Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (OffAnAirplane)

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:08:04 GMT

ORIGINAL: ohhey
Many people ask why some audio interfaces have so many outputs and this is a great example of how they can be used. The firepod would have been perfect but they cheaped out and didn't put enough DSP power in the thing to be able to mix all that I/O. They need to update it with the latest chips that can do that (and better conversion) and discontinue the firepod. Can you say firepod II ? Folks already love the sound and design of that thing they just need to get it the rest of the way there.

Exactly. I've got all eight analog outs of my 2408Mk3 going to the four stereo channels of my headphone amp. Between Motu-Cuemix and Aux sends in Sonar, I can make four entirely different stereo headphone mixes. I can satisfy the monitoring needs of even the pickiest bands.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dooleyblu)

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:43:11 GMT

Thank you for your reply, I have come up with a solution for my friend. Fortunately, the Firepod has an SPDIF output of which I ran to my SPDIF input of the E-MU 0404. Now I can create a send for each channel to him through the E-MU and set the balance and level independent of what the rest of us hear from the Firepod. I am thankful I came up with this because I do like the simplicity and the price of the Firepod.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (ohhey)

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:48:39 GMT

ORIGINAL: dooleyblu

Frank Coffey wrote
The Presonus Firepod sounds great but has two major flaws, no software mixer for monitoring

I just upgraded to the Firepod from the E-MU 0404 and I am now just finding this out! I have an unusual situation with one of the band members. He is mostly deaf in one ear and the other is hyper sensitive. He needs hi-volume in the right ear and lo-volume in the left. I upgraded to the Firepod so that we can record scratch tracks with the whole band at once. For him, I need to turn down all the other instruments in his headphones -30 Db, the click track needs to be down -70 Db. His vocal and banjo need to be very loud for him. I can make it this way for him by sending the mix signal to another small mixer and change the balance. I have sent the click track to buss A and that is where I can send most of the signal to the deaf ear. The problem is that I cannot turn down the other instruments enough in the monitor mix and send enough signal to their respective tracks. Also, after making it sound this way for him, it sounds like crap for the rest of us. E-MU comes with Patch mix DSP software and I could probably manage this issue much better with it, but it dose not recognize the Firepod.

Dose anyone out there have any suggestions? Is there a piece of software out there to manage this? Can I do this with hardware?

Ant help would be appreciated.

Patch mix and the use of Aux sends and busses in Sonar would solve the problem but the 0404 doesn't have enough I/O to do it. The Emu 1820M or any interface with enough I/O would work. Most interfaces have a zero latency mixer built in and a software like Patch mix DSP to adjust it, the Firepod is the only expensive one I know of that can't do that. M-Audio, E-MU, MOTU, Lynx all have similar mixers so you can get more then one headphone mix going at once. Keep in mind this can't be done with just software at zero latency, the hardware has to have a DSP matrix mixer built in and only the software from that vendor will be able to control it and each one looks and works different.

The idea would be to use two headphone amps or the built in amp for one person and a multi channel headphone amp for the rest of the band. With an interface that has a DSP mixer you could then solve both problems. You would use the DSP mixer to send a "copy" of each input to two different output pairs and be able to adjust the levels of each channel on each output pair independently. That takes care of live monitoring on inputs with zero latency.

Then you can also add an Aux send to each channel in Sonar and send that to a bus that is assigned to the second pair of outputs also and use those to adjust the playback mix for the special needs person and use the main mix set to the first pair for the rest of the band. With enough outputs and headphone amps you could even give each player their own mix !

Many people ask why some audio interfaces have so many outputs and this is a great example of how they can be used. The firepod would have been perfect but they cheaped out and didn't put enough DSP power in the thing to be able to mix all that I/O. They need to update it with the latest chips that can do that (and better conversion) and discontinue the firepod. Can you say firepod II ? Folks already love the sound and design of that thing they just need to get it the rest of the way there.

Until then.. check out Focusrite, Mackie, MOTU, RME, M-Audio, etc and see what you can find. Even the tried and true, old antique, M-Audio Delta 1010 would work perfect.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dooleyblu)

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:44:24 GMT

Frank Coffey wrote

The Presonus Firepod sounds great but has two major flaws, no software mixer for monitoring

I just upgraded to the Firepod from the E-MU 0404 and I am now just finding this out! I have an unusual situation with one of the band members. He is mostly deaf in one ear and the other is hyper sensitive. He needs hi-volume in the right ear and lo-volume in the left. I upgraded to the Firepod so that we can record scratch tracks with the whole band at once. For him, I need to turn down all the other instruments in his headphones -30 Db, the click track needs to be down -70 Db. His vocal and banjo need to be very loud for him. I can make it this way for him by sending the mix signal to another small mixer and change the balance. I have sent the click track to buss A and that is where I can send most of the signal to the deaf ear. The problem is that I cannot turn down the other instruments enough in the monitor mix and send enough signal to their respective tracks. Also, after making it sound this way for him, it sounds like crap for the rest of us. E-MU comes with Patch mix DSP software and I could probably manage this issue much better with it, but it dose not recognize the Firepod.

Dose anyone out there have any suggestions? Is there a piece of software out there to manage this? Can I do this with hardware?

Ant help would be appreciated.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (DonM)

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:36:53 GMT

I do a bunch of live recordings where there are no retakes or second chances so my opinions are biased in that direction. I have had bad experiences with a single device being my pre and my A2D - Examples DM-24, O1X, Traveller - so.... I use preamps and then balanced into these devices - I just finished a very large on-location recording project for NPR and used my MOTU Traveller as the A2D - that works fine with Presonous and O2R preamps in front - my two cents

-D

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Junski)

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:00:58 GMT

ORIGINAL: calaverasgrandes

Nerdy nitpick alert.... that's 5.9dB worse than the 144dB theoretical 24bit limit. So it's not impossible... just improbable

uh, I'm talking about EIN figure, which is a standard based on a 200 ohm load. Even with a shorted input 135db EIN is highly unlikely. In the worlds best instrumentation amplifiers you still cant get around little "nitpicking" details like thermal noise.
Either way I prefer not to buy gear from companies that mislead in their adverts. It belies a lack of respect for the customer.

Ps Nerd? well I make music with computers and talk about it online...DUH

ORIGINAL: http://www.rane.com/note145.html
EIN. Equivalent Input Noise or Input Referred Noise

What is tested? Equivalent input noise, or input referred noise, is how noise is spec'd on mixing consoles, standalone mic preamps and other signal processing units with mic inputs. The problem in measuring mixing consoles (and all mic preamps) is knowing ahead of time how much gain is going to be used. The mic stage itself is the dominant noise generator; therefore, the output noise is almost totally determined by the amount of gain: turn the gain up, and the output noise goes up accordingly. Thus, the EIN is the amount of noise added to the input signal. Both are then amplified to obtain the final output signal.

For example, say your mixer has an EIN of -130 dBu. This means the noise is 130 dB below a reference point of 0.775 volts (0 dBu). If your microphone puts out, say, -50 dBu under normal conditions, then the S/N at the input to the mic preamp is 80 dB (i.e., the added noise is 80 dB below the input signal). This is uniquely determined by the magnitude of the input signal and the EIN. From here on out, turning up the gain increases both the signal and the noise by the same amount.

How is it measured? With the gain set for maximum and the input terminated with the expected source impedance, the output noise is measured with an rms voltmeter fitted with a bandwidth or weighting filter.

Required Conditions. This is a spec where test conditions are critical. It is very easy to deceive without them. Since high-gain mic stages greatly amplify source noise, the terminating input resistance must be stated. Two equally quiet inputs will measure vastly different if not using the identical input impedance. The standard source impedance is 150 ohms. As unintuitive as it may be, a plain resistor, hooked up to nothing, generates noise, and the larger the resistor value the greater the noise. It is called thermal noise or Johnson noise (after its discoverer J. B. Johnson, in 1928) and results from the motion of electron charge of the atoms making up the resistor. All that moving about is called thermal agitation (caused by heat -- the hotter the resistor, the noisier).

The input terminating resistor defines the lower limit of noise performance. In use, a mic stage cannot be quieter than the source. A trick which unscrupulous manufacturers may use is to spec their mic stage with the input shorted -- a big no-no, since it does not represent the real performance of the preamp.

The next biggie in spec'ing the EIN of mic stages is bandwidth. This same thermal noise limit of the input terminating resistance is a strong function of measurement bandwidth. For example, the noise voltage generated by the standard 150 ohm input resistor, measured over a bandwidth of 20 kHz (and room temperature) is -131 dBu, i.e., you cannot have an operating mic stage, with a 150 ohm source, quieter than -131 dBu. However, if you use only a 10 kHz bandwidth, then the noise drops to -134 dBu, a big 3 dB improvement. (For those paying close attention: it is not 6 dB like you might expect since the bandwidth is half. It is a square root function, so it is reduced by the square root of one-half, or 0.707, which is 3 dB less).

Since the measured output noise is such a strong function of bandwidth and gain, it is recommended to use no weighting filters. They only complicate comparison among manufacturers. Remember: if a manufacturer's reported EIN seems too good to be true, look for the details. They may not be lying, only using favorable conditions to deceive.

Correct: EIN = -130 dBu, 22 kHz BW, max gain, Rs = 150 ohms

Wrong: EIN = -130 dBu

ORIGINAL: http://www.maxioxd.com/
* Microphone Pre-amp
Type Balanced XLR (+48V Phantom Power support)
Level 500 mV max (-3.8dBu)
Gain Range +25.0dB (@Gain min, -3.8dBu) ~ +73dB (@Gain max, -51.8dBu)
Equivalent Input Noise - 135.5dBu (@ 0 ohm, 20Hz ~ 20kHz)
THD + N 0.00065% A-weighted (@ gain+35dB)
Dynamic Range 103dB A-weighted (@ gain +35dB)
CMRR 90dB
Impedance 1.5K ohm

On MaxIO specs, the EIN 135.5dBu is given @ 0 ohm, 20Hz ~ 20kHz.

How does this make difference compared to standard 150 ohm or 200 ohm 'loads'?

Does this 'error' make MaxIO XD's mic-preamps unusable?

Junski

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (wogg)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:42:28 GMT

uh, I'm talking about EIN figure, which is a standard based on a 200 ohm load. Even with a shorted input 135db EIN is highly unlikely. In the worlds best instrumentation amplifiers you still cant get around little "nitpicking" details like thermal noise.

Hence the liquid nitrogen reference of course... well played sir " />

You know at first glance it looked like the range was correct to go down to 144... until you actually add the numbers " />
For an engineering type guy I'm ridiculously bad at simple calculations in my head.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (calaverasgrandes)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:40:51 GMT

Nerdy nitpick alert.... that's 5.9dB worse than the 144dB theoretical 24bit limit. So it's not impossible... just improbable

uh, I'm talking about EIN figure, which is a standard based on a 200 ohm load. Even with a shorted input 135db EIN is highly unlikely. In the worlds best instrumentation amplifiers you still cant get around little "nitpicking" details like thermal noise.
Either way I prefer not to buy gear from companies that mislead in their adverts. It belies a lack of respect for the customer.

Ps Nerd? well I make music with computers and talk about it online...DUH

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (wogg)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:33:35 GMT

2nd it state an EIN of 135.5! thats uh 5.9db better than the theoretical limit!

Nerdy nitpick alert.... that's 5.9dB worse than the 144dB theoretical 24bit limit. So it's not impossible... just improbable " />

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (calaverasgrandes)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:28:51 GMT

regarding the ESI MaXiO XD. First it foes fro $2000 according to their online store. That price puts it firmly into Apogee/RME territory. 2nd it state an EIN of 135.5! thats uh 5.9db better than the theoretical limit! Wow they must have liquid nitrogen in those preamps!
I use an ESI midi interface in my setup. It runs fine but I am a little skittish about the driver. Its version 1.0 still and its 2 years old! So either these guys write the best drivers in the world, or they dont give a shoot about their products after they are out of the warehouse.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (deiseldave)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:58:35 GMT

Delta 1010 has worked great for me for over 5 years without a hickup. IMO, any investment into higher quality converters is wasted money. The Delta's are already ridiculously accurate. You can spend over $10K and still not get a 1% improvement in accuracy of reproduction, and any miniscule improvements realised would be negated by human hearing limitations.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dali lama)

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:07:17 GMT

I'd hate to think you're right, jo099. But I think you are.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Spaceduck)

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:06:21 GMT

ORIGINAL: jcschild

NO Echo, the older stuff they made was great, i am not fond of the new at all.

The old Echo Layla 24/96 was as good as it gets, and I still think it's possibly the best card on the market today. Funny it's gotta be 5 years old by now. Why they messed with a great design I'll never know. Anyway, dwhite, you can probably get yourself a Layla 24/96 on ebay for around $300.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (jo099)

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 17:14:38 GMT

ORIGINAL: dali lama

Why not firewire?

Usage and Reliability. Pci has it over Firewire I/O devices. I need to be able to record 16 trks at a time sometimes in 24/44.1 or 96, Low latency softsynth/samps, ability to utilize MME drivers "and" asio at the same time (for certain scenarios). There's always some limitation or problems when we talk fwire wth anything nominally demanding.
Firewire devices work fine for most project studios , anything demanding though and f-wire becomes a liability or concern.

Plus I keep my f-wire channels open for other purposes (video devices, etc.). If you're just in your apartment recording 6-8trks at a time, sure...go firewire. I'm not interested in it.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (shotgunndunn)

Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:44:23 GMT

I have a MOTU 896 Firewire Interface on ebay right now. I used it flawlessly with Sonar for over 2 years.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Plyrman)

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:25:17 GMT

Funny I asked almost the same question inside the Sonar forum....

But what are you guys thoughts on the Tascam 1082 or 1804. It's suppose to run well with Sonar and the prices are reasonable.....plus you get the "8 inputs"....????

Also...advantage/disavantage of USB vs Firewire.....using M-Audio Firewire 410 now....it works fine....but only "2 inputs" ....???

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Jesse G)

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:05:44 GMT

Save some money, get a presonus Firepod. You can record 8 channels at a time. If you dont change sample rates, then it works. O only use 44,100 so, hey, I am happy. I have multiple outs and canhave plenty of Monitor Mixes or head phone mixes as well from withing Sonar. I use the thee isa Cue mix section jsut for a head phome amp.

Musician friends on-line has a nice deal going on. ~~> Firepod with Free item Buy a Firepod and get a Free Maxrack Product of your choice! (TUBEPre, Comp16, EQ3B, HP4)

It's agreat product and not too expensive.

Ohhey, I know you are secretly using the firepod " />" />

Peace " />

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (calaverasgrandes)

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:32:09 GMT

Can anyone say Lynx or Sydek? Both fine cards. EMU quality?

I've heard of Lynx, but Sydek? Never heard of em. Do you mean Sytek the preamp company? As far as the EMU. There is more to an interface than specs. Some interfaces with not so good specs sound great. Some interfaces with very good noise figures have very bumpy frequency response. And the best converters are nothing if the analog cicuitry in front of them is junk.
I am leary of the EMU gear just because of the way the ads pitch them. They come off kind of cheesy. Sure EMU was a synth company for years, but that doesnt mean they know dirt about making a good interface. Heck Lexicon couldnt get the Core 2 to work. It sounded great for the 5 minutes before the BSOD!

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dali lama)

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:04:39 GMT

Why not firewire?

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (jo099)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:09:32 GMT

Those digi'sman (001 or 002), they can't seem to shake a rather "dull" sound for some reason. I've given them more than a fair shot.

Hmm, from what you're describing...
Another vote for the delta 1010 (not so much for the "LT" version with cvrtrs on the card, but even with that you could get by).

I've used them (two 1010's now) in a home studio situation and i've yet to see a product/need to replace them. Just solid 24/44.1khz or 24/96khz i/o.
Drivers are solid, monitoring made easy, excellent sound. it should cover a lot of situations...and the price is right.

I'm not a fan of firewire interfaces though.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Clydewinder)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:00:12 GMT

the m-audio delta 1010 is rock solid if you are looking to go PCI

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (BruceEnnis)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:57:12 GMT

listed by quality last being best

Emu
M-Audio
Presonus
RME
RME FIreface

Also forgotten from the list would be

Tascam FW-1884
Frontier Design Dakota and WaveCenter
Digi 002 and 002 Rack (free copy of ProTools LE with purchase)

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (lhansen)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:47:57 GMT

Using a MOTU Traveler with WDM drivers and is running fine with no glitches, low latency, ultra-quiet. Best Interface I've used so far. I have a decent SIIG II firewire card as well. Once installed and configured, I was good to go. I can pay attention to the music!!

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (Jim Roseberry)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:20:45 GMT

John,
I understand you had a bad experience with the 1820m...
But it's been working well for a lot of other folks.
The quality of the A/D D/A is definitely better than a lot of competitors.
(ie: Noisefloor is 12dB lower than what you'll find on M-Audio/Echo/etc.)

Having said this, if your primary concern is ultra low latency performance (<3ms), then the 1820m is not the best choice.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (johndale)

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:25:40 GMT

Can anyone say Lynx or Sydek? Both fine cards. EMU quality? whatever................................

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (calaverasgrandes)

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:24:08 GMT

I'd say the Motu 828mkII is pretty decent. Second only to the FF800. Some of us have had problems with drivers. Me especially when trying to use an extra multiport midi interface concurrently with the 828's audio ins. But for flexibilty and input/outputs its hard to beat with 20 ins and 22 outs plus a routable mixer with savable presets. The sound quality is very good. But MOTU doesnt publish specs on this model so I cant give you specifics.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dali lama)

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:42:15 GMT

I've also heard a rumor that the firepod and it's sample rate switching problems are SONAR specific. There seems to be people using that unit with other apps that have no problem switching rates on the fly. Even someone here has reported sucessful sample rate switching on the fly. In fact, I've had trouble switching sample rates on the fly with the FF800, FWIW.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (dali lama)

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:37:49 GMT

I'll second that Firepod. In fact, I've had better performance with the pod than with my current Fireface 800, in terms of latency. The Pod was giving me 3ms without probs and the FF800 is more like 10 without trouble. Granted, I've been busy and haven't had a lot of time to troubleshoot and I'm sure that I will get it dialed-in, but the pod was great sounding and really easy to set up and use. And that thing was less than half of what the FF800 cost. I'm not saying that the FF800 is too expensive, I'm more saying that the Firepod is stupid cheap. You can't lose with that box. Don't get me wrong here, if you have the scratch, the FF800 is the way to go. But for the money, you can't beat the pod.

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (oddboy)

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:09:04 GMT

Hi there,
I've used a DSP24 from ST audio / Hoontech for many years with few problems if any. It's cheap as chips, too with a 8in and 8out breakout. They've subsequently released a full on XLR breakout box. It's worth a look although some people have had problems I've found it to be Sonar friendly.
Oddly,
Oddboy

RE: Best Audio Interface for 8-Channel Input Recording (jpkeys)

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:45:50 GMT

ORIGINAL: ohhey
The Presonus Firepod sounds great but has two major flaws, no software mixer for monitoring and doesn't autoswtich sample rates like a normal sound card.

I've posted here before that my Firepod auto-switches just fine between 44.1 and 48. I've had mixed results with higher sample rates; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But since 44.1 and 48 are the only rates I typically use, it's no problem for me. Also, with my system I can track as low as 1.5 ms, so input monitoring is almost as good as a software mixer (and to me simpler to use). If you want 8 decent mic preamps in an interface at a reasonable price, the Firepod is hard to beat. And it's absolutely great for a portable laptop-based recording solution. I record 10 simultaneous tracks (8 analog + 2 digital) at gigs weekly.

JP