• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

USB interface recommendations

#21
Just get the Focusrite. They probably sell more than anyone else, and you see a lot of pros using them, so for a reasonably priced one, they are a relatively sure bet.

I got sick of driver issues, so went with an RME finally and can't believe what it's like to set it up and completely forget about it. But it'll cost you, and I don't think it's worth it for most people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Elkins
#22
I recently picked up an Audient ID4 for basic mic and bass recording. I couldn’t be happier and recommend it highly. Clean, tiny learning curve. But it met my exact needs - as others have said, there are a few things to consider. (I’ve also seen the love for the Scarlett series, but I struggled with compatibility/driver issues with my older Focusrite and a couple of programs, so I never looked at the newer stuff.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJMO
#25
I like my Steinberg ur22mkII. Had it for a few years, rock solid. has midi in / out as well as output for studio monitors. Was going to go with a Scarlett, but was sold on this one instead. No complaints.

Right in the same price range as the scarletts and more bang for the buck when comparing the Scarlett models at that price point imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ramack and funkinbottom
#26
ramack said:
Hi,

First post here on TB. Basically looking for suggestions/recommendations for a entry level, low end USB interface that my son can run into his Windows 10 desktop.

My high school senior son has been playing bass for a couple years, getting pretty good. I bought him an entry level Peavey and a Fender Frontman practice amp to get him started. My desk is right below his room, so it's cool to hear him when he's playing/practicing.

He's interested in doing some very basic recording, so I'm helping him get set up. Really just looking for an interface at this point, I'll probably have him use Audacity initially, then on to Reaper later. Looks like Reaper is what most of you use for recording and editing.

Amazon has many USB interfaces for $30 or so. Are these good enough to get him going for now? Any to stay away from?

I'm thinking something like a Behringer UCS102 Interface, $35 from Guitar City

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Focusrite. They're decently priced, and really nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ramack
#28
Another vote for one of the Scarlett interfaces. I have a 2i4 because I wanted the MIDI connections. Mine has been flawless. It is well-built, sounds great, and is easy to use. There are a ton of them out there as well, so if you need help setting it up or anything, there are plenty of videos on how to use them

I haven't used Audacity in a long time, but when I did, it was more of an audio editor than a DAW. Maybe that has changed, but I don't know. I use and recommend Reaper. You can try it for free, but you should purchase a license for $60 if you like it and continue to use it. $60 is more than a fair price for a fully functioning, professional DAW.

With a Scarlett 2i2 and Reaper license, you're in it for ~$180 and you have the ability to make professional quality recordings, provided you learn how to use everything. That is an amazing value, IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basslice
#31
equill said:
Good? I have the Babyface Pro FS, and it's fantastic!
Connecting the Focusrite Octapre to it via optical link Just Works, too, which beefs up the channel-count nicely.

However, it's a little out of the OP's budget :)
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the pro and oro fs?

What I'll want at some point it hne near future is an effects send/ return things to connect to it as I prefer adding effects after I have recorded...

Yes, I guess it is a bit more expensive, but there are deals out there and I consider it worth saving up for.
 
#32
cnltb said:
What is the difference between the pro and oro fs?

What I'll want at some point it hne near future is an effects send/ return things to connect to it as I prefer adding effects after I have recorded...

Yes, I guess it is a bit more expensive, but there are deals out there and I consider it worth saving up for.
Click to expand...
These things are worth saving up for, that's for sure.

The full list of differences is on the product page, but the main things are:
- Lower latency on the ADC.
- Improved SNR and THD on the inputs.
- SteadyClock FS (hence the "Pro FS" part) for better syncing with an incoming ADAT signal.
- Headphone outs are improved. I've tested them for re-amping and they worked well enough for me.

If you're saving up to upgrade to this kind of thing, the FS is almost certainly worth the extra, possibly unless a retailer has some old non-FS stock that they're willing to discount heavily.
If you're thinking of upgrading from Pro to Pro FS, the only new feature on the FS is the K-slot for physically locking it to something. Otherwise, it does the same things but somewhat better. I'm being a little mealy-mouthed here because for some people this will take it over the threshold from nearly-there to now-it's-there, while for others the non-FS will already be so good that the improvements just offer a bit more headroom.

If you're thinking about using it for a line-level effects loop and you don't already have the Pro, you need to bear in mind that it only has two balanced line-outs. For monitoring that, you'll need to either use headphones or patch an outboard DAC via optical cable (ADAT or S/PDIF).
I've been mulling this over myself, because I got a nice mic preamp for recording bass through, and it sounds so good I'm considering getting a second one so I can run synthesised sounds through them in stereo.

The Fireface UCX II is the device I actually wanted to replace my venerable FA-101, but it didn't hit the market until after I'd added the OctoPre to the Babyface, and it's hard for me to justify spending basically the same amount all over again to get more line outputs and ditch the MIDI breakout cable. Although, if you're in the EU (I forgot where you are, sorry) I could consider selling my Babyface at bit of a discount :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cnltb
#34
equill said:
These things are worth saving up for, that's for sure.

The full list of differences is on the product page, but the main things are:
- Lower latency on the ADC.
- Improved SNR and THD on the inputs.
- SteadyClock FS (hence the "Pro FS" part) for better syncing with an incoming ADAT signal.
- Headphone outs are improved. I've tested them for re-amping and they worked well enough for me.

If you're saving up to upgrade to this kind of thing, the FS is almost certainly worth the extra, possibly unless a retailer has some old non-FS stock that they're willing to discount heavily.
If you're thinking of upgrading from Pro to Pro FS, the only new feature on the FS is the K-slot for physically locking it to something. Otherwise, it does the same things but somewhat better. I'm being a little mealy-mouthed here because for some people this will take it over the threshold from nearly-there to now-it's-there, while for others the non-FS will already be so good that the improvements just offer a bit more headroom.

If you're thinking about using it for a line-level effects loop and you don't already have the Pro, you need to bear in mind that it only has two balanced line-outs. For monitoring that, you'll need to either use headphones or patch an outboard DAC via optical cable (ADAT or S/PDIF).
I've been mulling this over myself, because I got a nice mic preamp for recording bass through, and it sounds so good I'm considering getting a second one so I can run synthesised sounds through them in stereo.

The Fireface UCX II is the device I actually wanted to replace my venerable FA-101, but it didn't hit the market until after I'd added the OctoPre to the Babyface, and it's hard for me to justify spending basically the same amount all over again to get more line outputs and ditch the MIDI breakout cable. Although, if you're in the EU (I forgot where you are, sorry) I could consider selling my Babyface at bit of a discount :)
Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing any interfaces with actual effects sends and returns, (other than digital mixers that can be used as interfaces) although the RME has ridiculous routing flexibility. I can't imagine using outboard gear with a DAW nowadays. If you use a DAW, you can add effects before, after, to parts of a track, etc. if you do it within the DAW.
 
#35
ramack said:
My desktop is Linux and I've used Audacity for real basic audio editing, no issues either. Kdenlive for AV.
Click to expand...
I will add that on my Linux box, I have used Rakarrak and Guitarix to play an electric Yamaha. Works great with no pre-amp. Just from the 1/4" jack to the 5/32" line in jack. Never messed with trying to record, was mainly just using as an amp.
 
#36
KJMO said:
I don't remember seeing any interfaces with actual effects sends and returns, (other than digital mixers that can be used as interfaces) although the RME has ridiculous routing flexibility. I can't imagine using outboard gear with a DAW nowadays. If you use a DAW, you can add effects before, after, to parts of a track, etc. if you do it within the DAW.
Click to expand...

He's not looking for effects, just a basic recording, to make a bass cover I'm assuming.
 
#38
KJMO said:
I don't remember seeing any interfaces with actual effects sends and returns, (other than digital mixers that can be used as interfaces) although the RME has ridiculous routing flexibility.
Click to expand...
Me either, but it's not necessary to have purpose-designed inserts in the interface, in order to patch outboard gear into the path.

For @cnltb's use-case, you take an existing recording, then insert a send and a return into that track in the DAW, which uses a pair of outputs and inputs (assuming stereo) to incorporate hardware effects while rendering the track. Ardour has latency compensation for this, and I expect other DAWs do, too.

For my own current use-case, I patch a percussion track in Renoise into the MIDI-out on my Babyface, which triggers drum samples in a BeatBuddy. The BB's audio outputs are connected to a line-in insert in Renoise, so it all happens live as the sequence is run. Again, Renoise can compensate for the latency.

For a third case, where you want to use the interface's preamp but then do some external processing before actually capturing the result in the DAW, this is where I'd use RME's ridiculously flexible routing. Send input 1 to output 1 and patch it to the outboard gear, then capture the return signal in input 2 and capture it from there.

So although we don't have inserts as such, what we have is even better :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJMO, Corigan and mmon77
#39
equill said:
Me either, but it's not necessary to have purpose-designed inserts in the interface, in order to patch outboard gear into the path.

For @cnltb's use-case, you take an existing recording, then insert a send and a return into that track in the DAW, which uses a pair of outputs and inputs (assuming stereo) to incorporate hardware effects while rendering the track. Ardour has latency compensation for this, and I expect other DAWs do, too.

For my own current use-case, I patch a percussion track in Renoise into the MIDI-out on my Babyface, which triggers drum samples in a BeatBuddy. The BB's audio outputs are connected to a line-in insert in Renoise, so it all happens live as the sequence is run. Again, Renoise can compensate for the latency.

For a third case, where you want to use the interface's preamp but then do some external processing before actually capturing the result in the DAW, this is where I'd use RME's ridiculously flexible routing. Send input 1 to output 1 and patch it to the outboard gear, then capture the return signal in input 2 and capture it from there.

So although we don't have inserts as such, what we have is even better :)
Click to expand...

Was just going to say that, but you beat me to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: equill
#40
equill said:
Me either, but it's not necessary to have purpose-designed inserts in the interface, in order to patch outboard gear into the path.

For @cnltb's use-case, you take an existing recording, then insert a send and a return into that track in the DAW, which uses a pair of outputs and inputs (assuming stereo) to incorporate hardware effects while rendering the track. Ardour has latency compensation for this, and I expect other DAWs do, too.

For my own current use-case, I patch a percussion track in Renoise into the MIDI-out on my Babyface, which triggers drum samples in a BeatBuddy. The BB's audio outputs are connected to a line-in insert in Renoise, so it all happens live as the sequence is run. Again, Renoise can compensate for the latency.

For a third case, where you want to use the interface's preamp but then do some external processing before actually capturing the result in the DAW, this is where I'd use RME's ridiculously flexible routing. Send input 1 to output 1 and patch it to the outboard gear, then capture the return signal in input 2 and capture it from there.

So although we don't have inserts as such, what we have is even better :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking about going out of one of the headphone outs and then back into the regular instrument in but would prefer a piece of hardware which would make this easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: equill

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back