Audio Interface rec's for recording my band - have been looking at RME's.

[laughbuddha]

Hi guys,

I've been playing guitar for decades but have never recorded music - so I'm a complete newbie is this regard. I'd appreciate any thoughts and insights you have for what Audio Interface I should consider buying for my needs in approximately the usd$800-$2000 range. Basically, I'm looking to record 2 guitars, drums, vocals, keyboard. I've done a little research and found that some of my favourite bands record each instrument at the same time (basically live) so the recording of each instrument "bleeds" into the other recordings create a more full and organic sound. This is ideal, but not 100% necessary. So, it would be appreciated if you could suggest some Audio Interfaces that are capable for recording all instruments being played at the same time like a just mentioned, and also some Audio Interfaces that would work if each instrument was recorded separately.

I've been doing some quick digging, and RME seems to always get solid reviews. I looked into the Babyface Pro Fs and the Fireface UCX ii as options. From what I glean, recording the drums alone would need 4 microphones set up. I imagine Audio Interfaces don't have the ability to take on so many directly. If this is true, would I need to buy something like a RME Quadmic in order to record 4 mics at once?

Thanks very much!!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

You could use a Midas MR18 as an audio interface, then take it on gigs to mix the band live.

 

[TalismanRich]

You can get audio interfaces with 8 mic inputs and plus ADAT like a Presonus 2626, Focusrite 18i20 or Clarette 8pre, Audient Evo, etc. and then add a basic preamp for the occasions when you need more. The Behringer ADA8200 would add 8 more and is not expensive.

If you would like to go mobile, the Tascam Model 24 or 2400, Zoom Livetrak L20 or Soundcraft Ui24R will all record directly to SD card and give you plenty of mic inputs to mic the entire band including vocals. All are under $2000 and are completely self contained. You don't need a computer to capture the audio, so one less thing to worry about. They can also be paired with your powered PA speakers for a complete PA system.

I've used my Zoom R24 to record the instruments and fed the vocal mixer to the 8th track many times. If I was doing more, I would be looking at the Tascam to handle everything in one package. I like the layout as it's like having a mixer that just happens to record all the tracks.

 

[laughbuddha]

You could use a Midas MR18 as an audio interface, then take it on gigs to mix the band live.

Interesting! What is the quality of audio recording of the MR18 compared to a specialised Audio Interface such as the Fireface?

Thanks for taking the time to suggest the Midas

 

[laughbuddha]

You can get audio interfaces with 8 mic inputs and plus ADAT like a Presonus 2626, Focusrite 18i20 or Clarette 8pre, Audient Evo, etc. and then add a basic preamp for the occasions when you need more. The Behringer ADA8200 would add 8 more and is not expensive.

If you would like to go mobile, the Tascam Model 24 or 2400, Zoom Livetrak L20 or Soundcraft Ui24R will all record directly to SD card and give you plenty of mic inputs to mic the entire band including vocals. All are under $2000 and are completely self contained. You don't need a computer to capture the audio, so one less thing to worry about. They can also be paired with your powered PA speakers for a complete PA system.

I've used my Zoom R24 to record the instruments and fed the vocal mixer to the 8th track many times. If I was doing more, I would be looking at the Tascam to handle everything in one package. I like the layout as it's like having a mixer that just happens to record all the tracks.

Hi man,
Thanks for the info and taking the time to send that through!


Are there any notable quality differences (audio quality) when recording with one of the mobile mixers compared to the specific audio interfaces such as the presonus 2626?

Thanks again

 

[TalismanRich]

I haven't used the Model 24 personally, I run a Tascam 16x08 at home which has 8 mic inputs plus 8 line inputs. That's been primarily just me or a friend recording. When I've gone mobile, it's with the Zoom with an old Yamaha MX 12/4.

The audio quality the most recorders today will be very close unless you are overdriving the inputs. When run clean, as you should be doing, you'll find that most are going to be quiet and flat +/- tenths of a dB. There are several videos online of people using the Model 24 to record an entire band. Comparing my Zoom R-24, Tascam 16x08 and my old Yamaha AW1600, there was very little difference between the three at 44.1/24bit except for a bit more noise on the Yamaha. I get WAY more difference between microphones.

The question becomes how are you going to work? Will the band be doing most of the recording or will it be a one man show with an occasional band recording? I've done both.

If you're doing a mobile setup with a Presonus or Focusrite, you're looking at a computer, interface and mic pre in something like an SKB case. You most likely won't be providing a PA feed. I'm not sure how I would set up the Midas, I've never really looked at that one.

Right now you can get a Model 24 for $1200. That would give you $800 to spend on a several microphones. A pair of SDCs, a couple of SM57s or 58s or Senn 835s, and a LDC would be useful.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Interesting! What is the quality of audio recording of the MR18 compared to a specialised Audio Interface such as the Fireface?

Thanks for taking the time to suggest the Midas

I would expect RME hardware to be better, but the difference might not rise to a level that you'll notice. The MR18 is the Midas version of Behringer's XR18 (X-Air). The processing is the same, but the Midas I/O electronics are better.

As a live mixer, it has on-board eq, compression and effects which don't use your DAW's CPU or increase latency. I don't think you can easily apply them to recordings, but they're nice for monitor mixes. And you can set up each musician with an app to control their own monitor mix via Wi-Fi.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I have a UI24R that I really like for live mixing, and it works well for live recording to a USB flash drive (has to be fast, as in USB 3 speed, and not more than 32 GB). But to do anything like studio recording (overdubs, mixdown) you'll need a computer. For not too much more than the MR18, you get four extra inputs, two extra outputs and onboard USB recording. It's a pretty good sounding device. The main drawback is the lack of continued support from Soundcraft, which seems to be an essentially dead brand. I wish they'd update it with a couple of improvements (like SD card recording).

As for quality, I suspect a good live console sounds as good as a comparable brand of recording interface. The recording interfaces might go to higher sample rates, but I think the benefits of anything over 48k are overrated.

 

[rob aylestone]

If you are willing to spend money on the interface, can I ask what you currently use for your PA mixer? It's just that you can buy second hand behringer X32 for very sensible money, and they can do large numbers of channels, and have excellent preamps. The band then get the benefits of the things for their live sound too!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The x32 has a lot of inputs and outputs, but it takes up a lot of space. An X32 Producer is smaller, but it still takes more space than an MR18 for the same input count. For a band that plays smaller spaces and has to provide their own PA, I think the MR18 is preferable. Also, it's the Midas version with nicer preamps than the Behringers have. And the MR/XR mixers have onboard Wi-Fi so band members can control their monitor mixes without additional hardware (though I'd strongly recommend an external Wi-Fi router).

If your band needs that many inputs, you're probably playing venues with installed PA systems.

 

[TAE]

Rather than just expound upon my ignorance I'll let Gemini explain...TLDR the human ear can not tell the difference between a $100 unit and a $50,000 unit. Preamps and frequencies capabilities beyond 45HZ become the arguing point and that is all subjective... I have a Beri XR18 it has the MIdas Preamps and people will "Tell you" they can tell the difference between this and the MR18...hardware wise yes there is a slight improvement...audibly impossible to correctly identify which is which blindfolded.. I also recently bought a Flow 8 at $200 which is a digital mixer ( 2 midas preamps 6 other inputs) that can give you 8 USB audio channels to your Daw., You'll be fine with the either MR18 or XR18 or the Flow 8 for $200 ...Depending on how many mics you want to use to record the drummer...

And Gemini expounds upon this...

Several tests and professional audio engineers have demonstrated that at a certain point of modern technical maturity, the "sound" of an AD/DA converter becomes transparent to the human ear. This means that in level-matched blind tests, even professionals often cannot reliably distinguish between a $100 interface and one costing thousands of dollars.

Here are the most notable tests and figures that have documented this:

1. Ethan Winer’s Sound Card Test​

Ethan Winer, a well-known audio engineer and "myth-buster" in the industry, conducted a famous test where he recorded audio through a $60 SoundBlaster Live card and compared it to "professional" cards costing 5–10 times as much (like the CardD Plus at $550).

• The Result: In a blind A/B/X environment, Winer and several other professionals could not tell the difference between the original digital file and the version recorded through the cheap SoundBlaster AD/DA converters.
• Key Insight: Winer argues that modern converters are so clean that their distortion and noise are well below the threshold of human hearing. He famously stated: "You will find that you can't tell the difference between a $100 and $3000 converter/sound card."

2. Audio Science Review (ASR) Blind Shootouts​

The community at Audio Science Review frequently performs blind tests comparing budget interfaces (like the Focusrite Scarlett Solo or Behringer UMC series) against high-end units from brands like Universal Audio (Apollo) or RME.

• The Shootout: In one specific "blind shootout" comparing a $99 Focusrite to a $1,999 Apollo X4, participants were asked to identify which was which based on recordings of vocals and acoustic guitar.
• The Result: The results consistently show that participants' guesses are no better than random chance. While the expensive interfaces offer more "features" (DSP, more inputs, better build quality), the actual audio transparency of the conversion is functionally identical to the human ear.

3. The "Archimago" Blind Tests​

The blogger Archimago conducted a large-scale internet blind test involving over 100 respondents (including many with systems worth >$50,000) comparing a high-end DAC to a standard computer output and an older budget device.

• The Result: 84% of respondents either heard no difference at all or felt the difference was so small it wasn't worth an upgrade. Even those who claimed to hear a difference could not statistically identify the "more expensive" device more often than the cheaper one.

Why do expensive interfaces exist then?​

The reason professionals buy $2,000+ interfaces isn't usually for a "better" AD/DA sound, but for other critical factors:

• Preamps: While converters are transparent, cheap preamps might have less "gain" or more "hiss" when using demanding mics like the Shure SM7B.
• Latency: High-end interfaces (like RME) have custom drivers that allow for near-zero latency, which is vital for recording with plugins.
• Build Quality & DSP: You are paying for the metal chassis, the internal processing power (UAD plugins), and the ability to link 20+ channels together.

Summary of Links/Tests to Explore:​

• Ethan Winer’s "Audio Myths" Workshop: This is a famous AES (Audio Engineering Society) presentation where he proves these points with audio examples.
• Audio DiffMaker: A tool often used by these testers to "subtract" one signal from another. If the two interfaces were truly different, the "null test" would leave a loud signal; instead, it usually leaves only silence or a tiny bit of noise at -90dB.

 

[ecc83]

Laughbuddha, I won't dwell on interfaces/mixers that can be used for live performance save to say, some 5 or so years ago, there was quite divide of both technology and opinion between the two devices. Now, the gear is converging and you can get interfaces with multitrack capability that can record to an SD Card, a computer, an external hard drive or possibly all three!

I would not worry overmuch about the audio quality of any of the gear so far mentioned, it is all good and WAY better than the Beach Boys had! Similarly don't handwring about these or those mic pre amps. You just need low noise and decent headroom and again, there is really nothing bad out there, especially at the price point you have mentioned.

But enough of all this "input" equipment! You cannot make any valuable judgements about your recordings unless you can HEAR the final stereo mix accurately. This means quality headphones or monitor loudspeakers*. There are top studio people who say you cannot make top quality mixes on headphones. Others, equally eminent in the field say you can. I don't know...don't do it!
Headphones (aka "cans") come in two basic types. Closed back and open back. Open types are generally said to deliver the best sound quality but you will need a few sets of closed backs (a moment's thought should tell you why!) Fortunately, most of the closed back types can be quite cheap because they are just needed to hear what'appen, not judge quality.
Whilst on the subject of cans? Look up and learn about "talkback".

Shall we leave room treatment for another day chaps?

*Your proposed budget for an interface pales (so will you!) into insignificance when you look at even mid range monitors from such as Neumann, Genelec et al. Also, do consider, even for a 4 piece rock band if you want to multitrack it, as you say. Four mics min on the drums, one on each amp, one for each voice? That's a lot of mics, mic cables and mic stands!

But have fun.

Dave.

 

[TalismanRich]

Somewhat along the lines of TAE's post, here is a post where a band was recorded on a Apogee Symphony system and an "lowly" Tascam 16x08. I happen to use the 16x08 and have found it to give me good results.



If you look in the text, the raw WAV files from each session and two final mixes in WAV format are available, neither identified, to keep confirmation bias out of the equation. I have listened on monitors and headphones and certainly one is not 20 times better than the other, which is the price differential.

Something that is interesting to me is that there is an obvious clocking difference. Interface Y is 0.004 seconds longer than Interface Y over a 2:16 song. That's a .003% error.

 

[laughbuddha]

Something that is interesting to me is that there is an obvious clocking difference. Interface Y is 0.004 seconds longer than Interface Y over a 2:16 song. That's a .003% error.

I assume you're implying the difference doesn't matter whatsoever because it is so small, right? ...If so, that supports the opinion that "lowly" interfaces definitely hold up in that regard.

 

[rob aylestone]

I sort of had a thought. Sync locking in audio and video was so important when we had tape machines that drifted from their nominal speeds because of mains frequency variance and then in servo lock accuracy - it was important because we had video sync pulses that needed to be accurate for simple edits to go through without disturbance, and we had multiple audio machines that needed their snare hits, and spill from them audible on the other tape machine to align. Those days have gone. We are now seriously worrying about 0.003% errors? We can create errors of this magnitude by not accurately measuring distances between microphones. An E is still an E. I have a Behringer X32 and a Midas M32. I have Behringer and Midas stage boxes, so all flavours of the pre-amp designs. There's no point even trying to produce youtube videos on this kind of thing because who knows what artefacts the listener hears come from the devices under test.

Everything is simply so good nowadays, none of us have equipment or ears capable of resolving minute differences. Even worse - I still use the Tascam rack interface I was very fond of. Despite it having a clear fault I only discovered after it had been retired. If you record silence, I noticed a single spike in the audio band. I recorded it and confirmed that it was in fact there - recorded internally on the DAW but also in analogue recordings from it. Probably been there for years. I wish some of my old music recorded on it had had silent gaps in the music, because I bet that little spike would have been there - like a Tascam fingerprint. One of those things they could use in a murder mystery TV program. We hear hiss, noises, distortions and are solid in our opinions - but then we use these 'features' as justification for buying the crazy priced interfaces, when most of these sound nice because of the extras they provide - sound shaping, effects, distortion (the nice kind).

If the aim is that hiss, noise and distortion are unwanted products, then almost every interface passes the test. They are quiet, have no odd noises and sine waves are pure, and square wave leading edges have no ring. These benefits are because the core technology is now off the shelf and common. Probably because the test and analysis industry require the same thing, and if your core business is measuring deviation from perfect, then price is not really a feature. Us music consumers and producers just benefit. A little facility in China is using the same chips in their budget products as so many others. The spec sheets shows voltage and impedance requirements and what comes out the final pin is for us, perfect. Stick it in a box, spray it red - add a few switches, knobs and buttons and job is done.

Inside the wildy priced units are extra circuitry to change that sound - not make it better.

Hang your macbook on any digital mixer and you have a subjectively perfect recording system. None of the digital desks ever get comments about the sound. IS a Yamaha different from an A&H, Soundcraft or Behringer in any measureable way? Maybe that 0.0003% delay is important? I suspect not.

 

[TalismanRich]

The 0.003% error comment was tongue in cheek. It was about the only thing that I could think of as a difference, and that's pretty remarkable.

A bit of a follow up, the person that posted the video compiled comments regarding the video. It was something like 25 correct identifies, 24 incorrect identifies, and 7 can't tell comments. In other words, it was a statistical dead heat. After the reveal, people started posting how the Apogee sounded clearer and more open, and all the other kinds of nebulous comments. People who wouldn't post in the original video now chimed in with "that's exactly what I heard" It is a classic case of "tell me the answer and I'll be right every time!"

I've often compared audio to auto racing. An F1 driver is able to tell the difference of 1/4 lb change in tire pressure, or 1 degree change in wing angle. I would say that 99.9999% of everyday drivers can't tell a 5 lb change in tire pressure, at least not until the low tire pressure light comes on. But even a professional driver can be fooled. I've watched drivers complain that the car was unstable and that's why they're slow. They make changes and say that now the car is so much better ... only to find that the stopwatch says they are even slower! The stopwatch becomes the benchmark, not the "I like it".

Unfortunately, with recording it's all opinion. It's what you like, not what is accurate. In lots of cases now, the goal is to degrade the sound so it sounds "old school". Add some saturation and tape irregularity (aka distortion and compression) to make it sound better. Make it sound good on cell phone speakers with limited frequency response and dynamic range.

It's a bit crazy, and it's not what the goals were when people made recordings in the 50s and 60s. They were just working with, and pushing the limits of the technology they had.

 

[ecc83]

On the delay thing? Many years ago son and I found that Samplitude could record 4 tracks from 2 USB devices, there were two downsides.
1) The two pair of track did not quite start together. The error was just mSecs and easily corrected by 'sliding' the first tracks to sync with the slower.
2) The pairs of tracks very slowly drifted apart* but they stayed tight enough over the 4 or so minutes song for our needs.

That modern digital gear is good enough? TOO bloody good by quite a margin IMHO! I am, as many of you know clinically deaf, cut off at TWO kHz. But son is not and he is a bloody good musician and has recorded with a 16bit A&H ZED 10, a Behringer UMC204HD*, a Tascam Pro40X hand held recorder and presently uses a MOTU M4 which, spec wise is head and shoulders above the others.He cannot tell the difference!

*I have seen evidence that the 204 and other such interfaces get distorted a bit, 6dB or so, prior to 0dBFS. We have never noticed this but them we record 24 bit and peak to only -10dBFS, neg 8 at the absolute limit.

Dave.

 

[Papanate]

. IS a Yamaha different from an A&H, Soundcraft or Behringer in any measureable way? Maybe that 0.0003% delay is important? I suspect not.

I think the Yamaha Q5 and the Allen&Heath Avantis have a difference in the sound of their respective PreAmps - I can hear it - but the real question is does it matter?
I would say no - it comes down to preference - and even then I feel it doesn’t matter- the only thing I feel that really matters in Digital Boards is the workflow -

 

[TAE]

It is easy to fall into analysis paralysis with all the hyperbole and marketing gitchya gotchya's.

It seems as per the previous comments we have gotten to a place where capturing a really quite fantastic extremely high quality audio signal is simple stupid.
AND it can be achieved on very inexpensive gear!

As humans and consumers we fall into the traps laid by Madison avenue...you know what PR was called before they came up with PR..... propaganda...

Well that and GAS ( Gear Acquisition Syndrome)

For those of us old enough to remember Tutor Turtle he was always wanting to be something different than himself and Mr. Wizard would wave his wand and let Tutor learn that he was still Tutor Turtle no matter what hat he wore.

Kind of the same thing with us getting our songs recorded...Well if I had that apogee or the swizzlesticacalomic THEN I could capture that genie in the bottle.

KISS .... Keep it simple stupid....It's kind of a double edge sword here at HR.com because we have brothers that are really true pro engineers and THEY do need to know their shit inside out to get the best recording they are getting paid for to get.

We singer, songwriter musicians now have the ability to get really good recordings all by our lonesome selves. Avoid over analysis. Get in there, push that damn red button and GET R DONE!

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Apogee user here, though certainly not a $7000 Symphony - my Ensemble Thunderbolt was a fraction of that (maybe $2k?) when I bought it maybe a decade ago.

You can go back and forth on whether the quality of conversion really matters, or if preamps matter (and, ironically, I barely use the Apogee pres these days, in favor of better external units), or any of a number of other factors. They may, they may not, but the #1 thing that matters more tan anything else is simply having a good performance of a good song to record, and an interface won't help you there.

One thing I would put out there in Apogee's favor, though... their customer service is exceptional, amongst the best customer support I've run into in any industry. I've had to contact them twice, and the most recent time was just a driver installation issue on a new Mac (which, not for nothing, I'm now running an interface I bought in 2016, I just checked, a decade later with full driver support, and while the $2500 I spent (again, pulled up the confirmation email) up front was a lot of money, it's currently sitting at about $250 a year, which I think is pretty good). The time before that though there was an issue with the Thunderbolt chip itself, and one of their techs spent a couple hours running through diagnostics with me over a span of two separate days (same tech) to really nail down the problem, then did a nominal-fee factory return and repair for me, and even though the LCD screen wasn't related to the issue at all, replaced that for me as well at no additional cost because after (at the time) 8 years of heavy use the LCD had burned in a little.

To me, that's worth a premium, and when the time comes that I do have to retire this interface, sucking it up and splurging on a Symphony is definitely a short list option. Will I be able to hear the conversion quality difference? Maybe, maybe not... but I WILL be able to know that I'm buying from a company that will stand behind their products for a very long time and if I ever have any issues with it, they'll take care of it.