What is the most professional USB audio interface out there?

[James Perrett]

I notice that the UFX III also has a class compliant mode that passes all the input and output channels which presumably requires USB 3.

[Johnsy]

The UFX III has USB 3.

That there is a USB 3 B receptacle.

That's right. As I mentioned previously, RME will certainly use USB 3.0 when there's a sound reason to. That sound reason - and it's really the only one in RME's mind - is the need for increased channel capacity, which I see Hugh has already noted in this case.

[Synthman4]

What about the Apollo x16? Is this better than that UFX III you've all just been talking about? I want to also run some analogue modelled synths into it too.
https://www.gak.co.uk/en/universal-audi ... BgEALw_wcB

[Hugh Robjohns]

There's no point buying a UFXiii if you no MADI
equipment. The UFX ii might be more appropriate.... unless you need more than four mic inputs...

So, you need to make a list of critically required features, and then use that to make a shortlist of potential interface models.

So how many inputs do you need?
What type of inputs (mic, line, instrument, digital etc)

How many outputs?

What computer connection format?

Do you need Universal Audio plugin dsp?

Do you need hardware monitor controller facilities?

Do you need comprehensive monitor mixing facilities?

Is long-term driver support important?

What latency is acceptable?

...and so on.

[Synthman4]

There's no point buying a UFXiii if you no MADI
equipment. The UFX ii might be more appropriate.... unless you need more than four mic inputs...

So, you need to make a list of critically required features, and then use that to make a shortlist of potential interface models.

So how many inputs do you need?
What type of inputs (mic, line, instrument, digital etc)

How many outputs?

What computer connection format?

Do you need Universal Audio plugin dsp?

Do you need hardware monitor controller facilities?

Do you need comprehensive monitor mixing facilities?

Is long-term driver support important?

What latency is acceptable?

...and so on.

The number of inputs isn't really important. I just needed at least one or two for when I might run a V Synth through it. I was hoping that the best possible USB interface would allow me to use the best possible eq settings etc in my DAW so I can get the most professional sound especially if I decide to use the USB interface in a live performance.
I was hoping that this UFX ii or III or this Apollo x12 would allow me to select more professional settings in Cubase for live sound and recordings. Please excuse me for being so naive if all this is nonsense.
Synthman

[ef37a]

There's no point buying a UFXiii if you no MADI
equipment. The UFX ii might be more appropriate.... unless you need more than four mic inputs...

So, you need to make a list of critically required features, and then use that to make a shortlist of potential interface models.

So how many inputs do you need?
What type of inputs (mic, line, instrument, digital etc)

How many outputs?

What computer connection format?

Do you need Universal Audio plugin dsp?

Do you need hardware monitor controller facilities?

Do you need comprehensive monitor mixing facilities?

Is long-term driver support important?

What latency is acceptable?

...and so on.

The number of inputs isn't really important. I just needed at least one or two for when I might run a V Synth through it. I was hoping that the best possible USB interface would allow me to use the best possible eq settings etc in my DAW so I can get the most professional sound especially if I decide to use the USB interface in a live performance.
I was hoping that this UFX ii or III or this Apollo x12 would allow me to select more professional settings in Cubase for live sound and recordings. Please excuse me for being so naive if all this is nonsense.
Synthman

For two mics plus two line ins plus MIDI I/O my first suggestion would be the MOTU M4 next the Native Instruments KA6 (also has S/PDIF) but products from Focusrite at a similar price point would I think be equally good.
I very much doubt you could tell any difference in the audio performance of any of those interfaces outside a lab or unless you had very expensive monitors and some impeccable sound sources (NOT *&^*y synths!)

Were I to be faced with the situation I would go for RME for all the reasons listed especially longevity of support. For 'live' use I really don't see the point of risking an expensive, high end AI on the road? The M4* or the KA6 would serve admirably.

*The M4 can be run 'stand alone' as a converter or pre amp. Just needs 5V and a £1 13A USB plug works fine!

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The number of inputs isn't really important. I just needed at least one or two for when I might run a V Synth through it.

Well, is it one or two? And might you need a couple more for adding another synth or something in the future? Make a decision...

I was hoping that the best possible USB interface would allow me to use the best possible eq settings etc in my DAW so I can get the most professional sound especially if I decide to use the USB interface in a live performance.

The Interface does not affect the DAW EQ or anything else. It's just a means of getting sound in and out of your DAW. In terms of professional quality, there's genuinely very little difference between the cheapest and most expensive.

Paying more will get you more channels — although you say you don't need them — or better long term support (RME are renowned for that), or some additional features like built-in multiple artist headphone outputs, or monitor controller functions (eg Audient interfaces), or access to sophisticated plugin emulations (eg, the Apollo interfaces).

So you need to decide what features and functions you need, then find suitable interfaces from reputable manufacturers — of which there are many — and pick the one you like most.

And read the SOS reviews to help choose, too....

I was hoping that this UFX ii or III or this Apollo x12 would allow me to select more professional settings in Cubase for live sound and recordings.

Nope. Won't make any difference whatsoever.

What is your current interface? It's probably already of fully professional quality.

[MarkOne]

Synthman. With respect, I really don’t think you understand a lot of this.

Cubase, for example, doesn’t have more or less professional settings. Cubase, along with any DAW and pretty much any audio interface is more than capable of producing commercial quality recordings equal to anything on the Spotify top 20.

The difference between top pro production and stuff coming out of many bedroom studios, isn’t the interface, the mics, the DAW, it’s the people. It starts with good material, well performed, and then requires someone who understands the tools to capture that. There are people here using Cubase, an interface that meets the I/O needs and a nice pair of headphones producing top quality music you can go out and buy or stream from all the platforms.

[Synthman4]

The number of inputs isn't really important. I just needed at least one or two for when I might run a V Synth through it.

Well, is it one or two? And might you need a couple more for adding another synth or something in the future? Make a decision...

I was hoping that the best possible USB interface would allow me to use the best possible eq settings etc in my DAW so I can get the most professional sound especially if I decide to use the USB interface in a live performance.

The Interface does not affect the DAW EQ or anything else. It's just a means of getting sound in and out of your DAW. In terms of professional quality, there's genuinely very little difference between the cheapest and most expensive.

Paying more will get you more channels — although you say you don't need them — or better long term support (RME are renowned for that), or some additional features like built-in multiple artist headphone outputs, or monitor controller functions (eg Audient interfaces), or access to sophisticated plugin emulations (eg, the Apollo interfaces).

So you need to decide what features and functions you need, then find suitable interfaces from reputable manufacturers — of which there are many — and pick the one you like most.

And read the SOS reviews to help choose, too....

I was hoping that this UFX ii or III or this Apollo x12 would allow me to select more professional settings in Cubase for live sound and recordings.

Nope. Won't make any difference whatsoever.

What is your current interface? It's probably already of fully professional quality.

Ok well I obviously I'd need an input for a really good microphone. I'd like to buy a really good Neumann one for ten grand or something that will really sound good enough to rival the best vocal recordings in the charts. I want the vocals and vocal harmonies to really stand out in the recordings once I've completed this professional mixing course but I need to know what is the best high end audio interface that could rival one of those Phil Collins mixing desks.
I just want the best USB equipment that could rival the conventional mixing desk equipment.
Synthman

[Hugh Robjohns]

Have you sent your wishlist to Santa Claus? I'm sure he'll sort out the perfect professional gear to make Phil jealous....

[Arpangel]

Just buy the most expensive one you can find, I'm sure it’ll be fine, at least as good as my Behringer.
I'm just wondering what manufacturer Behringer cloned for their range of interfaces?

[FrankF]

I made the mistake of buying a short-scale bass once, then when I started playing it, I realised the notes just sounded, well, kind of stunted, like.

And I wish I had a bigger car...

[paulbyrne1]

Ok well I obviously I'd need an input for a really good microphone. I'd like to buy a really good Neumann one for ten grand or something that will really sound good enough to rival the best vocal recordings in the charts. I want the vocals and vocal harmonies to really stand out in the recordings once I've completed this professional mixing course but I need to know what is the best high end audio interface that could rival one of those Phil Collins mixing desks.
I just want the best USB equipment that could rival the conventional mixing desk equipment.
Synthman

If the only thing you're recording with a mic is the vocal, have you considered just going into commercial studio to get a good one down? You'll get a good sounding room and a good mic and an engineer who hopefully knows how to record one.

If you can't deliver a decent vocal during a single session, then you won't be able to do one on your own at home because it means you don't have the technique and ability right now.

[adrian_k]

Synthman you seem fixated on the idea that the “right” gear will make your recordings sound “pro”. It seems like a loop you have been in for some time - like others I remember earlier discussions. You must be frustrated that no-one will give you a straight answer. But that’s because, as it stands, it is a question with hundreds of answers.

Here is a plan that will work. Do the mixing course. Record some material using decent but not expensive gear. Apply what you have learned. Think about what you don’t like about your end results. In detail. Apply a critical ear and really think about where they fall short. Reference some commercial material. If it sounds good then great!

If not come back to the forum, explain how you recorded and mixed your work, say where you think it falls short as a piece of recorded music, include a link to the track and ask for advice. You will get a lot of helpful, specific suggestions to try. I guarantee that no-one (worth their salt) will say you are using the wrong USB interface.

If it’s not possible for you to provide a critique of what you don’t like about your mix, and resort to statements like “it doesn’t sound pro”, then I think it’s going to be difficult, if not impossible, for you to achieve your dream.

[ajay_m]

Best analogy here is someone going to an artist forum and saying "what brand of paint should I buy to make my paintings the most professional".
Modern gear, even at the low end of the market, is far more than good enough to produce great tracks. I'm afraid it's a case of 99.9% of the "professionalism" coming from the performer(s) and engineer(s) and you can't just buy gear that negates the need for those skills. Same as, even if somehow you could purchase an Airbus 320 that wouldn't turn you into a pilot.

[Synthman4]

Well I currently own a Roland Rubix audio interface. Are you sure I'll be able to record professionally sounding guitars just as good as any other audio interface just like any high end one? It's just that I've had some bad experiences trying to record guitars and mic recordings. The input recordings didn't sound at all professional so even if I had done a pro mixing course I had the feeling that it wouldn't have made much difference because the guitar and mic recordings sounded so weak and unprofessional. I had the feeling that I would have needed a high end audio interface

[Rich Hanson]

You should be able to get a perfectly decent recording using any of those interfaces. If your recordings are lacking something then you need to be looking at how you are recording, not the gear (unless you are recording with dirt cheap microphones!)

[James Perrett]

Well I currently own a Roland Rubix audio interface. Are you sure I'll be able to record professionally sounding guitars just as good as any other audio interface just like any high end one?

The specs are a bit vague on the Roland website but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be able to make decent recordings. Your playing skills, the quality of the guitar, quality of the microphone and skill in positioning the microphone are all going to be far more important. Even more important is having a decent sounding room to record in if you are recording acoustic guitar.

The interface is the last thing you should change if you aren't getting the results you want. Maybe you could put up a short excerpt of one of your recordings to somewhere like Soundcloud so that we might be able to hear it and suggest ways to improve the recording.

[Johnsy]

Maybe you could put up a short excerpt of one of your recordings to somewhere like Soundcloud so that we might be able to hear it and suggest ways to improve the recording.

Sounds like a plan to me, Synthman4. Everyone here would like to help you get to where you want to go, but to do that, we really need to know where you are now.

[Synthman4]

Surely the sound quality that the high end interfaces like Apollo and Antelope or this one that Hugh mentioned produces much better sound quality than a £200 Roland Rubix. Come on. Get real.

[Arpangel]

Surely the sound quality that the high end interfaces like Apollo and Antelope or this one that Hugh mentioned produces much better sound quality than a £200 Roland Rubix. Come on. Get real.

Not necessarily, I’m "getting real" I’ve learnt the hard way, by spending money on expensive interfaces that actually sounded no better than the cheaper ones I had before.
Price is largely determined by facilities, I/O, connectivity, monitoring, plug-in's, as others have said, figure out "exactly" what you need, and take it from there, stop worrying about "ultimate sound quality"
I've owned interfaces by M-Audio RME Motu and Focusrite. I now use two Behringer interfaces
I figured out exactly what I needed and what I could get for the cheapest price that suited my personal requirements and no more.
The other interfaces I mentioned are all perfectly fine, but I simply found I was spending too much money on facility’s and spec's I really didn’t need.

[tacitus]

Best analogy here is someone going to an artist forum and saying "what brand of paint should I buy to make my paintings the most professional".
Modern gear, even at the low end of the market, is far more than good enough to produce great tracks. I'm afraid it's a case of 99.9% of the "professionalism" coming from the performer(s) and engineer(s) and you can't just buy gear that negates the need for those skills. Same as, even if somehow you could purchase an Airbus 320 that wouldn't turn you into a pilot.

If you buy an A320, presumably it’ll turn you into a, er, bus-driver?

[adrian_k]

Surely the sound quality that the high end interfaces like Apollo and Antelope or this one that Hugh mentioned produces much better sound quality than a £200 Roland Rubix. Come on. Get real.

Now now don’t get like that.

Ok here’s another plan. Record something using your rubix. Now buy something expensive like an Apollo interface (you can always return it within 14 days if you are in the UK and buy online). Record exactly the same thing in the same way but using the Apollo. Come back and tell us what you hear. In the end only you will know what’s right for you.

[ef37a]

Surely the sound quality that the high end interfaces like Apollo and Antelope or this one that Hugh mentioned produces much better sound quality than a £200 Roland Rubix. Come on. Get real.

"Reality" is something sadly missing from most discussions about audio equipment.
I have had an interest in 'hi fi', sound repro and recording for over 50 years. When son and I became interested in computer audio we began as many do with a 'semi pro' sound card, the M-A 2496, first through a Behringer X802 mixer and later an Allen and Heath. Next was a USB interface, M-A Fast track pro. Over the next ten years we had a variety of interfaces, Berry BCA2000, Focusrite 8i6. Latterly a Native Instruments KA6 and now a MOTU M4. OK, none of those AIs is hyper expensive gear (although the M4 spec is pretty close to state of art) but we never found any difference in the SOUND quality of those devices. Surely, over more than ten years development you would expect some sonic improvements? But no. The ancient Fast track pro was very clean (mic pre were a bit ****) and yes, the M4 better but not audibly so.

Look also at the continuing interest in tape recording and vinyl? Tape produces noise and distortion many magnitudes higher than any of the interfaces mentioned above and so...LOGICALLY you would expect anyone hearing super clean digital sound for the first time to shun tape forever? They don't and, IMHO it is NOT because of some airy-fairy ideas about "harmonics"* but the fact that for MANY applications, well produce tape recordings are 'good enough'.

Bottom line: we are not 'bothered' by tape or MP3 which is 100 times or more worse than basic digital sound so why would we be able to tell the difference between two digital 'systems' one of which was only 'twice' as good as the other? People's ability to resolve sound 'quality' varies. guys like Hugh and James have innate ability but it has been honed by training and years of experience. Listen to them!

*In any case the main harmonic in tape sound is third, not second which is often said to be the "nice" one!

Dave.

[MarkOne]

Surely the sound quality that the high end interfaces like Apollo and Antelope or this one that Hugh mentioned produces much better sound quality than a £200 Roland Rubix. Come on. Get real.

It’s the law of demising returns. Something for £100 will be light and day better than something you buy off Amazon for £20. Spend £200-300 and you’ll see a noticeable improvement but spend £2000-3000. And you’ll probably need to be listening on reference quality monitors in a properly designed acoustic space to really appreciate the improvements.

Of course spending more has other benefits, more stable software drivers, higher build quality, more I/O, expandability etc.

But you have become fixated on the interface, when you need to look at the wider picture. What’s the room you’re recording in like? What instruments are you recording, what mics, etc.

By the way, when that SSL desk was recording Genesis and PC albums it was connected to two 24 track analog tape machines, and then later a Sony 48 track digital cassette system. (Which by the way had worse converters than your Roland) And not a USB interface of any kind involved.