What is the most user friendly PT interface?

[firmflange]

I know this is a subjective question, but I have been using PT 12 on a Mac for about two years now, and run a RME Fireface 802, along with a FerroFish A16 unit. The RME unit has always been a steep learning curve to use, although there are many advantages to it.

I was just wondering what would be the most user-friendly option if I would change over to a different interface, concerning routing, I/O's, etc? There's no reason for me to go HD at this time. Any advice would help.

[albee1952]

Do you have a thunderbolt port? If yes, then look at the new Presonus Quantom. One thing that many(most?) 3rd party interfaces use is their own monitoring/routing software, which can add to complexity(as a way of getting around latency). The Quantom is supposed to have extremely low latency so they don't need this extra layer. I run HD/Native here(with HD IO and 192) and once IO configuration is done, its pretty darn easy. Using Avid-branded hardware is often the most friendly(anything that sidesteps the extra software)

[firmflange]

Originally Posted by albee1952

The Quantom is supposed to have extremely low latency so they don't need this extra layer. I run HD/Native here(with HD IO and 192) and once IO configuration is done, its pretty darn easy. Using Avid-branded hardware is often the most friendly(anything that sidesteps the extra software)

Albee, with your HD/Native, how do you reference your volume and routing levels if you don't have the screen like the RME does? I'm still a beginner in the area of other interfaces. The Quantum looks very similar to the 802, hardware-wise. Do they not have a screen that must be learned?

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by firmflange

I know this is a subjective question, but I have been using PT 12 on a Mac for about two years now, and run a RME Fireface 802, along with a FerroFish A16 unit. The RME unit has always been a steep learning curve to use, although there are many advantages to it.

I was just wondering what would be the most user-friendly option if I would change over to a different interface, concerning routing, I/O's, etc? There's no reason for me to go HD at this time. Any advice would help.

MOTU 828x via Thunderbolt and I believe it's under $1k; 28x30 I/O

A lot depends on how much I/O you need. A big step up in price but also sound is the Apogee Ensemble. Got some nice features if you track guitar & reamping. Under $3k

[Drew Mazurek]

I'd get an Apollo. Start with a Twin and then add as needed. Their stuff aggregates like no one else's. You get DSP and awesome plugs to track and mix with. Done.

I have two 8Ps that I lightpipe into my HD rig and it's like having a 16 channel SSL, Neve, API, etc for under $6k. I also have a Twin I use for mobile stuff.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

I'd get an Apollo. Start with a Twin and then add as needed. Their stuff aggregates like no one else's. You get DSP and awesome plugs to track and mix with. Done.

I have two 8Ps that I lightpipe into my HD rig and it's like having a 16 channel SSL, Neve, API, etc for under $6k. I also have a Twin I use for mobile stuff.

The Apollo is a good choice but not what I would call user-friendly.

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by musicman691

The Apollo is a good choice but not what I would call user-friendly.

RME is tech-y in a German way. Apollos are tech-y in an American way. I contend that if the RME felt "unfriendly", then an Apollo might not. Plus it's the smart choice.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

RME is tech-y in a German way. Apollos are tech-y in an American way. I contend that if the RME felt "unfriendly", then an Apollo might not. Plus it's the smart choice.

For me it's not the nationality that's my basis but actually using the Apollo console (I have no experience with the RME). Unless one really digs into the documentation for the Apollo there's too many chances to have problems. Particularly if one digs into the 'PT' mode of the console s/w; a lot of people don't really know that even exists or what it can do for them.

Some of this is going to come down to does the op need the dsp in the Apollo ecosystem?

edit for additional:
We don't know what exact Mac the op has but if I had to guess and if his sig file is correct it's an older cheesegrater and those don't have Thunderbolt ports.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by firmflange

Albee, with your HD/Native, how do you reference your volume and routing levels if you don't have the screen like the RME does?

It’s an onscreen fader. You reference volume via the faders....output volume on the HP’s via the mix screen’s fader level. Just like you would an actual console.

Nothing is easier, and if they tell you it is they are trying to sell you something

All 3rd party low latency interfaces require you to use an extra layer of software to achieve LL.

These all require extra work and knowledge to make them work properly (ie routing/monitoring) - they may have some benefits but “ease of use” is not one of them.

For ease of use Avid’s mixer wins....

[albee1952]

In all cases, I recommend watching some tutorial videos. The Apollo is a great piece, BUT it REQUIRES you to work in its own window as a "go between" with PT. That's why Avid hardware or Quantom(or anything that DOESN'T have an extra layer of software) is more "user friendly"(a subjective opinion).

As for "how do you reference your volume and routing levels if you don't have the screen like the RME does?" I'm not clear on the question. I have all the metering I need right on the screen(MIX or EDIT window).