Let's talk interfaces

[Dave Bryce]

Okay, so I have this TASCAM DM3200 that acts as my main mixer, DAW controller and audio interface. It's time to replace it, I think.

 

I'm leaning towards an Apollo 8 as the first piece, with an Alesis AI-3 hanging off one of its ADAT ports to give me eight additional 1/4 ins and outs...but I'm not sure where I'm going to go from there. The SSL Nucleus looks like fun, but soooooo expensive...

 

I do need at least four XLR ins and outs. Not sure what I want to do as far as getting hardware processors involved, but there are some I probably want to keep (e.g. Bricasti M7). I could keep the DM3200 as a DAW controller if I want - they don't fetch much $$$ on the used market...

 

What are y'all using?

 

dB

[KuruPrionz]

I have the now discontinued Thunderbolt 2 version of the Presonus Quantum. I like it and I like the software that is included - Universal Control.

8 combo jacks - 2 on the front can also be switched so the 1/4 jacks are DI for guitars, basses, etc. Plus stuff I don't use (yet) on the back.

 

It is quiet, the preamps sound very good and have plenty of headroom. I drive a couple of channels with mic pres/channel strips into the mic channels and it works well.

 

This one.

 

https://www.presonus.com/products/Quantum

 

I liike it. They have a new version with all 8 jacks on the front, uses Thunderbolt 3.

[Mike Rivers]

The DM3200 is sort of like half a system that depends on the TASCAM recorder(s), which means that most outputs are pre-assigned to recorder tracks and there are few output jacks that can go to other places. That's the sort of thing that's keeping me from moving from my analog console to a digital one (I'll go exclusively in-the-box when it's the box they bury me in). They assume that your multitrack recorder is a computer. That's really not a bad concept, but I want to use my Mackie HDR as my recorder, so I need 24 inputs (to feed the recorder) and 24 outputs (for monitoring/playback). They can be analog, ADAT, AES3, or TDIF, but not USB-only.

 

I'm tempted by the PreSonus StudioLive current edition and I've been after them to make a 24-in/24-out line level analog to AVB. They make something along that line, but it has mic preamps in it and it's built as a stage box, not as an in-rack patchbay.

[Dave Bryce]

The DM3200 is sort of like half a system that depends on the TASCAM recorder(s), which means that most outputs are pre-assigned to recorder tracks and there are few output jacks that can go to other places.

Not so. A whole bunch of the outputs can be rerouted.

 

That's the sort of thing that's keeping me from moving from my analog console to a digital one (I'll go exclusively in-the-box when it's the box they bury me in). They assume that your multitrack recorder is a computer.

Mine is.

 

That's really not a bad concept, but I want to use my Mackie HDR as my recorder, so I need 24 inputs (to feed the recorder) and 24 outputs (for monitoring/playback). They can be analog, ADAT, AES3, or TDIF, but not USB-only.

If you have an interface with 8 ins and outs that also has two ADAT connections and you can find two AI-3s, you can have that. I have one AI-3 already, and that's definitely playing into my setup. The Black Lion folks can even mod the AI-3s if you want.

 

dB

[Mike Rivers]

whole bunch of the outputs can be rerouted.

 

There are plenty of streams, the problem is that there aren't enough holes in the chassis for them to get out to the outside world without another box in between like the ADAT-to-Analog boxes. But most of those are configured to add more mic inputs rather than more line outputs. There's always a way, but it's not as simple, intuitive, or flexible (with a decently planned patchbay) as having a console with a whole bunch of analog output connectors on the back.

[Joe Muscara]

FWIW, I know some cats who had racks of gear sitting unused because they're now totally in the box with UA stuff. Their plugs are that good.

 

I have the UA Arrow and it suits me just fine. I might like a little more processing power than it has, but overall it's a great unit and probably hits its target market perfectly.

 

You're way above my pay grade, dB.

[Dave Bryce]

The other thing driving me towards the Apollo is that I have a UAD account I haven't used in years - sold my card a while back, and never replaced it with any of their other hardware products so I haven't been able to use my extensive collection of their plugs. Getting an Apollo changes that.

 

dB

[KuruPrionz]

The other thing driving me towards the Apollo is that I have a UAD account I haven't used in years - sold my card a while back, and never replaced it with any of their other hardware products so I haven't been able to use my extensive collection of their plugs. Getting an Apollo changes that.

 

dB

 

A value added feature. Compelling. Just buy the Apollo, done.

[Joe Muscara]

If I had the money and the need, I would have bought an Apollo instead of the Arrow. If I ever upgrade, no question I'd get UA hardware unless things change significantly between now and then.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

whole bunch of the outputs can be rerouted.

 

There are plenty of streams, the problem is that there aren't enough holes in the chassis for them to get out to the outside world without another box in between like the ADAT-to-Analog boxes. But most of those are configured to add more mic inputs rather than more line outputs. There's always a way, but it's not as simple, intuitive, or flexible (with a decently planned patchbay) as having a console with a whole bunch of analog output connectors on the back.

And this is why folks still have consoles with a whole bunch of analog output connectors on the back... if they can afford them and have a place to put them. I dig the whole tape output/insert thing, but if you're recording in the box it becomes somewhat less of an issue... and this is from someone who still does a fair bit outside the box these days.

[Dave Bryce]

So, where I'm heading now is that I ordered the Apollo 8p, and I think what I'm gonna try and do it acheive the best of both worlds.

 

The Apollo has two ADAT jacks on the back. I want to use one with my Alesis AI-3 to get eght 1/4" ins and outs, and I think I'm gonna hook the DA3200 up to the other ADAT jack and use it for mic pres, interfacing with my other hardware effects (using the aux busses and inserts) and use the faders for DAW control.

 

Seems to me that might be a pretty decent solution. I do have a (Symetrix) word clock, so that shouldn't be an issue.

 

This way, I don't have t do anything to my Argosy console either...or try and get rid of the DA3200, which is worth around six cheeseburgers at the moment.

 

What do y'all think? Good plan?

 

dB

[Mike Rivers]

That sounds like a fine plan. It's nice when an interface provides room for expansion.

 

Will you have enough ADAT outputs left on the Apollo so that you can bring some channels back into the console for real hands-on mixing?

[Dave Bryce]

Will you have enough ADAT outputs left on the Apollo so that you can bring some channels back into the console for real hands-on mixing?

The Apollo has two. I'm gonna work more in the box though, I think. Been using the DM3200 for audio for years, now I only wanna use it as an input and DAW controller...so it will give me hands on control.

 

Today I'm actually swinging back towards the Cranborne ADAT500 for the second ADAT jack instead of the AI-3. Paired with the DM3200, it would radically increase my options.

 

Decisions, decisions...

 

dB

[Mike Rivers]

I'm gonna work more in the box though, I think. Been using the DM3200 for audio for years, now I only wanna use it as an input and DAW controller...so it will give me hands on control.

 

OK. I wasn't sure if the DM3200 offered a DAW control protocol like Mackie HUI or Mackie Control. As long as it does, it should still feel pretty much like a hands-on console

 

Today I'm actually swinging back towards the Cranborne ADAT500 for the second ADAT jack instead of the AI-3. Paired with the DM3200, it would radically increase my options.

 

More options is always good as long as you don't go overboard. That Cranborne rack is really cool, and gives you options you probably never thought you needed.

[Dave Bryce]

OK. I wasn't sure if the DM3200 offered a DAW control protocol like Mackie HUI or Mackie Control. As long as it does, it should still feel pretty much like a hands-on console

It does.

 

Today I'm actually swinging back towards the Cranborne ADAT500 for the second ADAT jack instead of the AI-3. Paired with the DM3200, it would radically increase my options.

 

More options is always good as long as you don't go overboard. That Cranborne rack is really cool, and gives you options you probably never thought you needed.

Just the ability to switch the signal going in an out of the processors from analog to ADAT bi-directionally is amazing. You can also use the analog i/o to intergrate external hardware processors, and cascade the 500 modules using the summing mixer.

 

The Cranborne folks want me to use their clock as the master. I have a Lucid genx 192, but I may try letting the Cranborne drive.

 

dB

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I'm starting to get closer to purchase time for an interface for my new home studio, so I thought I'd revive this thread and keep it going, and see what thoughts folks had here. I talked a bit about my needs and concerns in the thread about digital mixers, but I'll repeat them, and try to streamline:

 

-It's a one-room studio situation without a separate control room, so DAW control will often be happening from behind keyboards or drums rather than by a separate engineer. This and space considerations means I'm looking for something with a small footprint that can be controlled digitally/remotely as much as possible. I've decided against something with faders and knobs (and against integrating my unwieldy Mackie 8Bus console, which I've determined is just too big and bulky to be practical in the space).

-This interface will need to serve multiple purposes: a recording interface, obviously, but also as a standalone mixer for rehearsals, and the ability to run people's wedges or IEMs out of it, in addition to the usual headphones and studio monitors. In both recording and rehearsal situations, we're talking about having full bands running through this. So I'm looking for at least 16 analog inputs, and as many analog outputs (with separate mixes!) as possible (ideally no fewer than five).

-Because of the above needs, I looked into products like the Behringer XR18, which I love and is well suited for this purpose. But nothing I've found in the "digital live mixers that double as interfaces" product niche can record above 48k. That's not a problem for me most of the time, but I plan on doing overdubs for other people's sessions, and not being able to record at 96k will be an impediment to that. Plus, the XR18 while hooked up to a DAW has some workflow inconveniences -- it's clearly not designed to be primarily an interface.

 

As far as computer and DAW, I'll be recording in Logic on a 2020 MacBook Pro with an i7 processor and 32 gigs of RAM. So USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 interfaces are on the table, though obviously I can use a previous generation and dongle it up as well.

 

I'm not averse to spending some coin to get these things, but there are limits, and I'd love to keep under the $2k mark unless something will really make my life as a DIY recording musician easier/better. The Apollo and Apogee stuff is very nice, but I'm having a hard time justifying it above, say, the Focusrite Clarett line because of the MASSIVE difference in price. I don't want preamps that sound like shit, obviously, so I'm flexible, but I am a realist and I don't believe the biggest impediment to me making records I'm proud of in my home studio will be middling differences in built-in preamps in my interface. Feel free to agree or disagree vocally.

 

I mentioned the Focusrite Clarett because for the features I mentioned, a Clarett 8pre interface connected via ADAT to the Clarett OctoPre expander seems to tick all of my boxes. It can run as a standalone low-latency mixer, with hardware DSP effects, and tablet control for multiple output mixes which can be routed to the eight 1/4" TS analog outputs (since they're not XLR outs, I may need to get creative for certain monitor or IEM setups... not sure about others' experience). I'd get 16 analog inputs with the higher-end Focusrite preamps (rather than the cheaper ones in the Scarlett line), and at 96k I could still record 12 simultaneous tracks. And both of these units together would be under $2000.

 

So, all this said: are there other options I'm overlooking? Am I going about any of this ass-backwards? I want to get the most bang for my buck that I can; I'd prefer not to be feeling like my needs aren't met five years from now, but money is an object, so I want to be smart and creative about it.

[KuruPrionz]

-This interface will need to serve multiple purposes: a recording interface, obviously, but also as a standalone mixer for rehearsals, and the ability to run people's wedges or IEMs out of it, in addition to the usual headphones and studio monitors. In both recording and rehearsal situations, we're talking about having full bands running through this. So I'm looking for at least 16 analog inputs, and as many analog outputs (with separate mixes!) as possible (ideally no fewer than five).

I don't want preamps that sound like shit, obviously, so I'm flexible, but I am a realist and I don't believe the biggest impediment to me making records I'm proud of in my home studio will be middling differences in built-in preamps in my interface. Feel free to agree or disagree vocally.

 

I mentioned the Focusrite Clarett because for the features I mentioned, a Clarett 8pre interface connected via ADAT to the Clarett OctoPre expander seems to tick all of my boxes. It can run as a standalone low-latency mixer, with hardware DSP effects, and tablet control for multiple output mixes which can be routed to the eight 1/4" TS analog outputs (since they're not XLR outs, I may need to get creative for certain monitor or IEM setups... not sure about others' experience). I'd get 16 analog inputs with the higher-end Focusrite preamps (rather than the cheaper ones in the Scarlett line), and at 96k I could still record 12 simultaneous tracks. And both of these units together would be under $2000.

 

So, all this said: are there other options I'm overlooking? Am I going about any of this ass-backwards? I want to get the most bang for my buck that I can; I'd prefer not to be feeling like my needs aren't met five years from now, but money is an object, so I want to be smart and creative about it.

 

Recording a full band, you will need to have your monitor mixes all pre-conversion. The latency settings required to get non-glitchy recording will not play well as monitors, too much delay.

That is an important consideration, a feature you will want from your interface.

 

Even the least expensive options have pretty amazing preamps and convertors compared to a few years ago. Finding something with 16 mixable channels pre-conversion may take some research.

 

I have nothing bad to say about the Focusrite interfaces. I would suggest taking a look at MOTU and Presonus options as well and others if you stumble across them.

I've had good use out of both of the above brands and they both offer 8 channel systems with 8 channel preamp expanders and mature computer based control interfaces.

 

Don't be too wary of used gear, B-stock items or returns, sometimes bargains can be had. Both Presonus and MOTU offer free downloads of their interface software so it shouldn't matter if the deal you find does not include that.

 

Spending a little more time now may make you smile big later!!!!

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Recording a full band, you will need to have your monitor mixes all pre-conversion. The latency settings required to get non-glitchy recording will not play well as monitors, too much delay.

That is an important consideration, a feature you will want from your interface.

Yes, definitely the case. My research into the Focusrite has shown that it is capable of creating multiple input-monitoring mixes, which is also essential for using it as a standalone mixer. I've used the Apogee interface I have at the office this way as well. That said, I'm going to make triply sure it will actually function this way before I buy.

 

I've looked at some of the Motu and Presonus options and they have also been contenders. I'm still in the "shopping" phase, for sure, so I will likely do another round before committing, since I've narrowed down my list of needs somewhat since I started looking in June.

[KuruPrionz]

Before I bailed on Firewire (and my tired old 2008 Mac Pro), I had a MOTU 896 MKIII hybrid.

The software included Cue Mix and with that interface it had the ability to add reverb, compression and a vintage mic pre plugin to either or both the monitor mix/tracks to the DAW.

Monitoring could be zero latency, nice.

 

It was more than I needed for a small home studio but seemed really handy for a band recording situation.

 

I haven't done the research to know if Focusrite or Presonus offer effects in the monitor chain. Using a Presonus Quantum Thunderbolt 2 interface now and for my purposes the latency is tiny and not a bother.

I'm used to it though, others may find it disconcerting. I could go latency free but I don't see the need.

 

And, I always turn the latency up quite a bit when I am mixing. I have been making multiple copies of tracks so effects can flow in and out of the mix. It can get glitchy if you keep the latency at recording levels.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Worth mentioning, Motu does make a box that seems to nicely cover my "digital mixer with wireless control and advanced studio recording capability" needs: the Stage-B16 Stage Box.

 

Again, more engineered for live use at first glance, but it can record at up to 192k, and connects over USB or Ethernet (either of which require a dongle on my MacBook, but that's just the world we're in). I need to do a little more investigating about how exactly the networking functions, since I haven't done anything with AVB before, and ideally I have individual band members tweaking auxes over their mobile devices, but my early research makes it look very promising. Unlike most of the rackmount audio interfaces, control is entirely digital, no knobs or buttons for preamp gain or phantom power, which is a plus. Also, the XLR aux outputs will work with our in-ear setups more like the XR18 has been for our live shows. Really might be a contender.

[KuruPrionz]

That MOTU looks pretty awesome. I LOVE that all the audo connections are on the front. Much faster to hook things up.

 

I wonder if the mic pres can be re-configured internally to line level inputs? I don't see anything else wrong with it at all.

[KuruPrionz]

I take that back, USB 2 is kind of... 2013-ish?

It does work at least and nobody will be listening to the latency.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I take that back, USB 2 is kind of... 2013-ish?

It does work at least and nobody will be listening to the latency.

Yeah, I think I'd be using the audio-over-Ethernet connection if I went with that unit, honestly. It does say it can take line level signals, but of course I didn't realize right away that the inputs are all XLR, not the XLR/1/4" combo jacks I've come to take for granted. Not a dealbreaker, I'm usually micing amps for guitars and keyboards, and I have DIs for bass and guitar, but there's always at least one little thing...

[Mike Rivers]

That MOTU looks pretty awesome. I LOVE that all the audo connections are on the front. Much faster to hook things up.

 

I wonder if the mic pres can be re-configured internally to line level inputs? I don't see anything else wrong with it at all.

 

This is what I've been calling a "Mixer In A Stage Box," and there are a whole bunch of manufacturers making them. Behringer, Soundcraft, Mackie, PreSonus to name a few. Most, or probably all, use a mic preamp chip with digital gain control so they don't need to find room for another knob on each channel. Most use combo XLR inputs that become line level when you insert a 1/4" plug. The MOTU has a Pad switch that might bring it down to line level but I couldn't find any numbers on the web site.

 

You can put more channels through USB 2 than this sort of device usually has so there's no need to use a less standard computer interface. The AVB network can probably be used for computer audio I/O, but generally the intent is that you'll be using the box to expand a mixer, and a single Ethernet cable gets you a bunch of I/O to and from the stage, and that leaves all the line level inputs for your hardware effects (which you won't need because they include lots of that stuff in the basic mixer software).

[KuruPrionz]

I take that back, USB 2 is kind of... 2013-ish?

It does work at least and nobody will be listening to the latency.

Yeah, I think I'd be using the audio-over-Ethernet connection if I went with that unit, honestly. It does say it can take line level signals, but of course I didn't realize right away that the inputs are all XLR, not the XLR/1/4" combo jacks I've come to take for granted. Not a dealbreaker, I'm usually micing amps for guitars and keyboards, and I have DIs for bass and guitar, but there's always at least one little thing...

 

 

Switchcraft makes adapters if you don't feel like soldering or don't mind just a bit of soldering. I have a couple of female XLR to female TRS, you would need male XLR to female TRS. Typical Switchcraft, solid metal and designed to endure combat conditions - military spec.

 

Really just a quibble. I don't really see a reason to use anything other than the USB for recording. It's slow but the band will only hear it when you play back. USB 3.0 would have been much faster and same form factor.

 

Pretty soon I think we'll have Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 (D?) as more or less the same protocol and fast as lightning. The Ethernet connection will be fast so it's good.

[wraub]

For music- Focusrite 2i4.

 

For radio/voice- Presonus AudioBox iOne (it was $7 at a thrift store ).

[SamuelBLupowitz]

That MOTU looks pretty awesome. I LOVE that all the audo connections are on the front. Much faster to hook things up.

 

I wonder if the mic pres can be re-configured internally to line level inputs?

This is what I've been calling a "Mixer In A Stage Box," and there are a whole bunch of manufacturers making them.

My Sweetwater guy pointed me to a couple of other higher-end rackmount digital mixers instead of the Motu, including the Yamaha TF Rack and the Presonus Studiolive 32R. Great products, and the Yamaha in particular has a better feature set than the Motu... but again, no ability to record above 48k! I'm starting to feel silly beating this dead horse, like maybe I need to just pony up and daisy chain some interfaces with ADAT and be done with it, but a self-contained mixer that will also work smoothly as an interface is really much better for my use case, and I feel like I'm going a little crazy that these expensive, super-powered digital mixers can't work at the sample rates that my $120 Steinberg interface can. I understand converters and preamps add a lot of cost, so maybe it's the converters having to run at high sample rates that keeps more products like this from being available? Are my needs really so unusual? I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face, and maybe my priorities are out of whack (I'm open to hearing that, honestly) but I'm still feeling a little perplexed how difficult it is to get the amount of I/O I want in an interface that can record at industry standard sample rates. The Motu is still the only one I've seen.

[KuruPrionz]

For every solution, there is a problem.

 

ADAT offers it's own set of inconveniences, especially if you just want to use a DAW. The truth of the matter is that they've settled on 48k since it is the standard for video. Most of these contraptions are made for live performance and recording is the "handy extra goodie", it sounds like recording is a primary concern for you. If you need 96k for your customers, you need 96k.

 

Honestly, once everything is all set up and dialed in and the band members are comfortable and know how to tweak their own settings, there won't be much difference in experience doing what you want to do.

Once everybody has all the tweaking taken care of, the practice experience will be pretty simple.

 

Everybody will just be playing music and the recorder will be in the background, doing its job.

[Mike Rivers]

Yamaha in particular has a better feature set than the Motu... but again, no ability to record above 48k!

 

These are designed to be mixers (or accessories to mixers) for live sound, and while there are live digital mixing consoles that run up to 96 kHz sample rate, for the application, there's no compelling need for it. At a lower sample rate you can run more streams with the same processing horsepower, which helps to lower the cost. And of course these are low cost boxes because they have no hardware controls, so you're really only getting half the mixer, the rest being what you choose to use for the controls and indicators. It's one very cool thing to have every band member (on personal in-ear monitors please) be able to adjust his own monitor mix using a phone application. It's another thing to mix the full show from the house using a monitor and mouse.

 

Basically, digital consoles are designed for live sound, not for multitrack recording. I've been trying to find a digital console that I can comfortably use to replace my Souncraft analog console that I use with a hardware multitrack recorder. But, in addition to the user interface which I could probably learn to live with, most of the $3,000 or so digital consoles don't have enough outputs to feed the recorder tracks or to bring the recorded tracjs back in to the console for monitoring and mixing. The USB interface solves that problem if you're using a computer as your recorder, but that's not how I work.

 

I'm starting to feel silly beating this dead horse, like maybe I need to just pony up and daisy chain some interfaces with ADAT and be done with it, but a self-contained mixer that will also work smoothly as an interface is really much better for my use case

 

You're probably correct there. Perhaps the dead horse that you should be beating is the sample rate. There are plenty of good recordings made at 44.1 or 48 kHz. Higher sample rates are great for engineer satisfaction, and some plug-ins work better at 2x sample rate, but when it comes down to the final product delivered to the end listener, there's no real advantage.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Perhaps the dead horse that you should be beating is the sample rate. There are plenty of good recordings made at 44.1 or 48 kHz. Higher sample rates are great for engineer satisfaction, and some plug-ins work better at 2x sample rate, but when it comes down to the final product delivered to the end listener, there's no real advantage.

Yeah, as I've said, 48k is fine for my own sessions, but I do receive sessions recorded at 96k to overdub to from time to time, and I want to be ready for that as well. I could of course have a separate interface on hand to record at higher sample rates (since I only need the 16+ inputs if I'm initiating a multitrack session, in which case, I tend to go with 48k), but I'd rather have one core studio device that's ready to go for everything I need than hack a bunch of pieces together.

 

As I mentioned, I have a Steinberg interface that I could use for those overdubs, but it has two inputs, and I prefer three mics on a Leslie, so that's already another thing I'd have to upgrade.

 

So right now the Motu Stage-16 is still my front runner. Again, I don't want to be so focused on more inputs for less money that I'm selling myself short on sound quality... but without actually trying any of this equipment with my own music I don't really see any way to gauge potential sonic deficiencies (i.e. "live vs studio" sound, whatever that means) before picking something and buying it.

 

I should mention that I'm not trying to make super hi-fi classical recordings. Bands in a room, trying to make a Stax style record and capture a vibe or whatever. Again, as long as the gear isn't going to get in my way, I'm sure it will make me happy. But I'm anxious about spending a lot of money and then the gear, rather than my abilities, gets in my way!