Presonus Audiobox USB 96 vs Scarlett 2i2 ???

[tinnitus]

Abject digital beginner here. I had some experience with an old (Tascam or Fostex) 4-channel cassette tape deck last century, but I lost interest in that when my bass line invaded all the other tracks, even direct line-in (without the usual suspect, mic bleed over). And I couldn't erase it or record over it no matter what I tried. The ghost of bass was simply permanent on those skinny little tapes.

Anyhow, I'm itching to record again, wanting to do something really simple and digital (no tape ever again). Total tracks added one at a time will probably consist of a metronome (to be silenced later) and 1-2 guitars. More ambitious projects down the road might include, bass, a shaker and a voice or two. Compressors, filters and effects won't be needed. Just super simple.

I already have the following, all decent quality:
- Instruments and cables
- Mics, stands and cables
- Headphones (to isolate playback when adding new tracks)
- Speakers

Standing in the store today, I found myself waffling between the $99 Audiobox and the $169 Scarlett 2i2. Seems the Audiobox has software included and is more or less ready to plug and play when I take it home and open the box.

I've heard of Presonus before. Given the simplicity of what I intend to do, will the cheaper, one-box Audiobox be a relatively uncomplicated way to start out without too much confusion?

Thanks for opinions and advice.

[runamuck]

The Presonus should work for you.

You're also going to need a computer, a DAW (digital audio workstation)
and other assorted things such as monitors, headphones, etc.

Another option is to get a stand alone, hand held recorder such as one of the Zoom recorders. You'd still need a computer and a DAW to edit your tracks.

[tinnitus]

Originally Posted by runamuck

The Presonus should work for you.

You're also going to need a computer, a DAW (digital audio workstation)
and other assorted things such as monitors, headphones, etc.

Another option is to get a stand alone, hand held recorder such as one of the Zoom recorders. You'd still need a computer and a DAW to edit your tracks.

Thanks. Yes, I forgot to mention the centerpiece of the whole rig, a powerful laptop.

[KevWind]

Either one should work fine
Both come with free limited edition bundled DAW software., that will do basic recording and editing tasks

Both have similar performance specs with only a very very slight edge to the Focusrite which probably will not be discernible.
One possible advantage with the Presonus is that both the hardware and software are Presonus which may offer more seamless integration and support

While not required and certainly you can begin recording with out ..... BUT plugin FX (especially EQ filters) will definitely become desirable for multi instrument projects

[Brent Hahn]

If you're just comparing the DAW software that comes with, with the Presonus you get the entry-level Studio One. Pretty easy to figure out, and upgrades to cooler versions are cheap. Per Kevwind's post, not married to the Presonus interface in any sense; it'll work with any interface.

With the Scarlett you get a crippled, baby ProTools, which I'd avoid if you don't plan on going the PT route later on. FWIW, the Studio One software that comes with the Presonus bundle is also available for free on its own, and it'll work fine with the Scarlett.

[tinnitus]

For my limited purposes, it sounds like I won't go wrong with either one. My big concern is buying some "Studebaker" type product for less money that is incompatible with everything else I might ever come across. I don't want to wish later that I'd just spent the extra $70.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

For my limited purposes, it sounds like I won't go wrong with either one. My big concern is buying some "Studebaker" type product for less money that is incompatible with everything else I might ever come across. I don't want to wish later that I'd just spent the extra $70.

Interfaces at that price point are all pretty much the same, look for the features you need.

I understand your concern, though. My first foray into the interface world was a Aardvark (a very well respected company and recommended to me by Sweetwater) that sold for over $500. The company folded a year later leaving the prospects of drivers written for new versions of Windows pretty much dead in the water.

Think over what you really want to do. If you simply want to do simple digital multi-track recording you might consider a simple stand alone recorder; no computer needed. You can export recorded tracks to your computer and edit using an interface and DAW if you need those capabilities.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

For my limited purposes, it sounds like I won't go wrong with either one. My big concern is buying some "Studebaker" type product for less money that is incompatible with everything else I might ever come across. I don't want to wish later that I'd just spent the extra $70.

Yes you will not go "wrong" with either one. As noted either unit can run multiple different major DAWs So no you are not getting into a situation where it will be "incompatible with everything else I might ever come across." Perhaps incompatible with something you might come across BUT that is true regardless of which of those two you choose.

Actually the thing much more likely to happen in the future is, the circumstances of "possibly" needing/wanting more physical inputs and outputs to record simultaneously.. In which case you might want to consider an interface with at least 4 mic pre's
Which is what happened to me. At first I felt I only needed 2 analog inputs and mic pre's ,,, to be able to at least record a pair of mics on an acoustic guitar (I assumed I would just dub a vocal in later and or add any midi instruments later ) which in fact worked well for 18 years.... But now with more inputs I can record a stereo pair of mics on guitar and a single vocal mic all at the same time in one pass (more like performing live)

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

...Anyhow, I'm itching to record again, wanting to do something really simple and digital (no tape ever again). Total tracks added one at a time....

Congrats on deciding to enter the recording era of home studio! It really is fantastic what you can do nowadays with a computer, an inexpensive audio interface, and some studio software (DAW). Solo artist multitracking is really a blast!

Whatever DAW you get will likely not turn out to be "plug and play" because there will be a bit of a learning curve. Just stick with it and you'll be pumping out quality recordings in no time!

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

Abject digital beginner here. I had some experience with an old (Tascam or Fostex) 4-channel cassette tape deck last century, but I lost interest in that when my bass line invaded all the other tracks, even direct line-in (without the usual suspect, mic bleed over). And I couldn't erase it or record over it no matter what I tried. The ghost of bass was simply permanent on those skinny little tapes.

Anyhow, I'm itching to record again, wanting to do something really simple and digital (no tape ever again). Total tracks added one at a time will probably consist of a metronome (to be silenced later) and 1-2 guitars. More ambitious projects down the road might include, bass, a shaker and a voice or two. Compressors, filters and effects won't be needed. Just super simple.

I already have the following, all decent quality:
- Instruments and cables
- Mics, stands and cables
- Headphones (to isolate playback when adding new tracks)
- Speakers

Standing in the store today, I found myself waffling between the $99 Audiobox and the $169 Scarlett 2i2. Seems the Audiobox has software included and is more or less ready to plug and play when I take it home and open the box.

I've heard of Presonus before. Given the simplicity of what I intend to do, will the cheaper, one-box Audiobox be a relatively uncomplicated way to start out without too much confusion?

Thanks for opinions and advice.

The PreSonus ships with Studio One Artist DAW, which is an excellent DAW and sells by itself for $100.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Both come with free limited edition bundled DAW software...

PreSonus Studio One Artist, as of version 5, a very full-featured DAW, although it does lack some features of the Pro version. Previous versions did not accept third-party VSTs but version 5 does. If version 4 had allowed me to use third-party VSTs I might not have upgraded to Pro.

[tinnitus]

I play/sing "live" occasionally on Zoom. Most of the more experienced zoomers there have nice mics on stands, so do I but not hooked up. And am I correct in assuming that either the Audiobox or the Scarlett will serve as a live interface to Zoom with one of my better mics?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

I play/sing "live" occasionally on Zoom. Most of the more experienced zoomers there have nice mics on stands, so do I but not hooked up. And am I correct in assuming that either the Audiobox or the Scarlett will serve as a live interface to Zoom with one of my better mics?

Yes

Is your computer Mac or PC ?
In Mac OS (which I have). when the interface is connected to the computer it shows up and should be selected as a selection in both System Preferences "Sound,,,,,,, and Audio Midi Setup in Applications > Utilities > Audio Midi Setup .........I don't about PC but guess it is similar but under ASIO protocol

Then in Zoom meeting App
Yes. I periodically play in a virtual open mic version of the "Jackson Hole Hootenanny" on the Zoom meeting App. And yes your interface when connected to your computer and "Computer audio" is selected in Zoom . The interface will show up as an additional selection in the Zoom Audio Settings . You can then select it for both the "microphone" and the "speaker" for which I am guessing you are currently using "internal mic and speakers "

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

I play/sing "live" occasionally on Zoom. Most of the more experienced zoomers there have nice mics on stands, so do I but not hooked up. And am I correct in assuming that either the Audiobox or the Scarlett will serve as a live interface to Zoom with one of my better mics?

Hi tinnitus

You are correct to assume so.

Zoom is highly compatible with any mic connected to the computer through a USB interface. The nice thing about many interfaces is they have at least 2 channels in, so you can use them as a mixer as well as bringing in the sound.

I run the tech side of a weekly Zoom meeting…I'm inputing my Audio through a MOTU-M2 USB interface and have so far used my AKG-414, AT2020, Shure SM-58 etc.

I make sure to turn the "Auto set volume" below the audio meters, and set it so it peaks at about ⅔ of the way up the meter.

[EDIT-added] I also have a Mackie EleMent Series, USB Condenser Microphone I use when I'm traveling which plugs directly into the computer via usb-a or usb-c (has it's own output volume control. This provides superior sound to any ear-bud/earphone/computer/camera mic. It even sounds pretty good for music - as good as any other $80, medium-diaphragm, condenser mic. I also use this when traveling, because if it gets dropped it's only an $80 mic, not $1000. [EDIT]

There have been lengthy discussions here in the RECORD section which describes Zoom music-settings (which improve performance/live music).

[tinnitus]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi tinnitus

You are correct to assume so.

Zoom is highly compatible with any mic connected to the computer through a USB interface. The nice thing about many interfaces is they have at least 2 channels in, so you can use them as a mixer as well as bringing in the sound.

I run the tech side of a weekly Zoom meeting…I'm inputing my Audio through a MOTU-M2 USB interface and have so far used my AKG-414, AT2020, Shure SM-58 etc.

I make sure to turn the "Auto set volume" below the audio meters, and set it so it peaks at about ⅔ of the way up the meter.

[EDIT-added] I also have a Mackie EleMent Series, USB Condenser Microphone I use when I'm traveling which plugs directly into the computer via usb-a or usb-c (has it's own output volume control. This provides superior sound to any ear-bud/earphone/computer/camera mic. It even sounds pretty good for music - as good as any other $80, medium-diaphragm, condenser mic. I also use this when traveling, because if it gets dropped it's only an $80 mic, not $1000. [EDIT]

There have been lengthy discussions here in the RECORD section which describes Zoom music-settings (which improve performance/live music).

Thanks. I suspected so but didn't want to assume. Presently, when it's my turn to play/sing, I do a quick 3-chord check and look for thumbs up from my muted co-zoomers. But they're such sweet people, they might say pounding on the laptop with pots and pans sounds okay - just to be supportive.

So besides doing some recording, I want to get some of my Shures and/or a Marshall (mic) into the zoom audio signal chain.