Hi all,

I guess the focusrite 2i4 will be my best bet.  It is about $200, which is about $90 more than the Tascam US-200, but I am hoping it is worth the extra coin.  I can't find a lot of reviews on it though, which is a concern. I read somewhere that it doesn't really matter when looking at pre-amps and A/I's under $500 as they are all low-end, but with that thinking in mind, would it be better to just get a mixer and plug it into the line in of my onboard soundcard?  I don't know what the specs are on the onboard sound, but I'd rather not spend $200 on something that isn't going to make a noticeable difference in sound quality.  I have had surprisingly good results from my old setup, which was ridiculously low end, even though the trumpet sounds a bit "squeezed" at times...(hard to explain - you can't hear all the overtones all the time, etc..but playing with reverb, eq, etc... helped it a lot)  My hope is that for $200, there wiill be a considerable difference.

I think the Focusrite will be a noticeable improvement. Moving away from the internal sound card is the most important step in terms of stability and sound. FWIW there are lower I/O versions of my Presonus Audiobox also - I find the preamps sound nice and clean to my ears and not at all 'grainy' or 'granular'. From everything I have heard about Focusrite they are nice units. I think you'll be pleased.

For $449 you can get it all over with. The fastest drivers in that price range... possibly down to 32 samples if your computer can handle it. 


An exceptional monitoring mix system that will allow you to listen to what you are recording in such a way as to effect your performance in a good and encouraging way.


4 decent generic preamps that are about as average as any you'll find on an iChip based, low power, analog system.

MOTU has a great track record of adapting their drivers to the ever changing world of operating systems.

This thing could keep you happy for a couple decades.

Money well spent? Each has to decide for their self.



That's all I have to say about that. :-)
 

all the best,
mike

Interesting test in the October Sound on Sound where they compared a bunch of quality Mic pres including things like the Mix pres inside Mackie mixers etc. They had a range from very expensive to cheap units like ART etc..

A few things to note:

Testing Mic Pres is hard because the exact same performance must be done in each case. Something that is hard to do. What they did was use a Yamaha grand piano being driven from the disklavier system so the exact same performance was realised every time. Mics were set up and left of course so they were the same for every performance.

Various Mic pres then capture the performance and were all recorded at exactly the same level onto a DAW.

Results: Interesting. When the listeners knew what Mic pres they were listening to they imagined hearing differences. However when the recordings were just given a number and a blind listening test was done the overall result was that no one could really tell any of them apart.  And that includes Mic Pres such as a standard Mackie mixer Pre and the ART etc. 

So sorry people but myth is busted as they say. You do NOT need an expensive Mic pre to make a great recording these days. Remember Mike that on Dan's CD that I sent you (Oh Hawke that is) he used a Rode NT1 on every track and plugged that into a cheap Fostex standalone recorder. Yet the result is rather breath taking in parts. Do you agree! It is Dan who is great here not the Mic pre. (and my mastering of course 

Save your money and invest in the audio interface and other things instead. The interface the Mike is suggesting above would be perfectly fine and the pres would sound excellent I am sure.

Well, I decided to go with the ROland Quad... The reviews seemed decent enough.  Thanks to all who responded.  It was difficult deciding between that and the Focusrite, but since it came with SOnar X1 LE, I would at least have some form of a DAW.  I will upgrade that later. 

Thanks :)

cannelg


Well, I decided to go with the ROland Quad... The reviews seemed decent enough.  Thanks to all who responded.  It was difficult deciding between that and the Focusrite, but since it came with SOnar X1 LE, I would at least have some form of a DAW.  I will upgrade that later. 

Thanks :)

Good choice - enjoy it

Thanks Brando!  I appreciate it.  I will have to use headphones as I don't have "monitors".  Any recommendations on a decent pair that isn't going to kill me?  Also - after reading a lot about them, I am a bit confused.  I used headphones to monitor on my old setup and then mixed using my computer speakers...My mixes got better with time.  I won't be able to use those speakers with the ROland, so I will just use headphones until I can afford monitors.  When I get monitors, can I use them to listen to everything - like normal PC speakers - as well as to mix things I record or are they just for mixing?

Thanks,

Greg

Yes way to go, Getting even a basic version of a DAW with the interface adds a lot of value. And I guess only Rolad interfaces would come with Sonar. At least Roland gear lasts.

And my take on mike pre amps is that ya, they all sound about the same,,, but some really have a lot of background noise when turned up past 2 o clock, others don't. I had an M audio that was a POS and could not use the pre amps. There's your $200 interface. My guess is Roland has had a long time to develop a good "cheap" pre amp.

I hope you enjoy the Roland!



best regards,
mike

One:  don't expect "night and day" differences between your current setup and another budget setup.  Drivers, compatablity and other such housekeeping items are the real difference.

And until your ears are trained - not musically but engeneeringly - you are no likely to have a night and day epiphany once you get over the fact you are on a great system.  I don't know your situation, but it does take time to develop your engineering sensiblities, just like learning to hear your trumpet or any other instrument.

Finally, there isn't a night and day difference between high end and low end hardware for most listeners.  The SOS test Jeff references is a good example.  I've done similiar tests but w/ mp3 files (the unfortunate standard for listening these days tho it is pretty good too!) and couldn't tell much difference in preamps over compute speakers.  We buy expensive stuff to make our job easier and confident since we don't have to second guess whether it is our chops or the equipment that is making the sound suck.  If you have a UAD strip you run the bass through it because you have done it a thousand times and it sounds good and just works.  If you have api you run the drums through it because experience tells you it works.

The one thing the SOS test missed was intentionally driving the preamps so you get a little hair on them - specific sounds that we know work, too.  A generic, scientific test just doesn't bring out how artists use the equipment.  Under many circumstances, a interface preamp will sound about as good as the most expensive preamp.  Under certain circumstances the engineering artist uses it won't.

Buy the best you can afford and learn to use it.  Upgrade components when you can. Learn to use them to your advantage.  As your collection grows so does the ability and ears to use it specifically.  Record music while you learn.  Be happy.

I'd go with the Roland - many seem to like it and it works out of the box mostly and it should be a good match for Cakewalk by Roland.  I've heard of more problems w/ the tascam/Sonar, tho I still have some of their analog hardware.

@