USB sound card recommendations?

[Eric Beams]

The integrated sound card in my laptop is hit and miss- sometimes it
works, sometimes not, but I've been wanting to add a USB sound card
anyway, preferably something of quality and not too expensive. What are
some recommendations? Thanks.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/24/2014 5:39 AM, Eric Beams wrote:
> The integrated sound card in my laptop is hit and miss- sometimes it
> works, sometimes not, but I've been wanting to add a USB sound card
> anyway, preferably something of quality and not too expensive. What are
> some recommendations?

If you can't get the computer's internal sound card working
consistently, unless the problem is with the connectors, you may not
have more success with an external audio interface. Computers can be
cranky.

What "quality" do you want? What features? How many channels? How not
too expensive?

Start looking at the Focusrite Scarlett series.
http://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces

They have a pretty wide range that mostly differ in the number of mic
inputs. The Solo is $100 and has one mic input. The 2i2 is $150 and
offers two mic inputs and a little more flexibility as far as what you
can connect to it conveniently.


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

[Tobiah]

On 11/24/2014 02:39 AM, Eric Beams wrote:
> The integrated sound card in my laptop is hit and miss- sometimes it
> works, sometimes not, but I've been wanting to add a USB sound card
> anyway, preferably something of quality and not too expensive. What
> are some recommendations? Thanks.

Will you need any more than two channel I/O?

As you look, my recommendation is to stay away from the
models that have a 'blend' knob that controls the balance
between hardware input and computer output at the output
jacks. It's a very awkward way to control things, and all
of that control should be in the software mixer anyway.
There you get individual sliders, so if you want to hear your
input a little more, just just bump that slider. Using
the blend pot, you bump up your guitar, but then the
computer tracks are a little low, so you then up the
master... It's lame.

I notice that manufacturers tend to include this blend pot
on their lower end models, and then drop it on their more
sophisticated models.

Tobiah

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/24/2014 3:36 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> As you look, my recommendation is to stay away from the
> models that have a 'blend' knob that controls the balance
> between hardware input and computer output at the output
> jacks. It's a very awkward way to control things, and all
> of that control should be in the software mixer anyway.

I really like that feature. It's not a precise control, but it works,
it's true zero latency input monitoring (not "only for large values of
zero") and you don't need to futz with the computer and DAW buffer
settings to get low enough latency to have good monitoring when tracking
or overdubbing.

Of course you'll be using the DAW faders to mix tracks that are already
recorded, sending that mix back to the interface's monitor section, but
the delay it introduces in order to monitor the source can be annoying.

"It never bothered me" is not an acceptable general response.

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

[Tobiah]

On 11/24/2014 01:35 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 3:36 PM, Tobiah wrote:
>> As you look, my recommendation is to stay away from the models that
>> have a 'blend' knob that controls the balance between hardware
>> input and computer output at the output jacks. It's a very awkward
>> way to control things, and all of that control should be in the
>> software mixer anyway.
>
> I really like that feature. It's not a precise control, but it works,
> it's true zero latency input monitoring (not "only for large values
> of zero") and you don't need to futz with the computer and DAW buffer
> settings to get low enough latency to have good monitoring when
> tracking or overdubbing.
>
> Of course you'll be using the DAW faders to mix tracks that are
> already recorded, sending that mix back to the interface's monitor
> section, but the delay it introduces in order to monitor the source
> can be annoying.
>
> "It never bothered me" is not an acceptable general response.
>

I'm all for knobs on the device actually, but I liked the way the US-122 worked
with a line out knob that controlled everything, plus
a monitor level knob. The other way likely takes two adjustments
to get things right since adjusting the monitor affects the computer
out and vice versa. It ends up being a conceptual preference, although
on the US-122mk I could hear noise from the monitor when turned up loud
enough to hear both monitor and out at a good volume, but either side
cranked all the way up would boost the signal to a level where the noise
could be made inaudible. Obviously two sounds added together are not
as loud as one sound that is twice as loud. The blend knob on that
unit worked like that. It seemed to cut both sounds in half on the
middle setting and mix them together. Not good for the gain train.

Tobiah

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

In article >, wrote:
>As you look, my recommendation is to stay away from the
>models that have a 'blend' knob that controls the balance
>between hardware input and computer output at the output
>jacks. It's a very awkward way to control things, and all
>of that control should be in the software mixer anyway.
Many of those software mixers are largely or even entirely inaccessible to
blind users. As one of said blind users, I actually tend to prefer as many
hardware controls on my audio interface as possible.

[Tobiah]

On 11/24/2014 3:56 PM, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> In article >, wrote:
>> As you look, my recommendation is to stay away from the
>> models that have a 'blend' knob that controls the balance
>> between hardware input and computer output at the output
>> jacks. It's a very awkward way to control things, and all
>> of that control should be in the software mixer anyway.
> Many of those software mixers are largely or even entirely inaccessible to
> blind users. As one of said blind users, I actually tend to prefer as many
> hardware controls on my audio interface as possible.
>

That's cool. I'm not against the knobs as I said earlier,
just this newly adopted scheme of blending the two sources
with one knob. I'm convinced that it was a bridge to allow
new users to conceptualize the signal flow. The entry level
Tascam units have it, then it is dropped at the semi-pro level.

Tobiah