The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base
Old 14th September 2020
  #4381
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 360studios15 View Post
Well they aren't the only one. MOTU and Lynx still supports its devices even if they are 10 years old. My buddy still owns a Lynx Aurora 16 the oringal one that came out back in 2006 and they still make drivers for that thing for the lastest version of Windows 10. Pro Audio manufacturers tends to support its products much longer than Prosumer ones from what I've notice. What's surprising Motu still made drivers for the oringal 828 firewire interface that came out in 2000 with Windows drivers updated since 2015 and mac drivers since 2017 which is impressive although the product is pretty dated. I still believe Motu drivers has gotten way better over the years when you compare to the rest of the competition.
Motu. Maybe they stayed on top of their interface drivers but I have an express 128 midi in/out and it's useless. Last driver was 2013 and it's a brick.
Old 14th September 2020
  #4382
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by redddog View Post
Motu. Maybe they stayed on top of their interface drivers but I have an express 128 midi in/out and it's useless. Last driver was 2013 and it's a brick.
That product line is phasing out due to low demand which makes sense to drop support when everything is moving sequencing in the DAW with simple USB cable esp in today's age of softsynths. They don't even make them anymore now that its discontinued with no farther plans on a next generation. They did the same for their Audio Wire PCI cards that are no longer in demand and ended production all. Phasing out a product line is different from discontinuing a product that would be replaced by a new generation model of the same line. That's why you see other MOTU products are still being supported because they are still making new revisions of the same product line each generation.

The Midi Time Piece interface is ancient one of MOTU's very first hardware product lines released in the 80s before they started making audio interfaces in 1998 since the dawn of Digidesign. Modern hardware synths can be connected to a computer via a USB cable. Things are changing in the industry. Even large format analog consoles are phasing out replaced with Hybrid setups with an Argosy desk full of outboard gear mixing in the box.
Old 14th September 2020
  #4383
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightjar View Post
I feel pretty safe about driver concerns for the Quantum 2 for the time being...
yeah i have the quantum 2 and have no fear about this. it's a super straightforward device as well, there's no onboard anything, it's just a sound card. part of the beauty of it imo.
Old 16th September 2020
  #4384
Gear Head
 
paulnajar's Avatar
 

Mac OS Bits and Pieces

I may be late to the party and I have been loosely following this thread for a couple of years but could not wade through the last 50 pages so forgive me if what I'm sharing is old news. That said I have a bit to report on the mac front.

I have 3 interfaces and two macs.

6 core Mac Pro 5,1 2012 Mojave - main studio computer running RME UFX interface for all that time and even further back with older RME interfaces on older machines.

2nd Mac is a 4 core i7 Mac Mini server 2012 Catalina - mainly used for live keyboard rig with Zoom TAC-2 TB1 interface and more recently a Focusrite Scarlett 2nd Gen 6i6 USB.

So I downloaded the RTL Utility Beta for OSX today and it ran on both machines. There was the constant error message saying results were more than 50% different to the driver reporting in the buffer size menu etc so if you look at my charts they say false at the end and yet the results were exactly what I have measured in my own loopback tests. It appears the Utility is only reading either input or output latency in the menu where you set the buffer size as the utility reports around about half the actual RTL. Other than this one thing the utility seemed to run fine on both machines.

So the Zoom TAC-2 is the clear winner for RTL and it was my main live keyboard rig interface but I suspect it's driver CPU overhead was not so good because a couple of times when getting real busy playing, the latency inexplicably jumped up to unusable levels - like what felt like 512 or 1024 forcing me to not trust it and so I got the Focusrite 6i6. While it's RTL is around 1ms more it has been rock solid. You need to install their separate low latency add on driver to achieve the figures I report.

I haven't bothered to post the RME Fireface UFX test which I run via USB as it's well documented around here but I will say that around 2016 on the same mac pro running sierra or high sierra the USB RTL at 32 buffer 44.1Khz was 3.2ms verified by my own loopback test. Today, and in general since going to Mojave and Logic Pro 10.5 I can't get better than 4.0ms which makes me think Apple have done something different in Logic and/ or Mojave. The other point was I recently added a Cranborne Audio 500 Adat rack which I love and it's converters are noticeably better quality that the old UFX ones and quicker too. RTL Utility reported 3.7ms at 32 buffer 44.1Khz.

Logic pro reports the RME RTL and Scarlett RTL exactly as verified by RTL Utility and my own loopback test. The Zoom TAC-2 driver in Logic Pro on Mac Mini does not report converter latency so it looks better than it is but a proper test tells the truth.

Thanks to TAFKAT and all who have made this thread keep going. This is important work.

Kind regards
Attached Thumbnails
Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-scareltt-2nd-gen-48k.png   Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-scarlett-2nd-gen-44.1k.png   Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-tac-2-44.1k.png   Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-tac-2-48k.png  

Last edited by paulnajar; 16th September 2020 at 10:42 AM.. Reason: clarity
Old 16th September 2020
  #4385
Gear Maniac
 

@ TAFKAT
Did you guys ever worry about the fact that the RTL utility measures this loop:
Code:
Software -> DAC -> ADC -> Software
whereas the real world latency we are concerned with (with mics and analog instruments) is:
Code:
ADC -> Software -> DAC


We could argue that "it's basically the same", but that would not be scientific, because when it comes to computer science there's no guessing or approximations allowed, everything must be tracked and measured and proved with computer science arguments.

So if you guys have insights about that, I'd be glad to hear them
Old 16th September 2020
  #4386
Lives for gear
 

Old 16th September 2020
  #4387
Lives for gear
 
Pictus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallon426 View Post
Here is results from the original RME Babyface (Blue Version)
I am getting some pops and clicks, however, I am using an AMD Ryzen 5 3500U processor and I do not know if that could be the issue.
Try this.
Old 16th September 2020
  #4388
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupiraille View Post
@ TAFKAT
Did you guys ever worry about the fact that the RTL utility measures this loop:
Code:
Software -> DAC -> ADC -> Software
whereas the real world latency we are concerned with (with mics and analog instruments) is:
Code:
ADC -> Software -> DAC


We could argue that "it's basically the same", but that would not be scientific, because when it comes to computer science there's no guessing or approximations allowed, everything must be tracked and measured and proved with computer science arguments.

So if you guys have insights about that, I'd be glad to hear them
I didn't even realise there was an argument , but seeing you decided to make the call out and accusations, lets proceed.

I will say right now I don't have much time or tolerance for anonymous players making accusations without presenting evidence to prove their assertions, this thread seems to attract that level of dynamic for some reason. So for the benefit of all , be sure you have evidence to support your claims, and present the empirical data now, with exact details of how you measured the results for you to be making the claims that the RTL results have not followed a correct protocol, and/or differ in some way to measuring in your theoretical manner

Might also be an idea to step out from behind your anonymity so I can at least know who it is I am engaging with , and what credentials you have to be making the claims, so I can gauge the level of time and energy I will assign.

With that out of the way , a few questions.

Are you suggesting or accusing the RTL Utility of adding additional latency to the value by using the signal path as noted in your Code reference ?

What exactly are you referring to regards "software" , from my understanding the RTL utility only measures the AD/DA and the driver / ( mixer if applicable ) and associated firmware latency ?

Where exactly is the guessing or approximations that you claim ?

Lastly, if you are convinced the RTL Utility is in some way mis-representative , ( which will be interesting considering on audio interfaces that accurately report their complete path of AD/DA/Driver and firmware to the applications like Cubase, the result are within a few samples ), then there is nothing stopping you to developing and presenting your own alternate application, with your version of how you believe the measurement should be accomplished. This obviously needs to abide to your level of computer science that hasn't been allegedly followed, and lets compare to the current RTL Utility !


Last edited by TAFKAT; 16th September 2020 at 11:22 PM..
Old 16th September 2020
  #4389
Gear Maniac
 

Ok Vin there’s a big misunderstanding here, sorry for making you so upset, I haven’t been making any accusation of any sort. I was asking a question regarding the approach that a software (be it RTL or whatever, I’m not mentioning any names here) takes to measure latency vs. the way we human beings perceive actually latency.

A measuring software ‘sends’ digital signals to the audio interface and waits for it to “come back” after being transformed in the analog domain and then re-digitised again; and then the software reports that elapsed time (in milliseconds, but also in samples for the people who prefer reading in samples (knowing that the number of samples is deducted from the elapsed time and not the other way around)).

Whereas we human beings, we experience latency the other way around if I may say so: we send an analog signal to the audio interface and we wait for it to come back after being digitised and then “analogised” again.

So my question was: did you ever consider this difference between how a software “hears” latency and how a human being hears it, did you ever have debates about it and did you make any investigations on how they relate?

Maybe that subject is a bit too in-depth when you look into it (and it could possible really be complicated to analyse), hence the confusion and misunderstanding of my initial post.

If you have no answer, I’m fine with it!
Old 16th September 2020
  #4390
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupiraille View Post
So my question was: did you ever consider this difference between how a software “hears” latency and how a human being hears it, did you ever have debates about it and did you make any investigations on how they relate?
Apologies if I misread and misinterpreted your intent.

I can only say that unless you can show an empirical difference to the actual measurements presented , then not sure how that discussion can even be approached to be honest.

There has to be a measurable difference between the 2 for the discussion to have merit.

Still not sure re the guessing and approximations you referred to come into the data presented ?

FWIW- Over the years we have had lots of varied discussion regards measured and delivered latency and how that is then perceived by the human ear in working environments, taking into account the additional latency inherent with distance from monitors, etc.

Quote:
Maybe that subject is a bit too in-depth when you look into it (and it could possible really be complicated to analyse), hence the confusion and misunderstanding of my initial post.
Thats is a deep rabbit warren to be sure

Old 17th September 2020
  #4391
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulnajar View Post
So I downloaded the RTL Utility Beta for OSX today and it ran on both machines. There was the constant error message saying results were more than 50% different to the driver reporting in the buffer size menu etc so if you look at my charts they say false at the end and yet the results were exactly what I have measured in my own loopback tests. It appears the Utility is only reading either input or output latency in the menu where you set the buffer size as the utility reports around about half the actual RTL. Other than this one thing the utility seemed to run fine on both machines.
Hi Paul, it's Andrew from Oblique Audio here.

I'm glad to hear that the measured results are looking correct on your system. From your screenshots, it appears that the drivers for the Scarlett and the Zoom don't report latency correctly to CoreAudio - hence the alert.

This alert was required in older versions of RTL because there were some situations where incorrect measurements would occur and I wanted a sanity check to alert the user if something looked wrong with their test setup. Since I changed how the loopback test works, I don't think this is a problem - so I will take a look at removing the alert and just posting a notice somewhere else on the GUI. That should make things a bit easier for testing Scarlett and Zoom interfaces.

Fyi, you can see the reported input and output latencies either by right clicking on the log table header or by inspecting the log file.

Hope that helps,
Andrew
Old 17th September 2020
  #4392
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soupiraille View Post
@ TAFKAT
Did you guys ever worry about the fact that the RTL utility measures this loop:
Code:
Software -> DAC -> ADC -> Software
whereas the real world latency we are concerned with (with mics and analog instruments) is:
Code:
ADC -> Software -> DAC


We could argue that "it's basically the same", but that would not be scientific, because when it comes to computer science there's no guessing or approximations allowed, everything must be tracked and measured and proved with computer science arguments.

So if you guys have insights about that, I'd be glad to hear them
Hi soupiraille, it's Andrew from Oblique Audio here. Interesting philosophical question

RTL Utility is focused on assessing the latency for the audio interface hardware, device drivers and Operating System - as seen from your computer. Measuring ADC -> Software -> DAC requires a second system, i.e. it needs to be measured out of the box.

If your audio is not glitching, then the OS/driver part of the software has a fixed latency relating to the block size. Seeing as we know what that is, then there is little to be gained by going to the expense of setting up a second system. If your DAW software or plugins are adding additional latency, then that is not something that RTL Utility measures - but most DAWs report that additional latency anyhow.

Incidentally, you could probably do the out of box measurement with RTL running on a second, separate system. What you'd have to do is take two sets of measurements. A - loopback test on measurement system to establish a baseline, and B - acoustically coupled loopback test of both systems, then calculate B-A.

Regards,
Andrew
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4393
Gear Head
 
paulnajar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oblique_andrew View Post
Hi Paul, it's Andrew from Oblique Audio here.

I'm glad to hear that the measured results are looking correct on your system. From your screenshots, it appears that the drivers for the Scarlett and the Zoom don't report latency correctly to CoreAudio - hence the alert.

This alert was required in older versions of RTL because there were some situations where incorrect measurements would occur and I wanted a sanity check to alert the user if something looked wrong with their test setup. Since I changed how the loopback test works, I don't think this is a problem - so I will take a look at removing the alert and just posting a notice somewhere else on the GUI. That should make things a bit easier for testing Scarlett and Zoom interfaces.

Fyi, you can see the reported input and output latencies either by right clicking on the log table header or by inspecting the log file.

Hope that helps,
Andrew
Thanks for the reply Andrew.

This makes we wonder if there’s more going on with correct driver reporting in RTL Utility because while I didn’t post my RME Fireface UFX results I did run a quick test with RTL Utility and the same issue about incorrect reporting existed in the RTL Buffer menu with the RME and if I’m not mistaken RME does do correct reporting.

Also the driver RTL reporting inside Logic Pro exactly matched the RTL Utility test results. The same with the Scarlett. The Zoom is another matter as it’s reporting does not account for converter delay.

Kind regards
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4394
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oblique_andrew View Post
Hi soupiraille, it's Andrew from Oblique Audio here. Interesting philosophical question

RTL Utility is focused on assessing the latency for the audio interface hardware, device drivers and Operating System - as seen from your computer. Measuring ADC -> Software -> DAC requires a second system, i.e. it needs to be measured out of the box.

If your audio is not glitching, then the OS/driver part of the software has a fixed latency relating to the block size. Seeing as we know what that is, then there is little to be gained by going to the expense of setting up a second system. If your DAW software or plugins are adding additional latency, then that is not something that RTL Utility measures - but most DAWs report that additional latency anyhow.

Incidentally, you could probably do the out of box measurement with RTL running on a second, separate system. What you'd have to do is take two sets of measurements. A - loopback test on measurement system to establish a baseline, and B - acoustically coupled loopback test of both systems, then calculate B-A.

Regards,
Andrew
Thanks Andrew for chiming in and giving your thoughts
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4395
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulnajar View Post
This makes we wonder if there’s more going on with correct driver reporting in RTL Utility because while I didn’t post my RME Fireface UFX results I did run a quick test with RTL Utility and the same issue about incorrect reporting existed in the RTL Buffer menu with the RME and if I’m not mistaken RME does do correct reporting.
Yeah, RME usually get things exactly right.

There are a few different CoreAudio properties that contribute to overall latency. The code in the JUCE framework (which RTL Utility is built with) uses two of these. My testing of the third property always showed zero on my system, but that could have been a driver problem with my interface.

If I could get my hands on a new Fireface I could patch the source code and see if it fixes it. Maybe this is my excuse to finally upgrade the old FF800

If you're super keen on sorting this out, I could send you a special build with patched code to see if that makes a difference.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4396
Gear Head
 
paulnajar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oblique_andrew View Post
Yeah, RME usually get things exactly right.

There are a few different CoreAudio properties that contribute to overall latency. The code in the JUCE framework (which RTL Utility is built with) uses two of these. My testing of the third property always showed zero on my system, but that could have been a driver problem with my interface.

If I could get my hands on a new Fireface I could patch the source code and see if it fixes it. Maybe this is my excuse to finally upgrade the old FF800

If you're super keen on sorting this out, I could send you a special build with patched code to see if that makes a difference.
Interesting!

Thanks for the kind offer Andrew. I would be happy to help you troubleshoot the issue if that would help you but no rush. To be honest it was nice to get the RTL Utility and cross reference/ confirm the results I had a from a few years ago. My main motivation to mention these thoughts is in the hope that it might make a small contribution to improve the software that you so kindly donate to the community.

Kind regards
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4397
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulnajar View Post
Interesting!

Thanks for the kind offer Andrew. I would be happy to help you troubleshoot the issue if that would help you but no rush. To be honest it was nice to get the RTL Utility and cross reference/ confirm the results I had a from a few years ago. My main motivation to mention these thoughts is in the hope that it might make a small contribution to improve the software that you so kindly donate to the community.

Kind regards
Hi again Paul,

After inspecting your results closely, I noticed that the reported input & output latency figures were each incorrect by the amount of the buffer size. I had only been able to test on macOS with one type of audio interface and had assumed it was a problem with that particular device. Your measurements show that it is a problem across a number of devices - so thanks for that!

I've now released RTL Utility v0.5.2 which corrects this on macOS. You shouldn't see all those 50% different errors any longer.

To anyone else tuning in late on this thread, these changes only relate to the latency figures reported by the drivers themselves. There has been no change to how RTL measurements are made - these are still accurate!

Regards,
Andrew

PS v0.5.2 has been released for Windows too
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4398
Here for the gear
 

now what about for monitoring effects in real time for recording vocals, specifically autotune. I use Fl Studio 20 and have an i7 4 core processor. Would the RME allow me to do this or what about the quantum? or should I get the apollo? My decision is strictly being able to monitor effects without latency, I dont mind going back and adding third party plugins in post. I also plan on getting a 6 core processor. the latency is bearable if the project is super small. The lowest latency i can get is 9ms which is noticeable and thats with the scarlett 6i6 on windows.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4399
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
It would be a DAW based effect, so RME and Quantum would perform similarly. Apollo you could buy the Autotune UAD plugin and hear it with an even lower latency with the Apollo DSP.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4400
Here for the gear
 

so would beefing up my cpu to 8 cores be pretty substantial then? or upgrading to the rme/ quantum from scarlet 6i6 would be enough? or like you said it depends on the daw? I'm just not trying to spend money i dont need to haha. The monitoring with effects is very important to me, its game changing for really writing a song.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4401
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by champloo View Post
so would beefing up my cpu to 8 cores be pretty substantial then? or upgrading to the rme/ quantum from scarlet 6i6 would be enough? or like you said it depends on the daw? I'm just not trying to spend money i dont need to haha. The monitoring with effects is very important to me, its game changing for really writing a song.
I would go with the Quantum or the RME in that case. Either one will be a substantial step from the Scarlett.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4402
Gear Maniac
Quantum 2626 on a 2019 i9 iMac, ignore the first half I didn't clear the log before I did the 'real' test runs.

Old 4 weeks ago
  #4403
Motu Microbook iiC -----Thumbs down



I will start off by saying that I am a windows 10 user. I will also state that I am very familiar with many types of audio interfaces. I have tried most interfaces out of curiosity. And well.... Motu, they just fall short again and again. I do not really know why I even bother with the company. The MicroBook IIc is an updated interface to an interface that came out in 2014. The iiC came out in 2019 (Correct me if I am wrong) Motu did not bother to update the software, and it is a bit of a mess. You cannot change buffer settings and there is a default buffer setting that cannot be lowered and or adjusted. You also cannot adjust the sample rate from inside the cuemix fx. You can adjust it in a daw, but the latency is so bad that I had to stop running ableton.

The interface itself is nice, has a nice weight, good feel and I love that there are no tiny knobs. If the M2 looked like this, I would try that as well (Although, I suspect I would be disappointed)

I will go on the record and state that nothing comes close to an RME Babyface Pro audio interface. If you are using USB then just save yourself the headache and frustration with not getting low RTL. The RME Babyface pro is the one and only USB interface to rule them all.
Attached Thumbnails
Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-capture.jpg  
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4404
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallon426 View Post
Motu Microbook iiC -----Thumbs down



I will start off by saying that I am a windows 10 user. I will also state that I am very familiar with many types of audio interfaces. I have tried most interfaces out of curiosity. And well.... Motu, they just fall short again and again. I do not really know why I even bother with the company. The MicroBook IIc is an updated interface to an interface that came out in 2014. The iiC came out in 2019 (Correct me if I am wrong) Motu did not bother to update the software, and it is a bit of a mess. You cannot change buffer settings and there is a default buffer setting that cannot be lowered and or adjusted. You also cannot adjust the sample rate from inside the cuemix fx. You can adjust it in a daw, but the latency is so bad that I had to stop running ableton.

The interface itself is nice, has a nice weight, good feel and I love that there are no tiny knobs. If the M2 looked like this, I would try that as well (Although, I suspect I would be disappointed)

I will go on the record and state that nothing comes close to an RME Babyface Pro audio interface. If you are using USB then just save yourself the headache and frustration with not getting low RTL. The RME Babyface pro is the one and only USB interface to rule them all.
Bare in mind that RME isn't for everyone. Some people may not like the sound. There is no perfect interface out there. Everyone has their own preference on what they use doesn't matter of you use Apogee, Motu, Lynx, Prism, Lavry, Presonus or what ever. Real world use is more important than scientific metrics. If RME was too perfect there would be no other brands. There are manufacturers that still makes better converters than RME. There are some that are on the cutting edge. Its getting to the point that this feels like an RME biased thread and to boast about how great RME is. That's not what this thread should be about to buy only RME, this and that and forget everything else. I've chosen MOTU for the vaule of the money and from my bad experiences with Focusrite but I'm not going to purchase an RME just because how great the drivers are. The sound quality and functionally also plays a big role too esp when you get into scalability and expansion. So far I'm happy with my system and its rock solid. Nothing to complain about.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4405
Gear Maniac
 

Discovering this thread has been a revelation, but at the same time I almost wish I didn't read it through and maintained some blissful ignorance.

Incredible to learn that most companies are not developing their own lower level software is kind of crazy. Especially knowing how poor the resulting latency can be.

The RME looks to check a number of boxes, except that the awkward side position of the inputs would not work on my desk. Space is at a premium, and having cables coming from the back, left and right seems like a messy proposition.

Against my better judgment, I sprung for a Twin X and grabbed a TB3 card for my Gigabyte board based on the scores here. I don't like UAD's model, but I do have a C1, and if things work out I will keep the promo plugs and use Softube and native for the rest.

I might take my chances on a Discrete if the Apollo isn't stable on TB3, which on paper looks great but the comments on here give some pause.

Old 4 weeks ago
  #4406
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360studios15 View Post
Bare in mind that RME isn't for everyone. Some people may not like the sound. There is no perfect interface out there. Everyone has their own preference on what they use doesn't matter of you use Apogee, Motu, Lynx, Prism, Lavry, Presonus or what ever. Real world use is more important than scientific metrics. If RME was too perfect there would be no other brands. There are manufacturers that still makes better converters than RME. There are some that are on the cutting edge. Its getting to the point that this feels like an RME biased thread and to boast about how great RME is. That's not what this thread should be about to buy only RME, this and that and forget everything else. I've chosen MOTU for the vaule of the money and from my bad experiences with Focusrite but I'm not going to purchase an RME just because how great the drivers are. The sound quality and functionally also plays a big role too esp when you get into scalability and expansion. So far I'm happy with my system and its rock solid. Nothing to complain about.
Again, I am talking from experience. Real world use. I am also referring only to USB interfaces. I have also used Motu´s thunderbolt interface and it was lackluster at best. The best Thunderbolt interfaces have already been tested and are talked about in this thread. One of my all time favorite interfaces is the UAD arrow, good bang for buck IMO and pretty good drivers. However, they tend to have better drivers on mac vs windows. I have notices some strange things with their windows drivers. I also like the presonus quantum. However, I have been on the hunt for a portable bus powered USB interface (I would like to try the UAD solo USB version). As far as converters, I really think that most people could not tell a difference between an RME Interface and another brand with "superior converters".

The only test I have seen done comparing UAD to RME is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlbjz6Dd5OQ

Now if we were all blind tested I wonder if we would all choose RME as well.

Which interfaces are "cutting edge" exactly? I would love to know.

I keep pointing to RME because no USB interface that I have come across as of yet has ben able to keep up with the Babyface Pro.

I do wish RME would make a babyface pro that was similar in design to the UAD Arrow or Apollo. I am not a fan of the design of the Babyface pro. Side inputs are annoying, I agree.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4407
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallon426 View Post
Again, I am talking from experience. Real world use. I am also referring only to USB interfaces. I have also used Motu´s thunderbolt interface and it was lackluster at best. The best Thunderbolt interfaces have already been tested and are talked about in this thread. One of my all time favorite interfaces is the UAD arrow, good bang for buck IMO and pretty good drivers. However, they tend to have better drivers on mac vs windows. I have notices some strange things with their windows drivers. I also like the presonus quantum. However, I have been on the hunt for a portable bus powered USB interface (I would like to try the UAD solo USB version). As far as converters, I really think that most people could not tell a difference between an RME Interface and another brand with "superior converters".

The only test I have seen done comparing UAD to RME is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlbjz6Dd5OQ

Now if we were all blind tested I wonder if we would all choose RME as well.

Which interfaces are "cutting edge" exactly? I would love to know.

I keep pointing to RME because no USB interface that I have come across as of yet has ben able to keep up with the Babyface Pro.

I do wish RME would make a babyface pro that was similar in design to the UAD Arrow or Apollo. I am not a fan of the design of the Babyface pro. Side inputs are annoying, I agree.

My system is rock soild. I have no issues with my MOTU system running USB. It's been the most rock solid system I've used to date coming off of Focusrite. But to say not buy anything else only buy RME is unfair and too biased when there are other great products out there. I don't care for RME myself not my cup tea. The drivers may be great but i don't like the sound of them. They sound to harsh to my ears. Even owning an Apogee wouldn't justify me to go out and buy an RME interface. I still think they are also over priced compared to what others are offering with better converters and feature wise. I like the scalability of the MOTU AVB products when deploying in to multiple rooms to connect with a single ethernet cable like the RedNet dante system. For me MOTU offers the best vaule for the money for great converters, features, great drivers and great support for a pro interface. If it breaks it wouldn't cost me an arm an a leg to fix. If want to spend 2k or 3k on a pro interface, I can buy a Lynx Aurora that's miles of ahead of any RME converter. My buddy still using the oringal Aurora 16.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4408
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sp1200 View Post
I might take my chances on a Discrete if the Apollo isn't stable on TB3, which on paper looks great but the comments on here give some pause.

discrete owner checking in. if it works, it really works. if you don't have people all up in your studio and can handle the occasional minor hiccup, they work just fine. mine has helped me bring my work to the next level. they're not for everyone, but i took a chance on one and so far we're a good fit.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4409
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallon426 View Post
Again, I am talking from experience. Real world use. I am also referring only to USB interfaces. I have also used Motu´s thunderbolt interface and it was lackluster at best. The best Thunderbolt interfaces have already been tested and are talked about in this thread. One of my all time favorite interfaces is the UAD arrow, good bang for buck IMO and pretty good drivers. However, they tend to have better drivers on mac vs windows. I have notices some strange things with their windows drivers. I also like the presonus quantum. However, I have been on the hunt for a portable bus powered USB interface (I would like to try the UAD solo USB version). As far as converters, I really think that most people could not tell a difference between an RME Interface and another brand with "superior converters".

The only test I have seen done comparing UAD to RME is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlbjz6Dd5OQ

Now if we were all blind tested I wonder if we would all choose RME as well.

Which interfaces are "cutting edge" exactly? I would love to know.

I keep pointing to RME because no USB interface that I have come across as of yet has ben able to keep up with the Babyface Pro.

I do wish RME would make a babyface pro that was similar in design to the UAD Arrow or Apollo. I am not a fan of the design of the Babyface pro. Side inputs are annoying, I agree.
have you tried one of the bus-powered audients?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4410
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hedgehognrown View Post
discrete owner checking in. if it works, it really works. if you don't have people all up in your studio and can handle the occasional minor hiccup, they work just fine. mine has helped me bring my work to the next level. they're not for everyone, but i took a chance on one and so far we're a good fit.
I’ve seen similar feedback as well about the Discrete. I’ll give it more consideration if the Twin proves flakey on my Win10 PC.

Are you using TB or USB? And if I understand correctly, you can’t use the FX plugs in the DAW without spending for the feature (not sure it’s released yet for Windows), only on the way in?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 2118 views: 348196
Avatar for Dan O
Dan O 1 week ago
replies: 61 views: 9425
Avatar for Transistor
Transistor 21st February 2015
replies: 486 views: 126646
Avatar for blackcom
blackcom 14th September 2020
replies: 119 views: 26304
Avatar for LarsErik
LarsErik 2nd February 2020
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump