External audio interface - scam, or necessity? (intel mac)

[jonny deep]

So just work without a computer then?
Or plug the mixer into a computer?

I was just offering a quick solution to your proposed problem, and being somewhat glib about it. But, yes, a mixer before the soundcard will allow you to record as many channels as the mixer supports, but, as discussed above, you are then tied to the mix you recorded.

 

[ecc83]

I think that by the time that you buy a mixer (or a couple of mixers, in the OP's case), you've spent about what you would've for a pretty nice budget interface. Dollar-for-dollar, I'd go with the interface for the routing options, the multitrack options, the sample rate options, the low latency, and the bundled software.

+1. But then "we" son and I went down almost the OP's route. We have a mixer, zed10 feeding a 2496 soundcard and a second smaller mixer that gathers signals from 2 PCs and anything else we wish to hear and feeds them to a pair of Tannoy 5As.

That setup is however historical, just how it panned out 8 or so years ago. Now the 2496 COULD be the internal AC97 (ugh!) OBS card but son could never get the super low latency of the Delta card* and its ASIO drivers.

The 2496 also returns a rec/play noise floor of -97dBFS. I know not of macs but perhaps the OP could post a "silent" recording?

Then, again I know nothing Apple'ly but the inputs are surely neg ten? Even a Berry 802 will kick 0dBu average and headroom is at least +15dBu so you immediately have an unbalanced, level mismatch likely to give noise or overload issues.

*My NI KA6 (on VERY stable USB 2.0!) beats that however. Noise in to out is better than -100dBFS and I CAN run a keyboard at 32 samples whereas the lowest the 2496 will go is 64. I don't because the system is quite fast enough at 128.

I would bet my 40quid Alesis iO2 speccs better than mac internals!

Dave.

 

[rayc]

Is bundled software REALLY bundles software or is it tease ware/get your started/hooked before we demonstrate why you need the full version ware?

 

[rayc]

Mac internals are mainly PC based hardware now aren't they?
What's mac about a mac other than their choice of hardware from the shelf, their restrictive software, proprietary ravenous control and hipster/trendoid/misinformedfolk gouging?

 

[ecc83]

Is bundled software REALLY bundles software or is it tease ware/get your started/hooked before we demonstrate why you need the full version ware?

No, well certainly not the Cubase LE5* that came with my NI KA6 anyway. I don't use it, I have LE6 pid for which son used for the very lowest latency but I just fired up 5 and found I could easily setup 9 stereo tracks, so it probably maxes out at 16. A MIDI track as well so that should be enough for a beginner?

The software is more than good enough for a newbie who just need to record two tracks at a time, maybe run a VSTi or two (and since LE5 supports VST you can download shedloads of FX and stuff)

Then you get an upgrade discount but LE5 at least is vastly more useful to the noob recordist than the oft chosen Audacity.

* I think NI now include LE6 at least maybe 7?

Dave.

 

[pazu]

Thanks for all of the great thoughts. Firstly most analogy is specious

I see a lot of mention of 'latency.' In another thread we see struggles with latency issues in a USB setup. USB hubs almost guarantee latency issues and unless you're lucky enough to have a deck bristling with USB ports, the issue looms. My personal experience is that I get more latency from a USB connection than I do from a line in, at least to that point in processing. That's a no-brainer; a line level signal on a wire is going to get there faster than USB, not slower. Depending to some degree upon where 'there' is, I suppose.

Keeping to the point though, we are talking about 2 track signal transport to the DAW, and whether using a line in is notably inferior in this regard. It is logical fallacy to bring 4-tracking into the equation at all. There are plenty of 2-track USB external interfaces out there, and this is the realm of expectation that I also work in, at this point. So a 2 channel USB device is going to have the same problems mixing that I will have, that are described in the thread. Yet, many are happy enough with 2 tracking with an external audio interface, as I am as well with my internal audio chipset. For singer/songwriters, 2 tracking is an okay solution.

About money spent, etc., keep in mind that I've never spent any money on an external audio interface so my investments in boards have already happened for other reasons. If I am taking in multiple channels on a board and then recording that to a single channel, that is the fixed mix of that channel, yes, and generally that is two mics for a single vocal track, or it could be two mics on a guitar. If those aren't right to start with, then I get what I get. I might have been able to fix it in the DAW had the inputs been split each to a track, or I might not have. It's all work and I would have been better off getting it right before I started recording/singing/playing the song.

To say that I am stuck with pre-mixed levels on tracks though, is not correct; I still have two tracks and can set up automation, reduce noise, apply compression, limiting, effects, plugins, dupe the tracks, all of that. In Garageband I can put live effects on the tracks and monitor either the raw input at the board (zero latency) or I can monitor the Garageband effect-laden capture (little appreciable latency even then). Now if I am 2-track recording whilst playing a keyboard controller, there I can see some latency surfacing in the software instrument (generally it will cut out entirely though if I keep playing, it's always recorded okay, for some reason). Now, if I had added an external USB audio interface and then tried 2-track recording whilst playing that keyboard controller, also USB, what would happen then with latency in my USB bus? It would likely hose - but I've never done it, so don't know. I can monitor my mix in Adobe Audition CS6 while singing into two mics as two more tracks, then add that as two more mono tracks into Adobe Audition. In that case the transport is the DR-05; I transfer the files via USB storage connection, align the vocal manually then continue. But, none of this procedure stuff is relevant to the question of signal transport.

My setup is nothing to brag about, and with many limitations. Those are facts. The larger point here is that my line in works just fine taking signal from the berrys. I don't see the latency issues that keep coming up here as complaints found in using an internal sound card. Where would they be surfacing, exactly? And if you're using live effects in your DAW whilst recording, how's the scarlett or whatever gonna help you with that? The effects run in the scarlett itself?

Finally ec33 points out that my mac line in is -10dB, I've read that is the case with some line in's, though there are balanced/unbalanced line in's, but I see no issue with an unbalanced signal at this point in the chain (output of the berry). I have several outputs that I can pull from; line out, tape out, mains out at line level so there's flexibility there. This however is the closest semblance of a reason to switch to a USB interface, that I have seen yet in this thread. I will look into this further. I do have a special cable that attenuates, that I use to go from the UB802 to the DR-05's line in; I think that this cable loses 10dB. Its purpose is to connect the DR-05 to DSLR's I have. Anyhow I believe that the berry pmp4000 is giving the mac line in just the signal that it expects.

My tentative conclusion here is, no compelling reason has been presented thus far for me to migrate to an external USB interface. Without evidence to support any other conclusion, I am still at EXT USB INT < necessary for 2-tracking. The caveat that I have to add now is, 'when one has a board.'

And I can't function without a board. If I had an external USB interface it would have to connect to an output of a board, otherwise I would be plugging stuff all of the time.

Thanks again for all of the replies, I appreciate it!

Edit - There was mention of 'silent' recording - I am certainly not suggesting that I am achieving 'silent' recording, or that I have an overall 'noise floor' that beats any particular 2-track external audio interface. I am saying that, 'if' my signal is any 'noisier' (and I doubt it) it is not significant given the 144db of headroom available in 24 bit recording. Correct me if I am wrong as I am not an audio engineer. I do not record at 16b though I use Adobe Media Encoder to downconvert my 32b floating 96K work from Adobe Audition, or 24b 44,100 work from Garageband '11 down to 320K or 192K .mp3's for web audio.

 

[jonny deep]

Thanks for all of the great thoughts. Firstly most analogy is specious

I see a lot of mention of 'latency.' In another thread we see struggles with latency issues in a USB setup. USB hubs almost guarantee latency issues and unless you're lucky enough to have a deck bristling with USB ports, the issue looms. My personal experience is that I get more latency from a USB connection than I do from a line in, at least to that point in processing. That's a no-brainer; a line level signal on a wire is going to get there faster than USB, not slower. Depending to some degree upon where 'there' is, I suppose.

Keeping to the point though, we are talking about 2 track signal transport to the DAW, and whether using a line in is notably inferior in this regard. It is logical fallacy to bring 4-tracking into the equation at all. There are plenty of 2-track USB external interfaces out there, and this is the realm of expectation that I also work in, at this point. So a 2 channel USB device is going to have the same problems mixing that I will have, that are described in the thread. Yet, many are happy enough with 2 tracking with an external audio interface, as I am as well with my internal audio chipset. For singer/songwriters, 2 tracking is an okay solution.

About money spent, etc., keep in mind that I've never spent any money on an external audio interface so my investments in boards have already happened for other reasons. If I am taking in multiple channels on a board and then recording that to a single channel, that is the fixed mix of that channel, yes, and generally that is two mics for a single vocal track, or it could be two mics on a guitar. If those aren't right to start with, then I get what I get. I might have been able to fix it in the DAW had the inputs been split each to a track, or I might not have. It's all work and I would have been better off getting it right before I started recording/singing/playing the song.

To say that I am stuck with pre-mixed levels on tracks though, is not correct; I still have two tracks and can set up automation, reduce noise, apply compression, limiting, effects, plugins, dupe the tracks, all of that. In Garageband I can put live effects on the tracks and monitor either the raw input at the board (zero latency) or I can monitor the Garageband effect-laden capture (little appreciable latency even then). Now if I am 2-track recording whilst playing a keyboard controller, there I can see some latency surfacing in the software instrument (generally it will cut out entirely though if I keep playing, it's always recorded okay, for some reason). Now, if I had added an external USB audio interface and then tried 2-track recording whilst playing that keyboard controller, also USB, what would happen then with latency in my USB bus? It would likely hose - but I've never done it, so don't know. I can monitor my mix in Adobe Audition CS6 while singing into two mics as two more tracks, then add that as two more mono tracks into Adobe Audition. In that case the transport is the DR-05; I transfer the files via USB storage connection, align the vocal manually then continue. But, none of this procedure stuff is relevant to the question of signal transport.

My setup is nothing to brag about, and with many limitations. Those are facts. The larger point here is that my line in works just fine taking signal from the berrys. I don't see the latency issues that keep coming up here as complaints found in using an internal sound card. Where would they be surfacing, exactly? And if you're using live effects in your DAW whilst recording, how's the scarlett or whatever gonna help you with that? The effects run in the scarlett itself?

Finally ec33 points out that my mac line in is -10dB, I've read that is the case with some line in's, though there are balanced/unbalanced line in's, but I see no issue with an unbalanced signal at this point in the chain (output of the berry). I have several outputs that I can pull from; line out, tape out, mains out at line level so there's flexibility there. This however is the closest semblance of a reason to switch to a USB interface, that I have seen yet in this thread. I will look into this further. I do have a special cable that attenuates, that I use to go from the UB802 to the DR-05's line in; I think that this cable loses 10dB. Its purpose is to connect the DR-05 to DSLR's I have. Anyhow I believe that the berry pmp4000 is giving the mac line in just the signal that it expects.

My tentative conclusion here is, no compelling reason has been presented thus far for me to migrate to an external USB interface. Without evidence to support any other conclusion, I am still at EXT USB INT < necessary for 2-tracking. The caveat that I have to add now is, 'when one has a board.'

And I can't function without a board. If I had an external USB interface it would have to connect to an output of a board, otherwise I would be plugging stuff all of the time.

Thanks again for all of the replies, I appreciate it!

If you record four drum tracks via a mixer, you are then stuck with the mix. Yes, you have two tracks, left and right channels, but you can't unpick those four tracks (although some software will claim to be able to do just that).

You do have latency when recording, you just don't see/hear it. You would have less latency with a USB interface using ASIO drivers. If you had direct monitoring (which you would have with most USB interfaces), you would be able to hear the latency of the direct signal and the playback from your system (if track monitoring were enabled). Latency is pretty much a non-issue for simple recording - your DAW software will line up the audio automagically. But, playing a VST instrument with a keyboard, like you describe above, it has some effect - if you want to reduce the delay between pressing the key and hearing the sound, a USB interface using ASIO drivers is the answer.

I'm not trying to persuade you to buy an interface - I don't care what you do and if you're happy with your setup, rock on. But, there is clearly a knowledge gap here.

 

[pazu]

Again, ANYONE using ANY two-track record interface, be it line in stereo, or an external USB stereo audio interface, that is trying to record 4 drum tracks via a mixer, is going to be stuck with the mix. Since that doesn't invalidate 2 track ext. int's, it doesn't invalidate 2 track line in to a computer, either.

Where is the point in discussing latency that is not, or barely, seen or heard; I am missing it? You can't get less latency than a signal on a wire unless you're using light. I will look into ASIO drivers however, sounds interesting.

I can hear the minor latency difference betweeen for instance, the mixing board raw and the Garageband post effect monitoring. That is to be expected but in 2 track recording it's not a notable liability, a few milliseconds is really nothing when it comes to monitoring. And again, if you are monitoring post-effects in your DAW, you are going to get latency as compared to your USB external interface signal, as well. No getting around that, that I know of. It is minor, but similarly minor to where I am at.

As you say jonny deep, it's a non-issue in 2-tracking unless we bring software instrument control into it. The solution there becomes using another mac for software instruments, and bringing that signal into the board. Then though there's minor latency still occurring in the mac running the software instrument, at least it's not bogging down signal processing in the DAW on the other deck which is where data starts getting dropped.

 

[pazu]

"But, playing a VST instrument with a keyboard, like you describe above, it has some effect - if you want to reduce the delay between pressing the key and hearing the sound, a USB interface using ASIO drivers is the answer.

I'm not trying to persuade you to buy an interface - I don't care what you do and if you're happy with your setup, rock on. But, there is clearly a knowledge gap here."

I do not see how using a 2 channel external audio interface via USB, is going to affect a USB MIDI keyboard's latency into the computer in any positive way. They are both going into the USB bus of the computer, separately. If anything the latency there would increase as there's now more throughput on the USB bus.

MIDI and software instruments are entirely outside the question in the first place which is, whether or not the signal recorded by my computer's line in, is notably inferior to the signal recorded by an external USB interface, at 24b 44,100. I haven't professed to knowing much about USB external interfaces; the 'gap' however seems to be in addressing the core question at hand. Not that I mind digression.

 

[ecc83]

"That's a no-brainer; a line level signal on a wire is going to get there faster than USB, not slower."

With the GREATEST respect friend, that is simplistic bollox!

There is overwhelming evidence that latency is governed by the interface and even more by the quality of the drivers. The quality of OBSound electronics is notoriously poor to bad and it seems macs use the same 50cent chips as PC makers? Then, if Apple write truly brilliant, low latency drivers it is the first I have heard about it in ten years of PC recording dabbling!

The speed of even USB 1.1 is so high that it is no limitation at all for say 4 audio tracks and MIDI I/O (had a Fast track pro that was well fast enough with a dumb MIDI keyboard). USB 2.0 is so fast that 8 tracks in and out + MIDI is easily achievable and many companies, RME in particular, now offer interfaces with vast I/O and super low latency using the protocol.

No sign of the noise floor specc' or clip so far?

The level mismatch was mentioned only because it can catch out the unwary noob. My own zed 10 delivers "pro" levels but the 2496* accepts about 0dBV as a maximum. I did in fact insert attenuators so that the DAW meters agreed with those on the mixer but son, who was the musician after all, did not like the change in MO and so I reverted to having the mixer stuck at neg 20 or so!

In fact the mixer is 5mtrs of XLR cable away from my computers and the balanced feed is Unball'ed from the line by a pair of excellent OEP 10k bridging transformers.

Dave.

 

[BroKen_H]

Well, I was right about the fun.

 

[gecko zzed]

Again, ANYONE using ANY two-track record interface, be it line in stereo, or an external USB stereo audio interface, that is trying to record 4 drum tracks via a mixer, is going to be stuck with the mix. Since that doesn't invalidate 2 track ext. int's, it doesn't invalidate 2 track line in to a computer, either.

Where is the point in discussing latency that is not, or barely, seen or heard; I am missing it? You can't get less latency than a signal on a wire unless you're using light. I will look into ASIO drivers however, sounds interesting.

I can hear the minor latency difference betweeen for instance, the mixing board raw and the Garageband post effect monitoring. That is to be expected but in 2 track recording it's not a notable liability, a few milliseconds is really nothing when it comes to monitoring. And again, if you are monitoring post-effects in your DAW, you are going to get latency as compared to your USB external interface signal, as well. No getting around that, that I know of. It is minor, but similarly minor to where I am at.

As you say jonny deep, it's a non-issue in 2-tracking unless we bring software instrument control into it. The solution there becomes using another mac for software instruments, and bringing that signal into the board. Then though there's minor latency still occurring in the mac running the software instrument, at least it's not bogging down signal processing in the DAW on the other deck which is where data starts getting dropped.

There is no need for you to justify your preferred method of recording. Just do it. If it works for you, be thankful that it does and that you have a satisfactory method.

However, the fact that you are comfortable in that method does not mean that interfaces are scams or are unnecessary. For me, my interface is an absolute necessity. Mostly I don't use a mixer. In fact I don't use any outboard gear except for a headphone amp, and for 99% of my work I will want multiple tracks going in, full duplex recording, and tracks that are separate inside the DAW.

The one advantage that I have is that I have the choice of which the method to record with. Most of the time I will do my multi-tracking layering thing. But I can do a two-track recording (for example, when I do a live mix), and I can do this via the A&H's USB, or via its line out, or I can use the direct-outs of each channel and still do live multi-tracking. I am grateful for this level of flexibility.

 

[jonny deep]

"But, playing a VST instrument with a keyboard, like you describe above, it has some effect - if you want to reduce the delay between pressing the key and hearing the sound, a USB interface using ASIO drivers is the answer.

I'm not trying to persuade you to buy an interface - I don't care what you do and if you're happy with your setup, rock on. But, there is clearly a knowledge gap here."

I do not see how using a 2 channel external audio interface via USB, is going to affect a USB MIDI keyboard's latency into the computer in any positive way. They are both going into the USB bus of the computer, separately. If anything the latency there would increase as there's now more throughput on the USB bus.

MIDI and software instruments are entirely outside the question in the first place which is, whether or not the signal recorded by my computer's line in, is notably inferior to the signal recorded by an external USB interface, at 24b 44,100. I haven't professed to knowing much about USB external interfaces; the 'gap' however seems to be in addressing the core question at hand. Not that I mind digression.

The delay of the signal from the keyboard isn't the latency I'm referring to. Latency, in this case is the delay from receiving the signal and the sound coming out of your speakers, which is determined by the size of your audio buffer (measured in samples). A good quality USB interface with ASIO drivers will help minimise this delay.

You might find you can't hear a difference in the sound quality. For onboard sound chips, I think the DA conversion is given more quality than the AD conversion as onboard sound is geared for playback; inbound sound is usually only used for Skype and so on, so sound quality isn't a huge priority. I haven't made any comparisons, but onboard sound costs less than $1 and you generally get what you pay for.

 

[pazu]

"That's a no-brainer; a line level signal on a wire is going to get there faster than USB, not slower."

With the GREATEST respect friend, that is simplistic bollox!

There is overwhelming evidence that latency is governed by the interface and even more by the quality of the drivers. The quality of OBSound electronics is notoriously poor to bad and it seems macs use the same 50cent chips as PC makers? Then, if Apple write truly brilliant, low latency drivers it is the first I have heard about it in ten years of PC recording dabbling!

The speed of even USB 1.1 is so high that it is no limitation at all for say 4 audio tracks and MIDI I/O (had a Fast track pro that was well fast enough with a dumb MIDI keyboard). USB 2.0 is so fast that 8 tracks in and out + MIDI is easily achievable and many companies, RME in particular, now offer interfaces with vast I/O and super low latency using the protocol.

No sign of the noise floor specc' or clip so far?

The level mismatch was mentioned only because it can catch out the unwary noob. My own zed 10 delivers "pro" levels but the 2496* accepts about 0dBV as a maximum. I did in fact insert attenuators so that the DAW meters agreed with those on the mixer but son, who was the musician after all, did not like the change in MO and so I reverted to having the mixer stuck at neg 20 or so!

In fact the mixer is 5mtrs of XLR cable away from my computers and the balanced feed is Unball'ed from the line by a pair of excellent OEP 10k bridging transformers.

Dave.

Now well wait a tic, last I knew the simplest bollux was the best bollux I am here to learn, not to be disagreeable.

Let us ensure that in our individual comments, we are speaking to the same points.

I need some terms definition. "Latency is governed by the interface". Which interface are you referring to here? Anything processing signal, or interrupting signal processing to do other things, introduces latency, maybe we can agree on that. Latency is governed by the physics of the processing of the signal path through whatever it's gotta go through, and by whatever else delays the processing of that signal path. In my case, there is no latency to the input jack of the computer. At that point, it's all up to the deck.

Your reference to mac audio being "notoriously poor", is unsupported. Cost of chipsets, is not relevant to the question.

I have no noise floor specs available; I've looked and it is just not something that is referenced widely. Probably because it would take test equipment much more sensitive than the equipment itself in order to test; I don't have any gear like that, capable of testing THD.

It seems only fair that I provide something for you to test; what would you suggest?

 

[jonny deep]

Now well wait a tic, last I knew the simplest bollux was the best bollux I am here to learn, not to be disagreeable.

Let us ensure that in our individual comments, we are speaking to the same points.

I need some terms definition. "Latency is governed by the interface". Which interface are you referring to here? Anything processing signal, or interrupting signal processing to do other things, introduces latency, maybe we can agree on that. Latency is governed by the physics of the processing of the signal path through whatever it's gotta go through, and by whatever else delays the processing of that signal path. In my case, there is no latency to the input jack of the computer. At that point, it's all up to the deck.

Your reference to mac audio being "notoriously poor", is unsupported. Cost of chipsets, is not relevant to the question.

I have no noise floor specs available; I've looked and it is just not something that is referenced widely. Probably because it would take test equipment much more sensitive than the equipment itself in order to test; I don't have any gear like that, capable of testing THD.

It seems only fair that I provide something for you to test; what would you suggest?

When you send signal to the input jack, it still gets processed by an audio processing chip (and latency is introduced), just as it would by an external interface, it's just that the chip is inside your computer. With an audio interface, when the signal hits the USB port, it's already been processed and made digital, so there's actually less latency at the PC port than with onboard sound.

 

[pazu]

The delay of the signal from the keyboard isn't the latency I'm referring to. Latency, in this case is the delay from receiving the signal and the sound coming out of your speakers, which is determined by the size of your audio buffer (measured in samples). A good quality USB interface with ASIO drivers will help minimise this delay.

You might find you can't hear a difference in the sound quality. For onboard sound chips, I think the DA conversion is given more quality than the AD conversion as onboard sound is geared for playback; inbound sound is usually only used for Skype and so on, so sound quality isn't a huge priority. I haven't made any comparisons, but onboard sound costs less than $1 and you generally get what you pay for.

Thanks for the clarification, though I don't think you will find evidence supporting mac onboard audio line in differing from line out in terms of bit rate, resolution or conversion quality. Again stating that quality is relative to cost, is not evidence of anything. I am interested in testing my noise floor however, that may put this thread to bed...

 

[pazu]

When you send signal to the input jack, it still gets processed by an audio processing chip (and latency is introduced), just as it would by an external interface, it's just that the chip is inside your computer. With an audio interface, when the signal hits the USB port, it's already been processed and made digital, so there's actually less latency at the PC port than with onboard sound.

You're saying that at the computer jack you're already delivering digital, so there's less signal processing for the computer to do. And, this is true. That being said, it is a non-issue. The point I would make to this is, that there is a staggeringly overwhelming amount of processing power available for audio core of the computer to handle the relatively puny task of parsing out 24b 44,100 stereo. It does it as fast as your external audio interface does, at that bit depth and resolution. That is like water off a duck's back (yes another analogy). The computer can handle it realtime @ 24b 44,100 stereo, which is as far as 2 tracking at that bit depth and resolution goes in the first place.

For me, the latency is in the DAW and in how much work that is doing on the now digitally converted bit stream if you will. And that is the same challenge present when using an external digital interface. That is my working understanding. What I am saying is, the conversion itself isn't significant in 2-tracking with a dual core intel mac. Happy to be proven wrong. Could the A/D conversion happen faster? Sure, I suppose so. Does it need to be, for 2 tracking at 24b? I don't think so.

edit - I wasn't quite on, with that last bit. the A/D conversions happen at the same rate, the real question is, what's my noise floor? Is my signal just hogwash? Is information being dropped, that shouldn't be? Is interference being introduced? Kinda curious myself.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

...so there's actually less latency at the PC port than with onboard sound.

Unless the OP is using his mixer for input monitoring, in which case the latency of an interface would be the same (analog monitoring path) or more (digital monitoring path) that the OP's setup.

 

[pazu]

a test file

Okay, I've generated a 10 second stereo audio clip, with no input, using Garageband '11 in multitracking mode. This is 24b 44,100. Working on a few more; it will take me a bit to get my mind around how to do it however. Here is the link. If someone can return me any spec detail on this clip in terms of noise floor, distortion, levels, I would be grateful. This could be the test that leads to my joining the herd, in buying a 2 track external audio interface. Thanks in advance!

https://app.box.com/s/myncx4npb960119jz0zeve93r0yipwd9

 

[pazu]

Unless the OP is using his mixer for input monitoring, in which case the latency of an interface would be the same (analog monitoring path) or more (digital monitoring path) that the OP's setup.

I find it useful to do both; I have matched headphones and switch back and forth between monitoring the board and the output signal of the recording DAW, I also use a DR-05 and monitor that via its line out, or at the board, or if that's recording whilst I am also recording the signal to the mac mini simultaneously using Garageband I'll monitor it at the board, the DR-05 or at the output signal of Garageband. That way I can record the same take at 24b 96K in the DR-05 to use later if I really like it. Though I never really like it, which basically led to this contentious question in the first place