhaps it is signal shaping that is the greatest advantage of these external boxes.
 
A quick clarification - my question is not really about 'outdoing', it is about 'under-doing'. A Lamborghini will outpeform my Hyundai, but both will adequately transport me to my destination, within each of their inherent limitations. Though an expensive external audio interface will most certainly outperform my mac mini's internal audio chipset in some minor way or other (and may introduce failure points as well), my suggestion here is that both will adequately transport the signal to my DAW, and that my internal audio interface will do so without penalty at 24b, 44,100.

Is there solid evidence to suggest that my internal audio chipset is underperforming in this transport function? Not that I have seen or heard yet. :)

Happy to be corrected. I expect the best answer will be, 'if it works for you, then go for it.' In all of my queries regarding this topic, this unscientific generalization, has been the best response I have yet received.

I do hope to learn that there is more to this than I have yet uncovered. I have been reviewing threads here this morning and nothing found thus far has altered my perspective. So keep the cards and letters coming! :)
 
Try to do any of these with an integrated sound chip:

- send a different submix to your headphones than your band mates headphones
- non-destructively loop in a hardware compressor
- use more than 2 mics at a time
- get 3ms of latency in and out
- record at higher sample rates than 44.1 or 48 kHz
- deliver phantom power to a condenser mic
- get balanced connections to all of your other gear
 
If you're getting the quality you like from your Mac's soundcard, then that's all that matters. For real.
 
It really depends on you. Once you get it mixed down and turned into an MP3, no. But for the quality pre-amps, phantom power, multichannel for inputs, ASIO drivers (and USB is very stable by the way) you really get a lot with the interfaces. I think you have taken a narrow view of the interface and not all of the other jobs it performs.

I would say this, and this is often stated here, don't spend money until you know why you need it/want it.
 
All of the points made. are valid and USB has a great deal to offer. In my case I have boards to do mixing work, a UB802 & a PMP4000, they supply phantom power, multi in's, 24 bit effects in the case of one and a DR-05 doing 24b 96K that these also feed into. Then again, it is what it is, two track recording or four track with two macs.

True that if it works for me, then I am there with that setup. If there is more to know, then why not ask and find out, is what I was thinking. And there is a lot to bring up when it comes to audio interfaces. I just think that there seems to be something of a snowjob in two-tracking which is obviously huge in home recording, that external audio interfaces are such the dire necessity. I am looking to learn differently is all.

Not dissing USB or Firewire. Just talking about getting an analog audio signal, in this case obviously L & R channels, into a computer for purpose of recording the signal with a DAW. Since we're talking low-end recording, it is not logical to rule out modern audio chipsets such as in modern intel macs, particularly if there isn't a lot of detail to illustrate that they do a clearly inferior job. And if that detail were there I would expect it to surface. No need to belabor, it is a minor point.
 
Last edited:
jonny deep said:
Use a mixer.
Click to expand...

That's what I do, I have 16 in on one board, 4 on another, with eq's and all are taken or reserved. Macs are fed audio from the boards. Yeah my stuff doesn't sound great, admittedly. I don't think it is the a/d converters in my mac that are at fault, though, it is other things. Always looking forward to the next recording.
 
You have to nail the mix on the way in and can't change it, though. If you had a 4 channel interface, you could apply compression and whatnot to separate tracks.
 
Why is that? Once it's in the daw, you can compress, eq and mess to your heart's content. We're only talking about signal capture here, are we not? I believe most pros would recommend altering the incoming signal as little as possible, in order to leave options open for later.
 
If the OP is doing non-duplex recording and using the computer as if it were a two-track tape recorder, then most contemporary computers' built-in sound devices will be fine, no matter that they are built with a handful of cheap components.

This method of recording, though, forces you into a modus operandi where everything (performance, mixing, effects, etc.) is all done up front.If things don't work out, you need to start over. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and indeed is the way that tape-based recording worked for decades prior to multi-tracking.

But I personally prefer the ability to mulit-track, without latency, with a choice of sampling rates ( so that I can, for example, synch easier to video), and to be able to explore different mixes or fix minor problems without having to re-record the whole thing.
 
jonny deep said:
you could apply compression and whatnot to separate tracks.
Click to expand...

There's a whatnot plugin?

OMG, I totally missed that... I'll have to get a hold of some freebies and see if they make my mixes better... :eek:

More whatnot is definitely required!;):laughings:


OP - if you're happy with what you have, stick with it. Knock yourself out.
 
pazu said:
A Lamborghini will outpeform my Hyundai, but both will adequately transport me to my destination
Click to expand...

Specious analogy. Depends completely upon your definition of "adequate" which you haven't specified. And no-one here much uses Lamborgini level USB interfaces... there's probably a few Beemers and Audis around though.
 
The zero- or very low-latency input monitoring alone would be enough to sway me in favor of a proper recording interface. Well, it would if I weren't already using a semi-large mixer for that purpose.
 
I think that by the time that you buy a mixer (or a couple of mixers, in the OP's case), you've spent about what you would've for a pretty nice budget interface. Dollar-for-dollar, I'd go with the interface for the routing options, the multitrack options, the sample rate options, the low latency, and the bundled software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top