1 Topic by drvdd (edited by drvdd 2021-04-19 23:03:10)

  • drvdd
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-04-10
  • Posts: 15

Topic: Quadmic II vs. Babyface as Guitar DI

Hi,
The last days I had trouble tracking guitar DI tracks. The reason seems to be my noisy preamp (not RME), probably additional issues with the DI box (mains hum). My audio card is a AIO with additional input card. Nevertheless, I had improvements connecting the guitar directly into the Line in (don't ask me how I even got the idea), so the preamp is junk.

The first idea is to use a Quadmic II with an active DI box to track the guitar. At a first glance, the specs of the preamp outperforms a device like the Babyface. The advantage would be, that I can use the Quadmic as "luxurious DI" for my Synth, when I get a newer interface.

The second idea is to use a Babyface Pro FS, because it has instrument inputs with very good specs. The advantage would be the simpler setup and actual tech. If it is available, but that is a different story.

In order to re-use the existing interface, the Babyface and the AIO could be connected via ADAT (The AiO has sentimental value - so don't ask me why ;-) ).

Does any of this ideas make any sense, or would you do it in a different way?

  • waedi
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Swiss Zürich
  • Registered: 2020-12-08
  • Posts: 4,533

Re: Quadmic II vs. Babyface as Guitar DI

My vote goes to the Babyface.
The super luxury version of setup would be the Octamic XTC together with a Madiface.
And the AIO with the analog inputs is already a superb set.

M1-Sequoia, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver and blue

3 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,596

Re: Quadmic II vs. Babyface as Guitar DI

The QuadMic is a solely analog unit. Reading its specs you have to keep in mind that you will connect it to an AD stage, which is the default state in most other interfaces, so numbers are partly not comparable.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

4 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-04-20 19:17:10)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,189

Re: Quadmic II vs. Babyface as Guitar DI

drvdd wrote:

Hi,
The last days I had trouble tracking guitar DI tracks. The reason seems to be my noisy preamp (not RME), probably additional issues with the DI box (mains hum). My audio card is a AIO with additional input card. Nevertheless, I had improvements connecting the guitar directly into the Line in (don't ask me how I even got the idea), so the preamp is junk.

The first idea is to use a Quadmic II with an active DI box to track the guitar. At a first glance, the specs of the preamp outperforms a device like the Babyface. The advantage would be, that I can use the Quadmic as "luxurious DI" for my Synth, when I get a newer interface.

The second idea is to use a Babyface Pro FS, because it has instrument inputs with very good specs. The advantage would be the simpler setup and actual tech. If it is available, but that is a different story.

In order to re-use the existing interface, the Babyface and the AIO could be connected via ADAT (The AiO has sentimental value - so don't ask me why ;-) ).

Does any of this ideas make any sense, or would you do it in a different way?

If budget allows and because adding more and more devices will also raise the costs:

I would sell the AIO and get an UFX II (or even better UFX+) instead.
Very simple and straight-forward setup with 1 device and everything is possible ...

The UFX+ not necessarily because of MADI, but mainly to have three possible options towards the PC/Apple side: USB2 (without MADI), USB3 and Thunderbolt and MADI as an option if there should be a demand. Otherwise get UFX II.

The other positive aspects of an UFX II/+:
- Autoset, extremely useful
- DURec, extremely useful
- 4 Mic Pres that can also be used as instrument inputs with very nice 1 MOhm impedance
Lots of other I/O that you might need now or in the future.

If you add all the costs for AIO, analog daughterboards, Quadmic and/or BBF ...
Get the one UFX II / + and thats it, much better approach.

By this you get additionally two wonderful phones preamps that already sound very nice with phones up to LCD-3 and a lot of headroom.
Full standalone operateable, you can connect an ARC USB also directly to the back of the device, so that it also can be used in stand-alone mode.

If budget allows it, then I would go into this direction. IMHO the best recording interfaces on the market feature- and quality-wise in 1 rack unit for a fair/justified price.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14
  • drvdd
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-04-10
  • Posts: 15

Re: Quadmic II vs. Babyface as Guitar DI

Thanks for your suggestions!
Yes, the convenience of an interface like the UFX+ would be, that I don't have to think about any connection scenario anymore.
It is not about the budget. It is about the "Overkill": I am not a professional musician and it is hard to legitimate switching to one of the top interfaces, because I am unhappy with my Guitar DI sound.

The good thing is that I can't buy it right now (5-8 weeks delivery time for a BF/UFX) - so I have some time to think about it. 

@MC: My plan was to connect the Quadmic II via the AI4S/192. I need only two of the preamps. The price difference between a BF FS and the QM II (with rack mount) is just 100EUR. Is it more about convenience (clean rack installation vs. mobility), or would one solution be noticeable better in audio performance?