Audio interface suggestions needed! (Update: RME interface has arrived!)

stratman3142

thegummy said:

It's good to know that it's an option though, if I get this new powerful system and there's still issues getting < 6ms latency (I've found that's what I need to feel real time) with a full project then getting the RME interface would give another step forward.

Are you building your powerful system or buying a DAW computer system? If it's the latter I can highly recommend Scan Computers. I got a Scan pro audio computer about 3 years ago and so far it's been flawless.

thegummy

stratman3142 said:

thegummy said:

It's good to know that it's an option though, if I get this new powerful system and there's still issues getting < 6ms latency (I've found that's what I need to feel real time) with a full project then getting the RME interface would give another step forward.

Are you building your powerful system or buying a DAW computer system? If it's the latter I can highly recommend Scan Computers. I got a Scan pro audio computer about 3 years ago and so far it's been flawless.

Building myself. I've always gone for mid range budget conscious computers but I'm excited about getting a pure belter this time.

Funnily enough my friend I'm talking to right now is currently having his new Scan gaming PC stress tested before delivery.

stratman3142

thegummy said:
Here are the figures for the Scarlett gen 2:

16: 4.0ms

32: 4.8ms

64: 8.2ms

128: 13.0ms

Do you have the figures for the Zoom? I keep reading it's very good for latency - if there was a reasonably priced interface that had the high performance of the RME without the other features that bump the price up to 600 quid I'd be well in to that.

Thanks for that. I'd probably be OK with the 64 spls setting with headphones

My Reaper reported figures for my Zoom UAC-2 are as follows. These are with a USB 3.0 interface, which is the interface I also have on my laptop. I don't know whether USB 2.0 is any different. I've also checked the overall latency figure by doing a loopback test. These are all with a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

64 spls input/output latency = 1.4/4.0ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 5.4 ms)
96 spls input/output latency = 2.1/4.7ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 6.8 ms)
128 spls input/output latency = 2.9/5.4ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 8.3 ms)

The figures are broadly in line with the figures reported in the table at the link below.
http://kailuamusicschool.com/tech/round-trip-latency-roundup/

Something to bear in mind is that the RME may have better quality audio quality performance. I recall someone posting something about the UAC-2 frequency response not being perfectly flat which I need to track down. However, I don't hear any obvious audio issues.

thegummy

stratman3142 said:

thegummy said:
Here are the figures for the Scarlett gen 2:

16: 4.0ms

32: 4.8ms

64: 8.2ms

128: 13.0ms

Do you have the figures for the Zoom? I keep reading it's very good for latency - if there was a reasonably priced interface that had the high performance of the RME without the other features that bump the price up to 600 quid I'd be well in to that.

Thanks for that. I'd probably be OK with the 64 spls setting with headphones

My Reaper reported figures for my Zoom UAC-2 are as follows. These are with a USB 3.0 interface, which is the interface I also have on my laptop. I don't know whether USB 2.0 is any different. I've also checked the overall latency figure by doing a loopback test. These are all with a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

64 spls input/output latency = 1.4/4.0ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 5.4 ms)
96 spls input/output latency = 2.1/4.7ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 6.8 ms)
128 spls input/output latency = 2.9/5.4ms (i.e. roundtrip  of 8.3 ms)

The figures are broadly in line with the figures reported in the table at the link below.
http://kailuamusicschool.com/tech/round-trip-latency-roundup/

Something to bear in mind is that the RME may have better quality audio quality performance. I recall someone posting something about the UAC-2 frequency response not being perfectly flat which I need to track down. However, I don't hear any obvious audio issues.

That sounds good, very good numbers on the Zoom.

It's mostly headphones I use and the 8.2ms isn't as blatantly unbearable as the 13ms of the 128 buffer but there's a weird feeling to it, it just doesn't feel right like the 4.8ms does.

Will have to look in to the audio quality thing but unless the Zoom is especially worse than the Focusrite, I think any difference is in the extremely subtle range where audiophiles with 50 grand stereos think they might hear a difference. Thankfully I don't care about that kind of difference at all.

I wonder how the Zoom manages to get such good latency when it's even cheaper than Focusrite and Focusrite are such a big company.

stratman3142

thegummy said:

I wonder how the Zoom manages to get such good latency when it's even cheaper than Focusrite and Focusrite are such a big company.

The Focusrite 3rd gen solo is much less expensive than the Zoom UAC-2.

thegummy

stratman3142 said:

thegummy said:

I wonder how the Zoom manages to get such good latency when it's even cheaper than Focusrite and Focusrite are such a big company.

The Focusrite 3rd gen solo is much less expensive than the Zoom UAC-2.

Only has 1 preamp though.

There isn't really an equivalent Scarlett to the UAC-2, it's between the 2i2 and 4i4.