2 XLR Pre Amp with USB

4

4tracker

Guest
Can anyone recommend one that allows two xlr mic inputs, has a di input, and also a usb out (digital conversion)?

I have a tube mp usb right now, and I am fine with it other than I need two xlrs.

Budget is under 1k. And something small if possible because this is all setup on a desktop.

Thanks.
 
Yeah, it sounds like you just need an interface...most of them have built-in preamps for XLR and 1/4" inputs. It'd be a good step up from an entry-level preamp with ADC tacked on.

Focusrite, Roland, Native Instruments, Steinberg, even RME have solid units for well under the $1000 mark, all are desktop or 1/2 rack space units. Good quality preamps, good ADC, solid drivers, phantom power, direct monitoring, integrated effects, multiple inputs/outputs...less than $1000 will buy some great interfaces any more.
 
Check specs (for what they're worth) on latency and transparency. Make a choice. Mine was Native Instruments KA6. Yours may be different.
 
Thanks, guys.

I'm a bit confused to the difference between a pre-amp and audio interface so reading up on it now. It looks like an audio interface converts analog gear to digital signal. BUT, doesn't a pre-amp do this as well? My Art Tube plugs in via usb and I can record directly into the pc, so it must convert.

It seems the audio interface pre-amps might not be as good as dedicated pre-amp units? Is that accurate? Seems most are solid state rather than tube?

These pieces of gear seem to overlap and it makes it very confusing. I'm going to read up some more. And now I am thinking I might want to get 4xlrs so I don't outgrow more gear (i.e. bought two mics this week and now have 4 microphones, 2 of them oktava condensers..so I'll need 2 +48v and maybe 4 total xlrs).
 
Thanks, guys.

I'm a bit confused to the difference between a pre-amp and audio interface so reading up on it now. It looks like an audio interface converts analog gear to digital signal. BUT, doesn't a pre-amp do this as well? My Art Tube plugs in via usb and I can record directly into the pc, so it must convert.

It seems the audio interface pre-amps might not be as good as dedicated pre-amp units? Is that accurate? Seems most are solid state rather than tube?

These pieces of gear seem to overlap and it makes it very confusing. I'm going to read up some more. And now I am thinking I might want to get 4xlrs so I don't outgrow more gear (i.e. bought two mics this week and now have 4 microphones, 2 of them oktava condensers..so I'll need 2 +48v and maybe 4 total xlrs).

I can see the confusion, especially when your ART unit is marketed as a preamp, which happens to have a USB output...but your unit is an audio interface with a built-in preamp.

A preamp's job is to take a mic-level or instrument-level signal and amplify it to a line level signal (amongst other things like impedance matching). The "tube" preamp is pretty much marketing baloney in the entry-level units...it's there to look pretty and doesn't do much for the actual sound.

An audio interface's job is to take an analog signal and convert it to a digital representation.

Most audio interfaces include built-in preamps, and the solid-state ones in the entry-mid level price range are usually of acceptable quality. They tend to focus on being true to the source material and not "color" or "character" preamps. Any of the units listed above would be a step up in preamp quality over an ART Tube MP, if not a step sideways. Focusrite is reknowned for their entry-level preamps, and Roland, Steinberg and NI get lots of positive reviews for the quality of preamps in their price range. I don't think that you can go wrong with any of the units suggested so far.
 
I can see the confusion, especially when your ART unit is marketed as a preamp, which happens to have a USB output...but your unit is an audio interface with a built-in preamp.

A preamp's job is to take a mic-level or instrument-level signal and amplify it to a line level signal (amongst other things like impedance matching). The "tube" preamp is pretty much marketing baloney in the entry-level units...it's there to look pretty and doesn't do much for the actual sound.

An audio interface's job is to take an analog signal and convert it to a digital representation.

Most audio interfaces include built-in preamps, and the solid-state ones in the entry-mid level price range are usually of acceptable quality. They tend to focus on being true to the source material and not "color" or "character" preamps. Any of the units listed above would be a step up in preamp quality over an ART Tube MP, if not a step sideways. Focusrite is reknowned for their entry-level preamps, and Roland, Steinberg and NI get lots of positive reviews for the quality of preamps in their price range. I don't think that you can go wrong with any of the units suggested so far.

Awesome, thanks. That does make more sense.

What would be some audio interfaces in the mid-range? And would an upgrade be worth it for bedroom/living room recording studio type stuff?

Finally, would there be any reason to buy actual pre-amp over an audio interface? In this day and age is the dedicated pre just for coloring, tube warmth, and things like that?

Oh, and I bought these oktava condensors...any difference in their sound running them through a dedicated pre-amp vs an audio interface? Other than the color a pre might put on them, is there any difference or issues? Thanks, man.
 
Are the built in audio interface preamps kind of equivalent to the built in ones that used to come on 4-tracks? i.e. they're decent and get the job done but nothing great?

Speaking of which, I wonder if I could use the 4-pres on my 4 track (tascam 244), bypass the tape recording stage, and just route the signal into pc. that would save me a few bucks. i make this up as i go though, so I have no idea if it would work.
 
Your Tascam pres are no better than the pres on a decent interface like the lexicon. There doesn't appear to be a lot of pres with USB - the mpa is the only one I know about and it's not great. I bought an interface first and used it for a few years then bought a separate pre and sent the line out to the interface.
 
Awesome, thanks. That does make more sense.

What would be some audio interfaces in the mid-range? And would an upgrade be worth it for bedroom/living room recording studio type stuff?

Finally, would there be any reason to buy actual pre-amp over an audio interface? In this day and age is the dedicated pre just for coloring, tube warmth, and things like that?

Oh, and I bought these oktava condensors...any difference in their sound running them through a dedicated pre-amp vs an audio interface? Other than the color a pre might put on them, is there any difference or issues? Thanks, man.

Are the built in audio interface preamps kind of equivalent to the built in ones that used to come on 4-tracks? i.e. they're decent and get the job done but nothing great?

Speaking of which, I wonder if I could use the 4-pres on my 4 track (tascam 244), bypass the tape recording stage, and just route the signal into pc. that would save me a few bucks. i make this up as i go though, so I have no idea if it would work.

There are so many preamp options out there, and the audible differences between them are relatively subtle (mostly), so this is kind of hard to answer. I think that if you're unhappy with the preamps on your ART and your Tascam, then sure, shop around and see if any stand-alone preamps interest you. Listen to some recordings from members here and ask about what gear was used. But if you're satisfied with how your preamps sound, don't worry about it yet.

Stand-alone preamps can be an upgrade from built-in ones, but that's not to say anything bad about the pres that companies are building into interfaces lately. They've come quite a ways even in the last 10 years. Like ido mentioned above, you can always get a stand-alone pre later and run it into a line input on your interface if you're dissatisfied with your integrated pres.

As far as upgrades for an audio interface, since your current interface is lacking in features that you want/need, I'd say that an upgrade is warranted. It'd be money well-spent to get the features that will allow you to do what you're wanting to do in your own home studio. Get something with enough inputs, and a little room for growth never hurts. Just keep in mind what your requirements are, and shop accordingly. 4 inputs should be plenty for a 1-man band, and can serve as a bare minimum for miking a drum kit. Unless you like to keep everything plugged in all the time and not have to swap cables around when you switch instruments.

I'm not familiar with the Tascam recorders so I'm not sure if there's a way to tap into the signal after the preamp and before the tape. If it has inserts on the inputs, you can plug a 1/4" cable half-way into that "to the first click" and end up with an improvised direct output for that channel. If it has aux outputs, you can use those sends as L/R outputs with the proper panning of 2 channels at a time.
 
^ that is a great answer, thanks. I am fine with the current pre-amp. It's a cheap one. I do need at least 2xlr and maybe even 4 since my gf sometimes records live with me. Reading the reviews for these audio devices, for every single one I see people complain about latency. I don't know if they are being too particular (as people tend to do on reviews) or if it's a legit issue. But all the consumer grade ones like the roland, focusrite, etc have people saying they have latency issues.
 
Agreed, latency is the bane of analog to digital conversion. It simply takes time to do that conversion, and again to convert back from digital to analog so it can be played over your monitors/headphones. But there are ways to minimize latency:

- some interfaces tout very low latency. RME in particular prides itself on the low latency of their interfaces.
- keeping your drivers up to date, and always using the manufacturer's ASIO drivers (or ASIO4ALL if there are no manufacturer's ASIO drivers) will drastically affect latency
- adjusting your interface's buffer settings (usually in the ASIO control panel that installs with your interface's drivers). Smaller buffer = lower latency, but more strain on the CPU. Larger buffer = higher latency, but less strain on the CPU.
- use direct monitoring when possible, instead of monitoring through your DAW software while tracking
- read your DAW's user manual and learn about what features it has for delay compensation or latency compensation
- some VST effect plugins add noticeable amounts of latency, so try to use little or no VST effects while tracking. Wait until after you're finished tracking to start adding VST effects. If you need "comfort" reverb or compression while tracking, find an interface that has these effects built in and allows them to be heard but not recorded.
- Use input/output offset compensation for VSTi plugins

Computer-based recording has always struggled with latency, but it's been around long enough that people have found ways to deal with it. There'll always be a little latency in your computer based setup, even if you have it streamlined, lean and mean. But you can get it down to such short amounts of time, that it's similar to standing across the room from your guitar amp while strumming...barely noticeable. If I remember correctly, sound travels through the air at about 1 foot per millisecond. So latencies of 10 or 20 milliseconds are happening every time a band plays together on a stage, and they can hold it together just fine :)
 
Agreed, latency is the bane of analog to digital conversion. It simply takes time to do that conversion, and again to convert back from digital to analog so it can be played over your monitors/headphones. But there are ways to minimize latency:

- some interfaces tout very low latency. RME in particular prides itself on the low latency of their interfaces.
- keeping your drivers up to date, and always using the manufacturer's ASIO drivers (or ASIO4ALL if there are no manufacturer's ASIO drivers) will drastically affect latency
- adjusting your interface's buffer settings (usually in the ASIO control panel that installs with your interface's drivers). Smaller buffer = lower latency, but more strain on the CPU. Larger buffer = higher latency, but less strain on the CPU.
- use direct monitoring when possible, instead of monitoring through your DAW software while tracking
- read your DAW's user manual and learn about what features it has for delay compensation or latency compensation
- some VST effect plugins add latency, so try to use little or no VST effects while tracking. If you need "comfort" reverb or compression while tracking, find an interface that has these effects built in and allows them to be heard but not recorded.
- Use input/output offset compensation for VSTi plugins

Computer-based recording has always struggled with latency, but it's been around long enough that people have found ways to deal with it. There'll always be a little latency in your computer based setup, even if you have it streamlined, lean and mean. But you can get it down to such short amounts of time, that it's similar to standing across the room from your guitar amp while strumming...barely noticeable. If I remember correctly, sound travels through the air at about 1 foot per millisecond. So latencies of 10 or 20 milliseconds are happening every time a band plays together on a stage, and they can hold it together just fine :)

Thanks, man. I am an IT person so I have my PC set up about as good as it gets. I do use the Asio4all driver and have latency down to 16(ms? I forget the unit). I never really notice it so it's acceptable to me. But I worry I'll upgrade my gear to a 4input xlr and that unit will somehow introduce more latency...I guess you can say I am worried that it's not broken right now so I shouldn't fix it. But I do need that 2nd xlr input...
 
No problem man, and good luck! 16ms sounds totally acceptable to me. With a smaller buffer, you might be able to squeeze it down even farther before you start getting pops, clicks, or dropouts. I mean, if you're trying to perfectly time 1/32 note triplets at 220 bpm, maybe 16ms of latency would be a problem. But unless you're trying to let out your inner Yngwie Malmsteen, it shouldn't be a big problem.

USB 2.0 has stabilized so much lately, most USB interfaces should happily be able to match or beat that 16ms. Use a USB port that's the shortest hop from your motherboard and you can simultaneously send several tracks at a time over USB with no glitches. That being said, I'm still using an ancient PCI card from M-Audio and I haven't stepped into the USB interface arena yet. I shared your same fears about performance, but the issues from earlier USB interfaces seem to be largely a thing of the past.
 
I was leaning toward the roland audio interface. People say they have the best drivers. I am not a fan of the pink buttons on the front of their 4 xlr devices, though. Wonder what they were thinking with that...
 
No problem man, and good luck! 16ms sounds totally acceptable to me. With a smaller buffer, you might be able to squeeze it down even farther before you start getting pops, clicks, or dropouts. I mean, if you're trying to perfectly time 1/32 note triplets at 220 bpm, maybe 16ms of latency would be a problem. But unless you're trying to let out your inner Yngwie Malmsteen, it shouldn't be a big problem.

USB 2.0 has stabilized so much lately, most USB interfaces should happily be able to match or beat that 16ms. Use a USB port that's the shortest hop from your motherboard and you can simultaneously send several tracks at a time over USB with no glitches. That being said, I'm still using an ancient PCI card from M-Audio and I haven't stepped into the USB interface arena yet. I shared your same fears about performance, but the issues from earlier USB interfaces seem to be largely a thing of the past.

I think I have the default asio4all buffter, which from memory is 512. I'll have to check and also experiment to see if I can lower it. Most of my music is slow, but that Yngwie reference cracked me up. Polar opposite!
 
I was leaning toward the roland audio interface. People say they have the best drivers. I am not a fan of the pink buttons on the front of their 4 xlr devices, though. Wonder what they were thinking with that...

Honestly, that quad capture and octa capture are on my shortlist for my impending interface upgrade. It looks like a great price/performance ratio, with good preamps, nice features...hard to bet against that one, even with its pretty pink buttons :D
 
Honestly, that quad capture and octa capture are on my shortlist for my impending interface upgrade. It looks like a great price/performance ratio, with good preamps, nice features...hard to bet against that one, even with its pretty pink buttons :D

If the quad had 4xlrs I would definitely buy it. The octa has 8 and the duo2. It is strange they didn't put 4 on the quad, since it is called QUAD and that means 4! I think 8 is more than I need, and 2 is iffy. I really would like 4. The Steinberg looks interesting, but I read they put a proprietary dongle on it that makes it annoying to install on various pcs.
 
Yeah, the quad capture does have 4 inputs, but 2 of those are line inputs. You might be able to pair it with a 2-channel stand-alone preamp to get your 4 XLR inputs.

The Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 has 4 XLR inputs on the front panel, another 4 line inputs on the back, and another 10 inputs via S/PDIF...you know, for those times when the Polyphonic Spree comes to your house and wants to lay down a few tracks :) A friend of mine uses a Scarlett 2i2 and the preamps sound pretty damn good for such an inexpensive unit.

MOTU 4pre has 4 XLR inputs. It's a little pricier but they have a solid reputation for their preamp quality and build quality. I have zero personal experience with MOTU though...I've just heard good things.

The Lexicon IO that Ido mentioned above has 4 XLR ins too. He speaks highly of that unit...but I get the impression that it's been discontinued because I don't see it for sale at any of the usual online stores.
 
Back
Top