# I just bought a cheap audio interface because I realized it doesn't matter



## robgb

A few years back I spent a couple grand on a Mackie Onyx 1640i firewire 16 I/O mixer as my audio interface. Overkill, perhaps, but I have to say I've loved this thing from the beginning.

Unfortunately, with the new Intel meltdown, Apple has apparently chosen only to offer a security fix for the latest version of OSX, and I'm still using Yosemite, which has served me well with only a few glitches. The 1640i is not officially supported for Yosemite, but it's been working great for me. That said, it's looking as if I'm going to have to upgrade to High Sierra, and I have a feeling the 1640i will become useless for me. Maybe not, but chances seem pretty good it will.

So I went hunting for new audio interfaces and really didn't want to spend another grand on one. I happened across a cheap ($30) little Behringer, the UM2, and realized that I already had one of those. I had bought it to use with Skype for an interview on a writing website (I'm a novelist by trade) because Skype couldn't find the Onyx, and it was currently gathering dust at the back of my desk.

Well, I plugged the sucker in and lo and behold, it not only worked perfect, it sounded pretty damn good. I recorded a couple vocals and couldn't tell any discernible difference between its cheap Xeynx preamps and the 1640i's "boutique" preamps. It's very quiet and doesn't sound brittle, as some people (probably competing manufacturer stooges or fanboys) warned. It also has very low latency on my Mac and includes a monitor button for zero latency while recording.

Unfortunately, the UM2 only records at 16-bit 44K and 48K, but I found that Behringer has a slightly higher end model called the UMC202HD, which has MIDAS preamps and can record up to 24-bit 192K. It cost me $59.

Let me say that again: it cost me $59.

All of this has made me realize that nowadays the "cheap" gear may not be as beautifully built and sound "quite" as good as the expensive stuff, but how much bang are you really getting for your buck when you buy high-end?

The bottom line really comes down to you. Your talent. Your ability to mix. Because the difference between low-end and high-end these days is often only discernible to twenty-year-old ears, and I passed that threshold a long, long time ago.

Let's face it, Jeff Beck could make a cheap CBS Fender Bullet sound like a Stradivarius, and while I'm not Jeff Beck, I think the Behringer is probably light years better than anything I was using when I started this crazy journey, back in the early eighties...

So I bought a cheap audio interface because I realized it doesn't really matter. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I'm convinced that it largely doesn't matter what audio interface you're using.


----------



## thesteelydane

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I'm convinced that it largely doesn't matter what audio interface you're using.



If you only work with samples I'd agree. But I record for a part of my living, and theres a very noticeable difference between my old Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 that I started out with, and the Apogee Duet I later got.


----------



## robgb

thesteelydane said:


> If you only work with samples I'd agree. But I record for a part of my living, and theres a very noticeable difference between my old Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 that I started out with, and the Apogee Duet I later got.


I work with guitars and vocals and I'm not convinced there's enough of a difference to warrant the difference in price. But if you have the money, by all means spend it. It helps the economy.


----------



## agarner32

thesteelydane said:


> If you only work with samples I'd agree. But I record for a part of my living, and theres a very noticeable difference between my old Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 that I started out with, and the Apogee Duet I later got.


I completely agree. I had a MOTU UltraLite and upgraded to a UAD Apollo 8 and it made a huge difference recording my 7 ft Mason and Hamlin piano. For samples I didn't notice a difference though.


----------



## vicontrolu

Next thing will be realizing recording at something greater than 48k doesn't matter either.


----------



## robgb

vicontrolu said:


> Next thing will be realizing recording at something greater than 48k doesn't matter either.


It probably doesn't, but old beliefs die hard. I suspect, however, that 24-bit is better than 16-bit.


----------



## Ashermusic

I am NOT convinced that it doesn't matter. It depends on what you need it to do. 

For years I had an RME HDSPe-AIO, which is a nice audio interface, that I sold to Quasar. I bought an Apogee Element 24, not expensive, but not dirt cheap, although I got a good deal because I reviewed it.

When I recorded my pop album "Honestly" this year, I compared the mic pre with the two I owned and was surprised how much clearer and more transparent it was. I thought I would have to buy another mic-pre and with this, I did not. When it came time to mix, I heard some detail from the D/A converters, reverb tails, etc. that I don't believe I would have heard from the HDSPe-AIO.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> I bought an Apogee Element 24, not expensive, but not dirt cheap


Hmmm. $600 vs. $59. I wonder how many people who listen to your album can tell the difference...


----------



## rrichard63

I agree with the folks who are saying that whether or not the differences in audio fidelity matter depends on what you are recording. But I would add that we also need to consider stability and compatibility -- which are mostly a matter of software drivers rather than hardware. I've been having really good luck with RME and Focusrite, which I attribute (rightly or wrongly) to rock solid drivers, and mixer software with useful features like loopback. Whether incidentally or not, both are Firewire units. And whether incidentally or not, I had problems with several USB interfaces in the past.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> Hmmm. $600 vs. $59. I wonder how many people who listen to your album can tell the difference...




If they can't, I almost hope they don't listen to it

Seriously though, the important thing is it made a big difference for _me_ in the creation of the music. It helped me turn out an album that I am proud of and I do not believe that would have happened as much with even my previous audio interface and mic-pre, never mind a $59 one.

And yes, stability (and latency) matter a lot to me and they were really good with both my RME AND my Apogee.


----------



## thesteelydane

robgb said:


> I work with guitars and vocals and I'm not convinced there's enough of a difference to warrant the difference in price. But if you have the money, by all means spend it. It helps the economy.


I would love if I didn’t have to spend that much money, but its not about that. The Focusrite sounds harsh and thin compared to the Apogee, but even if it didn’t, the difference in noise floor is noticeable to anyone. If I was recording guitar amps I suspect the difference would be unnoticeable, but I don’t, I record delicate string arrangements, and when you start stacking tracks the difference in quality of both sound and noise floor multiplies.


----------



## robgb

rrichard63 said:


> And whether incidentally or not, I had problems with several USB interfaces in the past.


I haven't used the Behringer USB interface on my Windows rig, yet. That could be a different story, of course. But I don't normally record on Windows. I used to, but dealing with ASIO and other drivers just became too much of a pain in the ass. Probably far less so these days, but still. So take everything I've said with a grain of salt if you're a Windows user.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> If they can't, I almost hope they don't listen to it


You just shut out the majority of the music listening population. Most of whom probably think I hired an orchestra for my string backups...


----------



## robgb

thesteelydane said:


> If I was recording guitar amps I suspect the difference would be unnoticeable, but I don’t, I record delicate string arrangements, and when you start stacking tracks the difference in quality of both sound and noise floor multiplies.


Fair enough.


----------



## chillbot

robgb said:


> Most of whom probably think I hired an orchestra for my string backups...


Let's hear it.


----------



## wst3

robgb said:


> Hmmm. $600 vs. $59. I wonder how many people who listen to your album can tell the difference...




THIS!

You need to decide whether you are recording/producing music for everyone, or for a discerning few, or for yourself. And if the later, whether or not striving for the best is worth the price tag.

I no longer have a purpose built studio, not sure when I'll be able to build the next one, but I can still hear differences between gear, between plugins, and as long as I can hear a difference I'm going to choose the one l like better. (note I did not say the better one, although that probably does apply in some cases.)

When did we stop striving for the best we can do? I think that's what bothers me, not the plethora of poorly recorded music.

My current rig is no where near state of the art, and if I substitute better gear I can't hear the difference, so that's where I stop. But I can hear the difference between my gear and most of the sub $100 stuff that is all over the place these days.

Using an inexpensive audio interface will, eventually, limit you. It may not matter if you plan to distribute data compressed files, or if you know your audiences is listening on ear buds, or laptop speakers. But saying it doesn't matter seems to me disingenuous.

Maybe I'm the one that should be shouting "get off my lawn"?


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> but how much bang are you really getting for your buck when you buy high-end?



That's an excellent observation. The law of diminishing returns applies to recording equipment. Let's say you have $250 worth of recording equipment. If you upgrade to $2,500 worth of equipment, your audio quality might improve 10%. But if you upgrade from $2,500 worth of equipment to $250,000 worth of equipment, your audio quality might only improve another 5%. That 5% is unattainable to all but the biggest studios, but that's generally OK because the average person cannot discern that 5%.

What the average person _can_ discern, though, is the difference between good and bad engineering & mixing. A well-produced song on $250 worth of equipment will _always_ top a poorly-produced song on $250,000 worth of equipment. In either scenario, if someone swapped out their audio interface for a Behringer UMC202HD, the difference would be negligible, because everything else -- the room, the mic, the compressors, the effects, the DAW, and the engineer -- would remain the same. The only person likely to notice the difference would be the engineer.

We engineers can (usually) hear the minute differences between low-end gear and high-end gear, and even though those differences are rarely discernible to the average listener, what we strive for is the cumulative improvement in audio we get by upgrading our recording chain, piece by piece, until we're satisfied we've reached that level in the law of diminishing returns where the only thing left that can improve our music production is us.


----------



## conan

Even cheap converters are remarkably good these days. Driver stability, latency performance, I/O flexibility, etc. can vary greatly. Sometimes gear is expensive for reasons other than just a small difference in sound quality.


----------



## dcoscina

robgb said:


> Hmmm. $600 vs. $59. I wonder how many people who listen to your album can tell the difference...


I've actually been using my mobile rig more and more. I've got a Steinberg UR22 hooked up to it and it sounds fine, especially compared to my MOTU 2408 Mk3- I only work with samples so nothing is going in, just coming out. 

That said, I bought a M-Audio DAC and I do notice more coloration of that sound coming out of that compared to the UR. I had wanted to get the Apogee DAC but that was $329 compared to the $150 I got the Super DAC for and which has more outputs to switch between phones and speakers. Sounds good though.


----------



## robgb

conan said:


> Even cheap converters are remarkably good these days. Driver stability, latency performance, I/O flexibility, etc. can vary greatly. Sometimes gear is expensive for reasons other than just a small difference in sound quality.


Well, I'm using a Mac so latency and driver stability are rarely issues. As for I/O flexibility, I had a lot of that with the 1640i and found I barely utilized it. But I can see where others would need that flexibility and I imagine the Behringer range that I spoke of probably has a slightly higher cost unit that'll handle it.


----------



## robgb

wst3 said:


> When did we stop striving for the best we can do?



I hope we never did and never will. Lower end equipment should never keep you from doing your best, and making the best of what you have. And I don't think it does.


----------



## robgb

Polkasound said:


> What the average person _can_ discern, though, is the difference between good and bad engineering & mixing. A well-produced song on $250 worth of equipment will _always_ top a poorly-produced song on $250,000 worth of equipment.


Or a poorly written or performed song. The quality of the song itself should trump everything.


----------



## robgb

wst3 said:


> But saying it doesn't matter seems to me disingenuous.


Maybe folks are missing my point because I didn't explain it very well. What matters is the music. The song. It doesn't matter if a vocal is pristinely recorded, using the best mics and preamps, if the vocal sucks and the song is lousy. Amazing equipment won't make it any better. Back around 2008, Ari Hest wrote and recorded some amazing sounding songs on his laptop, using an SM57. And while the engineer who mixed it might wish he'd used better equipment, the average listener just enjoys the songs—because THEY are really all that matters. And they sound great.


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> Or a poorly written or performed song. The quality of the song itself should trump everything.



Absolutely, yes. That's a given.


----------



## jon wayne

I remember when I finally had an Alesis drum machine, sequencer and a four track cassette. I know I wrote some great stuff, but I was in a small market. As time progressed, I got better gear and had a larger audience. The gear gave me more confidence, knowing my tunes were getting better also. I am still upgrading, because I'd hate for a bad recording to get in the way of a good song. My wife is my first audience. She doesn't know sound cards, but she knows quality. If I lost all my gear(which has happened before), I could still be creative, but the production would definitely suffer. I kinda like pristine converters!


----------



## TheNorseman

Interface makes no difference for me what so ever, since the only audio I record are distorted guitars. Maybe if you record vocals it makes a difference. But for me, once you EQ and distort everything, it makes no difference at all.


----------



## robgb

jon wayne said:


> I kinda like pristine converters!


I like 'em, too. But there's absolutely no reason these days to spend thousands, or even hundreds, to get them.


----------



## JeffvR

I'm curious which speakers you have. Maybe you have speakers that are unable to reproduce the difference. I went from a Focusrite interface to a RME. The latency and stability is a lot better, that's worth it for me alone.


----------



## agarner32

I'm not a recording engineer I'm a professional pianist, but a year ago I upgraded my interface and mics. l had a MOTU Ultralite and some inexpensive microphones and no matter what I did could never get a good sound on my beautiful Mason and Hamlin BB piano. I upgraded the microphones to 2 AKG 414s and it made a slight improvement. An audio engineer suggested a better audio interface with better mic preamps and converters so I opted for the UAD Apollo. It made a huge difference - night and day really. I didn't notice any difference with sample libraries, but it was huge for live recording.


----------



## givemenoughrope

agarner32 said:


> I'm not a recording engineer I'm a professional pianist, but a year ago I upgraded my interface and mics. l had a MOTU Ultralite and some inexpensive microphones and no matter what I did could never get a good sound on my beautiful Mason and Hamlin BB piano. I upgraded the microphones to 2 AKG 414s and it made a slight improvement. An audio engineer suggested a better audio interface with better mic preamps and converters so I opted for the UAD Apollo. It made a huge difference - night and day really. I didn't notice any difference with sample libraries, but it was huge for live recording.



The mic pres on the Motu ultralite aren’t very good in my experience.


----------



## givemenoughrope

My interface is Motu 16a. Sounds pretty good to me with Black Lion mic pres for recording but I’m mostly using it bc I can plug all of my HW synths into it and print in one go. For remote recording of two channels who wins in this fight: 1st gen Apogee Duet or Motu Ultralite MK3 with Black Lion mic pres? I’ll test them soon.


----------



## markleake

Polkasound said:


> Absolutely, yes. That's a given.



Wow... she really doesn't sound like she is looking forward to the weekend. Even she seems to hate it.


----------



## markleake

Interesting conversation. Some brands will be better than others even at the cheaper end of the range, and will have different sound signatures. So people upgrading and noticing big differences may be noticing mostly the difference between a bad-sounding brand, and a much better sounding brand.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> And while the engineer who mixed it might wish he'd used better equipment, the average listener just enjoys the songs—because THEY are really all that matters. And they sound great.



No offense, but I just hate that attitude. We make it sound as good as we can not only because perhaps the listener hears the difference, but because we are craftsmen who take pride in our work and we want it to sound as good as we can, or can afford to, for ourselves.

A great song beautifully performed AND recorded, sounds better than a great song beautifully performed but not beautifully recorded. Everyone has to decide for themselves, and for me it depends on the project just to what time and financial lengths I can justify going to, but to simply dismiss it as a factor is anti-artistic.

Unless I am misunderstanding you?


----------



## thesteelydane

givemenoughrope said:


> My interface is Motu 16a. Sounds pretty good to me with Black Lion mic pres for recording but I’m mostly using it bc I can plug all of my HW synths into it and print in one go. For remote recording of two channels who wins in this fight: 1st gen Apogee Duet or Motu Ultralite MK3 with Black Lion mic pres? I’ll test them soon.



I’d be very interested in that. I’ve heard good things about the Black Lion mods, and I absolutely loved my 1st gen Apogee Duet - it was recommended to me by Tony Berg when I first got into recording, bud sadly the FireWire chip gave out and I bought the new model instead because I couldn’t wait for the repair.


----------



## Darren Durann

Ashermusic said:


> No offense, but I just hate that attitude. We make it sound as good as we can not only because perhaps the listener hears the difference, but because we are craftsmen who take pride in our work and we want it to sound as good as we can, or can afford to, for ourselves.
> 
> A great song beautifully performed AND recorded, sounds better than a great song beautifully performed but not beautifully recorded. Everyone has to decide for themselves, and for me it depends on the project just to what time and financial lengths I can justify going to, but to simply dismiss it as a factor is anti-artistic.
> 
> Unless I am misunderstanding you?



I am really sympathizing with this...but there are exceptions (which probably prove the rule). In the genre of Scandinavian Black metal, the early bands intentionally had low production values to add to the bare atmosphere and feel. They were great, genre-defining songs for the genre, but they did everything themselves...actually I think some of the best Punk is part of the exception as well.

However, overall Jay makes a great point imo.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> No offense, but I just hate that attitude. We make it sound as good as we can not only because perhaps the listener hears the difference, but because we are craftsmen who take pride in our work and we want it to sound as good as we can, or can afford to, for ourselves.


You're making an assumption that Ari Hest didn't take pride in his work. I have a feeling he made it sound as good as he possibly could because he does care about his craft. But whether or not you want to admit it, most people are not audiophiles. They can't tell the difference between a Xenyx preamp and a Manley VoxBox. What they care about is the song and the artist. Subtle differences in sonic quality mean absolutely nothing to them. Does this mean we shouldn't strive to make our work sound the best we can? Of course not. I've never said or even suggested that. Taking pride in your work means doing your very best with the equipment you have rather than drooling over the very best guitar, very best keyboard, very best DAW, very best audio interface in the mistaken belief that it's going to turn your best into something better. It's not. Such expectations are fairy dust, because it all comes down to you and the song. And maybe that scares some people. I don't know. Maybe it's easier to blame the interface.


----------



## Jaap

This does not only apply for a music instrument, tool, daw or whatever, but in general with the tools that are used.

A good tool doesn't make the person behind it persé any better, but a in the right hands with somebody who knows how to use it and to get the best out of it, it does make a difference.


----------



## jon wayne

In retail, good packaging seems to draw our attention first. I just purchased a slightly used Babyface Pro, and the winning sale went to the guy that had the original box and accessories. The photos showed no blemishes, but I probably would have looked elsewhere if it showed signs of wear. I'm sure they both probably sounded and functioned the same, but the guy that showed he cared more for his product got my business. And yes, this interface will make my stuff sound better.


----------



## Ashermusic

And I am telling you robgh that the change from my previous audio interface's D/A and mic pre upgrade made enough of a difference in the sound that it allowed me to make my vocals better and allowed me to mix better. It absolutely turned my best into better.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> And I am telling you robgh that the change from my previous audio interface's D/A and mic pre upgrade made enough of a difference in the sound that it allowed me to make my vocals better and allowed me to mix better. It absolutely turned my best into better.


And I'm glad you feel that. If you can afford to spend big bucks on an audio interface because it makes YOU feel better about your work, then by all means do it. But while there may be some minor sonic improvements, it would still be the same song if you had recorded it with a Behringer. That mic pre upgrade won't give anyone a better voice or improve the song's melody or lyrics. A great song will shine through no matter what. A bad song will still be bad. And no amount of "if only I had" will improve it.


----------



## robgb

Can someone tell me what pre-amps she's using on this recording? I just can't figure it out...


----------



## Ashermusic

Nobody is saying that good recordings make a bad voice or bad song good. But you downplay it too much. The Beatles sang great and wrote great but part of the discussion amongst musicians (and yes, we are SUPPOSED to think and care more deeply about it than listeners) for over 45 years was how great the recordings were, what gear they used, etc.


----------



## Vdub

What I've learned is it largely depends on what you want out of your Interface. Whether you just want to hear sounds out of your computer, or you want great DA, great AD, Great on-board Mic Pre, access to UAD plugins on the inserts, Daisy chaining for more channels, etc... 

I had a lil cheap M-Audio Fast Track, Presonus Firestudio mobile and Firestudio project, apogee duet and silver ensemble.... Then i went ahead and grabbed the Prism Lyra and my life changed. I can actually hear the difference in the DA, i can hear my reverb tails clearer, even recording through the mic pre - there was so much more depth with the AD. Which made producing, mixing, and noticing things so much easier. 

Now i can't go backwards lol

Whether or not the price difference equals the difference in sound is negligible to me because i love what i'm hearing. Whether it cost 200 or 2000 it's priceless to me to have great DA/AD in my interface. Especially since i travel and hate carrying so much gear.


----------



## robgb




----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> But you downplay it too much.


No, not really.


----------



## Ashermusic

OK, I am not going to continue to argue with you because v dub said it well. 

I will make one final statement if the better converters, and better mic pres make make no difference to the user it is because the user either does not care enough to do his/her best or is inept.


----------



## Jaap

Lets use a different analogy.

An architect designs a great house. Beautiful and solid design. Then a contractor builds it and instead of using good solid tools and materials he uses all his materials as cheap as possible, but regarding the design and layout he follows everything the architect has ordered.
The end result is a beautiful house and the owners won't notice at first that the contractor just used cheap material. After a while it will slowly start to show. Maybe some cracks will appear in the walls, doors or windows will not close and fit as tight as they have in the beginning after some use etc etc. I think you get the point.

Same goes with this. It might sound ok now and the audience won't probably notice any big difference, but as I said in my previous post, great tools used by real good professionals will make it last longer.

I do think however we should not obsess over gear at first and really learn to use what we have at our disposal and upgrade our tools when we feel we have reached our limits with it and to improve ourselves.
Skills cannot be bought with tools, but good skills can make you buy new tools to improve


----------



## chillbot

robgb said:


> But whether or not you want to admit it, most people are not audiophiles. They can't tell the difference between a Xenyx preamp and a Manley VoxBox. What they care about is the song and the artist. Subtle differences in sonic quality mean absolutely nothing to them.


If you're talking about the average listener, they likely have no idea why they respond to one track more than another track, but often it will be these subtle differences. Just because they can't describe what they are hearing doesn't mean they're not hearing it. If you think about it, the average listener almost 100% of the time hears stuff recorded on a multi-million dollar setup, that's what they are used to hearing. This is especially true with producers, who are notoriously bad at describing musically what they are hearing or what they want. They don't understand why your $59 behringer track doesn't hold up to the temp track. And it makes them mad. And it makes them think your writing sucks. So anyway good luck with that.

I have a question, did money scar you as a child in some way?

You think Albion One is way overpriced.

You think a cheap mic is as good as an expensive mic.

You think a cheap audio interface is as good as an expensive one.

You think recording at AIR studios is a waste of money.

You think recording the London Philharmonic is a waste of money.

Besides the fact that I disagree on all counts, why don't you just let those that want to spend money spend money?


----------



## robgb

Vdub said:


> Whether or not the price difference equals the difference in sound is negligible to me because i love what i'm hearing. Whether it cost 200 or 2000 it's priceless to me to have great DA/AD in my interface.


That's great for you, of course. But the reason I posted my little story in the first place is because there is a lot of gear envy on these forums and a lot of money spent to make us "feel better" about what we're producing. And to my mind, that's focusing on the wrong thing. It's okay not to have the latest and greatest. Make the best of what you can afford and concentrate on the quality of the MUSIC, because ultimately, that's all that matters.


----------



## robgb

Jaap said:


> An architect designs a great house. Beautiful and solid design. Then a contractor builds it and instead of using good solid tools and materials he uses all his materials as cheap as possible, but regarding the design and layout he follows everything the architect has ordered.
> The end result is a beautiful house and the owners won't notice at first that the contractor just used cheap material. After a while it will slowly start to show. Maybe some cracks will appear in the walls, doors or windows will not close and fit as tight as they have in the beginning after some use etc etc. I think you get the point.


I get the point, but it's not really a very good analogy. A song isn't going to fall apart because someone used a low cost pre-amp.


----------



## Jaap

robgb said:


> I get the point, but it's not really a very good analogy. A song isn't going to fall apart because someone used a low cost pre-amp.



Yes it does. Any cheap recorded stuff from decades ago won't hold up against good solid recordings from bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc


----------



## Darren Durann

I think...I'm trying to put this in an intentionally restrained way.

I think more than a little of the people who come here are here_ just_ for gear (something to spend money on while pipe dreamin' a music career), and not necessarily making music.

It's a fetishistic thing involving consumerism. I experience what I perceive to be similar (though often vehemently denied) goals in collector's forums: having the biggest and best seems to supercede making great (and most especially enduring) music. Or sometimes, in extreme examples, anything at all.

I could be wrong. I certainly didn't mean to bum out or anger anyone.


----------



## robgb

chillbot said:


> Besides the fact that I disagree on all counts, why don't you just let those that want to spend money spend money?


Have I ever said they shouldn't? I'm actually very fortunate to have a comfortable lifestyle. But not everyone is that comfortable and every dime they spend on gear is precious to them. Yet we have a tendency here to play up the importance of the "best" gear, as if it will make all the difference in the world. It won't. It will make a difference, yes—no one is denying that—but is it enough of a difference to warrant spending hundreds or thousands more than you'd prefer to? It obviously doesn't matter to you, but I think gear envy is harmful. I think it's interesting, however, that my OP has sparked discontent to the point that my state of mind is being questioned...  Maybe I, like others, just like saving money. Maybe that's why I have a comfortable lifestyle. Do I need to have a psychological scar to want to save money?


----------



## robgb

Jaap said:


> Any cheap recorded stuff from decades ago won't hold up against good solid recordings from bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc


They were genius songwriters with genius producers whose work outshines everyone else because of the quality of the songs and voices, not what microphones they may have used.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> That's great for you, of course. But the reason I posted my little story in the first place is because there is a lot of gear envy on these forums and a lot of money spent to make us "feel better" about what we're producing. And to my mind, that's focusing on the wrong thing. It's okay not to have the latest and greatest. Make the best of what you can afford and concentrate on the quality of the MUSIC, because ultimately, that's all that matters.




Now THAT I agree with, right until you get to your last phrase "that's all that matters. " If you said. "that's what matters _most_" we would find agreement.

Yes, people spend for the wrong reasons. Yes, they try to use the tools to compensate for things that cannot be compensated for. Yes, nobody should spend money that they cannot afford and believe me, unless a project amortizes the expense, I don't generally. But unlike you, and this is not an attack, music is not fourth on the list of what I self-describe as my occupation, and I have almost 50 years of recording on great stuff, crappy stuff, and everything in between, and I can tell you that when I am in the studio with a great singer or player(s) performing a great song, the gear _does_ make a difference in the final result that makes the creators proud, affects the performer in ways that may allow them to sing or play or mix better, and as Matt (Chillbot) says, quite possibly affects the listeners in ways they do not understand.

And the big advantage today is that for less than the price of what a top of the line Tascam Portastudio used to cost, you can buy an audio interface that has damn good converters and mic pres, like the Element 24.

And now, I truly am done.


----------



## chillbot

robgb said:


> Maybe I, like others, just like saving money. Maybe that's why I have a comfortable lifestyle. Do I need to have a psychological scar to want to save money?


There's saving money and then there's the wild illusion that no one is going to know the difference between your $59 behringer and a pro recording studio.

I get your point about gear envy. And saving money, not wasting it on shiny toys, getting to know your own equipment first, yada yada... these are all good things. I don't think you're making your point very well by saying "don't worry no one will even know the difference". You don't seem to hold the general listening public in very high regard.

I'm guessing you are a "content hobbyist" (sorry I don't know if that's true or not, I certainly don't mean it to be insulting in any way). I would guess about 20% of this forum falls under "content hobbyists" and maybe 10% fall under "working professionals". Everyone else in between is striving to learn or get better or make it or become more pro and/or hoping to sell their music for actual money. Telling them to learn the gear that they have is good advice. Telling them not to bother upgrading their audio interface is not good advice. Because it does and will make a difference in a commercial setting when trying to compete with other professionals selling music.

EDIT: Pretty much what Jay said but beat me to it.


----------



## MarcelM

if you dont hear a difference between a $30 and $500+ interface, there must be something wrong with your monitors, headphones or even ears.


----------



## sostenuto

Been lurking since Start and enjoythis thread far more than expected !  

Hope someone adds a bit about I/F decisions _for us/those who work almost entirely with samples/patches._ Notable investment in (2) PC DAWs, supporting gear, much VSTi/VT software. 
Current (2) Focusrite Saffire Pro14(s) will need replacing soon with hardware upgrades (_no Firewire_). What parameters become critical for this scenario, and what are some recommended products? 

Such remote possibility of live vocal or ethnic flute recording, that no/little extra $$ can be justified for that aspect.


----------



## robgb

Heroix said:


> if you dont hear a difference between a $30 and $500+ interface, there must be something wrong with your monitors, headphones or even ears.


Sigh. Again the point is lost. Let me quote my original post:



> The bottom line really comes down to you. Your talent. Your ability to mix. Because the difference between low-end and high-end these days is often only discernible to twenty-year-old ears, and I passed that threshold a long, long time ago.



Does that clear things up for you? Notice I said "often" not "always?"



Ashermusic said:


> ow THAT I agree with, right until you get to your last phrase "that's all that matters. " If you said. "that's what matters _most_" we would find agreement.



This time the qualifier isn't needed because ultimately it IS all that matters. You can polish a turd all you want, it's still a turd.



chillbot said:


> There's saving money and then there's the wild illusion that no one is going to know the difference between your $59 behringer and a pro recording studio.



I don't believe I said "no one" will know the difference. If I did, I misspoke. What I believe I said is that the average listener is not an audiophile and will not be able to tell the difference. That isn't a wild illusion, it's a simple fact. As I've posted above, people are making amazing music in bedroom studios with low cost equipment. Some of those people frequent these forums. And whether or not I, or anyone else, is a "content hobbyist" only matters in that the "hobbyist" may have a more realistic view of what can be done in a home recording environment over a pro who is used to working in great studios.


----------



## Vdub

robgb said:


> That's great for you, of course. But the reason I posted my little story in the first place is because there is a lot of gear envy on these forums and a lot of money spent to make us "feel better" about what we're producing. And to my mind, that's focusing on the wrong thing. It's okay not to have the latest and greatest. Make the best of what you can afford and concentrate on the quality of the MUSIC, because ultimately, that's all that matters.



Yes, It's ok to not have the latest and greatest. But it's all subjective. To my mind, how i feel plays a major role in how i produce. Whether it's shiny and new, or old but still sounds great i need to feel good about what i'm using to feel good about what i'm producing. In some cases the better "gear" you have the less work goes into achieving the sound you're aiming for. If used properly that is lol.. there's people in multi-million dollar facilities that sound like crap.

I know that what i'm hearing out of my lyra is amazing and i don't have to second guess it, where so i always knew something was missing with my other gear, so i was over compensating for the lack thereof. Is it needed, would i bash other gear, would i tell someone to buy what i have, no.. That's just me..

Test everything out like a car, take it for a drive see if the breaks work for you... do you like to cruise or do you like to dip in and out of traffic, do you like small and compact or do you like suv style, are you a big boy wheels kinda guy, or i just need to get to walmart and home kinda guy lol.. It all depends on you. But there's no such thing as focusing on what you consider "the wrong thing" if it leads you to the sound, comfort, or feel you're looking for. To tell someone "it's not needed" is the same as telling someone "this is what you need". 

Always shoot for the quality and comfort that best fits you.. nothing wrong with getting a 10k sony 800 mic or a lil mic from best buy, nothing wrong with a neve 1073, or a shadow hills mastering compressor, lynx hilo or an maudio fast track. I know some gear WONT work for me, not even allowed in my studio lol.. But that's me.. But don't just try to stretch and cut corners on a round penny just to prove a point either. Get what works for you.. Interface, car, mic, woman, house, apt, rent, buy, a job, or working for yourself.. anything other than what works for you, to me, is focusing on the wrong things.


----------



## Ashermusic

sostenuto said:


> Been lurking since Start and enjoythis thread far more than expected !
> 
> Hope someone adds a bit about I/F decisions _for us/those who work almost entirely with samples/patches._ Notable investment in (2) PC DAWs, supporting gear, much VSTi/VT software.
> Current (2) Focusrite Saffire Pro14(s) will need replacing soon with hardware upgrades (_no Firewire_). What parameters become critical for this scenario, and what are some recommended products?
> 
> Such remote possibility of live vocal or ethnic flute recording, that no/little extra $$ can be justified for that aspect.



Then obviously mic pres and A/D will matter little to you and D/A will matter more to you. The test for me would be to try hooking up a few different ones and seeing you you hear more details, like reverb tails, more clarity on your speakers, etc. But most important will be driver efficiency and stability. Google searches will reveal what people's experiences with them are.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> You can polish a turd all you want, it's still a turd.



But if you smear excrement on a diamond, it will not sparkle. Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## sostenuto

Ashermusic said:


> Then obviously mic pres and A/D will matter little to you and D/A will matter more to you. The test for me would be to try hooking up a few different ones and seeing you you hear more details, like reverb tails, more clarity on your speakers, etc. But most important will be driver efficiency and stability. Google searches will reveal what people's experiences with them are.



*THX! * Win10 Pro 64 here and PC driver Support will be critical going forward.
Smaller town here and little access to potential I/F testing, although Amazon is very tolerant with returns.
Focusrite (Scarlett 2i4) USB remains a candidate (with telephone Support in US) ..... doubting Thunderbolt will be justified?? 
Will try some 'Google' searches, and still hope for a couple pointers from Users focused on D/A and Win10 Drivers.

Maybe ~$200 price is not justified given these needs and comments above ......... when needing (2) units ..... 
Not adept with D/A critical specs and decent providers.


----------



## SergeD

Maybe comparing the Behringer UM2 to a more expensive audio interface would be welcome!


----------



## re-peat

robgb said:


> But there's absolutely no reason these days to spend thousands, or even hundreds, to get them.



Cheap convertors are a bit like dirty windows. You can see through them alright, but what you're seeing looks a tad blurry, lacks detail in places, and it may not even contain everything there is to see. Now, if your eyesight gives cause for concern to begin with, it will indeed not make much of a difference whether your windows are dirty or clean — the view being very similar in both cases —, but from there to suggesting that everybody else might just as well settle for dirty windows too, only because you happen to be unable to appreciate the perceptual improvement offered by clean ones, is a bit of a stupid stretch, if I may say so.

You're the person who thinks the SWAM solo strings sound wonderfully realistic, aren't you? And who believes that the Arturia Piano V2 comes amazingly close to the real thing? Well, forgive me, but with blissfully forgiving ears like that, I would also opt for the cheapest possible audio convertor.

Remember that embarrassing audio example of the SWAM Solo Strings you posted a week or two ago? You thought it sounded great and convincing, everybody else thought it sounded synthy and fake. (In light of which, your over-confident claim that most people, when listening to your string backups, think you've worked with real strings instead of samples, sounds highly doubtful too.)
Only to say: perhaps your ears aren't to be trusted as much as you think they are. (Not a rare predicament, by the way, for people over 60. As you yourself once said: "I'm 62, so I'm assuming they're shot.")

With that in mind, perhaps it is wiser not to come here saying that there is hardly any difference between high- and low-quality equipment and certainly no difference worth paying much money for. That might be true for you, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly impaired. There *is* a real difference — small or big, depending on how sensitive you are to these things — and, as such, there is a very good reason why people with fine ears and who appreciate good sound, gladly invest in high-quality equipment. High-grade convertors don't tend to suffer as much from clock jitter as the cheaper stuff does, they have noticeably better definition, depth and separation, and to those of us who care about these things and who strive for the best possible sound, all of that matters a lot.

_


----------



## Vdub

^^^^^^ What he said


----------



## chillbot

re-peat said:


> Cheap convertors are a bit like dirty windows. You can see through them alright, but what you're seeing looks a tad blurry, lacks detail in places, and it may not even contain everything there is to see. Now, if your eyesight gives cause for concern to begin with, it will indeed not make much of a difference whether your windows are dirty or clean — the view being very similar in both cases —, but from there to suggesting that everybody else might just as well settle for dirty windows too, only because you happen to be unable to appreciate the perceptual improvement offered by clean ones, is a bit of a stupid stretch, if I may say so.


I always say, bad analogies are like meatballs.

But I like this analogy.


----------



## Vdub

woh there buddy, what you got against meatballs


----------



## agarner32

It all matters: the music and gear. If the average listener couldn't tell the difference between a recording done in a home studio vs. a top pro studio then record labels would produce records in bedrooms with Beringer audio interfaces and save a ton of money.


----------



## robgb

agarner32 said:


> record labels would produce records in bedrooms with Beringer audio interfaces and save a ton of money.


Sorry, I have to laugh. Do you seriously believe that record labels are the end-all and be-all of music these days? If so, you're seriously limiting your choices, and not paying much attention.


----------



## TheNorseman

agarner32 said:


> It all matters: the music and gear. If the average listener couldn't tell the difference between a recording done in a home studio vs. a top pro studio then record labels would produce records in bedrooms with Beringer audio interfaces and save a ton of money.



This. You have some guys who have been in the industry since the glory days, and they have the most incredible ears and can hear every flaw. Most people listening through their apple ear buds would never tell a difference.


----------



## robgb

re-peat said:


> That might be true for you, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly impaired.


I believe if you bother to read my original post it's fairly clear I was talking about me. I did say your mileage may vary.


----------



## chrisphan

I know you are a big proponent of musical content and me too, but your argument about the average listeners is flawed. Would the "average listeners" be able to tell a difference between a Bach's fugue and a music student's fugue? I doubt it. We make music and try to make it as best as we can in every way possible for OUR EARS. That's the reason we spend so much time deciding where to put certain notes, where to bring certain instruments in, or what gears to buy for a better sound. They're all for the self-fulfillment of the creators, not for the "average listeners"


----------



## agarner32

robgb said:


> Sorry, I have to laugh. Do you seriously believe that record labels are the end-all and be-all of music these days? If so, you're seriously limiting your choices, and not paying much attention.


Well I actually agree with a lot of what you've said and think your original post made some good points. I think you may not have gotten my point. Perhaps that's my fault. I'm simply saying putting out good music on a commercial level isn't just about one aspect, but rather the entire package. I never said record companies are the "end-all be-all" in music by the way. There is a reason people go to high-end studios rather than recording in their bedroom with Beringer-type equipment just like there is a reason movie companies don't make movies with camcorders or iPhones.


----------



## chillbot

robgb said:


> I believe if you bother to read my original post it's fairly clear I was talking about me. I did say your mileage may vary


Why did you post this then?

Likely in the hopes that everyone would chime in and agree with you, thus justifying your gear purchase. Apparently not to have any real discussion on the matter.

Sorry.



robgb said:


> What I believe I said is that the average listener is not an audiophile and will not be able to tell the difference. That isn't a wild illusion, it's a simple fact.



Pulling "facts" out of the air is not helping your cause.


----------



## N.Caffrey

From other threads it seems to me that the OP likes to make provocative statements.


----------



## sostenuto

Ashermusic said:


> Then obviously mic pres and A/D will matter little to you and D/A will matter more to you. The test for me would be to try hooking up a few different ones and seeing you you hear more details, like reverb tails, more clarity on your speakers, etc. But most important will be driver efficiency and stability. Google searches will reveal what people's experiences with them are.



Waaay out of Thread mainstream, BUT really helped me a lot !!! 
Found Audient iD4 as a strong contender for my 'narrow' needs. 

BTW … definitely aging-ear effects here, but scope/analyzer helps compensate. Strong DAC is worthwhile.
Appreciate the guidance.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

robgb said:


> And I'm glad you feel that. If you can afford to spend big bucks on an audio interface because it makes YOU feel better about your work, then by all means do it. But while there may be some minor sonic improvements, it would still be the same song if you had recorded it with a Behringer. That mic pre upgrade won't give anyone a better voice or improve the song's melody or lyrics. A great song will shine through no matter what. A bad song will still be bad. And no amount of "if only I had" will improve it.



Like Jay mentioned, you still can't polish a turd. Even if it's a good song, it will still sound like ka-ka if it's recorded and mixed with inferior equipment. If you can't tell the difference between recording/mixing with a $1000 interface (and cheap monitors) vs a $60 interface, you are probably headed down the same path as Brian Johnson and Pete Townshend. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Do you think Bob Rock is sitting there using a $60 interface? Come on, man.


----------



## robgb

chillbot said:


> Why did you post this then?


Read my later posts. I explain why I posted it.


----------



## chimuelo

Ashermusic said:


> But if you smear excrement on a diamond, it will not sparkle. Sorry, couldn't resist.



You get you pay for, simple as that.

But I CREATED sparkly yellow diamonds by eating strippers sparkle cake and coating VSI Stones with it.


----------



## robgb

N.Caffrey said:


> From other threads it seems to me that the OP likes to make provocative statements.


No, the OP just likes to express his opinions and have discussions about things that are important to him. You're free to join in and express your opinion. I always try to keep it civil and never make it personal.


----------



## robgb

chillbot said:


> Pulling "facts" out of the air is not helping your cause.


So, you're saying the average listener IS an audiophile?


----------



## robgb

agarner32 said:


> Well I actually agree with a lot of what you've said and think your original post made some good points. I think you may not have gotten my point. Perhaps that's my fault. I'm simply saying putting out good music on a commercial level isn't just about one aspect, but rather the entire package. I never said record companies are the "end-all be-all" in music by the way. There is a reason people go to high-end studios rather than recording in their bedroom with Beringer-type equipment just like there is a reason movie companies don't make movies with camcorders or iPhones.


Fair enough.


----------



## Brian2112

Wolfie2112 said:


> Like Jay mentioned, you still can't polish a turd.


I beg to differ. Polishing a turd is exactly what I do when I apply Ozone to my silly musical ideas. It can be done. Yes, it's still a turd, but it is a well polished one. 
For those who are truly professional composers, I can see the logic behind wanting to produce the best quality output one can achieve. But there are also people making a lot of money using Fruity Loops and a $600 Dell. I remember when distortion was something to be avoided, now it's used all the time. For myself, I've mostly used mid to high range audio cards because I've always had latency issues with the cheap stuff. But if there are cheaper alternatives that come really close and don't constantly have driver issues like I have had with various manufacturers, then that is good for me to know. But, then again, I won't be scoring the next Batman flick. 
Mostly I just wanted to post under Wolfie because I notice we have the same brain area code. No offense Wolfie!


----------



## robgb

chillbot said:


> Likely in the hopes that everyone would chime in and agree with you, thus justifying your gear purchase. Apparently not to have any real discussion on the matter.


LOL. I have never felt and never will feel the need to justify a gear purchase. I simply told a story and made an observation. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not interested in a discussion. Your logic is a bit flawed.


----------



## robgb

Brian2112 said:


> But there are also people making a lot of money using Fruity Loops and a $600 Dell.


Exactly.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> But if you smear excrement on a diamond, it will not sparkle. Sorry, couldn't resist.


No, it's actually a very valid point. But I think using a Behringer audio interface is a far cry from smearing excrement on anything. Maybe some of the other low cost interfaces suck, but this Behringer sounds pretty damn good. I asked a while back why Behringer is so reviled and got mixed answers. What I've bought from them in the past (admittedly not much) has always performed well.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> Exactly.




Right, ands we all understand that making money is proof of quality.


sostenuto said:


> Waaay out of Thread mainstream, BUT really helped me a lot !!!
> Found Audient iD4 as a strong contender for my 'narrow' needs.
> 
> BTW … definitely aging-ear effects here, but scope/analyzer helps compensate. Strong DAC is worthwhile.
> Appreciate the guidance.



I would avoid that one, based on what I have read. Everyone seems to think the audio quality is great for the dough but drivers have apparently been problematic.


----------



## stonzthro

Interesting thread. For me it is more a matter of time. If I buy something that has a good track record, the company has a solid reputation, and item appears to seem like it will last it solves a problem I won't have to revisit in the near future. Very often cheap gear, especially gear with drivers, will work for a time, and may be OK, but will sooner rather than later, have issues. Those issues are typically manifested in low/non existent user support (thus the low price), a throw-away mentality by the developer of the item (we'll just get them to continually upgrade for $100 each time ahem Focusrite/), or limited useful features. This is not always the case, but for me, it is common enough that I'm wary of having to re-solve problems when something like a cheap audio interface goes down (this actually HAS happened to me, and each of the reasons I gave are real-world).

If you have the time, by all means, look for that "under the radar" deal and find what works for you, but I lack the time at this point in my career to do so (and likely you do to if you want to write music competitively).


----------



## Brian2112

Ashermusic said:


> Right, ands we all understand that making money is proof of quality.


Respectfully, are you speaking of the artistic merits, or the quality of the audio?
Making money does not necessarily denote quality in artistic terms. But in commercial reality, not only is there a market for well polished turds, it seems to be the dominant thing whatever sound card they use.
Which reminds me, If I hear "Diros" one more time, I may have to kill my step kid.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> Right, ands we all understand that making money is proof of quality.


It's certainly proof of a certain threshold of quality. After that it's all subjective.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

robgb said:


> I wonder how many people who listen to your album can tell the difference...



Not to claim undue nobility, but the question is whether you can tell the difference, not whether someone with untrained ears can - or for that matter whether anyone else can. I want to satisfy myself, and also people who can tell the difference.

You can make the same argument about anything, that most people won't notice. How many people would notice shitty writing in your novels (if you did that - I'm sure you don't!).

Now, that doesn't mean you need top-flight equipment for every application, nor does it mean the equipment is anywhere near as important as skill! But I promise you'll hear a night and day difference between the mic pres in a $59 interface and a $3500 Millennia Media channel strip, or between an $89 Chinese mic that looks like a U87 and the real Neumann model.

Of course the Millennia Media isn't 60 times as good - the law of diminishing returns applies. It is worth the money to me, however.


----------



## robgb

stonzthro said:


> Those issues are typically manifested in low/non existent user support (thus the low price), a throw-away mentality by the developer of the item (we'll just get them to continually upgrade for $100 each time ahem Focusrite/), or limited useful features.


While true, unfortunately I've run into these problems with higher end developer/manufacturers as well. It has become the way of the world in a lot of ways. For example, before we remodeled our kitchen we had an oven that was built in the 1960's that required only one or two repair jobs over the twenty-five years we used it. During one of those repairs the repairman told us that the company that made it had gone out of business because their products were too well built. The oven we bought to replace it—one of the best made today—has only a limited warranty and is known to need replacement after about seven years. I let you know about customer service should it be needed.

The point is, low cost does not necessarily mean crap any more than high cost means quality. Things just aren't what they used to be (says every old man on the planet).


----------



## re-peat

robgb said:


> Your logic is a bit flawed.



Talking about flawed logic: it’s not because some people manage to emerge from their bedrooms with convincing material that has the ‘right’ sound for its content (not necessarily great, but right), that the entire book on how to best record and produce music suddenly needs to be rewritten.
The error in your argument is that you extrapolate what works for a niche activity to the entire field of audio recording/production.
Or: it’s not because Ari Hest arrived at decent results with a mininum of gear, that Quincy Jones should start considering stripping his studio down to a laptop and an SM57 as well.

Sure, certain styles and types of music are perfecty served with lo-fi hobby gear, but not _all_ music. Steely Dan without their carefully crafted immaculate sound, for example, wouldn’t be Steely Dan. That no-expenses-spared sound of theirs is an essential musical ingredient of their work, every bit as defining of the band as the songs and the performances. Record Steely Dan — sadly no longer possible — with cheap, second-rate gear and you’ll never end up with a true Steely Dan recording, no matter how good the songs are.
T-Bone Walker singing the blues on the other hand, yes, he remains entirely intact when recorded straight onto on a cheap cassette-player.

And that is key, I believe, in all of this. Knowing which type of sound and which level of sonic quality works best for which music. I believe that is one of the things that separates a great producer from a merely good one.

In order for a Hans Zimmer soundtrack to achieve its fullest possible impact, it *needs* a certain quality of sound. Without that, it’ll be less. But produce, say, some indie band with a Steely-Dan-like sophistication and gloss, and you’re doing something completely wrong — maybe not technically, but certainly musically.

So again, it’s not because a Behringer is a good solution for you, or for some successful bedroom musician, that it is automatically the best solution for everybody else too. (And please don’t come saying that this what you said all along — not after having titled this thread the way you did, and having sprinkled your posts on several occasions with statements like “nobody hears the difference anyway" or variations thereof.)

_


----------



## robgb

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But I promise you'll hear a night and day difference between the mic pres in a $59 interface and a $3500 Millennia Media channel strip, or between an $89 Chinese mic that looks like a U87 and the real Neumann model.


Check out the Lewitt Austrian microphones. I saw "shootout" between the Lewitt Pure (couple hundred bucks) and a U47 and you'd probably be surprised by the results. I'd post the video but can't find it. It's somewhere on Warren Huart's Youtube channel.

EDIT: I found the video. Interesting comparison.


----------



## robgb

re-peat said:


> Talking about flawed logic: it’s not because some people manage to emerge from their bedrooms with convincing material that has the ‘right’ sound for its content (not necessarily great, but right), that the entire book on how to best record and produce music suddenly needs to be rewritten.
> _


 Kind of a straw man argument, don't you think, since I've never made that claim.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Wow, for a minute there I thought I'd accidentally gone to the Gearslutz forum......


----------



## TheNorseman

mikeybabes said:


> Wow, for a minute there I thought I'd accidentally gone to the Gearslutz forum......


----------



## AdamAlake

robgb said:


> So, you're saying the average listener IS an audiophile?



No, he is saying that despite the average listener may not be consciously aware of higher quality, it still has effect on them.


----------



## Alex Fraser

mikeybabes said:


> Wow, for a minute there I thought I'd accidentally gone to the Gearslutz forum......


When I first saw the thread title, I went straight to the classic "glass of water in Jurassic Park" image...


----------



## TheNorseman

I feel like the OP started this thread just to stir up a stink


----------



## robgb

re-peat said:


> So again, it’s not because a Behringer is a good solution for you, or for some successful bedroom musician, that it is automatically the best solution for everybody else too. (And please don’t come saying that this what you said all along — not after having titled this thread the way you did, and having sprinkled your posts on several occasions with statements like “nobody hears the difference anyway" or variations thereof.)


Well, frankly, I HAVEN'T made that claim. But again, you miss the point. I posted because there are those out there who feel pressured into spending more money than they need to because they're "using that Behringer crap" or whatever. As I've said before, there is a lot of gear envy (and bragging) that goes on in these forums. I simply wanted to point out that buying a low cost interface is not a bad thing—although a lot of you have certainly gone out of your way to suggest it is. And I believe what I've said all along and still maintain is that most consumers of music are not audiophiles and can't hear the difference. That's a far cry from your quote above.

It's quite obvious that I've struck some kind of nerve by bringing this up and that was never my intent. I probably should have known better.


----------



## robgb

TheNorseman said:


> I feel like the OP started this thread just to stir up a stink


It is quickly becoming my experience that it's hard to bring anything up in these forums without stirring up a stink. Say that you like XYZ sample library and you'll get ten people telling you it's crap. Say you dislike ZYX library and ten people will jump on you and say you're crazy. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast (and I'm not innocent in this regard anymore than anyone else is).


----------



## robgb

AdamAlake said:


> No, he is saying that despite the average listener may not be consciously aware of higher quality, it still has effect on them.


Well, that makes sense, if that's what he's saying. But there is a certain threshold of sonic quality that listeners will be happy with. Most people listen to streaming music, for godsakes, and I didn't see too many complaining about the drop in quality from the previous mode—CDs.


----------



## Alex Fraser

robgb said:


> It is quickly becoming my experience that it's hard to bring anything up in these forums without stirring up a stink. Say that you like XYZ sample library and you'll get ten people telling you it's crap. Say you dislike ZYX library and ten people will jump on you and say you're crazy. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast (and I'm not innocent in this regard anymore than anyone else is).


Hey Robgb.
The thread title "I just bought a cheap audio interface because I realized it doesn't matter" has a subtext of "If you spent a lot of money on an audio interface, you wasted your time." Which is certain to bring out comments/fire from those who have made such an investment.

I think this is a case of (as we say here in the UK) "played for and got" judging by the rapidly growing number of threads. Nicely played.

No horse in this race by the way. Currently sporting an M-Audio M-Track and 20 year old Fostex monitors. Not good.


----------



## Pier

Hey @robgb how are you listening to that interface?

I'd also like to add that while it's true that production doesn't make bad music good, I don't agree with the notion that production is irrelevant.

Take note I didn't say cheap production, I said bad production. Thriller was recorded by Bruce Swedien using an SM57 because it was the best mic for Michael Jackson, not because it was cheap.


----------



## robgb

Pier Bover said:


> I'd also like to add that while it's true that production doesn't make bad music good, I don't agree with the notion that production is irrelevant.


I think production is very important, but as Warren Huart says in the video I posted above, creativity trumps budget every time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

robgb said:


> Check out the Lewitt Austrian microphones. I saw "shootout" between the Lewitt Pure (couple hundred bucks) and a U87 and you'd probably be surprised by the results. I'd post the video but can't find it. It's somewhere on Warren Huart's Youtube channel.



I don't doubt it, because I know there are cheap mics that sound amazing.

However, you can just *look* at a Millennia Media STT-1 and see that it's a work of art itself. Every component is the best available, it's the result of hours of hard listening, you can switch between tube and solid-state circuits, replace the tube with ones that sound different, switch in a transformer for color... you get the point. A $3.50 mic preamp (that's probably how much the ones in that $59 Behringer interface cost!) is going to sound a little different.

By the way, about 10 years ago, when I was running Virtual Instruments magazine, I did a big shootout of a bunch of audio interfaces. I had a few cheap ones (not as low as $59 then, but about $300) and some as much as $2000 (the Apogee Ensemble).

The cheap interfaces certainly weren't in the "oh no, I have to use that?!" category, but there was a totally legitimate improvement as you went up the price ladder. Cheaper interfaces sounded more brittle, and it was pretty obvious.

Now, it took a while to train myself to recognize the differences between the RME, Metric Halo, and Apogee - the $1.5-2K ones - especially with line inputs rather than using their mic preamps, but after a while I could hear it right away.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Brian2112 said:


> IBut there are also people making a lot of money using Fruity Loops and a $600 Dell. I remember when distortion was something to be avoided, now it's used all the time. For myself, I've mostly used mid to high range audio cards because I've always had latency issues with the cheap stuff. But if there are cheaper alternatives that come really close and don't constantly have driver issues like I have had with various manufacturers, then that is good for me to know. But, then again, I won't be scoring the next Batman flick.
> Mostly I just wanted to post under Wolfie because I notice we have the same brain area code. No offense Wolfie!



YES!!! Another linear thinking Rush fanatic 

Regarding the people making a lot of money using Fruity Loops and a $600 Dell, of course it's possible. I earned a living pumping out scores for live theater and TV using a Soundblaster and a Pentium III years ago. In this day and age though, a decent interface is actually affordable compared to say, 15 years ago. For a serious composer, it's a no-brainer to spend $600+ on a decent interface + monitors/headphones. Such a small price to pay for a more clear picture on what we're letting out of our studios. Of course, the interface has nothing to do with rendering, but will tell you what's going on in your mixes. And embarrassingly, I didn't fully realize this until I upgraded from my Steinberg UR22 and KRK's in 2017. My mixes were night and day.

PS- I'm pretty sure Geddy would agree


----------



## Pier

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Now, it took a while to train myself to recognize the differences between the RME, Metric Halo, and Apogee - the $1.5-2K ones - especially with line inputs rather than using their mic preamps, but after a while I could hear it right away.



Some years back I had a Motu 828 (the first version) and upgraded to an RME FF400 and the difference was very obvious. The Motu had a much darker sound, it was like removing a pair sunglasses.

These days I'm very happy with an Audient ID4. Still pretty cheap but this little box provides great sound and comes with a good amp for the Sennheiser HD600.


----------



## TheNorseman

robgb said:


> Well, that makes sense, if that's what he's saying. But there is a certain threshold of sonic quality that listeners will be happy with. Most people listen to streaming music, for godsakes, and I didn't see too many complaining about the drop in quality from the previous mode—CDs.



And by the way, I have been in agreement with you this whole time regarding this. I can promise you this, when I plug my guitar directly into an interface and record a DI, by the time I get done layering 2-4 guitar tracks, distort them, then add EQ, compression, reverb, or whatever and mix it all up, it doesn't make any difference with regards to interface A or B. I don't even change my strings anymore unless I break one. 

Maybe I would feel different if I was doing solo vocals. But even with vocals it is mixed, compressed, and edited to the point where it doesn't sound anything like the dry recording.


----------



## GtrString

To say that it doesnt matter is a wild exaggeration, imo. It may not matter to you, but its like saying there is no difference between 240p and 1080p on youtube. Those differences doesnt matter to all, rockn roll ect., but when you get to stacking tracks, mixing and mastering, it definitely is audible and helps to stay competitive. For punk, death metal ect, grainy converters are even an expected part of the aesthetic, but for smooth jazz, pop and classical you will hardly get away with it in the long run without some headaches.


----------



## AVaudio

It doesn't matter for certain products, as a lot of people only listens to music and movies on PC speakers or earbuds... but still, it is very different. It's like when people asks me "Why record at 96K if it ends at 44 anyway?"... when you A/B it it's like night and day. It's the same with screens. If you are used to a so-so monitor, you think everything it's fine, until the day you try a really good one. Then you realize what you have been missing.

I remember playing some of my favourite albums on the mixing room in the Cinema studio that hired me some years ago, with a surround room 100% Genelec. Wow. It was like if I was listening to them for the first time. There were so many elements and sounds I haven't heard before, even if I had listened to these albums 100 times on home systems.

A friend of mine once said: "the weakest link in the audio chain is the speakers and the room"... and as I said, most people will use earbuds anyway, yes. But I don't use earbuds with my work, I try to make my tracks and mixes sound great for the guys working at other studios, like I did, so when they will listen to them through amazing equipment they choose my tracks, not to mention pride in my own craftmanship, cause it matters to me. Even if it only sounds amazing that only time and the rest of the world will hear it through earbuds.


----------



## re-peat

robgb said:


> I posted because there are those out there who feel pressured into spending more money than they need to (...) I simply wanted to point out that buying a low cost interface is not a bad thing



Who are you to presume to know when people are spending more money than they need to? Or to know what ‘sonic treshold’ listeners are happy with?

And you’re at it again: “buying a low cost interface is not a bad thing”. Once more: maybe _for you_ it isn’t (and I fully agree), but for many people, who care more about their sound than you do about yours, it very much *is* a bad thing. Not everybody feels, like you seem to, that the Soundcloud- and Spotify-audio quality is the new standard we should all resign to because "the average listener no longer hears the difference anyway".

And finally: you haven’t struck a nerve by bringing all this up — it’s actually a very interesting topic —, no, you excited remark by bringing it up so narrow-mindedly and assumingly.

_


----------



## gsilbers

explosive topic for sure. i usually try to stay open minded. ANd nowadays its cool that poeple post and upload their take on expensive vs low cost gear. but just writing opinions sometimes its good to listen to the differences. 

Here are a few

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...da-3000-prism-ad-2-a.html?highlight=interface

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...blind-test.html?highlight=interface+converter

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...ony-apollo.html?highlight=interface+converter

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...comparison.html?highlight=interface+converter

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...-diffmaker.html?highlight=interface+converter

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...cal-b-test.html?highlight=interface+converter


to me mic is more important than pre and converters. yet, way behind good performance in a good room.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

robgb said:


> So, you're saying the average listener IS an audiophile?


Fuck the average listener.
I didn't dedicate my life to catering to the least discerning members of our club.
Touching people, yes.
But using the average listener as a measuring stick only lowers your aim, and the originality of your work.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

TheNorseman said:


> And by the way, I have been in agreement with you this whole time regarding this. I can promise you this, when I plug my guitar directly into an interface and record a DI, by the time I get done layering 2-4 guitar tracks, distort them, then add EQ, compression, reverb, or whatever and mix it all up, it doesn't make any difference with regards to interface A or B. I don't even change my strings anymore unless I break one.



Have you ever actually recorded using high quality converters? Or quality pre-amps for the DI? The fact that you never change your strings pretty much sums up your guitar tone.


----------



## TheNorseman

Wolfie2112 said:


> Have you ever actually recorded using high quality converters? Or quality pre-amps for the DI? The fact that you never change your strings pretty much sums up your guitar tone.



Absolutely. Back in the glory days or recording, I recorded in 3 different studios with many different preamps, mics, etc. And I would change my strings everyday. My first home studio interface was a fast track, then after that I got one of those old Saffires. Now I just use whatever, I'm not much of a gear snob these days since I'm much more interested in getting results from mixing. 

You're right, old strings sound dull and not even close to as crisp as a fresh set. If there is anything I would do to improve it would be that, but it's a pain in the ass to do it every time I want to record something. But again, I can manipulate a lot of that through EQ and make even old strings sound brighter with more attack. Plus, I use a lot of gain and distortion as well.


----------



## robgb

Patrick de Caumette said:


> But using the average listener as a measuring stick only lowers your aim, and the originality of your work.


That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think?
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but not everyone who shoots for commercial success (attracting the average listener) is lowering their aim or lacking in originality. Besides, I think too many people here are conflating the quality of the music with the quality of the sound. I won't rehash the turd and diamonds analogies...


----------



## robgb

GtrString said:


> It may not matter to you, but its like saying there is no difference between 240p and 1080p on youtube.


Not quite. It's more like saying there's no difference between 1080p and 1075p...


----------



## robgb

re-peat said:


> Who are you to presume to know when people are spending more money than they need to?


Oh, brother.
Throw a stick.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

agarner32 said:


> There is a reason people go to high-end studios rather than recording in their bedroom with Beringer-type equipment just like there is a reason movie companies don't make movies with camcorders or iPhones.


It's not done often, but there are a lot of very successful movies that have played festivals and even had substantial theatrical releases that were shot on camcorders and iPhones. For example, Sean Baker's (The Florida Project) previous film, TANGERINE, was shot on iPhones, and had a successful release. I once worked with a company called InDigEnt that only did DV movies on little cameras, but worked with major directors like Richard Linklater. BUT... although these films were shot with cheap equipment, we never stinted on sound equipment on the set. The sound recordist had the same gear and the mixes were done in the same studios as films shot with bigger cameras. Because you cannot mess around with sound. The reality is that people will put up with a less than pristine image if they are interested in the story, but they have to hear the dialogue. And the music and effects have to sound right too, or the illusion of reality is broken.


----------



## chillbot

To recap:

1. I just bought a cheap audio interface because it doesn't matter.

2. Fact: the average listener can't tell the difference.

3. Geez, how come every time I post anything on VI-C you guys jump all over me??


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

robgb said:


> That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think?
> I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but not everyone who shoots for commercial success (attracting the average listener) is lowering their aim or lacking in originality. Besides, I think too many people here are conflating the quality of the music with the quality of the sound. I won't rehash the turd and diamonds analogies...


What I am saying is that using the average listener's taste in music as a reference for one's creative goals will stifle the potential of the work.
Same goes for taking into consideration the average listener's ability to discern quality recordings/productions.
There is nothing wrong with deciding to create music of a commercial nature, and sometimes getting a few pointers and references when doing so.
But if your focus while creating is "what will the average listener think?" and considering where those listeners are currently at in terms of music appreciation , I seriously doubt that your product will stand the test of time...


----------



## kitekrazy

chillbot said:


> To recap:
> 
> 1. I just bought a cheap audio interface because it doesn't matter.
> 
> 2. Fact: the average listener can't tell the difference.
> 
> 3. Geez, how come every time I post anything on VI-C you guys jump all over me??



I think the OP finally discovered is those cheap little Behringer units are very underrated considering for what they cost. He is not the first one.


----------



## agarner32

While this is an interesting thread in some ways, I would say most professional artists who record whether it's classical, jazz, pop, country or whatever, are most often going to do their albums in high-end professional studios with high end gear. Are there exceptions? Sure. I know there are movies that have been shot with iPhones or whatever and I'm sure there are examples of commercially successful music recordings done on laptop with a Beringer interface and cheap mics. Most of the music we purchase was not recorded in a bedroom using cheap equipment and there is a reason for it and we all pretty much know why.


----------



## markleake

kitekrazy said:


> I think the OP finally discovered is those cheap little Behringer units are very underrated considering for what they cost. He is not the first one.


As much as I dislike Behringer due to how their equipment has let me down in the past (hint... they have cheap power converters, but maybe this is not a problem if running off the USB power bus), I think this is what it comes down to, yes. Some of these cheaper units perform pretty well. And the idea that a lot of people seem to have -- that they need the expensive stuff to sound good -- just isn't true anymore. The digital age continues to narrow that barrier. Some people react a bit to that change in landscape it seems. I've heard much 'better' systems than mine, but I'm still perfectly happy with my little Scarlett 2i4. It's not the weakest link in the chain (by a long shot) enough to care about replacing for the kind of stuff I do.

I get the arguments about the more expensive gear being better (well duh, of course, I don't think people need to be convinced of that), and who wouldn't want to use the more expensive stuff if they need/have access to it. But I also really get what Rob is saying and agree with many of his points. I've heard many experienced people say that what matters more is your familiarity with your equipment vs. the actual quality. You naturally learn the weaknesses and then compensate.

What is most useful is knowing what the most important part of your audio chain is. For most people I'd say it's the monitors and microphones and room accoustics, not the audio interface. Cheap interfaces like the Behringer will be fine for a lot of people, unless you are recording vocal or accoutic stuff. I've listened to them before and they are good for the price.


----------



## robgb

agarner32 said:


> I would say most professional artists who record whether it's classical, jazz, pop, country or whatever, are most often going to do their albums in high-end professional studios with high end gear.


I don't know if this is necessarily true. In fact, I'd guess that it's probably not. I don't know the statistics. But I suppose it depends on how you define "professional artists."


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think?
> I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but not everyone who shoots for commercial success (attracting the average listener) is lowering their aim or lacking in originality. Besides, I think too many people here are conflating the quality of the music with the quality of the sound. I won't rehash the turd and diamonds analogies...



I have to make this point:

Every very successful musician I know, and having worked in LA since 1972 I know a lot of them, always has "shooting for commercial success (attracting the average listener)" as their secondary goal. Their primary goal is making music that they are proud of in terms of material, performance, and sound quality. Every single one. I will name drop if you want.


----------



## robgb

markleake said:


> As much as I dislike Behringer due to how their equipment has let me down in the past (hint... they have cheap power converters, but maybe this is not a problem if running off the USB power bus), I think this is what it comes down to, yes. Some of these cheaper units perform pretty well.


Yep. Surprisingly well. Which is why I posted.


----------



## robgb

Ashermusic said:


> Every very successful musician I know, and having worked in LA since 1972 I know a lot of them, always has "shooting for commercial success (attracting the average listener)" as their secondary goal.


I would certainly hope so. I think anyone doing any kind of music at all should be first trying to please him- or herself. Making music they feel they can be proud of. But again that may or may not have anything to do with the gear they use.


----------



## robgb

chillbot said:


> To recap:
> 
> 1. I just bought a cheap audio interface because it doesn't matter.
> 
> 2. Fact: the average listener can't tell the difference.
> 
> 3. Geez, how come every time I post anything on VI-C you guys jump all over me??



LOL. True enough.


----------



## MarcelM

robgb said:


> LOL. True enough.



you can quote multiple different posts in one reply between. 

but honest question. you are trolling right? you cannot be serious tbh.


----------



## robgb

Heroix said:


> you can quote multiple different posts in one reply between.



I know. I prefer not to.



> but honest question. you are trolling right? you cannot be serious tbh.



Serious as a heart attack and not trolling at all. Have I purposely insulted anyone despite disagreeing with them? Did I shoot and run? No. Believe it or not, I think the subject warrants discussion. You may disagree. That's your right. But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a troll.


----------



## MarcelM

robgb said:


> I know. I prefer not to.
> 
> 
> 
> Serious as a heart attack and not trolling at all. Have I purposely insulted anyone despite disagreeing with them? Did I shoot and run? No. Believe it or not, I think the subject warrants discussion. You may disagree. That's your right. But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a troll.



ofcourse things can be discussed if there is a small chance that someone is right.

sorry to say, but you are not. better gear = better mixes & sound quality. simple formula!

but whatever, its somehow entertaining to read all this


----------



## robgb

On that note, I think I've said what I had to say ad infinitum. I appreciate all of you keeping it civil. Have fun making music.


----------



## markleake

Heroix said:


> ofcourse things can be discussed if there is a small chance that someone is right.
> 
> sorry to say, but you are not. better gear = better mixes & sound quality. simple formula!
> 
> but whatever, its somehow entertaining to read all this


That is being unfair to Rob. He didn't say the words you are putting in his mouth, and you know it. And he has just as much right to comment and create threads here and express his opinions as you do. It has made for an interesting discussion, even if you don't agree with him.


----------



## Pier

Ashermusic said:


> I will name drop if you want.



Go on.


----------



## trumpoz

Pier Bover said:


> Go on.


Check out his website 

I got green with envy in a PM discussion with Jay on another forum about some of the trumpet players he has worked with...... suffice to say they are people I look up to.


----------



## dpasdernick

robgb said:


> They were genius songwriters with genius producers whose work outshines everyone else because of the quality of the songs and voices, not what microphones they may have used.




Rob is spot on here. I'd rather be Trevor Horn with a Casio than me with the gigabytes of redundant string libraries i have.


----------



## re-peat

No one disputes the fact that poor or mediocre tools in talented, creative hands is a far more interesting and powerful formula than high-quality equipment in the hands of a semi-gifted, complacent individual. But that’s not the discussion here. At least, not the part of the discussion which caused this thread to go on for als long as it did. 
And neither is the argument that cheaper interfaces might be a fine choice for many people — I don’t think anyone disagrees with that either — nor that these devices can be surprisingly good given their price — we’re all in agreement with that as well, I believe — , no, it’s the implication in a lot of what the OP said that, because of all the above, a high-quality device must automatically be viewed as a sort of luxury tool for well-to-do, self-delusional audiophiles only, the purchase of which has no value other than ‘being good for the economy’. That is what some of us had a bit of problem with. I certainly did (and do). The idea that there is no longer any quality worth purchasing in a superior tool only because an inferior one has proven satisfactory for certain people in certain situations. Especially when formulated along the lines of: “fellow members, you no longer need to consider buying the good, more expensive stuff, because let me tell you, *I* have just bought a cheap device and I think it sounds great. And listeners won’t hear the difference anyway.” Apart from being a rather pretentious statement, that is also pretty bad advice.

_


----------



## Josh Richman

This is utterly ridiculous. You don’t have to choose between talented music and quality audio. That’s a false dilemma. It’s not an either or. 

Music is an act of expression that is a tool based activity. (With the exception of pure singing) Technology and tools are intimately part of the activity. Let’s not forget that a classical instrument is form of technology, even the most basic primitive instruments. 

Point being, better tools enhance the process, reproduction and creation of music. Pursuits of passion and expression ultimately require very little justification other than you desire it.


----------



## chimuelo

I think we’re under estimating the high quality sound an iPad brings to the table....
That’s your “average” listener.
I played a 65 dollar Yamaha PR50 at a gig once,
No sustain, Piano work mostly, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Delbert McClinton stuff.
While I cringed, the audience appeared to be grooving.
That’s your average listener too.
You can even tell them the Pianos suck, but they’ll disagree....


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

That is an interesting topic (not new in terms of beeing discussed prior). It seems as old and new for me like statements about expensive audiophile cables improving the audible sound quality of hifi or not. Having said that I believe a single component in the chain is not making the end result in certain cases that much better. But actually I think that the addition of great products adds in the chain could add up making the final product stage better sounding. Sure we are in times where even lowcost equipment can do a great job. I have to agree there. I have also to agree to Re-peats statement about that only because we have lowcost gear being descent that high end gear doesn´t become obselete. But I guess it is getting harder to sell high end equipment these days because people get very good stuff of a fractional amount of the price. So apart from the overall pro and contra I also see another trend which is going on for years: That the equipment is nowadays so affordable there are so many "studios" with people thinking they are the next John Williams or Phil Spector popping up but producing bad just bad music and bad sound. Because there is one thing you cant buy and that is experience and learning the fundamentals in mixing, not only there but this applies also to music composition. I personally believe in no black and white. Give Al Di Meola a 70 Dollar Acoustic Guitar I bet he will make a good sound with it. Give me a 10K Dollar Acoustic Guitar I bet I will suck major ass playing something like he does. Excellent equipment in the right hands is making a great product even greater, but it is not the other way around. I for instance "the monkey" (represenative for others) can go into a world class studio but I bet when I turn the knobs my mix will not be better than in my little studio at home. It is like with sample libraries. Many many people here have the latest orchestral libraries and still fail to produce great realistic impressions of live orchestra with it because they lack often the fundamentals not knowing how to orchestrate proper and not knowing about the natural balance of the orchestra.


----------



## Ryan

Have not read trough it all.. But for me there are two things:


Stability aka drivers 
and overall good specs/ good ad/da converters. 
I chose RME.


----------



## Garry

I went from a cheap (Apogee ONE) to a slightly cheaper (Komplete Audio 6) as I needed more inputs; I didn't notice much difference in quality, if any, and have been happy with both. I have wondered exactly how much my sound would improve with higher end interfaces, and this thread has convinced me that for the audience I'm targeting (me, and whoever else will listen!), what I have is perfectly suited, and I'll spend in other areas before upgrading my interface. Thank you for the thread - really helped me.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Garry said:


> I have wondered exactly how much my sound would improve with higher end interfaces, and this thread has convinced me that for the audience I'm targeting (me, and whoever else will listen!), what I have is perfectly suited, and I'll spend in other areas before upgrading my interface. Thank you for the thread - really helped me.



Good point. Although I work with composing professionally (part time), I always scuffed at colleagues trying to convince me to upgrade my interface and monitors. I never really had complaints from editors until I was in a spotting session at a high end facility. I was shocked to hear artifacts in a few of my cues, which I clearly could not pick out in my studio; That was the wake up call! My new gear now reveals these subtleties, and my stems are now "true", so I'll know how they'll typically sound once they go out the door. Like one poster mentioned, your interface is like a window....the clearer/cleaner the glass, the better you can see the blemishes and the view on the other side (ie; better converters, etc).


----------



## Rex282

Wolfie2112 said:


> Good point. Although I work with composing professionally (part time), I always scuffed at colleagues trying to convince me to upgrade my interface and monitors. I never really had complaints from editors until I was in a spotting session at a high end facility. I was shocked to hear artifacts in a few of my cues, which I clearly could not pick out in my studio; That was the wake up call! My new gear now reveals these subtleties, and my stems are now "true", so I'll know how they'll typically sound once they go out the door. Like one poster mentioned, your interface is like a window....the clearer/cleaner the glass, the better you can see the blemishes and the view on the other side (ie; better converters, etc).



I agree. When I went from a cheap Presonus ($200)to a "cheap" Apogee ONE($250) the difference was quite noticeable.It sounded like a blanket had been lifted(even in my bad room!). Artifacts disappeared for the most part the stereo field opened up and everything sounded more balanced had more depth and vibrant.IMO it was also due to having decent monitors (Dynaudio BM5a).

It seems there are less horrible sounding cheap converters however IMO it pays to have gear that has quality reflected by a reasonable price point.A pair of Yorkville or M Audio monitors is not going to reproduce the sound of my BM5a.Most likely the difference between converters on inferior monitors will be hardly noticeable either.


----------



## sostenuto

Ryan said:


> Have not read trough it all.. But for me there are two things:
> 
> 
> Stability aka drivers
> and overall good specs/ good ad/da converters.
> I chose RME.



Needing to update SOON ! (_PC User BTW_). Seems like big gap from 'typical' choices and RME and UAD class devices.

Drivers, DA converters, Latency are key parameters, BUT do not do 'Live' inputs .... mics, instruments.

Are there solid choices, other than RME/UAD , with comparable drivers/dac/latency but not pricey pre-amps ??


----------



## MarcelM

sostenuto said:


> Needing to update SOON ! (_PC User BTW_). Seems like big gap from 'typical' choices and RME and UAD class devices.
> 
> Drivers, DA converters, Latency are key parameters, BUT do not do 'Live' inputs .... mics, instruments.
> 
> Are there solid choices, other than RME/UAD , with comparable drivers/dac/latency but not pricey pre-amps ??



Audient id14 or id22 if the budget allows it.

edit: or buy a used focusrite forte for like 150$. really kicks ass and is on one level with the id22! its better than the id14.


----------



## sostenuto

Heroix said:


> Audient id14 or id22 if the budget allows it.



Thank-you! Audient did arise from the large 'lower- cost' group recently ...... a quasi-critical comment mentioned 'driver' questions, but Amazon/others return policies can help there if issues arise. 
Inputs are minimal, so ID4 (2ea) would seem to work .... as long as key specs are the same.

Regards


----------



## Puzzlefactory

It can be a big investment. The cost to repair my RME is the same amount as a new “budget” interface.


----------



## MarcelM

sostenuto said:


> Thank-you! Audient did arise from the large 'lower- cost' group recently ...... a quasi-critical comment mentioned 'driver' questions, but Amazon/others return policies can help there if issues arise.
> Inputs are minimal, so ID4 (2ea) would seem to work .... as long as key specs are the same.
> 
> Regards



drivers worked good for me. same on windows and osx. id4 is really low budget, and if I were you id go for a used id14 instead or even a little better a little focusrite forte (clarett converters!). and if you want reviews, go and have a read on gearslutz and dont thrust amazon too much ;D


----------



## sostenuto

Puzzlefactory said:


> It can be a big investment. The cost to repair my RME is the same amount as a new “budget” interface.



Not 'fun' but no surprise either ..... 
Tryin to not be totally away from Thread mainstream, but truly is a key split between those needing quality preamps/analog converters, and those who want quality mainly with drivers/dac(s)/low-latency. 

Long, comfortable time with Saffire Pro14(s), and almost 'automatic' to move to Scarlett series _ 2i4. 
This Thread got me researching, but not so easy to sort cheapies, from better, modest-cost alternatives.

If RME/UAD are justified for even these reduced needs ..... so be it. Audient is now one alternate possibility.

THX!


----------



## sostenuto

Heroix said:


> drivers worked good for me. same on windows and osx. id4 is really low budget, and if I were you id go for a used id14 instead or even a little better a little focusrite forte. and if you want reviews, go and have a read on gearslutz and dont thrust amazon too much ;D



 No problem with id14 as long as 'needed' specs are better than id4. Not trying to push pennies at all, just not needing more inputs/outputs if other specs are same.


----------



## MarcelM

sostenuto said:


> No problem with id14 as long as 'needed' specs are better than id4. Not trying to push pennies at all, just not needing more inputs/outputs if other specs are same.



you will be very happy with the id14 then. i recommended it here to some other guy before here (forgot who exactly), and he was very pleased.

oh, if you buy an audient you will also get eventide ultrareverb and ultrachannel for free once you register your hardware the the audient homepage. there are some other free offers like landr and such. have a look.


----------



## sostenuto

Heroix said:


> you will be very happy with the id14 then. i recommended it here to some other guy before here (forgot who exactly), and he was very pleased.
> 
> oh, if you buy an audient you will also get eventide ultrareverb and ultrachannel for free once you register your hardware the the audient homepage. there are some other free offers like landr and such. have a look.



OK!!! I checked specs further and note the different converters (ATM), used in id4 versus Burr Brown in id14 and other devices. 
Will refocus now on id14 and move forward. 
THX


----------



## Pier

Ryan said:


> I chose RME.



The RME FF400 is the best audio interface I haver ever owned. Period.

I'm mostly a hobbyist now and quite happy with my small Audient ID4 but if I was investing in gear for pro use I'd be looking into RME too.


----------



## elpedro

The biggest difference would be the pre amps quality, and things like headphone amplifier quality, and monitor controller quality.I would have drooled over the specs of a cheap steinberg or behringer interface back in 1997, when i started my first digital recording studio.did some great albums on 16 bit cards and adat's, not to mention my mt44 4-track cassette deck back in the 80-ies!There is also a noticeable difference in ADC and DAC performance,but only above certain price-points, and sometimes that line is blurred.Some cheap interfaces have kicked ass!


----------



## wst3

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Of course the Millennia Media isn't 60 times as good - the law of diminishing returns applies. It is worth the money to me, however.



Interesting that you pick on Millennia Media. I finally, about a year ago, had the wherewithal to purchase an HV-37. I've used various MM preamplifiers for years - in other people's studios (I do love spending other people's money!!!) and they are, to me, about as good as it gets. There are others in this league, John Hardy comes immediately to mind, Great River, and of course Neve, API, MCI, etc. And they all sound different. And they all do things slightly differently. But what they share is remarkable, and distinguishable audio quality, and they'll last forever.

That last part is purely financial - I prefer to buy once, although I've certainly made my fair share of foolish investments and ended up buying twice.

The first part is what really matters to me. It wasn't like I did not know that the HV-37 would make a difference, it was more an issue with justifying the purchase. Once I had sufficient income to cover the cost it was an easy decision. I'm just glad I don't need more of them<G>!

For me quality matters in all aspects of music production. Sometimes it is a matter of pride, sometimes it is more pragmatic. When the only library I owned was a $100 all-in library I was able to realize my ideas, but I was never really satisfied with the outcome, and to even get where I got took a tremendous amount of work.

When I finally upgraded to better libraries I was able to work more efficiently, and the output sounded better. I don't think that is a coincidence.

It is true that the song comes first, the performance a close second, and the gear in last place. But why would you purposely hinder your production efforts with gear that is not up to the task? 

If you can't hear the difference between the Behringer and the Millennia Media then yeah, you are wasting money, but I'd be really surprised to find someone who can't. They may not appreciate the difference, but they will hear it.


----------



## wst3

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Fuck the average listener.
> I didn't dedicate my life to catering to the least discerning members of our club.
> Touching people, yes.
> But using the average listener as a measuring stick only lowers your aim, and the originality of your work.


Well Said!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

elpedro said:


> The biggest difference would be the pre amps quality, and things like headphone amplifier quality, and monitor controller quality.I would have drooled over the specs of a cheap steinberg or behringer interface back in 1997, when i started my first digital recording studio.did some great albums on 16 bit cards and adat's, not to mention my mt44 4-track cassette deck back in the 80-ies!There is also a noticeable difference in ADC and DAC performance,but only above certain price-points, and sometimes that line is blurred.Some cheap interfaces have kicked ass!



Actually, I think people might be surprised at how good some equipment sounded 20 or even 30 years ago if you put it next to modern toys! It was before the golden age of digital audio, no question, but even some early digital instruments from the mid-80s still sound really good, 16 or even 12 bits and all.

ADATs, I'm not sure - haven't listened to one for years - and a 4-track cassette, probably not great. But I think you're right about the price making a difference.


----------



## Living Fossil

There are a lot of factors to consider...
You can have the best converters and the best speakers but an untreated studio room with some nasty resonances which will end in a messy result...
Basically, you have (at least) three interfering aspects: converters, speakers, room acoustics.
You can't skip any of them, unless you have a (really good and motivated) engineer who cleans the mess up for you.


----------



## wst3

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Actually, I think people might be surprised at how good some equipment sounded 20 or even 30 years ago if you put it next to modern toys!



There is a lot to Nick's statement. And it isn't only that "once upon a time" we used transformers or tubes. It has a great deal to do with the fact that no one teaches analog audio design any more, so young designers have to learn all the same mistakes their predecessors learned, if they care enough to learn.

I think that's where things fell apart. A couple of generations of designers figured that analog was easy, and didn't bother to apprentice with a more senior designer. Also, some companies didn't want to shell out for more senior designers, and hired the kids figuring they could figure it out.

Well they couldn't, or didn't, and it doesn't matter which.

Stupid stuff, like headroom, is ignored. Proper power supply design is ignored. Don't even thing about proper board layout.

Lately it seems like if it isn't in the reference design it isn't in the product. I've seen many products, especially converters, that are spot on the reference design. Used to be people made changes to the reference design so that other designers would not notice that they used it. Now no one seems to care.

So yes, in spite of no access to the wonderful components we have now a lot of analog audio gear sounded better a couple generations back.

That isn't meant to suggest that there aren't some really brilliant designers building really good analog audio gear. There are. But the gear isn't "cost effective" so few will even audition it.

It's a real pity, an entire discipline will get lost, again!

Again?

Why yes - back in the early days of what we now call professional audio there were a lot of lessons to be learned. Among them the value of a balanced interface, and the proper use of shields. Somehow that knowledge disappeared. Well, it didn't disappear, it was there, plain as day, in practices published by Bell Labs, the BBC, the CBC and others.

Then, in the mid 1990s a couple of very bright folks decided that it didn't have to be this way. So they did some digging, did some experiments, and published a landmark paper or two.

We can be a silly lot!


----------



## Ed Wine

Jaap said:


> Yes it does. Any cheap recorded stuff from decades ago won't hold up against good solid recordings from bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc


Is that why they've all been remastered?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ed Wine said:


> Is that why they've all been remastered?



The style today is mastering for impact - partly because tastes have changed (for a variety of reasons), partly because of today's equipment - i.e. you don't have to worry about the needle jumping out of the groove. That's been a big subject of debate, as I'm sure you know.

But it isn't because recording engineers had less skill and talent two generations ago!

***


wst3 said:


> Stupid stuff, like headroom, is ignored. Proper power supply design is ignored. Don't even thing about proper board layout.



I wonder how much of that is because of surface-mounted components.

And power supplies... no kidding. I'm in the middle of reviving the Kurzweil K250 I brought out of retirement from my garage. Its power supply needs new caps, but that thing is serious. Or those things - there are two of them, one for analog, one for digital.

The K250 is from 1984, as far as I know the first instrument to use sampled sounds. Sampling has come a long way since then, but its sound is still really good.


----------



## Ryan

To do some following up:
I bought my first sound interface back in 2008. At first, I was thinking of buying a cheap interface. But after a lot of reading up I bought the RME FF400. I haven't seen the need to upgrade my interface. Even when I'm on my 10th year using it. In fact, I got my self an extra second hand FF400 and hooked them up together with a second hand RME ADI-8 mk2. All in all I have used 10000,- NOK on sound interface since 2008.

For me to choose the more expensive interface was cost effective in the long term. And I don't think I'll be doing a more massive upgrade. If so, I just buy a RME Raydat and hook the interfaces up with that. 
And yes, I have done some massive jobs on that "cheap & old" system...

Best
Ryan


----------



## N.Caffrey

In the meanwhile, my Apollo Twin Mk II just arrived


----------



## sostenuto

Audient provided comparison chart which shows virtually identical DAC specs for id4 *&* id14, even though different suppliers. Xtra headphone capability of id14 is cool, but not a personal need.

** Just noted Focusrite introducing Clarett USB. 2Pre USB is pre-order @ Sweetwater for $ 400.


----------



## agarner32

I upgraded from a MOTU UltraLite to a UAD Apollo 8 a year ago or so and it made a huge difference. I could never get a decent sound on my grand piano until the Apollo. I tried several different mics including the Earthworks piano mic system and nothing improved the sound that much. For me the Apollo made the difference and with AKG 414s I can now get a really good sound even with my limited engineering skills. Perhaps a skilled engineer could have gotten a great sound with the MOTU who knows.


----------



## robgb

If you're looking for a new interface, have I mentioned this one? 

https://www.musictri.be/Categories/Behringer/Computer-Audio/Audio-Interfaces/UMC202HD/p/P0BJZ

Relax, guys. Just a little joke...


----------



## agarner32

Well all joking aside, maybe I should look into it as a laptop interface. Heaven knows I'm not going to spend another $1900 on a 2nd UAD. Or, maybe I'll sell my UAD, get the Behringer and buy some more sample libraries with the extra case


----------



## agarner32

Well at least I learned a new word "exudate."


----------



## agarner32

"Exudate". Is that what happens to a person when they are forced to listen to a Behringer?


----------



## Kevin Fortin

robgb said:


> If you're looking for a new interface, have I mentioned this one?
> 
> https://www.musictri.be/Categories/Behringer/Computer-Audio/Audio-Interfaces/UMC202HD/p/P0BJZ
> 
> Relax, guys. Just a little joke...


How dare you!  I just bought the UMC204HD myself. For me it will be a nice upgrade from my Lexicon Alpha because more of the inputs will be on the front.


----------



## Ashermusic

Bunk IMHO. The average engineer back then may not know today's tech but they were better taught, more experienced, and more fundamentally sound, which is why the average record sounded better than todays. Ask any engineer over 48 who works with older and younger fellow engineers and I bet that most would agree with me.


----------



## robgb

So I started using the UMC202HD today (after ditching the Onyx and using the UM2 as a temporary substitute), and I have to say the MIDAS pre-amps sound great, and latency is nearly nonexistent, even if I set it at 512 milliseconds. Again, $59. I won't get into arguing about it again, but for the price it sounds VERY sweet. Just in case someone decides they might want to buy one.

One complaint: the zero latency monitoring button only gives you sound on the left or the right, depending on which of the two inputs you use. The UMC2 doesn't do this and I find it annoying. The solution was to plug in another mic when recording vocals. The second mic doesn't record (unless you want it to), but balances out the monitoring. If anyone knows of another solution, I'd appreciate the heads up. I may just monitor through my DAW since latency is so low.


----------



## wst3

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I wonder how much of that is because of surface-mounted components.
> 
> And power supplies... no kidding. I'm in the middle of reviving the Kurzweil K250 I brought out of retirement from my garage. Its power supply needs new caps, but that thing is serious. Or those things - there are two of them, one for analog, one for digital.



Bit of chicken and egg thing there. Surface Mount components present challenges, but they also solve problems we simply could not solve with respect to analog circuit board layout. The tricky part is taking advantage of the benefits without losing ground (poor choice of words?) on all that we already learned.

A bigger challenge today is the desire for low power designs. You can build the best analog front end in the world, with tons of headroom, and when you have to convert it to digital you have to squeeze that carefully preserved signal (which starts out swinging over a 30V or 36V or even greater range) down to a 5 volt range, or worse, a 3.3 volt range. And we're headed for a 1V swing. For a microphone level signal this isn't a huge problem, but for line level it is. You are going to lose resolution, and you are going to decrease the signal to noise ratio.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> The K250 is from 1984, as far as I know the first instrument to use sampled sounds. Sampling has come a long way since then, but its sound is still really good.



The K250 was an ear-opener. The original demo cassette was amazing, I had never heard a synthesizer do what that thing could do! The Mirage arrived shortly thereafter, for those of with Kurzweil tastes, but no Kurzweil budget<G>! Even the Mirage was just a whole new way of thinking about music production. Wish I could say I could see the future way back when, but alas even my warped imagination never imagined what we have today.


----------



## wst3

Ashermusic said:


> Bunk IMHO. The average engineer back then may not know today's tech but they were better taught, more experienced, and more fundamentally sound, which is why the average record sounded better than todays. Ask any engineer over 48 who works with older and younger fellow engineers and I bet that most would agree with me.



I concur, being one of those old dogs. The tech was different, and I think in many ways more challenging. But I'll take that one step further - engineers who "grew up" (ok, most of us never accomplished that feat) aligning signal paths have an easier time optimizing today's computer-centric studios. I've had occasion to help someone set up their studio for the best possible signal, and without fail they've always been amazed that their studio could sound so good, and that managing levels could be so easy.

This is not to suggest that there are not many talented engineers that came of age with computer based studios who understand all the underlying technology. They are out there, and the difference is that they made the effort to understand. If you ask them why they selected -18 dBFS as their 0VU reference they can tell you. The people that scare me are the ones that don't know the difference between digital and analog references<G>!


----------



## mojamusic

SO... I the Motu 8pre interface (USB). Would the Apollo Twin or 8 a lateral move or step up? I am just looking for some feedback on a potential upgrade.


----------

