Spectro Acousto, post: 464304, member: 51915 wrote: This seems to be an audio interface without the mixer aspect (which I think should be OK with me since I should be able to take care of all that in Cakewalk, right?)

This is probably the best option. I personally like having a big mixer connected to an interface, but I mix live performances and we often have a whole band recording at once. If you're playing all the instruments then having easy access to monitor mix controls isn't as useful. If it came down to having to mix a bunch of monitors ITB (in the box), it's actually quite doable.

I doubt the preamps are better or worse in an interface that's not a mixer. It's more a question of whether you need all the extra features of a physical mixer. You're right that the software will do all that stuff, often better than hardware knobs and faders.

Thanks for the nudge in the direction of the 'pure interface' direction. That is the way I was leaning.

I realized by computer is not thunderbolt compatible, so the Presonus Quantum 2626 is not an option.

Now I am trying to debate between Presonus Studio 1824c, Presonus studio 192, Focusrite 18i20, or a combination of Behringer UMC1820 and Behringer ADA8200.

I really appreciate your advice and willingness to help!

The ADA8200 is not an interface, it's a mic preamp with with ADC and DAC in it. There's no provision for connecting to a computer. You would still need some sort of USB or PCIe device with ADAT.

The focusrite is a solid choice, though all will do the job pretty well. Focusrite has good low latency drivers, and reasonable sonics.

For the Behringer stuff, I thought the UMC1820 was the interface and the ADA8200 was an '8 channel extension' type of thing. I think that is correct...but if you all insist, I will defer.

Spectro Acousto, post: 464313, member: 51915 wrote: For the Behringer stuff, I thought the UMC1820 was the interface and the ADA8200 was an '8 channel extension' type of thing. I think that is correct...but if you all insist, I will defer.

Yes, the ADA8200 can function as an extension for an interface that has ADAT connections. I didn't read your "combination" statement thoroughly.

No worries! thanks for the clarification, honestly, until you mentioned it, I never considered that the ADAT wasn't an interface...

Go back to the bit where you say you want to record your band. Are you expecting to record a raw performance, that is, everyone playing in the same room at the same time, so there will be natural bleed between the microphones and no need for headphone monitoring? If, instead, you are going to lay it down track-by-track, much as your demo was, then headphones are essential for hearing what has been recorded so far. This is relatively easy to generate from your DAW, which compensates for I/O delays by time-advancing the monitoring output. That output then just needs real-time mixing with the instrument if necessary.

However, there is another way, which we might call the "studio" method, where everyone can be playing at once, but either silently (KB, bass, possibly guitar), or else in separate acoustic spaces, all wearing headphones in order to hear the others. This method is more of a problem at the budget equipment level, as you need monitoring mixes that are individual to each performer, and they must have zero (or almost zero) delay. This last requirement dictates that they be generated in real time in the hardware, as any DAW monitoring is going to have a time delay of too many milliseconds.

The choice of multichannel interface or a recording mixer should be made bearing in mind these different ways of working. With the correct choice, you can use a multitrack recording mixer for both, but it could well take things out of your budget. One of the Soundcraft Signature MTK-series mixers would be possible for this, but my understanding is that the MTK versions in the Signature range are restricted to 12-channel or 22-channel, and there is no 16-channel version.

Doing what you want using audio interfaces is also possible, but you may have to compromise on the number of headphone mixes you can have at any one time. It's likely you would need an 8-channel interface with an ADAT expansion input, and then use an 8-channel expander when you need more concurrent channels. As you would not necessarily need the expander from the word go, you could work up to using more than the 8 channels, but the important thing is to have channel expansion input capability from the start.

Laying down drums, bass and possibly keys in one take, and then overdubbing solo instruments and vocals is a common way of approaching this type of recording, and might enable you to stay within the 8-channel limit of a single interface. When it comes to recording the solo instruments and vocals, you would re-use some of the same channels.

If you are not currently constrained by virus lockdown, you could get together with your other band members and discuss how you envisage these recording sessions to go. Otherwise, Zoom is your friend.

have you seen the '">TASCAM Model 24?

it will record with or without a computer.

Be carefull, many mixers like the soundcraft you mention has only 2-in/2-out via USB.. no multitracks..
You'll get those multitrack recording when you get to digital mixers like Presonus.. or some rare analog like the Zed mixers.
Most of the time an audio interface is the best choice.. Make sure of how many input you need.. if more than 8, make sure the unit has ADAT inputs (1 adat port lets 8ch through at 48khz and 4ch at 96khz.)
Of course you have to accept to use the computer more having no faders (althought there are many controlers available)

Focusrite, presonus are good choices, even better Audient, anteloppe, Universal audio etc..

pcrecord, post: 464347, member: 46460 wrote: Be carefull, many mixers like the soundcraft you mention has only 2-in/2-out via USB.. no multitracks..
You'll get those multitrack recording when you get to digital mixers like Presonus.. or some rare analog like the Zed mixers.
Most of the time an audio interface is the best choice.. Make sure of how many input you need.. if more than 8, make sure the unit has ADAT inputs (1 adat port lets 8ch through at 48khz and 4ch at 96khz.)
Of course you have to accept to use the computer more having no faders (althought there are many controlers available)

Focusrite, presonus are good choices, even better Audient, anteloppe, Universal audio etc..

The "MTK" version he specifies is multitrack capable, 24 tracks to the computer and 22 returns.

pcrecord, post: 464347, member: 46460 wrote: Be carefull, many mixers like the soundcraft you mention has only 2-in/2-out via USB.. no multitracks..
You'll get those multitrack recording when you get to digital mixers like Presonus.. or some rare analog like the Zed mixers.
Most of the time an audio interface is the best choice.. Make sure of how many input you need.. if more than 8, make sure the unit has ADAT inputs (1 adat port lets 8ch through at 48khz and 4ch at 96khz.)
Of course you have to accept to use the computer more having no faders (althought there are many controlers available)

Focusrite, presonus are good choices, even better Audient, anteloppe, Universal audio etc..

Forgot RME.. ;)

bouldersound, post: 464348, member: 38959 wrote: The "MTK" version he specifies is multitrack capable, 24 tracks to the computer and 22 returns.

But not the 16ch, I think there isn't a 16ch MTK... at least this says so :

pcrecord, post: 464349, member: 46460 wrote: But not the 16ch, I think there isn't a 16ch MTK... at least this says so :

True. When I searched the model he listed it showed me the 22. As long as he gets one with MTK and he pays attention to channel count it should work for him.

Not knowing what limitations the mixer/interface might have I'd probably lean toward a straight interface.

bouldersound, post: 464352, member: 38959 wrote: True. When I searched the model he listed it showed me the 22. As long as he gets one with MTK and he pays attention to channel count it should work for him.

Not knowing what limitations the mixer/interface might have I'd probably lean toward a straight interface.

I would go for an interface also..
But many prefer having faders.. can't judge them I bought a controler for that same reason.. ;)

i really like the Tascams. they look solid and i like the feature set. the demos sound good too but who can say they haven't been souped up? the Zoom is cool too. Soundcraft can't record to a USB stick like the Zoom and Tascam.

pcrecord, post: 464353, member: 46460 wrote: I would go for an interface also..
But many prefer having faders.. can't judge them I bought a controler for that same reason.. ;)

For me it's not the faders, it's the instant access to any of the monitor mixes.

Im not sure how the soundcraft integrates with a daw, but the berringer x32 ticks alot of boxes. Hui, motorized faders, digital i/o, USB interface, scribble strips, and i think 32 channels to a usb stick (not positive on that). To me that's one of the best options for people who want a hybrid mixer/interface/control surface, in the lower cost segment.

bouldersound, post: 464358, member: 38959 wrote: For me it's not the faders, it's the instant access to any of the monitor mixes.

I get you !
I do them in Totalmix FX.. I know it's a bit longer to access, click on the mix and make modifications.. Can't have it all.. ;)