RNDI vs. USB Interface

[King Harvest]

Is anyone using an RNDI to record direct and do you think the quailty is much better than just using the built-in DI on an interface like the Focusrite Scarlett series. Thank you.

 

[silky smoove]

It's an active transformer-isolated DI, so don't expect massive tonal changes as a result of inserting it into the signal chain. It's likely not ruler flat, and the transformer may slightly change the transient response as it peaks, but again it's not going to be as colorful as turning an EQ knob slightly. Since it has no AD stage you'll have to run it into an interface of some sort and will likely cascade into whatever preamp is on the front end of said interface. If that preamp happens to be colorful or completely linear it may impact what you're hearing from the RNDI. If said interface has a quality preamp you likely won't gain much, if anything, by adding the RNDI. If you want to add a specific color on your way into the box you should reach for a more colorful device than an active DI.

 

[King Harvest]

It's an active transformer-isolated DI, so don't expect massive tonal changes as a result of inserting it into the signal chain. It's likely not ruler flat, and the transformer may slightly change the transient response as it peaks, but again it's not going to be as colorful as turning an EQ knob slightly. Since it has no AD stage you'll have to run it into an interface of some sort and will likely cascade into whatever preamp is on the front end of said interface. If that preamp happens to be colorful or completely linear it may impact what you're hearing from the RNDI. If said interface has a quality preamp you likely won't gain much, if anything, by adding the RNDI. If you want to add a specific color on your way into the box you should reach for a more colorful device than an active DI.

Thank you, sir. The reviews of this thing are insanely over-the-top positive (on Sweetwater) and I needed a reality check. And good point, I believe it is true that the preamps on my interface cannot be bypassed. I'm curious as to who this product is intended for, who would benefit, live use perhaps? Or for a mixing board that only has mic channels?

 

[silky smoove]

Thank you, sir. The reviews of this thing are insanely over-the-top positive (on Sweetwater) and I needed a reality check. And good point, I believe it is true that the preamps on my interface cannot be bypassed. I'm curious as to who this product is intended for, who would benefit, live use perhaps? Or for a mixing board that only has mic channels?

It's a great product for any situation where an active DI is needed, for which there are many. If I were recording into an interface with preamps that couldn't be bypassed and I wanted a little more color I'd either add a very colorful preamp that can be pleasantly driven a bit such as a 1073 or 312, or I'd add a colorful compressor such as an LA2A, 1176, or 160. Most preamps in even modest consumer-tier interfaces are essentially ruler flat and entirely linear. This is oftentimes a great starting point for most situations.

 

[King Harvest]

It's a great product for any situation where an active DI is needed, for which there are many. If I were recording into an interface with preamps that couldn't be bypassed and I wanted a little more color I'd either add a very colorful preamp that can be pleasantly driven a bit such as a 1073 or 312, or I'd add a colorful compressor such as an LA2A, 1176, or 160. Most preamps in even modest consumer-tier interfaces are essentially ruler flat and entirely linear. This is oftentimes a great starting point for most situations.

That makes sense. As usual, I am overthinking every element of my signal chain. I just got to thinking-- hey, a $150 interface probably has about $10 worth of preamps in it. What would happen if I "upgraded."

 

[Bonafide]

Is anyone using an RNDI to record direct and do you think the quailty is much better than just using the built-in DI on an interface like the Focusrite Scarlett series. Thank you.

Yes, it is better. And it’s not about color but you’ll gain body, clarity and depth in your bass tone using the RNDI (amongst other DIs)

You didn’t mention what you were recording or what Gen Scarlett, but I will guess one of the instruments is bass with passive pickups.

In the end it depends on what you want and what you can hear based on the rest of your chain.

RNDI has a 2.2M input impedance and will bring out a clear representation of your pickups and string choice when recording direct. It’s one of the reasons for the consistent praise in body, clarity etc. It’s noticeable for such a simple DI. Not to mention at +21.5 dbu input headroom it is a proper re-amping device, designed/ideally suited for interfaces.

It's an active transformer-isolated DI, so don't expect massive tonal changes as a result of inserting it into the signal chain. It's likely not ruler flat, and the transformer may slightly change the transient response as it peaks, but again it's not going to be as colorful as turning an EQ knob slightly. Since it has no AD stage you'll have to run it into an interface of some sort and will likely cascade into whatever preamp is on the front end of said interface. If that preamp happens to be colorful or completely linear it may impact what you're hearing from the RNDI. If said interface has a quality preamp you likely won't gain much, if anything, by adding the RNDI. If you want to add a specific color on your way into the box you should reach for a more colorful device than an active DI.

While I understand the intent of this, this is over stating it. Simple small gains, refining the fundamentals in small %, consistently repeated is the key to better audio. They get even smaller, albeit perhaps more intentional, impactful and meaningful as your entire chain is refined from room - instrument - cabling - AD/DA - speaker etc. The RNDI is just a smart choice for a home/bedroom setup.

There are very few 'singular' pieces you can buy in pro audio (save perhaps room treatment) that will be a massive immediate % in improvement, but you can add several small legit improvements over time. A good DI is an excellent start with something as introductory as a Scarlett. In my opinion, if you want to continue to develop your ears discernment, small improvements are key.

 

[silky smoove]

A good DI is an excellent start with something as introductory as a Scarlett.

The Scarlett is a good DI. Adding another good DI in front of it is redundant and not of sufficient color to make a meaningful difference in a mix. As someone who does this professionally I’ll just say that if you want color an active DI is among the last places to look for it.

 

[Bonafide]

The Scarlett is a good DI. Adding another good DI in front of it is redundant and not of sufficient color to make a meaningful difference in a mix. As someone who does this professionally I’ll just say that if you want color an active DI is among the last places to look for it.

Respectfully, that's the silliest thing i've heard. That is saying essentially all DI's are equal.

The idea isn't 'color', it is tone, presence, body, fullness, clarity. Not sure why you go back to that color, but we are not speaking of the same reason to use a DI. The evidence of the RNDI is overwhelming so take it for what it is. And as someone who also does this professionally as well as worked in the industry for 2 decades, I have collected a great collection of higher-end DI's and I have done the work to know the difference first hand.

You can use what you like, but the RNDI is a much better DI than the Scarlett.

 

[silky smoove]

Respectfully, that's the silliest thing i've heard. That is saying essentially all DI's are equal.

Not at all, but if you’re trying to do “something” to the signal you might as well use a device that will do more than stacking a pair of active DIs in series. The one exception would be if the first DI was being used to create a large input impedance swing to load the system differently, but that’s more a task for a passive DI anyway.

The idea isn't 'color', it is tone, presence, body, fullness, clarity.

All words that describe color, or to put it more simply a change in either or both frequency and transient response.

You can use what you like, but the RNDI is a much better DI than the Scarlett.

They’re both fine DIs. They’re also both going to sound so similar that a null test would likely show such minimal differences that any preference in a mix would be entirely perceived via confirmation bias. If the goal is to “improve” (i.e. change) the signal in an appreciable way on the way into the box then there are a seemingly endless supply of devices that will do it more effectively than pointlessly stacking active DIs for next to no change.

 

[Bonafide]

Not at all, but if you’re trying to do “something” to the signal you might as well use a device that will do more than stacking a pair of active DIs in series. The one exception would be if the first DI was being used to create a large input impedance swing to load the system differently, but that’s more a task for a passive DI anyway.

All words that describe color, or to put it more simply a change in either or both frequency and transient response.

I understand what 'color' meant, I just don't see the point in using it here. You are basically describing a preamp of sorts. Which is a great idea, though a different price point and discussion if you want a great DI with it. What if all you wanted to 'do' to the signal was to get more of the source? A better translation of the source? A more pleasant, full sounding version of the source? That is what is great DI does. Not just 'usable' but a great DI. That is the difference between the two here. Context has to be considered. Always.

They’re both fine DIs. They’re also both going to sound so similar that a null test would likely show such minimal differences that any preference in a mix would be entirely perceived via confirmation bias. If the goal is to “improve” (i.e. change) the signal in an appreciable way on the way into the box then there are a seemingly endless supply of devices that will do it more effectively than pointlessly stacking active DIs for next to no change.

In most ways’ everything with a 2nd choice is redundant in pro audio. 2 plate reverbs are redundant, two ‘condenser mics’ are redundant etc…until they aren’t. One is different, maybe a little, maybe a great deal. But that is the whole game… small improvements, small differences that eventually add up. This is one of those differences.

Outside of knowing your gear and learning and using it’s potential as is, there is no other process. You improve, your ears improve, the gear improves to match. However, if you don't gain experience, you don't know any better as you still using the same references.

 

[silky smoove]

What if all you wanted to 'do' to the signal was to get more of the source? A better translation of the source? A more pleasant, full sounding version of the source?

To do that you’d have to eliminate the second DI that you’ve deemed “less good” than the one you’re adding to the front of the chain. If the first DI in the chain is adding something to the signal path then you’re describing a preamplification stage which you’ve said is not your intention. Something is missing…

 

[Bonafide]

To do that you’d have to eliminate the second DI that you’ve deemed “less good” than the one you’re adding to the front of the chain. If the first DI in the chain is adding something to the signal path then you’re describing a preamplification stage which you’ve said is not your intention. Something is missing…

With all due respect Chris, this makes no sense and it's not the first time. Perhaps there is a communication breakdown? Matters not. Percentages count. 5% counts. 10% counts. The SOURCE counts. Makes zero difference if you understand that or agree with that. The whole of audio is built on it. The RNDI is a better source than the $150 Scarlett Hi-Z. It isn't a debate here. The Scarlett is perfectly capable of passing clean signal to it's A/D.

We do agree (as noted in past discussions) that the Scarletts are solid and reliable entry level units. I have my wife's media studio that I built inside my building where we film artists and teachers from all over the world (5 cameras) running off a Scarlett Gen3 and a Senn MKH 416 and a SM7. Rock solid, set and forget, easy for her and plenty of low noise gain for the SM7.

Impedance matching devices (into the same input/pre) despite providing the same function, are never too insignificantly similar to matter. In response and the reason for my own initial reply for the OP is that I know that not only to be false, but I find it to be wholly incomplete if not poor advice. (As would the 1000s that praise the RNDI, Reddi, Radial J series and on and on etc,)

 

[rumblinbass]

The Scarlett Hi-Z Instrument input and the RNDI are NOT the same thing.
The Scarlett Instrument input is most likely an op amp gain stage, not a DI. Very flat with no color.
The RNDI is a DI. A DI provides a high input impedance, reduces instrument level to Mic level, provides a low output impedance, and requires Phantom Power. It was also designed to provide color. It has an active discrete high input impedance buffer that drives a transformer and has copious amounts of low order harmonic distortion (you don't get that with op amps).

You should be able to hear the difference between the Scarlett Instrument input and the RNDI run into the Mic Pre. There is a big difference.

Oh, and for what it's worth - to me you don't get color from an EQ. EQ allows you manipulate frequency response. Color comes from what distortions are allowed and how they are created and used.

 

[rumblinbass]

The Scarlett is a good DI. Adding another good DI in front of it is redundant and not of sufficient color to make a meaningful difference in a mix. As someone who does this professionally I’ll just say that if you want color an active DI is among the last places to look for it.

You can't run an RNDI into a DI.
The RNDI needs Phantom Power.

 

[Joris 55]

For what it's worth, my interface is an Audient ID44, which has a good sounding JFET DI.
I always plug in my RNDI, it's not even close. It just has a vibe to it that I really really like.

I am by no means a sound engineer like some of the other posters, and with some tweaking I can get similar results with the interface DI, but the RNDI makes things more musical. I also like it on keys and to some extent on guitars.

 

[rumblinbass]

Is anyone using an RNDI to record direct and do you think the quailty is much better than just using the built-in DI on an interface like the Focusrite Scarlett series. Thank you.

Better is subjective.
Only you can determine if you like the Scarlett or the RNDI better. They are different flavors. I encourage you to listen and make that determination yourself.

 

[Aloe]

I love Focusrite interfaces, but not the inbuilt DIs, especially for bass. it's kinda okay: clean and almost quiet, but with a subtle bass roll-off and not very defined in highs. you can EQ that down the road or use an external DI.

I prefer to use a Lightning Boy DI or my head's DI output. just connect anything you like in the mic preamp and you'll be happy. or, if you don't have this gear, the inbuilt DI is also acceptable.

 

[erratick]

You can't run an RNDI into a DI.
The RNDI needs Phantom Power.

My scarlett's do phantom power. They're technically audio interfaces.

 

[erratick]

I love Focusrite interfaces, but not the inbuilt DIs, especially for bass. it's kinda okay: clean and almost quiet, but with a subtle bass roll-off and not very defined in highs. you can EQ that down the road or use an external DI.

If there is a roll off on the bass and "not defined highs", how are the scarlett's recording drums and vocals, guitar, etc?

The frequency response is more flat than your ears:

Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 measurements

that's for the cheap one.

The "air" button on the newer ones does change some high end response.

the focusrite scarletts are not DIs, they are audio interfaces. And they are high fidelity.

This thread is filled with science fiction.

 

[rumblinbass]

My scarlett's do phantom power. They're technically audio interfaces.

Understood.
I have a Scarlett Solo so the Mic Input and Instrument Input are separate.
Correct me if I'm wrong; but in other Scarlett interfaces where input connectors are combined, Phantom Power is either only enabled when in Mic Input mode or is only applied to the Mic Input contacts in the combo-jack.

Purpose built DI's run on Phantom (maybe not all?) they don't provide Phantom.