# How much will I benefit from upgrading a NI Komplete Audio 6 to a RME or UA audio interface?



## lucor (May 4, 2018)

I'm really inexperienced with audio interfaces and never owned anything else than my Komplete Audio 6 from Native Instruments so this question might seem kind of naive, but I'm not sure how much I will benefit from switching to an RME Babyface or an Apollo Twin? Is there a really noticable difference in the latency, that makes it worth to spend up to 1000 bucks on it? Any other benefits (besides UAD plugin on the Apollo of course)?
Thanks!


----------



## Jediwario1 (May 4, 2018)

There should be a local music shop (or friend) that will let you borrow an audio interface to test it out. That's the best way of knowing if it's worth upgrading for you.


----------



## Garry (May 6, 2018)

I too have the Audio 6: I’m quite happy with it, but like you, wasn’t sure what I might be missing compared to other interfaces. I previously had the Apogee One, and ‘upgraded’ to the Audio 6. I noticed almost no difference, and if anything the One was slightly better (I had mainly upgraded as I needed more inputs). This thread convinced me that other, more expensive interfaces, would have little impact:

https://vi-control.net/community/th...ce-because-i-realized-it-doesnt-matter.68020/


----------



## will_m (May 6, 2018)

I recently went from a Focusrite 18i20 to an RME UFX+ so pretty big price increase. I would say its an improvement but definitely not a £2000+ improvement. I made a video about my experience here:



One thing that surprised me was that the improvements in latency were only really at the lowest buffer settings. At 256+ I saw very little difference.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

Well, 256 samples at a certain sample rate is always going to be 256 samples no matter what the interface. Then you get USB bus and ADC/DAC latency on top of that (ADC/DAC latency usually being just a few samples, but still, it's there). It's how well the drivers are written that enables better performance at lower latencies. And RME are kings in that regard.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

Another benefit is audio quality, but that can be hard to hear unless you also get top-notch speakers, amp, and cables. Upgrading one on its own may not produce a huge audible difference, but upgrading everything does.

What's the difference?

You can hear what you are doing so much more clearly. It significantly reduces smear, enhances clarity of stereo and depth placement of instruments, clarifies low end response -- you can hear what you are really doing. Surprisingly to me at least, this was true even working with electronic instruments and samples, not just live recordings.

It's pretty expensive, unfortunately, but if you have the money and intend a long-term commitment to composing, well worth it. I put it off for years and years and was shocked at the difference when I finally upgraded everything (did it in one go).


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> and cables



No, just no. 

http://archimago.blogspot.hr/2015/06/measurements-speaker-cables-wires.html


----------



## robgb (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> No, just no.
> 
> http://archimago.blogspot.hr/2015/06/measurements-speaker-cables-wires.html


But they're gold plated!!!


----------



## robgb (May 6, 2018)

will_m said:


> I recently went from a Focusrite 18i20 to an RME UFX+ so pretty big price increase. I would say its an improvement but definitely not a £2000+ improvement.


I, on the other hand, downgraded from a analogue/digital mixer hybrid interface (with boutique preamps!!!) that cost me nearly two grand to a Behringer UMC202HD that cost me about $50. The difference in sound quality, clarity, etc., is barely perceptible, if at all, unless you're seventeen years old, and the latency is better.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 6, 2018)

lucor said:


> I'm really inexperienced with audio interfaces and never owned anything else than my Komplete Audio 6 from Native Instruments so this question might seem kind of naive, but I'm not sure how much I will benefit from switching to an RME Babyface or an Apollo Twin? *Is there a really noticable difference in the latency,* that makes it worth to spend up to 1000 bucks on it? Any other benefits (besides UAD plugin on the Apollo of course)?
> Thanks!



Curious as well. Usually RME units provide very, very low latency. BTW those Komplete Audio units seem to get fine reviews.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> No, just no.
> 
> http://archimago.blogspot.hr/2015/06/measurements-speaker-cables-wires.html



Sorry. I don't agree, having changed the cables at the last stage of upgrading and hearing the difference. I couldn't believe it either.

I had been scornful for 20 years of "audiophile" cables. Not any more.

I see this guy's results too, which normally would make me think it's confirmation bias, but it's also possible that there is some other weakness in his signal chain or some other reason he was able to measure no difference.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

He's not the only guy who measures insignificant difference.

As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly marketing and greed and I refuse to pay that much more for atomic-minuscule differences.



JohnG said:


> normally would make me think it's confirmation bias



How can graphed measurements be confirmation bias? Be serious, please 


https://www.lifewire.com/speaker-cables-make-a-difference-3134902


----------



## erikradbo (May 6, 2018)

I have Komplete Audio 6 since many years and it's a very stable workhorse. The headphone monitoring volume is too low, but others than that, very few complaints. When recording with mic's I usually switch to my old Apogee Duet (1st gen) which supposedly has got world class pre-amps, but I honestly have a very hard time hearing the difference.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> How can graphed measurements be confirmation bias? Be serious, please



I meant my bias, not his. To clarify:

1. I upgraded my speakers, amplifier, and D/A converter all at once. Noticed a big improvement. It was a huge jump in the grade of everything, from very pedestrian to very good.

2. After all those other upgrades, I substituted new speaker wire and it was instantly noticeable how different it was.

I wondered if it was just my own bias (that I assumed the more expensive wires were better) but fortunately I wasn't on my own with the test so I asked my engineer, Mike Aarvold, to switch back and forth.

One of the noticeable differences is that the more expensive wire (compared with the very ordinary speaker cables I'd been using) were louder -- quite a bit louder, maybe 3-6dB. That alone can introduce a trick of the ear and make you favour the louder signal.

The other issue I have with these graphs is that the guy is using a $60 microphone -- I know price does not equal perfection and I am no engineer, but it does make me wonder whether his signal path (didn't research the whole thing) or measuring devices are really able to make a distinction that one's ears can hear.

I heard it, I didn't believe I would hear anything, but it was undeniable.


----------



## robgb (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Sorry. I don't agree, having changed the cables at the last stage of upgrading and hearing the difference. I couldn't believe it either.


I'm curious to know how much you spent on these cables. An article I read said that some audiophile cables cost as much as $1,000 apiece. 
I, frankly, believe it's all snake oil in regard to cables. And I think most audio experts would agree. I have to wonder if there aren't certain psychological factors involved in our perception of sound. Certainly there are differences between lo-fidelity and hi-fidelity, but I don't for a minute believe expensive cables have anything to do with it.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> The other issue I have with these graphs is that the guy is using a $60 microphone -- I know price does not equal perfection and I am no engineer, but it does make me wonder whether his signal path (didn't research the whole thing) or measuring devices are really able to make a distinction that one's ears can hear.



As long as it's the same mic done throughout the test, it's a known variable so it can be considered a reference point of sorts. Of course if you used an Earthworks the graph might've been more precise in certain areas. But even so, a cheap mic picking up fractions of a dB of difference (but the curve otherwise having exactly the same trends regardless of cables tested) is still saying something, don't you think?


Also regarding 3-6 dB difference, this almost sounds to me like a difference between unbalanced and balanced connectors, rather than the quality of the cable itself. This is a known fact regarding (un)balanced leads - balanced are louder. I'd wager this is what you heard - the old cable you used wasn't balanced, the more expensive one was.


----------



## germancomponist (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> Another benefit is audio quality, but that can be hard to hear unless you also get top-notch speakers, amp, and cables. Upgrading one on its own may not produce a huge audible difference, but upgrading everything does.



This is sooo true!


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

robgb said:


> I have to wonder if there aren't certain psychological factors involved in our perception of sound.



Of course there are. Ear is one of the easiest senses to fool. We all know about McGurk effect, right?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> He's not the only guy who measures insignificant difference.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly marketing and greed and I refuse to pay that much more for atomic-minuscule differences.
> 
> ...


Converter, amp, and clocking differences would make the same graphs so I guess then that that's all marketing and greed...


----------



## germancomponist (May 6, 2018)

Use a Neumann U87 mic and test some audio-interfaces and yeah, you will identify the differences very quickly. Of course, mostly only in a well treated room ... , and you have to have good ears.


----------



## dflood (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> One of the noticeable differences is that the more expensive wire (compared with the very ordinary speaker cables I'd been using) were louder -- quite a bit louder, maybe 3-6dB.



I think if one did the math, a 3-6 dB measurable increase in sound pressure level between cables would indicate that your old cables were either insanely undersized or you had some significant resistance at the terminals. I hope you didn’t spend $1000 on cables when simply increasing the wire diameter using ‘ordinary’ speaker wire or new terminations would have done the same thing.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Converter, amp, and clocking differences would make the same graphs so I guess then that that's all marketing and greed...



Not sure what you base this comment on. I was talking solely about the cables. Of course different converters and amps will have different performance, this is measurable (and again - all other things being the same in the system, it can be considered a constant reference then). What mostly irks me is marketing like this:

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_comice_frequencyresponse.htm

Which is as snakeoilish as it gets. Not just that, it's also plain wrong and deceiving.


----------



## robgb (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> Which is as snakeoilish as it gets. Not just that, it's also plain wrong and deceiving.


You're all probably too young to remember this, but there was a time when Jordache Jeans cost three times more than a pair of Levis, even though they were made using the same material... Marketing is everything.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> Not sure what you base this comment on. I was talking solely about the cables. Of course different converters and amps will have different performance, this is measurable (and again - all other things being the same in the system, it can be considered a constant reference then). What mostly irks me is marketing like this:
> 
> http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_comice_frequencyresponse.htm
> 
> Which is as snakeoilish as it gets. Not just that, it's also plain wrong and deceiving.


Cable performance is measurable just as those other components are but the test you posted previously is completely meaningless just like it would be with these other components.

Obviously no decent cable would have the frequency response in that graph. That graph is just ridiculous. The differences don't have to do with frequency response just like it doesn't with many other components. Having said that, crappy mic and guitar cables like Mogami or Monster certainly have issues with high frequency rolloff and you get a very measurable difference in frequency response but once you start dealing with cables from higher end manufacturers and other types of cables they shouldn't have issues with frequency response.

Yes, some companies will give completely unreasonable prices for their products (like Antelope's atomic clock) but for the most part it's fairly priced considering the work and materials that goes into them. Just consider making a good mic cable 20' mic cable. It'll take me at least 5 hours to make it, probably $100 in materials, if I were selling it I'd probably go through at least 10 cables for R&D, and the cost of running a business. Suddenly $400 for it seems like a steal.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

@dflood I am too cheap to spend $1,000 on much of anything, and certainly not speaker wire. I was so disdainful of speaker wire comparisons that for years I just used the kind of wire you use for powering an old lamp. However, although I can't remember exactly what my old speaker wire was, I remember it being "good" speaker wire that I compared with "better." The "better" wire was nowhere near the highest prices.

I'm deeply skeptical about all "sounds better" claims, not just for speaker wire. I have noticed that Apogee (among others) resorts to breathless, "OMG" style encomiums as marketing rather than graphs and such when trying to sell people converters.

@EvilDragon I am sure there is plenty of snake oil out there. I also wonder whether a $60 microphone, even if it's the same mic measuring both setups, may not be as good as the human ear? Or, even if that mic is perfect and able to capture everything, there was not some other part of the signal chain so weak that you couldn't hear any difference?

*My Conclusion*

If I hadn't heard it myself I would never have believed speaker wire could make any discernible difference, but it did. I also consider it possible, even likely, that if the signal path used for the test (source, clock, amp, speakers, D/A converter) has a weak link, it might mask any difference in speaker wire. I have good ears and there was no question that the sound was clearer and "better" with the upgraded speaker wire, _after_ upgrading everything else by a lot.

I expected to hear no difference at all, even relishing the prospect of telling my engineer how deluded he was. Wrong.

Regarding the sound level, I didn't measure the dB difference with a Vu meter, so not sure exactly how much more it was; definitely louder, but when one is listening carefully a small difference might seem more conspicuous. That usually influences the listener and probably had some influence on me, but it wasn't just that.

*"Proof"*

I've seen a lot of graphs trying to sell stuff that I also thought were tricks, maybe that the scale was set so that a fractional, infinitesimal difference looked big on the graph. Some manufacturers make claims that look -- fishy. On the other side of the coin, just because someone puts a graph out and publishes it on the internet is not going to convince me, without knowing all about the components used end-to-end, whether the test was conducted in a way that can genuinely pinpoint any specific part of the signal chain.

I read Lavry's white papers, which I find convincing, though I haven't seen one on speaker wire as such. Here's a link for the curious about digital audio, aliasing, converters, sample rates, and so on: http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry-white-papers/

Luckily, I don't have to convince someone else.


----------



## robgb (May 6, 2018)

“The placebo effect is at work here, a level of suggestion with a brand name of bespoke quality leads to the purchaser 'buying-in' and they actually believe that they can sensitively define the difference. If you spend a great deal of money on such an item then you need to personally justify the cost to yourself.” Dr. Emma Kenny, psychologist, re: audio cables.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Having said that, crappy mic and guitar cables like Mogami or Monster certainly have issues with high frequency rolloff



HF rolloff on guitar cables happens for a different reason (the impedance of the signal going through it, which is very high at 1 MOhm - completely different from audio speaker world. This makes HF drop off the longer the cable is - this has nothing to do with cable quality, it can and will happen on cheap and expensive guitar cable alike) but it can be solved - put the signal through a buffer and you can have your guitar tone going over lots of meters of cable without any HF rolloff. Even if it's a crappy cable. Fact.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> The differences don't have to do with frequency response



With what else would the differences then have to do with? Freq response is absolutely a valid test to see if the performance of the system changes by changing one variable (in this case the cable).


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> just because someone puts a graph out and publishes it on the internet is not going to convince me, without knowing all about the components used end-to-end, whether the test was conducted in a way that can genuinely pinpoint any specific part of the signal chain.



Did you check out the other link I posted? This test seems to be done in a more consistent way.

https://www.lifewire.com/speaker-cables-make-a-difference-3134902


I'm not saying there are no differences between various cables (but they *are *extremely small either way). I'm saying the differences are absolutely not worth the obscene price markups on those claiming to be "the shit".


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> With what else would the differences then have to do with?


There are a lot of other factors relating to timing and phase but other than that I have no idea and I don't really care. I just care about how it sounds. 


EvilDragon said:


> Freq response is absolutely a valid test to see if the performance of the system changes by changing one variable (in this case the cable).


I never said it wasn't a valid test for anything but in this case it won't show any difference as it wouldn't if you try different clocks. That doesn't make any difference in frequency response yet it can make a massive difference. 


EvilDragon said:


> This makes HF drop off the longer the cable is - this has nothing to do with cable quality, it can and will happen on cheap and expensive guitar cable alike)


A large part of it has to do with capacitance. If one cable has 10x the capacitance of another then you can make it much longer than another while still having far less rolloff. There are clearly audible differences with cables of the same length. You can easily hear this for yourself on the countless YouTube videos comparing cables. I've recorded countless tests of mic, guitar, and power cables which I'd be happy to share but if you don't believe the hundreds of audio comparisons already available then there's no point for me to share. The only thing I haven't experimented with is speaker cables as I based mine off of the work of someone else's and know it's already pretty much as good as it gets but I should experiment at some point. I also don't want to have to remake the 6 sets of cables which my main speakers require as it's a significant investment.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

Yes, I did. He concludes that there is a small difference.

To my ears the difference in my studio was quite noticeable; whether or not it is “small” on a graph or whether his method is the best way to measure I couldn’t say.

I suspect that if I hadn’t upgraded everything else, or if I had a poor listening setup, the difference would have been inaudible. The author of your study may imply something like that, that other variables are both more decisive, when he writes:

“According to the research cited in my original article, low-Q (high bandwidth) resonances of 0.3 dB magnitude can be audible. So by switching from a generic cable or a smaller-gauge high-end cable to one of these larger cables, it is absolutely, definitely possible that a difference could be heard.

“What does that difference mean? I don't know. You might or might not even notice it, and it'd be subtle to say the least. I can't speculate on whether it would improve or degrade the sound of the speaker; it would elevate the treble, and with some speakers that would be good and others it would be bad. Note that typical absorptive room acoustics treatments would have a bigger measured effect.“ https://www.lifewire.com/brent-butterworth-3134478


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

I wouldn’t dwell on speaker wire either way. Upgrading the amp, speakers, converter, and clock would likely contribute more.

Unfortunately they cost a lot more too.


----------



## Garry (May 6, 2018)

erikradbo said:


> I have Komplete Audio 6 since many years and it's a very stable workhorse. The headphone monitoring volume is too low, but others than that, very few complaints. When recording with mic's I usually switch to my old Apogee Duet (1st gen) which supposedly has got world class pre-amps, but I honestly have a very hard time hearing the difference.


Ha, I'm in almost exactly this situation! I now use the Apogee One (Duet in your case) as an extra sound card, as a combined audio interface with the Audio 6 (which I also use for mic recordings, which I find slightly (but barely noticeably) better), and have just recently ordered a Fii0 EK10 headphone amplifier, because the headphone monitoring on the Audio 6 is too low. It arrives tomorrow - I'm hoping that will address the headphone volume issue.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I never said it wasn't a valid test for anything but in this case it won't show any difference



Wrong. Cables can have different resistance (and yes capacitance as well), this CAN impart very slight changes in frequency response of the speakers they're being attached to. And yes, phase can also be influenced but in an even smaller amount (and mostly just in low, low frequency range). (The Lifewire article showed both freq response and phase graphs.)


Again, I'm not saying there are no differences between cables.


----------



## will_m (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> Well, 256 samples at a certain sample rate is always going to be 256 samples no matter what the interface. Then you get USB bus and ADC/DAC latency on top of that (ADC/DAC latency usually being just a few samples, but still, it's there). It's how well the drivers are written that enables better performance at lower latencies. And RME are kings in that regard.



Yes drivers are key but I tested RTL with each interface on 32 buffer etc and there was a difference at the lower settings (3-4 ms). At 512 though there was barely a difference.

In my practical testing a Cubase project that produced many clicks and pops on the Focusrite produced only a couple with the RME. So in my case the interface upgrade was an improvement just not equal to the investment but I guess there are heavy diminishing returns in audio gear. 

To the OP, the Dawbench charts are really handy for finding the best interfaces with good low latency performance.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

will_m said:


> Yes drivers are key but I tested RTL with each interface on 32 buffer etc and there was a difference at the lower settings (3-4 ms). At 512 though there was barely a difference.



Yeah, it's all about how the driver manages the CPU at those lowest latencies, I think.


----------



## germancomponist (May 6, 2018)

EvilDragon said:


> Yeah, it's all about how the driver manages the CPU at those lowest latencies, I think.


Yes, it's also about how the driver manages the CPU at those lowest latencies, but I was talking about the "sound", the sound quality of an audio interface. And the RME Baby is very good and better sounding than many others, if u ask me. We did many comparisons. Is not that the topic of this thread?
For me, only the sound is the most important thing!


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2018)

will_m said:


> To the OP, the Dawbench charts are really handy for finding the best interfaces with good low latency performance.



The Dawbench measurements are ancient, however, at least the ones I can find. And they seem to focus on very small buffers, much smaller than I typically use.

Not saying the data's invalid, but some of that is copyrighted 2010.


----------



## R. Soul (May 6, 2018)

will_m said:


> Yes drivers are key but I tested RTL with each interface on 32 buffer etc and there was a difference at the lower settings (3-4 ms). At 512 though there was barely a difference.
> 
> In my practical testing a Cubase project that produced many clicks and pops on the Focusrite produced only a couple with the RME. So in my case the interface upgrade was an improvement just not equal to the investment but I guess there are heavy diminishing returns in audio gear.
> 
> To the OP, the Dawbench charts are really handy for finding the best interfaces with good low latency performance.


See, I really don't care about latency - I've gotten used to work with 512.
What I care a lot about though is getting more tracks running in my project. THAT, I would pay for a better interface for. My realtime performance meter is often hitting the red, and that's with a relatively low track count.
If something like RME could improve that, I'd certainly be interested. But it sounds like all it improves is latency?


----------



## EvilDragon (May 6, 2018)

You might get slightly more tracks happening, but this is really more up to the CPU rather than audio interface, by and large.


----------



## will_m (May 6, 2018)

JohnG said:


> The Dawbench measurements are ancient, however, at least the ones I can find. And they seem to focus on very small buffers, much smaller than I typically use.
> 
> Not saying the data's invalid, but some of that is copyrighted 2010.



There are much more up to date ones (less than 12 months old) listed in the GS thread. Unfortunately yes the site is out of date.



R. Soul said:


> See, I really don't care about latency - I've gotten used to work with 512.
> What I care a lot about though is getting more tracks running in my project. THAT, I would pay for a better interface for. My realtime performance meter is often hitting the red, and that's with a relatively low track count.
> If something like RME could improve that, I'd certainly be interested. But it sounds like all it improves is latency?



For me it has allowed me to run more tracks (at the same buffer) before dropouts. 

I run at 256 as much as possible, this is with about 150+ tracks and 100+ instances of Kontakt with a fair few effects plugins.

Also now my ASIO meter is more in line with my CPU meter. Before my ASIO meter was peaking a lot and the CPU meter was a good 20-30% lower. Also on the RME I can select a higher maximum buffer (4096) for projects that require it. It also allows me to use TB which I believe puts less strain on the CPU than USB.



germancomponist said:


> Yes, it's also about how the driver manages the CPU at those lowest latencies, but I was talking about the "sound", the sound quality of an audio interface. And the RME Baby is very good and better sounding than many others, if u ask me. We did many comparisons. Is not that the topic of this thread?
> For me, only the sound is the most important thing!



The OP mentioned latency. I'd say sound quality is very hard to quantify on a forum, especially when are talking about the differences in converters etc.


----------



## germancomponist (May 6, 2018)

will_m said:


> ... The OP mentioned latency. I'd say sound quality is very hard to quantify on a forum, especially when are talking about the differences in converters etc.


Huh, I then overread this. Sorry, but latency is for me much less important than "sound".


----------



## will_m (May 6, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Huh, I then overread this. Sorry, but latency is for me much less important than "sound".



No need to apologise, the sound is obviously very important. It's just very subjective and hard to quantify, especially without knowing the other persons set-up and experience.


----------



## erikradbo (May 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> Ha, I'm in almost exactly this situation! I now use the Apogee One (Duet in your case) as an extra sound card, as a combined audio interface with the Audio 6 (which I also use for mic recordings, which I find slightly (but barely noticeably) better), and have just recently ordered a Fii0 EK10 headphone amplifier, because the headphone monitoring on the Audio 6 is too low. It arrives tomorrow - I'm hoping that will address the headphone volume issue.



Good solution. Interesting that you find the Komplete better than the one for recording, do you know if Duet and One have the same circuits? Always considered One more gimmick-ey, not only by the number of channels.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2018)

To the original question: you'll hear a difference with a better audio interface if you have the system to reveal the difference. Better audio interfaces absolutely do sound better, but the differences aren't nearly as great as the ones between speakers and mics.

The biggest difference in sound quality is with tranducers: speakers and mics. To sound right, speakers need a good amp that's well matched to them, but these days those are usually internal (they're called powered monitors). I'd start with a good pair of speakers before thinking about upgrading audio interfaces.

You'll also want to set up your room so it's workable - both for sound and ergonomics. Most people will feed you a bunch of nonsense about acoustics, giving you links to videos of wankers who spread the same BS.  Rather than having that argument all over, I'll suggest that you figure out ways to deal with problems you hear in your room, instead of just sticking stuff up because someone tells you it's categorically necessary to "treat" your room.

Are you recording live audio? If so, mics and mic preamps are a separate discussion.

So: speakers first, then solve room problems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2018)

Cables.

Well, I can tell you the tweak cables I bought maybe 15 years ago definitely sound better on my speakers than what I was using before (they're line-level cables, not speaker wire). That's even more true of the mic cable. They might have been $75 a cable - certainly not $1000, and certainly not snake oil.


----------



## Garry (May 6, 2018)

erikradbo said:


> Good solution. Interesting that you find the Komplete better than the one for recording, do you know if Duet and One have the same circuits? Always considered One more gimmick-ey, not only by the number of channels.


Sorry, my convoluted sentence was unintentionally confusing! I meant that I use the One for mic recording, as it sounds slightly better than the Audio 6 to me. But it's marginal - I have to AB test and listen over and over to discern much difference, so whilst I needed the increase in I/O, I wouldn't recommend either over each other in terms of sound quality, and my sense from the discussions here is that this similarly applies to higher end interfaces too.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 7, 2018)

lucor said:


> I'm really inexperienced with audio interfaces and never owned anything else than my Komplete Audio 6 from Native Instruments so this question might seem kind of naive, but I'm not sure how much I will benefit from switching to an RME Babyface or an Apollo Twin? Is there a really noticable difference in the latency, that makes it worth to spend up to 1000 bucks on it? Any other benefits (besides UAD plugin on the Apollo of course)?
> Thanks!



Are you on PC or Mac?


----------



## gsilbers (May 7, 2018)

lucor said:


> I'm really inexperienced with audio interfaces and never owned anything else than my Komplete Audio 6 from Native Instruments so this question might seem kind of naive, but I'm not sure how much I will benefit from switching to an RME Babyface or an Apollo Twin? Is there a really noticable difference in the latency, that makes it worth to spend up to 1000 bucks on it? Any other benefits (besides UAD plugin on the Apollo of course)?
> Thanks!




there used to be a time when the difference between audio interfaces was very noticeable. and why i think some o fthe longer discussions stillhappen nowadays.. older cats still bear the scars of those days. my mbox1 sucked ass.
Now i would say the same applies to some gear that does one thing but also is an audio interface.
A synth that wants to be an audio interface, a guitar modeler with a audio mix input and converters so its also a audio interface etc. Mostly because for price these audio interfaces inside other prodcuts needs to be economical.

As for audio interfaces themselves, these have been mostly standarized. they have copied each others competitng prodcuts to make sure the converter quality is decent and barley noticeable against other interfaces.

The other things is that some of these interfaces come with some cool bells and whilstes. for example, UAD is a dsp audio interface and will let you record with effects w/o (much) latency. so that creeps up the price a lot. then, there is the issue of on board mic pres. seems companies are stepping it up on this realm like the new steingberg and rupert neve interace, beringer midas pres and rme promoting theirs.

so sometimes the extra huge price you see its a mix of these extra options and also the connecting type. thunderbolt is way much more expensive than usb2. having onboard dsp, with custom plugins that have to pays half their license to the owners' brands will def bring the overall price up once you get more into their ecosystem. still, much much cheapr than what it used to be with pro tools hd systmes running at $12,000 minimum. which is why many us hate so much protools/avid.

anyways, your NI will sound excelent compared to the apollo, rme etc. i would try to use external mic pre and processing like compression and eq. See, the convertion quality is good but if you use those pres on a cheap mic on a home bedroom in a city, then no matter if you get the apollo or rme or antelope valley... it wont help.

also, you can compare in youtube the blind ab tests. yes, its youtube but if you can't hear a $1000 difference on one source demo, why would you buy it anyways? or maybe you hear a small difference.. does that difference cost 1K? (even after applying fx, samples, mixing etc)



i recently added another setup studio and used a light bridge audio instead of my usual rme800 and the D to A was about the same. didnt notice anything like missing something. im sure if a/b tested there could be a difference. but not better or worst for sure. 

so rather than viewing from the converter quality point of view, try to see how it helps in your workflow. if you are a guitar player maybe get the axefx2 or kemper and keep the NI. if you record drums, then something with a lot more audio inputs will help. and so on. if you like the idea of onboard dsp then apollo or apogee or rme will help.


----------



## thevisi0nary (May 9, 2018)

The only reason to upgrade in my onion is if you are having issues with stability and you want to improve latency. The sonic improvement will range from negligible to unnoticeable.

You can check the latency database at gearslutz.com to see how much of an improvement the upgrade would be.


----------



## thevisi0nary (May 9, 2018)

Reading back into the thread. Making progress in audio engineering can be overwhelming because of the gear minded attitude that exists. I am not saying there isn’t expensive gear that is tried and true, but this is simply NOT a necessity for quality and actually holds people back from focusing on what’s important. Try things out to see how much they actually benefit you but no one should believe that very expensive gear is a requirement for a good sound or even that actually MAKE a difference for you. 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gea...5267-lynx-aurora-16-vs-behringer-ada8000.html

Here is one example of many threads where professional audio engineers cannot identify the high end unit when compared to the low end one.

Not trying to make a blanket statement that high end gear never makes a difference, but even in the cases where it does it will usually not be what you expect or are led to believe. Not unless the new gear is directly solving a current problem or limitation that you can clearly identify in your present set up.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 10, 2018)

thevisi0nary said:


> Not trying to make a blanket statement that high end gear never makes a difference, but even in the cases where it does it will usually not be what you expect or are led to believe. Not unless the new gear is directly solving a current problem or limitation that you can clearly identify in your present set up.



I convinced myself for years that I didn't need to upgrade my interface/monitors. A colleague talked me into trying out some new monitors and interfaces (I demo'd several) and was actually shocked at the detail that was revealed in my past mixes...and subtle nuances in my VI's. My mixes have now improved immensely. Of course, it comes down to personal preference, but for me it changed the whole game.


----------



## JohnG (May 10, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I convinced myself for years that I didn't need to upgrade my interface/monitors. A colleague talked me into trying out some new monitors and interfaces (I demo'd several) and was actually shocked at the detail that was revealed in my past mixes...and subtle nuances in my VI's. My mixes have now improved immensely. Of course, it comes down to personal preference, but for me it changed the whole game.



ditto. exactly the same experience -- years of resistance followed by revelation of what I'd been missing.


----------



## JohnG (May 10, 2018)

thevisi0nary said:


> The sonic improvement will range from negligible to unnoticeable.



That depends. If you are using mediocre stuff and upgrade significantly, you can hear a lot more of what is going on. It's miles from "negligible." (good word though!)

Going from a D/A converter that was one of 8? a dozen? built into my $600 interface to a dedicated D/A from Lavry was a huge improvement, along with much, much better speakers and a much, much better amp. Total cost was something like $12k for the hardware, don't remember the cost (not that much) for better speaker wire. Made an enormous difference that was very perceptible.

Not sure if it would have made _any_ difference if I hadn't done it all, though. Weakest link in chain etc.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2018)

You really do have to put it all on a scale.

Again, what you use to convert between electricity and air - your speakers - is bite-in-gonads obvious. Lousy speakers will not show you what's going on with your recordings.

The first issue is the bass response. Vocal pops and piano hammer thumps, for example, are around 55Hz, and most little speakers don't have useful response below 60Hz. Adding a subwoofer can be - you'll excuse me - suboptimal, or it can be a solution. But it's really more than the bass response, it's what the bass sounds like.

Then you get to the frequency balance. Speakers with lumps in their response will cause you to put the inverse curve on your recordings.

And the details. It's hard to judge reverb/spaces on crappy speakers. Related to that, speakers with a constrained dynamic range can make everything sound more even than it really is on the recording, plus you'll hear sounds out of balance. (Part of the dynamic range is having a decent amp, but it's also the speaker design itself.)

Okay, yes yes yes Gunther, you do need to set up your room acoustics to be workable, or it's all for naught. But... okay, I don't want to repeat myself.

There's a big jump in effect between speakers and the next piece of audio equipment in the chain, even though every piece can be a strong or weak link. Obviously a $2000 outboard mic preamp is going to sound better than a - quite literally - $5 one built into a budget audio interface. But you could switch mic preamps between vocal comps and nobody would know.

As I said, it's all on a scale. And as someone else basically wrote, a great engineer using crappy equipment will kick my ass using my very good equipment - and I'm a pretty competent engineer.


----------



## thevisi0nary (May 10, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I convinced myself for years that I didn't need to upgrade my interface/monitors. A colleague talked me into trying out some new monitors and interfaces (I demo'd several) and was actually shocked at the detail that was revealed in my past mixes...and subtle nuances in my VI's. My mixes have now improved immensely. Of course, it comes down to personal preference, but for me it changed the whole game.



I am not sure what kind of monitors you were using initially, but to my original point if your first set of monitors were not giving you a flat / accurate representation of your mix then this would be a logical upgrade.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 11, 2018)

thevisi0nary said:


> I am not sure what kind of monitors you were using initially, but to my original point if your first set of monitors were not giving you a flat / accurate representation of your mix then this would be a logical upgrade.



KRK Rokit's and a Steinberg UR22. And believe me, I demo'd a lot of nice monitors (from $1000 to $5000) and they all sounded different.


----------



## thevisi0nary (May 11, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> KRK Rokit's and a Steinberg UR22. And believe me, I demo'd a lot of nice monitors (from $1000 to $5000) and they all sounded different.



KRK’s are notoriously non neutral and tend to have a hyped low end. Not surprising that you found a solid upgrade.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2018)

Dunno about recent KRKs, but the old V8 - the one that put them on the map - wasn't hyped, it was actually kinda boring... in a good way, like the passive Tannoys of that era (System 8, that ilk).

My issue with those speakers was that they were constrained - acoustic compression. I had Tannoy System 8 IIs for a couple of years, and I had V8s here for review or something (I forget).

The Blue Sky System One I have now is way better, however. And it should be, 'cause it's a lot more $.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 14, 2018)

thevisi0nary said:


> KRK’s are notoriously non neutral and tend to have a hyped low end. Not surprising that you found a solid upgrade.



The most significant difference was the interface (Apogee Element), even with the KRK's.


----------



## PaulieDC (May 16, 2018)

Let's spend $3500 on a Canon 5D Mark IV camera body and put a $200 third party 18-400mm lens on it. Images should amazing, no chromatic aberration, great contrast, resolution so strong I can count the molecules between the bride's eyelashes, right? 

Leaning on my photography experience to make a point that's pretty much in line with most of the replies: it's best to have decent components throughout your signal chain and _decent_ well-shielded cables connecting everything, along with decently placed near fields. So if your mic(s) and monitors and controller and PC and chosen DAW are all decent, then your interface is a good place to consider an upgrade. I keep saying "decent" because that's relative enough. My PreSonus 192 interface works well for me, it's decent. A $29 interface made by Pyle wouldn't be, that needs an upgrade. You should upgrade the component in your workflow that's not working best for you. For instance, if you are recording a lot of Analog especially voice or acoustic guitar and you have a decent mic, I'd look into a preamp the make that mic sing. Your interface isn't terrible, it's quite... decent. But if you keep itching for a clearer better sound and everything else in your chain is working well, then yes, the preamps in the higher end models are better than decent.  I'm pretty new at VI composing, but have been a mixer for quite a while, live and studio so all this applies I think. A bad baseball team hiring a home run hitter still isn't making the playoffs, you need a team. Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 17, 2018)

PaulieDC said:


> Leaning on my photography experience to make a point that's pretty much in line with most of the replies: it's best to have decent components throughout your signal chain



Your photography analogy is apt, because it's the lens that takes the picture. However, I'd say the lens is the speakers (or mics) rather than the audio interface. It's tempting to compare the audio interface to the camera body's light sensor, but it doesn't quite work.


----------



## puremusic (May 17, 2018)

PaulieDC said:


> Let's spend $3500 on a Canon 5D Mark IV camera body and put a $200 third party 18-400mm lens on it. Images should amazing, no chromatic aberration, great contrast, resolution so strong I can count the molecules between the bride's eyelashes, right?



I actually did this because the camera cost so much.. I had a $30 Minolta lens from the 80's on my A7RII for awhile. 

Now of course, I have to decide between sample libraries and lenses. It's a tough choice.


----------



## jcrosby (May 18, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The biggest difference in sound quality is with tranducers: speakers and mics. To sound right, speakers need a good amp that's well matched to them, but these days those are usually internal (they're called powered monitors). I'd start with a good pair of speakers before thinking about upgrading audio interfaces.
> 
> You'll also want to set up your room so it's workable - both for sound and ergonomics. Most people will feed you a bunch of nonsense about acoustics, giving you links to videos of wankers who spread the same BS.  Rather than having that argument all over, I'll suggest that you figure out ways to deal with problems you hear in your room, instead of just sticking stuff up because someone tells you it's categorically necessary to "treat" your room.



I have to politely disagree...

A square room will sound bad no matter how good your speakers are. And, all rooms ring and experience standing waves. The smaller the room the greater the issues.

As far as speakers go, depending on the size of speakers and the room dimensions the room can become even more of a detriment. And the louder you push the level the more you'll agitate a room's nodes. Like an acoustic guitar or cello the room is basically a resonator that rings with whatever sound you put in it. Treating a room properly will reveal a lot more in your speakers than the speakers will on their own in an untreated room.

On the photographic analogy... No matter how good your lens or lighting are, they won't make up for the quality of natural light if that's what a shot requires. And using light as an analogy, reflectors would be the equivalent of sound bouncing around your room. Placement of the reflectors are key, and reflectors being similar to acoustic diffusion. (I'm not a photographer! )

Just saying, sound by nature wants to travel off into space unimpeded.. Just like when the sun comes through a window, reflects off of a bright object and you suddenly can't see your computer screen, that's no different than sound bouncing around your room and interfering with your ability to hear your speakers clearly...

Back to the topic at hand... I've got a killer interface and some pretty decent speakers, however my room is where I spent the most time and money. Every single person that comes into my studio comments on the sound, (typically with colorful expletives that begin with religious references.) Its never cease to make me giggle, but the point is is that dealing with the room made a massive difference, to the point where people regularly comment that they hear things in here they've never heard in a mix before...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 18, 2018)

jcrosby said:


> A square room will sound bad no matter how good your speakers are. And, all rooms ring and experience standing waves. The smaller the room the greater the issues.



Well, you can even make square rooms workable - not ideal, workable - with a combination of heavy-duty absorption at the front and diffusion in other places. But obviously you can't get around room geometry, and very small rooms do have their own problems (although there are some good small rooms I'd rather have than some bad big ones).

In any case, what in my quote do you disagree with? Of course room acoustics is important; what I'm arguing with is the absolute bullshit you read all the time about acoustics, as if just using the word leads to orgasmic bliss. 

The line that frustrates me the most is the one that gets trotted out every time someone asks about speakers: you must budget xxx amount of money for unspecified "room treatment"; good speakers are unimportant, just buy "room treatment" - and usually the person who says that has buggered his (it's always his, not her) room by sticking up expensive absorptive "room treatment" panels everywhere. 

No. You solve the problems in your room. Good speakers absolutely do make a big difference.

As to the photography and light analogy, well, it's good but it breaks down just like every other analogy - specifically the part about waves being impeded. There's a very good reason we don't mix outdoors, where the 7-path sound model is replaced by a 3-path one (i.e. there are no walls and ceiling, just the ground): we mix indoors because the room *helps* if it's set up right!

That's a common fundamental misunderstanding (not necessarily yours, jcrosby, I mean it's common): that ideally you could take the room totally out of the equation. Anyone who's heard an anechoic chamber knows that's wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 18, 2018)

Arguing with myself; about 2o years ago ASC sold a one-size-fits-all package that probably would improve almost any room - but only if you used it differently from how it was intended.

I have the baffles from it in my room, and they work really well. It might have been called Mix Station?


----------



## jcrosby (May 21, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, you can even make square rooms workable - not ideal, workable - with a combination of heavy-duty absorption at the front and diffusion in other places. But obviously you can't get around room geometry, and very small rooms do have their own problems (although there are some good small rooms I'd rather have than some bad big ones).
> 
> In any case, what in my quote do you disagree with? Of course room acoustics is important; what I'm arguing with is the absolute bullshit you read all the time about acoustics, as if just using the word leads to orgasmic bliss.
> 
> ...



My bad, I misunderstood. From the way it was worded, I took it as acoustics being somewhat less important than speakers... Agree one hundred percent, I don't suggest buying acoustics over decent speakers or vice versa... I just suggest people consider them as part of the eco-system...

I just think it's misinformed when people go spending several thousand dollars on an interface but they haven't improved their room... (Frankly that was me for a long time, and I'd imagine that was many of us... The quality of treatment we have available now was out of reach for most of us until the last 7-10 years. For a long time foam was as good as it got in your average home studio... Let alone that the price was astronomical compared to what you can get now...)

In my case treatment and my speakers made a much bigger difference than my interface did... At least in terms of listening...

Totally agree, the room can't be taken out of the equation. It's just a rough analogy about sound being a lot more complex than what comes out of a pair of speakers. The main point was about how like light reflections can cause glare and make it hard to see, sound reflections can cause interference and make it hard to hear clearly...


----------



## thevisi0nary (May 21, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, you can even make square rooms workable - not ideal, workable - with a combination of heavy-duty absorption at the front and diffusion in other places. But obviously you can't get around room geometry, and very small rooms do have their own problems (although there are some good small rooms I'd rather have than some bad big ones).
> 
> In any case, what in my quote do you disagree with? Of course room acoustics is important; what I'm arguing with is the absolute bullshit you read all the time about acoustics, as if just using the word leads to orgasmic bliss.
> 
> ...



This is one point I meant to express in my original comment, and the user a few comments above touched on it really well. A lot of what we are talking about here has to do with ideal vs adaquete and especially how this plays into your individual production experience. There are people making all ranges of music in terms of sonic quality (good to bad) in all different kinds of production environments and set ups. It really comes down to a personalized approach based on trial and error, learning the weak points in your own set up (or just which part can benefit from improvement), and lots of education.

Steve Wilson makes incredible sounding albums, both musically and sonically, and he has little to no treatment in his rooms, I believe he even touched on this in an interview. Does this mean acoustic treatment isn’t very important? No. Does it mean you shouldn’t improve your room acoustics? No. It simply means that in his set up acoustics are simply not a weak point and he is able to accomplish whatever he needs to. 

Get whatever you need to make it work, just do not rest completely on the idea that you need an ideal set up to make it work or that it will always make a difference. But it could! Just try and decide for yourself, that is the only way to know.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (May 21, 2018)

In 2016, I had quite an upgrade myself! I wen't from working on my headphones and BM 6A in my untreated bedroom to a world class studio with full resolution loudspeakers which have some of the best components in the world. My room was designed by a world renowned designer.

Here is what you need to know:

I invited all my friends, some of them are at the top of their game, including engineers and they all loved the sound. Not just close friends. It was amazing then and still is.

I was running all of this from my RME FireFace 800 (Yes, I ran out of money in the end). Most of them were shocked to hear that when I told them at the end of listening tests. I have since moved on to Orion 32+ for some reasons - yes, the converters are slightly better but I would be just as happy with my RME. It does have a slight low extension.

But, I refused to move away from RME drivers and low latency. So, I bought a RME MADI FX Card and hooked it up with my Orion. In practice, the Orion just does the conversion but I still use RME as my soundcard. There just isn't anything like it because of the following reasons:

1. Best drivers - Early adopters to new changes in technologies.

2. Build quality - Yes, it looks very basic and industrial but it is built like a tank. My FireFace 800 is 11 years old, still going strong.

3. Bang for your buck - Orion was better but that that much better.

Having said that, you will encounter differences when you record many inputs and it all ads up. I also tested a Babyface PRO and compared to the FireFace 800, it sounded not so good at all. Why? Well, it was not designed to have the best DAC. Simple! It is a portable sound card and people are going to use it for quick recordings and listen back on headphones or near fields. It is not designed for critical listening spaces. So, it has a great headphone amp and decent inputs.

If your working professionally where you need a stable system at all times and cannot afford long down times, RME is the way to go. I do not recall a single event where the driver or the sound card let me down in the last 10 years - That is a big thing. 10 years! I only update drivers when I have a new computer coming in or need to do a clean re-install.

Yes, there are probably other good companies but RME is really a well tested name with a huge user base which consistently gives the same feedback. Another big plus of RME is that it works very well with Cubase on Windows. This rig is well tested as well.

You can always find out more from friends and shops in your city if you can. If not, RME works!

But, if your current chain is not broken and you do not feel the need to upgrade because you are not in a treated room to perceive the DAC changes and not facing major latency - stick with your sound card if it has good output and decent clarity. You can spend some money on more libraries or a new synth!

As for speaker wires - I too do not believe they make a huge difference. May be on graphs but as we know:

Microphones do not hear the same way human ears do. How could they?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2018)

thevisi0nary, no question, ideal and adequate are two different things. I'd go farther and say that what I consider "workable" is a higher level than just adequate, and it's achievable in most normal rooms without a calling in the architects.

And without spending a fortune on "room treatment" you don't need.


----------



## procreative (Jul 12, 2018)

PaulieDC said:


> Let's spend $3500 on a Canon 5D Mark IV camera body and put a $200 third party 18-400mm lens on it. Images should amazing, no chromatic aberration, great contrast, resolution so strong I can count the molecules between the bride's eyelashes, right?
> 
> Leaning on my photography experience to make a point that's pretty much in line with most of the replies: it's best to have decent components throughout your signal chain and _decent_ well-shielded cables connecting everything, along with decently placed near fields. So if your mic(s) and monitors and controller and PC and chosen DAW are all decent, then your interface is a good place to consider an upgrade. I keep saying "decent" because that's relative enough. My PreSonus 192 interface works well for me, it's decent. A $29 interface made by Pyle wouldn't be, that needs an upgrade. You should upgrade the component in your workflow that's not working best for you. For instance, if you are recording a lot of Analog especially voice or acoustic guitar and you have a decent mic, I'd look into a preamp the make that mic sing. Your interface isn't terrible, it's quite... decent. But if you keep itching for a clearer better sound and everything else in your chain is working well, then yes, the preamps in the higher end models are better than decent.  I'm pretty new at VI composing, but have been a mixer for quite a while, live and studio so all this applies I think. A bad baseball team hiring a home run hitter still isn't making the playoffs, you need a team. Hope that makes sense!



There is a BUT to that analogy. If you are prepared to forego auto lenses, there are many less loved manual lenses that while low price are excellent lenses. For example the Manual Mamiya lenses particularly the Macros are superb glass. Then (if you can convert the mounts) the older Russian lenses can be excellent.

I have a Phase One 60MP back and actually the lense is not the issue, camera shake and dust can be your worst enemies as at that resolution minor elements get magnified beyond normality.

Maybe this also applies to audio. I think while the "top end" stuff is nice, the "real" jumps in audio quality are maybe not as magnified the more you spend. When you have worked in the "classic analogue" days you remember that you had to spend big money otherwise you ended up with hiss, distortion (not the "warm" kind), ground loops etc.

Also price does not always = quality as sometimes prices are high if its a niche product/developer where economies of scale and development costs need to be recouped and most of it is still made in China...


----------

