Roland Octa-Capture Interface - Now with Conclusions

[tunai]

I'm actually recording with a Konnekt 24D. I had a lot of problems in the past (driver troubles), but now, it works fine.
I´m thinking in an upgrade (Roland opta capture or RME Foreface 800)
My OS is Windows Xp.
How the Roland and RME compares with the K24 in sound quality, preamps and driver stability?

Thanks in advance for your advice

Originally Posted by Anderton

First, the standard disclaimer – this doesn’t mean the review is over, just that I think I know the unit well enough to provide some conclusions. I still want to try cascading it with the V-Studio 700 just to make sure it works as expected, but aside from that, I think we’ve covered pretty much everything that’s important. However, if anyone has any questions or comments (particularly from those who own the unit), please continue to post.

Also for those wondering about Roland’s participation in the latter part of this thread (or lack thereof), unfortunately their Product Manager was in Japan during the recent earthquake. He’s safe, and we wish him well; fortunately, reports are that Roland, being located in a more southern part of Japan, has not suffered serious damage. But I can certainly understand that there are far more pressing issues right now then checking in on a pro review. Hopefully when the situation settles down, he’ll be able to add some comments.

Now, about the Octa-Capture.

The primary characteristic that stands out to me is cost-effectiveness. For under $600, you’re getting eight high-quality mic pres, onboard DSP, a very nice mixer application, Auto-Sens level setting, and a relatively intuitive front-panel user interface. That’s quite a deal.

Here are what I consider the main limitations:

• Only one headphone out. Granted, I don’t know where they would have been able to fit another one on the front panel, but sometimes it helps to be able to have someone else listen on phones while tracking. Of course you can do this, but you’d need to add a headphone amp to a couple of the monitor outs.
• No optical I/O, either S/PDIF or ADAT. There is coaxial S/PDIF, so you’re not totally lacking for digital I/O. The ADAT input is perhaps less of an issue than it appears at first, because the main reason for adding ADAT I/O is to provide expansion - being able to cascade Octa-Captures is a mitigating factor.
• The reverb works only with Direct Mix A, and you can’t record with it. Actually this is kind of a flattering limitation, because I wouldn’t care if it weren’t for the fact that the reverb sounds very good.
• The compressor can’t go in front of the A/D converter to prevent overloads. However, see below for my comments on Auto-Sens.

And now, what I consider the main strengths.

• Eight combo jack inputs for line inputs or XLR mics. Even better, four are on the front panel and two of these can serve as high-Z instrument inputs. A lot of interfaces have one or two front-panel ins, but having four is really convenient, as is having eight really good mic pres.
• Auto-Sens. Why doesn’t every interface have this? This is a really useful and time-saving feature that’s easy to use and effective. Big props.
• Compact size. This could definitely work for mobile, laptop-based recording applications. It’s not tiny, but I don’t see how it could be any smaller and still provide equivalent functionality.
• Individual +48V phantom power for each input. I think this is very important, and otherwise surprisingly rare in the world of interfaces – most let you enable phantom power for all mics or none, or particular groups of mics (e.g., one group of four and another group of four, or for a couple inputs but not for the others).
• Front-panel programmability. Of course the mixer application is much easier to use, but you can do everything you need to do from the front panel. Although pushing buttons and turning dials can be tedious, the Octa-Capture “operating system” isn’t hard to deal with.
• Universal (100-240V) “line lump” power supply. It only takes up one space on a barrier strip, and works anywhere with the right plug.
• Cascadable. I like that you can add another eight mics if needed, while staying within the same interface context.
• MIDI in and out. I’m always surprised at how many audio interfaces don’t include MIDI. It’s still a part of my studio, that’s for sure...
• Stable, trouble-free drivers. Installation was totally painless, and the performance is exceptional. I attribute part of that to Windows 7, but Roland shares in the credit.

I feel that at this point, there’s a certain level of “interface fatigue” - there are so many of them out there, with such varied feature sets, that there really is something for everybody. Roland is entering a crowded market at what are still sketchy economic times, but it would be a shame if the Octa-Capture got “lost in the noise.” This is a really solid interface, with some unique features, at a righteous price.

I’m sure many will look at the Octa-Capture and say “nice, but I already have an interface.” However, when you get your hands on one, the Octa-Capture solves a lot of problems faced during typical recording situations – from being able to handle multiple mics, to giving the singer some really nice reverb in the headphones, to adding light compression on the inputs, to automatic level-setting. Roland definitely did their homework with the Octa-Capture. For their first foray into pro-level interfaces, they’ve made the right moves.

[etunity]

After using my Quadcapture for some months, I have an update to my initial glowing report.

I have no complaints at all about the audio quality – except for the strong tendency in my system for what is probably ground loop noise (hard drive chatter, etc.). I'll need to experiment with a dedicated ground strap, as others have suggested. And the auto sense feature is indeed way cool. My only disappointment has been in its latency performance – which, unfortunately, is why I bought it.

I went so far as to buy a new computer to try to achieve the claimed "1 ms" latency specs, but after extensive tweaking, troubleshooting, and overclocking, I've achieved nowhere near that. It seems that in a totally tricked out system, I'm only able to get a stable 64 sample buffer – i.e. 10 ms. Craig initially stated that he was getting stable playback at 48, but then later in the thread it seems that he too ended up using the 64 setting. Then there was some debate elsewhere about whether 10 ms is "good", which boils down to a matter of opinion. But, for me, there's a huge difference between 2 or 3 ms and 10. 10 ms I can hear...

So this is just a little heads up for anyone considering this interface. In retrospect, because latency is important to me, I should have bought a Babyface or Mbox Pro.

Strangely, I was able to use the 48 buffer in XP. A tech support person at Roland strongly encouraged me to move to Win 7, but since doing so I get nothing but ASIO errors at 48 – and this on three different machines, with, as I said, all kinds of tweaking. I may end up reinstalling XP just to use the Quadcapture.

If there's some magic tweak we should know about, I'd love for a Roland representative to explain to us exactly how we can get "as low as 1 ms" latency from this box (and I'd gladly settle for five times that). Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that this was, sadly, not honest marketing...

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by etunity

After using my Quadcapture for some months, I have an update to my initial glowing report.

I have no complaints at all about the audio quality – except for the strong tendency in my system for what is probably ground loop noise (hard drive chatter, etc.). I'll need to experiment with a dedicated ground strap, as others have suggested. And the auto sense feature is indeed way cool. My only disappointment has been in its latency performance – which, unfortunately, is why I bought it.

I went so far as to buy a new computer to try to achieve the claimed "1 ms" latency specs, but after extensive tweaking, troubleshooting, and overclocking, I've achieved nowhere near that. It seems that in a totally tricked out system, I'm only able to get a stable 64 sample buffer – i.e. 10 ms. Craig initially stated that he was getting stable playback at 48, but then later in the thread it seems that he too ended up using the 64 setting. Then there was some debate elsewhere about whether 10 ms is "good", which boils down to a matter of opinion. But, for me, there's a huge difference between 2 or 3 ms and 10. 10 ms I can hear...

So this is just a little heads up for anyone considering this interface. In retrospect, because latency is important to me, I should have bought a Babyface or Mbox Pro.

Strangely, I was able to use the 48 buffer in XP. A tech support person at Roland strongly encouraged me to move to Win 7, but since doing so I get nothing but ASIO errors at 48 – and this on three different machines, with, as I said, all kinds of tweaking. I may end up reinstalling XP just to use the Quadcapture.

If there's some magic tweak we should know about, I'd love for a Roland representative to explain to us exactly how we can get "as low as 1 ms" latency from this box (and I'd gladly settle for five times that). Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that this was, sadly, not honest marketing...

We don't need a Roland rep, I can handle that for you and this is a great chance to provide some basic education about how latency works.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet you're not using 192kHz. The ONLY way to achieve the lowest possible latency is at higher sample rates. This is because you're clocking through the buffers faster, which speeds up the time it takes for the signal to go through the sample buffers. See the Octa-Capture settings below, and Sonar recording in the background.



Unfortunately I couldn't include the Sonar preferences screen as you have to close it before you can record, but it confirms that there are 192 samples, which translates to 1ms at 192kHz.

I played back the file...no clicks or pops

However, everything involving latency is a tradeoff. You can have speed or stability, but not both. I'm sure if I loaded up this project with some virtual instruments (assuming I can find some that work at 192kHz, LOL) and a bunch of tracks, I would probably have to increase the latency.

Also remember that buffer size isn't the sole determinant of latency. There's hardware latency through the A/D and D/A converters (typically around 1.2ms) and additional buffer latencies with USB. At 192kHz, the input latency is 4.1ms, and the output is 2.6ms, for a total "roundtrip" latency of 6.7ms.

As a reality check, sound travels at 1 ft per millisecond, so this latency is what you experience being 6ft away from speakers. Having used an Mbox Pro, I can verify that it too is subject to the laws of physics. I think it's almost a certainty you would not get better performance, and while the guys at RME are pretty bright, I don't think they've figured out how to violate the laws of physics either. This is why interfaces have direct monitoring - for people who require the lowest possible latency when recording.

The Windows 7 thing is a little more puzzling. Since moving from XP to 7 the latency at which I could do complex projects went down considerably - I can't give you a direct before and after comparison as I'm now full-time on 7, but performance was definitely superior to XP. For example tonight I was working on a project with eight audio tracks, MOTU's MachFive 3 sampler, and the XILS Synthix and recording additional tracks with 48 samples - no pops, clicks, or other problems. Now, maybe when I add a few more instruments, and automation, and some convolution reverbs I'll have to increase it, but for tracking I have zero issues.

Have you upgraded to the 1.5 software and drivers for the Octa-Capture? You should definitely be able to run at 48 samples on at least small projects without problems. At 44.1kHz that gives me 48 samples (1.1ms buffer size) with a total roundtrip of 7.5ms (5.6ms in, 1.8ms out). That's really very good.

[etunity]

Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up for me. I'm a longtime Roland fan, and want to give them the benefit of a doubt; but frankly, they should leave off their claim of 1ms, because apparently the fastest round-trip you'll ever get out of this box is 6.7ms.

Back in the real world, no, I'm not planning to run my studio at 192kHz any time soon. But I'd be happy to be able to run the Quadcapture at 48 kHz and 48 samples, for a round trip of 7ms. And if you're able to do that without problems, then there's still something wrong with my computer. Which is weird, cause I've really done a lot of troubleshooting now (I even unplugged my USB keyboard and mouse during playback to see if the ASIO errors would stop). The only thing I haven't tried is a dedicated USB card, which you recommended. So that's next.

A little silver lining: as a result of all this effort, my old Mackie Onyx firewire (which the Roland was supposed to replace) is now working flawlessly at 32 samples. So I can get back to being a musician instead of a computer tech -- thank God!


I don't really want to break the laws of physics, which would probably get me into serious trouble -- all I'm trying for is to record a single VSTi at superlow latency, all other tracks being frozen or bounced.

And I realize that different people have different tolerances for these delays. My main instrument is acoustic guitar, which has a "latency" of about 1ms, so I tend to want that kind of immediacy in all the instruments I play.

If you think about it, this whole latency problem has been going on for centuries. The modern drum kit was a brilliant solution to the age-old problem of how to synchronize a bunch of instruments. Works way better than a conductor...

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by etunity

Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up for me. I'm a longtime Roland fan, and want to give them the benefit of a doubt; but frankly, they should leave off their claim of 1ms, because apparently the fastest round-trip you'll ever get out of this box is 6.7ms.

The reason for that claim is because round-trip latency is system dependent. So, they could quote a round-trip of 6.7ms, but it might be 5ms on another system and 30ms on someone else's. As a result, manufacturers have more or less standardized on quoting the sample buffer spec, as that's the only one that's consistent from system to system.

The fact that Firewire isn't a problem while USB is an issue is an important clue. Try a different USB port, try a USB card (but NOT a combo USB/Firewire card) - and also make sure you're going into a true 2.0 port, most computers have more than one flavor of USB. The main thing is you want a USB audio interface to have the USB controller all to itself, not shared with a bunch of other peripherals.

[zzzxtreme]

hi guys, I'm getting a "problem" recording 8 tracks last saturday. I only realize it hearing them today. Could this be a sign of computer being too busy or setting the samples buffer too low ?

it happens every few minutes, and it is present in all tracks and all the same times

http://soundcloud.com/nickchanabdullah/problem

[etunity]

Originally Posted by Anderton

The reason for that claim is because round-trip latency is system dependent.

I guess that's why TAFKAT is compiling his "low latency performance database", because that 1 ms spec really doesn't tell you anything. I'm curious to know how the Roland interfaces would fare in his tests –- but he apparently hasn't succeeded in his attempts to get a unit to test.

By the way, it's worth mentioning that, unlike the Octacapture, the Quadcapture is bus powered – no power supply needed. Makes for a very portable mobile recording set up. I assume it still has the class A preamps, though maybe Craig can confirm that. Whatever they are, they sound good...

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by etunity

I guess that's why TAFKAT is compiling his "low latency performance database", because that 1 ms spec really doesn't tell you anything. I'm curious to know how the Roland interfaces would fare in his tests –- but he apparently hasn't succeeded in his attempts to get a unit to test.

I really don't think you'll find a huge difference among quality interfaces with good drivers. Latency is just part of the deal with computer-based recording.

The one way to get a definite improvement is to use a PCI card-based interface as it doesn't have to deal with any layers imposed by USB and Firewire.

The TAFKAT ratings are helpful, but his ratings are a composite of the latency performance, which of course makes sense - you want to know how an interface will perform under a variety of conditions. However, if you look at just one number of sample buffers then the interpretation is somewhat different. For example, if you look at the performance at 64 samples, the highly-rated RME FW shows 5.6ms of round-trip latency. But one of the Steinberg interfaces that scored worst overall has a latency of 7.1ms, and the StudioLive mixer, which also didn't rate that highly overall, had an RTL of 6.5 milliseconds. I honesty don't feel that a difference of 0.9ms between the StudioLive and the RME is going to be a deal-breaker when recording. If I'm playing guitar and stand 11 inches further away from the amp, I don't hear an obvious difference in a room with decent acoustics (i.e., moving my head doesn't put it in a place where comb filtering effects are significantly different).

One factoid: I knew one player who found the latency with virtual instruments "unacceptable" so he switched back to an older hardware digital synth. He didn't realize that not only were there delays due to the D/A conversion, but the keyboard scanning caused a delay of several milliseconds. I didn't tell them because then I knew he would obsess over the hardware keyboard He felt it was okay and that's all that mattered.

As a guitarist who uses amp sims, I'm concerned about latency. As long as the RTL difference is in the "flanging" range, I don't really care. But if it gets into the "slapback" range - which to me starts around 10ms - then I can't enjoy the playing experience.

By the way, it's worth mentioning that, unlike the Octacapture, the Quadcapture is bus powered – no power supply needed. Makes for a very portable mobile recording set up. I assume it still has the class A preamps, though maybe Craig can confirm that. Whatever they are, they sound good...

I haven't tried the Quad Capture so I don't know, but I doubt a company would re-design their preamps completely for another product in the same product line. Class A preamps draw a lot of power compared to other preamp topologies, so it's not surprising that if you cut the number of preamps in half, bus power would be sufficient.

[etunity]

Originally Posted by Anderton

The TAFKAT ratings are helpful, but his ratings are a composite of the latency performance

Yes, with his composite ratings, he's trying to show the real-world performance of the cards at various latency settings, and this clearly varies from one interface to the next. I honestly don't know why there'd be any difference between two different USB interfaces, but apparently the world of PC drivers is filled with complexity and danger.

Still, it's evident that my problem has nothing to do with a deficiency in the Roland drivers. Most likely, an RME or Mbox USB interface would also be malfunctioning on this machine. I just need to figure out why...

And I probably should, as you suggest, just get a PCI interface. But my computer is in a different room, and one benefit of a USB or FireWire interface is that plugs and knobs remain at your fingertips. But for a low latency fanatic, it seems that PCI is really the solution.

Thanks so much for all your help and advice, Craig!

[Anderton]

Are you using a high-speed USB cable? I've been told it does make a difference for reasonably long runs. The spec for maximum cable length with USB 2.0 is five meters (about 16 feet).

[etunity]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Are you using a high-speed USB cable? I've been told it does make a difference for reasonably long runs. The spec for maximum cable length with USB 2.0 is five meters (about 16 feet).

I've moved the computer nearby for troubleshooting, used different cables, etc.. And I've tried three different machines now! Almost makes me wonder if it isn't a defective Quadcapture. Or if the Quadcapure is somehow different from the Octa...

Now I'm assuming that when you and others say they're getting stable performance at 48 samples, you mean zero ASIO errors, right? Because I often don't actually hear these errors -- Samplitude just shows the error count, and then, if there are a lot of them, pops up a window advising me to increase my buffer size.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by etunity

I've moved the computer nearby for troubleshooting, used different cables, etc.. And I've tried three different machines now! Almost makes me wonder if it isn't a defective Quadcapture. Or if the Quadcapure is somehow different from the Octa...

Now I'm assuming that when you and others say they're getting stable performance at 48 samples, you mean zero ASIO errors, right? Because I often don't actually hear these errors -- Samplitude just shows the error count, and then, if there are a lot of them, pops up a window advising me to increase my buffer size.

I don't have anything that monitors error count, so I'm going by ears and zoomed-in waveform view only.

[wizard71]

Thanks to this review, i bought an octa and absolutely love it. Upgraded to V1.50 without any real issues although it kept telling me that an earlier driver was installed when it was clearly not and that there was an installation problem (i followed instructions to the letter ) I went round in this never ending circle for a while but just ended up installing it from the device manager and locating the v1.50 file manually.Worked perfectly. Have really low RTL 5.3m. 64 samples @96khz. So stable i could possibly go lower.
Look forward to seeing if its sonically better than my aged delta 1010!



Thanks

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by wizard71

Look forward to seeing if its sonically better than my aged delta 1010!

 

I think I know the answer to that one

[lc155]

Hey there,

I just read your review on the octa-capture, and it looks amazing. I'm currently on the search for a good budget audio interface, and from what I've heard, the Quad capture is basically the same as the octa, but with less features. (Still the same pre amps, from what I hear). I was wondering, if based on your extensive knowledge on the Octa, could you compare the Quad capture to the Komplete Audio 6? Both seem like great interfaces, but I'm not really after the extra outs and ins the KA6 sports, just sheer quality in parts and latency. (especially in the preamps). I'm not really sure on which one has the best quality in drivers/preamps.

If you could help, that'd be great.

[AteTeVoortwis]

Just as the member above me I'm in the market for it's little brother, the quad capture. As it's main purpose will be recording a vocal mic and my guitar (Either through my Boss GT-8 via S/PDIF or over a mic or via direct input/Guitar Rig) the quad seems perfect.
One thing I fail to understand however is the way the headphones work. Can you select what you want to output on them? And with the Direct Monitor, what does it play?
Would it for example be possible to use the headphones as a cue-output for DJ work with something like Traktor?
I suppose these are more general audio interface questions but I guess there is someone here who can explain it to me :-)
By the way, excellent thread this, really, really helpful!

[Jekster77]

Hi,
thanks for the review,
Maybe a stupid question but, is it possible to send the inputs (mic, guitar, bass, drum, ...) one on one to the output?
I mean, for example:
input 1: vocal
input 2: guitar
input 3: bass
...
Output 1: only vocal
Output 2: only guitar
Output 3: only bass

I need this configuration because we will mix different instruments, during live performance, with a table mixer (easier then mixing on computer).

If this is possible, what configuration do I need?

thx

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Jekster77

Hi,
thanks for the review,
Maybe a stupid question but, is it possible to send the inputs (mic, guitar, bass, drum, ...) one on one to the output?
I mean, for example:
input 1: vocal
input 2: guitar
input 3: bass
...
Output 1: only vocal
Output 2: only guitar
Output 3: only bass

I need this configuration because we will mix different instruments, during live performance, with a table mixer (easier then mixing on computer).

If this is possible, what configuration do I need?

thx

It couldn't be any easier. Just go to the Device menu in the Octa-Capture Control Panel, and select "Directly Output the Inputs." Input 1 will go to output 1, input 2 to output 2, etc.

[Seventhson]

Hello,
I'm new here.
I own an old M Audio FW1814, and I'd like to update it. I wonder, comparing to the M Audio FW1814, if it's worth getting a Roland Quad or Octa Capture and if it will improve something (preamps, converters quality...) or if it would be better to save my money and wait to buy a more expensive interface like Motu, RME...
thank you

[zzzxtreme]

octacapture is awesome for recording

1) Output 1-2 : Studio monitors in the console room. Nothing is heard during recording, because i set virtual mixer "input out" to zero
2) Output 3-4 : For recording "redirecting" the vocals from INPUT 1 to the PA speaker. The virtual mixer(B) enables me to SOLO the input 1
3) Output 7-8 : connects to the Headphone amp for the drummer. Using the virtual mixer (D), I mute other channels except guitars and bass

all is done INSIDE the octacapture

Can any other $500-600 recording interface do this ?

[Seventhson]

in fact, I don't really need all the routing features, don't even need an Octa capture but only a Quad Capture. I just use my audio interface to record vocal takes home.
For now, even if there were a lot of problems with drivers, I'm quite satisfied with my M-Audio FW1814, but as it is 10 years old now, I wonder if modern audio interface can bring me some improvement (specially for the converters quality, and for the preamps even if I will in the future use an external preamp). So I just wanted to know if for home vocal recordings, a Quad Capture could bring me some improvement comparing to an old FW1814, or if it would be better to save my money and buy later something like an RME interface

[zzzxtreme]

if you're happy with the maudio, don't see why you would want to change. perhaps, there's return policy for stuffs you buy where u are at ? then you can try. VS Preamp is apparently very flat and clean. so it can sound boring , but if clean and flat is what you are looking for, i think quadcapture is pretty good value. I'd check out the new focusrite i8 something-something too.

[Seventhson]

There a lot of great reviews about Roland Quad and Octo Capture, and as my M-Audio FW1814 is 10 years old now, I wonder if replacing it by a "modern" Roland Quad Capture would bring me noticeable improvements (specially for converters) or if it would be better to buy RME for instance to get a superior interface

[Ruby Claire]

I like its AUTO-SENS feature.

[bottlegardener]

Hi all,
Just wondering if Craig Anderton or anyone else had tried out the direct mix functionality when two units were connected together?
I have one Octa Capture and I find the live submixing functionality really handy (I use a Studer Mixer with relatively few inputs). It would be extremely useful for me to have 16-into-2 submixing capabilities. Is this possible with two Octa Captures?
Thanks in advance for any insight!
PS No issues here with 1.5 driver update (using it with Windows XP).