Pure USB to ADAT interface

[normen]

Hi,

as I have said a few times here I am using Reason on a separate PC with it's audio interface connected to inputs of my main mixing computer. Currently I have a Line6 UX-8 as the Reason computers interface and connect it via 8 analog I/O's. I always wanted to get rid of the analog connection though and replace it with 8 ADAT channels as I have two free ADAT I/Os on my main rig. Since Reason doesn't support the built-in Line6 amps anymore theres not much point in using that Line6 interface anymore either (it has a DSP for PodFarm plugins in it).

Thing is, most audio interfaces with ADAT are pretty expensive and most of the time they bring way too much stuff I will never use on the Reason PC, like mic preamps etc. But now I finally found a simple USB to ADAT audio interface that works as a Basic USB Class Compliant audio interface with ASIO and CoreAudio:



https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-au ... reamer-box

It's not exactly cheap (100-140€) but it's exactly what the doctor prescribed for me - maybe for someone else too. You can even do more crazy stuff with it and load a firmware to transfer 16 channels of TDM audio if you like

So this is really nice now, I can even use the Uaudio Apollo mixer on the main computer to route guitar or mic inputs from the main rig to the Reason PC now, using the 8 I/O channels any way I like.

Cheers,
Normen

[O1B]

The price is Right.

but, 44.1/48kHz for ADAT....

the ES-8 is a prettier penny at $500, but
- Channel count: 12 in, 16 out
- Supported sample rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz


The ES-3 is also capable of 88.2 and 96kHz
Choices...

NOTE: on the USBStreamer...
**** STOCK UPDATE(Sept 4th 2018): Unfortunately the USBStreamer is currently out of stock. We expect a new manufacturing in the coming 3weeks. Thanks again for your patience! ****

[normen]

NOTE: on the USBStreamer...
**** STOCK UPDATE(Sept 4th 2018): Unfortunately the USBStreamer is currently out of stock. We expect a new manufacturing in the coming 3weeks. Thanks again for your patience! ****

Yeah, theres enough lying around at suppliers and importers though, I got one on amazon.

As for the ES-8, way too expensive, bulky and feature-laden for my purpose but surely great if you want to do something completely different

[O1B]

I am not speaking about something 'completely different.'
Both are USB audio interfaces with ADAT Support. The ES-8 just has better sampling rate capabilities.

now,.... about the low sample rate? is 44.1/48kHz acceptable sampling rates for audio recording for you?

NOTE: on the USBStreamer...
**** STOCK UPDATE(Sept 4th 2018): Unfortunately the USBStreamer is currently out of stock. We expect a new manufacturing in the coming 3weeks. Thanks again for your patience! ****

Yeah, theres enough lying around at suppliers and importers though, I got one on amazon.

As for the ES-8, way too expensive, bulky and feature-laden for my purpose but surely great if you want to do something completely different

[normen]

now,.... about the low sample rate? is 44.1/48kHz acceptable sampling rates for audio recording for you?

Yes, I wouldn't have bought that interface otherwise, would I? You're aware though that ADAT with more than 48kHz requires you to connect two toslink cables, right?

[O1B]

You're aware though that ADAT with more than 48kHz requires you to connect two toslink cables

No. I did not. I knew there was a catch, but I didn't understand it. (getting to 96kHz) Thank you, Normen.
Now, I can grab that ES-8.

now,.... about the low sample rate? is 44.1/48kHz acceptable sampling rates for audio recording for you?

Yes, I wouldn't have bought that interface otherwise, would I? You're aware though that ADAT with more than 48kHz requires you to connect two toslink cables, right?

[amcjen]

now,.... about the low sample rate? is 44.1/48kHz acceptable sampling rates for audio recording for you?

I’m really not trying to start up the old argument about what sample rates are better, but for the sake of Reason’s nuances, I think it’s important to note two things:

- many hardware devices—even recent ones—still use 44.1k/48k max rates, and are very high quality hardware (i.e. the Kemper Profiler and Kurzweil KSP8 sitting in my rack). I run SPDIF/ADAT each respectively to my interface and they sound glorious.

- Reason runs more tracks (albeit at a worse latency) at 44.1k before hiccuping, which is an ever-present issue with our collective chosen DAW. I’ve run all my mixes at 44.1 for years and continue to find no major difference in sound quality when swapping sample rates—just latency changes. I do, however find significant quality differences when moving up to more quality interfaces and DAC monitoring systems.

I know this is going down that rabbit hole again, but it’s important to bring up. I’ve done the sample rate listening tests in the room I know and trust, and cannot tell the differences between them, all else being equal.

[normen]

I know this is going down that rabbit hole again, but it’s important to bring up. I’ve done the sample rate listening tests in the room I know and trust, and cannot tell the differences between them, all else being equal.

In Reason I can - for most projects - very well tell the difference between 44.1 and 96k but thats rather because of things like aliasing in synths and such. But for recordings yeah - theres yet to be anyone who can prove they can hear a quality difference between 44.1 and 192k in *recordings* of analog audio.

But all the reasons you stated *plus* this make me stick with 44.1 from start to end because following that same logic theres nothing that you couldn't hear when it actually becomes an issue, right?

[amcjen]

Fair point Normen. I don’t do a lot of synth work within Reason anymore—most of it is recorded in. I do remember some of the early quality issues with synths like Subtractor.

[normen]

Fair point Normen. I don’t do a lot of synth work within Reason anymore—most of it is recorded in. I do remember some of the early quality issues with synths like Subtractor.

Idk about "quality", it's just the nature of the beast for me A lot of distortion algos sound very different at different sample rates, too. So for processing I'd definitely be careful with changing the sample rate but I wouldn't suggest running everything at a high sample rate "just because". I mean a Lexicon Reverb would also sound different if you could change it's sample rate

[O1B]

Im up for old arguments.

"- many hardware devices—even recent ones—still use 44.1k/48k max rates"

- True, but I choose my hardware based on such criterira
Sound Devices - Roland TR-08 (AIRA), Demora (Delay), Scooper (Looper), all 96kHz.
Mixers - UFX1208, Roland MX-1, LP-1 (to be Sold) and my WMD Mixer - all 96kHz.
Module Sampler - 4ms Stereo Dual Channel Looper ... 96kHz live sampling, as well.
Recorders - Zoom H6 (6 channels of vocals - for me) all 96kHz - at least 24bit. no 16bit here.

It's the lowest I will accept. I can discern the difference in my music. it's personal.

"- Reason runs more tracks (albeit at a worse latency) at 44.1k before hiccuping"

that's why I run tracks into reason, or preload.
USE of REs while recording means hiccupping, for now.
so I Balance and Pan and EQ and compress and FX - on the outside. kinda Forced to. But, more fun!

I just received my real-world Multiband Compressor and "EQ/Resonator" today, so the journey begins. again.

IMG_0235-2.jpg (122 KiB) Viewed 9960 times

.. to the right of that Batumi is a NI Komplete 6. That's also 96kHz.

now,.... about the low sample rate? is 44.1/48kHz acceptable sampling rates for audio recording for you?

I’m really not trying to start up the old argument about what sample rates are better, but for the sake of Reason’s nuances, I think it’s important to note two things:

- many hardware devices—even recent ones—still use 44.1k/48k max rates, and are very high quality hardware (i.e. the Kemper Profiler and Kurzweil KSP8 sitting in my rack). I run SPDIF/ADAT each respectively to my interface and they sound glorious.

- Reason runs more tracks (albeit at a worse latency) at 44.1k before hiccuping, which is an ever-present issue with our collective chosen DAW. I’ve run all my mixes at 44.1 for years and continue to find no major difference in sound quality when swapping sample rates—just latency changes. I do, however find significant quality differences when moving up to more quality interfaces and DAC monitoring systems.

I know this is going down that rabbit hole again, but it’s important to bring up. I’ve done the sample rate listening tests in the room I know and trust, and cannot tell the differences between them, all else being equal.

[O1B]

Back when I Reaper’d with Reason, I would wait the hour to compile to 192 96 and 88.2.

What I heard told me that 192 recordings makes the bass energy you thought you had unstable. 192kHz is unuseable for me. 88.2 and 96kHz continues to battle it out.

And, yes, from 96kHz or whatever, downsampling and bit reduction - is good. It’s rare proper distortion doesn’t act to clear thinks up. To the left on that board above is a Malgorithm. Bit and Sample reduction.

I know this is going down that rabbit hole again, but it’s important to bring up. I’ve done the sample rate listening tests in the room I know and trust, and cannot tell the differences between them, all else being equal.

In Reason I can - for most projects - very well tell the difference between 44.1 and 96k but thats rather because of things like aliasing in synths and such. But for recordings yeah - theres yet to be anyone who can prove they can hear a quality difference between 44.1 and 192k in *recordings* of analog audio.

But all the reasons you stated *plus* this make me stick with 44.1 from start to end because following that same logic theres nothing that you couldn't hear when it actually becomes an issue, right?

[normen]

What I heard told me that 192 recordings makes the bass energy you thought you had unstable.

What you most probably heard was your audio interface becoming "unstable" at such high sampling rates. I imagine talks like this in board rooms:

Marketing guy: 192kHz is all the rage now, lets use that
CEO: Can we switch it up to 192kHz
Engineer: Yeah, but..
CEO: Do it.
Engineer: Sigh...

What I mean isn't some ethereal "energy" but tangible differences in the outcome of the algorithms. If theres no algorithms involved and you just record and play back audio then again - nobody has proven yet that they can hear a difference when tested in controlled environments.

[O1B]

What you most probably heard

That was a lot of blah blah blah ... what i mean is ...

I imagine talks like this

blah blah blah

Enough, normen... have at 44.1/16bit. Its tha' best! Ill read when I'm in the kitchen.

Toodles.

What I heard told me that 192 recordings makes the bass energy you thought you had unstable.

What you most probably heard was your audio interface becoming "unstable" at such high sampling rates. I imagine talks like this in board rooms:

Marketing guy: 192kHz is all the rage now, lets use that
CEO: Can we switch it up to 192kHz
Engineer: Yeah, but..
CEO: Do it.
Engineer: Sigh...

What I mean isn't some ethereal "energy" but tangible differences in the outcome of the algorithms. If theres no algorithms involved and you just record and play back audio then again - nobody has proven yet that they can hear a difference when tested in controlled environments.

[normen]

What you most probably heard

That was a lot of blah blah blah ... what i mean is ...

I imagine talks like this

blah blah blah

Enough, normen... have at 44.1/16bit. Its tha' best! Ill read when I'm in the kitchen.

Toodles.

What you most probably heard was your audio interface becoming "unstable" at such high sampling rates. I imagine talks like this in board rooms:

Marketing guy: 192kHz is all the rage now, lets use that
CEO: Can we switch it up to 192kHz
Engineer: Yeah, but..
CEO: Do it.
Engineer: Sigh...

What I mean isn't some ethereal "energy" but tangible differences in the outcome of the algorithms. If theres no algorithms involved and you just record and play back audio then again - nobody has proven yet that they can hear a difference when tested in controlled environments.

Heheh, yeah, thats exactly how I imagine you

[demt]

320k ,in my day, was the way ,to make hay, is what i say, most of the day ,320k.