Guitar Gear Forum

Damn,

I hate when I have to relearn how to do everything. It definitely utilizes more of the capabilities of my DAW.

I feel a bit overwhelmed. There are all of these buttons I have to click in the DAW that I didn't know existed just to monitor tracks, etc.

It's daunting, and I'm kind of annoyed with it. I had really become very familiar with my Scarlett, and here I am at square one again.

That said, right off the bat, it's less noisy than my Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. The quality seems to be VERY good in the conversion. I'm impressed.

It's all about instant gratification these days!
I get annoyed when I run a DAW software update and I have to reset everything including the monitor section. What a pain in the arse.

The older I get, the more annoyed I get at small things

Played with it a bit more tonight.

I think I'm running into some latency. I don't know what I'm doing. The Scarlett direct monitors, so latency was never an issue. I need to spend like a whole weekend relearning my daw with this interface.

this shit is rarely easy , get some killer beans brewed up and sit back and plow through . I recall I was ready to send my Lavry blue into the shop at a cost of probably a few hundred bucks and in his last email he says do you have so and so switch set to whatever and I didn't and bam there it was working again . I bumped one freakin switch when I was walking by and and it took 3 days to figure it out .

BroSlinger wrote:Played with it a bit more tonight.

I think I'm running into some latency. I don't know what I'm doing. The Scarlett direct monitors, so latency was never an issue. I need to spend like a whole weekend relearning my daw with this interface.

You should still be able to direct monitor, right?

I actually haven't been using it as an interface...been going into an A/D and then ADAT into the Scarlett.

Sex Panther wrote:

BroSlinger wrote:Played with it a bit more tonight.

I think I'm running into some latency. I don't know what I'm doing. The Scarlett direct monitors, so latency was never an issue. I need to spend like a whole weekend relearning my daw with this interface.

You should still be able to direct monitor, right?

I actually haven't been using it as an interface...been going into an A/D and then ADAT into the Scarlett.

On my Scarlett, the L/R analog outs would just spit everything out into my monitors. It was always in time, and without assigning anything.

Now, I have to go to my I/O's on everything, and assign it all to either the Analog L/R and/or the L/R Headphones.

I need to spend more time with it. I just feel like more stuff is processing before sound is sent to monitors. It makes me wonder if I need to mess with some time settings in reaper. I never had to do this before, but I very well could be doing something wrong.

fretless wrote:this shit is rarely easy , get some killer beans brewed up and sit back and plow through . I recall I was ready to send my Lavry blue into the shop at a cost of probably a few hundred bucks and in his last email he says do you have so and so switch set to whatever and I didn't and bam there it was working again . I bumped one freakin switch when I was walking by and and it took 3 days to figure it out .

Oh, yeah. The switches seem self-explanatory, and they probably were, but they weren't affecting anything when I didn't have my analog outs configured correctly in my DAW.

I will get it, but I just seem to have less and less time to get this done. It was the wrong week to stop huffing airplane glue. Should have stuck with the Scarlett for a little while longer. At least I know this unit works now though.

Latency will probably be worse than most other interfaces using the Aphex. It doesn't even use a driver on Mac, it's about the same as what you'd get using the computers built-in headphone jack. My cheap little M-Audio /Avid C400 bus-powered USB interface has a built-in cue mixer with reverb for near zero latency monitoring. The Aphex is just barebones 6 inputs to your software, 10 outputs from it. No direct monitoring, cue mixing, input patching available. I knew that going in and use it as additional i/o with 500 connectivity as part of an aggregate driver set-up, but if it's your only interface, it would work better alongside a mixer handling cue monitoring.

Clips to see if it's worth it.... That is all.

tucsonsound wrote:Latency will probably be worse than most other interfaces using the Aphex. It doesn't even use a driver on Mac, it's about the same as what you'd get using the computers built-in headphone jack. My cheap little M-Audio /Avid C400 bus-powered USB interface has a built-in cue mixer with reverb for near zero latency monitoring. The Aphex is just barebones 6 inputs to your software, 10 outputs from it. No direct monitoring, cue mixing, input patching available. I knew that going in and use it as additional i/o with 500 connectivity as part of an aggregate driver set-up, but if it's your only interface, it would work better alongside a mixer handling cue monitoring.

Hmm, this is kind of disconcerting.

Can you hook up both the Aphex and the Scarlet?
Maybe you can use the Apex to plug your guitar into and convert to digital while monitoring off the Scarlet?

ajaxlepinski wrote:Can you hook up both the Aphex and the Scarlet?
Maybe you can use the Apex to plug your guitar into and convert to digital while monitoring off the Scarlet?

Pretty sure that won't work unless I get a larger Scarlett with digital I/o's.

Part of me wants to sell the aphex, especially after tucson's reply.

If you don't have another means of monitoring what you're patching into the Aphex, you'll have to rely on setting your buffer low enough during tracking to overcome any perceived latency, like at 64 or even 32. If your system won't run glitch free at those buffer settings, the Aphex won't be ideal for tracking through. Thankfully, for $300 it's a super well made 500 rack that can handle computer playback or live stereo recordings as a bonus.
I use it as an aggregate device with my MOTU 16A to add SPDIF, MIDI, headphone amps, and control room control, whereas the MOTU handles analog and adat I/O, as well as the latency free mixing of those inputs.

Well, the aphex went onto the storage shelf for the day I need it. Back to the focusrite. Oh well.