mike_mccue
 
I'll bet if I got picky I could come up with some more stuff but I have promised jonbouy that I'll try to behave better. :-)
 
FWIW, I don't even think I have good ears... I'm old and beat up... but I do think I hear stuff that seems obvious to me and when I do I respond by following up and learning what's behind my impression.
 
I am a big believer in plurality of experience and the validity of each persons experience, so I'd be pleased if folks don't think I am trying to persuade anyone to think any particular way. I lurked this thread for the past few days and then I blurted out a few ideas that float around my head.
 
Over and out.
 
:-)
 
all the best,
mike

Yes, there are probably things I could tell you about my interface too that would make less than ideal, but for all practical purposes relating to the poor OP's original enquiry they are hardly worth a mention and yet again become the source of the most eloquent, and expansive verbiage that has little or nothing to do with the reasons why £150 worth of Roland designed interface is such a good and practical purchasing decision.
 
I've promised myself to behave better these days too .
 
btw as an aside I'm looking forward to giving one of these a try when it finally hits the streets in October, it does sound promising.
 
http://spl.info/index.php?id=2959&L=1

Regarding bus-powered onboard fx, the new Tascam US-322/366  (linked-to earlier) may merit a look, pretty versatile mixing and fx on offer there (but fx only work when at 44.1/48).
 
But the real standout in this regard is the Zoom R8, which besides being capable of working on bus-power, batteries or AC, offers way more fx and features than any other bus-powered interface (and many mains-powered ones too).

Jonbouy
 
btw as an aside I'm looking forward to giving one of these a try when it finally hits the streets in October, it does sound promising.
 
http://spl.info/index.php?id=2959&L=1

Might want to give one of these a try too.
 
http://audient.com/products/id22
 

Goddard

Jonbouy
 
btw as an aside I'm looking forward to giving one of these a try when it finally hits the streets in October, it does sound promising.
 
http://spl.info/index.php?id=2959&L=1

Might want to give one of these a try too.
 
http://audient.com/products/id22
 

Yep, that's another promising one of the new breed in at around the same kind of price point.

Funny that so many interfaces are going w/ the table top format.  And knob.  I love my remote for the TC K 48, even if the box is rackmount.  Those two above, plus Forte, Apogge, etc.  I guess it looks more ... substantial than a rack.  Esp. w/ the knob.  And it is the main component for doing your music, except for those pesky rack-mounted preamps w/ such big, round transformers .... ;-)
 
@

I'll admit it is a pain to use a rackmount interface as a monitor control.  I was eyeing the new Mytek DA or the new Audient just for edit/mastering studio DA and monitoring control so I don't have to hook up my UFX after getting back from a location recording job.  Both undoubtedly sound great.  
 
Speaking of great pres.  Audient is wonderful.  Well respected in the classical recording field.  Their new id22 has two of them. 

A comment on connecting to two USB ports for the device.  That doesn't make any difference if both USB ports are on the same hub (internal to the PC).  There is only "x" amount of power (total) available for all the ports on the hub.  If you use one port and draw the maximum power, there is zero (basically) available for the other ports on that hub.

This kind of problem occurs sometimes with USB-powered external HDDs which use a "power assist" or "power sharing" cable for drawing additional power from a second USB port. It's worth noting that bandwidth is also shared between ports sharing the same root port hub.
 
In any case, the available/consumed bus power can be confirmed by examining the properties for each USB root port hub in Device Manager.
 
On many PCs/laptops, each USB port connector will be connected to a seperate root port hub and so be able to supply full power, but there are some where ports are shared.
 
Using a powered USB hub can avoid this concern, but can cause initialization issues with some USB devices which need to be connected directly to a root port (issues can also arise when using a USB port provided on a laptop's docking station).

Jeff Evans
It is all interesting though and I am older like Mike and do appreciate a well designed power supply. I am just from that era too! (I still think big hefty power supplies sound good in power amps!) I just think the differences are less than we think at certain levels of music production. I would be interested Mike in what you did not like about the SOS test. I thought it was pretty reasonable.
 
For those who do have any DSP after the MIc pre but before the DAW I also have this feature in my Yamaha mixer but rarely use it as well. But the other day I was recording a very dynamic male singer. I did not know what to do (other than patch in an external device but there was no time for that)  so I found using the compressor built in to the mixer set for limiting (if you can do it that is) with a very high threshold, fast attack and release did a great job of catching very loud bits end preventing them from clipping the input to the DAW. There was no recorded distortion anywhere (shows how clean the Mic Pre was in the Yamha mixer too) and the vocal track was easier to edit later on for sure.
 
That is about the only DSP I have ever used on the way in. But you do have to be able to put any compressor into limiting mode and set it up accordingly. Can you do that with the Roland Pre?
 
 

Makes no difference on the Roland the compressor comes after that A/D block you may as well use anything you fancy in your plug-in arsenal instead.
 
If you've got a singer that hasn't got good mic technique then you'll need something outboard to tame him before you clip at the A/D converter, once you've gone past that any damage that has been done already isn't going to be rectified by anything.
 
Man, there's enough headroom there for anyone these days as long as they are not physically head-butting the mic while doing a take.  It's pointless commiting to any DSP at that stage, I can see the point of using some nice heavyweight piece of hardware that glows in the dark before you get there though.

Jonbouy

Jeff Evans
 
For those who do have any DSP after the MIc pre but before the DAW I also have this feature in my Yamaha mixer but rarely use it as well. But the other day I was recording a very dynamic male singer. I did not know what to do (other than patch in an external device but there was no time for that)  so I found using the compressor built in to the mixer set for limiting (if you can do it that is) with a very high threshold, fast attack and release did a great job of catching very loud bits end preventing them from clipping the input to the DAW. There was no recorded distortion anywhere (shows how clean the Mic Pre was in the Yamha mixer too) and the vocal track was easier to edit later on for sure.
 
That is about the only DSP I have ever used on the way in. But you do have to be able to put any compressor into limiting mode and set it up accordingly. Can you do that with the Roland Pre?

Makes no difference on the Roland the compressor comes after that A/D block you may as well use anything you fancy in your plug-in arsenal instead.
 
If you've got a singer that hasn't got good mic technique then you'll need something outboard to tame him before you clip at the A/D converter, once you've gone past that any damage that has been done already isn't going to be rectified by anything.
 
Man, there's enough headroom there for anyone these days as long as they are not physically head-butting the mic while doing a take.  It's pointless commiting to any DSP at that stage, I can see the point of using some nice heavyweight piece of hardware that glows in the dark before you get there though.

This appears to be the current direction with interfaces-- equip some onboard DSP and perform compression/limiting in the digital realm with DSP rather than applying it at the analog input stage. Compare the Quad-Capture with Roland's earlier bus-powered interfaces such as the UA-25 and FA-66 which offered analog limiting but lacked onboard DSP.
 
Roland even tout the minimalization of analog circuitry as a design advance:
 
http://www.rolandus.com/go/octa-capture/
 
Alesis' bus-powered IO-2 reflects a more traditional console-oriented design direction, offering analog inserts on its inputs for allowing outboard compression/limiting to be employed.
 
Options are always nice to have, design trade-offs not so much.