analog preamp -> "budget" USB mixer/interface/recorder, options?

[RJVB]

Hi,

I have a nice LDC that I run through an ART tube preamp, and from there as directly as possible to file. I've been using a SoundBlaster Play! 3 running at 24bits/48kHz into Audacity for that, but it's come to my attention that the Play only has 93dB dynamic range, IOW, less than 16 bits resolution. Bummer, I liked how it was tiny, almost integrated in the USB cable.

**** if that didn't trigger some EAS... and I'm not really happy with what I'm finding so far. SoundBlaster do make USB soundcards that have better specs on paper but from reading the reviews even on Amazon the input can be disastrously bad. I hate buying duplicate stuff but it seems that every alternative within my budget that has better quality comes with a mic preamp. I've been considering to use a digital recorder but as far as I can find the dynamic range or SNR specs (not for the Zoom H1n for instance) they don't do better than my Play! and a brand I thought respectable (Tascam DR-05x) apparently has lousy build quality and is very sensitive to radio interference. The Olympus I looked at LS-P1 looks interesting (metal housing) but again no explicit specs. I could use my iPhone SE but apparently it'll do an effective 17 bit resolution at best.

So what options do I have? Get a Scarlett Solo, or the 2i2 which is some 40% more expensive but at least gives me a 2nd channel if ever I want to do stereo recording, or mix the acoustic and electric sounds? I was leaning in that direction until I saw you can't bypass the Scarlett's preamps and running through 2 of them seems like a bad idea. Googling some more I saw a mention of running the preamp into a mixer.

The 2i2 3G is about the price I'd prefer not to pay (not in a period where my next tank fill-up might cost me as much :-/). I did find 1 mixer that's a bit more expensive, and another that's got a much more interesting price:
- Yamaha AG-03 - a trustworthy brand?
- Behringer XENYX Q502USB - not really sure what to expect from them at almost 1/3 the price of the Yam

At this point I could use some suggestions! I know full well that recording at an effective 24 bit resolution is probably overkill but if I can do better than 16 bits and do some simple processing (noise reduction, gain control, maybe a bit of compression, chorus or pseudo-stereo) on a higher quality signal I'll take that gladly. Everything to expose my playing imperfections as cruelly as possible, right?

[CASD57]

I prefer the Mixer/audio interface, I've been using a Pyle PMXU43BT...(Used on the song in my signature)
So I go LDC into the mixer then into my computer..
But I found out that it's only 16bit and I wanted to upgrade to 24bit and better preamp's
So I ordered a Mackie ProFX6v3 Mixer It should be here by Monday..
Even if I don't notice a big difference it was time for an upgrade

[RJVB]

Most of the better mixers seem to exist only with a lot more channels than I need...

[cmac]

Have a look at the Behringer UMC204HD. As I understand it you can use the inserts on the rear to bypass the preamp, though you might need a special "insert" cable / adapter. It's not something I have dabbled with.

The UMC interfaces are well thought of and apparently perform better than you might expect for the price.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by cmac

Have a look at the Behringer UMC204HD. As I understand it you can use the inserts on the rear to bypass the preamp, though you might need a special "insert" cable / adapter.

Sadly, no. Thomann's product page has a link to a video showing what these are for: including an effect loop. They're basically what some old HiFi amps had, a way to put something like an EQ between preamp and power amp. AFAIK I cannot bypass the preamp on my ART either, so this feature has no interest to me.

What I do note is several remarks about crackling pots after only a year of moderate use.

The Yam AG03 is beginning to look good, TBH.

[cmac]

Originally Posted by RJVB

Sadly, no. Thomann's product page has a link to a video showing what these are for: including an effect loop. They're basically what some old HiFi amps had, a way to put something like an EQ between preamp and power amp. AFAIK I cannot bypass the preamp on my ART either, so this feature has no interest to me.

What I do note is several remarks about crackling pots after only a year of moderate use.

The Yam AG03 is beginning to look good, TBH.

Yes, normally they are for an effects loop. The connectors are TRS, so the clean signal goes out on one part (tip or ring, don't know which) and the modified signal goes back in on the other part.

But that's just the intended use. In practice you can feed anything you like in the other part, including the output of your preamp.

[keith.rogers]

I did a scan through the listings at Thomann, and, to me, it looks like the Focusrite 6i6 (and probably a B-stock unit), was the lowest price USB interface that shows separate, i.e., added, LINE inputs that are not going through an XLR/combo jack that's attached to a front panel GAIN control (suggesting a common mic preamp).

https://www.thomann.de/fr/focusrite_...en_b_stock.htm

These things (USB Audio Interface) are essentially commodities, especially in the lower price ranges, so "you get what you pay for" and the basic features are going to be pretty consistent, save a headphone amp or physical switch difference. I would save up and get what you think you might need in the next couple years.

p.s. (edit) I don't think the line input going through the mic preamp is really a problem, TBH. If you watch any of Julian Krause's reviews, you'll see that those inputs, even at the bottom, tend to be near dead flat in frequency response, and have at least as good, if not better, distortion specs than the XLR/mic inputs. I.e., differences are likely not the problem with anything you hear in the recordings. Maybe if you've spent a couple thou' on your preamps it matters, but otherwise, there are other things in your signal path/environment that are likely more audible. My $.02... (But, I do send my one preamp through a separate line input, because I have one )

[KevWind]

Me I see no reason to go to mixer unless you want if or live use and to plug in more than 2 instruments inputs at a time .For studio if you want more than 2 then I would opt fort 4 channel interface

And I would not worry about the line in on the Scarlet 2i2 if you use TRS cables from your ART to the 2i2 it will automatically switch to pad inserted no gain and will have little if any effect on the signal going to the DAW

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by cmac

In practice you can feed anything you like in the other part, including the output of your preamp.

Doh, I didn't think of that... But are you sure the insert comes after the preamp? That would make sense because otherwise why not simply putting the effects before the input, but OTOH if the feature is intended to receive electric guitar pedals you could expect that it would have to send the raw signal into those. You'd just get the commodity of the combined XLR/Jack connector with optional phantom power and maybe some balancing and impedance whatever?

I saw the UMC204HD has a 110dBA dynamic range, almost as good as the Audient ID4's 115dbA. Between those it probably becomes a valid question whether the extra quality of the latter is justified by the higher price and having 1 input less. It's not as if I've never thought of using a stereo mics (or just 2 mics).
Also, the ID4 Mk2 has USB-C without mentioned if that applies to both ends of the cable or if it can be used on a regular USB2 or USB3 port.

[cmac]

Originally Posted by RJVB

But are you sure the insert comes after the preamp?

I don't have one of these units, or their siblings, so can't say for sure. But I'd expect the preamp to be the first stage in the chain. It would be odd to have a gain stage after the effects loop.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by cmac

It would be odd to have a gain stage after the effects loop.

Why would that be odd? Figuring it out would be easy of course

I was a bit surprised to find that insert cables are readily available from Amazon, I was expecting to have to make one myself (with the added advantage of not having to deal with an unused "branch"). That often works out to be more expensive in my experience as I cannot go out and grab the components at less than at least 30km.

Re: unused: what's the common wisdom about unused cable length? I recall an electro-engineer I used to work with warning me against rolling them up but I cannot recall if that applied to data or power cables.

[RJVB]

I received the full dynamic range & SNR specs for the AG03 mixer, which were all a bit under the stated DR of the UMC204HD. That, plus the fact I might at some point want to use a stereo mic pair AND the UMC has MIDI in/out made me spring for that device (we have a Clavinova).

Got the thing in today, and it has a higher quality look and feel than I was expecting. In a quick test with my LDC it felt the preamps aren't that powerful but I may have missed a setting somewhere and of course I plan to use my existing preamp (insert cable arrives tomorrow). It worked fine as a preamp for the KA pickup on my Loar, and also as an audio out (it'll double as my new headphone amp and interface to my venerable NAD 3225PE.

The manual is VERY succinct, and I did not see a more eloquent version online. There are a few things you have to guess, for instance where outputs 3 & 4 come from (MIDI?). There's also a MIX dial knob which "adjusts the level of input signal to playback 1-2 signal at the MAIN OUT and at the headphone output". The dial goes from "IN" to "PB" - or at least those markings are printed at the place where you'd expect the scale limits to appear (I have no idea what those terms mean as limits); there's also a little mark at the 12h position. My initial impression was that the dial would work as a sort of balance if you use both inputs, but with only 1 input active it just works as an output gain.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by cmac

But that's just the intended use. In practice you can feed anything you like in the other part, including the output of your preamp.

After more test, I can confirm that this works (signal goes out on the tip, back in via the ring), but it's not ideal. I need to crank the preamp gain on the ART way up an even then don't a strong enough signal. I hope that's just an impedance thing...

What does work is to use the jack input set to "INST" (which hopefully only toggles the input impedance to something huge, 10 or 100MOhm). With that and the UMC input gain set to 25% I can leave the ART's (input) gain at 67% or so (instead of the usual 50%) so I should still be in the optimum performance range.

[RJVB]

I've now been able to do more testing with a balanced XLR->TRS cable and an adapter to insert the hot signal from that cable into the UMC's insert return.

- With just the balanced cable I can set the ART at the same 50%, 37% (in, out) gain settings as I did before and run the UMC input gain at 25%. I still need to toggle the line input to INST (high impedance mode) though.
- I get roughly the same input signal on the UMC's USB out when I bypass the UMC's preamp by connecting the ART to the insert, with the ART's knobs at the same settings. I just need to engage the +20dB booster in that case.

I'm a bit surprised that this doesn't cause a big increase in noise. It's been brought to my attention though that this also increases the contribution of the tube to the sound (makes sense, but I thought the output gain setting was the main control over tube voicing). I have not done any objective comparisons (yet) but I do seem to prefer the sound with less tube contribution (without the +20dB). Either way it was always my intention to have only a reasonably small amount of tube warming of an otherwise "natural" sound.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I see no reason to go to mixer unless you want if or live use and to plug in more than 2 instruments inputs at a time .For studio if you want more than 2 then I would opt fort 4 channel interface

Agreed. I have a four-channel interface, an analog mixer with USB output, and a digital mixer with USB output, all of which I can use to record. If I only need four channels or less, the interface is by far the best, and simplest, choice. My analog mixer has more input channels, but only a stereo pair out (some allow more channels out, however). If I need to record more than four channels my digital mixer will give me sixteen channels out, but at a much higher cost and much greater complexity.

BTW, I primarily use the analog mixer for online music and the digital mixer for live sound (I host an open mic). They are great for those purposes, but not my first choice for recording.