#1
I'll keep it short and simple.

Considering getting a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 for recording vocals and using VST's.

Would going guitar>RP500>6.3mm out>line level low z input on 2i2
sound better than when using the 500's own built in interface?

I dont know anyone who does own a 2i2, so cant do a head to head comparison.
#2
Why can't you use the interface with computer VST programs? Is there a reason why you'd want to use the RP500 compared to them?


You can use any program with an interface, you don't have to just use the built in one on the 2i2.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#3
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Would going guitar>RP500>6.3mm out>line level low z input on 2i2
sound better than when using the 500's own built in interface?
On the contrary, it would sound worse.

Leaving the quality of the interface alone, adding another round of DAD conversion would result in a degradation of sound unless you put something desirable in between the two, or you sync the two interfaces with each other.

You wouldn't be doing the first thing and you can't do the second, so for guitar stick to the RP500.

On the other hand for vocals you will need an audio interface with mic inputs.

I wouldn't personally get a scarlett, I think they sound pretty bad considering how much good sounding stuff there's out there.

If you don't have the money for anything more than a 2i2, by any means get a 2i2 'cause I can't think of anything better for the same money.

If you have some more money though I'd get a mackie onyx blackjack or a steinberg ur22 or a roland duo capture ex.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#4
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Why can't you use the interface with computer VST programs? Is there a reason why you'd want to use the RP500 compared to them?


You can use any program with an interface, you don't have to just use the built in one on the 2i2.


I intend to use VST's for stuff I dont intend to play live. Songs that I will do with band, I want the live tone to be similar to the recorded one, plus I have quite a few patches that I genuinely like and want to use. So basically, I want to use VST's as WELL as use the RP. Still on the fence over getting the 2i2 as I'm not sure if I really need it. If the RP will show an improvement in clarity or cleanness of sound when going through it, then I'll pretty much get it without a second thought, since it's my main source in spite of having access to VST's as I can use the same patch live.

Quote by Spambot_2
On the contrary, it would sound worse.

Leaving the quality of the interface alone, adding another round of DAD conversion would result in a degradation of sound unless you put something desirable in between the two, or you sync the two interfaces with each other.

You wouldn't be doing the first thing and you can't do the second, so for guitar stick to the RP500.

On the other hand for vocals you will need an audio interface with mic inputs.

I wouldn't personally get a scarlett, I think they sound pretty bad considering how much good sounding stuff there's out there.

If you don't have the money for anything more than a 2i2, by any means get a 2i2 'cause I can't think of anything better for the same money.

If you have some more money though I'd get a mackie onyx blackjack or a steinberg ur22 or a roland duo capture ex.



So basically going with an interface will just make things sound worse? And the only use would be VST's or vocals? I intend to do those as well, just deciding whether to go for it will need a bit mroe thought if it doesnt help with the RP.
The Roland UA 22 falls in my budget, any opinion on that?
Last edited by GS LEAD 5 at Sep 3, 2014,
#5
Quote by GS LEAD 5
So basically going with an interface will just make things sound worse? And the only use would be VST's or vocals?
Yuuup.

Also if you can bypass all of the effects on the RP500 you can use that to deliver a clean signal to the computer to modify with vst's, without the need of another interface.
Quote by GS LEAD 5
The Roland UA 22 falls in my budget, any opinion on that?
That's the duo capture ex I suggested

I would prefer an onyx blackjack to that, though it's still pretty nice for the money imo.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#6
Quote by Spambot_2
Yuuup.

Also if you can bypass all of the effects on the RP500 you can use that to deliver a clean signal to the computer to modify with vst's, without the need of another interface.
That's the duo capture ex I suggested

I would prefer an onyx blackjack to that, though it's still pretty nice for the money imo.


No point using the bypass, its not a hard bypass, it'll still go through the DSP, just without any effects on it, the ADA conversion you mentioned will still happen.

Lmao, so youre saying the UA22 is definitely better than the 2i2? Thats great, since it's also about 40 dollars cheaper

So getting an interface will help with vocals, and will let me use VST's, but will be useless for using the RP with. Is that right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcHJq5hqHA

Ola seems to be running the HD300 into an Apogee One. Isn't that a USB interface? His sounds seem to be quite clear feeling a bit confused now.
#7
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Ola seems to be running the HD300 into an Apogee One. Isn't that a USB interface? His sounds seem to be quite clear feeling a bit confused now.
Just because you run the analog into an interface instead of using the built in interface doesn't mean it will sound bad or that you will hear the difference.

It's just that in theory using the USB on the RP500 should be better because it eliminates additional digital to audio transforms. The difference may be insignificant. And it is possible that the theory doesn't hold true if some unknown implementation specifics cause an unpredicted issue.

Bottom line.... using the RP500 USB should be the approach that delivers the best results.
#8
Quote by GS LEAD 5
No point using the bypass, its not a hard bypass, it'll still go through the DSP, just without any effects on it, the ADA conversion you mentioned will still happen.
That's not what I meant.

If you plug your guitar into the RP500, the signal will be converted from analog to digital, processed by whatever fx you're applying to it, then converted to analog back again to be sent through the analog outputs.

You could though connect the RP500 to the computer via USB to get the sound to your computer before it gets converted back to analog.

To use amp sims and such though you would want the most clean and dry signal possible getting into your computer, so removing every possible effect on the RP500 would be advisable not to have the sound pass through an amp and then another amp (both simulated but still).

If you used another audio interface after the RP500 you would have your audio converted from analog to digital to be processed from the RP500, then to analog again to be sent out from the analog outs, and then to digital again from the second interface to be sent to the computer.

Avoiding the second interface effectively means avoiding your signal getting converted to analog and than back to digital after the first conversion, which would be pointless.

Also since at both digitech and focusrite they probably don't use rubidium clocks and jitter reduction systems to die for, your converters wouldn't be clocked to each other, hence you would loose quality.
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Lmao, so youre saying the UA22 is definitely better than the 2i2? Thats great, since it's also about 40 dollars cheaper
Wait, the UA22 I'm thinking about is around $200, while the 2i2 is around $160 or less.

May it be the case that you're thinking about this interface?
http://www.rolandus.com/products/details/1155/features/

'cause if that's the case, the 2i2 would be better.

Mind though that the 2i2's input section doesn't have much headroom, so you might not be able to record a direct guitar part without it clipping.

That would be a reason to get its bigger sister, the 2i4, though for the money of a 2i4 you could get one of the interfaces I listed, which would all be better if ya ask me.

Then if you're reeeally on the cheap you might as well get the 2i2 to record mic's and stick to the RP500 if your p/ups are too hot for the 2i2 to handle, though spending a bit more will give you slightly better results with guitars and much better results with mic's.

So getting an interface will help with vocals, and will let me use VST's, but will be useless for using the RP with. Is that right?
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Ola seems to be running the HD300 into an Apogee One. Isn't that a USB interface? His sounds seem to be quite clear feeling a bit confused now.
He might as well be, though he'd still be making the audio potentially worse by doing that.

I reckon he did that to avoid clueless people to argue about the difference in quality between the apogee's and the HD300's converters.

Or 'cause it was easier and simpler for the people watching to write that than to write he was using the apogee with the axe and the pod's own USB interface.

Last thing, mind that if you were good at mixing you could achieve a good sounding distorted guitar tone with very cheap equipment, 'cause in that situation sound quality matters a lot less than when working with clean guitars, or stuff that's supposed to sound clean in general, like mic's, hence you'll hear much more difference between a 2i2 and an onyx blackjack when recording mic's than when recording guitars.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#9
Quote by Spambot_2
Also since at both digitech and focusrite they probably don't use rubidium clocks and jitter reduction systems to die for, your converters wouldn't be clocked to each other, hence you would loose quality.
Can't say for sure but it seems like this would only matter when interfacing two devices in the digital domain where dropped bits would cause data loss and resynchronization.
#10
Quote by fly135
Can't say for sure but it seems like this would only matter when interfacing two devices in the digital domain
On the contrary.

When interfacing two devices via a digital interface, the interface manages the "moments" in which bits of data go from one to another device, and even if that doesn't happen in the right moment the interface is likely smart enough to put everything back in the right order.

When placing a DAC before an ADC though you need to sync the two devices so that the moment in which the DAC sends one bit of data is the same moment in which the ADC receives one bit of data.

Else, simplifying the thing, using devices not clocked with one another could result in the DAC sending one bit of data at a given moment, and the ADC starting receiving a bit of data after that moment, so the ADC would receive half of a bit and half of another bit in the time span in which it should be receiving a full, single bit.

That thing described up there is known as jitter, and you wanna avoid that.

To avoid that you use clocks, and when you don't avoid it your sound gets worse.

It's not nearly as bad as it sounds, DAC's don't really send a wave looking like a stair so the effect isn't THAT evident, though it's there and it's better to avoid it if possible.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#11
Quote by Spambot_2
That's not what I meant.

If you plug your guitar into the RP500, the signal will be converted from analog to digital, processed by whatever fx you're applying to it, then converted to analog back again to be sent through the analog outputs.

You could though connect the RP500 to the computer via USB to get the sound to your computer before it gets converted back to analog.

To use amp sims and such though you would want the most clean and dry signal possible getting into your computer, so removing every possible effect on the RP500 would be advisable not to have the sound pass through an amp and then another amp (both simulated but still).

If you used another audio interface after the RP500 you would have your audio converted from analog to digital to be processed from the RP500, then to analog again to be sent out from the analog outs, and then to digital again from the second interface to be sent to the computer.

Avoiding the second interface effectively means avoiding your signal getting converted to analog and than back to digital after the first conversion, which would be pointless.

Also since at both digitech and focusrite they probably don't use rubidium clocks and jitter reduction systems to die for, your converters wouldn't be clocked to each other, hence you would loose quality.
Wait, the UA22 I'm thinking about is around $200, while the 2i2 is around $160 or less.

May it be the case that you're thinking about this interface?
http://www.rolandus.com/products/details/1155/features/

'cause if that's the case, the 2i2 would be better.

Mind though that the 2i2's input section doesn't have much headroom, so you might not be able to record a direct guitar part without it clipping.

That would be a reason to get its bigger sister, the 2i4, though for the money of a 2i4 you could get one of the interfaces I listed, which would all be better if ya ask me.

Then if you're reeeally on the cheap you might as well get the 2i2 to record mic's and stick to the RP500 if your p/ups are too hot for the 2i2 to handle, though spending a bit more will give you slightly better results with guitars and much better results with mic's.

So getting an interface will help with vocals, and will let me use VST's, but will be useless for using the RP with. Is that right?
He might as well be, though he'd still be making the audio potentially worse by doing that.

I reckon he did that to avoid clueless people to argue about the difference in quality between the apogee's and the HD300's converters.

Or 'cause it was easier and simpler for the people watching to write that than to write he was using the apogee with the axe and the pod's own USB interface.

Last thing, mind that if you were good at mixing you could achieve a good sounding distorted guitar tone with very cheap equipment, 'cause in that situation sound quality matters a lot less than when working with clean guitars, or stuff that's supposed to sound clean in general, like mic's, hence you'll hear much more difference between a 2i2 and an onyx blackjack when recording mic's than when recording guitars.


http://www.bajaao.com/studio-recording/audio-interfaces/roland-ua-22-duo-capture-ex-usb-interface.html

This is what I am after. That's about 200 dollars, and the 2i2 is 14K rupees, about just shy of 40 dollars more.


So basically, at the end of the day, using a clean sounding interface will potentially worsen my sound.

Quote by fly135
Just because you run the analog into an interface instead of using the built in interface doesn't mean it will sound bad or that you will hear the difference.

It's just that in theory using the USB on the RP500 should be better because it eliminates additional digital to audio transforms. The difference may be insignificant. And it is possible that the theory doesn't hold true if some unknown implementation specifics cause an unpredicted issue.

Bottom line.... using the RP500 USB should be the approach that delivers the best results.


Hey Fly, long time
So 500>PC is the most efficient.

This thread pretty much killed a lot of my interface GAS
I think I'll postpone the buying decision, wait and see if I need VST's/Vocals enough to justify spending on an interface.
#12
Quote by GS LEAD 5
http://www.bajaao.com/studio-recording/audio-interfaces/roland-ua-22-duo-capture-ex-usb-interface.html

This is what I am after. That's about 200 dollars, and the 2i2 is 14K rupees, about just shy of 40 dollars more.
Well that's strange...

Though yeah, sorry if I doubted of you, that's the interface I was talking about.
Quote by GS LEAD 5
So basically, at the end of the day, using a clean sounding interface will potentially worsen my sound.
Just if you use it after the RP500.

If you skip that, whatever nice interface will likely do better for direct guitar as well.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#13
Quote by Spambot_2
On the contrary.

When interfacing two devices via a digital interface, the interface manages the "moments" in which bits of data go from one to another device, and even if that doesn't happen in the right moment the interface is likely smart enough to put everything back in the right order.

When placing a DAC before an ADC though you need to sync the two devices so that the moment in which the DAC sends one bit of data is the same moment in which the ADC receives one bit of data.

Else, simplifying the thing, using devices not clocked with one another could result in the DAC sending one bit of data at a given moment, and the ADC starting receiving a bit of data after that moment, so the ADC would receive half of a bit and half of another bit in the time span in which it should be receiving a full, single bit.

That thing described up there is known as jitter, and you wanna avoid that.

To avoid that you use clocks, and when you don't avoid it your sound gets worse.

It's not nearly as bad as it sounds, DAC's don't really send a wave looking like a stair so the effect isn't THAT evident, though it's there and it's better to avoid it if possible.
Still not buying it. The reason why in the digital domain the "moments" are managed is because there is a master clock. If the digital receiver derives it's clock from the data stream instead of a separate clock then jitter could cause loss.

There is little concept of jitter and none of bit loss in the analog domain. There is no transmission of a "bit of data". In addition a reconstruction filter on the output of the DAC removes most any artifacts of digital-ness in the signal. Timing jitter at analog frequencies would IMO be negligible, and bit loss is out of the question. Where jitter in the digital domain at any frequency could cause data loss.

That being said I may be missing something so I have to ask... got any references that I can read that confirm your point of view?

BTW, I know we have our "moments", but this isn't one of them. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any legitimacy to your claim.
#14
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Hey Fly, long time
Yep, still here. Got a lot going on and wish I spent more time on the guitar, but that's life. Hope things are cool with you.
#15
Quote by fly135
Timing jitter at analog frequencies would IMO be negligible, and bit loss is out of the question.
Well yeah, a whole bit loss would be exaggerated indeed, though I wouldn't say the loss of data would be negligible.
Quote by fly135
That being said I may be missing something so I have to ask... got any references that I can read that confirm your point of view?
Of course.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/masterclocks.htm
Quote by fly135
BTW, I know we have our "moments", but this isn't one of them. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any legitimacy to your claim.
Yeah, sure, I'd do the same
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#16
Quote by Spambot_2
On the contrary.

When interfacing two devices via a digital interface, the interface manages the "moments" in which bits of data go from one to another device, and even if that doesn't happen in the right moment the interface is likely smart enough to put everything back in the right order.

When placing a DAC before an ADC though you need to sync the two devices so that the moment in which the DAC sends one bit of data is the same moment in which the ADC receives one bit of data.

Else, simplifying the thing, using devices not clocked with one another could result in the DAC sending one bit of data at a given moment, and the ADC starting receiving a bit of data after that moment, so the ADC would receive half of a bit and half of another bit in the time span in which it should be receiving a full, single bit.

That thing described up there is known as jitter, and you wanna avoid that.

To avoid that you use clocks, and when you don't avoid it your sound gets worse.

It's not nearly as bad as it sounds, DAC's don't really send a wave looking like a stair so the effect isn't THAT evident, though it's there and it's better to avoid it if possible.


I got the gist of it.

What if the sampling rate of the second interface is much higher than that of the output of the first?
Say I go guitar>RP>2i2.

The 2i2 has a 96KHz sampling rate, while the RP outputs 44.1KHz. How would that affect the jitter? Wont the chances of the 2i2 getting garbled data because it was accepting a bit at the wrong time be reduced?

Yeah, I'm nit picking, I have 200$ to burn on guitar gear, just can't find something to burn it on. I'd rather buy an interface than pickups, but I can't blow cash if I can't justify it to myself. Yeah, ******ed, but I'm like that lol i want to buy an interface just cause, but I cant get myself to buy it if I cant justify it


Quote by fly135
Yep, still here. Got a lot going on and wish I spent more time on the guitar, but that's life. Hope things are cool with you.


Things are going well, went on a hiatus for a while, now back to regular playing. Bought an 8 stringer very pleased with it, loving the feel of the extra strings.
#17
Quote by GS LEAD 5
What if the sampling rate of the second interface is much higher than that of the output of the first?
Say I go guitar>RP>2i2.

The 2i2 has a 96KHz sampling rate, while the RP outputs 44.1KHz. How would that affect the jitter? Wont the chances of the 2i2 getting garbled data because it was accepting a bit at the wrong time be reduced?
Ideally no, in reality more or less yeah.

Thing is, even if you get them sync'd perfectly and the interface's signal path is pristine clean, you won't get anything good from adding the interface.

I suggest saving up for when you'll need to record vocals as well, and get a nice interface AND a nice mic.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#18
Quote by Spambot_2
Ideally no, in reality more or less yeah.

Thing is, even if you get them sync'd perfectly and the interface's signal path is pristine clean, you won't get anything good from adding the interface.

I suggest saving up for when you'll need to record vocals as well, and get a nice interface AND a nice mic.


Makes sense. So an interface definitely won't add anything good to my guitar tones.
Think is, I have these 200 dollars that I need to use by December. Don't want to spend on something useless.
#19
Quote by Spambot_2
That article does not seem to be addressing clock/quality related issues WRT hooking up a DAC -> ADC.

It does address clock jitter affecting the quality of A to D conversion (and presumably the same would hold true for A to D), but not (the best I can tell) clock jitter issues of a DAC -> ADC hookup. The crux of the article seems to be whether a master clock is desirable when you have multiple ADCs in a setup.
#20
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Think is, I have these 200 dollars that I need to use by December.
You sound like the govt. Do people come and take your money away in Dec?
#21
Quote by GS LEAD 5
The 2i2 has a 96KHz sampling rate, while the RP outputs 44.1KHz. How would that affect the jitter? Wont the chances of the 2i2 getting garbled data because it was accepting a bit at the wrong time be reduced?

Things are going well, went on a hiatus for a while, now back to regular playing. Bought an 8 stringer very pleased with it, loving the feel of the extra strings.
No problem between interfaces because you are analog at that point. The concept of sample rate doesn't exist on that connection. I guess someone could argue that some vestiges of the digital signal may be left on the waveform and could cause aliasing, but you are in cork sniffing territory at that point.

I'm the same way about the hiatus. My wife got cancer in 2012 and passed away in 2013. That really killed my motivation to play guitar. I've mainly thrown myself into a lot of wakeboarding and keep telling myself I'm going to get more serious about music but haven't. What's ironic and a bit sad is that my wife always wanted me to play and sing on the acoustic but I was always messing with the electric. After she died I learned and video recorded my first acoustic cover that included singing while playing, which I struggle with. And now I spend more time on the acoustic and am working on learning a few more songs.
#22
Quote by fly135
That article does not seem to be addressing clock/quality related issues WRT hooking up a DAC -> ADC.

It does address clock jitter affecting the quality of A to D conversion (and presumably the same would hold true for A to D), but not (the best I can tell) clock jitter issues of a DAC -> ADC hookup. The crux of the article seems to be whether a master clock is desirable when you have multiple ADCs in a setup.
If you have multiple ADC's in the same signal path you inevitably have at least one DAC, and that's converting the signal back to analog for the second ADC to eat, and there's the problem if ya ask me.

It'll still not be that evident, but if you can just avoid that and don't bother yourself
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#23
It wasn't clear to me what the target setup was. But it was clear that the point of the article was quality of internal clock on conversion vs using an quality external clock. However using an external clock raised the noise floor, so the preference was having a quality internal clock. And the conclusion was that modern devices have good enough internal clocks to avoid the drawback of using an external clock.

Didn't really get the feeling that chaining DAC->ADC->DAC->ADC was part of the equation in the article. The whole article alluded to synchronization of ADCs and other digital devices. But the conclusion seems to be that ADC's should use their internal clock.
#24
Quote by fly135
You sound like the govt. Do people come and take your money away in Dec?


Well dad will be retiring in Jan, so won't have as much disposable cash. So he told me to buy whatever pricey things I needed before then. Though the cash can be spent on anything, I don't want to waste it on something that doesn't come in good use.

And Fly, I'm really sorry to hear about your wife
#25
Thanks GS. An audio interface is a good thing to have if you ever want to use a mic or record anything that only has an audio output, like maybe a keyboard. Where I live you can find decent ones at pawn shops for around $60.