[Tobiah]

I recently had trouble getting that Profire 2626 from eBay to work.
I figured I got ripped off, but eventually traced it down to a bad
cable. Just a reminder that it's seldom the cable, but it can be.

So because of this, I dug up an old unit that I had always thought
to be faulty, thinking maybe it was just that bad cable all along.
It was. I would have sold it years ago when it was worth something
had I known.

So it's an Echo Firewire 8. I was checking out the software mixer
on it and noticed that it has its own unnecessary limitations. I went
to set up as I normally do, where I have a phones mix and a monitor
mix. The primary difference between these two is that the phones
monitor the mikes and the computer, while the monitors only monitor
the computer. To my surprise, the Audiofire 8 is worse off in this
case than the Profire 2626 was. As least with the Profire, I could
send the phones mix to a separate output using the lame AUX feature.

So the Audiofire 8, has a tab for each hardware output pair, which
is a good start. The problem is that each software return from the
computer is hardwired to its corresponding hardware out. You can
only hear one on each output, and the choice has already been made.
This makes my phones mix idea impossible (ok, without adding another
hardware send from Reaper, which I could do if I were to keep this thing).

The Audiofire 8 is the top mixer he


http://imgur.com/a/H7DCP


I get to pick from any hardware input but the DAW channels (3/4 in
this case labled 'Play A3, Play A4' are pre-selected, and there
are no meters to indicate that a signal is present at all. Now
look at the Mia MIDI mixer. It's made by the same people, but you
get to choose from any of all 8 software returns for any hardware
output (only two tabs in this case). Each one has a meter of course.
With the Audiofire, I was getting no sound from the computer and
didn't see any signal coming in so I checked the DAW first. No,
everything was fine, I just had to raise the faders that had no
meters.

I can only guess that they wanted to save screen real estate, but
at such a cost. While the other two units shown have it right, the
Audiofire 8 and as I discussed previously, the Profire 2626 have
serious limitations that squelch their flexibility. It's odd that
the two that don't have it right are supposedly the higher end units.

I know what's happening he The largest group of users may never
spend any time in the software mixer. They have trouble understanding
what it should be able to do, and get confused when it gets too complex.
Still, this is software, and the mixer part is not all that difficult
to put together. They should have and 'advanced' mode to unlock
the potential that these devices should have. It seems clear to me
that the size of the mixer window won out over functionality with
the Audiofire. I know that was a bigger deal back when this thing
was built, but it's still a shame.

When choosing a unit, if you care, remember to thoroughly research
the software mixer since it's half of what the unit can do.

Tobiah

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/3/2016 1:17 PM, Tobiah wrote:
When choosing a unit, if you care, remember to thoroughly research
the software mixer since it's half of what the unit can do.

There's nothing like a real console, patchbay, and multitrack recorder.
Problem is that you can't fit all of that on a table in a bedroom that's
too small for a bed. Other problem is that it costs many times more than
the software emulation.

I once wondered why there weren't hardware level controls for outputs on
a computer audio interface. Sure, there's the software mixer, but
depending on what you were connecting it to, you might want to have a
different output level for better gain structure. The usual choice of
"+4 or -10" (and with no standard reference relating that to 0 dBFS)
usually is either too high or too low. I was told by an honest
manufacturer that adding a pot would compromise their noise spec and
they didn't want to have to show lower noise output than their
competitors. As far as I know, only Lynx offers input and output
trimpots, and that's optional.

There's always something to question with contemporary audio hardware,
and the answer usually revolves around lowering the price by eliminating
something that not everyone needs (or rather not everyone knows that
they need it until they try working without it).



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/3/2016 1:17 PM, Tobiah wrote:
When choosing a unit, if you care, remember to thoroughly research
the software mixer since it's half of what the unit can do.

There's nothing like a real console, patchbay, and multitrack recorder.
Problem is that you can't fit all of that on a table in a bedroom that's
too small for a bed. Other problem is that it costs many times more than
the software emulation.


I could fit a smaller[1] console in here, but I just don't have to.

[1] Soundcraft sized...

REAPER and a 16 in/16 out interface works fine. You can use plugins
instead of outboard.

You can't expect a vendor of some MI level USB dongle to also build a
full featured software mixer.

I once wondered why there weren't hardware level controls for outputs on
a computer audio interface. Sure, there's the software mixer, but
depending on what you were connecting it to, you might want to have a
different output level for better gain structure. The usual choice of
"+4 or -10" (and with no standard reference relating that to 0 dBFS)
usually is either too high or too low. I was told by an honest
manufacturer that adding a pot would compromise their noise spec and
they didn't want to have to show lower noise output than their
competitors. As far as I know, only Lynx offers input and output
trimpots, and that's optional.

There's always something to question with contemporary audio hardware,
and the answer usually revolves around lowering the price by eliminating
something that not everyone needs (or rather not everyone knows that
they need it until they try working without it).




--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/3/2016 2:43 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
I could fit a smaller[1] console in here, but I just don't have to.

I record singers. Singers don't like to hear their voice in the
headphones comb-filtered. No latency is the only thing acceptable, and
the only way to get that is with hardware. The built-in DSP mixer in the
last Focusrite interface that I reviewed had a throughput delay of about
0.3 msec, and that's acceptable, but monitoring through the computer no
matter how good the numbers look is no good.

You can't expect a vendor of some MI level USB dongle to also build a
full featured software mixer.

They're getting smarter. What I'm waiting for is one that has a real
analog mixer built in, with relays that switch from input to playback
monitoring in the same way a tape deck does. Reaper can do that in
software, but you're always bound by the latency of the computer. It's
cheap to route the audio in software, but hardware monitor switching
requires relays, and that's expensive, and something else to go bad.

Some people like to play LP records for the experience. Me, I like to
record with hardware for the experience.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/3/2016 2:43 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
I could fit a smaller[1] console in here, but I just don't have to.

I record singers. Singers don't like to hear their voice in the
headphones comb-filtered.

I am just either not bothered by this or it isn't a problem. I do have
a "zero" latency monitoring option, and I could use that and REAPER for
F/X at the same time. Or I could add a Digitech box for reverb in
S/PDIF bad into the interface mixer.

No latency is the only thing acceptable, and
the only way to get that is with hardware.

It's a matter of preference, IMO. If you have a custom recording
space, might as well use to for gear.

The built-in DSP mixer in the
last Focusrite interface that I reviewed had a throughput delay of about
0.3 msec, and that's acceptable, but monitoring through the computer no
matter how good the numbers look is no good.

You can't expect a vendor of some MI level USB dongle to also build a
full featured software mixer.

They're getting smarter. What I'm waiting for is one that has a real
analog mixer built in, with relays that switch from input to playback
monitoring in the same way a tape deck does.

Why would they do that when they can sell you a separate mixer that
people can use for things like live shows?

BTW, there's a nontrivial population of people who use Pro Tools or
REAPER or Sonar as a digital mixer for live shows, too. Some use
custom rack hardware but some just use the computer. Being able to have
scene recall on a fully-fledged interface is quite the feature.

The cartage proposition for plugins is superior to the cartage
proposition for racks.

Reaper can do that in
software, but you're always bound by the latency of the computer. It's
cheap to route the audio in software, but hardware monitor switching
requires relays, and that's expensive, and something else to go bad.


Relays are really expensive, relative to most of the other parts. I dug
a bit for a pad/bump box or a relay switcher( to be seperate from the
interface ) but no joy. So it's either not perceived as a market
opportunity or just isn't one.

For a feild of relays, it would be fairly easy to build as a cape (or
mezz board host board ) for a small SBC like a Beaglebone or RasPi.

Some people like to play LP records for the experience. Me, I like to
record with hardware for the experience.


Exactly.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/3/2016 4:33 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
I record singers. Singers don't like to hear their voice in the
headphones comb-filtered.

I am just either not bothered by this or it isn't a problem.


No latency is the only thing acceptable, and
the only way to get that is with hardware.

It's a matter of preference, IMO.

It's more than a matter of preference, it's that I don't like singers to
tel me "my voice sounds funny in the headphones. Are you using some EQ
on it?"

One of the ways to fix this problem is to have the headphone volume loud
enough to thoroughly override the singer's voice getting to his ears
through the acoustic path in his head. That way there isn't enough of
the direct signal mixing with the delayed signal to cut notches in the
frequency response. Rock singers usually want the headphone volume high
enough so that it swamps out the acoustic signal so they don't notice
comb filtering. A singer who isn't playing with a drummer, electric
guitar, and bass (or tracks) behind them usually wants to listen at a
sensible volume.

This is, of course, only a problem only when recording vocals, unless
latency is so great that it distracts from your playing. It hasn't been
that bad in most setups for a long time.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com