• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Audio Interface for Dolby Atmos under 1000$

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
Hi everyone,

Checking to expand my setup to a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 configuration, and I need an interface for this. An avr will not do the job, since I will be use the setup to create music with Cubase 12. Is there an audio interface that measures well, costs less than 1000$, and has 12 outputs to feed the 7.1.4 monitors? It could also be an audio interface plus expansion over ADAT to 12 channels. Currently I use an RME HDSPe AIO Pro.

Would an Audient ID44 mkii combined with an Audient Evo 16 work for this purpose? I am on Windows 11, and I am not certain whether I could aggregate the two devices to work on this system. Are there any better options available?

Thanks in advance for your help.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
Active Monitors. Same question asked by same person on gearspace answer is still the same. MOTU 24Ao at around ~1000 plus or minus cables if you just need outputs if you also need inputs can't be done on budget as you need a 16A

You can't acceptable aggregate audio devices under windows especially if you need ASIO for cubase, you may be able to bodge something with ASIO4All but you won't like the latency.
 
OP
G

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
Active monitors is right. I'm not sure about the Motu 24 AO. Is that really the only option with 12 outputs at that price point?

I am reluctant about the 24 AO because eventually I will need inputs as well. And there are some not very encouraging posts/measurements here about noise issues with this unit. With two units I could get a better feature set, and probably better performance, for quite a bit less money.

Just now I found an interesting feature of Focusrite interfaces:


It seems that in this standalone mode, it should be possible to expand inputs outputs of a host audio interface without having to aggregate two devices. Right? If so, this would be the solution I am looking for. This way I could choose two interfaces within my price range, and focus on the quality of the converters. Als long as they have 12 outputs combined, and one of them has that standalone feature, it should work for 7.1.4 on Windows.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
Active monitors is right. I'm not sure about the Motu 24 AO. Is that really the only option with 12 outputs at that price point?

I am reluctant about the 24 AO because eventually I will need inputs as well. And there are some not very encouraging posts/measurements here about noise issues with this unit. With two units I could get a better feature set, and probably better performance, for quite a bit less money.

Just now I found an interesting feature of Focusrite interfaces:


It seems that in this standalone mode, it should be possible to expand inputs outputs of a host audio interface without having to aggregate two devices. Right? If so, this would be the solution I am looking for. This way I could choose two interfaces within my price range, and focus on the quality of the converters. Als long as they have 12 outputs combined, and one of them has that standalone feature, it should work for 7.1.4 on Windows.
You still need an computer interface with either two SMUX ports for 48KHz or four SMUX ports for 96KHz. Giving you 16 channels of IO to the computer.

The most obvious example is a RME Digiface which would be $550 on its own. You would then be much better served by using a Ferrofish Pulse 16 ADAT/SMUX to analogue unit which has 16 ins and outs. That is $1100 so you are well past your budget.

You simply can't sensibly do this on $1000 with well designed interfaces / conversion.
 
OP
G

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
You still need an computer interface with either two SMUX ports for 48KHz or four SMUX ports for 96KHz. Giving you 16 channels of IO to the computer.

This part I don't understand. Lets say I buy an Audient ID44. It has 20 inputs and 24 outputs. This will be my audio interface and is connected to my windows machine. To the Audient, I connect a Focusrite 18i20 in standalone mode. The Focusrite is not connected to my pc. If I understand the above link correctly, it now serves as an expansion unit to the interface it is connected to. In 48kHz, this will give me an additional 10 line outputs. Don't I nowhave an audio interface for my computer (the Audient, connected via USB), plus 10 additional line outs from the Focusrite, connected to the Audient via ADAT? Why would I need another computer interface? And where does S/MUX come into play if I stay at 48kHz? Maybe I am dense, but as far as I understood S/MUX would be necessary if I wanted to switch to 88.2 kHz or 96kHz, but it would half my channel count.
 

dominikz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
803
Likes
2,626
Why not just connect the Focusrite 18i20 to your PC with USB and add a 2 channel SPDIF DAC to 18i20 SPDIF output to add two more analog channels to it?
That should give you 12 analog outputs total, all synced to the same digital clock and using Focusrite ASIO drivers.

I have an RME Babyface and often use SPDIF or ADAT to access additional I/O channels in this way, while benefiting from RME drivers and on-board DSP.

EDIT: You say you use the RME HDSPe AIO Pro at the moment. Did you consider just adding 8ch via ADAT plus 2ch via SPDIF to it for a total of 12 analog outputs?
 
Last edited:

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
This part I don't understand. Lets say I buy an Audient ID44. It has 20 inputs and 24 outputs. This will be my audio interface and is connected to my windows machine. To the Audient, I connect a Focusrite 18i20 in standalone mode. The Focusrite is not connected to my pc. If I understand the above link correctly, it now serves as an expansion unit to the interface it is connected to. In 48kHz, this will give me an additional 10 line outputs. Don't I nowhave an audio interface for my computer (the Audient, connected via USB), plus 10 additional line outs from the Focusrite, connected to the Audient via ADAT? Why would I need another computer interface? And where does S/MUX come into play if I stay at 48kHz? Maybe I am dense, but as far as I understood S/MUX would be necessary if I wanted to switch to 88.2 kHz or 96kHz, but it would half my channel count.
Yes you are right if you limit yourself to 48KHz then ADAT optical without the muxing channels gives you 8 channels per connection and ID 44 appears two have two ADAT connections in and out. Which is 16 of its claimed channels. The rest are 4 analogue line outputs and two stereo headphone outputs.

Thus if you are dead set on Audient for whatever reason you can buy two Behringer ADA8200 to go with it. That gives you 16 analogue inputs and outputs. No need for a more expensive Focusrite interface in standalone mode.

You really want to use the same path for all the speaker outputs as there will be an output latency difference between the analogue outputs on the Audient and anything added via the optical outputs. That will cause you far bigger issues than any difference in D/A performance. The differences between (competently designed) low and high end are tiny these days.

The thing is the Audient has no surround sound monitor features it's all stereo. While neither MOTU nor RME have full 7.1.4 features they both have a full mixer matrix and the ability to group channels so you can control the volume on a set of channels at once.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Are you looking to replace the RME you currently use or augment it?

I don't see why the 18i20 couldn't be made to work. It has 10 balanced outputs (15.5 dbu level if that is enough for your monitor speakers). You could also use the SPDIF output to feed a balanced DAC for the last two channels. This would be using only the 18i20. It would also let you have higher sample rates on all channels if that matters.

If you are wanting to continue with the RME card and send signals to an external device then I'm not sure. The 18i20 will work in stand alone mode without a PC. Does your RME card have more than one ADAT output? If so, then a pair of these 18i20's would do what you want in stand alone mode. You would set up routing of the ADAT input for each one while connected to a computer. Then you disconnect and everything continues to work that way. As they are both clocked off the ADAT input there shouldn't be any latency differences. You would be stuck with no more than 48 khz sample rates to get enough channels this way.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
Are you looking to replace the RME you currently use or augment it?

I don't see why the 18i20 couldn't be made to work. It has 10 balanced outputs (15.5 dbu level if that is enough for your monitor speakers). You could also use the SPDIF output to feed a balanced DAC for the last two channels. This would be using only the 18i20. It would also let you have higher sample rates on all channels if that matters.

If you are wanting to continue with the RME card and send signals to an external device then I'm not sure. The 18i20 will work in stand alone mode without a PC. Does your RME card have more than one ADAT output? If so, then a pair of these 18i20's would do what you want in stand alone mode. You would set up routing of the ADAT input for each one while connected to a computer. Then you disconnect and everything continues to work that way. As they are both clocked off the ADAT input there shouldn't be any latency differences. You would be stuck with no more than 48 khz sample rates to get enough channels this way.
The OP has this card


With an ADA8200 they could already achieve 10 channels 8 via ADAT and two via onboard analogue. Then two more via AES to get to 12.

See page 20 of the manual at:


However as I said they are all going to have slightly different output latencies.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
The OP has this card


With an ADA8200 they could already achieve 10 channels 8 via ADAT and two via onboard analogue. Then two more via AES to get to 12.

See page 20 of the manual at:


However as I said they are all going to have slightly different output latencies.
I don't think the analog out, AES and ADAT will have latency issues as they'll be running off the same clock. The thru put delay in such an arrangement is very low. This is assuming playback. If you were doing recording into the PC and back out there would be issues perhaps.

It still wasn't clear to me if the OP wanted to keep his RME card or replace it. If replacing it, then the 18i20 is a better choice. If keeping the RME then the ADA8200 would work for him. RME supports their devices better than almost anyone so that would be the way I'd go plus I'm assuming the OP is already comfortable with Totalmix. You would be stuck with 48 khz, which wouldn't bother me, but I don't know about the OP.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
I don't think the analog out, AES and ADAT will have latency issues as they'll be running off the same clock. The thru put delay in such an arrangement is very low. This is assuming playback. If you were doing recording into the PC and back out there would be issues perhaps.

It still wasn't clear to me if the OP wanted to keep his RME card or replace it. If replacing it, then the 18i20 is a better choice. If keeping the RME then the ADA8200 would work for him. RME supports their devices better than almost anyone so that would be the way I'd go plus I'm assuming the OP is already comfortable with Totalmix. You would be stuck with 48 khz, which wouldn't bother me, but I don't know about the OP.
The optical transceivers impart some latency and the different DAC filters in use have an effect on latency. It not the clock or the routing in the interface it's what happens afterwards.

This was after a conversation with one of Metric Halo's designers where they recommended against mixing the analogue and digital outputs of one of their interfaces in a single speaker array due to these effects.

It will, of course, work but my point is there is less reason to care about the quality of the conversion etc if you are going to put up with a measureable difference in output latency between channels. It's not going to be huge but it could be tens to hundreds of microseconds difference.
 
OP
G

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
Thank you for all the help. I appreciate it!

I think my best option is to keep my RME for my stereo setup. I have a set of Geithain RL 906 as my main speakers for working, and Quad ESL 57s. I switch between the two with a Palmer Monicon L monitor controller. I want to keep this stereo setup. It's what I use for my work (creating sample based tv/media music in Cubase). The RME is perfect for this due to its low latency drivers.

It is then, perhaps, best to add another audio interface, plus an ADAT expansion, to create the 7.1.4 Atmos set. I could then switch between the RME and the other audio interface depending on whether I am working/listening in stereo, or Atmos. It looks like there are a few options for this:

  • a Focusrite 18i20 plus a 2 channel SPDIF DAC

  • any audio interface with 4 line outs plus a Behringer ADA8200

Later down the line I would like to record with this setup as well. So I'd like to choose an interface with good mic preamps as well. 48kHz is fine for me, I don't plan to work higher than that.

It's for the recording part that I had an eye on the Audient interfaces. I think they have nice preamps and converters, and are dependable. Inconsistent latency would be a problem for recording, so that is a concern. I'm wondering whether it is possible to add some sort of digital room correction and latency correction in such a setup.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
The optical transceivers impart some latency and the different DAC filters in use have an effect on latency. It not the clock or the routing in the interface it's what happens afterwards.

This was after a conversation with one of Metric Halo's designers where they recommended against mixing the analogue and digital outputs of one of their interfaces in a single speaker array due to these effects.

It will, of course, work but my point is there is less reason to care about the quality of the conversion etc if you are going to put up with a measureable difference in output latency between channels. It's not going to be huge but it could be tens to hundreds of microseconds difference.
That isn't a level of latency that will cause any issues. If it bothers you, then simply move the effected loudspeakers 1/8 th of an inch or less to compensate. And remember to never move your ears whatsoever.
 
OP
G

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
Good to know. Thank you @Blumlein 88.

It looks like an Atmos 7.1.4 setup is indeed possible on a smaller budget. I'll have to decide on an interface (18i20 plus a stereo spdif dac? 4 channel interface plus ADA8200?). It's a nice bonus that these boxes can also serve for recording further down the line.

For speakers, I think I'll go with either JBL LSR 305P, or Genelec 8010A. The latter are quite a bit more expensive. Will have to decide whether they are worth it in my situation.
 

john_p

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2022
Messages
1
Likes
0
Hi, I'm sorry for my ignorance but isn't the ada8200 a digital to analog converter? Dolby atmos requires digital output¿? in the case you say it would be outputting the sound in analog mode... I'm going crazy here.
Which SPDIF DAC converter do you recommend?
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK
Is there an audio interface that measures well, costs less than 1000$, and has 12 outputs to feed the 7.1.4 monitors? It could also be an audio interface plus expansion over ADAT to 12 channels.
I don’t think a new device will fit your budget but you can find very decent used devices within your budget. A friend of mine bought a SPL Madison for £650 only last year. Add a MADI card and you are still within budget.

If you are brave enough 2x Topping 8-ch DAC may do the job at a very low cost. Read posts about it.
 
OP
G

goodkeys

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
48
Likes
17
Hi, I'm sorry for my ignorance but isn't the ada8200 a digital to analog converter? Dolby atmos requires digital output¿? in the case you say it would be outputting the sound in analog mode... I'm going crazy here.
Which SPDIF DAC converter do you recommend?

Well, I'll use this setup mostly to produce music in Cubase. So I'll route a 7.1.4 configuration in my DAW (Cubase) through the soundcard and ADA8200 to the speakers. As for Atmos playback, there is this on Windows:


Cavern makes it possible, apparently, to play back Dolby Digital Plus Atmos in any channel configuration that you like, without the need of an AVR. @VoidX who created the program wrote that it can even upmix a stereo signal to 7.1.4, though that would be a bit of a stretch.

I haven't tested this, so I can't say if it actually works on my system. If it doesn't I'd have to add an AVR or AVP as a bridge between my pc and my soundcard/ADA8200, and feed the line-outs of the AVR to the line-ins on my soundcard/ADA8200. I hope that makes sense.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
Hi, I'm sorry for my ignorance but isn't the ada8200 a digital to analog converter? Dolby atmos requires digital output¿? in the case you say it would be outputting the sound in analog mode... I'm going crazy here.
Which SPDIF DAC converter do you recommend?
They reason you are confused is the OP is creating Atmos content using DAW software.

Playing back Atmos which has been encoded for delivery is very different and mostly needs HDMI output to an AVR.
 
Top Bottom