Upgrading 2>4 mic inputs audio interface

J

Jack of Alderaan

New member
I've been using an SSL2 audio interface for the past year, i really like it a lot but i feel a bit restrained when recording the drums. 4 xlr mic inputs would be a better choice for me. So i thought i could resell the SSL2 and upgrade!

Since i was satisfied with the SSL2, i assume i should get the SSL12. At only 435 euros it's right within my budget and there'll be no bad surprise!

Is there better options for me? What do you think of the scarlett18i18 3rd gen? It costs 400euros but i think the SSL12 is supposed to be of a better quality...or is it? What about the Clarett+4Pre? It's a bit more expensive -545euros- but is it worth it? Those 100 extra euros make the difference compared to the SSL12?
 
My first choice would be the SSL12, or you could possibly get the Clarett 4Pre. As far as quality, reputation, etc I would probably lean SSL12; Clarett 4Pre has a few more inputs if my research is correct. It's really up to you and what you see yourself recording in the near future.
 
The 8 inputs would be where my money would go - I've got two 8 input interfaces and find them so useful, going back to just 4 would prevent many of the things I regularly do happening. I'm not convinced on claimed improvements in audio quality, because the bar is now so high on even cheap ones. I would seriously doubt you'd spot them in a blind test.
 
I'd agree with Rob - 4 inputs is just too limiting once you start getting into recording drums. An 8 input interfaces is the minimum but it would be worth getting one that is expandable because you will probably want even more inputs in due course. You are very unlikely to notice any sound quality difference between the Focusrite and SSL if you are using them straight. The biggest difference between gear at this level is in usability - things like the design of the knobs and switches and the software control panel.

I have an Audient ASP-008 in the rack with a Focusrite interface. The Audient is obviously designed to be used in high pressure situations because you can see exactly where the knobs are positioned from the other side of the room and the switches are all illuminated. The Focusrite knobs are difficult to see and the switches have multiple functions so you need to be up close in good light to use it. The sound quality of both is excellent (although this is one of the Focusrites that suffer from lack of headroom on the mic preamps).
 
Jack of Alderaan said:
I've been using an SSL2 audio interface for the past year, i really like it a lot but i feel a bit restrained when recording the drums. 4 xlr mic inputs would be a better choice for me. So i thought i could resell the SSL2 and upgrade!

Since i was satisfied with the SSL2, i assume i should get the SSL12. At only 435 euros it's right within my budget and there'll be no bad surprise!
Click to expand...
If you are on a Mac you could get another SSL2 and aggregate the inputs.
 
I'm with Rob and James. 8 inputs minimum, especially if you're doing drums. You may not always use them, but there will come the time that you want the inputs. Going with the SSL 12+ or the Clarett+ 4pre you have the option of adding an 8 channel ADAT preamp.
 
Well, 8 tracks would obviously be better but i'm not too sure i need it right now. I quite enjoy minimalist mik'ing : 1 mono overhead, 1 kick and 1 snare, i like the immediacy of it. And there's still 1 track left for a little extra depending on the song (floor tom or beneath the snare, or room mic etc...), i'm not gonna do close mic'ing anytime soon so....maybe later when i'm tired of simplicity :-)
Papanate said:
If you are on a Mac you could get another SSL2 and aggregate the inputs.
Click to expand...
i didn't know you could do that...how does that work? (i have a macbook air m1)
 
Last edited:
Jack of Alderaan said:
Well, 8 tracks would obviously be better but i'm not too sure i need it right now. I quite enjoy minimalist mik'ing : 1 mono overhead, 1 kick and 1 snare, i like the immediacy of it. And there's still 1 track left for a little extra depending on the song (floor tom or beneath the snare, or room mic etc...), i'm not gonna do close mic'ing anytime soon so....maybe later when i'm tired of simplicity :-)

i didn't know you could do that...how does that work? (i have a macbook air m1)
Click to expand...
You plug in the devices in the order you want them to be - the go to Utilities / Audio-Midi Setup / Audio Devices / Aggregate Devices - then you choose the devices that you want to use - then the Mac does it all for you.
 
Thanks! Another poster told me it puts too much strain on the mac cpu -because it has to manage 2 devices at once- can you confirm that? Or do you have a more positive experience?
 
That's not what was said in the other topic - it didn't say strain, it said overheads - meaning that aggregated (stacked) interfaces uses more resources than one interface with more outputs. I've actually spent the entire morning at a colleagues studio where he needs to use Sibelius and Cubase at the same time, and had tried to get two interfaces working properly together. Eventually, we got it working, but the latency on both interfaces - one a Scarlett and the other a Roland - went up from 5-6mS up to 13 on one and 15 on the other, which was unworkable. It simply takes the processor time to manage both devices, but that creates issues. Latency was NOT what I expected.

He ended up with both applications working in a stable manner, BUT, testing with a total reboot, these latency values changed. Not by much, but they were different with each reboot. Clearly his processor was just unable to provide what he needed - which was playing a project in Sibelius, while recording in Cubase. There was a distinct repeat to hitting the note and hearing it. In the end, we reverted to one, or the other, but not at the same time, and his workflow now has to include dumping Sibelius audio out to mp3 and then using that, to get the 5mS response time back.

I don't think it correct to say it's strain on the processor, but two audio processes at the same time takes time, that's all.
 
Ok, thanks for the correction. If it brings latency then it doesnt sound very workable....in your case it was both playing and recording tracks, on 2 apps, right? Do you think "only" recording via one app would bring latency too?
 
Yep - silence and music look the same to a computer. It will happily apply processing power to silence. Latency values on my systems reamin the same if I arm tracks to record or not.
 
rob aylestone said:
Yep - silence and music look the same to a computer. It will happily apply processing power to silence. Latency values on my systems reamin the same if I arm tracks to record or not.
Click to expand...

The Reaper developers have been working on this and I believe that you can disable processing of silence in Reaper now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top