ADA Depot - A Forum To Support Users of ADA Amplification Gear

Miscellaneous => Recording - Studio Talk => Topic started by: El Chiguete on November 06, 2015, 05:01:49 AM

Title: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on November 06, 2015, 05:01:49 AM
Ok so I have a M-Audio Fast Track Pro audio interface and now that I upgrade it to W10 they dont have updated drivers so a few glitches happend from time to time. So I was asking myself should I get another newer audio interface? I just need something small with maximun 2 inputs if I ever record in stereo.

So what are your recomendations?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on November 06, 2015, 06:17:21 AM
Steinberg UR22 (192kHz 24bit) is really good and not to expensive and you get a free cubase AI7 with it.You can't go wrong with these.

UR22  https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/audio_interfaces/ur_serie/modelle/ur22.html

Cubase AI7  https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/steinberg_yamaha/cubase_ai.html
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on November 06, 2015, 11:10:35 AM
That interface looked good but then I read this comments:

¨The UR22 is very bare bones, very basic. The UR22 DOES NOT have a software mixer program. You cannot make ANY routing or panning adjustments. The only adjustments are the knobs on the unit, and they don't cover the basic needs of a recordist. The only UR22 software is the Yamaha usb driver, which only allows you to set the buffer setting, that's it!!

The point here is that every audio interface I've ever had (including basic sound blaster and internal audio) all have had a software mixer program. Examples of scenarios that cannot be accomplished with the UR22:
1) Direct monitoring, and pan the input l/r in the headphones, only comes out in the middle.
2) Direct monitoring, and mute one of the 2 inputs. no way.
3) Route the signals to one or the other outputs (headphones or monitor output) no way- both get same signals.
Again, every interface offers these and more with their software.¨


And watched this review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8XAcGSRe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8XAcGSRe4)

So now im not sure about it... for sure is better than the one I have and probably I dont need some of those options but maybe it will be nice to have them in case I need them in the future.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on November 06, 2015, 01:29:11 PM
It does have a software mixer program,cubase AI (32 audio and 48 midi tracks should be more then enough)

Point one and two are hardware but point 3 can easily be done in cu base.And in this price range you won't find anything that has these direct monitor options.

And it only costs 117 euro so not bad.Just tought you wanted something like the fast track pro.Now i also have the fast track and my son has the UR22 and it's very good,good asio drivers,it only has around 5ms delay at 128 samples and around 3.5 at 64 samples.It's a lot better then the fast track which costed a lot more back in the day.

It just depends what you really want to do with and of course there are better units but not for this kind of money.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: GuitarBuilder on November 06, 2015, 03:10:26 PM
Elantric et all have done extensive testing on audio interfaces on the VGuitar Forum.  While their focus has been on interfaces that work well with iOS, these will by definition be class-compliant and at least 24-bit.  This means they should work exceptionally well with PCs and Macs.

Here's the thread:

http://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=11781.0 (http://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=11781.0)

Also:

http://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=8291.0 (http://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=8291.0)

BTW - these folks are extremely high-tech knowledgeable and their inputs are typically spot on.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Systematic Chaos on November 08, 2015, 12:07:55 AM
Don´t ditch your interface just yet.....
Recent W10 upgraders seem to face the same problems as those who upgraded Mac OS X to El Capitan
Here´s some compatibility news/facts for both W10 and OS X:
http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/windows-10-compatibility-information/ (http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/windows-10-compatibility-information/)

http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/el-capitan-mac-os-x-10-11-compatibility-information/ (http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/el-capitan-mac-os-x-10-11-compatibility-information/)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on November 08, 2015, 06:12:21 AM
Well further testing will go on next week when I get the SM57 that I ordered and I can start recording :)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on November 30, 2015, 04:17:10 AM
Good news, so far it hasnt been a problem (don't know why it did before) so I will be using this interface for sometime now :).
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: dazzyB on December 01, 2015, 09:01:04 AM

Using a Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP which I got cheap. I thought that using firewire was the way to go, but now it seems USB has taken over. 

Darren
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 06, 2015, 12:58:54 PM
Hi Gang,

   This looks like a good place to ask this question: Do I really need an audio interface to get good quality recordings using DAW?

    Thanks,

    Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 07, 2015, 01:33:42 AM
Hey Harley, generally DAWs' have audio interface(s) built in, or they wouldn't be a DAW. A DAW combines A/D D/A converters (which is what audio/digital interfaces do) with inbuilt software/hardware to digitally record, route and process the inputs/outputs. So the 2nd part is what PC programs do (QBase, Protools etc), so software running on your PC hardware. The sound card is the I/O A/D, D/A converter. You can buy (as being discussed here) a better (more expensive, more channels) audio interface.

So simple answer is probably no as your DAW has this I/O already. Can you buy a better I/O device than in your DAW, yes (bring some $s, the more the better), can you use that with your DAW ? depends, generally no, and it would only be an advantage if you can bypass the DAWs analogue inputs and feed the direct digital signals from the I/O into the DAWs software/hardware (eg SPDIF input on DAW if it has one ?? as this is optical/digital and also if the I/O has SPDIF (most do BTW)).

But many aspects are involved in a good quality recording (disregarding the playing here), the first and foremost is what do "you" consider good. Can you hear the difference ? do you care ? Eg if you are making MP3s', ACCs, YouTube clips, it doesn't matter that much as the quality of those formats is so limited (albeit very convenient).

If the I/O on your DAW is pretty limited (eg 44.1khz 16bit (CD qual)) and your DAW can handle (process, record) better sample formats (48khz 24bit is quite usable and I'd describe as what you might consider the start of good quality) and you can sample at that format then sure. But I suspect your DAW won't cope ? Do you have it's user manual, I can check the possibilities for you.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 07, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
Depends also what you have now?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 08, 2015, 05:50:38 PM
Hi Richard, MJMP,

  Right now, I'm using Audacity. The problem is, I have a laptop to save the recordings on, and the only way to do it is through the mic input jack. This is why I'm thinking I may need an audio interface to connect the data through the USB port, (Maybe???) It seems to me, that connecting through the mic jack would give me a poor audio transfer.
   
   Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 09, 2015, 02:36:21 AM
That's what i thought you were using.First the quality of those inputs is poor and you will get to much delay.Best is to get an external usb audio device with good ASIO drivers.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 09, 2015, 05:40:18 PM
Hi MJMP,

    Thank you for clearing that up. If I understand that correctly, then this interface, (whatever kind I happen to find that is affordable), will convert the audio into digital information, and send it to the Multitrack software in the laptop. Does this lose some of the nuances in this process? By that I mean, if I wash the audio through my reel to reel to get the tape compression and a bit of tape warmth, will that get lost in the conversion process?

    Thanks,

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on December 09, 2015, 07:49:20 PM
Does this lose some of the nuances in this process? By that I mean, if I wash the audio through my reel to reel to get the tape compression and a bit of tape warmth, will that get lost in the conversion process?

My answer to that would be to check this thread I posted http://adadepot.com/index.php?topic=1318.0 (http://adadepot.com/index.php?topic=1318.0)...
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 11, 2015, 08:02:06 PM
Hi Gang,

    Okay, so now it comes down to a few choices. I've been looking at a few audio interfaces, and what I'm wanting to do is have at least 4 inputs that I can take from the mixing desk straight into the interface to go to the PC.
     I know the preferred DAW here is Steinberg, so I'm looking at the UR242 or the UR44. Both also include Cubase AI. Or would there be a better option for how I want to do this?

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Systematic Chaos on December 12, 2015, 04:14:58 AM
I wouldn't narrow it down to Steinberg only....SW wise there's lots of equal or better solutions than Cubase...Sonar, ProTools, Reaper,....just to name a few.
I can highly recommend the Focusrite Scarlett series of DAW USB audio interfaces, the 6i6 e.g. According to your preferences....
http://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-6i6 (http://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-6i6)

Or if you wanna go pro, the 18i20
http://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-18i20 (http://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-18i20)

Computer-wise, processing and calculating power (processor, sufficient RAM) and not too many apps running in the background is your friend ;)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 12, 2015, 06:31:56 AM
IMO i think Harley is better off with the UR44.It has 6 analog (4 mic 2 line) inputs (6i6 has 4 + 2 digital) and 4 out line out and 2 main outs.(6i6 has 4 line and 2 digital).The UR44 also has 192kHz while the 6i6 has 96kHz sampling.

And it has a build in DSP which also looks very good.The UR44 has a bit less latency.And you get cubase AI8 with it which is better then ableton live lite you get with the 6i6.And another advantage is cubase works well with the UR44 (which is build by yamaha),great driver support and overall support.

Now don't get me wrong focusrite is also very good (got a octopre hooked up with adat to my tascam DM-3200 and it works great),but for Harley's needs i guess the UR44/cubase combo will be better suited.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 14, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
I wouldn't narrow it down to Steinberg only....SW wise there's lots of equal or better solutions than Cubase...Sonar, ProTools, Reaper,....just to name a few.

I appreciate the suggestions here, but I'm only trying to get a good quality audio transfer into the laptop. I already have too much gear, so I'm trying to keep the cost down to a reasonable amount, with a minimum amount of equipment to add-on. I'm a firm believer in trying to use what I have on hand, rather than to ditch it all and start with a whole new setup.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 14, 2015, 04:50:09 PM
IMO i think Harley is better off with the UR44.It has 6 analog (4 mic 2 line) inputs (6i6 has 4 + 2 digital) and 4 out line out and 2 main outs.(6i6 has 4 line and 2 digital).The UR44 also has 192kHz while the 6i6 has 96kHz sampling.

I must have read that in a hurry then, because I'm actually looking for 4 line inputs. The Mic inputs aren't really that critical since I want to use the Mixing Desk to go to the interface. I'll have to go back and see if the input levels are switchable.

Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 15, 2015, 09:01:42 AM
These are 4 mic/line inputs so in total 6 line in.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 15, 2015, 04:18:33 PM
Hey MJMP,

   I thought they were. I've seen quite a few of them for sale in the used, and "Open Box" category online, and they are only going for a couple hundred dollars. That fits the budget. I also have two laptops to choose from as far as using for recording, This HP Envy dv6, which has Windows 8.1 on it, or an Acer Aspire that has Windows 7 on it. The Acer has a brand new 1 TB HD that I had installed in it, and I can upgrade the memory from 4Gig to 8Gig to make it faster. The HP already has 8Gig memory, and 500Gig HD in it, plus both have built in cams in them. That can come in handy for shooting home made videos, along with my Android phones and a video cam which I'm thinking I'd like to try to do in the studio.
   I have a lot of Adobe software for video editing that may only work up to Windows 7. So, the possibility of recording some good audio tracks and syncing them with video footage may be within reach.
   Hmmm....the possibilities are getting me excited :whoohoo!:

  Thanks guys for all the help!!!

   Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 15, 2015, 11:19:43 PM
You may need to be careful about drivers for W8.1, W7 has a much bigger footprint and support base for various devices.  You might consider putting a SSD in the Acer (so it will run like the clappers) and move the 1TB HDD into a USB3 removable chassis/cradle.  Adobe stuff will run much faster on SSD also.  Other advantage is you can back up to the external and make sure you never plug it in unless you are NOT connected to the internet (ransomeware protection).
Most gadgets with Mic/Line inputs use a dual purpose socket, XLR around the edge for mic and a 1/4 jack up the centre. And if you do all of your monitoring from the desk, you won't have latency issues.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 16, 2015, 09:57:45 AM
+1 on the SSD,best investment i ever made on all my pc's.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 16, 2015, 10:34:58 AM
Hey Richard, MJMP,

     SSD? :dunno:

     The Acer has only 4Ghz memory right now which is why I'd upgrade to 8. That's what the HP has in it. All the PC's  will automatically connect to the internet as soon as you power them up. but I can disconnect it. That is why I picked up the Acer, was because it has Windows 7.
    And yes, it was my intention to do all my monitoring from the desk, from at least 4 of the subgroup mixers. I want to come out of these subgroups and load the audio into the PC, then final the mix from there. At least that's how I'm picturing it in my mind. I don't know if that's the best way to do it, but it's a starting point.

   Thanks again,

     Harley 8)
'
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 16, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 16, 2015, 04:42:23 PM
Hey MJMP,

   Thanks for the link. Now I remember looking at these. Very pricey, but I guess it would make sense. The trick will be if it's possible to convert the Acer to take a SSD. I'm not even sure if that model has a USB 3 port. I'll have to look that up.
   Sheesh, now the audio recording upgrade jumped from $200 to $700, and that doesn't include the memory upgrade  ???


    Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 17, 2015, 02:41:03 AM
Well memory is very cheap these days and SSDs are getting cheaper and with external storage don't have to be as big (e.g. http://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=256gb%20ssd&spos=6) and they are direct replacements for the laptop 2.5" drives.
I generally use the channel direct outs into the I/O (as my desk has them and I'm not trying to submix) but the approach you are contemplating is sound (if you don't have direct outs on the channels), just puts another fader in between.  You can also make some cables to use the channel inserts as direct outs (although no fader control as comes just after the gain knob, but easy to adjust for that with I/O input levels (you still want the mixer gain as high as possible (before clip) so the channel still has good levels)).
So leads for channel direct out from insert jack:
Stereo (ring/tip/sleeve (RTS)) to mono jack (tip/sleeve (TS)), take the send (usually the tip of the RTS) to the tip of TS, bridge Tip and Ring of the RTS (so doesn't break the chain) and earth is earth (sleeve to sleeve). I had a Yamaha desk that had channel inserts but no direct outs and did it this way, works a treat.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 17, 2015, 01:53:02 PM
Hey Richard,

    Yes, The memory is cheap these days, and that's not really a problem. I'm probably going to try it out with the HDD that I had installed in it before I contemplate swapping that out with a SSD. The SSD will require a conversion to work in this laptop. A 1 TB SSD is currently going for around $450 here, and the conversion kit is another $25.
    The reason I want to go from the submix channels is so that I can premix instruments like drums, and stereo guitar mixes, (sometimes I like to use two stereo channels for guitar to use effects separately, and then layer the mixes, to keep them more articulate. Example: Clean guitar with stereo chorus in one mix, and Crunch guitar with Ping-Pong Delay or Reverb in another mix, and mix the levels of each with each other until it sounds like I want to hear it).
    I already have TRS cables for patching in the channel inserts, but using this method to go to the I/O will bypass the channel EQ's, and each channel has 6 EQ frequencies, with selectable Pre or Post EQ, or if I choose, I have a switch on each channel to bypass the EQ altogether.
    Adding the effects to anything in the channel strips via the Aux sends and returns gives me a better rendering of the original sound with much less coloration from the effects in respect to the original tones. This applies to all the instruments/vocals that I want to put through the desk. In particular, I have a few favorite drum mixes that I like. One is to use a subtle Large Hall Reverb on the snare drum, (sometimes with Echo Repeat, and sometimes without), then add a Phaser, or Flanger to the toms for those John Bonham type drum fills. A slight mix of Plate Reverb on the cymbals gives me a bit more sparkle, and brightens up a dark drum sound. A clean, very low frequency Bass guitar tone will brighten up and become a bit more articulate with some chorus added to it. These are just a few examples of some of the tips I've picked up over the years in studios I've worked with.
     I don't know if I can get these same results with the software that comes with these audio interfaces, or how different it will sound in the final mix by attempting to do all these same things in a DAW, since I don't have much experience working with that method. I basically use the software to capture what I'm putting in to it. ie - replacing my reel to reels with a computer.
     Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong point of view?

    Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 17, 2015, 11:40:10 PM
Hey Harley, all you ideas are good IMO, there's lots of ways to do it, I basically use (well did till the PC had a hernia) Pro Tools like you, a digital tape player.  You can do much of what you want with the software, the main players are quite feature rich. I always end up mixing on the PC as I have lots of channels and only 8 in/out I/O. But I record quite direct and don't eq to tape (well not always  ;) ). In the end it's whatever works for you.
R :wave:
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 18, 2015, 05:31:44 AM
Hey Richard,

    I don't use ProTools. I could never afford that. All I've used as far as DAW software was Sound Forge, or Vegas. I have Cakewalk but didn't like it, I also have a few earlier versions of Cubase, but they were confusing and had glitches in the recordings. There are a few other brands I have but they didn't work for me either. The way I used those was through what was called a "Breakout Box" to interface the audio with the computer. That was with the Lexicon Core 2 system. I still have all the Lexicon hardware and software, but the PC is a dead horse. Basically, the new audio interface and laptop, is to replace that setup.

    Thanks again,
     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 18, 2015, 08:47:04 AM
i would record it directly into cubase and do the mixes on pc.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 18, 2015, 07:00:36 PM
Hey MJMP,

    If you wouldn't mind, please elaborate on that a little bit. Why that method instead of pre mixing through the mixing desk?

      Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Peter H. Boer on December 19, 2015, 12:55:10 AM
    If you wouldn't mind, please elaborate on that a little bit. Why that method instead of pre mixing through the mixing desk?

It will give you a lot more control, and instant recall if you want to adjust the mix later on.

Peter  :thumb-up:
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 19, 2015, 02:09:31 PM
Like Peter says a lot easier to work with.You'll see what we mean once you get to work with cubase.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 19, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
A mate of mine bought a Yamaha 2 in out usb I/O thingy and it came with cubase, from what I could see it's very similar to protools. Either is fine, though it's good to learn one and stick to it.
While submixing is a valid way to record if you need to (like back in the 4 track tape days), keeping the tracks separated gives you more options later (as Peter said). It also depends on how many in/outs the I/O has and how live you want the recording. e.g. I generally like to get a live take so I set up 2 x drum tracks (electric kit) and a drum midi track (so I can separate the individual drums later and re-record them individually later), a bass track, a stereo guitar track (MP2 cab sim outs), acoustic guitar track and a guide vox track (58). Then typically the only overdubs were for vox and harmony vox (rode NT1) and sometimes a guitar solo or some keyboards. So I used 7 of the 8 digi001 I/O inputs for the first take and it was done live. The playback I feed back to the desk so I'm monitoring the overdubs and playback from the same place to avoid I/O latency.
Also while your mixing on the PC you can use the I/O to patch external FX by assigning one (or more) of the programs bus sends to the I/O ports and setup the FX returns via I/O inputs. I like this technique as I can use the features of the external FX unit but slight down side is it becomes part of the mix set up so you need to have it patched when mixing later (or you can record the returns to new tracks).  In my case I was using the aural exciter in a Behringer FX unit which I don't own so now when I go back to remix those tracks I don't have it on hand.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 20, 2015, 06:19:23 AM
Hey Peter, MJMP, and Richard,

   Okay. I understand that there will be more control if I do it into the DAW, maybe even easier as MJMP says. So if I understand what you're telling me, then, I wouldn't be recording instruments or vocals through the mixing desk, but straight into the audio interface and into the DAW. Here is why I want to use the mixing desk: One of the first melodies I want to record involves two stereo rhythm guitar layers, which I want to record a mix of both direct, and miced guitar. I love using this method because the guitar tracks have a much bigger sound. Mixing the miced cabs with the Microcab outputs is a fantastic way to get this. The lead tracks can come from the MP-1's in mono and go in the center of the mix with the vocals. The ryhthm tracks will come from the MP-2 and the Classic. Bass will be added by the MB-1 and the vocals will be miced direct, (effects added later). Now, if I understand what you guys are saying, then you are telling me to run all these lines into the interface, and skip the mixing desk altogether, and just use Cubase to blend and EQ each channel?
    That's another thing I'll have to overcome. The last time I tried to use Cubase, (earlier versions), I found it very confusing. Is the AI8 any easier to learn than it's earlier versions if you don't know Cubase?
    Sorry if I'm being a pain in the A$$ about this, but it's a little rough coming from the old school method of recording into this digital realm of doing it. Some of the pieces of the puzzle seem to be missing.

    Thank you for your patience with me.

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: El Chiguete on December 20, 2015, 07:10:09 AM
The thing that I think you are not understanding is that a DAW is a mixing desk and beyond! jeje So you can only use it for mixing just like you would do on a one in real life.

PS:
Try out http://www.reaper.fm/ this is the DAW I use and I think is really good.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on December 20, 2015, 02:15:57 PM
Like EL says,the DAW is your mixing desk and you can go straigt into the soundcard and record  6 things at a time.Maybe a drum is to big to do it through 6 channels but here you could use your analog mixer and premix it to 6 channels.But for the rest i would us the soundcard directly unless of corse you're in a live position,but if you do everything seperate use the daw.

Cubase is not that hard to learn,there are a lot of YT video's available how to set it up and to use it.I also come from the old analog style of recording and it took me a week or so to get the hang of cubase.It's a real powerfull daw with lots of options.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 21, 2015, 06:41:48 AM
Hey EL, MJMP.

   EL, I do understand that it is a mixing desk, and I have Reaper already. I'm still more familiar with Audacity and Vegas, although Vegas won't run on Win 8.1. I downloaded Reaper from cnet quite a while ago, it's not bad at all.

   MJMP, Yes, you are correct it would be difficult to record a drum mix directly with only six inputs. Sometimes it would be difficult to record my guitars through only six channels as well because I've been know to use as many as 10-14 channels on the mixing desk for my guitars, 4-8 direct, and 6 miced. This is why I have a 32 channel mixing desk. Live recording situations are difficult to do at a recording session, which is why I use a professional studio for those and leave it up to the engineer to sort out all the anomalies. I would like to be able to get that live "feel" on recordings through a DAW, which is why I'm reluctant to bypass the mixing desk when recording into the interface. I think the mixing desk adds something to that live sound. I don't know, I'll have to get it all connected and record a few things and see how it turns out.

     Thanks for all the input Gents, I have a lot to consider here about which audio interface to purchase and how to apply it. I will go watch some of the YT vids on Cubase and maybe that might help me in the choice of which interface might be better suited for what I'm trying to accomplish. I'll keep you guys posted on what develops.

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Peter H. Boer on December 21, 2015, 10:42:53 PM
  MJMP, Yes, you are correct it would be difficult to record a drum mix directly with only six inputs.
With that limitation, I'd go kick, snare & 2 overheads direct into the interface, use the mixer to make a stereo submix of the toms on the mixer before going to the interface.
(I rarely use a separte mic for the hihat, as it's mostly too loud in overheads and snare mic anyway)

Sometimes it would be difficult to record my guitars through only six channels as well because I've been know to use as many as 10-14 channels on the mixing desk for my guitars, 4-8 direct, and 6 miced. This is why I have a 32 channel mixing desk.
That's indeed more of a challenge  ;)
But 3 miced and 3 direct per guitar take would be more than enough, as you will most likely also be double tracking.

Cubase really is a very powerful tool, and I feel I'm only scratching it's surface after having done some 5 albums and various projects on it now.

Peter  8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on December 22, 2015, 12:55:46 AM
Hey Harley, well each to their own but I always use a desk for the inputs and then into the digital I/O, much easier to control the input gain even when you DI from the inserts.  BTW I wouldn't call the PC programs a DAW.  DAWs are purpose built "appliances" with everything in one chassis/case and internally they probably use a cut down Linux OS, not windows.
I'm from the same era as you it seems and I think you'll find it all much easier to understand with the way you do it with the subgroups (even not "sub-mixing" on the desk just using them as outputs to the I/O).  Moreover, not that I'm keen on eq-ing to tape, the eq in your desk is analogue and will stuff with the sound less. Digital eq is getting better but requires very wide backplanes (128 bit or wider) to get anywhere close to decent analogue filters (eqs). Mastering engineer guru Bob Katz had a good article on this topic. Although as I'm sure you're across, when you sub-mix you make the call at that point so for better control in the final mix, separating all the tracks on record is sensible.
Both qubase and protools have 2 main views (windows), the wave edit window (for copying, pasting, looping etc) and the mixer window (laid out like a desk). I suggest you do what I did, just use the mixer window. I very rarely use the wave edit window, only if I have to to select tracks to "bounce to disk" (= mix to master tape but makes a digital file (you select what file type and resolution)). It sounds better if you mix to analogue tape then re-sample at the quality you want so you don't have to use the programs "dither" algorithms (if you have a decent tape player, (I use a Nakamichi cassette deck but if ever come across a valve studer 1/2" mmmm)). Dithering is used to throw bits away when you go from higher quality formats to lower (e.g. 48k 24bit to CD qual 44.1k 16bit). the tape also warms the sound.
The final mix (unless you have a 32 ch I/O) has to be done on the PC. Again I use the mixer window, it's presented as channel strips (like you're familiar with) but you get a lot more flexibility as you can set up a whole bunch of aux sends and returns (e.g. put a reverb plug in on the return) or "insert" multiple plugins on each channel (eq, compressor/limiter/gate etc).  You then mix it in the program like an automated console (e.g. Neve, SSL etc) so you "record" the fader changes, mutes etc. When your happy, bounce to disk (is what protools calls it). This is the point you select your output format. If you are going to a lessor quality format (which mostly you are, you should insert a dithering plugin on the master fader channel. Hit the go button and the mix plays in real time (no fader control anymore) and makes the output file (either on the fly or after (selectable)).
If you plug direct into the I/O channels and then monitor from there (i.e the I/O device and not use a desk) you get affected by the I/O latency. Early sound cards were very bad, they have got better (BTW the I/O device you are buying is basically a sound card). So you get time discrepancies (latency) when you listen to the sound card playback (I/O) while recording an overdub. Using a desk, you monitor the I/O output and your new track input at the desk and they happen at the same time, so you avoid the whole latency problem (and it's easier for guys like you and I to understand).
In the mixer window you create channel strips ("new channel" in protools), generally: mono input (assign the I/O input to it), stereo input (displays as a stereo pair with one fader), Aux input (stereo or mono) assign it to channel sends and insert a plug in (FX) on it, master fader (normally stereo pair) assign channel outputs to it (you can set up multiple like subgroups and assign the sub group outs to a main master), and midi channels (records midi data and plays it back, assign to midi channels and return the audio from the midi device (internal in PC or external) into either input channels, Aux channels or master channels etc). So it's all just like a desk but with lots more flexibility and you can save it off as a template for future use for other recordings.
The plugins are DSPs (digital signal processors), qubase and protools come with a bunch of standard ones. Qubase has a large user community who write their own which you can add (generally the free ones are pretty ordinary from my experience) or you can purchase them. E.g. protools used to offer a really nice lexicon reverb plugin (not available anymore  :facepalm: ).
All the things above can be done in the wave edit window but I don't find it intuitive.
When you record tracks you can select destructive recording (like tape, wipes the previous data on the track, saves disk space) or not (it keeps each take and you can go back to previous takes for the mix etc), this gets harder to keep your head around as each take just points at a "region" on the disk and you can make any of them the "current" region.  I always use destructive recording, but when I got into protools (win 98 days) high speed disk was expensive (and you need high speed disk or the programs sh$t themselves), so minimum 7200 rpm drives or better, I had a couple of 10GB 10,000 rpm scusi server drives (which fill up very fast).
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on December 22, 2015, 06:27:14 AM
Hey Peter, Richard,

   Peter, that is exactly why I have to use the mixer for the drums, The Mic kit comes with a Kick mic, snare mic and four tom mics. I have other mics I can use for the overheads, and you are absolutely correct about the high hats. I never mic those.
   With the guitars however, there are a few things that absolutely have to be miced since there is no other way to record them, for example: The old Fender Twins which I use two as a stereo rig for clean tones ( split with a stereo chorus pedal ). When I use my old Leslie 760, That has to have two mics, one at the top and one on the bottom at least. There is no other way to capture that old machine. There is an A/B/Y switch on the Fender rig that allows me to use the guitar amps/ Leslie/or both together if I want that sound. This rig blends in better with the ADA stacks when it's mixed through a board. There is a lot more punch to these amps than I get with the ADA rigs, so that has to be tamed down a bit to mix with the ADA's.

  Richard, I understand what you're saying here, and a lot of what you are referring to here is on step 5 whereas I'm trying to get to step 1 with this digital method of doing things. I do have a 1/2" Mastering Deck but it's a Tascam not a Studer unfortunately, I couldn't afford the $15,000.00 price tag on one of those. As for Lexicon or Eventide effects, I have every possible one I could use and more with my outboard gear. Once again, I patched these effects in with the Mixing desk, So I'm sure if I wanted a Lexicon Reverb effect on a certain track, I should be able in theory, to run that audio track out from the PC to the board, hit it with the effect, and record it on a new track in the DAW. If Cubase is that good, then it should work just like a mixing desk and everything there is all about the routing of the signal. You see, when I had the Core 2 system running, that also gave me a lot of Lexicon plugins to use with my tracks, but I had better quality effects from my outboard gear, with much more control over the effects than the plugins gave me. This is why I like to keep using the gear that I have, and I'd like to incoporate that into this new system somehow.


    Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 14, 2016, 02:00:13 PM
Hey Gang,

    After looking around at what's available out there, (the choices are overwhelming), I'm looking at getting this audio interface. What do you guys think?

     http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Scarlet18i8G2
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 15, 2016, 06:39:13 AM
I have a focusrite oktopre MKII and I really like it.Took a look at the specs and stuff,looks like a good soundcard with lots of input (even ADAT but only for ins), a bit limited on outs but still ok.The only downside for me is the pro tools bundle that can only handle 16 tracks.(which I find a bit low).
The 18i20 is also very nice.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on October 15, 2016, 11:56:31 PM
Hey Harley, I had a quick look around recently also, as you say the choices are a bit overwhelming.  The Focusrite stuff looks pretty good.  Seems the Protools bundle is there to suck you in to buy the full package given it's a limited (16 track) version  :dunno: :crazy: .  It would be fine for small jobs where you don't need many tracks or want to use many outboard effects as it's only got 4 analogue outs.  Also, like many USB offerings it's only USB 2.0.  I couldn't find many that were USB 3.0, which seems surprising these days...

The 18i20 seems the go but again only USB 2.0
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 16, 2016, 07:22:02 AM
Hey MJMP and Richard,

     Yes, I did look at the 18i20 too and that also has the same version of Pro Tools included with it. I know they are limited and only there as a teaser for you to buy the full software bundles. It's the same with the Ableton Lite Live. Since I've never used pro Tools it would be a learning curve. No matter which audio interface I would choose, all of them come with limited DAW's, so I would still have to upgrade that part of it.
     I'm only looking to track one instrument at a time in my home studio, so that brings up the question: Do I really need the 18i20 instead of the 18i8?

       Harley 8)

   After looking again, the 18i20 has 10 analog outputs. The rest of the outs are S/PDIF and ADAT. The only thing that is an advantage there is that the 18i20 is expandable, so if I need more inputs, the Octopre MKII would supply them. I suppose where my confusion lies is in the fact that earlier in this thread, MJMP stated that the Steinberg UR44 would have suited my needs here, which is why I was looking at the 18i8. It's about the same, but only the software is different. My thinking is that I should probably learn Pro Tools since that would be what is used in most studios if I ever want to take my work to one of them. Then it would be on the same software they are already using. As for USB 2.0 vs. USB 3.0, that really doesn't matter. For digital audio, they both respond exactly the same.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 16, 2016, 05:16:18 PM
The 18i8 can also be expanded but only with 8 inputs, no outs it seems,which I find a bit strange.

Now if you just want to track one instrument at the time,the 18i8 is even overkill.A 2 channel in/out card will be fine (maybe with an added midi in/out) like the 2i2 (no midi but the 2i4 has midi) or the steinberg UR22 which has midi in/out for the same price as the 2i2.Also with the UR22 you get a less stripped down version of cubase 8 (cubase 8 AI) which seems better then the pro tools you get with the focus rite.The cubase has 32 tracks.
More info about the AI   http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/steinberg_yamaha/cubase_ai.html

I have an UR22 and it works very well and isn't expensive,it's in the same price range as the 2i2.

http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/audio_interfaces/ur_series/models/ur22.html
https://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-2i2
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 16, 2016, 07:10:06 PM
Hey MJMP.

    Yes, at the present time, I'm only anticipating tracking each instrument by myself. Possibly in the future, I may have others join me in tracking sessions, but I don't know yet. Two ins and outs are not enough because I may want to track guitars for example, from a few rigs at the same time. Very much like a live sound setup. That could be my MP-1 rack combined with the Fender Twins and/or the Leslie. Or...the Classic half-stack, the MP-2 half-stack and the Leslie...the combinations I can use are quite a few. By this I don't mean running all those amps at the same time, but I switch between rigs in the song to get specific tones for a certain section of the song. To me, that is much easier to record through a song that way instead of recording bits and pieces, then splicing it together. Then there is also the drums, and those need more than two mics to get a good mix.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 16, 2016, 07:23:53 PM
Ok I see, any idea how many mic inputs you need?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on October 17, 2016, 02:55:26 AM
Hey Harley, 2 reasons I was liking the 18i20 (and am now even considering for myself) was I know you like to use outboard FX (as do I) and you'll need analogue in/outs for that, that just seemed to limiting in the 18i8, and the 8 analogue inputs is workable to do a live take recording of a band (with electric kit), and also enough to mic up a kit if you wanted to (or go bananas and create wall of guitar  >:D ).

So I've been using Protools Digi001/002 both are 8 in 8 out (plus the digital I/O which I've never used).  And I use protools like a multitrack tape recorder.  That format has proved sufficient (but I wouldn't want less analogue I/O)  USB 3 could (I would have thought help reduce latency ??). Not that I care because I use a desk so it's not an issue. But throughput could be a problem ? If you were recording 8 channels @192khz 24 bit simultaneously, does USB 2 struggle...????

All the DAW software I've seen over the years is all rather similar.  Protools is reasonably straight forward, and QBase is much the same, actually I find protools a little easier than QBase to do what I want, ie just use it as a digital tape recorder.  Not completely surprising as protools stated life as analogue > digital recording, QBase started life as a sequencer on Ataris and added analogue digital recording much later.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 17, 2016, 06:14:00 AM
Ok I see, any idea how many mic inputs you need?

   Okay, For my guitar rigs I could use as many as 8 lines in, if you figure each ADA rig is in stereo, and there are three separate rigs. The Fenders will have to be mic'ed each, and the Leslie needs one mic on the top and the bottom. That doesn't include the direct signals from the Microcabs, which I like to add in live situations, it might not work so well in recording through a DAW. I don't know for certain though, since I've only recorded that way to tape.
   The drums have 8 mics, so there again, at least eight inputs.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 17, 2016, 06:45:30 AM
Well in that case I would go for the 18i20, it has lots of in/outs and can be expanded with more.

Also if you want I have a Cubase AI8 lying around here so if you want you can have it.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 17, 2016, 07:00:51 AM
Okay Richard,

     As far as I've been able to tell from all the things I've been reading about, USB (3.0, 2.0) are pretty much the same as far as data transfer, and latency issues. Firewire is only slightly better as far as consistency goes, but again the data transfer rate is the same as USB. What makes the difference is how many apps are running in the background. The more that is going on at once in your PC, the more of a load you are putting on your processor and that is where the latency can become an issue. Shutting off all non-essential programs will help with that. In my old desk top PC that I built specifically for recording, I had two separate hardware configurations to choose from at start up, Full Setup, or Recording Setup. In Recording setup, I disabled everything I didn't need, (Sound card, Ethernet card USB Card, etc.) I also disabled all the background programs and apps such as Internet Security and Anti-virus, USB Drivers, Network drivers, Task Manager, etc...everything except PnP drivers since I needed that to allow the processor to see the Core 2 card.
   When I recorded through that using Sonic Foundry 'Vegas' or Sound Forge, I had no latency issues at all, and never crashed the computer that way, even recording all four at once. ( The breakout box has 4 in /8 out).
   I pretty much was using that in the same way, as a multi track recorder, but there aren't too many outboard effects I would use, mainly the Eventide Harmonizer and one of the Lexicon Reverbs. The ADA gear is fine in my guitar rig and doesn't need to be run with separate I/O's. ( I would need 256 channel strips just to accomodate all the rack effects!)

    In any event, here is a link to one of the articles I read, and it talks about recording through USB. This may help solve your apprehensions about the difference between USB 3.0 and 2.0

         http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/audio-interface-buying-guide/
       
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 17, 2016, 07:06:13 AM
Well in that case I would go for the 18i20, it has lots of in/outs and can be expanded with more.

Also if you want I have a Cubase AI8 lying around here so if you want you can have it.

   Yes, I see it has the capability to expand the I/O's. The question I have about that would be: Are you limited to only one expansion unit, or can you daisy chain more if you need it?

   I appreciate the offer on the Cubase. I remember years ago trying to figure out how to work that one, and couldn't figure out how to do anything on it. Is AI8 more user friendly? Just for the record, (no pun intended), I still want to learn to use Pro Tools, but learning Cubase too wouldn't hurt.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 17, 2016, 09:34:24 AM
You can only expand it with 8 ins and 8 outs (with the oktopre for instance) since there's only 1 adat in and 1 adat out.

Well I find cubase very user friendly now, it has the layout of a mixing console with channel strips. Also I don't see much difference anymore between cubase and pro tools. Both have become very professional daw's for both audio and midi. From what I can tell it seems pro tools is a bit more expensive.

I've been using cubase since SX3 and now I'm on cubase 8.5 pro. The good thing about cubase is that you can buy educational versions very cheap. (which I did).I think avid also sells edu versions. Depends a bit what you need.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 17, 2016, 03:40:48 PM
Hey MJMP,
   Yes, I know there is only one ADAT I/O on the 18i20, but there is also the same thing on the Octopre. So my thinking is a daisy-chain connection in that manner to add additional channels in that manner?  :dunno:

     Okay, that would be a plus with the Cubase then, and I'm sure if I got stuck on something, I could get help from one of the members here who are using it, (which would be the only reason I'd consider Cubase). Pro Tools also has Educational versions, but from what I can tell, they just offer additional licenses. There are a lot of Pro Tools packages at various prices at Sweetwater, and I suppose I'd have to call tech support at Sweetwater to find out what kind of Pro Tools upgrade I would have to buy to get a usable recording version. It all comes down to $$$, as usual  :lol:

          Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: rnolan on October 18, 2016, 01:27:54 AM
Hey Harley, thanks for the link, I'd read that page before quite a while ago... but good to read it again  :thumb-up:
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 18, 2016, 09:17:40 AM
Harley, adat doesn't work that way.It's a one way 8 channel connection that works on 44 or 48kHz sampling rate (16 or 24 bits). So you have one adat connection for 8 inputs and one adat connection for 8 outputs. So you can't daisy chain them.

Some cards have a SMUX that allow you to work on 88 or 96kHz but then you will sacrifice 4 channels. This is SMUX II, with SMUX IV you can go 2 channel 192kHz 24 bit, so here you will sacrifice 6 channels. Now not all IO card support SMUX so check your manual.

There's a lot of info for working with cubase on their website. They have a ton of stuff on YouTube which is very well explained,going from the basic stuff up to the more exotic stuff.

I just checked the pro tools stuff and they seem to work different from cubase. They work with licences usually for a year and after that no more updates or support. Cubase works with versions and usually every year they bring out a small one like 8 to 8.5 or a big one like 7.5 to 8. And you pay for it when you want to upgrade. But those upgrades (and I'm talking for the pro versions) are a lot cheaper than what pro tools charges for an annual licence.I see prices from 200 to 600$ for a year while upgrading from cubase pro 8 to 8.5 is only 50 euro.
A lot of people seem to complain about this because it a mess of licences.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 18, 2016, 02:21:34 PM
Oh Okay, I don't know how ADAT works since I've never used it. Still, 16 inputs should cover anything I might want to put on a recording at one time.

   About Pro Tools, Yes, I see those Educational versions with multiple licenses, and I wouldn't even bother with any of those. I do understand how the other versions work too. You can pay for a year subscription or pay by the month, and when your subscription expires, you get no more updates or support, but you get to keep what you have until you subscribe again. I saw those prices too, and I see prices that go even higher than that, much higher! It's ridiculous really, all because this is what is used by professional studios as an industry standard. It'a all about the money. Still, I would like to learn Pro Tools, but I don't believe in restricting myself to just one DAW, so I would definitely like to learn Cubase as well, and maybe a few more. I still mess around with Audacity, and Reaper is another one I could download and learn too. Back in the day I had several different DAW's I was learning and I kept working with Vegas and Sound Forge, but those seem to have gone the way of the dodo bird.
   You know, I remember some of the comments that were posted on the video for "We're Stars" the was done by the Depot Gang, and on one of the comments there was a guy who was a retired engineer/producer, who really gave the Depot members a lot of credit for producing it, and making it sound and look as good as it did with no budget, and using the equipment and software that we had available. Since I know Jur was a big fan of Cubase, I'd be willing to bet that was how the soundtrack was recorded and mixed. So I can see the possibilities with Cubase. Self-produced videos is a direction I want to go in.

    Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 18, 2016, 02:45:15 PM
yep Jurrie used cubase SX3 back then, but a lot of things have changed since then in the DAW world  ;D

So which one (soundcard) are you going to get?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 18, 2016, 03:06:42 PM
Not a sound card, I'm more than likely going to go with the Focusrite, and probably the 18i20, since I can expand it. That seems to be the best option for me.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 18, 2016, 03:24:53 PM
Yep looks that way and I find the 19" rack a better option too.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 18, 2016, 03:33:09 PM
Yes, I'll have to get a table top rack for that stuff, and probably set up a better work station desk than what I'm using now which is a glass top computer desk.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 18, 2016, 04:49:25 PM
    I meant to ask you, what OS would be best with AI8?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 19, 2016, 07:49:06 AM
Well it works on apple and windows based computers.Not an apple man myself so if you go for windows I would stick with win7.
I left my recording computer also on win7.Works fine.

Another thing about focusrite they give free plugins from time to time (if you have registered your product) so that's also a nice bonus.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 19, 2016, 12:18:27 PM
Okay, that's good then because the laptop I have in the studio is set up with Windows 7. I don't have any Mac PC's or I would look at Firewire for connection. Macs are so bloody expensive, and I would have to learn how to use their OS from the beginning.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 19, 2016, 02:01:21 PM
Firewire also works on a windows pc, I have my tascam DM3200 hooked up with firewire to my pc for audio (32 channel In and 32 channel out) and I use usb for the midi (as daw controller).So I use the tascam as a "soundcard" and as a DAW controller.I like to have a real mixer in front of me.

But you're right Mac's are way too expensive for my taste too.

You will need the 64bit version of win7. And the more memory the better. I was on 8Gb but I had to expand it to 16Gb.But it depends on how much plugins you use.(I use a lot).Also it's best to tweak windows a bit for use as a daw .

Here are some links but there's a lot of info about this on the net.

http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/articles/pc-optimization-guide-for-windows-7/
http://www.presonus.com/news/articles/Optimizing-Windows-Vista-and-Windows-7-for-Music-Production
https://www.steinberg.net/nc/en/support/knowledgebase_new/show_details/kb_show/optimizing-windows-for-daws.html
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 19, 2016, 04:36:23 PM
Thank you, I will look at these and see what I have to do.

   I don't plan to use too much in the way of plug ins, I'd prefer to just go straight in with the instruments since I get a great sound that way, I just want to capture that as accurately as I can. Maybe if there are any vocals I want to track, I might add some reverb to that to sweeten it up. Possibly in the mastering stage I may need to do that, or maybe some EQ enchancement. I don't want to go overboard and end up with an over-processed sound, (like Bon Jovi).

    I have to take that laptop in for a new keypad, so I'll have the memory upgraded, and I may also have them swap out the new HD for a SSD.

       Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 20, 2016, 04:57:17 AM
An SSD is a very good idea, and like I said make sure win7 is a 64 bit version, it won't work on a 32 bit.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 20, 2016, 05:11:46 PM
   Okay, I just went and double-checked the laptop downstairs, is has Windows 7 Ultimate, 64 bit, the processor is Intel Pentium 1.3GHz. As I stated earlier, the Memory is 4 gig which I'll update, as well as have the keyboard replaced. I will have whichever repair shop I take it to, transfer the entire system and files to a SSD and install it.
    I was considering trying to see if I might be able to install firewire adapters in it, but it has limited connection ports. 2 USB 2.0, and 1 USB 3.0, HDMI and VGA LAN connections.

      Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 21, 2016, 04:31:08 AM
Ok, ultimate should work (I use it too), now 1.3GHz, isn't that a bit low for a modern cpu?

Why would you replace the keyboard, just plug in a usb keyboard? Works better and saves you some $$ !

I don't think you can add a firewire connection to a laptop (I think).

You can check the laptop if it's ready for daw use with this DPC latency checker.

http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
http://www.resplendence.com/latencymon

Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 21, 2016, 04:54:47 AM
 Well considering it was a laptop I bought at a yard sale last summer for $75.00 and it's an ACER, it was probably a Walmart cheapie brand when it was new.

   The keyboard on it is messed up and some of the keys start to type by themselves even with the USB keyboard plugged in, so, I'd want to fix that issue.

   I don't believe this one could be adapted for firewire, so I won't bother

   I was shopping around last night for SSD's, and the prices are down from last year. Are there any special considerations I need to look for besides the size of the drive for large media files? i.e. ATA vs. SATA etc?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 21, 2016, 05:33:56 AM
Ah ok so it needs to replaced anyway. Maybe you can just detach it??

Normally all those SSD's are sata so make sure you laptop has sata. Now you can also get SSD with a pata connection but these are harder to find.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 21, 2016, 12:56:19 PM
    There is a plastic face plate, ( I guess that's what you'd call it ), that I'm sure will snap off, that covers the key pad, and I believe it has a ribbon cable to connect it to the motherboard. When I first got it up and running, I thought someone might have spilled something on it. I've sprayed it out several times with contact cleaner, but it doesn't help. When I went to the support page at the ACER site, I saw a few posts there about the same kind of issue with this particular model. I think there is a factory recall on this model, so the keypad may not cost me anything.

    As far as the SSD, does it make any difference for the application I want to use it for? I believe the HDD I put in it last year is SATA.

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 21, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Ok would be great if it doesn't cost anything  ;D

Normally new computers have sata.

Did you try the latency checker?
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 22, 2016, 05:15:31 AM
No, I haven't tried the latency checker yet. I'll have to get on the Forum with that computer and go try it out. I'll probably get to it this afternoon. I'll let you know what happens after I try it.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 22, 2016, 05:53:00 AM
Ok it will give you a good indication if the laptop is up to it.
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 22, 2016, 07:15:07 PM
Hey MJMP,

     Okay, I ran the Latency Checker, and it told me this machine can run without any drop outs. This is just with the system set at normal full Windows set up, I haven't configured it yet for recording. I think it should be better once I shut off all the programs running in the background.

      Harley 8)
Title: Re: maybe looking for new audio interface
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 23, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
Okay ,great!