# Audio Interface Recommendations



## dman007

Hi,

I'm looking to upgrade my Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 audio interface and would like any suggestions based upon user experience etc.

The budget is upto £500 GBP. Okay with Firewire, USB or Thunderbolt (up to TB3)

Preferences:
I would prefer an on-board MIDI IN but that's not essential.
On-board headphones socket and volume preferred.
Balanced outputs for 2 sets of monitors
Dim

Must haves: monitor/volume control, mute, phantom power, low latency, XLR & 1/4 inputs, XLR or Balanced TRS outputs

The main use is for in-the-box production using VST Instruments and sample libraries. Some music pieces have a lot of tracks (200+).

Looking for 2 key things: 1) something that can cope better than the Saffire with the type of work, e.g. solid drivers, large asio load, low latency, reliable, no dropouts/glitches

and: 2) Improved sound quality

Any help or advice appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## synthpunk

You may need to slightly up your budget a bit or look at used...

RME: Extremely solid drivers (most say the best), very good I/O, very good audio quality

Universal Audio Apollo Twin dual/quad: Solid drivers, features you have asked for, very good I/O, great plugins.

Apogee Element Series. Great integration with Logic, very good audio quality, several I/O configurations/models.

Audient ID22, Great preamps and converters, very good headphone amp, Latency can be a issue for some.


----------



## conan

RME for the drivers alone. If there’s anything that needs to be rock-solid (besides a pacemaker), it’s your audio interface.

I used a Fireface UFX for years until I replaced it with the new UFX+ for MADI support. I have never regretted stretching my budget for RME. As a bonus, the included TotalMix software is very powerful and offers tremendous flexibility when incorporating external hardware effects, compressors, etc.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

If you're not that fussed with UAD then this is worth a look
https://audient.com/products/audio-interfaces/id22/overview/
I must admit I do use a Fethead to give my SM7B some more gain but I do love my ID22


----------



## synthpunk

Its another very good choice if the poster can get away with 2 inputs. Added to list.



Kaufmanmoon said:


> If you're not that fussed with UAD then this is worth a look
> https://audient.com/products/audio-interfaces/id22/overview/
> I must admit I do use a Fethead to give my SM7B some more gain but I do love my ID22


----------



## Pier

synthpunk said:


> Added Audient ID22, Great preamps and converters, very good headphone amp, Latency can be a issue for some.



+1


----------



## thedigitalDog

And if you choose to give RME a try, I've got a nice offer here : 
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/fs-rme-babyface-pro.67076/


----------



## chillbot

I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.


----------



## PaulBrimstone

chillbot said:


> I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.


Ack, beaten to it by seconds!


----------



## MarcelM

audient id22 would be my recommendation.


----------



## jon wayne

chillbot said:


> I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.


Is that the one that's on all the hit records?


----------



## synthpunk

When is Behringer going to port over generic UAD plugins ?



chillbot said:


> I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.


----------



## SergeD

chillbot said:


> I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.



Do you mean that one ?
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-behringer-umc204hd.1658/

about the engineer and his technical skills...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-bit-about-your-host.1906/


----------



## trumpoz

Another vote for RME here.


----------



## dman007

Undecided between RME UCX, RME Fireface UFX Audio Interface or Apollo Twin MkII Quad ... any advice? 

USB or Thunderbolt? 

What's the best for working in the box and using a lot of virtual instruments?


----------



## bjderganc

If you're working with VIs only, good drivers may help with latency. The RMEs all have the same great drivers. I can unplug the BFP from my Macbook and go right into the PC without skipping a beat, which is pretty cool.

The Quad has drastically less I/O that the others. Do you need all of that I/O? Might want to check out the Babyface Pro, and more importantly read the features/specs in detail before dropping so much money. (!)


----------



## dman007

I only need 2 XLR/TRS in. 1/4" headphone out with volume essential. Need 4 balanced outputs for two sets of monitors. I need MIDI in & out but can use separate midi interface if needed. 

I'm currently on a Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 (firewire).

I'm interested in getting real-world experiences of these, especially when using a lot of virtual instruments in projects. I've found it hard to get this info just reading the reviews I found.


----------



## MillsMixx

I just upgraded from the Babyface to the newer Babyface Pro. RME has never disappointed and it's got a great loopback feature on that interface.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> I only need 2 XLR/TRS in. 1/4" headphone out with volume essential. Need 4 balanced outputs for two sets of monitors. I need MIDI in & out but can use separate midi interface if needed.



Have you had a look at these?

https://mackie.com/products/big-knob-series

It has multiple monitor output options, etc. I have the previous generation as my monitor selector, so I can't comment on it's performance as an interface but have heard good things.


----------



## dman007

I don't really want to consider other makes than RME, Focusrite or UAD, as I narrowed it from what my choices were before reading tons of reviews. The only other one I'd maybe consider would be the PreSonus Quantum or Quantum 2, but I'd need a good reason to consider that.

I used to use the big knob but I found it coloured sounds slightly and not in a way I liked. I switched to a passive monitor control by SM Pro (which helped a lot with mixing & mixes sounding good across different devices).

The Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 has been pretty solid, a good workhorse. So what I'm wanting to do is really upgrade from that, not lose any features, and improve sound quality.

I have need to record vocals and sometimes acoustic/electric/bass guitar, but only ever two inputs at once. I use midi in & out, but moreso midi in with my keyboard controller and sometimes an old synth.

But mostly, I'm in the box with VSTi's and VST fx etc.

Part of the appeal of the Apollo Twin MkII Quad is the UAD plug-ins. But, that aside, will it offer me any improvements in sound quality or otherwise?

And is there a benefit to using Thunderbolt 2/3 over USB2 when working with a lot of virtual instruments?

Does the driver quality and interface type help with the overall asio load? (That's always the bottleneck I find with my system, the asio load, not lack of RAM or processor speed).

I'm just in the box, so I'm typically using many virutal instruments and other VST plugins (even if they are only stock ones) at the same time.

Any advice welcomed!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> And is there a benefit to using Thunderbolt 2/3 over USB2 when working with a lot of virtual instruments?



Sorry if I missed it...but are you on PC or Mac?


----------



## dman007

PC


----------



## dman007

...and my main daw is Cubase


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Then the question is....do you have Thunderbolt 2/3 on your PC? If so, then you would definitely benefit, as you'd have virtually zero latency. Also, your interface has nothing to do with the sound quality of your exported audio. The sound quality advantages would be the converters (how you hear your sound coming out of the DAW) and the pre amps (if you're recording audio).


----------



## dman007

Yes, it has Thunderbolt 3


----------



## Bernard Duc

For your use USB2 should be almost as good as Thunderbolt. But it’s true that USB2 tends to have slightly higher latencies. But it’s not a big difference


----------



## dman007

I'd considered the babyface pro before but I'm put off by its form - I don't need it to be mobile, it will just sit on my studio desk. I'd prefer cables to just be at the back not all around taking up space. How heavy is the babyface pro? I like the sturdyness of the saffire I have, would be babyface pro be easily moved?


----------



## keyjam

I upgraded about a year ago to the Apollo Twin from a Saffire Pro 24 DSP, and was a little skeptical about not having the MIDI and using the UAD the plugins, but I consider it to be a big upgrade and have really enjoyed the plugins more than ever thought I would. Definitely high quality and I'd highly recommend it. I use Cubase also, no issues.


----------



## bjderganc

dman007 said:


> I'd considered the babyface pro before but I'm put off by its form - I don't need it to be mobile, it will just sit on my studio desk. I'd prefer cables to just be at the back not all around taking up space. How heavy is the babyface pro? I like the sturdyness of the saffire I have, would be babyface pro be easily moved?



It's got enough heft to stay in place. That said, the only way to handle the additional monitors you want is to use the headphone out (there are jacks, but they use the same channels), or optical. Outs 3-4 are unbalanced. Not ideal for your situation.


----------



## JeffvR

dman007 said:


> I'd considered the babyface pro before but I'm put off by its form - I don't need it to be mobile, it will just sit on my studio desk. I'd prefer cables to just be at the back not all around taking up space. How heavy is the babyface pro? I like the sturdyness of the saffire I have, would be babyface pro be easily moved?



Have a look at the RME UCX. It has everything you've mentioned, although it's a bit above your budget.


----------



## thesteelydane

chillbot said:


> I've heard you can get a pro Behringer for around $59.



I hope some day we will be able to get all Chillbot’s posts in a coffee table book. I’d buy that in an instant!


----------



## will_m

I recently went with RME, moving from Focusrite same as yourself. I've had big issues with getting TB to work properly and RME's support have been pretty useless TBH. The USB3 connection is good though.

I've found at higher latencies (typically what high track count projects need) that the differences between the RME and my old Focusrite are pretty small. It think your CPU will be more of a bottleneck if you're chasing higher track counts and more plug-ins.


----------



## dman007

Main pc system is i7-6800K, 4.2ghz, 64GB RAM, all SSD drives... I'm totally *not* sure what to go for :(


----------



## bjderganc

It's a shame that you need just those two extra outs, because that puts you at the RME UCX. With the ARC Remote that comes to $1779. Even the lowliest Apollos have the I/O you want. Not sure how their drivers are, but they're probably very good.

One thing you could do is use the RME BFP with a passive monitor controller.



will_m said:


> I recently went with RME, moving from Focusrite same as yourself. I've had big issues with getting TB to work properly and RME's support have been pretty useless TBH. The USB3 connection is good though.



Did you post on the forum? The engineers have always gotten right back to me.


----------



## will_m

bjderganc said:


> It's a shame that you need just those two extra outs, because that puts you at the RME UCX. With the ARC Remote that comes to $1779. Even the lowliest Apollos have the I/O you want. Not sure how their drivers are, but they're probably very good.
> 
> One thing you could do is use the RME BFP with a passive monitor controller.
> 
> Did you post on the forum? The engineers have always gotten right back to me.



Emailed support directly and posted on the forum, got some help from other users on the forum. Official support took over 2 weeks to reply, issue still isn't fixed (months later) and I think they've given up. Others on the forum have been reporting the same issue random distorted / bit-crushed audio. Mines just on TB with Win audio, can still use USB3 (which is working well) but wouldn't recommend RME so far.


----------



## dman007

What improvements would I see over my Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 with either the RME Babyface Pro or the Universal Audio Apollo Twin Quad MkII ?


----------



## Josh Richman

Are you considering Apogee?


----------



## dman007

Budget is £1000 max GBP


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Josh Richman said:


> Are you considering Apogee?



The OP is on PC, Apogee is not an option unfortunately.


----------



## bjderganc

dman007 said:


> What improvements would I see over my Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 with either the RME Babyface Pro or the Universal Audio Apollo Twin Quad MkII ?



Realistically, probably a more stable driver and slightly lower latency. If the current setup is problematic it might be worth it, otherwise... 

(^speaking from experience RME only, btw)


----------



## sostenuto

dman007 said:


> What improvements would I see over my Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 with either the RME Babyface Pro or the Universal Audio Apollo Twin Quad MkII ?



Great question and watching for valid, relevant replies ! 

I have used (2) Saffire Pro 14 for many years and they remain rock solid. 
My interest is updating one, or more, of (3) desktop, Win10 Pro, Reaper DAW, PCs. It makes sense to replace these older Audio I/Fs but solid technical gains are only reasons to move me away from Focusrite.
Like OP, I do not need several I/O, and really not top-end PreAmps.

For new investment, Clarett probably still makes sense, so 2PreUSB or 4PreUSB are my choices.
Can RME truly excel over Clarett and how?


----------



## bjderganc

re: latency and drivers - 

"Back in the day, achieving good low-latency performance usually meant installing a PCI-based soundcard. When manufacturers began to develop Firewire and USB audio interfaces, they all too often relied on third-party controller chips that were not optimised for fast, reliable audio transfer, and generic driver code that has achieved only mediocre performance. As a result, users found themselves burdened by high CPU loads, compatibility issues and audible monitoring delays that simply couldn’t be got rid of. RME were one of the few exceptions: *by developing their own controllers and code*, they not only avoided most of the compatibility problems that plagued rival interfaces, but showed that Firewire and USB 2 can deliver audio performance very close to what’s possible with PCI cards."

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/rme-fireface-ufx-plus


----------



## sostenuto

Clarett 4Pre USB is $600. What are 'technical' superiorities of RME … *TODAY* ??


----------



## dman007

When people say "Stable", what do they mean? How do you know if your audio interface / driver isn't stable? 

I don't have problems with the Focusrite Pro 14. But, if I was looking to upgrade, as per my last question, what would I be getting over the Pro 14 from the Clarett or RME or UAD, if only working in the box using virtual instruments ?


----------



## Michael Antrum

I have an Apollo Twin Duo (the older model) and I really, really, rate it. 

However do *beware*. UAD plugins are as addictive as crack cocaine.


----------



## X-Bassist

dman007 said:


> When people say "Stable", what do they mean? How do you know if your audio interface / driver isn't stable?
> 
> I don't have problems with the Focusrite Pro 14. But, if I was looking to upgrade, as per my last question, what would I be getting over the Pro 14 from the Clarett or RME or UAD, if only working in the box using virtual instruments ?



Not sure about the Pro 14, but my Focusrite 6i6 was giving me latency issues when doing large VE Pro sessions, but I like it otherwise. I looked at RME, but the cost was a bit above want I wanted to pay for a playback interface (700+ on sale).

But I did find this Zoom UAC-2 USB 3 interface for about $250 that did help with latency.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UAC2--zoom-uac-2
I have both interfaces hooked up and on sessions where the focusrite has to be placed on a 256 or 512 buffer (sometimes I can start a session on 128, but no lower) on the zoom I can often finish an entire song on 128, or even 64 (many times I start with drums and bass just to set it at 64 and go to town on my midi drum kit).

With bigger orchestral sessions I am often forced to go to the zoom to keep the CPU from having a fit and freezing during playback (or many voices drop out) even at a 1024 buffer. But the zoom is often fine at 256 or 512. I'm STILL thinking about trying an RME through thunderbolt to see if it's any better than the zoom, but for now I'm happy with how much this helps.

The software drivers play such an important role, I'm really surprised a company like Focusrite (know for top quality outboard gear in the 90's) could not spend serious time and resources on a custom driver that blows away the competition on latency. They would win over the marked if they can keep theoirinterface prices the same. RME targets the Post pro market (which is much smaller) so i understand why they have to get a higher price for their hardware.

I'm still waiting for that great, simple small, interface with an amazing driver streamlined for audio speed. But the Zoom UAC-2 is good for me atm.


----------



## Dewdman42

I ended up replacing all my MOTU hardware with X32-Rack as my audio interface and I absolutely love it.


----------



## dman007

These are what I am looking to improve my setup, and I'm trying to nail which interface would help achieve this over the Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 I have now ...

1. Want to be able to use more VST sample instruments and VSTi's at once 
2. (1) and with lower buffer sizes (working at 24/44.1 or 24/48)
3. (1) and (2) but in respect of VST effects 
4. Improved sound quality
5. Lower latency (generally)

DAW is Cubase (v7.5 - 9.5), on PC (Windows 64-bit pro).


----------



## Dewdman42

If you don’t need hardware mixing and fx or many ins and outs but mainly want low latency performance, I would personally go with one of the rme cards, which by the way also has midi


----------



## dman007

Dewdman42 said:


> If you don’t need hardware mixing and fx or many ins and outs but mainly want low latency performance, I would personally go with one of the rme cards, which by the way also has midi


PCIe ?


----------



## will_m

dman007 said:


> These are what I am looking to improve my setup, and I'm trying to nail which interface would help achieve this over the Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 I have now ...
> 
> 1. Want to be able to use more VST sample instruments and VSTi's at once
> 2. (1) and with lower buffer sizes (working at 24/44.1 or 24/48)
> 3. (1) and (2) but in respect of VST effects
> 4. Improved sound quality
> 5. Lower latency (generally)
> 
> DAW is Cubase (v7.5 - 9.5), on PC (Windows 64-bit pro).



I think you'd be better off spending the money on more CPU power, a new interface can help with that list but only to a certain extent. I'd also look at tweaking Windows fully for LLP.

For interfaces the new Focusrites are meant to have good LLP, RME are very good in that regard too, also the Presonus Quantums. Here's a handy comparison table:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=13368351&postcount=2186

About 6 months ago I was chasing the same thing and have concluded (after trying a bunch of interfaces) that there are improvements to be had but that they are probably not going to be the change you want. Specifically most of the improvements seem to happen at the lowest latencies for tracking. Higher up with lots of vsts etc the differences are less and here is where a beefier CPU helps more.


----------



## dman007

A PC upgrade is out of my budget right now. Current PC is Intel i7-6800K, 4.2ghz, 64GB RAM, all SSD drives. 
Budget for the new audio interface (if I get one) is £1,000 GBP.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> These are what I am looking to improve my setup, and I'm trying to nail which interface would help achieve this over the Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 I have now ...
> 
> 1. Want to be able to use more VST sample instruments and VSTi's at once
> 2. (1) and with lower buffer sizes (working at 24/44.1 or 24/48)
> 3. (1) and (2) but in respect of VST effects
> 4. Improved sound quality
> 5. Lower latency (generally)
> 
> DAW is Cubase (v7.5 - 9.5), on PC (Windows 64-bit pro).



Grab yourself a Stenberg UR22, it's a surprisingly good interface and very inexpensive and has nice pre-amps. It will achieve all of your requirements. With regards to sound quality, and interface won't achieve this...unless you are referring to the pre-amps for recording live. You'll be able to hear your mixes "better", but the interface has nothing to do with your exported files. I used a UR22 for many years alongside Cubase (on PC), it is solid. I now use an Apogee Element (Mac), but the UR22 is no slouch.


----------



## dman007

Wolfie2112 said:


> Grab yourself a Stenberg UR22, it's a surprisingly good interface and very inexpensive and has nice pre-amps. It will achieve all of your requirements. With regards to sound quality, and interface won't achieve this...unless you are referring to the pre-amps for recording live. You'll be able to hear your mixes "better", but the interface has nothing to do with your exported files. I used a UR22 for many years alongside Cubase (on PC), it is solid. I now use an Apogee Element (Mac), but the UR22 is no slouch.



I mainly work with VSTi's but sometimes record vocals. So, yes was referring to quality for recording, but also for the sound that's coming out of the audio interface to the monitors.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

The sound quality of the D/A converters in the UR22 is IMO very good. Not as good as a high end unit, but that's all down to each individual and is an eternal debate in that regard. And unless you have high end monitors, a pricey interface won't really have any additional benefit.


----------



## dman007

Wolfie2112 said:


> The sound quality of the D/A converters in the UR22 is IMO very good. Not as good as a high end unit, but that's all down to each individual and is an eternal debate in that regard. And unless you have high end monitors, a pricey interface won't really have any additional benefit.



I'm looking to get an upgrade the sound quality (and usage with a lot of VSTi's) over what I'm using currently. I had a mk1 UR22 at one point but found the Focusrite (Saffire Pro 14) to work better when using more VSTi's. I've had the Saffire for years now and it's only let me down once that I can remember. But, I have to mix with buffers at 768 or 1024 on mixes(@24/44.1)... it is quite old now and surely there must be improvements to be had on sound quality and latency over such a basic unit? I'm using Adam monitors as my main monitors.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

24/41? Kind of an odd combo, but still shouldn't be an issue. The amount of VST's you use is irrelevant, that's more of a cpu/Ram concern. if you HAVE the cash, I would personally go with the Apollo. Of all the interfaces I tried, it was a toss up between that and the Apogee (which I chose because of the Logic Pro integration).


----------



## dman007

Wolfie2112 said:


> 24/41? Kind of an odd combo, but still shouldn't be an issue. The amount of VST's you use is irrelevant, that's more of a cpu/Ram concern. if you HAVE the cash, I would personally go with the Apollo. Of all the interfaces I tried, it was a toss up between that and the Apogee (which I chose because of the Logic Pro integration).



Just to clarify... 44.1kHz/24-bit or sometimes 48/24 - occasionally 96/24. 

It would be good if there's an interface available that's not too expensive and that can work at 192/24-bit with lots of VST Instruments without sample drops, dropouts or making the system blow steam! 

I'm still not sure if I'd be gaining anything from an upgrade, other than something newer. Not really sure that's worth spending any money if there's no benefit. :-\


----------



## Dewdman42

as pointed out by others, the sound card is not likely to make any direct impact on the number of plugins you can use. A sound card will impact the following things, as far as I can see:


sound quality to the speakers
sound quality coming from mics and other analog gear
potentially lower latency for a given buffer size.
Driver efficiency and efficiency of the hardware can allow for lower latency buffer settings without dropouts.
As you lower the buffer setting in your host, latency will be reduced, but CPU usage will go up. If you're using a large buffer setting in order to have more plugins, I don't think a new sound card will have much if any impact on your CPU performance or ability to run more plugins. If your main goal is to have more plugins running, then as others have said, get more ram or a bigger CPU. If your goal is lower latency...then a better sound card might help, but that is partly constrained by a slow CPU also. 

Most modern sound cards are pretty darn good. Personally I think the main consideration should be more about the kinds of inputs and outputs it has or other features that are important to you, and sound quality.


----------



## dman007

Dewdman42 said:


> as pointed out by others, the sound card is not likely to make any direct impact on the number of plugins you can use. A sound card will impact the following things, as far as I can see:
> 
> 
> sound quality to the speakers
> sound quality coming from mics and other analog gear
> potentially lower latency for a given buffer size.
> Driver efficiency and efficiency of the hardware can allow for lower latency buffer settings without dropouts.
> As you lower the buffer setting in your host, latency will be reduced, but CPU usage will go up. If you're using a large buffer setting in order to have more plugins, I don't think a new sound card will have much if any impact on your CPU performance or ability to run more plugins. If your main goal is to have more plugins running, then as others have said, get more ram or a bigger CPU. If your goal is lower latency...then a better sound card might help, but that is partly constrained by a slow CPU also.
> 
> Most modern sound cards are pretty darn good. Personally I think the main consideration should be more about the kinds of inputs and outputs it has or other features that are important to you, and sound quality.



Not got the budget for a PC upgrade. I'm running a fairly beefy system as it is and I'm not really taxing the CPU or RAM. CPU usage isn't that high.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dewdman42 said:


> Personally I think the main consideration should be more about the kinds of inputs and outputs it has or other features that are important to you, and sound quality.



Sage advice. ^

Asking about latency specs is like asking whether a razor has three or four blades.


----------



## sostenuto

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sage advice. ^
> Asking about latency specs is like asking whether a razor has three or four blades.



Maybe get your point, but reading lots of relevant posts and they are starting to become unusable mush.

My scenario is not mainstream, but also not so fringy. Since I do not need more than 2-4 quality inputs /Preamps, and minimum in/out, I thought latency then became the next concern.
Current (2) Saffire Pro14(s) are doing fine, but imminent Win10 Pro Desktop PC Upgrade, will not be Firewire.
Focusrite has been rock solid, so was considering Clarett 2Pre USB or 4Pre USB. 
Maybe I misunderstand, but seems that RME has been held up as top choice, and Latency has been mentioned frequently. 
Are you stating that Latency is not the issue here ? The why would RME offer more than Clarett 2Pre USB?

PLZ NOTE!!! I am asking seriously, not disputing or critiquing.


----------



## jonnybutter

I love my Antelope Audio Zentour. The software can be fiddly, but it sounds absolutely great and has excellent plugins. Latency is imperceptible when you play through its plugins, and I am super picky about latency. It has lots of I/O, and even has 2 reamp outputs. A new one is just about £1000 ($1300 usd).

BTW, the 'fiddly' part is mixing-I/O app, not the drivers or plugins, and the hardware is rock solid and very easy to use. I can't imagine why they let such a half-assed piece of software out into the wild, considering how stellar everything else about the Zentour is - it sounds at least as good as anything else I've heard (UA, RME).


----------



## MrCambiata

Does it make sense to buy an RME Digiface USB only for working with virtual instrunents while traveling? It's very compact, and cheeper than a Babyface...


----------



## Michael Antrum

dman007 said:


> I mainly work with VSTi's but sometimes record vocals. So, yes was referring to quality for recording, but also for the sound that's coming out of the audio interface to the monitors.




If you record vocals, the Unison technology in the UAD Apollo is very, very nice indeed.


----------



## phil_wc

dman007 said:


> A PC upgrade is out of my budget right now. Current PC is Intel i7-6800K, 4.2ghz, 64GB RAM, all SSD drives.
> Budget for the new audio interface (if I get one) is £1,000 GBP.



I'm using the same cpu, ram, using ssd as yours. I just bought Clarett 4Pre to replace my Steinberg UR22mkii. To me if you mostly work on vsti. UR22mkii is better to my system. It produce less click pop sound than Clarett when using low buffer (about 256). Clarett is not that bad tho. I need 4 input so I bought Clarett.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

sostenuto said:


> The why would RME offer more than Clarett 2Pre USB?



I think it really comes down to driver stability and personal preference, both Fucusrite and RME have good drivers, and RME has a good reputation for this. One really needs to hear them in their studio setup to determine if there's any audible benefit. Also, it depends what type of I/O's you need. For example, the Clarett 2Pre USB has physical MIDI ports.


----------



## ironbut

I bought a used Metric Halo ULN-2+DSP back in 2008 and I've never been so satisfied with a piece of audio gear.
Great sounding and rugged. The software has kept up with OSX and the preamps are fantastic.
The software mixer includes some dsp but the +dsp option includes about 150 different effects which can also be combined in graphs and macros to form your own combinations.
Of course their eq and dynamics and channel strips are popular as plugins for mixing.

I think it was about 5 years ago when their interfaces upgraded to 2D which made a significant impact on the sound and connectivity.
The upgrade included a new circuit board and back panel with the new connectors.
The upgrade could be a field installation (diy) or factory installed. IIRC it was about $400.

I got an insane deal on one of their latest interfaces, LIO-8 and the difference in sound wasn't subtle. It is an 8 channel line in only and I added 4 channels of mic preamps (for another $350 I could add another 4).
I think the LIO-8 and the ULN-8 have been out for 4 years or so and a month ago there was an upgrade to the 3D which really like a whole new unit.
Instead of firewire which has be the primary computer interface, their is a USB-C connector and also what they call Metric Halo Link which is an eithernet connection.
High channel counts and ulta low latency.
There is also a new clock which improves the sound a bit (not huge but perceivable).
This upgrade was $450 (early bird discounted) and an easy install.
There is also a new panel you can add edge cards to increase I/O types (adat, spidf, aes, midi, or madi).

Needless to say, I'm a fan boy!
If you have the cash, these should be on your short list.
Almost forgot, the 3D will be cross platform once the software is finalized (still in public beta).


----------



## sostenuto

Wolfie2112 said:


> I think it really comes down to driver stability and personal preference, both Fucusrite and RME have good drivers, and RME has a good reputation for this. One really needs to hear them in their studio setup to determine if there's any audible benefit. Also, it depends what type of I/O's you need. For example, the Clarett 2Pre USB has physical MIDI ports.



Duuuhhhhh … THX for wake-up call!  
It's been so long since addition of both Saffire Pro14(s) and totally spaced out original need for physical MIDI port for Roland KR577 Digi Piano. Maybe need to keep (1) Pro14 just for that and use existing Firewire PCIe card to connect.

RME recommends are so consistent, it seems stubborn to ignore …. unless /until Clarett implements major new software /firmware with comparisons with RME ?

Regards


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

sostenuto said:


> Maybe get your point, but reading lost of relevant posts and they are starting to become unusable mush.
> 
> Are you stating that Latency is not the issue here ? The why would RME offer more than Clarett 2Pre USB?



I haven't A/B-ed the two, but all things being equal, higher-end interfaces simply sound better. They have better electronics surrounding the digital converter chips, and if they're not designed better, they cut fewer corners.

Or at least you'd expect that to be the case.

RME makes high-quality interfaces. The guy who does their engineering, I believe the head of the company, is really good. They've been able to boast excellent latency specs, and their drivers are solid. That was especially important in the early days of software sampling - their cards were the ones most people preferred for Gigastudio machines.

Now, I don't mean to say that latency isn't important, but as people have said, the big fish is how powerful your computer system is, and especially whether you have SSDs. A more powerful computer will let you work at a lower buffer setting; each setting usually increments up or down by 100% (128 vs. 256 samples for example), and that's pretty drastic compared to the driver (because all the drivers are fine these days).

Plus you're going from the keyboard over MIDI to the software instrument though your DAW to the output. And latency with a slow-attack sound is all but irrelevant; it only matters with sharp-attack sounds. Also, some people are more sensitive to latency than others.

The main thing is that the first thing a lot of musicians ask about is the latency spec. That's what marketing will do to people's brains.  What real men and women ask about is how good the interface sounds and what its features are - like how many ins and outs it has, how it connects (Firewire/USB/internal), what its monitor control features are, whether its mic preamps are good, what kinds of inputs and outputs it has...

Speaking of my favorite subject (myself), about 12 years ago I had several interfaces here for a big article. The RME Fireface was the third most expensive and it sounded the third best. But the differences at (then) the $1500 - $2000 level were extremely subtle.

I ended up choosing the Metric Halo 2882, which still kicks serious arse day in and out - and they just came out with a major hardware update for it that lets it connect by Ethernet, among other things. But its mic preamps don't have a lot of gain - I use a stand-alone one made by Millennia Media. 

The other choice was the Apogee Ensemble, which sounded fly poop better (and was more expensive) but has since been abandoned. So I made the right choice.


----------



## sostenuto

Nick Batzdorf said:


> *******
> RME makes high-quality interfaces. The guy who does their engineering, I believe the head of the company, is really good. They've been able to boast excellent latency specs, and their drivers are solid. That was especially important in the early days of software sampling - their cards were the ones most people preferred for Gigastudio machines.
> 
> Now, I don't mean to say that latency isn't important, but as people have said, the big fish is how powerful your computer system is, and especially whether you have SSDs. A more powerful computer will let you work at a lower buffer setting; each setting usually increments up or down by 100% (128 vs. 256 samples for example), and that's pretty drastic compared to the driver (because all the drivers are fine these days). **********
> 
> Speaking of my favorite subject (myself), about 12 years ago I had several interfaces here for a big article. The RME Fireface was the third most expensive and it sounded the third best. But the differences at (then) the $1500 - $2000 level were extremely subtle. *******



Thank-you for follow-up ! I'm getting clearer on careful attention to critical links in the chain.
New Desktop Win10 Pro PC will get even more focus, and then Audio I/F (s).
Sonic Halo ULN2 and RME will get very careful look shortly, when time to Update.

Regards


----------



## ironbut

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I ended up choosing the Metric Halo 2882, which still kicks serious arse day in and out - and they just came out with a major hardware update for it that lets it connect by Ethernet, among other things. But its mic preamps don't have a lot of gain - I use a stand-alone one made by Millennia Media.



The 2882 was the first Metric Halo I ever tried and it sold me on the company.
It has the 1st gen mic preamps with 42db gain.
My ULN-2 has the 2nd gen with 72 db gain and my LIO-8, 3rd gen with 91.5 db gain (which is a lot).
I still use my ULN-2 for recording sound design elements and digital transfers from tapes and vinyl.

I was hanging around with some mastering engineers when I was introduced to Metric Halo (Michael Romanowski and Paul Stubblebine) and they were using Sonic Studio's SoundBlade for mastering. At the time, SoundBlade was integrated into Metric Halo hardware (I never have been exactly sure how) but my LIO-8 is actually branded Amarra and includes all the dsp plus a SoundBlade mastering eq.
I also got a chance to have a beer or 2 with Joe and BJ Buchalter (the guys behind Metric Halo) at Stubblebines mastering studio and they are very cool (which is a real plus in my book).


----------



## danbo

I have the Apogee Element 46 and Focusrite RED4Pre. The RED is the best, there’s no setup I can reasonably come up with it can’t handle. I’m using Dante and love it. The Elements is the opposite; weirdly crippled. Both have low latency and are completely stable


----------



## dman007

How much should the type of interface be a consideration?

I'm always a bit concerned about USB with it sharing with other USB devices.

The Saffire Pro 14 has been very reliable for years, with problems I could count on one hand. It was not so when I had a Scarlett 2i4 for a while, which resulted in a lot more pops and crackles - and blue screens. I liked that the saffire was the only firewire device on the system, with that i/o method just dedicated to that.

I'm a bit put off the Clarett because of this and some other issues people have experienced that I read about when using Cubase.

That's one thing that puts me off the babyface pro a bit, that's it's USB2. The interface will always be in one place in my studio, don't need the mobile form factor, so I'm a bit put off by the mobile footprint of the babyface pro, the wires on different sides taking up space I need, and the MIDI breakout cable.

The UAD Apollo Twin Mk2 Quad has some attraction. But I only need to record vocals occasionally, so I won't be taking much advantage of those related features. So aside from the UAD plug-ins, what can it offer me for £1000 GBP over the Saffire Pro 14? I'm amazed there's no MIDI In on this interface.

I've noticed with Cubase that when you use plug-ins with quite a bit of latency (on playback), the asio load can jump up quite a lot with some of them. So if roundtrip latency is reduced by an interface with better, lower latency in general, surely that's going to help with the Asio Load (not cpu load) in Cubase?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> I'm always a bit concerned about USB with it sharing with other USB devices.



USB2 is solid, just make sure you have it on its own port, not on a hub.


----------



## Dewdman42

dman007 said:


> I've noticed with Cubase that when you use plug-ins with quite a bit of latency (on playback), the asio load can jump up quite a lot with some of them. So if roundtrip latency is reduced by an interface with better, lower latency in general, surely that's going to help with the asio load in Cubase?



No not much really. When you run at lower latency the cpu has to work harder to keep up. A low latency audio interface can run at a lower latency setting but you probably won’t use it at a low setting because of your cpu.


----------



## dman007

Dewdman42 said:


> No not much really. When you run at lower latency the cpu has to work harder to keep up. A low latency audio interface can run at a lower latency setting but you probably won’t use it at a low setting because of your cpu.



Some plug-ins carry a fair bit of latency with them, though... So surely, on playback (mixing etc), if you've got 30/40 tracks+ with VST plug-ins (tracks being VST instruments, audio, FX, busses/groups, mix bus) you wouldn't want a low buffer setting? Wouldn't there simply be too much processing to do with the lower settings (and thus dropouts/crackles etc)? 

CPU is i7-6800k @ 4.3Ghz (12 core)


----------



## Dewdman42

Latency from the soundcard and latency from plugins are two different things. 

Soundcard latency is mainly caused by the size of the audio buffer you choose to use. The smaller the buffer, the lower latency but higher crunch on cpu. If you use a larger buffer you get more breathing room for the cpu to do what it needs to do, so a larger buffer size will be lower cpu usage, but with higher latency.

The audio card itself can also have some built in hardware latency which you have no control over it. But the difference between one soundcard and another is often maybe 1ms difference in terms of that. A soundcard might have a more efficient driver then another which could lower the latency per the buffer, but again this difference between most soundcards is very slight. However what is important for you to realize is that your buffer setting has a much bigger impact on cpu usage. With a low buffer setting the cpu will be cranking more. With a high setting it will be easier in the cpu. An rme pci card is notorious for low latency which means take whatever buffer setting you need to use for all the plugins running on your cpu and maybe take a couple ms of latency off that due to soundcard efficiency. But if you have a large buffer for lots of plugins then you might be talking about the difference between say 15ms or 13ms in an rme, something like that.

But none of the above has anything at all to do with latency caused by plugins. Plugins with large latency add that latency REGARDLESS of what soundcard you use and in addition to the soundcard latency.


----------



## dman007

Dewdman42 said:


> Latency from the soundcard and latency from plugins are two different things.
> 
> Soundcard latency is mainly caused by the size of the audio buffer you choose to use. The smaller the buffer, the lower latency but higher crunch on cpu. If you use a larger buffer you get more breathing room for the cpu to do what it needs to do, so a larger buffer size will be lower cpu usage, but with higher latency.
> 
> The audio card itself can also have some built in hardware latency which you have no control over it. But the difference between one soundcard and another is often maybe 1ms difference in terms of that. A soundcard might have a more efficient driver then another which could lower the latency per the buffer, but again this difference between most soundcards is very slight. However what is important for you to realize is that your buffer setting has a much bigger impact on cpu usage. With a low buffer setting the cpu will be cranking more. With a high setting it will be easier in the cpu. An rme pci card is notorious for low latency which means take whatever buffer setting you need to use for all the plugins running on your cpu and maybe take a couple ms of latency off that due to soundcard efficiency. But if you have a large buffer for lots of plugins then you might be talking about the difference between say 15ms or 13ms in an rme, something like that.
> 
> But none of the above has anything at all to do with latency caused by plugins. Plugins with large latency add that latency REGARDLESS of what soundcard you use and in addition to the soundcard latency.



Hi, thanks for the reply. 

I'm just trying to find an article on the comparisons on latency between the RME babyface pro & some others (I'll try to find it).. but this vid shows there can be a reasonable difference in latency between these interfaces 

I was actually referring to the asio load in Cubase, not cpu load. These are not the same thing. In fact, on my system when the asio load is very high in Cubase, the cpu isn't being taxed that much, barely closing 24% (all cores are set to min. 100%). In Sonar (old X3 64-bit version), the asio load is much lower with VSTi's in general than Cubase 8.5/9.x. And that's really what I'm trying to find, an interface upgrade for use with Cubase where I can get more plug-in usage/power out of Cubase. I didn't get any better from the old Steinberg UR22, not tried the mark 2. Working at 96, I got much better performance and results with the Saffire. 

So would I get any benefit from the Apollo Twin mk2 Quad (aside from uad plugins) or the RME Babyface Pro? 

Would there be an improvement in the round-trip time with thunderbolt that might help? 

These are the stats in Cubase 9.5 - 24 bit 44.1 - buffer 128 :

https://ibb.co/gLtDZz


----------



## Dewdman42

Asio load, what is that? Driver load? Asio has to do with getting audio in and out of the software. Your cpu is involved. More plugins means more cpu and asio doesn’t touch your plugins but if both plugins and asio are using cpu then....

I suspect you need to run a larger buffer for all you’re plugins


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Dewdman42 said:


> Asio load, what is that? Driver load? Asio has to do with getting audio in and out of the software. Your cpu is involved. More plugins means more cpu and asio doesn’t touch your plugins but if both plugins and asio are using cpu then....
> 
> I suspect you need to run a larger buffer for all you’re plugins



^ this.

I doubt you need to run at 128, and really, the brand of interface will not have much to do with your latency issues. The RME and Apollo are both high end interfaces. Like I mentioned, even something like the Steinberg UR22 will suffice, it actually has zero latency monitoring. I used to run 150+ tracks while scoring top pic without issue on my old i7 2700k and Cubase 7. If you go Thunderbolt, running at 128 will be a non issue, but I doubt you really need to go down that road.


----------



## dman007

The top meter in the performance meter is supposed to represent cpu load. But it doesn't. On every system I've had since Cubase 7.5, that meter bears no resemblance to the actual CPU load and usage. When the real-time gets more than 85-ish, the sound quality starts to break (no matter what interface I've tried) and crackles and pops and dropouts soon follow (as expected). But it doesn't seem to take much to get there in Cubase. (see https://www.reddit.com/r/cubase/comments/86lhfd/cubase_95_asio_performance_vs_cpu_usage_in_win10/ 

But that top figure has never reliably shown the cpu load and support once told me it more represents the load placed across the whole "architecture". Just been looking at it now, project with 103 tracks, *lots* of plug-ins and virtual instruments. At 512 buffers, the top meter is at like 90% (I say like as there's no figure given on the meter). But on playback, the CPU max barely touches 22%. The meter drops below 50% if I change the buffer to 768 and even less if I go up to 1024. CPU usage is actually less, at 16%. This is a similar pattern to what I've always had with Cubase with different interfaces and PCs. Cubase ASIO meter going extreme whilst CPU relaxing in the sun! This is may more a Cubase thing... I got very different results with the UR22 than the Saffire... I'd like to know if there are particular interfaces that work better with Cubase.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Are you running your libraries from SSD's?


----------



## dman007

Wolfie2112 said:


> Are you running your libraries from SSD's?


Yes, NVMe o/s drive, all else SSDs


----------



## heisenberg

dman007 said:


> Some plug-ins carry a fair bit of latency with them, though... So surely, on playback (mixing etc), if you've got 30/40 tracks+ with VST plug-ins (tracks being VST instruments, audio, FX, busses/groups, mix bus) you wouldn't want a low buffer setting? Wouldn't there simply be too much processing to do with the lower settings (and thus dropouts/crackles etc)?
> 
> CPU is i7-6800k @ 4.3Ghz (12 core)



Not to stop you on your hunt for a new audio interface, but everything you say about your problem tells me that VEPro is the solution for your problem. If Cubase is brought to its knees with too many VSTs, you either turn off tracks in Cubase or use VEPro along side Cubase to route the VST / ASIO crunching to VEPro. You do not have to run a slave machine for the kind of track numbers you have mentioned. It will certainly do the job, however it comes with a learning curve and the stomach to deal with the extra midi and audio routing that is required for each track. In other words, if you tend to use the same instruments a lot or are willing to work this way, you should consider this approach to solve the actual problem you have with Cubase bogging down.


----------



## Dewdman42

so as you can see, larger buffer setting makes more efficient use of the CPU...thus all your plugins work without breaking sweat and much less likely to suffer audio dropouts. You want to use a larger buffer with so many plugins, there is not much way around that. 

Understand that at a simple level, the way DAW's work is that they have an audio buffer they use to interact with the sound card. Cubase will work away and attempt to fill up the audio buffer using whatever portion of cpu time they have available. Cubase has to share the CPU with Windows and many other services running on the system, so it only gets some of the available CPU time. Every time cubase gets some cpu time to crunch, it adds a little more to the audio buffer. Hopefully it fills the buffer up before the amount of time represented by that buffer has passed, because when that time has passed, the buffer gets sent to the sound card as one big lump sum, ready or not. If the buffer is not completely filled, then you have audio drop outs. If Cubase and your cpu are able to get it filled before the time is up, then no drop outs. Simple as that.

When the buffer is larger, there is more time, and Cubase gets more breathing room to use the CPU and get the larger buffer filled and everything is just more efficient, so that CPU is used less and everything is working less, rather than having to send smaller buffers twice as many times or more...one larger buffer at a time is sent to the sound card...its more efficient...but....that larger buffer means that much latency to the sound card.

Larger buffer means cpu works less and that means you can have more plugins working at a time to try to fill up the buffer... Its as simple as that...

Getting a fancier sound card will not improve your plugin performance one iota. It will make it possible for you to use smaller buffer sizes and lower latency, but your CPU will be working even harder then which means you will get dropouts even sooner with less plugins. 

As I said before you might be able to use a moderate buffer size, such as 256 or 512 and have a few ms less of latency then other cards if you buy an expensive fancy one, but I don't think a few ms is going to make much difference to you really. The only thing that will help you is making the audio buffer bigger. If the latency is just too bad (without any plugins) using 512, then a faster sound card might make it marginally less latent, but not very much. And if you have plugins adding latency of their own, your sound card cannot do ANYTHING about that.


----------



## Dewdman42

and I agree about Vepro, VePro is worth having a dongle.


----------



## dman007

Have I nothing to gain from another interface over the Saffire Pro 14?


----------



## Dewdman42

I'm not really familiar with that interface, but I don't think you are going to get higher plugin counts with anything else. If that audio interface already provides the features you need and sounds good to you, then I would not spend money on anything else. 

I have been using 15-20 year old MOTU audio interface for quite some time and it works just fine. I recently switched to X32-rack as my interface, which actually is slightly higher latency then the older motu gear, but has a lot of other features that I find useful. 

Basically you need to put up with latency when you have a lot of plugins, especially if any of them are introducing their own plugin latency on top of the mid-to-large buffer you need to have a lot of plugins engaged. If you need low latency in order to track one part in, then disable all the plugins you can while you record in the part, then go back to large buffer when you turn them all back on again. This is the hassle of working with a digital DAW there is simply not much of a way around it. You already have a pretty darn fast CPU and machine, but a buffer size of 128 is getting pretty small for all the plugins you want to use. You'll have to go to 256 or even 512 and there will be latency. Its possible that some PCI card like RME might make the latency at 512 more tolerable, you will have to check specs and talk to actual RME users to find out what kind of latency they get at 512 buffer size. But bear in mind that when you get lower latency, it still comes down to your CPU having to process all those plugins in whatever length of time it takes to fill the buffer...so...its still the same problem...if you have a lot of plugins, your cpu needs the time to do what it does..and an extra low latency card is simply not going to do much for you.


----------



## tack

dman007 said:


> The top meter in the performance meter is supposed to represent cpu load. But it doesn't. On every system I've had since Cubase 7.5, that meter bears no resemblance to the actual CPU load and usage. When the real-time gets more than 85-ish, the sound quality starts to break (no matter what interface I've tried) and crackles and pops and dropouts soon follow (as expected).


This type of thing is almost always explained metric resolution. Current CPU load is polled on an interval, let's say every 100ms if I'm being generous (it's not usually that frequent but it illustrates the point) and as you run closer to the wall, you significantly increase your likelihood of transient spikes hitting that wall which will almost certainly occur between CPU load measurement intervals.

Consider a 256 sample buffer at 48kHz: this works out to about 5ms of audio. This means your DAW's audio thread needs to keep a steady supply of data to that buffer every 5ms, and you could easily have a solid 50ms CPU spike that causes buffer underruns (manifesting as the dreaded clicks and pops) without even noticing it on your CPU meter.

Reaper addresses this by providing a couple extra metrics in its performance meter, notably RT longest block. RT longest block actually measures the _maximum _time the audio thread was waiting (on other processing threads) to get data into the ASIO buffer across some larger sliding window (15-30 seconds maybe?). If RT longest block exceeds your ASIO buffer (5.3ms at 256 samples) then your system isn't able to deliver audio fast enough and you'll almost certainly hear the clicks/pops, in which case you either need a bigger buffer, or need to get your system processing data faster (which in turn would just lower your overall CPU utilization).



Dewdman42 said:


> so as you can see, larger buffer setting makes more efficient use of the CPU


And so it's not _quite _that. It's just that larger buffers help to smooth over these transient spikes. But your CPU is no more efficient at processing the data.


----------



## labornvain

This whole thread is very confusing to me. I could have sworn I read that you, as a top priority, we're wanting 2 be able to have more VST Instruments running simultaneously. And yet you keep talking about plugins. Maybe it's just semantics, but usually plugins refer to effects and not VST Instruments. Now, I only point this out because they are very different things and require very different solutions to the problem.

If it is indeed your priority to be able to run more VST Instruments simultaneously, then a new interface is not going to help. A new CPU is probably not going to help much either. Your current CPU a 6800 X I think it was, is a pretty rockin CPU. What you really need is another computer, slaved using VEPro. I can't think of another thing you could do in your price range that could get you even close to the number of additional VST Instruments then running a Slave.

As for plugins, that's a whole other issue. But see, usually the only time you need that many plugins, is during mix down. And during mixdown you can crank your buffer settings because latency isn't such a critical issue.

But even here, the interface is not going to matter. Pretty much all that matters with effects plugins is CPU power.

So unless I've missed something, which is highly possible, it seems to me your best bet would be to look for a used copy of VE Pro or shell out the $350 that it costs, and buy a cheap gaming computer. I can't think of anything that would up your VST instrument count more than that.


----------



## heisenberg

labornvain said:


> If it is indeed your priority to be able to run more VST Instruments simultaneously, then a new interface is not going to help. A new CPU is probably not going to help much either. Your current CPU a 6800 X I think it was, is a pretty rockin CPU. What you really need is another computer, slaved using VEPro. I can't think of another thing you could do in your price range that could get you even close to the number of additional VST Instruments then running a Slave.
> 
> So unless I've missed something, which is highly possible, it seems to me your best bet would be to look for a used copy of VE Pro or shell out the $350 that it costs, and buy a cheap gaming computer. I can't think of anything that would up your VST instrument count more than that.



I don't think he needs a slave with that machine. It is astounding how much more VST/ASIO processing grunt you get with VEPro running *on the same machine*. He's got 64 GBs of RAM. VEPro and a bunch of time learning it will fix him up nicely. I reduced my audio buffer from 1024 to 512 when I began using VEPro on the same machine and I can run lots of instances of DRONAR, Heavyocity libraries, Phobos, etc in VEPro and my machine doesn't break a sweat. BTW my CPU is an overclocked i7 3930k, ancient in comparison to the i7 6800k being talked about here.


----------



## Dewdman42

tack said:


> And so it's not _quite _that. It's just that larger buffers help to smooth over these transient spikes. But your CPU is no more efficient at processing the data.



What I said is that a larger buffer "makes more efficient use of the CPU" which is absolutely true. I wasn't meaning to say that the cpu somehow magically processes data faster, but it will be used more efficiently yes and thus audio data processing WILL be more efficient.


----------



## dman007

labornvain said:


> This whole thread is very confusing to me. I could have sworn I read that you, as a top priority, we're wanting 2 be able to have more VST Instruments running simultaneously. And yet you keep talking about plugins. Maybe it's just semantics, but usually plugins refer to effects and not VST Instruments. Now, I only point this out because they are very different things and require very different solutions to the problem.
> 
> If it is indeed your priority to be able to run more VST Instruments simultaneously, then a new interface is not going to help. A new CPU is probably not going to help much either. Your current CPU a 6800 X I think it was, is a pretty rockin CPU. What you really need is another computer, slaved using VEPro. I can't think of another thing you could do in your price range that could get you even close to the number of additional VST Instruments then running a Slave.
> 
> As for plugins, that's a whole other issue. But see, usually the only time you need that many plugins, is during mix down. And during mixdown you can crank your buffer settings because latency isn't such a critical issue.
> 
> But even here, the interface is not going to matter. Pretty much all that matters with effects plugins is CPU power.
> 
> So unless I've missed something, which is highly possible, it seems to me your best bet would be to look for a used copy of VE Pro or shell out the $350 that it costs, and buy a cheap gaming computer. I can't think of anything that would up your VST instrument count more than that.



It's both being able to use more VST Instruments and VST plug-ins


----------



## dman007

heisenberg said:


> I don't think he needs a slave with that machine. It is astounding how much more VST/ASIO processing grunt you get with VEPro running *on the same machine*. He's got 64 GBs of RAM. VEPro and a bunch of time learning it will fix him up nicely. I reduced my audio buffer from 1024 to 512 when I began using VEPro on the same machine and I can run lots of instances of DRONAR, Heavyocity libraries, Phobos, etc in VEPro and my machine doesn't break a sweat. BTW my CPU is an overclocked i7 3930k, ancient in comparison to the i7 6800k being talked about here.



This is interesing to me.. how does it work on one machine? 

Could I get, for example, 200 VST instrument tracks (using samples), lots of plug-ins, plug-ins on busses/groups/fx tracks running okay like this?


----------



## labornvain

dman007 said:


> It's both being able to use more VST Instruments and VST plug-ins


Okay. Well, generally speaking, if you want more plugins you need a faster CPU. If you want more instances of kontakt, you need more RAM.

So with that in mind, it sounds like your best option is to go with a UAD interface so that you can load more plugins without having to upgrade your CPU since the uad has its own processor built-in. You can find a used Apollo on eBay for around $500 that will run a lot uad plugins natively.

Then, you can take your other $500 and buy another 64 gigabytes of RAM. The Apollo will sound great and give you lots of new plugin toys to play with. And the ram will buy you more instances of kontakt.


----------



## Michelob

I don't know if USB2 is a problem regarding big VST use. Here I'm using RME HDSP9632, PCIe connecting, which is really fast. No phantom though, but ADAT protocol. RME is really good.


----------



## dman007

The UAD plug-ins would be a good way to off-load some of the CPU processing. That is the only reason I've see to get the Apollo over the RME Babyface Pro. It's annoying there is no MIDI In on the Apollo. 

I'm in no way interested in upgrading the CPU, as no matter how high the Cubase Asio meter reports, actual CPU usage is not high at all, less than 20% on even the larger projects. There's one project where it occasionally hits 23%. 

My RAM isn't being hit that hard either (64GB). Usually around 40GB free on larger projects. Although, more RAM would not hurt, there's plenty going unused. 

I'm going to look into Vienna Ensemble Pro 6. But I still might "upgrade" the audio interface.


----------



## dman007

Michelob said:


> I don't know if USB2 is a problem regarding big VST use. Here I'm using RME HDSP9632, PCIe connecting, which is really fast. No phantom though, but ADAT protocol. RME is really good.


Being directly on PCIe, that's something I'd wondered about. The interface I use is on FireWire 400.


----------



## Michelob

I guess all those inputs are ok... Well in fact I don't even know if there's any difference, if any og them causes eventual bottleneck...


----------



## heisenberg

dman007 said:


> I'm going to look into Vienna Ensemble Pro 6. But I still might "upgrade" the audio interface.



You should at the very least before you jump into VEPro, watch the first video to see if VEPro fits into your style of working or if you are willing to adapt to it. VEPro is essentially an external MIDI/VST mixer where you route all (or most) of your VSTs (and possibly effects) outside of your DAW and them route them back in. In the process it alleviates the DAW of doing the heavy lifting in terms of computation.



Here is another one...



There are more than a few threads on VIC about this topic that you may wish to read.


----------



## dman007

I'm interested to see how much more I could get having VEPro on the same machine. 

If networked, assume you install the VST instruments on the slave? But where do the VST effect plug-ins get installed?


----------



## dman007

Very impressed with VE Pro 6 testing. Got a 388 track orchestral piece (all virtual instruments/samples) loading and running fine. Tons of plug-ins, groups, fx, and all on the one PC, no slave needed. Plenty of CPU power left over... RAM took more of a hit, might upgrade the RAM in the future to 96Gb. Playback glitch-free with buffers at 512. This product has unlocked so much power and potential.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> Very impressed with VE Pro 6 testing. Got a 388 track orchestral piece (all virtual instruments/samples) loading and running fine. Tons of plug-ins, groups, fx, and all on the one PC, no slave needed. Plenty of CPU power left over... RAM took more of a hit, might upgrade the RAM in the future to 96Gb. Playback glitch-free with buffers at 512. This product has unlocked so much power and potential.



Sweet, isn't it? Plus, if you leave everything preserved, it all remains loaded when close/open a new project.


----------



## dman007

VEPro has resolved most of the issues I had with the use of lots of virtual instruments and plug-ins. 

I'm still going to upgrade/update my interface, though, just to move on from FireWire and get an interface with better converters. 

Narrowed my options to...

UAD Apollo Twin Mk2 Quad (Thunderbolt)
RME UCX
RME Babyface Pro
RME RayDat (combined via adat with a Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 in stand-alone)

I was considering the Presonus Quantum/Quantum 2 but I've read a lot of people have had issues with pops/clicks and clock issues after recent Windows updates. There's even soomething about it on their website. 

I'm finding it hard to choose one that hits the spot within the budget. 

I'm not very keen on using a USB interface. In the past I had lots of problems with USB 2 interfaces. 
Had a Focusrite Scarlett interface and Steinberg UR22&44, all resulted in issues and blue screens. I've never had a single blue screen using the Saffire Pro 14. 

I also don't like the idea of something relying on consistent I/O sharing a bus with x other items. That's that I liked about FireWire, you could just have the audio interface on there, not sharing with anything else. 

In a way, Thunderbolt could by like that but I've read so many people having issues with Thunderbolt interfaces on PC under Windows 10. 

I have an ASUS X99-Deluxe II motherboard with the Asus EX3 Thunderbolt card. 

So this puts a question mark over the Apollo... will it work, how well will it work, will it be reliable? 

I think this would be my top choice IF I knew it was going to be okay, just because it would be an upgrade, newer converters, and a doorway into UAD plug-ins (which is why I'd go for the QUAD).

The Babyface Pro is a good price point but it's going to be used in one place and it's footprint with wires all around really puts me off. I don't need portability, plus I think this only has balanced outputs for 1 set of monitors. USB again, but perhaps mitigated by some of the best (if not the best) drivers out there.

The UCX... not sure, how old is the UCX now? Again, it's a USB/FireWire. Anyone got a UCX?

The last option is a bit different.. using the digital-only RME RayDat, direct onto the motherboard. But I'd have to then get a solution for the pre-amps, headphones and converters (was thinking of an interface with stand alone mode and ADAT... or other ideas??)

So, I'm really not sure which way to go?

Any ideas / advice / experiences?

Thanks


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

dman007 said:


> I'm not very keen on using a USB interface. In the past I had lots of problems with USB 2 interfaces.
> Had a Focusrite Scarlett interface and Steinberg UR22&44, all resulted in issues and blue screens



That's unfortunate, I used a UR22 for many years on Win 7 and OS without a single issue. I still wouldn't rule out a USB2 interface though, and if you're concerned about bus sharing, plug it into it's own USB port (not a hub). Regardless, You have some good options in your list.

Glad you like VEpro, it's a great piece of software.


----------



## dman007

Yes, the UR22 was more reliable than the Focusrite Scarletts I had. But I did have problems with the Steinberg too. I never used a USB hub. 

I'm put off the UCX a bit because of it's age (2012). I think if I went USB 2, I'd only be willing to go RME, though. 

I know there's the Apogee Element and a Motu model, but I don't know much about those.

There's no stand-out obvious one from my perspective, I've got concerns with all of them, which makes it hard, especially when parting with money!

I use Cubase mainly - not sure if any interface works better with Cubase than others. I've just got version 10.


----------



## dman007

Wolfie2112 said:


> That's unfortunate, I used a UR22 for many years on Win 7 and OS without a single issue. I still wouldn't rule out a USB2 interface though, and if you're concerned about bus sharing, plug it into it's own USB port (not a hub). Regardless, You have some good options in your list.
> 
> Glad you like VEpro, it's a great piece of software.



Just realised the Apogee stuff isn't for PC. 

But VEPro is great, can't believe how many VIs & plug-ins I can use now, and just on the same PC.


----------



## dman007

Not sure what I'd need extra going the RME RayDat way


----------



## Synetos

I use to run my whole setup on RME RayDAT. The main speakers were easy SPDIF/AES. But then all your analog preamps will need ADAT outputs. Plenty of those around, but I wanted something less fragile than ADAT. 

I had a UAD 4-710d, and connected that to the RAYDAT via adat. Then, my analog pre's I connected to the analog inputs on the UAD. That gave me a nice setup, but no way to control the pre's when I wasnt next to them

I sold all my analog gear and my RME Raydat. Now i run purely Digigrid IOX's over ethernet. I am so happy with this setup. Each IOX has 12 inputs and 6 analog outs. I have two in my studio. They sound great. I do not miss any of my old preamps.

With my soundgrid setup, my RT latency is about 4.8ms. That is working nicely. I ran my RME about the same, so no winner there, but I just love having one ethernet cable to connect everything.

My two cents...I would go with a solution that is ethernet...be it Dante, Soundgrid, etc.


----------



## dman007

re Presonus - aside from the number of i/o, any reason to get the Quantum over the Quantum 2 ?


----------



## Pixelee

I use a ucx and I don't have any problem since 2013. If you look at the rme forum, the employees responds to usb 2.0 being plenty enough of what we normally do. I'm on windows 10 and I never had any problems with the unit. The unit is good and the driver is rock solid. What is there to complain? Well, aethestic wise it could be improved.

Edit: I use to have windows 7 on my older system and never had any problems with it. I'm even considering the old babyface for traveling (can't afford that tiny new one from RME)


----------



## dman007

Pixelee said:


> I use a ucx and I don't have any problem since 2013. If you look at the rme forum, the employees responds to usb 2.0 being plenty enough of what we normally do. I'm on windows 10 and I never had any problems with the unit. The unit is good and the driver is rock solid. What is there to complain? Well, aethestic wise it could be improved.
> 
> Edit: I use to have windows 7 on my older system and never had any problems with it. I'm even considering the old babyface for traveling (can't afford that tiny new one from RME)



I work in the box and only with virtual instruments. So, *lots* of VST instruments, lots of plug-ins


----------



## Pixelee

dman007 said:


> I work in the box and only with virtual instruments. So, *lots* of VST instruments, lots of plug-ins



I use about 70 instrument tracks with 2 to 5 plugins per track. Blakus uses a ucx too I believe. I'm sure he uses more instrument tracks/ plugins than I do. But isn't that also depends on your CPU and ram?


----------



## ltmusic

Any opinion on Antelope discrete 4 ?


----------



## bill5

Wolfie2112 said:


> That's unfortunate, I used a UR22 for many years on Win 7 and OS without a single issue.


Yeah everything I've seen, heard etc on UR22s were rock solid. Ditto the newer Behingers for that matter...though neither sound like an option here.


----------

