Motu is a good choice ...they have a wide selection...
 
828x hybrid works ..WHEN WINDOWS IS ALLOWING IT TO...And works well in DAWs so far, When Windows 10 allows the system to... and sounds very good....
 
Tried focusrite Pro 40...sounds fine here...again the windows thing!.
 
And allen and Heath have a wide range of stuff...I believe here are my choice set to a good working board, good preamps I found, But I have no ear for the High pitch Dog sounds some say they hear... that can have sends and returns, eq and such Pre computer for live use, and effects run...and then tied to the computer for DAW sequencing...or a tape based or other system...lots of options..
 
So price and need...Yep..Lots out there...http://www.prismsound.com/
 
Good???...But...rent it first to see if it is worth the dosh..or try before you buy....and listen.
 
 

Sir Les
 
828x hybrid works ..WHEN WINDOWS IS ALLOWING IT TO...And works well in DAWs so far, When Windows 10 allows the system to... and sounds very good....
 

interesting to hear that about the 828x hybrid - so this seems to be more of a general MOTU problem on win10 (because I do have occasions where the ASIO drivers for the 1248 AVB simply don't register in Sonar although the device appears in windows / MOTU connection GUI)

I have an MOTU 896mk3 Hybrid, connected via USB and using the MOTU ASIO driver in Sonar.  No problems in Win 10 with it not connecting.  I did have a problem with static noise on output (two different 896mk3 Hybrid's) that turned out to be a USB 3.0 problem.  When I switched it to a USB 2.0 port the problem went away.
 
I can use the 64 bit buffer setting for the unit (lowest buffer setting available). 
 
The 896mk3 Hybrid is USB/Firewire interface compatible.  I tested it with Firewire and 96 bit buffer was the lowest I could go on Firewire.

AT
As to the Firewire interface, I'd say no.  USB is the way to go, since Thunderbolt doesn't seem to be catching on in the PC world.  If you are switching to mac, you would want to look at TB. 
 
  The 20x20 is good hardware and has a bunch of "pro" features you don't usually find on $400, 10X10 ADDA systems - word clock, ADAT, Spdif (which gives the 20 in the name) and a good software mixer etc. once you figure it out (and easier, in my opinion, than the Teutonic RME total mix).  The sound is good, close enough to the premium TASCAM UH-7000 that I switch between them without worry.  It is cheaper than the other units we are talking about and, in theory, should be well-tested with Cake software.  The new TASCAM hardware beats my old TC hardware, esp. the pres (and the TC hardware was better than the Presonus it replaced).
  

 
I'm glad to read this, as I have just bought a US 20x20 myself last week (but have not yet installed it because i'm having a hard time configuring a Motor 49 keyboard controller)...
 
Just for the record, I bought this unit for the following reasons:
 
- Our good friend's ANDERTON review...
- Could integrate with my actual setup via ADAT (in PREs mode) AND could be used as a future-proof USB2 / USB 3 audio interface with SONAR when i'll be ready to finally upgrade my DELL STUDIO 1747 laptop.
- Mic Pres are being reviewed as being far better than the ones from previous TASCAM series
- ... AND... i had not seen MOTU'S latest drivers release for their M series (finally adding Thunderbolt support for windows....) For the "future-proof" aspect of my needs, this is major. I would have gone for and Ultralight AVB without question if I had checked that out before my purchase.
 
Not saying that I regret it... ok just a little... but I am willing to give the 20x20 a go... (I'm still in the "refund with no questions asked" period....)
 
So, since this thread is about the quality of the units and the quality of drivers, I do not feel like I am hacking this thread by asking...
 
... Are there other users of the newest TASCAM interface reading this thread? How good are they VS motu's / rme's / focusrite ones?
 
I'm not that good at in-depth drivers/buffer configurations, but i'll post back here the numbers i'll get with most of the "out of the box" configs soon, hopefully

Tascam 20x20 looks like a sweet piece of kit.

Don't sweat that there are other choices I'm sure it will work great for you.

I have an old Tascam 2488 which I still use on occasion. One of the truths was that the gains on the pres were not fine enough for my needs. I bought separate pres that helped me get the levels right by giving me two nobs to twist. Like a gain with a trim.

Maybe that idea might help you one day. This will not be necessary if it has an automatic gain setting feature, but I didn't see one.

Btw, it looks like your Tascam has a class compliant mode which means it will work with Linux.

Ok, well I just did some quick testing with previous projects and I must admit that I am impressed so far by the US 20x20.
 
I'm not yet able to be more thorough, but I can say this: I've been able to play projects with a 64 samples buffer settings with the Us 20x20 without a glitch. (According to SONAR, latencies are: 2.3 msec input / 6.6 msec output / 8.9 MS Total round trip).
 
Previously, at this buffer setting, my previous M-Audio profire lightbridge was failing. So, USB out-performed Firewire here! First time I could ever witness that! 
 
Heck, I can even track guitars at 64 samples... before, I settled for 256 samples buffers...
 
So, performance-wise I am pleased! Sometimes during next week i'll connect some average condenser mics to test the PREs.

I can run my MOTU 896mk3 Hybrid at 64 samples with USB but have to use 96 samples with Firewire.

.

I generally only have 8 to 12 "analog" tracks in a project.  The 64 samples has not been a problem with that.

Caa2
Are people actually able to track 16 to 24 analog inputs at once, without glicthes, at 44.1kHz with a 64 sample buffer over USB?

as said in the other thread: recording that number of inputs is not a problem - yet, maybe you can explain why you need buffers that low when tracking a band playing live? I would use the DAW only as a "tape machine" so that buffers do not matter at all. Monitor mixes etc I would do via direct mixer of the interface or even a separate mixer.