Clock Speed Vs Core Count?

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

While it's true that there are no drivers written by RME for Linux, the difference between running a generic driver for a USB2 audio device vs a PCI bus connected device should be noticeable.

What I meant by the above is: RME pci driver on windows vs. RME pci with ALSA driver on linux. Not pci vs. usb2.

And the same goes for usb2: RME usb2 driver on windows vs. RME usb2 with class compliant driver on linux.

In other words, since RME isn't writing drivers for linux, there likely isn't any real benefit to owning an RME pci device when using it with linux vs. for example, using an M-Audio pci card on linux.

I recently passed up a very good deal on an RME device for that reason. I intend to fully move to linux, and it seems that an RME device would give me no benefit over any other device on linux. So no point in spending the extra money for an RME device over what I already have for use on linux. Windows is a different story, but Microsoft has gone off the deep end for my taste.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

In other words, since RME isn't writing drivers for linux, there likely isn't any real benefit to owning an RME pci device when using it with linux vs. for example, using an M-Audio pci card on linux.

That I totally agree with and it would take the failure of my M-Audio cards that won't die for me to then really consider buying the RME.

If my current cards were to fail though, the PCI card would be my first choice over the class compliant USB2, because in that duel I believe the PCI card would win.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

What's the contradicition you find? All the info I wrote is correct.

TB is better for large I/O count interfaces. USB2 works perfectly fine with well written drivers (-> RME) for up to 30 I/O or so, so there's no need to make the audio interface more expensive by having TB on it (because TB costs money for licensing the tech from Intel).

See two posts karbo posted after your post that I quoted. RME is "the shit", for good reason. So it's up to you to decide:

* how many I/O you need
* how opposed to USB you are
* do you want the best drivers in the biz or something else

C'mon dude, there's no reason to be obtuse/defensive about some conflicting statements. I can understand that what you meant to say isn't what you wrote, but what you initially wrote is objectively contradictory. You stated in the first post that Thunderbolt is "the best", then you stated that RME drivers are the best. I assume this means that there are plenty of thunderbolt options that can't compete with RME's latency, due to better driver implementation, even using usb 2.0. I get what you're saying now, but you understand that stating "Thunderbolt is the best" and then stating "RME has the best driver implementation" creates a conflict, you are negating the initial blanket statement regarding thunderbolt with a qualifying statement regarding RME usb options.

In any case, the Zoom Uac-2 sounds like a very affordable option with a focus on low latency performance over usb 3.0. Usb 3.0 is more convenient/affordable on the pc build side of things than thunderbolt, so that's a plus. I hope I've made it clear by now that latency is really all that I care about. Anything under the sun is going to be an upgrade in sound quality over my 16bit 48khz interface, so latency is really my only concern. Why spend $1000 when I can spend $300 for something that performs almost as good in the area that matters to me (latency)? I know this is an internet tech forum, I'd question my own sanity if there weren't people coming out of the woodwork to suggest something that costs 10x as much as what the op currently has, but I'm a cheapskate and I'll ultimately er on the side of saving $. The only thing that would convince me otherwise is hard data, measurements of interface latency. Unfortunately for all of us, such data seems to be very rare in the audio engineering community.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

What I meant by the above is: RME pci driver on windows vs. RME pci with ALSA driver on linux. Not pci vs. usb2.

And the same goes for usb2: RME usb2 driver on windows vs. RME usb2 with class compliant driver on linux.

In other words, since RME isn't writing drivers for linux, there likely isn't any real benefit to owning an RME pci device when using it with linux vs. for example, using an M-Audio pci card on linux.

I recently passed up a very good deal on an RME device for that reason. I intend to fully move to linux, and it seems that an RME device would give me no benefit over any other device on linux. So no point in spending the extra money for an RME device over what I already have for use on linux. Windows is a different story, but Microsoft has gone off the deep end for my taste.

Perhaps a little off topic, but just how useful is Linux for audio work these days? Do you encounter any issues loading vsts/plugins into Reaper? Any hardware driver incompatibilities with usb hardware controllers? Any downsides in general performance? It's now very likely that I'll need to dual boot OS', as I'll be using a singular machine for gaming and audio work. So I'm curious what the advantages would be dual booting Windows with Linux, rather than multiple copies of Windows.

[brainwreck]

Yea, after my experiences with pci, firewire, and usb, I would pick a connection type in that order, for best performance. It's too bad that device manufacturers have virtually ignored pcie in favor of usb.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Perhaps a little off topic, but just how useful is Linux for audio work these days? Do you encounter any issues loading vsts/plugins into Reaper? Any hardware driver incompatibilities with usb hardware controllers? Any downsides in general performance? It's now very likely that I'll need to dual boot OS', as I'll be using a singular machine for gaming and audio work. So I'm curious what the advantages would be dual booting Windows with Linux, rather than multiple copies of Windows.

First three songs from the link in my sig were done in REAPER for Linux.

It is a bit more cumbersome to get setup, but once the heavy lifting is done, it works pretty much just like REAPER for Windows.

When using all native Linux plugins, it's every bit as efficient as working in Windows, and on my old 2.66Ghz i5 even with a lot of bridged Windows plugins running in WINE, it's still very efficient, but not quite as efficient as running the same Windows plugins in real Windows.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

Yea, after my experiences with pci, firewire, and usb, I would pick a connection type in that order, for best performance. It's too bad that device manufacturers have virtually ignored pcie in favor of usb.

I always expected to see some really cool PCIe cards come out, but I think manufacturers believe it's better if customers don't have to open the case of their computers, and either not know what they are doing, or find out that they don't have the proper slot to put a card in. Slots in computers are frequently obsoleted too, so that surely plays into it. Almost all computers have USB ports, unless they are from obtuse companies who insist on being different.

That said, someone like me who builds every computer they use from hand selected parts, can still find and purchase a brand new 2018 Asus motherboard with the two PCI slots needed to support some old M-Audio Delta 2496 cards.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

First three songs from the link in my sig were done in REAPER for Linux.

It is a bit more cumbersome to get setup, but once the heavy lifting is done, it works pretty much just like REAPER for Windows.

When using all native Linux plugins, it's every bit as efficient as working in Windows, and on my old 2.66Ghz i5 even with a lot of bridged Windows plugins running in WINE, it's still very efficient, but not quite as efficient as running the same Windows plugins in real Windows.

Well, screw that jazz, unless there's some kind of benefit beyond getting rid of that pesky "activate windows" watermark on Win 10, I'm not going to be having another tango with Wine any time soon. Until the vast majority of fx and vst plugins are Linux native, and the vast majority of hardware is plug and play with linux, it will remain an intriguing curiosity to most people. If Cockos wants to get serious about linux support, they will develop a plugin and hardware compatibility system in house, which is probably a lot of work. I don't mean to sound too cynical, but building Reaper to be multi platform without native support for most plugins and hardware, it's kind of like building a house without a roof. It looks cool, and it's kind of fun to sleep under the stars sometimes, but then it starts raining and it isn't so fun anymore

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I always expected to see some really cool PCIe cards come out, but I think manufacturers believe it's better if customers don't have to open the case of their computers, and either not know what they are doing, or find out that they don't have the proper slot to put a card in. Slots in computers are frequently obsoleted too, so that surely plays into it. Almost all computers have USB ports, unless they are from obtuse companies who insist on being different.

That said, someone like me who builds every computer they use from hand selected parts, can still find and purchase a brand new 2018 Asus motherboard with the two PCI slots needed to support some old M-Audio Delta 2496 cards.

Yeah, I'd be all over a pcie solution, but an interface shouldn't cost more than a top of the line pcie graphics card... It's clear that there isn't enough demand for an affordable enthusiast/home studio solution, whatever is available is clearly meant for professional studios with some serious $$$.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Well, screw that jazz, unless there's some kind of benefit beyond getting rid of that pesky "activate windows" watermark on Win 10, I'm not going to be having another tango with Wine any time soon. Until the vast majority of fx and vst plugins are Linux native, and the vast majority of hardware is plug and play with linux, it will remain an intriguing curiosity to most people. If Cockos wants to get serious about linux support, they will develop a plugin and hardware compatibility system in house, which is probably a lot of work. I don't mean to sound too cynical, but building Reaper to be multi platform without native support for most plugins and hardware, it's kind of like building a house without a roof. It looks cool, and it's kind of fun to sleep under the stars sometimes, but then it starts raining and it isn't so fun anymore

In my case it's more like, I WANT to run Linux because it loads Intel microcode that mitigates Spectre for my CPU, AND it isn't constantly trying to harvest personal data from me.

That's my incentive, and that incentive is high enough for me to spend a bit more time and make it all work. I have five instances of Guitar Rig, several convolution plug with guitar amp impulses, Kontakt, EZ-Drummer, and other stuff all happening in that first song, and it all plays just fine, with no Microsoft snooping going on in the background, and no Spectre threat lurking in the shadows.

Not trying to sell anybody else on Linux, just those are my own personal reasons for going there.

[JSMastering]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Yeah, I'd be all over a pcie solution, but an interface shouldn't cost more than a top of the line pcie graphics card...

Why do you feel that way?

Honest question.

The computation side of video cards is extremely demanding (for rendering, including gaming) and even if the computation is easy, the data transfer is intense if you're running at a high resolution and color depth...there's a reason DisplayPort has a faster/wider channel than even most enterprise networking and I believe all current drive access protocols (DisplayPort 1.4 is 32+Gb/s compared to 6Gb/s for SATA3).

But, audio has other considerations with regard to analog design and clocking. Plus, the demands for real-time data transfers is quite different from things that can be calculated and rendered even a little bit ahead of time.

In short, there's a reason video cards have Gigs of memory (aka buffers) while sound cards tend to have buffers measured in samples (a few kbs).

In a gaming computer, I could easily see spending several hundred on a video card. On a rendering machine if I was working with 8k video or something, I could easily see spending a few thousand on something to make that task easier. And on an audio machine, spending a grand or so on an interface and a few grand on converters makes some kinda sense.

The weird thing is how easily diminishing returns kicks in for everything except channel counts.

The difference in conversion quality between a $100 AI/converter and a $4000 just converter is way smaller than the difference between a $100 and $500 video card. That part is kind of crazy to me.

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

The difference in conversion quality between a $100 AI/converter and a $4000 just converter is way smaller than the difference between a $100 and $500 video card. That part is kind of crazy to me.

Yea, I think conversion quality is probably the least concern for audio devices these days. The biggest practical difference between a low cost interface and a high cost one today is low latency performance and stability, which is essentially a software issue. But high cost isn't a guarantee for good driver performance, either. I think it's crazy that we are decades into all this computer recording stuff and it is still difficult to find audio devices with drivers that provide good low latency performance AND stability, whether the device is high cost or low cost. The current exception seems to be RME (at least on windows and mac) at a high cost - we're talking $900 for a pcie card that is stereo line in/out + single adat in/out. But even onboard audio using the WASAPI driver can perform better than most much higher cost audio devices today. Both low latency and stability should be expected by now, even for low cost devices. I think this is why something like ALSA is potentially a very good idea, providing open source device drivers.

[JSMastering]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

Yea, I think conversion quality is probably the least concern for audio devices these days. The biggest practical difference between a low cost interface and a high cost one today is low latency performance and stability, which is essentially a software issue. But high cost isn't a guarantee for good driver performance, either. I think it's crazy that we are decades into all this computer recording stuff and it is still difficult to find audio devices with drivers that provide good low latency performance AND stability, whether the device is high cost or low cost. The current exception seems to be RME (at least on windows and mac) at a high cost - we're talking $900 for a pcie card that is stereo line in/out + single adat in/out. But even onboard audio using the WASAPI driver can perform better than most much higher cost audio devices today. Both low latency and stability should be expected by now, even for low cost devices. I think this is why something like ALSA is potentially a very good idea, providing open source device drivers.

Maybe the world is different on Windows, but I've had much more positive experience than negative ones over the years.

For budget interfaces, I've used focusrite scarletts for a really long time for some things, and I have basically zero complaints. The 2i2 works great on OSX, Linux, and Windows without drivers for simple things, and it's easy to carry around. It's not perfect...but for a hundred bucks and something that trivially fits in a backpack, it's at least useful to have around. I've done location recording with it with zero complaints. It's stable with class compliant drivers, low enough latency for most things, and "good enough" on sound quality that it's rarely the limiting factor.

I honestly think it's not that hard...it's just hard to get a lot of "features" along with quality, stability, and low-latency.

I do remember having a horrible experience with an M-Audio FW interface. I was super-excited about it, and it never performed right. After not using it for years, I finally dropped it off at a recycling center last week, and it was nice to see it go.

[Patrice Brousseau]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I never record more than four simultaneous inputs, but with the awesome performance I get from a pair of ancient M-Audio Delta 2496 cards, if I were to get something to replace them I would consider this card that I have looked at about a million times.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...fall-hdsp-9632

I have one in an old Hackintosh (Mavericks) and it has a quite low RTL, good old card!

As for companies writing their own drivers: Zoom, RME and maybe Roland (BridgeCo made their old FireWire driver however). Other ones?

[antiClick]

Originally Posted by Taffer

The only thing that would convince me otherwise is hard data, measurements of interface latency. Unfortunately for all of us, such data seems to be very rare in the audio engineering community.

there is an old thread about that in this forum.... let me look for it

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by Patrice Brousseau

As for companies writing their own drivers: Zoom, RME and maybe Roland (BridgeCo made their old FireWire driver however). Other ones?

That would be nice to know.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

Why do you feel that way?

Honest question.

The computation side of video cards is extremely demanding (for rendering, including gaming) and even if the computation is easy, the data transfer is intense if you're running at a high resolution and color depth...there's a reason DisplayPort has a faster/wider channel than even most enterprise networking and I believe all current drive access protocols (DisplayPort 1.4 is 32+Gb/s compared to 6Gb/s for SATA3).

But, audio has other considerations with regard to analog design and clocking. Plus, the demands for real-time data transfers is quite different from things that can be calculated and rendered even a little bit ahead of time.

In short, there's a reason video cards have Gigs of memory (aka buffers) while sound cards tend to have buffers measured in samples (a few kbs).

In a gaming computer, I could easily see spending several hundred on a video card. On a rendering machine if I was working with 8k video or something, I could easily see spending a few thousand on something to make that task easier. And on an audio machine, spending a grand or so on an interface and a few grand on converters makes some kinda sense.

The weird thing is how easily diminishing returns kicks in for everything except channel counts.

The difference in conversion quality between a $100 AI/converter and a $4000 just converter is way smaller than the difference between a $100 and $500 video card. That part is kind of crazy to me.

Nothing objective, it's a subjective value statement. I value having a top o the line whizbang gpu more than I value having a top o the line whizbang audio interface card.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by antiClick

there is an old thread about that in this forum.... let me look for it

Is this a jab, did I miss something obvious?

[Taffer]

So I spent some time over at a friends place, he has an old M-audio Delta Audiophile 192, still running strong with a 2500k system. He opened up Revalver, and at first I wasn't particularly impressed, until I opened the settings window and I realized it was only set at 41khz and 256 samples (somehow he doesn't notice the latency). So I ramped it up and watched the latency drop. I hit 64 samples at 96000hz, the reading was less than a millisecond (probably higher total rtl) and I was blown away by nearly undetectable latency, it was almost perfect.

I didn't try pushing it higher (I think the sample rate tops out at 192), but I imagine it would have bumped up to 128 minimum block size at 192khz anyways. This performance from a 10+ year old interface card, that can be picked up for 50$ on ebay!!! All I can say is why is this not more popular, and where are the middle ground products? The options seem to either be ancient pci cards or an RME PCIE option at well over a grand. Modern boards seem to be dropping pci slots, but I don't have a good reason to ditch 1150/4670k anyways.

What's the downside of using a 10-15 year old pci card? Why are some of you considering replacing these old pci solutions with modern pcie options at $1000+? Input sound quality? Output sound quality? Has latency improved much at all? If someone went out and bought a brand new $300 interface usb inteface, and compared to an original msrp $300+ PCI solution, will there be upsides and downsides, or will the pci solution just flat out blow the modern usb devices out of the water?

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

What's the downside of using a 10-15 year old pci card?

You won't be as hip as the cool kids!

Why are some of you considering replacing these old pci solutions with modern pcie options at $1000+?

I would only consider getting an RME if my trusty old Delta cards went tits up. Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Input sound quality? Output sound quality? Has latency improved much at all? If someone went out and bought a brand new $300 interface usb inteface, and compared to an original msrp $300+ PCI solution, will there be upsides and downsides, or will the pci solution just flat out blow the modern usb devices out of the water?

If I were to buy a $300 USB interface, it would be this one, except they recently lowered the price to $250.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...phoria-umc1820

I am actually still considering *adding* one of those to my pair of Delta 2496 cards, specifically for drums. I wouldn't need to monitor through the device so latency would be less of an issue, but it would let me capture 8 channels of drums in one shot.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

You won't be as hip as the cool kids!



I would only consider getting an RME if my trusty old Delta cards went tits up. Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.



If I were to buy a $300 USB interface, it would be this one, except they recently lowered the price to $250.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...phoria-umc1820

I am actually still considering *adding* one of those to my pair of Delta 2496 cards, specifically for drums. I wouldn't need to monitor through the device so latency would be less of an issue, but it would let me capture 8 channels of drums in one shot.

I see, I left out one important metric that's not much of a factor to me right now...# of inputs/outputs. As an apartment dweller with an electric guitar, an e drum kit, and a usb midi controller, I don't give a toss about # of inputs. Usb 3, Thunderbolt, PCIE, they all have one thing in common, massive bandwidth and boatloads of inputs.

So it looks like I have a few good options. Some big names in PCI seem to be RME, M-Audio, Motu. Does anyone know what the last great M-Audio card was? Looks like there were a few, Delta 44, Delta 66, Delta 2496, Audiophile 192. Or perhaps it would be better to ask if there are any truly bad pci brands/products that should be avoided.

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

Maybe the world is different on Windows, but I've had much more positive experience than negative ones over the years.

For budget interfaces, I've used focusrite scarletts for a really long time for some things, and I have basically zero complaints. The 2i2 works great on OSX, Linux, and Windows without drivers for simple things, and it's easy to carry around. It's not perfect...but for a hundred bucks and something that trivially fits in a backpack, it's at least useful to have around. I've done location recording with it with zero complaints. It's stable with class compliant drivers, low enough latency for most things, and "good enough" on sound quality that it's rarely the limiting factor.

I honestly think it's not that hard...it's just hard to get a lot of "features" along with quality, stability, and low-latency.

I do remember having a horrible experience with an M-Audio FW interface. I was super-excited about it, and it never performed right. After not using it for years, I finally dropped it off at a recycling center last week, and it was nice to see it go.

Pretty much every report of measured roundtrip latency I have seen for lower cost Focusrite interfaces indicates that those things do not provide very good low latency performance. But they aren't alone by far. And it is one major reason why people are shelling out for RME devices at much higher cost.

But if we remember back not too many years ago, there were plenty of lower cost pci devices which performed much better than current stuff. 10+ ms wasn't looked at as being good performance with pci, but with usb, we are supposed to buy that is ok. I can tell you that it takes below 5 ms to make me feel ok with playing through an interface. And direct analog monitoring is better still.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

I see, I left out one important metric that's not much of a factor to me right now...# of inputs/outputs. As an apartment dweller with an electric guitar, an e drum kit, and a usb midi controller, I don't give a toss about # of inputs. Usb 3, Thunderbolt, PCIE, they all have one thing in common, massive bandwidth and boatloads of inputs.

So it looks like I have a few good options. Some big names in PCI seem to be RME, M-Audio, Motu. Does anyone know what the last great M-Audio card was? Looks like there were a few, Delta 44, Delta 66, Delta 2496, Audiophile 192. Or perhaps it would be better to ask if there are any truly bad pci brands/products that should be avoided.

You don't need massive bandwidth if you are only going to be recording one or two channels at a time. The cheepo Behringer unit I linked can be run as low as 32 samples latency, which is low enough to play through with virtual guitar amps. My Delta 2496 cards will only go as low as 64. The build quality will likely be better with other brands higher priced units though.

[JSMastering]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Nothing objective, it's a subjective value statement. I value having a top o the line whizbang gpu more than I value having a top o the line whizbang audio interface card.

Ahh. I don't really game, and while I have done some video rendering for school projects, I don't care to do it again in the future. So, I have no use for a video card.

The only reason I'm not on integrated graphics is because this computer was built as a hackintosh, and hackintoshes don't do 4k on integrated graphics regardless of whether or not the hardware can handle it. And when I decided to try out win10, I completely forgot that the i7 could probably do it. I should probably take out my super cheap rx560 and see if it works.

Originally Posted by Taffer

If I were to buy a $300 USB interface, it would be this one, except they recently lowered the price to $250.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...phoria-umc1820

Yeah...I can't see myself paying anything for Behringer. Maybe it's snobbery, but I don't think so. I had to deal with enough of that junk while I was doing live sound on no budget in college. Some of it worked, but it caused more problems than anything else.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

Yeah...I can't see myself paying anything for Behringer. Maybe it's snobbery, but I don't think so. I had to deal with enough of that junk while I was doing live sound on no budget in college. Some of it worked, but it caused more problems than anything else.

I'm on my second Behringer mixer, and it's not coz the first one I owned for 12 years blew up. I sold it with my previous slant top mixer rack that was to the side of my mix desk, and went with a smaller one that fits right in my mixing desk.



Is their stuff cheeply made? Yep! Do I care? Nope! If I were still selling time in my studio like I did with my 1" Ampex AG440B would I have that mixer? No freeking way, but the bang for buck is high with their stuff, and if that mixer in my desk were to blow up tomorrow, guess what I would instantly replace it with?

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

You don't need massive bandwidth if you are only going to be recording one or two channels at a time. The cheepo Behringer unit I linked can be run as low as 32 samples latency, which is low enough to play through with virtual guitar amps. My Delta 2496 cards will only go as low as 64. The build quality will likely be better with other brands higher priced units though.

One thing to keep in mind here is that buffer sizes don't mean much. What matters is measured roundtrip latency, because that is what a person will be dealing with when monitoring through a daw. And we have seen manufacturers fudge reported latencies at given buffer sizes, sometimes by quite a bit.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

One thing to keep in mind here is that buffer sizes don't mean much. What matters is measured roundtrip latency, because that is what a person will be dealing with when monitoring through a daw. And we have seen manufacturers fudge reported latencies at given buffer sizes, sometimes by quite a bit.

It's not going to be as low as a PCI card, or as low as an RME Fireface, but here's some guy with the even cheeper 4 channel version of the Behringer UMC404 (first link that came up in my search) getting 1.4/5.8ms using WDM with REAPER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWZE...=youtu.be&t=89

There is no doubt that you can get a better interface for more money, but the UMC404 that dood is using sells for $129. An internet acquaintance of mine had a Delta 66 that did blow up, and he replaced it with a UMC404. I asked him if the latency felt more laggy playing through amp sims, and he seemed to think it felt about the same. That said, I have NOT played with one myself, and would be keeping my dual Delta 2496 cards if/when I get the 8 channel version to use exclusively for my acoustic drums.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

Maybe the world is different on Windows, but I've had much more positive experience than negative ones over the years.

For budget interfaces, I've used focusrite scarletts for a really long time for some things, and I have basically zero complaints. The 2i2 works great on OSX, Linux, and Windows without drivers for simple things, and it's easy to carry around. It's not perfect...but for a hundred bucks and something that trivially fits in a backpack, it's at least useful to have around. I've done location recording with it with zero complaints. It's stable with class compliant drivers, low enough latency for most things, and "good enough" on sound quality that it's rarely the limiting factor.

I honestly think it's not that hard...it's just hard to get a lot of "features" along with quality, stability, and low-latency.

I do remember having a horrible experience with an M-Audio FW interface. I was super-excited about it, and it never performed right. After not using it for years, I finally dropped it off at a recycling center last week, and it was nice to see it go.

Recording latency isn't really an issue. Software can compensate for this even when you're playing over a pre recorded track. So if all you're doing is recording without real time vst's and fx, there is no reason to be overly concerned about latency performance. Someone here already covered this when they mentioned getting a Behringer interface to record acoustic drums. Latency doesn't matter when all you need is a boatload of inputs at a reasonable price for direct recording.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by JSMastering

Ahh. I don't really game, and while I have done some video rendering for school projects, I don't care to do it again in the future. So, I have no use for a video card.

The only reason I'm not on integrated graphics is because this computer was built as a hackintosh, and hackintoshes don't do 4k on integrated graphics regardless of whether or not the hardware can handle it. And when I decided to try out win10, I completely forgot that the i7 could probably do it. I should probably take out my super cheap rx560 and see if it works.



Yeah...I can't see myself paying anything for Behringer. Maybe it's snobbery, but I don't think so. I had to deal with enough of that junk while I was doing live sound on no budget in college. Some of it worked, but it caused more problems than anything else.

Lol, you quoted a post from Glen with my name

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

It's not going to be as low as a PCI card, or as low as an RME Fireface, but here's some guy with the even cheeper 4 channel version of the Behringer UMC404 (first link that came up in my search) getting 1.4/5.8ms using WDM with REAPER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWZE...=youtu.be&t=89

There is no doubt that you can get a better interface for more money, but the UMC404 that dood is using sells for $129. An internet acquaintance of mine had a Delta 66 that did blow up, and he replaced it with a UMC404. I asked him if the latency felt more laggy playing through amp sims, and he seemed to think it felt about the same. That said, I have NOT played with one myself, and would be keeping my dual Delta 2496 cards if/when I get the 8 channel version to use exclusively for my acoustic drums.

Hmm, that is interesting, maybe Behringer has some secret sauce going for another hidden gem. Most of their stuff is either mediocre or crap, but they've occasionally hit the mark seemingly through dumb luck, the Behringer Truths are a good example.

On the topic of these old pci cards though, I've realized there is a component missing...the mic pres. Are there similarly budget priced hidden gems that people are using for this purpose? I see some people using cheap mixers, but I've never had any luck getting a good signal to noise ratio out of my Peavey mixer.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Hmm, that is interesting, maybe Behringer has some secret sauce going for another hidden gem. Most of their stuff is either mediocre or crap, but they've occasionally hit the mark seemingly through dumb luck, the Behringer Truths are a good example.

On the topic of these old pci cards though, I've realized there is a component missing...the mic pres. Are there similarly budget priced hidden gems that people are using for this purpose? I see some people using cheap mixers, but I've never had any luck getting a good signal to noise ratio out of my Peavey mixer.

You saw the image I posted, right?

I bought one of these mixers to use with my Delta cards.

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-...12-input-mixer

And that was about five years ago when I sold one like this in a similar slope top rack, after owning it for about 12 years.

http://www.svs-online.co.uk/svs/hist...es/mx1604b.jpg

The mixer I sold is still in use on a 50 foot yacht with a pair of JBL EON speakers on stands. The dood I sold it to gets bands to play on his boat and supplies the PA for them to play through.

[brainwreck]

There are quite a few preamps available out there (low cost too), including any interface that will run in standalone mode (using an interface for it's preamps only).

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

You saw the image I posted, right?

I bought one of these mixers to use with my Delta cards.

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-...12-input-mixer

And that was about five years ago when I sold one like this in a similar slope top rack, after owning it for about 12 years.

http://www.svs-online.co.uk/svs/hist...es/mx1604b.jpg

The mixer I sold is still in use on a 50 foot yacht with a pair of JBL EON speakers on stands. The dood I sold it to gets bands to play on his boat and supplies the PA for them to play through.

Yeah that's great but you have to consider what these are typically used for. Cheap mixers these days are targeted at live sound applications, where S/N isn't as much of an issue and no amount of quality A/D conversion is going to overcome a big echoey auditorium. Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical of using cheap mixers for recording applications. Of course there may not really be any difference, I might just have drank the kool aid of the same industry that's pushing usb interfaces on everyone, only one way to find out

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Yeah that's great but you have to consider what these are typically used for. Cheap mixers these days are targeted at live sound applications, where S/N isn't as much of an issue and no amount of quality A/D conversion is going to overcome a big echoey auditorium. Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical of using cheap mixers for recording applications. Of course there may not really be any difference, I might just have drank the kool aid of the same industry that's pushing usb interfaces on everyone, only one way to find out

The Behringer MX1604A that I sold about 5 years ago was in fact one of the mixers they produced that pissed a lot of people off because it was believed that Behringer reverse engineered Mackies most sought out microphone preamps.

Since that time, Behringer has acquired Midas, and now uses Midas designed preamps on most of their products, like the UMC1820, and UMC404.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

The Behringer MX1604A that I sold about 5 years ago was in fact one of the mixers they produced that pissed a lot of people off because it was believed that Behringer reverse engineered Mackies most sought out microphone preamps.

Since that time, Behringer has acquired Midas, and now uses Midas designed preamps on most of their products, like the UMC1820, and UMC404.

Is there all that much of a difference though? Let's say I went out and bought a Behringer 4 channel mixer for 150$, and a Behringer 4 channel usb interface for 150$. Putting aside the fact that the pci interface card adds another 50$ to the cost (with the possible added benefit of superior latency), is the mixer likely to have inferior pre amps for recording?

You also stated that the Behringer usb interface's are hitting 5 ms rtl, which seems very uncommon for usb interfaces, let alone the cheapest brand of usb interface one can buy. I know I'm probably being a bit obsessive about all this, but it seems like hardly anyone is having the conversation, leaving newbies disappointed with their 100$ usb intefaces.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Is there all that much of a difference though? Let's say I went out and bought a Behringer 4 channel mixer for 150$, and a Behringer 4 channel usb interface for 150$. Putting aside the fact that the pci interface card adds another 50$ to the cost (with the possible added benefit of superior latency), is the mixer likely to have inferior pre amps for recording?

You also stated that the Behringer usb interface's are hitting 5 ms rtl, which seems very uncommon for usb interfaces, let alone the cheapest brand of usb interface one can buy. I know I'm probably being a bit obsessive about all this, but it seems like hardly anyone is having the conversation, leaving newbies disappointed with their 100$ usb intefaces.

As I've stated before, Behringer stuff is made cheaply, and that's why it's cheap to buy. The mixer I have in the racks of my desk cost me $199 when I bought it, but it was so freekin' cheap, if it quit working, I'd rush out and buy another one, coz I've gotten five years out of it so far, which works out to $40 a year.

As far as what it sounds like, it's a clean and reasonably transparent mixer. I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't liked my previous Behringer mixer. Prior to buying it, I had a $10,000 Ampex 1" tape machine and a $3000 16x8x2 Carvin mixing console, just like the main one Frank Zappa had in his mobile studio truck.



I'm of the opinion that the gear does not make you sound good. It's what you do with the gear that makes it sound like it sounds. Someone could have the absolute best equipment available on Earth, and still produce shitty sounding recordings. The best advice I could give would be to get something you can afford and learn how to use it.

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Is there all that much of a difference though? Let's say I went out and bought a Behringer 4 channel mixer for 150$, and a Behringer 4 channel usb interface for 150$. Putting aside the fact that the pci interface card adds another 50$ to the cost (with the possible added benefit of superior latency), is the mixer likely to have inferior pre amps for recording?

What you're worried about is signal to noise ratio. That is about preamp gain. In other words, how much gain the preamp provides in relation to the noise floor. I can tell you that many preamps are low gain, whether it be an audio interface or a mixer. When available preamp gain gets to around 60 db, you can record most things without too much noise. The quieter the source, the more preamp gain you need to get enough above the noise floor so that noise isn't a problem. And the less output that a mic has, the more preamp gain that you need to get the signal up above the noise floor. And if the source is quiet and the mic isn't very hot in output, then you need more gain from the preamp to get above the noise floor. 60 db is pretty ok. 70 db is much better. 80 db is ace. 50 db isn't so ok. 40 db kind of blows. So then, for the preamps that you are considering, how much gain do they provide?

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

What you're worried about is signal to noise ratio.

I'm not. I'm worried about getting my ideas recorded before I forget them.

That is about preamp gain. In other words, how much gain does the preamp provide in relation to the noise. I can tell you that many premps are low gain, whether it be an audio interface or a mixer. When available preamp gain gets to around 60 db, you can record most things without too much noise. The quieter the source, the more preamp gain you need to get enough above the noise floor so that noise isn't a problem. And the less output that a mic has, the more preamp gain that you need to get the signal up above the noise floor. And if the source is quiet and the mic isn't very hot in output, then you need more gain from the preamp to get above the noise floor. 60 db is pretty ok. 70 db is much better. 80 db is ace. 50 db isn't so ok. 40 db kind of blows. So then, for the preamps that you are considering, how much gain do they provide?

But are you planning to make music, or solve complex calculations?

OK, that is over simplified. Gain structure matters, but I think that unless you are recording for hire, it's too easy to get caught up in the minutia, and forget that recording music was the real point of buying some gear. The cheepo Behringer UMC1820 interface that I may pick up at some point is a -10 consumer output device, and not a pro +4 device, but I have no doubts that I could get the results out of it that I expect.

EDIT:

I looked up the specs, and the two hundred dollar mixer I use has the following series of numbers associated with it, but what I hear in the recordings that I make with it is what I tend to use as the measurement of whether I am really getting my $200 worth or not.

Noise
Main mix @ -∞,
-98 dB / -101 dB A-weighted
Channel fader -∞
Main mix @ 0 dB,
-85 dB / -88 dB A-weighted
Channel fader -∞
Main mix @ 0 dB,
-77 dB / -80 dB A-weighted
Channel fader @ 0 dB

[brainwreck]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I'm not. I'm worried about getting my ideas recorded before I forget them.



Are you planning to make music, or solve complex calculations?

OK, that is over simplified. Gain structure matters, but I think that unless you are recording for hire, it's too easy to get caught up in the minutia, and forget that recording music was the real point of buying some gear. The cheepo Behringer UMC1820 interface that I may pick up at some point is a -10 consumer output device, and not a pro +4 device, but I have no doubts that I could get the results out of it that I expect.

Sure. It's about the gear meeting your expections. But there are some very beneficial things we can get for very little additional cost.

Unbalanced is going to be more susceptible to noise. Balanced, much less so, because line noise is canceled. With a balanced circuit, the same signal is brought in on a pair of wires, but being out of phase with one another. But the noise on the line interfering with both signals is in phase. And when one of the signals is flipped to be in phase with the other, the noise interfering with that signal is phase flipped (becoming out of phase) with it, and the noise cancels. With unbalanced, none of that takes place. A single signal is brought in a a single line, and you get the line noise and all along with it.

Whether line noise is a problem or not depends on how much electrical noise is present in your environment, how long your cables are, and how your cables are routed. But with balanced lines, we need not worry about these things nearly as much. It's kind of analagous to recording at 24-bit vs. 16-bit. Most of us probably don't (and can't) take advantage of the full dynamic range of 16-bit, much less 24-bit. In other words, quantization noise at 16-bit is most likely well below the noise floor of our rooms and gear so long as we take near full advantage of the 16-bit dynamic range (recording near 0 dbfs). But when recording at 24-bit, we don't have to worry about getting our signals up near 0 dbfs to avoid quantization noise, because we have vastly more dynamic range to work with.

Point is, balanced gear doesn't cost much more than unbalanced. And 24-bit doesn't cost much more than 16-bit. But both are very beneficial to the end result. So then, it makes sense to take advantage of them.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by brainwreck

Sure. It's about the gear meeting your expections. But there are some very beneficial things we can get for very little additional cost.

Unbalanced is going to be more susceptible to noise. Balanced, much less so, because line noise is canceled. With a balanced circuit, the same signal is brought in on a pair of wires, but being out of phase with one another. But the noise on the line interfering with both signals is in phase. And when one of the signals is flipped to be in phase with the other, the noise interfering with that signal is phase flipped (becoming out of phase) with it, and the noise cancels. With unbalanced, none of that takes place. A single signal is brought in a a single line, and you get the line noise and all along with it.

Whether line noise is a problem or not depends on how much electrical noise is present in your environment, how long your cables are, and how your cables are routed. But with balanced lines, we need not worry about these things nearly as much. It's kind of analagous to recording at 24-bit vs. 16-bit. Most of us probably don't (and can't) take advantage of the full dynamic range of 16-bit, much less 24-bit. In other words, quantization noise at 16-bit is most likely well below the noise floor of our rooms and gear so long as we take near full advantage of the 16-bit dynamic range (recording near 0 dbfs). But when recording at 24-bit, we don't have to worry about getting our signals up near 0 dbfs to avoid quantization noise, because we have vastly more dynamic range to work with.

Point is, balanced gear doesn't cost much more than unbalanced. And 24-bit doesn't cost much more than 16-bit. But both are very beneficial to the end result. So then, it makes sense to take advantage of them.

Coming from a tape based background, I've recorded fairly hot throughout most of my time in recording. I stayed 16 bit so long people laughed at me, yet I was getting every bit (no pun intended) as clean and noise free recordings as they were. Only when disk space became ultra dirt cheap and CPUs became fast enough that none of that mattered any more did I finally switch to 24 bit. All using the very same cards as I have today BTW.

Most of the gear in my audio path is not balanced. My ancient M-Audio cards have RCA inputs and outputs, so the connection from my mixer to them isn't balanced. Neither is the connection from the M-Audio cards to my Samson C-Control. The only balanced connection I even have is from the C-Control to the main monitors, but all my cable runs are short.