Hi I want to change my cheap Audio interface because it is not handling well a lot of vst running together while composing with 128 samples of buffer. At the same time I want to improve the audio quality output.

So I am looking for advices about a good 192khz for this matter.
It should be USB rather than firewire.

It does not need to have a lot of audio inputs / outputs as it is for composing with a DAW, not for recording live. (But if it hsa I dont mind, I simply will not use them)

It is not that easy to find information, because most documentation / articles speak about latency when recording, not about using a lot of vst to compose.

I know, some will say that I should freeze my tracks and so. But I want to fell free to change sounds and so while composing, so I'd like to find a sound card that allows this.
My computer is powerful enough for this: i7950 @ 3.1Ghz, 12Gb DDR3 corsair Ram on triple channel, ATI HD 5770 graphic card 1Gb of GDR5 ram.

I have read about RME Fireface UC, EMU 0404 USB 2.0, Motu UltraLite-mk3 Hybrid, and last but not least Tascam US-366. But if you read the articles and web page about my actual sound card, they all say you wont have latency problem, but I have.

So I'd like to have opinion from experienced user with these cards.

Any suggestion?

 

What are you using for a processor, this isn't a sound card issues rather a pc issue upgrade the ram to at least 16gb
and cpu should be at least quad core but more like a 6 or 12 core if ya could that will kill youre latency issues

 

studio5599 Not a computer issue believe me, this is what I have

i7 950@ 3.1Ghz, 12gb DDR corsair on triple channel board, ATI HD5770 grapihc card 1Gb GDR5 Ram

Using optimized win 7 x64 system

 

The bottleneck here is the CPU or RAM, but not the audio interface. The interface doesn't care whether you have 2 VSTs or 202 VSTs in your project.

I doubt you would here any differences between the interfaces you mentioned. If you would like to improve the sound quality, go for better monitors.

192 kHz with an interface cheaper than a few thousand bucks is just marketing.
44.1 kHz for audio, 48 kHz for video. That's it. Maybe you could think about 96 kHz for DVD-Audio or other HQ audio stuff, but then again, no one would record a DVD-Audio with a 200 USD interface.

 

Best thing to do is freeze\bounce the tracks of the highest CPU usage VST's. (Yes we all would like to run 50 VST and be able to change all things on all tracks)

You run enough VST's you will have latency issues regardless of any of those cards used.

Sucks, but that's how it is. My specs are about the same, (24gig RAM) and I too have same issues on projects with a ton of VST's

A fire-wire card will help slightly, but comes with its share of issues too. (Ive had both)

Also, its quite easy to unfreeze a track if u need to make a change or two, then refreeze it. Won't kill you. *no*

 

VST's love to hog your puter's processing power, cause they're greedy little beggars

 

I gotta add to that. 90% of vsts dont actually use up any of your ram. Ram will only make a difference if you use large sample libraries in your projects.
The interfaces you mention are well out of my price range so I dont have first person experience with them, but I did hear a lot of good things about RMEs.

 

I would think 96KHz max. would be adequate?

 

yo....

may i ask what daw and vsts are u using?

how much latency?

 

Get better converters than going higher sample rate. 48kHz/24bit is good enough for most projects. jmho.

RME, Motu, Apogee, Prism Sound Orpheus, Metric Halo, etc

 

or this

 

highrolla Sequoia x64 but I have tried with Sonar and other DAWS same thing or worst.
Vst, usually a lot of Kontakt libraries, and different synth like Zata3 and I don't know it depends of the project. But even with not much if I go at 128 samples in the buffer, I got the limit and hear clicks.

 

Olyman, good old chap, there is so much wrong with what you ask. First, 192kHz will do you no good. 96kHz is more than enough and these days you should stick to that SRF, or less. I read so many papers on that. Just forget 192kHz, it's a marketing gimmick. Secondly, USB can only give you headaches, and for FS for it to support 192kHz spells only disaster. Even when it works, you can only expect it to fail at some point and USB is just not made for audio at all. USB is only a very convenient interface that firms can use to make cheap audio interfaces, but there is so many problems with it. That's why they're cheap. They make you buy shit so you could buy more shit. Don't be a drone of the advertisement industry. Get informed. PCI, PCIe, Firewire, Thunderbolt are made for audio and video streaming.

I always suggest to people to go with the PCI or PCIe card and then go with the interface you like etc. A proper audio computer only has SPDIF or AES/EBU I/O. It's more expensive but in the long run it saves you so much from fiddling with the BS and you can just - work.

I bought cheap RME 9652 and I have it connected to my separate AD and DA converters. I could never regret that as I get the best of all three worlds and the stability and the performance of RME drivers is just staggering. I must also stress out that I don't bathe in money... ;) It's just the price of quality and hassle free setup.

It all comes down to drivers in the end, really. USB drivers are supposed to be crap from the get go. I wouldn't even trust RME or anyone on that. Just look at the price differences between the USB ones and Firewire or PCI/PCIe ones. That should tell you something because in capitalism quality and having something hassle free costs.

p.s. if any USB interface was any good I would have it. Because it is so convenient. Every computer/tablet/fridge/TV has USB.. ;)

Cheers!

 

thanks for clarification...

experiment with buffersize and samplerate..higher samplerate create lower latency but higher cpu overshoot..personally i think 192 is absolute overkill

btw, i would pick the rme 100/100 times from your list

good luck

 

My post is quite short when I look at it, and it doesn't say about a million of things I've studied and experienced about USB audio interfaces. I can PM you a pile of really good stuff to deter you from USB interfaces AND 192kHz SRF... I would only recommend a USB interface to my grandma for Skype, really, or a guy who once in a week, when drunk, sits down and record a few tunes with his acoustic guitar through a NI Guitar Rig to make him feel like he's a musician. It's just pitiful. That's what capitalism is all about... pity. Make you feel like you're something when you're so small and getting smaller and smaller with each passing day. Unless you, well, comply and make it somehow. The "new" thing is to make a porn video.

In ten years there will be hard core porn video stars making the music charts and all we shall have to do is sit comfortably and jerk off on the visuals. Music? naaah who cares about that... too oldschool?

I'm just listening to Frontline Assembly "Tactical Neural Implant". Legendary. I don't have imagery of Bill Leeb doing a striptease in my head. LOL Rhythm, bass, melody... that should make you jerk off. LOL Or cry, or THINK.

 

If you're having trouble with many VSTs. as others have said, a major bottleneck is caused by you mixing at 192khz. Try mixing at 96k or 48k (my preferred).

Also, try benchmarking & switching out your VSTs for VSTs which use less CPU. FOr example, instead of your favourite reverb, try using BREVERB, one of the lowest-CPU algorithmic reverbs (many others can attest).

Audition nowdays has a live freeze where you can freeze a track, but still make changes (the changes are rendered in the background), but I wouldn't suggest Audition as it doesn't do MIDI/VSTi.

 

Right now I am working at 48Khz
My audio interface dont go beyond

 

Why do u need to go 'beyond' 48k exactly?

 

Hi everyone I'm to this forum but this question caught my attention. First 192khz has been proven to be useful when composing orchestral music or recording very detailed music. The details can clearly be heard at that sampling rate. Two with 192khz you would experience a better performance using SSD's, remember the files sizes are much larger. Now lets talk about the audio interface. Recording at 192khz is not the only factor to consider. When choosing the interface just keep in mind that, unless you're doing live recordings, the AD section of your interface will be useless. Because you're working VSTIs alone, your audio conversion is being done internally. The only thing that matters at this point is the DA conversion. I'm not sure what your budget is, but Antelope Audio makes amazing high end usb audio interfaces. I have the Orion32 which is able to record 32 channels of audio via usb with extremely low latency. I'm talking 32 sample buffer.

While you may find the i950 to be a powerful system, remember it's already three cpu generations behind already. To get most out of you system, it would better to render those tracks to audio and change the buffer size to 1024 since it would matter for play back.

 

At the composing point you shouldn't need a 192kHz/128 samples resolution.
If you do it all in the box, just max-out the buffer. 1024, 2048, ...
But, if you have 40 ozone instances per project, it'll still stutter.

You don't need such a rate either, at composing point.
Just arrange at 44.1k, export tracks at 192k (why not 384?)
And work/mix from there.

The advertising on sound card latency is about the recording and playback, but it's for ''''dry'''' signal path it doesn't take the latency your plugins will add up. An upper class sound interface make no sense if you don't record.

If you like to use effect, I would recommend buying some DSP box (SSL, UAD, and such)
If you like to use sample library, buy RAM.
If you like VST, bounce and freeze.

128 samples make no sense unless you're playing live or recording
192 kHz make no sense since you obviously work your stuff at home , and your computer is under the table. The noise of the fans + the room non-treatment + the budget loudspeaker + usb bus noise, bring much more noises than the quality you'd gain working at 192.