On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:34:44 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
>I think I would still mix using Ardour/Mixbus, and in the case of
>Mixbus32C which I use, benefit from the Harrison 32C EQ hardware
>emulation.  The MOTU will add another type of EQ emulation (like a
>plugin would) based on British consoles, as well as the LA-2A limiter
>(also considered as a 'plugin').  So, for Mixbus32C-based mixing, the
>MOTU will add those 'plugin' features. And the initial routing.  If a
>track feels better with British-based EQ, then so be it.  If it feels
>better with 32C, so be it.  There's also reverb on the MOTU which would
>be considered as a 'plugin' also.  Use it, or use any other reverb.  So
>it's an audio interface with audio processing capabilities which may or
>may not be used.
>
>Still just thinking aloud ... :)

Hi,

it doesn't harm to get everything provided by the audio interface, but
it's luxury we not necessarily need. IMO it's not worth the effort to
waste time with research to get the best supported audio interface, if
it takes less time to ensure that the device works without issues in
class compliant mode, with reasonable latency, even for usage with
software monitoring. More important IMO is to ensure that the
electronics fulfils the required quality standard. IOW a RME audio
interface with the latest and greatest RME hardware mixer software is
welcome, but even without the oldish hdspmixer, IOW without a mixer at
all, a class compliant RME audio interface provides all that is
absolutely necessary, assuming it should work in class compliant mode
without issues. Regarding an EQ I've got no idea what Fons' or Robin's
parametric EQs are missing. Regarding a reverb software indeed is
tricky, even if the quality should be good, it might take to much
system resources, but instead of getting an audio interface with an
integrated reverb, I simply would purchase a separated reverb.

2 Cents,
Ralf