What interface to go with to optimize sound quality?

Welcome, Tim!

RME always sounds good, as do the newest-gen Focusrite models, but, predictably (I always do this!), I'd recommend you take a look at the huge MOTU range 'cause the sheer number of config options, expandability and overall bang-for-buck can't be beat.

Sound quality does seem to be your primary concern, and I can tell you without reservation that MOTU's current range is by far the best-value in this regard (and many others). You won't find better convertors on anything less than interfaces costing thousands more, no kidding.

If you want the best pro-sumer converters/drivers/preamps, I think it's very very hard to beat RME. I have and love the Babyface. But the poster above is right, as usual, about the bang for the buck factor with MOTU, incredible. Really comes down to budget.

@Monkey_Man do you think MOTU is better than RME? I don't have much experience with them, but thats incredible if so.

Those are both great interfaces but after owning an Apollo now I wouldn't go back to anything else. Great unison plugins, great plugins period. While it's not cheap, compared to actual outboard gear it sure is lol. If you get the plugins on sale they are much more affordable.

The Focurite Clarett stuff is pretty decent as well. SPIDF is something to consider if you want to free up inputs.

The Focusrite interfaces are great for the KPA, especially when using SPDIF, as they have the 75ohm coaxial in and out, like the KPA does. The newer 2nd gen have great drivers and low latency.

The 6i6 is the least expensive model that has SPDIF. The 6i6 has (2) preamps/XLR's, the 18i8 has (4) XLR's.

The Clarett models are better suited for vocals, the Air technology is primarily the upgraded feature, and not really necessary if you're only recording instruments.

If you just need to connect your guitar, two mics, and maybe some line-in instruments, the Focusrite 6i6 is a great value. If you want more mics, go with the 18i8. I started with a 6i6 1st gen, sold it on Reverb and got the 18i8 2nd gen. Excellent compatibility with Ableton Live.

Maybe the best thing to do is to decide what DAW software you want to run first, then find the best interface for that specific software.

Antelope Zen Studio is getting pretty rave reviews.

Quote from Locrain

@Monkey_Man do you think MOTU is better than RME? I don't have much experience with them, but thats incredible if so.

I posted and compared the AD/DA spec's with someone who shared the best RME ones here in the forum last year; I think it was RME's PCI-unit. The MOTU units beat it on paper, but not by an amount that the average consumer'd be able to hear. If you check out the thread I'll link to below, the convertors' real-world performance is compared to Antelope and all the other main (expensive) suspects, and they won every time. It's a huge thread, and you'll have to dig a little; maybe scroll 'til you see charts:

https://www.gearslutz.com/boar…hunderbolt-interface.html

The thread's 4 years old now and many more units have been added to the line, but the spec hasn't changed.

Here're the spec's of the 1248 as an example. I chose this one 'cause it has mic pre's, instrument inputs and SRC on coax S/PDIF, meaning that you could hook a Kemper up without ever having to worry about master-slave relationships:

I tend to mention the MOTU option whenever this sort of thing comes up 'cause, for whatever reason (probably marketing as the company's never been very-big on it, especially when it comes to Digital Performer), most folks aren't aware of the ridiculous audio performance, expandability, range and bang for buck of the line. As always, I hope this helps someone get better value for his or her spending.

I'd have to vote for the Apollo as well. The ability to process plugins off a DSP in the interface rather than use up your CPU resources is fantastic. I think the Antelopes do this too, but they don't have as good plugins (based on what I've read).

So do all the MOTUs, AJ.

Each interface has a 48-channel mixer, mega submixing, lots of sends, compression (LA/2A model), EQ (DP's MasterWorks EQ), 'verb and so on, and you can route channels and busses from any interface to any other interface's outputs or mixer on the network... and control it all from a tablet or 'phone.

Definitely the ultimate for individual IEM control, jamming, rehearsals (all DSP and mixing runs stand-alone when you disconnect from the network too), and of course tracking whilst hearing FX with the option to record them as well.

EDIT:
Probably should have said that the models you mentioned are twice the price, but I haven't sought accurate RRP figures in a long time and didn't want to assume anything...

Good info, @Monkey_Man. That is impressive performance from the converters for sure. I also chose RME for their flawless rock-solid USB drivers, as well as their excellent, transparent preamps.

However, the more I read about MOTU, the more impressed I am. Looks like the drivers have gotten very close to RME in terms of latency in the past couple years, really impressive. Reliability is a harder thing to measure, but the MOTU drivers seem to perform very well, even among those who end up going with RME. And the preamps, while probably not as sterile/transparent as the RME, are clearly quite good. Impressive back-end control/routing on the MOTUs as well.

I'm happy with my decision to go with RME, but if I was still looking, I would definitely take a hard look at MOTU!

Glad my info-sharing made it into someone's skull, mate!

Thank you for taking the time to read. Go you good thing.

I don’t personally know why anyone ever wants a ‘sterile’ or ‘neutral’ preamp other than MAYBE in classical music recording.

Specs aren’t the whole story.
A-D converters, like preamps, have complements in the analogue domain that give them a ‘sound’ or character.
You can prefer one over another, but they all will have some sonic signature.

Sterile, neutral, flat preamps are handy if you run mic, preamp (or both) modelling software such as Slate's VMS, Will.

Other than this exception, which relies upon flat-response mic's and preamps to provide a consistent baseline on which to perform DSP modelling that yields accurate, consistent results, I can't think of any other reason either.

IOW, I'd have been asking the same question as you up until Slate's VMS came along around 3 years ago.

Quote from wwittman

I don’t personally know why anyone ever wants a ‘sterile’ or ‘neutral’ preamp other than MAYBE in classical music recording.

I preferred it for a few reasons.

1. People on the Internet told me it was good.

2. Because I liked the idea of capturing an accurate recording, and adding "color" in the DAW, rather than in whatever cheap interface preamp I would be using. I do intend to run preamp VSTs in the future.

3. I don't have the luxury of trying different interfaces to see which one I like best. Accurate was attractive to me.

4. I intend to run an actual preamp before the interface when I can afford it. I 'feel" like it would be preferable to run that into a neutral preamp since I am looking for the sound of whatever preamp(s) I purchase, rather than the sound of "X preamp + cheap interface preamp". No?

5.. It's not very important. A/D/A converters/driver stability/speed were far and away the primary deciding factors. The neutrality of the preamps appealed to me for the reasons above, but would not have been a deciding factor.

I bet everyone would be much more interested in learning why you don't think that a neutral preamp can be an advantage when choosing among lower end "pro-sumer" interfaces, than reading all that drivel I wrote above, as you are a wealth of knowledge, and I look forward to every single one of your posts...but that's the "why" for me...I didn't come up with the idea, as I'm sure you know...your LCR comments blew my mind haha...drop some knowledge on me.

Disclaimer: I am well aware that you've forgotten more than I will ever know on the subject. I am just a baby here, still just learning. The above should not be taken as any kind of argument, but as a request for education, because I clearly don't really know what I'm doing. Would love to read any input you have, as usual.

Quote from Locrain

I am well aware that you've forgotten more than I will ever know on the subject.

Same here mate; Will is a Godsend. In fact, I've forgotten more than I ever knew, which is doubly-scary 'cause it takes me into negative territory.

Quote from Locrain

I intend to run an actual preamp before the interface when I can afford it. I 'feel" like it would be preferable to run that into a neutral preamp since I am looking for the sound of whatever preamp(s) I purchase, rather than the sound of "X preamp = cheap interface preamp". No?

This is the one obvious thing I returned to add to my post, mate, but I'll leave it now seeing as you've stated it.

Bottom line for me is that IMHO neutrality is paramount at the "final" (and often only) stage of conversion. That way all the various flavours one concocts through different gear and settings is faithfully-captured. I see the interface/s as simply a "way into" the computer. Having flavour added at that point makes no sense, unless one knows that one's chosen interface's colouration is what one will always want and need (can't be "bypassed").

Also, in the days of yore we relied on tape colouration / saturation and the "sound" of various desks (and preamps and other OB gear of course), which can all be added with varying degrees of accuracy now ITB. These things are controllable and interchangeable, which the sound of one's convertors is not.

Quote from Monkey_Man

Same here mate; Will is a Godsend. In fact, I've forgotten more than I ever knew, which is doubly-scary 'cause it takes me into negative territory.

This is the one obvious thing I returned to add to my post, mate, but I'll leave it now seeing as you've stated it.
Bottom line for me is that IMHO neutrality is paramount at the "final" (and often only) stage of conversion. That way all the various flavours one concocts through different gear and settings is faithfully-captured. I see the interface/s as simply a "way into" the computer. Having flavour added at that point make no sense, unless one knows that one's chosen interface's colouration is what one will always want and need (can't be "bypassed").

Also, in the days of yore we relied on tape colouration / saturation and the "sound" of various desks (and preamps and other OB gear of course), which can all be added with varying degrees of accuracy now ITB. These things are controllable and interchangeable, which the sound of one's convertors is not.

Well, you said what I was trying to better than I did, that is exactly what I mean. It just makes sense to me like this. When choosing a stand-alone preamp, of course I would never want one that is "sterile" or "flat". But when looking at an interface with which to build on...it makes sense in my head at least.

But so did soft panning until a week or so ago.

I get that (at least the marketing rap) the idea for 'modeling' microphones is to start 'neutral' and then add the software emulation.

of course they're also trying to SELL you their preamp.
You'll notice that Townsend Sphere doesn't require specific hardware... although Antelope and Slate only sell as bundle with the hardware and software.

I'm not dissing Slate; I love his software and I have a Raven.
But I somehow doubt that you couldn't use any good preamp and be in the same ballpark in terms of "accuracy".

but leaving that aside, I'd rather have a good preamp that just SOUNDS GOOD on everything, and a good mic, and not worry about emulation.

No one ever says "that sounds too GOOD... it's not natural" <g>

Quote from wwittman

but leaving that aside, I'd rather have a good preamp that just SOUNDS GOOD on everything, and a good mic, and not worry about emulation.

No one ever says "that sounds too GOOD... it's not natural" <g>

Totally understood and point made.

I just think that when I was looking at interfaces in the $400-$600 used range, I didn't really think I had a choice between different flavors of "GOOD" vs. "sterile" preamps. And I still don't, really. So I'll take "sterile".

To be fair, I definitely didn't have modeling in mind when I made the post that started this digression, my intention has always been to run a preamp into the interface when I can afford a good one. That's really the main/only reason the "flat" preamps of the RME were a draw for me. When I drop the cash for a Neve (someday...), I want as little color from the preamp of my interface as possible.

And of course when I go shopping, I sure won't be looking for a "transparent" or "flat" preamp, that's for sure.

Quote from wwittman

I get that (at least the marketing rap) the idea for 'modeling' microphones is to start 'neutral' and then add the software emulation.

of course they're also trying to SELL you their preamp.
You'll notice that Townsend Sphere doesn't require specific hardware... although Antelope and Slate only sell as bundle with the hardware and software.

I'm not dissing Slate; I love his software and I have a Raven.
But I somehow doubt that you couldn't use any good preamp and be in the same ballpark in terms of "accuracy".

To be fair to Slate, Steven changed his tune about a year ago, finally caving in and admitting that any reasonably-flat preamp would yield good results when paired with his mic and software.

I'd unfortunately bought the initial bundle with that silly "wedge" preamp after drilling him on this, but back then (2 or 3 years ago) it wasn't yet policy to admit it wasn't absolutely-necessary, so that was money down the toilet 'cause I'm not a fan of wedges, especially tiny ones - too friggin' "mobile" when I need things to stay put. This is why I'm looking at a MOTU 1248 now instead of a 16A as my primary interface (along with the SRC-enabled RCA S/PDIF connections for the Kemper) - hoping that the spec's are neutral-and-flat-enough to yield good results with Slate's LDC mic and modelling software...

Thank you for your response, Will.