Best Audio Interfaces February 2018
- Thread starter Kent
- Start date
You need to define the interface you want to use, and at this point I think USB3 and Thunderbolt are the primary contenders.
RME makes great gear and provides really solid drivers. They have devices at several price points. They also cover more computer interfaces than anyone else - PCI, PCIe, USB, Firewire, MADI, Lightpipe, AES, S/P-DIF, and now Thunderbolt. That's quite the line up.
I like Universal Audio, and they too have solid drivers and devices at several price points. They only have one USB device, the rest are Thunderbolt2.
Metric Halo also deserve a place on the list, they are limited to Firewire, and I'm not sure I'd invest in a new PC with Firewire, but if you existing system supports it this is a great option.
All of these start at the higher end of the price scale. About the only manufacturer I would trust at the $500 price point is Presonus. They got off to a bumpy start with their drivers, but in the last couple years they have provided solid drivers, and they have maintained them. I have the Audiobox 1818VSL, I don't use it as much since I picked up an Apollo Twin USB, but it is a very good interface, and I won't be parting with anytime soon.
RME makes great gear and provides really solid drivers. They have devices at several price points. They also cover more computer interfaces than anyone else - PCI, PCIe, USB, Firewire, MADI, Lightpipe, AES, S/P-DIF, and now Thunderbolt. That's quite the line up.
I like Universal Audio, and they too have solid drivers and devices at several price points. They only have one USB device, the rest are Thunderbolt2.
Metric Halo also deserve a place on the list, they are limited to Firewire, and I'm not sure I'd invest in a new PC with Firewire, but if you existing system supports it this is a great option.
All of these start at the higher end of the price scale. About the only manufacturer I would trust at the $500 price point is Presonus. They got off to a bumpy start with their drivers, but in the last couple years they have provided solid drivers, and they have maintained them. I have the Audiobox 1818VSL, I don't use it as much since I picked up an Apollo Twin USB, but it is a very good interface, and I won't be parting with anytime soon.
FriFlo
Senior Member
I belong to the rare species of people still using a modular system, meaning PCIe soundcard (RME Madi FX), seperate Converter (2x RME Adi 8QS M) and several preamps. This means of course even bigger investments than some of the most expensive all in one boxes, but it has the advantage of being very flexible and being able to keep on working in, if one piece of equipment should fail. I also don't like the idea of having to dump a whole box, just because one part of it is broken beyond repair. PCIe is also still the connection with lowest latency, although RME USB drivers seem to be very close to that these days. In case I need more preamp channels for bigger recordings, I'd like to add a RME micstacy some day ... 
This is all for a recording studio! If you mostly do midi, cheaper all in one boxes might be fine, I guess!
This is all for a recording studio! If you mostly do midi, cheaper all in one boxes might be fine, I guess!
WindcryMusic
Senior Member
The OP didn't specify what type of DAW he has. If it's an Apple, then I'd say that Apogee should be included on the short list of interfaces worthy of consideration.
chillbot
Sock Muppet
No one ever talks about MOTU interfaces here. Are they still commonly used? It made me think, I've been using three MOTU 2408mk3s for seemingly forever, since whenever the mk3 first came out, all via PCI-e. They run just flawless at 128 samples per buffer, Sonar reports 5.2ms roundtrip latency. It's the part of my setup I think about the least.
I'm not. OP forgot to ask what the best interface is for $59.
will_m
Active Member
I'm looking at getting a MOTU 828es but there never seems to be much information on a lot of the MOTU interfaces from users. Maybe they are all quietly content with them. The 828es looks great on paper and about half the price of an RME with a similar feature set.
RME do seem to be king of drivers though, I never seem to find any negative reviews of them.
X-Bassist
Senior Member
MOTU 2408 mk3 first went on sale in 2003...
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/motu-2408-mk3-24io-hd192
I can't believe you're getting that kind of speed out of something 14 years old. I'd like to get a faster interface (my Scarlett 6i6 has not been great) but stick to USB (2 or 3). The modern MOTU interfaces are about the same price as the RME's, yet I wonder if they are as fast. They have some cheaper interfaces (under $500) but it's not worth it to me unless I can get my latency/ buffer down. I'm considering a babyface pro or better if it means I could work regularly with a 128 buffer.
$59? Spill the beans.
synthpunk
Senior Member
Last post in response to my right and honorable bot. MOTU makes good gear. I had a 896HD forever before TB arrived on the scene. I do not think they have a huge following in Europe for some reason. There also have been a few questions about the company's recent longevity.
MOTU 2408 mk3 first went on sale in 2003...
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/motu-2408-mk3-24io-hd192
I can't believe you're getting that kind of speed out of something 14 years old. I'd like to get a faster interface (my Scarlett 6i6 has not been great) but stick to USB (2 or 3). The modern MOTU interfaces are about the same price as the RME's, yet I wonder if they are as fast. They have some cheaper interfaces (under $500) but it's not worth it to me unless I can get my latency/ buffer down. I'm considering a babyface pro or better if it means I could work regularly with a 128 buffer.
$59? Spill the beans.
bvaughn0402
Senior Member
I recently upgraded from an older MOTU (which I did like) ... to a UAD Apollo 8p Thunderbolt, which I LOVE (I'm Mac).
I avoided UAD like the plague, just because of the whole hardware/software thing. But I'm loving it.
I avoided UAD like the plague, just because of the whole hardware/software thing. But I'm loving it.
X-Bassist
Senior Member
Actually like the look of this newer MOTU half rack interface. Same price as RME Babyface with 16x16 (8 analog, 8 adat i/o) .They also come with digital (all AES or all ADAT) or 8x8 line input versions. a little over $700 in cart at JRR Shop (Code: forum). Considering it has thunderbolt and USB3 interfaces promising under 1.6ms latency on either, I feel I have to try it out at some point!
https://www.jrrshop.com/motu-624
chillbot
Sock Muppet
Yeah, that's why this is eye-opening to me. What am I missing out on. But MOTU has been so solid for so long for me. I don't record through it, I have two Avalon VT-737-SP preamps that I record through. All the MOTUs are doing is connecting about 48 channels of ADAT digitally to my mixers but the PCI-e seems to be the thing that I'm wondering what is better now. And what interface now will give me 72 channels of I/O at that latency...? I almost feel like it's when they took away serial ports and all of a sudden all the MIDI became a victim of USB...
Gerhard Westphalen
Mastering Engineer (occasionally Scoring Mixer)
Probably nothing? Maybe Thunderbolt.
Aside from a couple of interfaces with 4 adat ports (so only 32) or ones where you can use multiple interfaces (like Avid interfaces or Focusrite Rednet) you're basically stuck with madi for that many channels. It's too bad that the adat<->madi devices cost as much as an entire interface.
chillbot
Sock Muppet
I should have prefaced this... I just got a brand new spanking computer this year (well, last year, within the last year) and I'm not switching from my MOTUs unless they die or the computer dies, whichever comes first. I hope that's a long time. But I'm wondering, using only digital-to-digital in the MOTUs, am I losing quality using interfaces that old? Does it matter? Do I care with the latency I'm getting?
Gerhard Westphalen
Mastering Engineer (occasionally Scoring Mixer)
Has anyone tried the Merging Technologies ones? Seems to have high quality converters. I haven't really looked into how it interfaces with the computer since it only has ethernet. No clue if it works with DAWs other than Pyramix.
Anyone try the new Avid ones (MTRX)? They're marketing them as the best of the best (and the price reflects that) but I doubt they really sound that good coming from AVoID. I feel like the power supply in something like that should have some beast of a transformer.
The features and I/O flexibility seems killer but at the end of the day, you're limited to 64x64 which seems ridiculous for an interface of that class. Should be more like 64 from the cards + 64 madi + 64 Dante + the AES.
I doubt they'll catch on. Pro studio that are happy with the normal HD won't care enough about quality to purchase these and others using higher end converters will stick to those. Will probably only be sold in the post production market where they can burn through money and need things like madi (although if you're using Madi, you should just get the HD Madi since on this you then wouldn't be able to use any other I/O).
$8697 for an 8x8 interface? RME and Antelope with more I/O are less than half the price. OK, converters probably aren't as good but at that price point they're competing with Prism and Lavry which I think would blow the Avid out of the water.
Anyone try the new Avid ones (MTRX)? They're marketing them as the best of the best (and the price reflects that) but I doubt they really sound that good coming from AVoID. I feel like the power supply in something like that should have some beast of a transformer.
The features and I/O flexibility seems killer but at the end of the day, you're limited to 64x64 which seems ridiculous for an interface of that class. Should be more like 64 from the cards + 64 madi + 64 Dante + the AES.
I doubt they'll catch on. Pro studio that are happy with the normal HD won't care enough about quality to purchase these and others using higher end converters will stick to those. Will probably only be sold in the post production market where they can burn through money and need things like madi (although if you're using Madi, you should just get the HD Madi since on this you then wouldn't be able to use any other I/O).
$8697 for an 8x8 interface? RME and Antelope with more I/O are less than half the price. OK, converters probably aren't as good but at that price point they're competing with Prism and Lavry which I think would blow the Avid out of the water.
Last edited:
Gerhard Westphalen
Mastering Engineer (occasionally Scoring Mixer)
Short answer is no.
X-Bassist
Senior Member
Actually the MOTU devices claim to give you up to 128 inputs and 128 outputs. You can string multiple units together using ethernet. Pretty clever. Using the adat version (32 i/o each @$749) or go madi, but it seems possible through Thuderbolt or USB 3. It’s just paying for the interfaces. You sure you can’t mix some of that internally?
Last edited:
X-Bassist
Senior Member
Stick with what you have if it works. There really is no difference if it supports the size/type of session your doing (48/96), especially using the digital outs. Seems like a great set up. I just would like something that I can use with a decent sized templete without going to a 512 buffer. At 128 (or less?) I would be a happy camper.
Jeremy Spencer
Senior Member
I’d say the new Apogee stuff is as fast or faster. The Element has a 1.41ms round-trip at 96kHz with a 32 buffer setting. Mine doesn’t flinch.
OP
OP
Kent
sleepy member
Okay, maybe I'm just ignorant... but I seem to have read somewhere that USB (especially to-capacity, like with a full modern virtual orchestra) causes higher CPU usage than, say, TB? In that case, wouldn't it be better to go with the wider bandwidth option? (Or how does RME do it?)
As a corollary to that, what are you considering "low-latency"? My current interface reports 22.4 ms RT/14.3 ms Output in Logic @256, and I'm not entirely convinced those numbers should be called "low-latency." ...
As a corollary to that, what are you considering "low-latency"? My current interface reports 22.4 ms RT/14.3 ms Output in Logic @256, and I'm not entirely convinced those numbers should be called "low-latency." ...
