Best audio interface to suit my needs?

Thisnameistaken

New member
Hey everyone. Sorry if this isn't the right spot for this.

I'm in the market for an audio interface. I had a 1st gen Komplete Audio 6 a few years back, but after moving away for a bit and leaving stuff with my family a lot of it has mysteriously disappeared, including that.

I would be using the interface primarily for making youtube videos and game streaming, but I will more than likely record music also. I will include my list of desired features, and if anyone has a good recommendation based on those and my described likely usage, that would be super appreciated.

2 in 2 out - Should be plenty.
Midi in/out - I think I would really enjoy having a midi keyboard, so being able to connect it to my interface would be important.
Direct Monitoring - Seems pretty crucial.

Honestly, I think that's about it. It seems hard to find the midi in/out for a small 2i/2o desktop audio interface. But anyway i'm in a rush to get out the door so hopefully I didn't overlook any of the desired specs. Any advice or discussion is more than welcome!
 
Hey thanks! That looks pretty good, however I should have probably clarified that 192kHz would be the desired frequency.

There is something about big numbers that draws people to them like moths to a candle. However the perceived quality gains are likely to be overwhelmed by the inherent shortcomings in the whole system.
 
You may need to step it up a bit to get that kHz w/MIDI. Focusrite Scarlett 4i4 3rd Gen USB fits the bill.

I did notice it seems rare that 2i/2o interfaces come with Midi in/out (Though most come with high kHz). I wonder why that is. It seems every time I find one it ticks every box except one, or it ticks more boxes than I need haha. The focusrite 2i2 seemed good except no midi, then I found the MOTU M2 which HAS midi in/out on a 2i/20 interface but has no direct monitoring balance control, which I feel like would also be pretty inconvenient not to have. -_-

There is something about big numbers that draws people to them like moths to a candle. However the perceived quality gains are likely to be overwhelmed by the inherent shortcomings in the whole system.

Well, I think those big numbers that draw people are exactly that. They want the most professional quality sound they can get. And MOST interfaces are up to 192 at this point, though I have heard the quality improvement is hard to detect. Still, I wants me the higher kHz if not for the illusion of "futureproof"

Also, I just thought of something, is the MIDI in/out really necessary for a MIDI keyboard? Most modern MIDI keyboards are USB aren't they? So would I actually need the MIDI in/out on my interface, or could I just plug it into my PC? Would there be any advantages/disadvantages to doing it one way over the other?
 
Except for some high end synths, most keyboards with MIDI these days come with a USB connection, no need for an interface with MIDI.
 
While I don't really see going to excessively high sample rates as a necessity, for someone who has multiple older midi instruments, having those standard midi ports could be a great thing.

I find the older Tascam interfaces sufficient, but they have a couple of newer ones, the Series 102 and 208i interfaees that have up to 192k/24bit sample rates, standard midi I/O, plus optical S/Mux input. They also have internal DSP reverb, compression and 4 band EQ. They might be worth looking into.
 
Why not just get a KA6 Mkll? And no, you don't need 192kHz sampling rate...Jeez! You will have massive files to store and give the processor a headache for no good purpose.

Yes, you can get away without MIDI ports on an interface and use USB except you don't then have a MIDI input, very few synths etc have one.

If very low latency is wanted DEFF look at the MOTUs or the NI.

Dave.
 
the MOTU M2 which HAS midi in/out on a 2i/20 interface but has no direct monitoring balance control, which I feel like would also be pretty inconvenient not to have. -_-

Does anyone else here have a sense for how much this really matters in recording? Since you have to press play on your computer to play along with what's recorded, can't you adjust the volume coming from the DAW on the computer? Is this knob merely a nice convenience, but barely so?

Well, I think those big numbers that draw people are exactly that. They want the most professional quality sound they can get. And MOST interfaces are up to 192 at this point, though I have heard the quality improvement is hard to detect. Still, I wants me the higher kHz if not for the illusion of "futureproof"

Under that logic, would you also prefer something that sampled at 9,000 kHz? I think the point is, after a certain sampling frequency, the human ear simply can't detect any differences. From what I read, that frequency is around 40-48 kHz. CDs are 44.1 kHz. It just seems silly to worry about "4x better than CD quality."
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else here have a sense for how much this really matters in recording? Since you have to press play on your computer to play along with what's recorded, can't you adjust the volume coming from the DAW on the computer? Is this knob merely a nice convenience, but barely so?

Most likely this just means it's built into the driver, with a control panel that performs the same function as a physical knob.
 
I know a lot of people have preconceived opinions on Behringer stuff but I've had nothing but good luck with them

Go sweetwater and read the reviews Behringer U-Phoria UMC202HD USB Audio Interface it's got your 2 in 192 khz for $118
 
Does anyone else here have a sense for how much this really matters in recording? Since you have to press play on your computer to play along with what's recorded, can't you adjust the volume coming from the DAW on the computer? Is this knob merely a nice convenience, but barely so?
...
I believe that "direct monitoring" at the interface generally is referring to the ability to monitor the input directly (as it goes into the hardware) through the headphones or even monitor speakers, vs. monitoring it after it makes the round-trip to the DAW and back to the interface. The M2 does support that with the MON switch on the front, i.e., the guitar/vocal/whatnot goes into the M2 and is immediately turned around and sent out the monitor path. The reason to do that is if there is audible latency in the longer path (to the computer DAW and back), which causes the track being recorded, after making it to the DAW and back, possibly with some processing, like reverb, or guitar amp sims, etc., to arrive later than the original input signal. It can be very hard to play or sing and monitor with that kind of latency, so "direct monitoring" short-circuits that path. It does mean you lose any effects being added in the DAW, though.

Some interfaces have a variable, "blend" knob for that, which always puzzled me because I thought it must be maddening to listen to, but that's the kind of direct monitoring available in the M2. The [direct monitor] "knob" isn't a level control, per se, but more of a mix kind of thing.

Most likely this just means it's built into the driver, with a control panel that performs the same function as a physical knob.
Well, it doesn't get as far as the driver. The DAW should take into account the latency between the played tracks and what is received when placing the newly recorded track (thought it still might need tinkering), but neither it nor the driver can do time travel and eliminate latency if it's in the system. If everything is "fast enough" the latency might be inaudible, or not bothersome, but that's rarely the case in "starter" setups and generic drivers, it seems.
 
Thanks for the info!

Some interfaces have a variable, "blend" knob for that, which always puzzled me because I thought it must be maddening to listen to, but that's the kind of direct monitoring available in the M2. The [direct monitor] "knob" isn't a level control, per se, but more of a mix kind of thing.

As I understand it, the M2 doesn't have a physical knob for that. The MOTU M4 does, though.

Your comment has made me think about the utility of such a knob. I wonder what value it provides to listen to, say, "40% effects/60% no-effect" singing or guitar playing. It seems as though the direct monitoring is all about removing all latency and the "not-direct-monitoring" is all about hearing the effects. I am not sure whether a blend would enhance your performance or not. Has anyone had experience with this here?

Also, I wonder how perceptible the latency is. The MOTUs' M series latencies are considered very low, around 3-8 milliseconds. Can our brains really detect that?

Well, it doesn't get as far as the driver. The DAW should take into account the latency between the played tracks and what is received when placing the newly recorded track (thought it still might need tinkering), but neither it nor the driver can do time travel and eliminate latency if it's in the system. If everything is "fast enough" the latency might be inaudible, or not bothersome, but that's rarely the case in "starter" setups and generic drivers, it seems.

I think what that person meant is there is a MOTU software application on the computer that allows you to do the blending on the computer. A virtual knob rather than a physical one. I'm curious if that is the case for the M2.
 
My interface has a "Monitor Balance" knob which blends DI on the left with Computer on the right. Monitoring with full Computer has virtually no latency on my system, so I keep it there and do my actual monitoring via the DAW so I can get better headphone mixes. None of that affects the actual levels while recording.
 
I believe that "direct monitoring" at the interface generally is referring to the ability to monitor the input directly (as it goes into the hardware) through the headphones or even monitor speakers, vs. monitoring it after it makes the round-trip to the DAW and back to the interface. The M2 does support that with the MON switch on the front, i.e., the guitar/vocal/whatnot goes into the M2 and is immediately turned around and sent out the monitor path. The reason to do that is if there is audible latency in the longer path (to the computer DAW and back), which causes the track being recorded, after making it to the DAW and back, possibly with some processing, like reverb, or guitar amp sims, etc., to arrive later than the original input signal. It can be very hard to play or sing and monitor with that kind of latency, so "direct monitoring" short-circuits that path. It does mean you lose any effects being added in the DAW, though.

Some interfaces have a variable, "blend" knob for that, which always puzzled me because I thought it must be maddening to listen to, but that's the kind of direct monitoring available in the M2. The [direct monitor] "knob" isn't a level control, per se, but more of a mix kind of thing.

Well, it doesn't get as far as the driver. The DAW should take into account the latency between the played tracks and what is received when placing the newly recorded track (thought it still might need tinkering), but neither it nor the driver can do time travel and eliminate latency if it's in the system. If everything is "fast enough" the latency might be inaudible, or not bothersome, but that's rarely the case in "starter" setups and generic drivers, it seems.

Um, I was talking about the driver's control panel for balancing the input monitoring with the playback, exactly as you described in the first part of your post above. I wasn't involved in any discussion about record latency.
 
Um, I was talking about the driver's control panel for balancing the input monitoring with the playback, exactly as you described in the first part of your post above. I wasn't involved in any discussion about record latency.
Ok. It confused me with "the driver" because I didn't think it was involved since the input doesn't actually get that far! (In OS X, those interfaces supported by core audio don't even have their own driver, at least not one that you install. But, yes, you can use the Focusrite Mix Control, e.g., to adjust direct monitoring, if you want. Most people probably find that too tedious, hence the buttons and knobs... I've never needed it!)
 
Ok. It confused me with "the driver" because I didn't think it was involved since the input doesn't actually get that far! (In OS X, those interfaces supported by core audio don't even have their own driver, at least not one that you install. But, yes, you can use the Focusrite Mix Control, e.g., to adjust direct monitoring, if you want. Most people probably find that too tedious, hence the buttons and knobs... I've never needed it!)

True that many interfaces just use Core Audio on a Mac, but certain ones have their own input monitoring software, such as Console for the Apollo 16. The beauty of Console is that it gives you access to all the UAD plugins, which you can use just for monitoring or you can put them in the record path.

When using a simple 2-channel interface, I do find the hardware type of input monitoring slightly more convenient.
 
Back
Top