|
Advantages to upgrading to a better soundcard? (pg. 2)
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by spolitta
Apogee Duet |
He's on a PC and the duet is mac only...... |
|
|
| Magnus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
He's on a PC and the duet is mac only...... |
Exactly. I would totally go with the Apogee Duet if I was on a Mac as I've heard such good things about it.
Thanks for the info DJ RANN that helps for sure. If there is any other soundcards in the price range of the MOTU that you think might be a better choice feel free to suggest them. I think the MOTU runs around $550 or so and I think that is about the most I'd be willing to spend on a soundcard upgrade. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnus
Exactly. I would totally go with the Apogee Duet if I was on a Mac as I've heard such good things about it.
Thanks for the info DJ RANN that helps for sure. If there is any other soundcards in the price range of the MOTU that you think might be a better choice feel free to suggest them. I think the MOTU runs around $550 or so and I think that is about the most I'd be willing to spend on a soundcard upgrade. |
No problem.
The Duet is without doubt the best 2 in 2 out interface available but I still think that $500+ it's a little bit over priced for what you get.
Quality wise, I think you're on to a winner with Motu at that price range - you could look in to getting a Motu 828 (Mk2 or higher only - not Mk 1) second hand - they run at about $450 to $600 ans offer loads of functionality/connectivity and are really solid units.
New, the Motu ultralite is the best bet at that price range for PC. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
I heard the Duet was rubbish even compared to the ensemble, which is far from the quality of the X series which made their name. Haven't personally tried it though.
From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be
Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA
With RME probably representing the best quality at the lowest price. Once you get into Lynx it sounds like your paying for diminishing returns. I've decided I'm probably going for a fireface 800 when I have money - which may never happen.
Can somone explain to me how you can get better stereo imaging from a better converter though? Because if audio channel is on a seperate physical wire, then they should be completely discrete anyway?
I understand how you can have better clocking and how that would make a difference. And of cours lower THD and noise floors and what not, but stereo imaging?!
The most important things to remember IMO, is that
1. just because it has the brand name doesn't mean its the same quality as that brand name's top models. IE, the fact that a 2 Ch interface is carrying the apogee name doesn't mean its got the same quality used in their 16 channel interface.
2. You NEED really good monitors to hear a difference. REALLY good monitors means a lot of money. If its not K&H, Gens, Dyns or Focals, then you're not going to get much benefit from your obscenely expensive converters. Mackies or yamahas aren't gonna cut it.
3. The most competition is in the mid range of the converter market, the higher you go, the less returns you get for the price.
thats my 2 c based on my reading recently. |
|
|
| junkie_vince |
| checkout the Presonus Audiobox usb or the Firebox |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be
Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA
|
??? Presonus beats MOTU, et al?!!! I think you've got your list (or your "greater than" symbols) reversed.
Overall, I think the OP is getting some pretty bad advice here. If he's not recording, most of the cards that are being recommended here will be serious overkill and a waste of his money. The majority of the cost for the MOTUs, RMEs, Presonus, etc. cards that are being mentioned here goes for features that he won't be using - XLR inputs and quality preamps, line ins for direct recording, digital/lightpipe ins/outs, multiple outputs for different monitors/headphone mixes, etc. I do a lot of recording and I use virtually every one of the ins/outs on my MOTU 828mkII, but I can't imagine spending that kind of cash on a unit simply for playback. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
cheers, that was helpful mate :)
i think i'm starting to figure that there's a minimum level of quality, but over that it can get to be pretty relative, which is just what i need to hear since i don't have enough spare change to blow the big bucks anyway... |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
??? Presonus beats MOTU, et al?!!! I think you've got your list (or your "greater than" symbols) reversed.
Overall, I think the OP is getting some pretty bad advice here. If he's not recording, most of the cards that are being recommended here will be serious overkill and a waste of his money. The majority of the cost for the MOTUs, RMEs, Presonus, etc. cards that are being mentioned here goes for features that he won't be using - XLR inputs and quality preamps, line ins for direct recording, digital/lightpipe ins/outs, multiple outputs for different monitors/headphone mixes, etc. I do a lot of recording and I use virtually every one of the ins/outs on my MOTU 828mkII, but I can't imagine spending that kind of cash on a unit simply for playback. |
haha, I sort of meant that list to be in order o inreasing quality, obviously:wtf:
Chances are that the OP will be recording some synths eventually, and most of the good converers are multi channel rather than 2 channel like the duet. I suppose a fireface 400 might be better than an 800, but I'm really just throwing ideas around. Most 2 channel interfaces are fairly rubbish unless your going for a $3000 mastering cnverter, which is definately overkill IMO. |
|
|
| Magnus |
Thanks all! Yeah I won't be doing much recording anytime soon. I have a Virus Ti so I've never had to record any synths in. I'm really leaning toward the MOTU Ultralite MK3 at this point I think its the best choice in my price range.
And Alan I just read your thread and your case is almost identical to mine. Same soundcard, same monitors, same sequencer. Its really got me thinking... |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
I heard the Duet was rubbish even compared to the ensemble, which is far from the quality of the X series which made their name. Haven't personally tried it though.
From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be
Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA
With RME probably representing the best quality at the lowest price. Once you get into Lynx it sounds like your paying for diminishing returns. I've decided I'm probably going for a fireface 800 when I have money - which may never happen.
Can somone explain to me how you can get better stereo imaging from a better converter though? Because if audio channel is on a seperate physical wire, then they should be completely discrete anyway?
I understand how you can have better clocking and how that would make a difference. And of cours lower THD and noise floors and what not, but stereo imaging?!
The most important things to remember IMO, is that
1. just because it has the brand name doesn't mean its the same quality as that brand name's top models. IE, the fact that a 2 Ch interface is carrying the apogee name doesn't mean its got the same quality used in their 16 channel interface.
2. You NEED really good monitors to hear a difference. REALLY good monitors means a lot of money. If its not K&H, Gens, Dyns or Focals, then you're not going to get much benefit from your obscenely expensive converters. Mackies or yamahas aren't gonna cut it.
3. The most competition is in the mid range of the converter market, the higher you go, the less returns you get for the price.
thats my 2 c based on my reading recently. |
I think the difference here is that it's what you've read about and not what you've actually used (no offense meant). Other peoples references are always useful but knowing from a personal or professional perspective is a different thing and trumps it everytime.
Magnus, you didn't say what your monitors are or if you're recording or using any outboard sends or inserts. Are you using HR824s and cubase then?
Basically, as a 5 year previous user of a 2496, I was more than happy with it for my uses (cubase, all softsynths, one drum machine for midi programming and not very good speakers).
If you're not going to be recording (by this I mean ever - it's a big loss if you have to upgrade again later to more I/O), then the benefits of going to another soundcard are going to be slightly more limited. Having said that you will notice a difference in audio clarity, and especially so if you ever decide to use higher sample rates or record or go in and out of the card.
As for your mackie speakers, don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you they're not good enough, especially for EDM - it's elitist bull. Yes, focals, genes etc are better and if I could, I would but the 824's are perfectly good for commercially released music and if you can't get to that level on them, then it's not the speakers fault. |
|
|
|
|
