1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Entry level interface- (m-audio M-track 2x2m)

Discussion in 'Converters / Interfaces' started by kmetal, May 28, 2016.

  1. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    http://www.m-audio.com/products/view/m-track-2x2m#.V0pHKNz3arU

    This thing comes out in July, for $150, I'm thinking of pre ordering one in about 2 weeks. My Maudio 1814fw, would require a $50 siig pcie FireWire card with the TI chipset, just to plug into my computer. Since the drivers haven't been updated past W7, Maudio doesn't officially support the interface anymore. The tech person I spoke with over there, said that there's been a reasonable amount of users who have had no problems running the interface on w10, but either way, they don't support it anymore.

    Feeling like I got my $400 worth, I'm skeptical to put any more into/towards a 10 year old interface, that has been discontinued for like 8 lol. It's been rock solid driver wise, and functioned fine for what it was.

    So anyway, at this price point it's got nothing to do with quality, it's all about features. Mainly, this is the only interface in the price range that does the technical spec of 192khz, which is going to be my standard sampling rate, with 384k already rearing out of the shadows in an antelope converter, and even samplitude pro X supports 384. So while 192 'standard' seems kinda ridiculous, I'm thinking of future compatibility/archiving, and the potential endless file format conversions my audio will suffer.

    So this thing ticks that box, and is got two combo jacks, so I can record di/mic for my home guitar tracks. I only own 6 decent mics, and a couple nady beaters. Even when the burl mothership (or equivalent) lands in my mix suite, it'll be only be 4x8, then either 4x16, or 8x16, which is the the max channel count I picture myself needing between, a couple studio monitor pairs, and a surround setup. I'm aiming try try and catch up w 7.2, while it's still relevant. 9.2 and 13.2 don't appeal to me yet, and I think I'd prefer prefer atmos/auro once I progress past 7.2. I'd have to consider switching to sequoia, since 7.1 is the highest support in protools, and I think 5.1 for samplitude.

    Anyway. My new interfaces purpose is purely to have a way to get sounds into the computer, for ideas and demos, and have something to plug my monitors into, which are currently running through an Apple TV/32" Ldc tv.

    So i don't expect thing thing to sound good, as long as it at least sounds as good or improved from my 1814, I'm just fine. It's clean quiet and anemic, fair enough. It also was capable of recording 2 simultaneous 192k, which I never used, since I was 44.1k. At the time. All my serious tracking will be done at the studios, or I'll borrow some of my friends live tracking gear, which is quite good.

    Just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts, concerns, or suggestions, before i mentally pull the trigger on this one, and order it in a couple weeks if all goes well. I'm completely open to any suggestions, since this is the current placeholder, and winner, as far as I can tell from a few days of poking around.

    The 500$ range just doesn't offer quality I'm looking for as a long term keeper, although, I'd be happy to consider one in that range, if quality was there. The audient company has a nice one, limited to 96k, otherwise I would save and order that one.

    Then when I get into the $1k range, is just very functional gear aimed at the top of the project studio.

    $2500, is a strong point with a lot of options, none of them elite, but solid true professional, apogee, lavry, mytek, and most interestingly to me focusrite rednet.

    But... Since I only need low channel counts, another thousand ($3,500) range, puts me in the high end/boutique quality level, I'm determined to experience in my daily life. That's where the burl, antelope, and prism, land.

    The time frame is 1.5 years, till botique converter aquisution, which I'll pair with either my current computer (depending on how it's doing) or preferably a new custom computer that I put together.

    So, as far as longevity, I hope to have to rely on this entry level demo interface, for 2-3 years, as my everyday driver. At $150 I'd have no problem getting something better in as soon as 6 months, but that depends heavily on some pending financial things going my way. If I am denied, then the 2-3 year time frame is more realistic.

    With BFD showing up at my door last month for $175 (half price), and most recently (yesterday) the VSL ensemble pro 5 vsti, for $188 instead of like 230-250, I'm starting to get super duper excited about my new little modest home setup. VSL is still on sale for the rest of the month. I'm just looking for an interface to hook up my only pair of studio speakers to, and start learning all these cool new programs I'm starting with.

    Sorry to ramble, lol, hope all y'all who're in the US, is having a good safe long weekend!
     
  2. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I had it long ago with M-Audio for their converter quality and lack of driver developpement.
    I had 2 delta 66 and 2 delta 44 (I think I still have those in a box somewhere) with which every OS update was a pain because of the drivers..

    All that said, they may have put up a little gem for all we know. . . New equipement is always an unexplored territory !
    My reflex would be buying a presonus interface instead but apart from Presonus and focusrite, this one is worth mentionning below 500$
    http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/UH7000 at 399$ right now...
    Burr brown converter and DSP got to be interesting no ??
    ;)
     
  3. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Marco, Marco, marco, you sir are the man.!!! I've always had a soft spot for Tascam. This thing ticks boxes I actually "want" to pay for. Burr brown conversion has always been decent in my Dennon theater receiver. Dsp, is more a bonus, since I'm trying to run natively, but... We all know about that punch in/overdub that happens in the middle of mixing, and I wouldn't want to count on my computer for some comfort verb or compression, deep into a heavy mix.

    It even runs as a standalone 2ch mic pre!!

    So the way I see it, AES outs, burr chips, and Dsp, make this "it man" (lol said in a hippie voice). I mean for $250 difference it's a good deal.

    Now I have no dillusions of grandeur with the Tascam. But you've shown me something that is way more feature rich, and mos likely, sounds better, right in my price range. Awesome dude. I'm gonna look more deeply into this thing.

    I'm sorry to hear about your experience w m audio. Mine were a bit different, but nothing to right home about, and my heart of hearts doesn't really want to return to them. It's not exactly a good look, lol ya digg?

    I'll check again, since presonus was the first company I looked into for a budget interface, from what I saw they were limited to 96k. I'll double check, but now that you've made me aware, I'm looking at this Tascam and it's slightly higher price point, as a better long term solution, more of a "keeper" if you will, under the budget banner/context.

    You saved my butt reccomending Qnap, over synology 8 months back, and I haven't regretted it yet, or opened it, but still it's undoubtably what I wanted. Never woulda got that one if it wasn't for Your thoughts.

    Hopefully, it stays on sale, I need about a month or little more to accrue $400, but, I could have one of my buddies finance it for me on his Sweetwater card, or borrow the cash. The fact that they even bother to talk about caps, on the the feature set of a product in this range, says something of the design intentions. If nothing else, it should be easy to swap out the chips and caps on this, but I'd probably not bother, except for fun.

    Seriously Marco, thanks.
     
  4. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Looks like presonus doesn't include 192k until their flagship studio 192 line. Priced at $600, it packs a few more inputs and outputs than I need for this application. They do have a pretty cool little tablet interface, that's very affordable, and looks pretty cool.

    The Tascam got a favorable, albeit brief, review in tape op. http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/103/uh-7000-mic-preamp-usb-interface/

    I really like that the digital I/O can run simultaneously with the analog, making total track count 4x4. This smokes the mtrack in cost vs quality (based on spec, haven't heard them, and the m track isn't out yet). Guitar center is offering 15% off this holiday weekend in the states, which makes the Tascam $340. $340 more than I got, so I'll just keep saving, and wait for a similar deal.

    I think this Tascam is right where i need to be. I realized that 4-500 seems to be my home recording device price point, my 1814 being 400, my Tascam Portastudio was around $500, when I bought them new back then.

    This is in the same class, and the difference with this is it's a focused on a bit better quality, sacrificing channel count. I always opted for channel count, sacrificing a little quality, because I was doing a lot of recording live, and at practice spaces. With acess the the studios, I don't need channel count, and I don't really have any intentions of ever having bands over to track at my mix suite overdub room, when I eventually build it. I'm more interested in solo artist, artist development, and co writing, Ect, as far as tracking at my residence.

    So while this is entry level, it is in line with my current less-is-more rig design philosophy.

    I've had my bass amp, and the rest of my guitar rig and recording gear, packed up, waiting to be sold to GC. So I'm gonna get in touch with them, see if they stock the Tascam, and arrange a demo, while I'm unloading the last of my old gear. I won't be in the position to use any of the trade in towards anything new, it's already spoken for, but it will be good to hear the the Tascam. Particularly of interest, is the d-a section, since I use my studio speakers for everyday listening as well. The digital, should come in handy when sending a mix to my surround receiver for a/b. Since I'm relying mostly on vsti for composition, and mixing and editing, particularly editing, from home, I'd be curious how this stacks against one of the motu's d-a section at the studio.

    Either way looks like we got a winner, just have to keep plodding along till the day the cashish, and the price line up, and I'll make it my own. Still going to keep browsing and researching, but this is the current winner, and seems tough to beat.

    It could also be very useful just as a standalone Dsp device, even when I get the mothership, I'm thinking I can digitally route the Tascam in the daw, to be fed from an aux or bus, just for realtime monitoring effects, which is a great option to have.

    Thanks again Marco. Keep us posted on that mic xformer.
     
  5. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Kyle...

    Just so you know, according to Tascam, the DSP is unavailable when recording at 192:

    source: http://tascam.com/product/uh-7000/

    • When operating at 88.2kHz or 96kHz, only one of the effects (dynamics or send) can be used.
    • When operating at 176.4kHz or 192kHz, no effects can be used.

     
    kmetal likes this.
  6. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    @kmetal I think my comment was : worth mentionning
    I'm glad it went further than that for you. I'm sure we could find many better interfaces but for the price (it often come down to this), I think we're getting there.

    Other out of price range 2 preamp units choices would be :
    Audient id22 599$
    SPL Creon USB Interface 599$
    Universal Audio Apollo Twin Duo USB 899$
    RME Fireface UCX 1599$

    I think the PreSonus Studio 192 Mobile goes to 192khz.
    But between you and me, running a budget interface at 192khz seems a bit overkill. Creating higher latency and bigger files of lower quality doesn't appeal to me.. ;)
    I would use 192 only for mastering but then I woundn't do mastering with budget gear..
     
    kmetal likes this.
  7. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Donny, you hit the nail on the head my man, I actually was signing on here to post that exact update to the thread. I had read the manual quickly, and noticed that. Not a deal breaker, but I guess just a little disappointing. Dsp was a bonus feature in my eyes.

    I've learned to except 'seemingly odd' compromises, with my new choices in gear, particularly 7.2 and 192k is the top side of standard, as far as tech specs go. So I ran into this when browsing for monitor controllers, and bigger interfaces. Like if you go 7.2, you give up an alternitave set on speakers, or if you run 192, you divide channel count by 4, and increase data usage.

    What I've found D, is much of what does what I "need", lol term used loosely, is found in modular systems. It seems that there are basic foot prints in gear designs, and designers will trade features, but remain within certain footprints. There's apparently only so much you can do within the context of standard rack spaces, and power consumption ratings. Price points, I'm sure are the biggest influence.

    Dangerous, and burl in particular, are modular, and seems to keep up with quality, tech specs, and the associated price tag to go with it. This sort of open format, certainly doesn't put a threshold on earnings potential from the manufacturing side, or bragging rights and poverty for the buyers :)

    It's taken me many many years to start to figure out what I really need, and confidently start putting things together on a component basis.

    More than a dozen times, gear I drooled over in the mags, and reputation, and happy owners, have left me wondering what all the fuss was about. Fortunately this didn't cost me a whole lot of money personally, maybe a couple hundred on the rode, and a couple more on PT. particualry mics, and pre amps in the upper end, have sometimes made me think, um really?
     
  8. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    The audient was what I really had in mind, but the 192 thing. I didn't consider the UA, particualry becasue I felt it sounded cheap, bathe the twin, and rackmount. I installed the Apollo rack in my cousins studio, and my buddy had the twin. It's got a bit of that 'soundblaster' soundcard sound, maybe low-mid smearing?

    As soon as a get into the 1k price point, it's almost not worth it to me until I just settle at the top side of things. I have a very peculiar sense of diminishing returns I think. Ok, I'm a fidelity addict. I'll pay a lot more, for a little better, only on the top end products though. My feeling is that at that level, the price is worth the divided return, simply, because that level is otherwise unattainable. This assumes an integral chain through and through. Otherwise the "improvement" may go unnoticed.

    The presonus mobile does do 192. its not out of the question, but at the top price point of something "project studio". I do like its multiple outs, but it would only allow 5.1 analog outs. Im not writing it off yet. I wasn't super impressed w the YouTube vids demos on the Tascam, but frankly I wasn't impressed with burl either, on YouTube. I might have to lay ears on these things.

    Lol if I absolutely can't make up my mind there's always the mtrack. Indecisiveness is built into my basic function, but the choices are narrowing a bit.

    I also agree that 192k from a budget interface makes no sense or is overkill. I'm not looking for finished quality live recorded tracks, from my interface, which is why I don't really care how "amazing" the built in pre amps are marketed as, and shopping cheap conversion. I always tout the importance of conversion, so to not be hypocritical I understand it's limited. The real drag is crappy DA, which is wher the Tascam comes in with burr-brown DA conversion. (TI chips are used on the AD side). But even then, we know by now that it's more than just the converter chip that contributes to the overall sound.

    My thought is to have the sessions themselves all in 192k so my vsti's and everything is all clocked and sync at the top sample rate. If I need to re dub some guitars and vocals that were initially done at home, that's what I will do over at the studio, where the mic collection and outboard is well stocked, and the conversion is apogee and motu.

    So I don't expect any sort of improved sonics over 44.1 or 96 in this budget interface range, it's more a matter of laying the foundation for the future. I couldn't notice a difference home on my mackies, when using the 44,1 96 or 192, on my FW 1814. I just used 44.1 or maybe 88/96.

    I'm also confused about latency with regard to sample rate. Whenever I increased the sample rate in reason, the latency Decreased. Am I missing something? Does the opposite hold true for audio?

    If I had the money to be in the 1,500$ range, I've found the spl Madison most alluring. The issue, is since I don't own a pcie madi card, that's an additional 8-1500$ for a nice RME card. That then brings the price range into the burl/antelope range, and it becomes a channel count vs quality thing again. Then there's the Ethernet vs madi situation, which frankly, I'm on the fence. Burl, and now rednet (by focusrite) offer multiple connectivity options within the same box. Burl is 800$ per card, choices being PT proprietary, madi, and Ethernet. You get one of your choice included in the chassis purchase of the mothership, and you can swap the others in and out, using only one at a time. Rednet I belive is PT, thunderbolt, and Ethernet, all built in, and I'm unsure if the Ethernet is able to be used simultaneously, I belive it is.

    Becuause I'm starting from nothing, I'm not locked in to any one thing, but also, must bear the full cost of purchasing everything .

    I sometimes feel like I talk like an elitist around here. I don't want to be one of those people who talks boutique, and walks motu. (Not that there's anything wrong with motu). I'm just very slow on the draw with a lot of things, and it takes me a very long time to observe, and absorb, each detail. Lol, sometimes I think people may question if I even did get the computer or NAS, lol I know I would. Truth is I am following through, and my software set is shaping up as planned, actually cheaper. But I've settled on less options with subjectively higher quality.

    In the case of this interface, I wasn't sure if my old one was gonna get me by till the ship lands. Me not having the FireWire card was the deal breaker. Ironically, i threw away a siig FireWire card, in the box, never opened, about a year ago. I was like "I'll never need this stupid thing, it's been laying around for 5 years". No regrets, just gotta wait a little extra for a new toy.
     
  9. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I'm glad to read you took time to think it over.
    I suggest you give some feedback when you get it. ;)
     
    kmetal likes this.
  10. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    I would think that - like any other manufacturer - Burl would have varying degrees of quality components - that are based on price.
    When Behringer acquired Midas, they made a big deal of touting that they were using Midas preamps in their new I/Os, but a little research showed that these preamps were not the same pre's that were used in their previously industry respected products - like their Venice desks... Behringer was using cheaper components. Yeah, they were still technically Midas pres, but they weren't "those" Midas pres that so many had come to like ... they were cheaper versions.
    I guess I'm suggesting the possibility that Tascam might be doing something similar using Burl converters in their new models... That the converters used, while technically made by Burl, might not be the exact same quality of conversion as those that are used in pricier/ higher quality converters. I can't say that this is true, but it stands to reason based upon the price of the Tascam, that cuts in quality are being made somewhere. Obviously, you're not going to be able to pick up a Dangerous or Antelope for the $399 price tag that Tascam is selling their newer UH model for.
    And ... even if the converters are the same as those being used in more expensive models, as you mentioned previously, there's more to a preamp/I-O than just the converters alone. I guess I'm saying that it doesn't really matter how good the converters are if the preamps that are feeding signal into them are of questionable quality. Personally - and I base my opinion on having actually used them - I've always found Tascam preamps to be lacking in gain, and not nearly as good sounding as those found in other similarly priced models by other manufacturers.
    Although again, you get what you pay for. I wouldn't think that anything made by Tascam - Burl conversion included or not - would be the first choice of pre/I-Os to be used at those pro studios that are turning out commercial hits. ;)

    Imho of course.
    D.
     
  11. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Ahem...that's Burr-Brown converters. BB were taken over by Texas Instruments many years ago, but, to TI's credit and unlike the Behringer/Midas story, BB products have kept their own identity and quality.
     
    pcrecord and kmetal like this.
  12. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Yeah man, I don't expect a pro unit. I found myself wondering if I was getting sucked into the name allure of a recognizable name on the chip. I was like ut oh, am I getting into deliberation over sound quality of a low end set of choices? Lol I hypocritically have, stating in the first post or two ' I expect it not to sound very good... Features are what I'm shopping for in this range' , yet somehow words like 'quality' and 'conversion' leak into my mind.

    From what I gather. It's th TI branded A-D chip, and the Burr Brown D-A. My only familiarity with BB, is that is the chips they use for conversion, in my (2nd from the bottom) Dennon 5.1 receiver. Cheap as it may be, I purchased 3 of them, including Yamaha, and maybe one other brand, or model. It sounds good. I a b them over a week, and became a master at plugging and unplugging the bare wire terminals quickly lol. Forcing my friends (non audio guys) to give me their opinion on both. Hands down the Dennon sounded fuller, or kinda, unobtrusive if not good. Yamaha didn't sound good in this price range (3-400$), or its next one up.

    For the record, lol burl doesn't make anything cheap. Even there 2 bay converter chassis is 1200$, as opposed to 1700$ for the 8 bay.

    To be honest, without laying ears yet, I think it's between m-audio mtrack for $150, or the Tascam. Since I can't hear the m-audio till it drops next month, it's realistically, does the Tascam sound a bit thin and weak in person, as the YouTube suggests. It's not 'not clear' rather a sensation of 'not there'.

    The Tascam appealed with its brand name DA (BB chip) because, I monitor/listen 85% of the time, and tracking for me, tends to be spur of the moment, more of an idea pad, than, okay, this is for the record. Lol the solo record, I bought the Maudio to make, in 2006. The record, I've not completed one full song for, rather, 5 albums worth of fragments, and almost completely written, tracks.

    Maybe I'm looking in the wrong area, but I'm not sure I could get anything of truly professional quality in the 500 and under range. I'd gladly grab a stereo DA for that price. The I'd snag the mtrack, for a recording interface, even if I was forced to use its own da section while tracking my um, masterpieces.
     
  13. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Well I was going to actually enter the x-air into the conversation, but, won't bother anymore lol. 699 is their 18ch version, and the only one in the line that will output multichannel (as opposed to stereo only) via USB.

    The thought has left quicker than it arrived.

    It's funny, my tech savvy buddy, loves his Berringer xair, and x32, saying he finds it indistinguishable from the Midas version. I wonder if we are hearing a cheapening of Midas and a (slight)boost in Berringer. Be ringer has always reverse engineered good products and component cheapened them. I think they've been sued over patents a couple times, if my grapevine memory serves me. I'm wondering if maybe Berringer was the 'winner' in this area of the merger? Either way, I not considering the X- line anymore. Just conversation.
     
  14. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    I may be looking to hire some of you guys for some co-production / arranging work, if this trend continues, or even if I do 'complete' a song myself, I'd like to have some professional guidance.
     
  15. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I'd be glad to help if you need any ;)
     
    kmetal likes this.
  16. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    I'll take you up on that bud!
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  17. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    I think I found a winner. The price is right, and is a proven company, albeit not for interfaces, but keyboards. It's $250 for the Roland quad capture. so $100 more than m audio, and $150 cheaper than Tascam.

    http://www.rolandus.com/products/quad-capture/

    The sales person made me aware of this product, and said it would be his second choice after the audient. He said his buddy had one it sounds better than the Maudio and tascam I was considering, he said due to a better analog section.

    Anyone have any experience with Roland interfaces, or Roland in general? I've beat around on their v drums at the stores, and keyboards, which I always thought sounded good. And I use mostly Boss guitar pedals, even though they are noisey, they have good girth to them. (Boss and Roland are sister Corp)

    @Boswell i was wondering if you in particular had any comments on Roland branded gear in general.
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  18. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Some of their products are excellent value, while some appear to be built to a cost-conscious lower specification. I'd put the Quad-Capture in the first bracket, so it's a good compromise unit for what you have said about your needs and your budget.

    I got to use a Quad-Capture not so long ago when tracking for a colleague. I can confirm that it seemed to be in the excellent value category, giving good results if you were aware of its shortcomings. Its overload margins were rather abrupt, so you had to be a little careful with signals that had a high crest factor such as piano and drums, and set the level trims lower than the output amplitudes would lead you to expect.

    Another thing to beware of is that the data sheets say that the line outputs have a 2K Ohm output impedance, which is surprisingly high for this day and age. If you were to use the line outs to drive some standard line input loads you could lose 6dB or more of signal amplitude. On the other hand, it may be a data sheet error. I can't comment either way as I didn't get to try the outputs.

    Perhaps the only other point to mention in the context of what you have said about your needs is that the unit becomes a duo-capture at 192KHz.
     
    kmetal likes this.
  19. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the reply Boz. I'm glad someone trustworthy has laid ears on it. The one audio demo I found vs th audient d12, showed suble differences, the d12 being a bit more round. That said, I'm fine w the Roland, particularly w my 192k requirement.

    Ya know, I actually took note of this today while I've been researching. Lol I had no idea how to interpret it, or what it meant for my mackie hrs. I'm still so novice. As long as this doesn't somehow mess up my gain staging or effect the final product in any significant way, the mackies have plenty of power for me, I listen soft, all day long.

    Yup. I've decided on the octa capture instead. I found 2 inputs a bit hindering on my old interface, when switching instruments quickly for demos.

    The octa gives me 4 ins @ 192k. And includes rack ears.

    Then a full 8-10, w 4 individual cue mixes and Dsp, @96 and below. They must be aware of the headroom issue, becasue inputs 7-8 have "high headroom" or whatever they call it, specifically for kick snare and piano type, high dynamic range things, according to the manual.

    It's 2x the price @500$, but doubles the capability at 192, triples it and then. Some at 96k.

    Plus the octa is cascadable, the quad doesn't appear to be.

    I've decided that this feature set, and quality level, will make a decent portable interface to my portable rig, once the flagship converters show up in a year or two.

    I thank you all sincerely for your thoughts and time. I think we can consider this case closed, with the Octa capture taking the cake. I still worry a bit about a 5 year old design, but in the budget market there's not a whole lot of options, and nobody has had any issues w the Roland. Most of the hate revolves around connectivity, and there's isn't a lot of hate for this product. What more could I ask for in this range?

    Awesomeness!!! Interface is projected for purchase in August. Obviously I'll have my ears open until then, but I've exhausted my mind on this all week, so, Roland it is, until further notice.

    -Kyle
     
  20. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Ps. I record around -22 to -18 in general so clipping shouldn't be an issue. If I have to adjust even further from there, doesn't bother me.

    PPs. Would the octa be up to par as a capture (2ch) daw converter? Albeit a budget one? Just thinking way ahead.
     

Share This Page