Hi Sander,
 
Note that I'm not talking about the ASIO buffer size at 3ms.
I'm talking about total round-trip latency... which is the sum of the following:

• ASIO input buffer
• ASIO output buffer
• The drivers's safety buffer
• The latency of A/D and D/A converters

The X-UF (audio interface for the X32) driver control panel is very flexible in that you have complete control over the ASIO buffer size *and* the safety buffer (Streaming buffer) size.  It also reports any dropped samples.
To achieve rock-solid performance under heavy loads (with zero dropped samples), you have to adjust the ASIO buffer and the Streaming buffer sizes to where the total round-trip latency is ~10ms.  Anything smaller, and performance is unreliable under heavy loads.
If you look in Sonar under Preferences>Audio>Driver Settings, it'll report the total round-trip latency.
 
The X32 is connected to a well-optimized socket 2011 based DAW with six cores running at 4.5GHz.
 
When connecting the X32 via USB, at the smallest ASIO buffer and Streaming buffer sizes, total round-trip latency is 10ms.  Playback is rock-solid at this setting (no dropped samples).
 
For my purposes, 10ms round-trip latency is too high.

• I like super tight timing when playing virtual instruments (which is one-way or "playback" latency)
• I want the ability to comfortably play DI electric guitar/bass in realtime thru AmpSim plugins
• I want the ability to effectively monitor any source thru software based EFX/processing

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

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.
 

Does anyone have experience with the UA Apollo?

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, that seems a pretty well specced setup for sure. I'm pretty particular about my softsynth timing too, I'll see what's up next time I'm there. I don't usually run more than a couple channels back and forth though since I mix in the box, perhaps that's a difference.

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.?

There is always Gearslutz forum for some reviews. I have an RME Babyface, but all I will mention is that (since a lot of stuff is made in China nowadays) to get at least a 2 year warranty, question used gear if looking at any and make sure the audio/interface you buy has excellent drivers to work with.
(my first Babyface had a noisy channel and it was changed out from the dealer with no questions at all, the second one has been performing for the last little over 3 years).
 
The choice is yours, find the reviews, listen perhaps to recordings done with the units if you can find out which unit they used and then make your choice according to how much moola you want to spend.
 

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.

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.

Well, whoever works with common computers should simply know that there always IS latency. No matter how specced out that thing is, the more the system has to "do", the higher the necessary buffering (latency). Whoever works with common computers knows THAT the system HAS something to do, so, no matter how good the drivers are, as soon as the system has to do something, you quickly reach 64, 128 samples buffer and more, just in order to ensure a dropless audio stream and that, or even less IS or MIGHT be disturbing for the artist. Fact. And a whole industry is crafting DSPs and FPGAs onto anything that needs (near) real time throughput. What are you trying to achieve? And why? However.

Let the OP decide what he wants to achieve and how. And how important it is for him. To me it is super important to record dry, and monitor through EQ/Dyn. The Motu alone isn't capable of fulfilling my needs. The OP now knows in advance wether it fulfills HIS needs. I didn't know in advance and was annoyed at first spending 800€ based on a false picture given by the manual. Maybe my own error. But I am glad when another guy doesn't make that same error. I'm a good guy ;)