Members Mats Nermark Posted October 11, 2018 Members Share Posted October 11, 2018 Hi, I'm not happy with my old Edirol audio I/F.The latency is OK but I'm not too happy about the sound. It's a really old I/F so I imagine that there are some new better ones to be had at a decent price point.But I definitely don't want more latency. So can you please advice if I should go USB (2 or 3) or stay with Firewire? I may need to upgrade my PC soon so that may be a reason not to get another Firewire unit. I can't afford a fast Mac so I think I should not get a Thunderbolt unit. I would like a unit with stereo in/out plus a good Hi-Z instrument input for electric guitars and bass. If you have personal experience with any unit you would like to suggest, please do so. If it is of any importance, I record with Studio One v4. Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Mats, I really like the Universal Audio Apollo interfaces. For your needs, an Apollo Twin would probably be fine. It has stereo I/O and a high impedance input you could use for direct recording. https://www.uaudio.com/audio-interfaces/apollo-twin-usb.html It's available in a USB version, which it sounds like you'd prefer. I tested the Thunderbolt version a few years ago, and it worked great with a Mac, and it had very low latency - and the UAD powered plugins are some of the best available anywhere IMO. The USB version is compatible with 64 bit versions of Windows 7, 8.1 and 10, but the PC needs to have USB 3 on the motherboard. https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/207805996-Apollo-Twin-USB-Windows-System-Compatibility I would not recommend going with a Firewire interface - I'd stick with USB 2 (but only if you have to...), USB 3, or Thunderbolt. At this point, USB 3 would be my preference / recommendation if you're going to use a PC instead of a Mac, although for a interface with a moderate amount of inputs / outputs, USB 2 can work just fine - it's just an older standard, and I think you'd be better off using the newer USB interface standard if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mats Nermark Posted October 12, 2018 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2018 Hello Phil and Craig! Thanks for the illuminating and educational responses. I knew I could count on getting good answers in this forum. Long live SSS!!!! Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted October 12, 2018 Members Share Posted October 12, 2018 I've just about decided to move from my Roland Quad-Capture to the UA Apollo Twin USB. The a/d conversion is better by all accounts. Craig - Phil - what about the preamps on the Apollo Twins? Think they are better than the Quad/Octo-Capture units? I want to upgrade my acoustic guitar mic pre (old Presonus MP-20) and am wondering if the Apollo Twin preamps would perform better noticeably better for that purpose than the MP-20 (non-modded MP-20). I know all about the subjective clause, so when I say "better" I mean cleaner, better representation of the full sonic spectrum - leaving "color" preferences out of the equation. If the Apollo Twin both improved my a/d and also my acoustic recordings with one purchase, then it's definitely worth the cash for me. I'd buy it at current prices even if it didn't have the UAD2 processors and beginners kitbag of plugins. nat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 I've just about decided to move from my Roland Quad-Capture to the UA Apollo Twin USB. The a/d conversion is better by all accounts. Craig - Phil - what about the preamps on the Apollo Twins? Think they are better than the Quad/Octo-Capture units? I haven't used the Roland, so I can't make any direct comparisons... but I liked the preamps in the Apollo. With UA's Unison approach, they don't really have to have a single "sound" - other sonic flavors are available besides just clean / transparent (which is their general default) - the Unison 610-B that came along with the Apollo Twin that I reviewed really did give it similar sonic characteristics to a UA 610 hardware preamp, and other Unison preamp options are also available, so your mic inputs can simulate a Manley, or a Neve, or an API... you get the idea. I want to upgrade my acoustic guitar mic pre (old Presonus MP-20) and am wondering if the Apollo Twin preamps would perform better noticeably better for that purpose than the MP-20 (non-modded MP-20). I know all about the subjective clause, so when I say "better" I mean cleaner, better representation of the full sonic spectrum - leaving "color" preferences out of the equation. Unison plugins aside, marginally better - I used to own a MP-20 and they're pretty decent preamps IMO... If the Apollo Twin both improved my a/d and also my acoustic recordings with one purchase, then it's definitely worth the cash for me. I'd buy it at current prices even if it didn't have the UAD2 processors and beginners kitbag of plugins. nat Again, while I can't compare it to the Roland, the UA hardware is nice, but it's the combination of hardware and software that makes their interfaces so cool IMO. I think you would be impressed with the sound of the preamp emulations, the A/D - D/A converters, and the sound of the powered plugins too - all of which could potentially have a positive effect on the quality and sound of your final recordings. IMHO if you don't need tons of inputs at once, an Apollo Twin certainly gives you a nice toolbox to work with all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted October 13, 2018 CMS Author Share Posted October 13, 2018 Forget FireWire' date=' it's in its twilight years. [/quote'] That's sad, but true. Firewire came along to handle the larger volume of data that video cameras brought to the PC user. It worked well for that. Things got a little dicey when audio interface manufacturers started using it for real time audio data transfer because the design standard didn't really cover that application, some audio devices didn't work with some Firewire chipsets, and there wasn't a way to assure that multichannel audio would keep all the channels in perfect sync (but it was close enough for jazz). As to Thunderbolt, it's a moving target on Windows, and even to some extent with the Mac. You can get just as good performance as Thunderbolt on a PC (possibly better) by using a PCIe card-based interface. All Thunderbolt does is bring the PCIe bus outside of the computer. Are there still PCIe card-based audio interfaces? Avid, maybe? Or the high end Apogees? And that pretty much eliminates their use with laptop computers. There were a couple of Thunderbolt-to-PCI docks, but Thunderbolt never got much traction on Windows computers, and now that we have USB-C/3/whateveritis, there probably will be no more new Intel motherboards with Thunderbolt ports. Why were there never PCIe expansion cards providing a Thunderbolt port to computers with expansion slots? The usual (good) reason was that the Thunderbolt spec included the capability to deliver more power to the external device than a standard PC motherboard supplied to the PCI expansion bus. And nobody wanted to make an adapter that didn't provide power at all, to connect devices that had their own power supply, or worse, that provided limited current and blew up when a device that required more power was connected. We seem to always be in "chase mode" when it comes to connecting external devices to our computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mats Nermark Posted October 16, 2018 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2018 Slightly OT, I love the educational content of the answers I get here. At other unmentioned places, questions like this often transforms in a battle of my product is better than yours. Thanks Craig, Phil and Mike. Hope to see you all at NAMM! Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bill5 Posted October 17, 2018 Members Share Posted October 17, 2018 A budget was not mentioned. Makes quite a diff. Frankly most of the stuff you guys are talking about cost more than I care to spend, esp when IMO I can get as good or extremely close to it for much less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mats Nermark Posted October 17, 2018 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2018 Is there a reason all of Craig's posts have been deleted from this thread? Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 17, 2018 Members Share Posted October 17, 2018 Is there a reason all of Craig's posts have been deleted from this thread? Cheers, Mats N I have no idea. All the topics I started are gone, too, as well as posts in other threads. Let's see if this one shows up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mats Nermark Posted October 18, 2018 Author Members Share Posted October 18, 2018 I have no idea. All the topics I started are gone, too, as well as posts in other threads. Let's see if this one shows up... Good to see you're still here. I seem to remember you writing that the Presonus Studio 192 Mobile is your main audio I/F. Is that correct? I also would like you to send me an email so we have communication channels open to plan possible NAMM shenanigans. Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 18, 2018 Members Share Posted October 18, 2018 Good to see you're still here. I seem to remember you writing that the Presonus Studio 192 Mobile is your main audio I/F. Is that correct? No, the full-blown Studio 192 is my main interface, with a TASCAM US-20x20 providing eight additional channels via the 192's ADAT input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 No, the full-blown Studio 192 is my main interface, with a TASCAM US-20x20 providing eight additional channels via the 192's ADAT input. The PreSonus is a USB 3 interface, isn't it Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 18, 2018 Members Share Posted October 18, 2018 Correct, However I've also used it with USB 2 when I need to use the relatively small number of USB 3 ports for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 Correct' date=' However I've also used it with USB 2 when I need to use the relatively small number of USB 3 ports for something else.[/quote'] Do you take a hit on the number of channels or the maximum sample rate when you run it using USB 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted October 19, 2018 CMS Author Share Posted October 19, 2018 Do you take a hit on the number of channels or the maximum sample rate when you run it using USB 2? I'm sure that if you try to make it not work, you can probably hold out a little longer with USB 3, all other things being equal, which, of course they never are. My curmudgeonly opinion is that if you're running out of available tracks with USB 2, then you're probably either in a good position to buy a more capable computer or you should be planning out your project better. SADiE does 64 tracks with USB 2, though I think that's at 48 kHz. which is good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mats Nermark Posted October 19, 2018 Author Members Share Posted October 19, 2018 No, the full-blown Studio 192 is my main interface, with a TASCAM US-20x20 providing eight additional channels via the 192's ADAT input. Was there a reason getting the Studio 192 instead of 192 Mobile? Cheers, Mats N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 19, 2018 Members Share Posted October 19, 2018 Was there a reason getting the Studio 192 instead of 192 Mobile? Cheers, Mats N More I/O. Between the Studio 192 and the US-20x20, I have everything in my studio patched in and ready to go...no patch bay required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 19, 2018 Members Share Posted October 19, 2018 Do you take a hit on the number of channels or the maximum sample rate when you run it using USB 2? I really haven't pushed it so hard I've run out of bandwidth, and I record at 44.1 kHz. If I want to get rid of foldover distortion for the occasional virtual instrument or amp sim, I just do so in a separate project, and bring it into the 44.1 kHz one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 More I/O. Between the Studio 192 and the US-20x20, I have everything in my studio patched in and ready to go...no patch bay required That is SUCH a timesaver if you can have everything all set and ready to go at a moment's notice. It's also great from a creativity standpoint - you can try your ideas right now, without having to stop and patch stuff in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.