Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: New Interface

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    217451

    New Interface

    Sign in to disable this ad
    Hi all

    So im about to buy a new interface I want something witg good preamps I dont have money to buy RME so you know .....
    Right now i use presonus audiobox and UR44

    Any recomendation ??

    And whichis better sm57 or e906 ?????



    Thanx

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    1,972
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 367 Times in 334 Posts
    Rep Power
    2178943
    Are you just recording electric guitar amps? (guessing from mic question)

    Why do you think you need better preamps? The interfaces you have should be ok and typical of what you get in the entry price points.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Fremantle, Australia
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,885
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 211 Times in 193 Posts
    Rep Power
    11804435
    Presonus preamps are a long way from the worst, I find them quite good and very good value for money. SM57 or e906? The are both good, depends on personal choice if its guitar cabs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ranelagh Tasmania
    Age
    68
    Posts
    7,736
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 585 Times in 475 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474857
    If you are concerned about the quality of your recordings, the interface is low on the list of likely causes of unsatisfactory quality.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to gecko zzed For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    9,785
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 653 Times in 617 Posts
    Rep Power
    9266934
    The UR44 has four mic inputs so I doubt the OP just wants to record electric guitar?

    I am not aware of any AI vastly better than the UR44 untill you get to RME or other exotica? Eevn then, as said, not likely to make a huge difference to sound quality. The logical upgrade would be for more channels? Get an AI with ADAT then buy the Berry 8ch pre amp, maybe with a view to upgrading that sometime? Or, the 44 has two line ins, 5&6, maybe a "better" pre in there or a channel strip?

    Butty,but,but..if I had the 44 and wanted to spend money it would be on monitors and of course, room treatment.

    Dave.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    217451
    Thanx a lot good people :-)

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,636
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 270 Times in 249 Posts
    Rep Power
    7968219
    Agreed, none of the preamps in the interfaces that I've used have been disappointing. They're all low-noise, pretty flat, with enough gain and headroom to handle a range of input sources. None of the ones that I've tried would be any sort of impediment to creating great tracks.

    After doing a bit of a shootout, I found the Focusrite preamps to have a bit more "air" to them but less headroom than the others. Roland preamps are kind of boring but with ample headroom, which is good for most home recording. Steinberg has similar preamps to the Roland, just less headroom. Behringer's Midas preamps are surprisingly good, and they come on some of the most affordable interfaces on the market. And RME's preamps are in a different league, but can sound a little too articulate for their own good, depending on your intentions.

    That's my 2 cents, anyways.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    essex
    Posts
    2,568
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 352 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    3901875
    I'm really just not interested in any single item to improve quality, and that should perhaps be 'quality', as so many so called quality improvements are tonal in nature. I have decided that real quality improvements need to be across the board, and the real killer improvement is not technical at all, it's the space. So many good microphones that could make a quality difference, but can't, because the NEED a good space to work in. Monitors that can actually reproduce the quality differences, and for me, at my age, ears that can hear the magic extra frequencies you are recording. Budget equipment is so good now, compared to twenty years ago that we should have a quality difference that has got better by a big jump, but it hasn't. When we talk about 'air' what exactly in technical terms are we talking? I have a strong suspicion we are just talking about the small differences a hump in the frequency response causes, and is that really a huge quality shift, when eq can do very, very similar things. Buying a Neumann U87 microphone is NOT, in my humble view an increase in quality, it's a positive jump in tone. In my studio, with OK monitors, and OK interface with an OK acoustic treatment and ok microphones, I would need to consider which one I could spend some money on to improve the quality of my output. Over the years I kept adding microphones expensive sample and synth packages and quality improved, but then topped out. I think that to improve my sound in a way that can be evidenced by the end product, I need to increase the size, improve the acoustics, and alter my mic distances. I can't put the mics back a bit, because the room intrudes, so maybe the better sound of my double bass from just an extra foot of distance cannot be tried. We all work within a constraint of some kind, and while money is usually the decider, we always have space issues, working from home.

    I do know that sometimes, my opinions get changed by trying things forum folk suggest, but very rarely do the spending money things really work. The Shure SM57 is a very good example of this 'quality' thing. By any measurement system, it's not a good microphone, yet we reach for them so often because they're probably the most useful mic in our collection. So using a frequency limited, peaky frequency response, fairly insensitive dynamic is a quality improvement? In real life I think it is!

    Anybody have a definition for quality that makes sense? I don't think I have any more?

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    9,785
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 653 Times in 617 Posts
    Rep Power
    9266934
    "Anybody have a definition for quality that makes sense? I don't think I have any more?"

    I have one Rob. "does the reproduced sound bear close resemblance to the original instrument as heard in the room, e.g. the bass"?

    That was the definition of High Fidelity but of course, THAT lot have become as mad as a box of frogs.

    If you have a system that can reproduce speech at real life volume and convince people it is a real person speaking you are well on the way to "perfect quality". Any deviation from that and we are in the realms of subjective judgement and YOUR quality is as good as the next blokes.

    After a repro system that can do accurate speech (or any other instrument) the next step on the road to "quality" is creating a believable acoustic "place" where each instrument exists. In other words, monitors that give a great stereo image but in this world of overproduced "pop" and 98% of listening done on buds, where is the incentive?

    Dave.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,776
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 43 Times in 38 Posts
    Rep Power
    420903
    Quote Originally Posted by rob aylestone View Post
    I'm really just not interested in any single item to improve quality, and that should perhaps be 'quality', as so many so called quality improvements are tonal in nature. I have decided that real quality improvements need to be across the board, and the real killer improvement is not technical at all, it's the space. So many good microphones that could make a quality difference, but can't, because the NEED a good space to work in. Monitors that can actually reproduce the quality differences, and for me, at my age, ears that can hear the magic extra frequencies you are recording. Budget equipment is so good now, compared to twenty years ago that we should have a quality difference that has got better by a big jump, but it hasn't. When we talk about 'air' what exactly in technical terms are we talking? I have a strong suspicion we are just talking about the small differences a hump in the frequency response causes, and is that really a huge quality shift, when eq can do very, very similar things. Buying a Neumann U87 microphone is NOT, in my humble view an increase in quality, it's a positive jump in tone. In my studio, with OK monitors, and OK interface with an OK acoustic treatment and ok microphones, I would need to consider which one I could spend some money on to improve the quality of my output. Over the years I kept adding microphones expensive sample and synth packages and quality improved, but then topped out. I think that to improve my sound in a way that can be evidenced by the end product, I need to increase the size, improve the acoustics, and alter my mic distances. I can't put the mics back a bit, because the room intrudes, so maybe the better sound of my double bass from just an extra foot of distance cannot be tried. We all work within a constraint of some kind, and while money is usually the decider, we always have space issues, working from home.
    I usually hate it when someone throws perspective into the mix, but I find it hard to disagree with this one. Especially since I just spent the last four months re-treating my room and "shooting" it until my measurement mic ran out of bullets.

    The room is a significant variable in determining the end result. It's also the hardest to alter physically and sometimes economically.

    Having said that, I've always believed that recording output is really more like multiple linear regression. There are probably ten or more variables that impact the end result. Each of these variables contributes something, but their weighting is different for every musician and every studio. The variables begin with talent (music and engineering) and end with new strings. The complicated part is that they also interact with one another and many of them can't be measured sufficiently. This means that while we can devise a regression equation to arrive at an answer, we have no reliable or valid data to plug into the equation.

    Of course, I'm an American. So I believe in the market. If you want the best mic, buy the most expensive one.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. seperate midi interface used with a recording interface?
    By twangbuck in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2013, 09:43
  2. Cakewalk UA-1G USB Audio Interface? (any thoughts on this Interface)
    By norskdrum in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 04:21
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-29-2009, 23:56
  4. Chaining on Firewire (HD + interface) or HD on USB and interface on FW ?
    By Soulgolem in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 09:34
  5. Firewire Interface vs. mLAN Interface
    By rweiss in forum Digital Recording & Computers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2006, 07:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •