I want to upgrade my Focusrite Scarlet 2i2 to a high quality interface.
- Thread starter jj2929
- Start date
There is quite a long thread about this very subject elsewhere in HR and (!!) all parties agreed that the OP already had as good an AI as he was likely to find for the sort of work he was doing and MOST importantly for the (pretty middling WTGR!) quality of his monitors and room.
That guy ^ had a bigger (and bit better?) F'rite than the 2i2 (18i8?) and I am not THAT enamoured of some reports of the 2i2 but they are mainly to do with headroom, especially, and moot in your case, the DI input. But, lack of headroom is fixable. Don't hit it so bloody hard! I really don't think spending another $500 on any 2in 2 out AI would make the slightest audible difference from the converter point of view.
So, bottom line. What are your monitors? Have you done any kind of room treatment? In fact both of these are even more important since the bass seems to figure large in your programme?
As ever chap(?) MORE and better data about the WHOLE setup please!
Dave.
keith.rogers
Well-known member
Describe your entire setup and the style of music you’re recording and be specific about what you are trying to achieve with this idea.
As [MENTION=89697]ecc83[/MENTION] says, this is a not-infrequent theme here and many of the folks here will tell you it’s probably not the interface that’s going to make a difference. Of course there’s the possibility someone chose unwisely at the start, like the SM7b coupled with a marginal voice into a lower gain interface, but really that’s rare and there are things that can be done to address that which give you more capabilities, e.g. a mic pre, without spending a bunch of money on something that is just a more expensive version of what you already have.
The interface is way down the list of things to upgrade. So how’s your treatment and monitoring setup? Mic locker? Etc. My $.025. (Inflation adjusted)
As [MENTION=89697]ecc83[/MENTION] says, this is a not-infrequent theme here and many of the folks here will tell you it’s probably not the interface that’s going to make a difference. Of course there’s the possibility someone chose unwisely at the start, like the SM7b coupled with a marginal voice into a lower gain interface, but really that’s rare and there are things that can be done to address that which give you more capabilities, e.g. a mic pre, without spending a bunch of money on something that is just a more expensive version of what you already have.
The interface is way down the list of things to upgrade. So how’s your treatment and monitoring setup? Mic locker? Etc. My $.025. (Inflation adjusted)
Yes sure, sorry i wasnt specific. I have a macbook pro, focusrite 2i2, ik multimedia iloud momitors, beyerdynamic 990 headphones, i have some pretty high end guitars and an average bass. I don’t have a condenser mic yet as we usually do the vocal recording at a bigger studio. I do want to start recording acosutic guitar more though so i am looking for my first condenser.
I mostly write alternative bluesy rock (BRMC, Nick Cave etc), very guitar and bass driven music. My drums come from ezdrummer and everything else is from plugins and software instrumets. I would like to be able to record my guitar/bass to a high standard where we only need to pay for a studio for vocals. Hopefully one day i could do that myself. I record both guitar/bass DI and use guitar rig 5 as amp and pedal sims. Im not the biggest fan of amp sims if i am honest, i come a background of having amos and pedals and i dont think any sim can simulate the warmth of a real amo/pedal but unfortunately i am not in a position to have an amp in my apartment.
My studio if you could even call it that is very modest, just in a spare room in our apartment, apart from speaker and desk placement my room is untreated. I don’t really have the knowledge or the money to treat it. I honestly wouldn't even know where to start.
So again my goals is to be able to record professional guitar/bass at home.
I mostly write alternative bluesy rock (BRMC, Nick Cave etc), very guitar and bass driven music. My drums come from ezdrummer and everything else is from plugins and software instrumets. I would like to be able to record my guitar/bass to a high standard where we only need to pay for a studio for vocals. Hopefully one day i could do that myself. I record both guitar/bass DI and use guitar rig 5 as amp and pedal sims. Im not the biggest fan of amp sims if i am honest, i come a background of having amos and pedals and i dont think any sim can simulate the warmth of a real amo/pedal but unfortunately i am not in a position to have an amp in my apartment.
My studio if you could even call it that is very modest, just in a spare room in our apartment, apart from speaker and desk placement my room is untreated. I don’t really have the knowledge or the money to treat it. I honestly wouldn't even know where to start.
So again my goals is to be able to record professional guitar/bass at home.
Chili
Site Moderator
So... some misconceptions. The interface is about the last thing on the list that would have an impact on the quality of your recordings. Room treatment is right near the top of the list for having an impact on your recordings. Well, room, room treatment and your monitors. Those three things work as one playback system. If they aren't honest and accurate, the rest of your recording chain won't make a difference. You can't get a good mix if you can't hear it accurately.
The focusrite is a fine interface. I have the 2i2 and though I don't use it often, it works fine for when I do. No concern for headroom as Ecc warns about. The Audient and Focusrite are in the same class of interfaces. You won't see a noticeable difference in quality of sound, though maybe functionality might be different.
Treating your room doesn't have to be expensive. Some OC703 panels and some lightweight fabric and you're good to go. Use thumbtacks or small nails to attach them to the walls. You don't need to build any fancy frames or anything. Do a little research on it. See what you actually need. Spend your money wisely.
and most importantly, have fun!!!
I was unfamiliar with those iloud monitors and fear they were simply "PC speakers. Not a bit of it!...IK Multimedia iLoud Micro |
So, monitors at least are sorted. My comment about headroom on the 2i2 was simply what I have read and gleaned from the specification, as I said, not a problem if you are aware and keep input levels within reasonable bounds. Despite the remarkable performance of those monitors the fact that room treatment for bass is probably not practical you will need to check it on headphones but do use the monitors as much as possible to check mixing balance and stereo imaging. The latter is especially "wrong" on headphones (mind you, since most of Joe Public seems to listen on buds that is debatable!)
Dave.
So, monitors at least are sorted. My comment about headroom on the 2i2 was simply what I have read and gleaned from the specification, as I said, not a problem if you are aware and keep input levels within reasonable bounds. Despite the remarkable performance of those monitors the fact that room treatment for bass is probably not practical you will need to check it on headphones but do use the monitors as much as possible to check mixing balance and stereo imaging. The latter is especially "wrong" on headphones (mind you, since most of Joe Public seems to listen on buds that is debatable!)
Dave.
Gtoboy
Well-known member
The goal of recording guitar and bass the quality of a studio is not dependent on the interface. Guitar amps can be close mic'd and covered with blankets or in an ISO box but you wont be able to get the sound of studio with out a great sounding room. DI the bass and reamp if needed in the studio. Without having a studio room to record in that's about as close as your going to get to "professional" in an apartment in a room.
Ok i think the take away from this is soundtrrating will have the biggest impact on recording quality and after watching youtube clips i can actually hear why. Also as mentioned it doesnt seem that difficult or to expensive to do. My only issue is our apartment is rented so i just need to find a way to attach the soundtreating to the walla etc without causing any lasting damage.
Also people are saying the Audient is not worth the steo up from the 2i2, i know it is negligibke but there are videos to proove it is a step up in sound slightly. But is it safe to say that a serious step up would be thousands in a expensive rack kind of unit?
Also people are saying the Audient is not worth the steo up from the 2i2, i know it is negligibke but there are videos to proove it is a step up in sound slightly. But is it safe to say that a serious step up would be thousands in a expensive rack kind of unit?
keith.rogers
Well-known member
What videos, specifically. I searched for F'rite 2i2 vs Audient ID14 and the only one I found (in German) actually demonstrates the 2i2 has lower self noise!
YouTube
So, there you go - an actual graphic output. What quality are you seeing the Audient has that's better that will help you make a better recording?
jamesperrett
Active member
From looking at the specs the Audient is going to be about 6dB quieter than the Focusrite and you may prefer the software control panel to the Focusrite one but the difference in quality is unlikely to be audible unless you have a very high quality monitoring setup. The only other problem with the first generation 2i2 was that it could be easily overloaded but, if you aren't recording drums, it is unlikely to be a problem.
Get hold of a few duvets, hang them over mic stands around your amp and you'll end up with a much bigger difference in sound.
Get hold of a few duvets, hang them over mic stands around your amp and you'll end up with a much bigger difference in sound.
keith.rogers
Well-known member
According to Focusrite, the difference between gen 1 and gen 2 is the taper on the gain pots. And, gen 1 has the same pots that are on my Saffire, which somehow seem to work. Yes, the gain is low for some dynamics, though you can still get a clean enough signal to boost in post.
What kind of signal are you sending into the interface that's causes it to be "overloaded?"
Gtoboy
Well-known member
Recording a bass and guitar how much signal to noise do you really need? For vocals or even solo acoustic guitar you might notice a difference. With a SM57 in front of a grille, not so much. Honestly if you want to upgrade I wont say don't. Just keep in perspective your goals, so you don't end up with "buyers remorse" because your guitars sound the same as they did with your old interface.
Yes Keith but, regardless of the same pot law taper YOUR interface is wall rat powered. That means the internal supply voltages can be higher (if they are not, bloody poor design!) than a purely bus powered Ai. That of course confers greater headroom.
There is a trend now to bang on that a low end AI "uses our King Canute pre amps as in our studio desks". Bollox, they might use a similar circuit topology but if one uses an 18V supply and the other 36V the latter is going to have massively better headroom. The current pull can also be greater if you have mains power and that makes lower noise possible.
"Lies, Damned Lies and Ad Men's Specifications!!
Dave.
rob aylestone
Moderator
I really have started to smile when people start talking about 'quality' when they really mean 'difference'. It's so difficult to use words to describe what you hear. In my own head, 'quality' can be many things. If you record a grand piano, in the middle of a wind free wilderness, then will every key be recorded at the same level? Nope. At some point top and bottom it starts to tail off. If you use a different mic and squeeze a few extra notes out of the top or bottom, is that a quality improvement? Yes. In practice though, has anyone used any mic that cannot record the top and bottom notes? No. So what's the difference? Do the mics record a different waveform? Well, yes they do because the things missing are the overtones, and their presence is, in my view, a quality improvement. We talk about loads of other sound features with flowery language - openness, clarity, smoothness, transparency etc but we've moved on to the space it was recorded in now.
What do the cheaper interfaces do, compared to the very expensive ones? They're electronically noisier when the gain gets turned up. Some have detectable data noise in the background, reducing the signal to noise ratio. I've not had one compromised in frequency response. Some do sound more compressed than others - never really sure what electronic process causes it? Maybe something in the converters reducing the available bit depth. Certainly looking at full scale meters often shows stuff happening at the bottom of the range that while I cannot hear it, seems to be there?
I have 3 different interfaces I use, and none are blisteringly sophisticated and I don't think in a blind test that I can tell which one was used in a decent recording. Like the example of the SM7 and a quiet voice above - I reckon given that mic and scenario I'd make a good guess on the interface, because one of them is clearly weak used like that.
I'm also wary of the idea that a bass guitar sound has a 'quality'. I'm a bass player - have been since I was 17 and now I'm 60. There are quality differences in the construction of all my basses - and I have I think, 7 currently. They all sound different, some drastically so, but I cannot use the word 'quality' to describe the differences. The worst sounding bass - dull, muddy, poorly defined, difficult to pitch is an old semi-acoustic with flats that was de-fretted in the 80s still has a place. It has a 'sound', a kind of dated sound, but I cannot attach the word 'quality' to it. The cleanest and brightest sounding bass is a Fender American Standard Jazz, and it's horrible to play - but again, does the job. I can mic them, DI them and play with their tone, and I will change mic positions, swap mics and stick bits of gaffer tape on the basses if I have to, but I would never dream of trying a different interface. The tonal difference between them is so tiny, there's no point.
If I wanted to improve my sound quality - then it's absolutely microphones first. I'm not even sure that I'd worry about the monitors. I get Dave's points, but you can cope with less revealing monitors once you know them, and as long as they are reasonably truthful in what they produce, again, it's a tonal difference. So for me, it would be mics, room treatment absolutely number 1 and 2. Then I'd be looking at the monitors, because the first two impact recordings - you can upgrade monitors and then revisit old projects and tweak them. You can't do that if you start with excellent speakers and poor mics and room. All my interface changes have been made when I needed more inputs. I do appreciate many people are on a quest for the best, whatever 'best' is nowadays. Apart from the pre-amp link with low output mics, I really cannot hear the subtle difference other claim to. I accept they are hearing something that is different in a positive way, but I suspect their listening and recording environment is the only thing that makes these differences audible. In my studio, I just cannot hear interface swaps. I can hear mic swaps.
What do the cheaper interfaces do, compared to the very expensive ones? They're electronically noisier when the gain gets turned up. Some have detectable data noise in the background, reducing the signal to noise ratio. I've not had one compromised in frequency response. Some do sound more compressed than others - never really sure what electronic process causes it? Maybe something in the converters reducing the available bit depth. Certainly looking at full scale meters often shows stuff happening at the bottom of the range that while I cannot hear it, seems to be there?
I have 3 different interfaces I use, and none are blisteringly sophisticated and I don't think in a blind test that I can tell which one was used in a decent recording. Like the example of the SM7 and a quiet voice above - I reckon given that mic and scenario I'd make a good guess on the interface, because one of them is clearly weak used like that.
I'm also wary of the idea that a bass guitar sound has a 'quality'. I'm a bass player - have been since I was 17 and now I'm 60. There are quality differences in the construction of all my basses - and I have I think, 7 currently. They all sound different, some drastically so, but I cannot use the word 'quality' to describe the differences. The worst sounding bass - dull, muddy, poorly defined, difficult to pitch is an old semi-acoustic with flats that was de-fretted in the 80s still has a place. It has a 'sound', a kind of dated sound, but I cannot attach the word 'quality' to it. The cleanest and brightest sounding bass is a Fender American Standard Jazz, and it's horrible to play - but again, does the job. I can mic them, DI them and play with their tone, and I will change mic positions, swap mics and stick bits of gaffer tape on the basses if I have to, but I would never dream of trying a different interface. The tonal difference between them is so tiny, there's no point.
If I wanted to improve my sound quality - then it's absolutely microphones first. I'm not even sure that I'd worry about the monitors. I get Dave's points, but you can cope with less revealing monitors once you know them, and as long as they are reasonably truthful in what they produce, again, it's a tonal difference. So for me, it would be mics, room treatment absolutely number 1 and 2. Then I'd be looking at the monitors, because the first two impact recordings - you can upgrade monitors and then revisit old projects and tweak them. You can't do that if you start with excellent speakers and poor mics and room. All my interface changes have been made when I needed more inputs. I do appreciate many people are on a quest for the best, whatever 'best' is nowadays. Apart from the pre-amp link with low output mics, I really cannot hear the subtle difference other claim to. I accept they are hearing something that is different in a positive way, but I suspect their listening and recording environment is the only thing that makes these differences audible. In my studio, I just cannot hear interface swaps. I can hear mic swaps.
Pretty much agree with all that Rob...But! As you say, there are no really BAD interfaces but then many would argue similarly that there are no really BAD microphones? So long as they are not actually faulty, stuck coil say, all mics give some sort of representation and it is up to the user which they prefer. Where Art and Science part company?
Dave.
Dave.
keith.rogers
Well-known member
Ok, I'll give you that point about power supply. I think the vagaries of what kind of power is actually supplied by various PCs/notebook USB ports (as they get cheaper and cheaper components) can also enter into the user experience. I'm always for an externally powered interface (with its own power switch!) vs. bus powered. The Audient is also bus powered, BTW.
Honestly, the OP just wants something that makes his recordings sound better and might allow recording acoustic guitar and possibly vocal away from the studio. I believe most of us agree that the absence of a microphone in his current setup is the most glaring, necessary upgrade. For the money being considered for the Audient, why not get a decent condenser (with nominal sensitivity to keep from stressing the F'rite at either end), and start learning how to use that? Or, even an external preamp, maybe save up for a used pro something (maybe mentioned in this thread or another somewhere...)
As [MENTION=178786]rob aylestone[/MENTION] writes, most of these improvements in quality are more correctly called differences. Now, sometimes those differences can mean a lot less work, so not something to completely dismiss, but I don't think we're quite there with this, given the primary use is as a DI.
jamesperrett
Active member
I don't have the Saffire 2i2 but I understand it suffers from the same minimum gain problems that my Saffire Pro26i/o and some of the Octopres have. I've had problems with AKG 451's on hi hats and also Sennheiser 604's on snares overloading the interface. I've also had various vocals get dangerously near full scale at minimum gain. These are industry standard mics in a pretty standard application so I'm not particularly happy that Focusrite got the minimum gain so wrong.
I am not so sure they have "got it wrong" James, at least by their lights? I have droned on before that AI designers have to make a compromise with "gain", especially as you descend the price food chain. Give a pre amp 60 dB say and it then becomes almost impossible to have less than 15dB as a minimum because the control pot law does not allow it and the gain becomes very hard to set precisely at the top end.
So, why give so much gain? Market forces IMHO. The makers want the AI to "write" a healthy level even from a low sensitivity dynamic such as the 57/58. After all, Noobs are always being told in forums that they NEED 60dB+ in an AI for dymo work. They don't but it is more convenient to have it.
Something has to give and since a cramped gain control will be instantly pounced upon by the reviewers most opt for a high a minimum gain and headroom suffers especially in bus powered AIs where rail voltages are limited. Again IMHO, this is a valid design decision, it is much more expensive for the newb to get a better preamp than a couple of XLR attenuator slugs.
The lack of headroom is however much less forgivable for instrument, aka "Hi-Z" inputs. Most folks are not going to diddle about with gentle picking? They go for it and dig in. Then, the electric guitar is much noisier than even a modest dynamic mic/room situation and so there is a much more restricted dynamic range. No better than 70dB imex.
*I have always thought "gain" for an AI as expressed as XdBs is a pretty useless number? What we REALLY need to know is what INPUT voltage is needed to get say -18dBFS on a DAW. It is always quite easy afterall to find the output (in mV) of any given microphone? The 57/58 range e.g deliver a bit over 1mV for one Pascal and 1Pa is around 93dBSPL...VERY ballpark a lusty singer at an inch or so but speech will be 20dB down on that. No wonder noobs have SO much trouble in that area!
After my 2nd cup o Joe it has occurred to me that I might be seen as contradicting myself? This is in general quite possible for this 1.2 eyed, med ridden old fool but in THIS case...not really.
The design of all audio electronics has compromises and choices. Usually based on cost but also "market perception", therefore the choices the various firms make re gain and levels will always be subject to some criticism. YCPAOTPAOTT. Of course, when you get into $5000 exotics you can expect few if any technical compromises and massive flexibility but the jump up in converter quality will be fairly small compared to say a good $200 AI and almost impossible to detect unless the rest of the rig/room is of similar quality.
Dave.
Last edited:
jamesperrett
Active member
The problem is that Focusrite had a reputation as a high quality professional brand back when I bought that interface and I had seen people I knew online saying it was good (although I realise now that they probably had connections with Focusrite). I could maybe forgive a budget brand like Behringer having those problems but ironically the ADA8000 next to the Focusrite in the rack has a more sensible gain range - as does the Audient ASP-008 next to it. An AKG 451 on hi hat is totally standard practice and any mic preamp with any pretensions to be used in a rock music setting should be able to handle it with no problems.
Focusrite have changed the gain range on later models although I can't understand why they got it wrong again with the first generation 2i2 - it makes me wonder whether they have any skilled technical people in house these days as much of their technical expertise appears to be bought in.
I'm afraid that this is one subject that turns me into a grumpy old git - I don't buy very much new stuff these days and, when I do, I either buy cheap with few expectations, or I buy something expensive that is supposed to be the bees knees. Most of the time the expensive stuff works as expected but the Focusrite purchase was one of the few occasions where I was disappointed.
Focusrite have changed the gain range on later models although I can't understand why they got it wrong again with the first generation 2i2 - it makes me wonder whether they have any skilled technical people in house these days as much of their technical expertise appears to be bought in.
I'm afraid that this is one subject that turns me into a grumpy old git - I don't buy very much new stuff these days and, when I do, I either buy cheap with few expectations, or I buy something expensive that is supposed to be the bees knees. Most of the time the expensive stuff works as expected but the Focusrite purchase was one of the few occasions where I was disappointed.
Yes James, it should not be the case with such companies but unfortunately ***t'appen.
I am reminded of a small, mostly valve amplifier that came out just over ten years ago. Excellent performance but there was just a tiny design error in the gain of a particular stage. The designers could perhaps be forgiven a little because the fault only showed up with the combination of a hot HB guitar, a heavy palm muting technique and the mains supply at top tolerance.
Nonetheless there were complaints and the problem was an easy, cheap fix. One additional 1/4W resistor. Not really a bad result from a company with fewer than ten men in UK at the time?
Dave.
I am reminded of a small, mostly valve amplifier that came out just over ten years ago. Excellent performance but there was just a tiny design error in the gain of a particular stage. The designers could perhaps be forgiven a little because the fault only showed up with the combination of a hot HB guitar, a heavy palm muting technique and the mains supply at top tolerance.
Nonetheless there were complaints and the problem was an easy, cheap fix. One additional 1/4W resistor. Not really a bad result from a company with fewer than ten men in UK at the time?
Dave.