#Looking for a good value interface that meets my needs

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

young ibex
#

I'm looking to buy an interface mainly for recording my voice with a dynamic XLR mic (for now) and that also has at least 2 extra inputs to plug in my synth, with more channels being nice to have possibly for band rehearsals. It shouldn't be too large so it can fit on my desk and I'd like to have a direct monitoring option for my headphones. Something that would also be nice is if it had 2 headphone outputs, but it isn't mandatory. With all of this in mind, I was able to find a few interfaces that meet my requirements:

  • Behringer UMC404HD: This one looks quite large, so I'm worried that it might be bothersome since my desk space is limited. What makes it very appealing is the price point, being less expensive than any of the other options, whilst supposedly being "good enough".
  • Arturia Minifuse 4: This one seems to have everything I'm looking for aside from a way to blend the amount of sound that comes from the inputs vs what comes from the pc. It can be done in software but I'd prefer if it was a hardware solution so I can rest assured that it'll work well with my Linux PC.
  • Topping E4X4: This one also looks quite appealing, but again, it lacks a way to blend input and PC audio hardware side, and I haven't researched enough to know if it can be done through software, as well as looking quite big. I like that it has separate 48v buttons for each input though.
  • Tascam US-4x4HR: This one looks nearly perfect, as it meets every requirement that I'm looking for. It does look quite large in photos though.
  • Mackie ProFX6v3: This and the next one were more of an impulse addition that I haven't researched much about. It looks reasonably sized and priced as well as having quite a few inputs.
  • Yamaha AG03MK2: This one simply looks kickass, with the fader and mute button for the mic input, and it's also very compact, which I like. It looks like it lacks some of the features of the other interfaces though.

If anyone has any other suggestions, please leave them as well!

young ibex
#

Just discovered the existence of headphone distribution amps, so more than one headphone monitor output is no longer a requirement!

young ibex
#

I've also just learned about the Soundcraft Notepad-8FX, which looks very appealing due to the high amount of inputs but it isn't clear whether it allows for direct monitoring or not, much less if I could blend between PC audio and inputs audio

young ibex
#

Okay after some research, the way the Soundcraft handles monitoring is by playing back computer audio through channels 7 and 8, so turning the knob would increase or decrease the volume of the USB signal as well as for what's coming from the rca inputs. It also plays back inputs 1+2 by default though that can be changed through it's software

#

Honestly the more I consider it, the more tempted I am to get a usb mixer like the Soundcraft rather than just a standard audio interface, since there's a lot more to play around with and learn as well as just having more inputs than the interfaces for cheaper. So basically, unless the mixers have some fatal flaw that limits their real world usability compared to the standard interfaces, I'll probably just get one of those.

#

I'd like to get y'all's input on this

ancient dune
#

I see nobody commented here, as the question might have already presented an answer. There is nothing technically wrong with using a mixer with USB as an interface.

Generally, really cheap mixers can be of inferior performance, but most good brand models work fine.

The main difference is that you present a "mix" of all the channel inputs are a complete "stereo mix" to the computer. So in most cases, you cannot really have a bunch of inputs come in as a bunch of audio tracks. You would have to "mix" them and can't really "unmix" them to do some processing on one thing mixed in.

Sometimes a way around this is to put some things on one side and some on the other that you know will be processed differently.

Nothing wrong with the mixer approach in general though.

young ibex
#

That makes sense yeah. Nonetheless, since I posted this, I was able to get some financial support to invest in whatever I buy, so I've increased the price range to about $500 or so. For this price, I can get some nice digital mixers, with the one I'm interested in being either the Tascam Model 12, or the Behringer XR-18.

The Behringer seems to be a tried and true solution that would work well for me, especially due to its compact nature, with the only setback being the lack of physical controls which I'm trying to figure out by programming something like a MIDI controller as well as its "not stellar" WiFi reliability. The Tascam is newer and more updated, with a ton of controls and things to tweak physically, but its size is what bothers me the most.

Both of these supposedly send most channels separately through USB which is a concern you mentioned. Btw thanks for answering! Reliable as usual.

ancient dune
#

Don't know the tascam, but the XR18, along with the also headless and console version X32 have been staple small mixers in the corporate world and with small live music acts for some time now.

I believe they the XR18 can also record locally, possibly multichannel, but don't quote me on this.

The interface can be controlled with an ipad wirelessly (inconvenient) and by a computer through ethernet, which is much easier. Ethernet connection is fast and reliable enough to make the meters look right, which can be a big deal.

They work pretty well. Nothing very wrong with them as far as performance.

young ibex
young ibex
#

Btw @ancient dune, I've seen a few peeps say that the XR18 has subpar preamps and suggesting the Midas MR18 instead (which is currently almost $400 more expensive). Would you say that's something I should be concerned about or could I just fix it in post if I got an XR18?

ancient dune
#

Subpar preamps is probably an exaggeration. They are different somehow, but not a night and day difference. That and they sound a little different, but nothing compared to the difference between two microphones, or even two samples of the same microphone, like a pair of SM58s is much more different.

The main difference, in my opinion anyway, is that the Midas one has nicer connectors and things. That and is Says MIDAS, which has lost almost all of it's value, but used to mean something really special in the ancient times.

The truly, absolutely ignorant will scoff at Behringer and accept Midas.

young ibex
#

Apologies if I'm being bothersome by my overload of questions btw, I just don't want to make an uneducated decision since it's a lot of money I'd be spending

ancient dune
# young ibex If the difference was only 100 bucks or so I'd probably get the Midas, but it do...

Nothing wrong with looking for information.

A place I have seen a lot of Midas small mixers is small bar gig PA systems where the name is used to make the bands and venue feel like the PA is real.

Being an ancient that used actual Midas equipment in the old days, I have pretty much absolute zero faith an anything about the name today, and wouldn't feel much different buying either. I would literally buy on price with these if impressing some weird, small band producer was not involved, but remember this is just an opinion.

For real perspective though, neither preamp is tremendously noisy, like, say, a Zoom H6 or something. Noise can be heard if you max out the preamp and turn up playback like anything, and the Midas one seems perhaps different, and maybe a little quieter, but it is absolutely not like one is noisy and the other is not.

young ibex
#

If I ever needed to do anything more demanding I'd get something even more expensive anyways, so it's not a big deal.

#

To quote myself, what interested me about the XR18 was its compact size despite its high amount of inputs and very extensive control, so this guy will be more than fine for the years to come.

#

At least I hope, of course.