What is the most professional USB audio interface out there?

[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.

[Arpangel]

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".

Yes, I've never heard any artist go on at length about the tools of his trade, one artist I knew painted on hardboard, sometimes with household emulsion, he ended up selling thousands of pounds worth of his stuff to a famous musician.
Music is very much like visual art, you use anything you can, nothing is sacred, and everything has a use, the words good, or bad, just don’t come into it.

[tea for two]

Dear Richard Steed Synthman4
Just be sincere in the museek you make. This will translate to the listener whether you use the cheapest gear or the most expensive gear.

[Rich Hanson]

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.

The sound quality of your Rubix is likely better than equipment (better SNR, lower distortion etc) used in the 60s, but the majority of professional recordings made back then sound perfectly fine.

However if you're going to get arsey about it I shan't bother trying to help.

[Drongoloid]

this thread has to be a wind-up, or maybe it's just me?

[Sam Spoons]

Will you be recording live instruments with mics or entirely DI or VSTi? How are your studio constrol room and live room acoustically?

Yes Sam. I'll be using professional microphones that cost around a grand. I might want to buy a secondhand Roland V Synth.

Be more specific, which mics and for what instruments, then tell us about your monitor chain and post a link to pics of both your live room and control room so we can get an idea how well treated it is. Then, as suggested, send us links to some recordings you have done and hopefully we'll be better equipped to help you.

[Wonks]

No, not a wind-up. Richard Steed has been on and off this forum in various guises for probably the last 15+ years. The best way I can put it is that he has issues, and his grasp of reality is different to the majority's.

Trying to explain that it's not the equipment, it's how its used and the talent and ideas behind it that's most important, has been an ongoing theme in response to his posts. We've had questions in the past about 'the most professional keyboard' and 'the most professional mic'.

All we can do is keep repeating the facts in the hope some of them might get through.

[FrankF]

this thread has to be a wind-up, or maybe it's just me?

Imagine if Trevor Baylis had gone on to invent a wind-up audio interface: how cool would that have been?

[adrian_k]

this thread has to be a wind-up, or maybe it's just me?

Imagine if Trevor Baylis had gone on to invent a wind-up audio interface: how cool would that have been?

That was my Tascam USB 1.1 interface circa 2002. Well it used to wind me up.

No, to be fair, it was probably the old computer I was using.

[James Perrett]

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.

Any difference in sound quality is going to be tiny - and you'll need to be listening to great monitors in a well treated room to be able to hear it. I use an interface that cost me £80 for much of my work. I can't hear much difference in sound between it and my more expensive setup.

The expensive setup wins out when dealing with professional gear that works at high signal levels, it has more channels and much more versatile monitor mixing. It also has better drivers that work at lower latency without glitching. However, none of these really affect the sound quality.

I'm currently listening to a fun recording by a professional band, recorded by a professional sound engineer onto mini-disc. This has been data compressed and has a slightly limited bandwidth but it sounds great. If this had come out as a commercial release and I had bought it I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with the sound quality.

[Hugh Robjohns]

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.

Technically and measurably better? Yes, of course. But the differences are actually much smaller than you imagine and literally impossible to hear by 95% of the population.

For example, the Apollo and Antelope interfaces you lust after might score an AES17 Dynamic range of 121dB-A while a Focusrite or RME interface might score 119dB-A.

The differences are tiny and irrelevant in 99% of recording situations. I rate any that measures 116dB-A or more as professional mastering grade.

I can't find figures for your Rubix but I'd expect it to be more than 113dB-A which youre going to think sounds naff in comparison... but remember a top flight analogue reel-reel mastering machine would be doing well to reach 70dB-A.

So even your Rubix performs massively better than anything used to make records in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s... and — more importantly — us perfectly capable of release quality recordings today.

The reality is that interface quality is almost never the limiting factor. On the few occasions that it is, it's usually the preamps which are the weak point and they can usually be bypassed with external preamps one way or another if really necessary.

In all seriousness, if you can't get a release ready track using a Rubix the problem is not the Rubix... it's either your recording/mixing skills or the sound quality of your source material. None of which will be improved by upgrading your interface.

When it comes to recording vocals the two most critical quality aspects are the performance and the room acoustics.

[jaminem]

What this thread shows me, is that there is a definite move not just on this forum but on the internet as a whole to a point where a 'question' has become more an individual seeking validation or affirmation of a decision or belief they have convinced themselves is true rather than the need to find an answer based on others experience.

It happens a lot here....I've convinced myself need a monitor upgrade - will this thing that costs 100 quid more than what I have already got make a massive difference even tho I've ignored all the advice about environment, treatment etc.

If I'm honest I've done it myself. doesn't make the person asking it bad, just human.

Its just a shame that in the process, the good advice and suggestions from the people that have got the experience always falls by the wayside.

[Jimmy B]

After years of lurking on this site where I leaned the basics of music technology in all its forms, and a couple of years trying to put something back where I had some knowledge to contribute, frequently from my non-music career, I would like to say that good advice and suggestions don't always fall by the wayside, even if the original poster chooses to ignore them.
There are a number of people on here who obviously have decades of experience and are generously willing to share their knowledge. It is a pleasure and a privilege to learn from you all.
Please don't give up!

[tacitus]

With regard to getting real, I rate this forum above any others I frequent. I did indeed follow the advice on choosing an interface that’s handed out nowadays - choose on the features you need, the operational convenience and the build quality if you do actually need robust gear.

That.’s why I have a Rubix44. 4 mike inputs, needed. Class compliant to allow use with my iPad, needed. Simple operation with real knobs, a real knob like me appreciates that, and it’s built like a solid-metal outhouse. Definitely can use that feature!

OK, a few dBs more gain on the mike pres would be nice, but I have FetHeads for my ribbons, so I’ll manage just fine.

Once I buy something, I tend to lose interest in the exact spec. As everybody’s saying here, it’ll be me, the user, that f***s anything up, not the interface. In fact, I could offer you decades of experience in f***ing stuff up almost to disaster point before realising, for example, that phantom power works a lot better if you turn it on; it’s easier to monitor on headphones if you plug them into something; and if you leave a headphone cable trailing out of a car door when loading up in the dark, the plug changes shape on the way home. I have lots of experience in this field …

[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.

Technically and measurably better? Yes, of course. But the differences are actually much smaller than you imagine and literally impossible to hear by 95% of the population.

For example, the Apollo and Antelope interfaces you lust after might score an AES17 Dynamic range of 121dB-A while a Focusrite or RME interface might score 119dB-A.

The differences are tiny and irrelevant in 99% of recording situations. I rate any that measures 116dB-A or more as professional mastering grade.

I can't find figures for your Rubix but I'd expect it to be more than 113dB-A which youre going to think sounds naff in comparison... but remember a top flight analogue reel-reel mastering machine would be doing well to reach 70dB-A.

So even your Rubix performs massively better than anything used to make records in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s... and — more importantly — us perfectly capable of release quality recordings today.

The reality is that interface quality is almost never the limiting factor. On the few occasions that it is, it's usually the preamps which are the weak point and they can usually be bypassed with external preamps one way or another if really necessary.

In all seriousness, if you can't get a release ready track using a Rubix the problem is not the Rubix... it's either your recording/mixing skills or the sound quality of your source material. None of which will be improved by upgrading your interface.

When it comes to recording vocals the two most critical quality aspects are the performance and the room acoustics.

Wow! Thanks Hugh. Well that's told me 'innit'?!

[tacitus]

Don’t feel too bad about it. We all tend to look at numbers on paper and conclude, roughly speaking, that if “it goes up to 11” it’s going to be 10% better mathematically and about 100% better rock ‘n’ rollically.

And let’s face it, when we’re young, inexperienced, using the cheapest gear possible and very little of it, too, it’s nice to dream of having not just enough, but a choice of, top-range gear. And of course, by the time we’ve saved up for all that, we’re probably a lot more experienced, so we get better results, whether it’s us or the kit.

TBH, I find bigger differences come thanks to having more of everything, especially stands, cables, mounting hardware and all those bits and bobs that make jobs so much easier to run. A side-effect of which is when I turn up with the sort of stands and hardware I’ve been recommended on this forum, not only is it easier to set up and operate but people move aside to let the professional through. And I realise that’s me, in a good costume and a big side order of imposter syndrome!

[RichardT]

Yes, don’t worry, it’s not personal. Most people here have been through a similar learning curve.

In real-life situations, the quality of the A to D converters on modern interfaces is simply not the limiting factor. As Hugh says, the pre-amps can make a difference, but again it’s not normally major.

The music, the performance, the instruments, how the instruments are prepared and arranged, the space, the microphones, the mic setup, and gain staging are all more important.

[Albatross]

I bought an old Tascam US122 https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/tascam-us122 off eBay for twelve quid a few years ago to take on holiday. I thought it was bloody amazing and when we got back I got another one in case the first one broke!

Modern gear is amazing. Certainly possible to make good recordings with something as basic as that.

[tacitus]

I’ve got one somewhere but I didn’t think I could run it any more. When I’ve got my new iMac sorted I’ll have to see if the old one goes back far enough with its original macOS loaded.

Not having used it for some time I don’t remember it that well. I didn’t get rid of it so I suppose I was happy with it …

[Albatross]

No they stopped doing drivers after windows something or the other, there are fudges, but I just used it on an old xp netbook... I got a zoom H4 recently, you could make a record with that... incredible technology. Could have only dreamed of it all as a lad.

[Arpangel]

I think we’ve all missed the point here, obviously, the most "professional" interface out there is the one that makes you "s**t" loads of money.



Also, I'd still like to know what interface was cloned, if any, to make the Behringer Euphoria series.

[tea for two]

The most pro gear is the one that makes the gals guys adore us.
In which instance just our voice if we have a stunning voice an emotive voice, also pick up Guitar, Saxophone.

[Arpangel]

The most pro gear is the one that makes the gals guys adore us.
In which instance just our voice if we have a stunning voice an emotive voice, also pick up Guitar, Saxophone.

I'm sure Freud would agree with you.

[tea for two]

The most pro gear is the one that makes the gals guys adore us.
In which instance just our voice if we have a stunning voice an emotive voice, also pick up Guitar, Saxophone.

I'm sure Freud would agree with you.

Dunno. When I was at a learning institute we had to a course which involved a little bit of reading on Freud. I promptly discarded Freud. Not even an iota into anything Freud, couldn't give a rat's ar*e aboot his theories, nor what others say aboot him.