# USB Audio Interfaces - benefits for playback only?



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Hi everyone. 

I've done a little bit of research on this subject, but most talk about how great a USB Audio Interface is for recording purposes and either mention playback in passing or not at all. What my question is... _what about USB Audio Interface for playback only - is there actually any benefit?_ Specifically for large simultaneous sample libraries playback. 

I'm primarily a Sibelius user (CPU specs below) and I run a massive orchestral template (mix 'n match libraries) that loads fine within 32GB ram with plenty left over. My issue is, latency.  For the last 2 years that I've had the system, I've been running it at 4096 samples (94.5ms latency) - yeah, not fun, but I've just been dealing with it to avoid pops, clicks, etc.. Not being an audio technophile, the thought never occurred to me (until recently) that a USB Audio Device might be a benefit for playback and allow me to bring down the buffer to something more reasonable like 128 or 256. The lowest I can get it typically is around 1024 (25ms latency) when using a small chamber ensemble template (a handful of instruments). 

Would something like a Steinberg, Focusrite, PreSonus, etc. usb interface box actually make a difference in my circumstance? Monetarily, RME is automatically out of the running for now. The other thought, was to update the CPU, RAM, and Motherboard, but this is more expensive than just obtaining a USB device.

I would be interested and appreciative to hear anyone's thoughts and/or feedback. Thanks!

_Custom built computer specs: _
_Intel i5 Quad 3.7Ghz (Haswell), 32Gb 1600 DDR3 Ram, Gigabyte z97M-D3H motherboard, 4 SSDs (1-OS, 1-Project, 2-Sample Libraries), using onboard audio, and Mac OSX Yosemite (for now) _


----------



## khollister (Jan 31, 2018)

Audio interfaces can definitely have an effect on latency in playback due to 2 factors:
1) The actual latency of the hardware
2) The efficiency of the driver (less CPU load)

There is a thread over on Gearslutz that ranks various interfaces on a factor that takes both factors into account. Unfortunately for you, RME is pretty much the winner, especially for USB. Why is RME a non-starter for you - price or something else?


----------



## mac (Jan 31, 2018)

@khollister Yeah, he mentions money. 

As far as latency improvements over built-in core audio, it's my understanding that you'd see minimal (possibly even worse), switching from built-in.


----------



## MarcelM (Jan 31, 2018)

composeravery said:


> Hi everyone.
> 
> I've done a little bit of research on this subject, but most talk about how great a USB Audio Interface is for recording purposes and either mention playback in passing or not at all. What my question is... _what about USB Audio Interface for playback only - is there actually any benefit?_ Specifically for large simultaneous sample libraries playback.
> 
> ...



an interface will give you a different and better latency. it is said that rme has best drivers with lowest latency but there are also other pretty good ones. the audio interface isnt the only thing which counts here. if you really want to run a huge template at low latencys you will need a more powerful computer.
steinberg drivers are pretty good btw actually and if its your first interface and you dont want to invest much money then you could go with the steinberg ur22 or with an audient id4/14.


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Heroix said:


> an interface will give you a different and better latency. it is said that rme has best drivers with lowest latency but there are also other pretty good ones. the audio interface isnt the only thing which counts here. if you really want to run a huge template at low latencys you will need a more powerful computer.
> steinberg drivers are pretty good btw actually and if its your first interface and you dont want to invest much money then you could go with the steinberg ur22 or with an audient id4/14.



Great! You have confirmed what I was thinking. I know that updating the system AND getting a coveted RME interface is where I'm heading, but for now, I was looking for a lower cost alternative that would get me by for a few more gigs.


----------



## Symfoniq (Jan 31, 2018)

I used to have a Steinberg UR44, and it was a solid interface. But my RME Babyface Pro has half the latency at the same buffer settings. If you need low latency, by the RME (buy once, cry once). Otherwise, something in the Steinberg's price range will probably be sufficient for your needs.


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Symfoniq said:


> RME Babyface Pro has half the latency at the same buffer settings


What are your buffer settings?


----------



## khollister (Jan 31, 2018)

Symfoniq said:


> I used to have a Steinberg UR44, and it was a solid interface. But my RME Babyface Pro has half the latency at the same buffer settings. If you need low latency, by the RME (buy once, cry once). Otherwise, something in the Steinberg's price range will probably be sufficient for your needs.



And based on the testing at GS, the Steinberg is significantly worse than the RME's as far as latency, so the benefits over built in may be marginal.


----------



## MarcelM (Jan 31, 2018)

khollister said:


> And based on the testing at GS, the Steinberg is significantly worse than the RME's as far as latency, so the benefits over built in may be marginal.



build in doesnt have asio drivers and i guess he is using asio4all? which isnt a real asio driver.

benefits over onboard audio in are there in latency and ofcourse in sound quality.


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Heroix said:


> build in doesnt have asio drivers and i guess he is using asio4all? which isnt a real asio driver.
> 
> benefits over onboard audio in are there in latency and ofcourse in sound quality.


I'm on a Mac OSX (Yosemite).


----------



## MarcelM (Jan 31, 2018)

composeravery said:


> I'm on a Mac OSX (Yosemite).



oh ok... didnt know u were using hackintosh. i do aswell 

usb audio interfaces will work btw just fine on hackintosh.


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Heroix said:


> oh ok... didnt know u were using hackintosh.


No worries.  . I custom build (and update) all of my systems - I just can't always afford to do that on the schedule I'd like, so I make temp updates until I can fully upgrade. Where I get hung up is computer audio technology and interfaces... for music production etc... this is a weak point for me as I'm not familiar with all that is out there and how its benefits or its pitfalls - hence, this post. Thanks for the feedback. 

I think I'm going to go with the Steinberg for now and if it doesn't improve anything... it gets returned. And I'll just have to tough it out until I can afford the RME stuff.


----------



## mac (Jan 31, 2018)

@Heroix What latency are you getting at 64 and 128?


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

mac said:


> @Heroix What latency are you getting at 64 and 128?


I can't set a 64 or 128 buffer samples. My system just spits out pops, static, and noise with the occasional note heard upon playback, so I keep the buffer at 1024 or higher, but typically it's at 4096 (94.5ms latency) in order to accommodate a typical score.


----------



## MarcelM (Jan 31, 2018)

i have connected my focusrite forte atm at my notebook and get:

8,3 roundtrip 3,5 output @64
11,2 roundtrip 5,0 output @128

this is what logic reports. my audient id22 goes lower if i remember right.
with onboard audio latencys are higher. not much, but they are.


----------



## mac (Jan 31, 2018)

composeravery said:


> I can't set a 64 or 128 buffer samples. My system just spits out pops, static, and noise with the occasional note heard upon playback, so I keep the buffer at 1024 or higher, but typically it's at 4096 (94.5ms latency) in order to accommodate a typical score.



Not you, @Heroix


----------



## mac (Jan 31, 2018)

Heroix said:


> i have connected my focusrite forte atm at my notebook and get:
> 
> 8,3 roundtrip 3,5 output @64
> 11,2 roundtrip 5,0 output @128
> ...



Using built in, I'm getting;

4,5 roundtrip 3,1 output @64
7,4 roundtrip 4,5 output @128

And I imagine the gap would widen as the buffer value increased. @composeravery Food for thought, so I'd recommend biting the bullet for a better machine instead!


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

mac said:


> Using built in, I'm getting;
> 
> 4,5 roundtrip 3,1 output @64
> 7,4 roundtrip 4,5 output @128
> ...



So, I "think" there is a disconnect to what I'm referring to. I'm also getting the similar latency numbers if I set my buffer at 64 (3.7ms) or 128 (5.2ms). However, that does me no good as I cannot playback at those buffers or latency. That's where my issue is... as soon as I set it for those buffers the machine poops upon playback. SO, my original question is... would something like a Steinberg, RME, etc. allow me to playback orchestral templates/scores at those buffers_ without_ the clicks, pops, noise, etc.? Because the heavy lifting is being done by the USB device interface and not the just the CPU.


----------



## MarcelM (Jan 31, 2018)

composeravery said:


> So, I "think" there is a disconnect to what I'm referring to. I'm also getting the similar latency numbers if I set my buffer at 64 (3.7ms) or 128 (5.2ms). However, that does me no good as I cannot playback at those buffers or latency. That's where my issue is... as soon as I set it for those buffers the machine poops upon playback. SO, my original question is... would something like a Steinberg, RME, etc. allow me to playback orchestral templates/scores at those buffers_ without_ the clicks, pops, noise, etc.? Because the heavy lifting is being done by the USB device interface and not the just the CPU.



depends how many tracks. what instruments and effects used etc.


----------



## mac (Jan 31, 2018)

No, (again just my understanding) if anything you will use more cpu.


----------



## composeravery (Jan 31, 2018)

Okay. That's what I thought. So, effectively, the audio interface is useless to me unless I'm recording instruments or playing midi instruments _into_ the system. For samples/software instrument playback purposes, it's not really helpful as something that processes the signal to help lighten the load on the CPU playing _out_ of the system. Thus, concluding that updating my system specs to the latest and greatest will likely benefit me the most. Would you guys say that's a fair evaluation? Appreciate your information and feedback! It's been very helpful for me to wrap my head around when a DAC is and is not needed.


----------



## jasperjames (Feb 1, 2018)

composeravery said:


> So, I "think" there is a disconnect to what I'm referring to. I'm also getting the similar latency numbers if I set my buffer at 64 (3.7ms) or 128 (5.2ms). However, that does me no good as I cannot playback at those buffers or latency. That's where my issue is... as soon as I set it for those buffers the machine poops upon playback. SO, my original question is... would something like a Steinberg, RME, etc. allow me to playback orchestral templates/scores at those buffers_ without_ the clicks, pops, noise, etc.? Because the heavy lifting is being done by the USB device interface and not the just the CPU.



With a faster interface you could play back at your current minimal buffer settings, but at a lower latency. Or, you could keep roughly the same latency you have now, and lower the buffer settings a bit with no clicks etc.. Is that what you're asking? I have a thunderbolt interface that registers output latency of 2.135s vs iMac built-in output latency of 10.375s - both measured using the same hardware sample rate and buffer size. I can reduce that latency by increasing the sample rate or decreasing the buffer size or both, but any of those three options increases cpu strain. On a Mac, my experience (limited though it is) is that a decent thunderbolt interface outperforms usb (even RME's touted usb numbers) in the latency department. Another option for playback only (does not perform analog to digital conversion) is to get a DAC. Could be cheaper than an interface since it performs fewer functions.


----------



## composeravery (Feb 1, 2018)

@jasperjames Thanks for that info. I touched on this in an earlier post - I think my best option is to just buy an Interface... try it out on my setup and see what results I do (or don't) get. I think it's going to be the only way to know definitively if a USB (or TBolt) interface has any impact with playback on my system. I suspect not, but I will share the results here.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 1, 2018)

Of course an interface will improve playback, I'm actually surprised you can play back that huge template with just your onboard sound. @jasperjames is correct about the Thunderbolt interface, they virtually eliminate latency (I love mine!). However, your i5 processor may also be part of the issue. Just try out an interface and see what happens.


----------



## synthpunk (Feb 1, 2018)

I think there are bots (not Chillbot) trying to get people to spend more on sample libraries and less on hardware.


----------

