Sanderxpander

If you want to record dry but have your interface provide some FX (eg for vocals) you cannot do this properly with the MOTU. You can apply a bunch of FX to an output pair but that is not the same thing. You would be putting the same reverb, eq and compression on the entire mix going to that output. What you want to do is craft a nice vocal sound using the provided tools (compression, EQ and verb) and then add the backing track separately while recording dry.
 

 
Let's be clear that effects we are referring to are EQ and Dynamics, as it's already acknowledged that reverb can be placed on an input signal without being recorded. It is as you say above for recording the signal dry, but this really should not be a big deal. Please hear me out? 
 
What are the main reasons for wanting to record the input signal dry while using effects of the audio interface?
 
1)  Isn't it so that a user wont have to commit to the wet signal, and be able to use or try out other plug ins effects, internally, in the DAW. Then, when you decide what effects and settings you want, after trying out different ones, you destructively apply the effect. In this case (or in other words,) the wet signal wont be applied destructively (or it will be discarded,) and the user will try other plug in effects. If you're not gonna commit to the effects, there should be no issue using the MOTU, in this case. See 2) below for the reason why?
 
2)  Isn't direct monitoring another main reasons for wanting to record the input signal dry while using effects of the audio interface? With CueMix FX it is possible to "craft a nice vocal sound using the provided tools (compression, EQ and verb) and then add the backing track separately" and monitor the effects and backing tracks with zero latency, in playback mode. The only difference from what you point out is recording the dry signal while doing so. The worst scenario would mean, you would have to record one take without the EQ and dynamics effects turned on. "Oh no man, this singer is hard to record. I have to get him recorded on the first take, and the artist and I need to hear all the effects on the vocal while I record the vocal." No problem. Use plug in effects in your DAW. They are usually of better quality, anyway. Using plug in effects in your DAW, you can record the dry signal. MOTU audio interfaces have good drivers that enable their audio interfaces to perform well at low latency settings, so there should be no noticeable delay when enabling input echo to monitor the effect plug ins.
 
So, I don't think it's such a big deal if an audio interface doesn't have the feature which allows to record the input signal dry while using effects of the audio interface, if an audio interface has the feature of direct monitoring of it's inputs with effects. Usually, the effects that are being monitored wont be committed to anyway. But if you're gonna commit to effects, we already know the MOTU unit will record them. It would be cool if the CueMix FX allowed for recording the processed input signal dry, as is the case with some other audio interfaces, but I don't think it's such a big deal that it records the processed signal.
 

Sanderxpander
 
This seems to me entirely expected behavior of a recording interface with DSP fx. Even my aging and limited E-MU 1820M does this. As does the super simple 0404. I definitely think this is worth noting to the OP.

Well, it's no show stopper for me, for reasons I explained above.  The Fireface UCX cost $1,599, and the MOTU 828x costs $849. A unit that costs hundreds more ($750 more according to Sweetwater pricing) should have better features and higher quality. And it's usually risky to buy new gear (the 828x is new,) as bugs needs to be ironed out. I've pointed out these things over and over in this thread. But MOTU units are decent good quality units, at reasonable prices, and I just had to point that out.
 
Cya around.
 

I think the MOTU interfaces are pretty decent for the money, don't get me wrong. I just think the point raised is a significant one for the OP. You can't use the channel EQ and dynamics on the MOTU without recording them. I'm sorry but no matter how you would personally work around this, it's altogether relevant to the OP's stated intent.

It's not always an option to use DAW fx, latency will be higher and some people are really sensitive to this.

Again, I agree that MOTU makes good cards, this just seems a valid concern considering the original question of the OP.

Jim Roseberry

The X32 connected to the DAW via AES-50 gives me the best of all worlds.
 

Still considering a behringer x32 producer with x-adat or x32 core / x-adat expansion and x-touch, connected to the hdsp via adat. Do you have experience with behringer adat gear, concerning external clocking behavior, stability on samplerate changes etc.?

Sanderxpander
You can't use the channel EQ and dynamics on the MOTU without recording them. 

 
That is not correct.
 
You must mean you can not use the channel EQ and dynamics on the MOTU and record a dry signal?
If you put effects on the inputs using CueMX FX and don't put the track into record mode all the effects will be monitored. This is useful so an artist can hear the effects (EQ, Dynamic and reverb) on his/her vocal during a rehearsal performance. And the vocal for that rehearsal performance doesn't have to be recorded at all wet or dry, but the artists still wants to hear the effects on the vocal. This is possible with the MOTU. So, it's inaccurate and unfair of you to say: "You can't use the channel EQ and dynamics on the MOTU without recording them." You can. Even if it's just for monitoring.
 
There are some little things other audio interfaces may have over the MOTU CueMix FX features, but my point is to point out, in this case of recording the processed input signal dry, it's minor.
 

Sanderxpander

It's not always an option to use DAW fx, latency will be higher and some people are really sensitive to this.

 
One of the highlight reasons I pointed out to use effects in the DAW is so I could point out one of the strong points of the MOTU audio interfaces. MOTU writes drivers that perform well at low latency settings. So concern about latency issues will rarely be a problem with owners of a MOTU unit. With my UltraLite-mk3, I can monitor DAW plug in effects with no noticeable delay. I figure this may be of concern to the OP or other readers of this thread. Neither do I have a problem with latency issues, in this respect, when using my M-Audio Delta 1010LT. These audio interfaces (the UltraLite and the M-Audio) are not highly priced, yet, they perform well at low latency settings that make using effects in a DAW no problem.
 
So, with a good system setup/configuration, I reckon it is up to the user to research and come to know the good choices (audio interfaces) that are out there. Apparently, this is what the OP is doing. I feel you, TabSel, and I have made points relevant to the topic of this thread. I'm not trying to prohibit anyone from posting things relevant to the topic of this thread. So, please don't get me wrong? I just think we should be, to the best of our knowledge, fair, honest, and accurate, and I feel I had some worth while points to make, as well as others.
 

Sanderxpander

Again, I agree that MOTU makes good cards, this just seems a valid concern considering the original question of the OP.
 

 
 I understand you.
 
I thought I was making a worth while point that the lack of the feature to support recording a dry signal while monitoring with the audio interface's hardware effects shouldn't be a big deal, since recording a dry signal while monitoring effects can be done using your DAW, and it's better quality effects.
 
What's interesting is that the OP hasn't posted in this thread since the OP. LOL
 
Cya all around.

Cactus Music
I wish there was a way to not have to use the mixer and go directly. The Mix Control looks like it will be useful when tracking a full band, but for one person it is not needed. 

 
Just click the Routing Preset button, then DAW tracking. Then you are done. You can forget about it. Use the LED's and pots on your interface for levels.
 
Focusrite's rock, the sound is great. With mixcontrol you have the flexibility of zero latency monitoring, or you just can keep it simple once it is set up correctly (and not bother with it). Mix Control is easy to use and makes totally sense once you've studied the manual and youtube videos.

Sanderxpander
Thank you for your long elaboration on my sentence "you can't use the channel EQ and compression without recording them", I thought in the context of our discussion it was entirely clear what I meant, but apparently not. Whatever you may feel for your purposes, I do not, personally, find this a minor issue. You seem to want to pretend it's insignificant and that is unfair.

With regards to latency through the DAW, I just recorded a singer on Monday who was really sensitive and kept insisting something was "weird" about her sound when I let her monitor through the DAW. First she insisted there was a tiny delay or reverb (ASIO buffer at 5ms), then she said something was indescribably "weird" (ASIO buffer down to 4 and finally 2ms). This didn't go away until I switched to direct monitoring from my card's mixer. There's a reason they still make cards with fx DSPs.

 
Hi Sander,
 
When you're monitoring thru software-based EFX/processing... and you have the ASIO buffer size set to 5ms, that's not telling the whole story.
In this scenario, you're dealing with "round-trip" latency (latency on both input and output).
So when the driver's ASIO buffer size is set to 5ms... you have the sum of the following:

• The ASIO input buffer is 5ms
• The ASIO output buffer is 5ms
• The latency of the A/D and D/A converters
• The driver's safety buffer (what Behringer call the Streaming Buffer)

Thus, you're actually dealing with significantly higher than 5ms latency.
I'd guestimate the actual round-trip latency to be 12-14ms.
That's getting pretty sluggish... and could certainly affect the performer.
 
An easy way to test the X32's audio interface:
Load up the Sonar demo project (good for testing/comparing performance)
Open the X32's driver control panel... and adjust the ASIO and Streaming buffers to their smallest setting.
Go into Sonar's Preferences>Audio>Driver Settings and check the listed round-trip latency.
Make note of that figure.
Setup the Sonar demo project to loop continuously (so you don't have to keep restarting the transport).
Leave the X32's driver control panel open... and look for any dropped samples.
 
Whoever designed the X32's ASIO control panel did a great job.
Simple, extremely flexible, and it reports any dropped samples.
I wish the X-UF worked as well as my MOTU 896HD.  It would have saved me $900.  
All that said, if you don't ever monitor thru software based EFX/processing... and you don't play virtual instruments, the onboard audio interface is perfectly fine.
 
Right at this moment, only the X-UF and X-USB interface cards are actually available for purchase.
The ADAT, DANTE, and MADI interfaces should be available soon.
I would have preferred DANTE (if round-trip latency is low enough) as that would have been less than half the cost... or MADI (as I could have gotten an RME MADI-face).

Sacalait
Does anyone have experience with the UA Apollo?

I have been using an Apollo QUAD for the past two years. For the first 6 months, I was using it with my 2011 Mac Mini (via FW800) with REAPER x64, as the Win drivers had not been released yet. I got the Thunderbolt I/O card later in 2012 and it was plug and play and super stable with my Mac Mini. In November of that year, UA released the Win 7 drivers along with 64bit UAD plug-ins, so I then installed it on my rather old 2006 Core 2 Duo (3Ghz) DAW using Win 7 x64 (SP1) and began using it with SONAR X1/X2 x64. It has been working perfectly (solid and stable) for me with SONAR using the recommended Sonett Allegro FW800 PCIe card. The 64bit audio drivers & 18/24 audio I/O sets up quite nicely with SONAR with incremental ASIO buffer settings from 32 to 4048 samples. 
 
I just recently (this past month) built a new DAW (i7 4770k using an ASUS Z87 Deluxe/Quad MB). I wanted a robust MB that would last me through the decade. Plenty of expansion (7-PCIe 2.0/3.0 slots, 12-USB 2.0/3.0, etc) and the coup de grace.........dual Thunderbolt 2.0 ports (20Gbps per port)! Anyway, the reason I mention this is I currently have my Apollo QUAD working over Thunderbolt on Win 8.1 x64 with SONAR X3e x64! Everything is working as expected and though the audio drivers are still using FW800 over TB, I am getting 7.6ms RTL (as noted in SONAR audio settings) @ 64 samples ASIO. UA has not announced official Windows Thunderbolt support, but I just wanted to mention, that with a few tweaks (BIOS/OS), you can get it to work using a compatible TB enabled MB. For me, I much prefer using TB than FW if given the choice. Although both work as expected using the Apollo.
 
FYI, UA just released the Apollo Twin (@ Winter NAMM 2014) with PCIe audio drivers over TB and the reported RTL is around 4.5ms. UA announced that PCIe audio drivers will be released for the rest of the Apollo series (Apollo, Apollo 16, Apollo Realtime Rack) in the 2nd quarter of 2014. So we can expect even better RTL's in the future. Although, I must say playing my softsynths (True Pianos, Kontakt, etc) and amp sims @ 64 samples feels real good to me as it is. 
 
Of course, as you probably already know one of the main Apollo features is the real time UAD processing. Which I must say after having used for countless hours over the past two years for recording/monitoring is quite impressive to experience first hand. Especially with the quality of the UAD plug-ins on the front end with no perceptible latency. About as close to using the actual audio hardware in the box as you are going to get. The addition of the Unison Technology on the Apollo's takes preamp modeling to a whole new level. As Apollo users, we got the Unison Tech firmware update and the UAD 610B Pre Amp emu as a free update. 
 
There are very few products that I have ever purchased that I can say I am more satisfied and impressed with two years later than my Apollo. If it was lost or stolen I would not hesitate to purchase another one. Especially now that UA is giving away free, the Thunderbolt I/O card (499 value) with each Apollo purchase until June 30th. If you do get an Apollo, go for the QUAD as the extra DSP is well worth having when you need it.
 
Cheers,
 
Billy Buck
 

I recommend making sure you know going rate for the UFX and UCX. If you go here and have them email you the price you can get a good sense of what the fair going rate is.
 
http://proaudiotoys.com/advanced_search_result.php?x=0&y=0&keywords=ufx
 
I have a UCX and I love it. I've had it for two years. I would point out that you will need some additional Pres probably if you go with the UCX. I use the RME Quad Mic Pre when I want more inputs. The UCX alone works great for two people together working out tunes. If you want to record a band you'll need additional Pres. You can record up to 18 tracks with the UCX, so it's not a trivial device but you'll need other hardware to record that many.
 
You should know it can scale. You can run up to 3 UCX devices together.
 
Also, it comes with TotalMix as you know but I haven't seen anyone mention RME DigiCheck which also works with it. Both are amazing tools.
 
For recording bands, you can save all your settings so you can bring the up for a given club you play regularly for example. So you set your EQs, compressors and sends for Verb for your live gig and save it. You can save it as the club name and bring it up next time you visit the same club. You can also copy it to use it for a new club.
 
You can easily mix monitor and main mixes separately. You can group controls. You can send the monitor mix to the mains during the sound check with a single click.
 
I tend to run the output for the mains to a compressor with a gain nob so that I a physical nob I can twist if I need a quick physical way to turn down, but this isn't necessary if you have a touch screen or a quick mouse hand.
 
I don't have any regrets about my UCX purchase.

Wow.  Awesome.  Thanks for all the ideas and tips, guys.  There's a lot to consider here. 
 
There is also one constraining factor - I am going to want to have two hardware devices connected through S/PDIF, so unless the X32 has a S/PDIF card or module option it  is off my list for now (Damn).
 
The RME, 828x, and the UAD Apollo all have S/PDIF and ADAT ports -
RME and MOTU say their units will configure for 2X S/PDIF I/O (by configuring 1 ADAT port to S/PDIF format) - not sure about the Apollo yet.  Anyone know which interface works best with two S/PDIF I/O channels running?
 
  

QuadCore
Wow.  Awesome.  Thanks for all the ideas and tips, guys.  There's a lot to consider here. 
 
There is also one constraining factor - I am going to want to have two hardware devices connected through S/PDIF, so unless the X32 has a S/PDIF card or module option it  is off my list for now (Damn).
 
The RME, 828x, and the UAD Apollo all have S/PDIF and ADAT ports -
RME and MOTU say their units will configure for 2X S/PDIF I/O (by configuring 1 ADAT port to S/PDIF format) - not sure about the Apollo yet.  Anyone know which interface works best with two S/PDIF I/O channels running?
 

Afaik there's no spdif option planned for the x32.

Adat is a light pipe connection, keep that in mind, you might need to convert.
The motu adat ins/outs can be configured to receive/send spdif via adat ports manually.
The rme adat in adapts to the incoming signal being adat or spdif. It's output can be switched to either manually.

I've got no experiences with spdif over toslink though.

Thanks for figuring this out. But if I understand you correctly, the audio still needs to pass through the DAW even if the fx are DSP based, defeating the point.