Noob needs assistance selecting audio interface for use w/ KPA

    I'm looking to switch to a new audio interface and wanted to double-check with the extraordinarily helpful users of the KPA forum first!


    Since I'll be using the interface primarily to record with the Kemper (via S/PDIF), I'm not too concerned about getting something fancy. It's my understanding that all S/PDIF inputs are going to be essentially of equal quality across interfaces. The main things I want to be able to do (aside from those obvious things I already know the interface I'm looking at can do) are:


    -Re-amping with the Kemper
    -Use the monitor outputs for general audio playback on the computer


    Would this little chap do the trick? -- http://tascam.com/product/us-144mkii/

    It definitely will.
    Check manual or specifics for the availability of "direct monitoring" (or whatever each firm calls it), so that you get no delay between what you're playing and the recorded material when layering tracks.

    Thanks for the reply, Viabcroce! It turns out that the interface I linked to *does* have direct monitoring -- *however*, direct monitoring of S/PDIF input is not possible. It seems that the RME Babyface is so popular here for that reason -- low-latency S/PDIF input monitoring.


    I'm curious -- could anyone recommend to me a more affordable interface that allows direct monitoring of S/PDIF? Or is that not something I even need (i.e., is there some interface out there that would let me record via S/PDIF but also connect the analogue outputs of the Kemper (but not record them) for monitoring purposes)?


    Many thanks for your patience and help! 8o

    Keep in mind you must have the ability to set the interface as slave to the kemper at 44.1 to record it too :)


    You could look at some of focusrite's stuff. Those are a bit cheaper. Again, make sure that spdif and slaving to the KPA is supported, don't know which ones it this. Also, I seem to recall that people have complained that the scarlett 6i6 has some bugs?

    I highly recommend the Roland Quad-Capture. The only downside is that, with their SPDIF monitoring, you can't choose to only listen to one of the two inputs. So, if you're recording both a DI and amp tone, you get to hear both. It's really not much of an issue, though, and you could always run a separate 1/4" from the Kemper to the interface to use as a monitoring mix.

    It will always be possible to record digitally on your DAW and listen to the Profiler's output at the same time. But, if you want to also listen to the DAW's tracks to stay sinc'ed, you'll need a small mixer to send both signals to the cabs/monitors. And you'll have to exclude the return of the Profiler's signal, which would be strongly delayed at that stage.

    I don't know why there is such a hassle over monitoring latency. I go from the Kemper straight into the "desk" and monitor through the DAW without any issues whatsoever.

    Quote

    I don't know why there is such a hassle over monitoring latency. I go from the Kemper straight into the "desk" and monitor through the DAW without any issues whatsoever.


    That's because direct monitoring is alreay running.
    If you were listening to your sound played back after it has been recorded, while hearing the tracks already recorded, you'd perceive a definite delay.
    Think of the "play" head being behind the "record" head on a mechanical recorded, although the difference is smaller in the digital world. If you listen to your sound after it has been recorded it can't be sync'ed with what you're currently playing.

    I don't really get what you mean, to be honest. I record with monitoring through the DAW and everything synchronises perfectly. I even double or quadruple track like that.

    viabcroce, most modern DAW rigs have pretty low latency... I monitor through Reaper all the time and the latency is, at most, about the same as turning the Kemper's Transpose on. Hardly a problem. The only time it would be an issue for me (and I suspect many others, these days) is if I was reamping and blending it with an already-recorded amp tone, since they'd be out of sync and start to phase cancel.

    I don't see how the two concepts (low latency and direct monitoring) conflict with each other... Are you saying that direct monitoring is explicitely switched off and you experience no delay?


    As for reamping phase potential issues, just set the "fixed latency" paratemer in the Profiler to On :)

    I use a native instruments komplete audio 6 and monitor through pro logic x. I turn on low latency mode in logic and have no perceivable latency when recording and no issues when reamping. Most of what I do has maybe 10 tracks or so at most and I don't tend to use too many plugins. I guess it'll depend on the computer more than anything else to whether or not you get unusable latency.

    Quote from Lokasenna

    I highly recommend the Roland Quad-Capture. The only downside is that, with their SPDIF monitoring, you can't choose to only listen to one of the two inputs. So, if you're recording both a DI and amp tone, you get to hear both. It's really not much of an issue, though, and you could always run a separate 1/4" from the Kemper to the interface to use as a monitoring mix.


    You should be able listen to just one or the other through software monitoring, as opposed to direct monitoring. Simply click the "echo" button on the track you want to hear and disable it on the other track.


    Alternatively, if the Quad Capture has its own mixer, just lower the volume of the track which you don't want to hear.

    Quote from viabcroce

    I don't see how the two concepts (low latency and direct monitoring) conflict with each other... Are you saying that direct monitoring is explicitely switched off and you experience no delay?


    As for reamping phase potential issues, just set the "fixed latency" paratemer in the Profiler to On :)


    +1.
    Low latency is something the DAW supplies.
    Direct monitoring the interface is responsible for.
    I'm using an up-to-date MacBook Pro with Logic with low latency and a Focusritte Saffire Pro interface.
    Without the Saffire's direct monitoring there would still be a latency long enough to disturb me.

    Quote from viabcroce

    I don't see how the two concepts (low latency and direct monitoring) conflict with each other... Are you saying that direct monitoring is explicitely switched off and you experience no delay?


    I was responding to this, specifically:

    Quote from viabcroce

    That's because direct monitoring is alreay running. If you were listening to your sound played back after it has been recorded, while hearing the tracks already recorded, you'd perceive a definite delay.
    Think of the "play" head being behind the "record" head on a mechanical recorded, although the difference is smaller in the digital world. If you listen to your sound after it has been recorded it can't be sync'ed with what you're currently playing.


    Direct monitoring gives you a signal as soon as it hits the interface. DAW monitoring takes the signal as soon as it hits the DAW's "recording head" - in this case, you're monitoring with both input and output latency, which is what I thought you were talking about when you mentioned hearing a delay. This was certainly the case five years ago, as many systems had 15-20ms of latency, but not anymore.


    We may have been talking about two different things.


    nightlight - yeah, that's actually what I do. I managed to forget about it when I was posting. Also, for some silly reason, the Quad-Capture's software mixer doesn't let you adjust the SPDIF signal. It's a small complaint, at any rate.

    I think we are talking about the same issue actually :)
    My point is that, by definition, there will always be a delay in the DAW response, because of the underlying mechanics. I definitely agree it's been hugely reduced respect to years ago (heck, I still remember those slapback fx :D). OTOH, direct monitoring gives no delay, again by definition. So I don't see a reason to not use it. Latency sums, the less the better: someone feels no latency in the Profiler but when you use it with a CLR they start feeling it (I didn't, BTW).