• 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!

Solid State Logic SSL 2 MKII vs. Topping Pro E2x2 OTG (Audio Interfaces) Comparison Review and Measurements

jkim

Member
Joined
May 23, 2024
Messages
76
Likes
155
Introduction

Reviewing these two devices started out from a simple motivation for replacing my dead E-MU 0404 USB. I am a long-time speaker DIY'er and the E-MU 0404 USB, a state-of-the-art device at its time, had served my needs for 16 years admirably. But then it suddenly died. After studying all audio interfaces tested by Julian Krause at his YouTube channel, I made a short list: Solid State Logic SSL 2 MKII and Topping Pro E2x2 OTG. Ordered the SSL. Loved its design and it seemed to be working fine. But I noticed distortion levels in acoustic and DAC measurements somewhat high---not great. So I ordered the Topping, too. Right after receiving it, however, I discovered the E1DA Cosmos ADCiso, and found it had been a hit in small DIY world. After seeing its amazing performance, I couldn't help getting it along with the Cosmos Scaler. I also needed a DAC for measurement tasks, so I ordered the Topping D50 III based on the ASR review.

To cut a long story short, I decided to measure these two audio interfaces to satisfy my own curiosity. But then noticed that the SSL 2 MKII, being relatively new on the market, has not been tested extensively except by Julian Kraus. Showing only the dynamic range and noise level, Julian's tests are not adequate. As you will see below, distortion performance turns out to be a key factor in a proper assessment of the SSL.

The primary focus of this review is on the devices' ADC performance (i.e., recording quality) though their DAC sections are briefly examined as well. The reason is that I believe recording/measuring must be the main reason for purchasing a USB audio interface. Note that Topping Pro E2x2 has also been reviewed by Amir here at ASR, the test results of which may not precisely match my reported ones---they are very well aligned with each other, though.

Measurement Setup
  • Signal generator: Topping D50 III as a USB DAC.
  • AD converter: E1DA Cosmos ADCiso Grade A in Stereo Mode, and Cosmos Scaler as a buffer.
  • Software: Paul Kane's Multitone Loopback Analyzer for most of the tests, and Room EQ Wizard. Whenever possible, results were cross-checked b/w two software packages.
  • External, analog filters were not used in this test. I could have used a low pass filter to remove harmonics from test tones, or a notch filter to avoid ADC-induced harmonics.
  • Nonetheless, I believe the comparison of the two devices should be informative because they were measured under exactly the same conditions. That is, cabling, input/output levels, and software settings such as sample rates, FFT sizes, FFT window types, averaging, etc. were all matched.
  • All tested input/output connections were balanced.
  • I made sure of using a powered USB hub since SSL 2 MKII is solely bus-powered.
  • The "4K" effect of SSL 2 MKII was not tested. This function is just for fun experiments; it adds a huge amount of harmonic distortions to the input.
As a baseline, below is a 1 kHz sine tone FFT spectrum (96 kHz bandwidth) from the testing setup:
E1DA_StereoMode_D50III_192kHz_1kHz_THD.png


I could get better results (by 3 dB) from ADCiso's Mono Mode, but did not bother to use it---too lazy for cable swapping and additional measurements. Note that the results (20 Hz - 20 kHz) are still very close to Amir's or Rja4000's D50 III measurements, except that slightly higher harmonics must be due to no analog notch filter being employed.

Solid State Logic SSL 2 MKII

Solid State Logic (SSL) is a British pro audio company. Though not as popular as Focusrite, Motu, RME, etc., it is a well-known brand in pro audio. The SSL 2 MKII is the company's entry-level 2-channel audio interface, an update of its predecessor SSL 2. There is a 2x4 variant, SSL 2+ MKII (update of SSL 2+), which adds 2 output channels and MIDI in/out. The SSL 2 MKII retails at US $230 and SSL 2+ MKII at US $300.

PXL_20250205_234540251~2.jpg

PXL_20250205_234601991~2.jpg

PXL_20250205_234618197~2.jpg


Intended for use on studio desks, its console-style design is very attractive. All switches, knobs, indicators, and input/output jacks are positioned well. The parts seemed to be of high quality and their operation feels great. Its case is a mixture of metal and plastic, and I loved its overall premium feel. Also very nice is a weighted base of its case giving stability on a desk. One important design choice is that it is to be entirely USB bus-powered.

PXL_20250117_221921769~2.jpg

PXL_20250117_220057228~2.jpg


Its double-sided PCB has ES9821Q as its ADC chip on the front side and ES9016K2M as its DAC chip on the back side. I had high hopes for its ADC performance as ES9821Q is ESS's 2nd best 2-ch ADC chipset next to the venerable ES9822PRO adopted in the RME ADI-2 Pro line and E1DA Cosmos ADCiso. On paper ES9821Q's DNR and THD+N numbers are only 5 dB worse than ES9822PRO's.

Topping Pro E2x2 OTG

This is one of the audio interface models offered as Topping's first pro audio products. This OTG model is essentially the sams as the non-OTG variant that was reviewed at ASR, except it has an additional USB-C port that can be connected to a smartphone simultaneously with a computer, and an optical out as well as an additional analog AUX out on the back panel. The E2x2 OTG retails at US $199 and the non-OTG model at US $159.

61ZcplC3S1L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

N27536HeB2Y79B0jVs3GIpmnp96gQdnbsnAbk2hs.jpg


Pictures are from the Topping Pro website---didn't have a chance to take pictures of its exterior (mine is the black version). Its build quality is good though I personally like the SSL's build more. The case is made of full metal (aluminum and steel) but sharp edges and corners do not feel sophisticated. Although it can be bus-powered, a separate power supply through its dedicated USB-C power port is recommended.

But I did take a picture of its interior:
PXL_20250124_222731935.jpg


Unfortunately, it is impossible to know which ADC and DAC chipsets this audio interfance is based on, because all the chips suspected to function as such have no markings, or markings masked. Why?

ADC Measurements

First up is SSL 2 MKII's ADC results of a 1 kHz tone from D50 III fed into SSL's XLR TRS line input:
SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out 1 kHz THD.png

The noise floor must be largely limited by ADC as we know D50 III's noise floor is much lower and noise must be uncorrelated b/w DAC and ADC. What mainly affects SINAD should be harmonic distortions contributed by both DAC and ADC. Let's compare this to the results from Topping E2x2:
Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out 1 kHz THD.png


In terms of SINAD, the two devices are neck and neck though E2x2 has cleaner higher-order harmonics. It is interesting to compare the above results to amir's E2x2 measurements: they are very, very similar---even the higher H2 of Ch2 and higher H3 of Ch1---except harmonics are a bit higher in mine. It is easy to conjecture that the test tone from D50 III is contributing some harmonics.

Dynamic range is great for both devices:
SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out 1 kHz DNR.png

Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out 1 kHz DNR.png


As expected, DNR measurements are unaffected by the test tone because the signal must be basically free of harmonics at this low amplitude.

Frequency response was measured as a sanity check:
SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out Left FR.png

Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out FR.png


Also measured was their wideband ADC quality of a 10 kHz tone:
SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out 10 kHz THD.png

Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out 10 kHz THD Wide.png


One may think a 10 kHz tone test is meaningless because harmonics being excited are beyond the audible range. But I consider it still informative. These help us better understand the following results of a sine tone sweep over frequencies.

SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out THD v FRQ.png

Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out THD v FRQ.png


These results, combined with the wideband FFT results, suggest that SSL 2 MKII's THD+N performance is dominated by THD whereas E2x2's THD+N is masked by N. In particular, the THD performance of SSL 2 MKII's ADC is not great at higher frequencies. Sure, fundamentals at 10 kHz and above may be fine, but how about 3k-7kHz tones? Undesirable. On the other hand, E2x2 exhibits substantially lower THD across all fundamental frequencies. Its THD+N for the 96 kHz bandwidth is masked by its ultrasonic noise (> 50 kHz).

SSL 2 MKII's relatively high distortion levels are further revealed in the following IMD vs. level sweep:
SSL 2 MKII Line In - USB Out IMD v Level.png

Topping E2x2 Line In - USB Out IMD v Level.png

EDIT: Ignore the "IMD+N" curves---just look at IMD results. There seems to be something incorrect with the calculation of IMD+N in the software.

It turns out that the distortion of SSL 2 MKII's ADC rises greatly when the signals approach the amplitude of input sensitivity whereas E2x2 shows much milder effects of test tone levels. Note, here, that the input sensitivity includes the effect of the input gain which is set to -1.5 dBFS when a 1 kHz sine tone at 4.2 Vrms is fed (i.e., generator 0 dBFS = 4.2 Vrms sine tone = ADC -1.5 dBFS). In fact, THD vs. level sweeps told a similar story (not shown here as I forgot to save them).

Testing their microphone input was tricky because I was trying to mimic low-level microphone signals which resulted in noisy test tones. But the results are still interpretable:
SSL 2 MKII Mic In - USB Out THD v FRQ.png

Topping E2x2 Mic In - USB Out THD v FRQ.png


It turns out that E2x2's ADC THD from its mic input is much lower than SSL 2 MKII's across all testing frequencies (20 Hz-10kHz fundamentals). E2x2's THD+N is completely masked by noise due to the compromised test tone quality. In hindsight I should've done this test differently to obtain a cleaner noise floor. Instead of lowering the test tones with external preamp attenuation, I could've simply used stronger test tones, increased the input sensitivity with the gain knob, and accepted some digital noise with attenuation on D50 III. Anyway, because we know both devices' noise performance belongs in the top tier according to Julian Krause's tests (w/ dScope M1), we can focus on their distortion performance.

DAC Measurements

Let's look at their DAC performance:
SSL 2 MKII Line Out 1kHz THD.png

Topping E2x2 USB In - Line Out 1 kHz THD.png


On SSL 2 MKII I used a volume setting a little lower than its max volume to match the output voltage of E2x2 on its max volume. The higher THD from SSL doesn't look great.

How about IMD sweeps?
SSL 2 MKII Line Out IMD Sweep.png

Topping E2x2 USB In - Line Out IMD Sweep.png


Topping is much better. No contest.

THD vs. frequency sweep:
SSL 2 MKII Line Out THD v FRQ.png

Topping E2x2 USB In - Line Out THD V Frq.png


Topping wins again.

Ultrasonic filtering at 44.1 kHz sample rate:
SSL 2 MKII Line Out Filter.png

Topping E2x2 USB In - Line Out R Filter.png


SSL wins here, but this test is not that critical.

Jitter tests:
SSL 2 MKII Line Out J-Test.png

Topping E2x2 USB In - Line Out J-Test.png


Both are fine.

I did not test their headphone outputs. According to Julian Krause's tests, Topping has an excellent headphone amp, which is also backed by Amir's measurements, and SSL's headphone out is also nice within its limit of being bus-powered.

Conclusion

I had high hopes for SSL 2 MKII because it adopts the ES9821 ADC chipset which is ESS's relatively new ADC solution. Not the level of ES9822PRO, but still excellent on paper. SSL 2 MKII's ADC performance, however, is not impressive. It shows problematic distortion behavior especially when it meets with strong input signals, which worsens with higher-frequency tones. The same goes for its DAC which is based on ES9016K2M. Distortion increases with output amplitude and frequency. In contrast, Topping E2x2 OTG does not exhibit such problems. I can easily recommend the Topping but can't SSL.

Then, why do we see this undesirable distortion behavior from SSL? I don't believe it extracts the full potential of its employed chipsets. My strong suspicion is that designers at SSL made some compromises to make it stably operate entirely bus-powered. It has to provide everything, including mic preamp, phantom power, over-4-volt line out, and relatively powerful headphone out. It does all of these solely bus-powered---I made sure of using a quality powered USB hub for this testing. I'm not sure if it's possible to achieve all these without making a compromise.

There are some quirks I do not like with the Topping, though. Its input gain control knobs are very sensitive at some positions, making it difficult to set levels. Its design feels less sophisticated than the SSL. I love the SSL's appearance and ergonomics. I would have preferred it if its performance had been on par with the Topping's. Practically, however, it is possible to use SSL 2 MKII within its limitation. If one makes sure of setting its gain to a lower position to keep recorded signals well away from the peak level, the recording quality should be fine with DNR somewhat compromised.
 
Last edited:
Specs of SSL 2 MKII from the manufacturer

Audio Performance Specifications

Unless specified otherwise, default test configuration:
Sample Rate: 48kHz, Bandwidth: 20 Hz to 20 kHz
Measurement device output impedance: 40 Ω (20 Ω unbalanced)
Measurement device input impedance: 200 kΩ (100 kΩ unbalanced)
Unless otherwise quoted all figures have a tolerance of ±0.5dB or 5%

Microphone Inputs
Frequency Response: ± 0.1 dB
Dynamic Range (A-Weighted): 116.5 dB
THD+N (@ 1kHz): -100 dB / < 0.001 % @ -8 dBFS
EIN (A-Weighted, 150 Ω termination): -130.5 dBu
Maximum Input Level: +9.7 dBu
Gain Range: 64 dB
Input Impedance: 1.2 kΩ

Line Inputs
Frequency Response: ± 0.05 dB
Dynamic Range (A-Weighted): 117 dB
THD+N (@ 1kHz): -104 dB / < 0.0007 % @ -1 dBFS
Maximum Input Level: +24 dBu
Gain Range: 27dB
Input Impedance: 14 kΩ

Instrument Inputs
Frequency Response: ± 0.05 dB
Dynamic Range (A-Weighted): 116 dB
THD+N (@ 1kHz): -99 dB / < 0.001 % @ -8 dBFS
Maximum Input Level: +15 dBu
Gain Range: 64 dB
Input Impedance: 1 MΩ

Monitor Outputs (Balanced)
Frequency Response: ± 0.03 dB
Dynamic Range (A-Weighted): 120 dB
THD+N (@ 1kHz): -108 dB / < 0.0004%
Maximum Output Level: +14.5 dBu
Output Impedance: 150 Ω

Headphone Outputs
Frequency Response: ± 0.05 dB
Dynamic Range: 119.5 dB
THD+N (@ 1kHz): -106 dB / < 0.0005% @ -8 dBFS
Maximum Output: Level +13 dBu
Output Impedance: <1 Ω

Digital Audio
Supported Sample Rates: 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, 192 kHz
Clock Source Internal
USB 2.0
Low-Latency Monitor Mix Input to Output: < 1ms
Roundtrip Latency at 96 kHz:
Windows 10, Reaper: < 3.65 ms (Safe Mode Off)
Mac OS, Reaper: < 5.8 ms

Analogue Inputs 1&2
Connectors XLR: "Combo' for Microphone/Line/Instrument on rear panel
Input Gain Control: Via front panel
Microphone/Line Switching: Via front panel switches
Instrument Switching: Automatic upon jack connecting
Phantom Power: Via front panel switches
Legacy 4K Analogue Enhancement: Via front panel switches

Analogue Outputs
Connectors: 1/4" (6.35 mm) TRS jacks: on rear panel
Stereo Headphone Output 1/4" (6.35 mm) TRS jack: on rear panel
Monitor Outputs L/R Level Control: Via front panel
Monitor Mix Input - USB Blend: Via front panel
Monitor Mix - Stereo Input: Via front panel
Headphones Level Control: Via front panel

Rear Panel Miscellaneous
USB 1 x USB 2.0, 'C' Type Connector
Kensington Security Slot 1 x K-Slot

Front Panel LEDs
Input Metering Per Channel - 3 x green, 1 x amber, 1 x red
Status LEDs: +48V red, LINE green, HPF green, STEREO green
Legacy 4K Analogue Enhancement Per Channel - 1 x red
USB Power 1 x green

Specs of Topping E2x2 from the manufacturer (tested @24bits/96kitz)

1. Microphone Inputs:


Equivalent Input Noise@A-wt,150 Ohm | -130.5dBu
THD+N@A-wt | -110dB (0.0003%)
Dynamic Range @A-wt | 115dB
SNR | 115dB
Crosstalk@1kHz | -140dB
Frequency Response | 20Hz-40kHz (#0.2dB)
Maximum Input Level | 8.6dBu
Input Impedance | 1.5k Ohms
Available Gain | 58dB + 20dB (20dB digital gain)
Phantom Power | 48V
Phantom Power | XLR connector of the combo socket:

2. Line Inputs:

THD+N@A-wt | -107dB0.00045%)
Dynamic Range @A-wt | 115dB
SNR @A-wt | 115dB
Crosstalk@1kHz | -140dB
Frequency Response | 20Hz-40kHz (#0.1dB)
Maximum Input Level | 23.9dBu
Input Impedance | 6k Ohms
Available Gain | 58B + 20dB (20dB digital gain)
Connector Type | TRS connector of the combo socket:
Tip (Hot), Ring (Cold) & Sleeve (Shield)

3. Instrument Inputs:

THD+N@A-wt | -108dB (0.0004%)
Dynamic Range @A-wt | 115dB
SNR @A-wt | 115dB
Crosstalk@1kHz | -140dB
Frequency Response | 20Hz-40kHz (#0.3dB)
Maximum Input Level | 14.8dBu
Input Impedance | 1M Ohms
Available Gain | 58dB + 20dB (20dB digital gain)
Connector Type | TS connector of the combo socket:
Tip (Hot) & Sleeve (Shield)

4. Line Outputs:

THD+N@A-wt | -100dB (0.001%)
Dynamic Range @A-wt | 115dB
Analogue Dynamic Range@A-wt, -40B attenuation | 127dB
SNR @A-wt | 115dB
Crosstalk@1kHz | -128dB
Frequency Response | 20Hz-40kHz (#0.3dB)
Maximum Input Level | 14dBu
Noise @A-wt | 1.8uVrms
Output Impedance | 100 Ohms
Connector Type | 6.35mm TRS balanced jack:
Tip (Hot), Ring (Cold) & Sleeve (Shield)

5. Headphone Outputs:

THD+N @A-wt | -100dB (0.001%)
Dynamic Range @A-wt | 115dB
Analogue Dynamic Range @A-wt, -40dB attenuation | 132dB
SNR @A-wt | 115dB
Crosstalk@1kHz | -120dB
Frequency Response | 20Hz-40kHz (£0.3dB)
Maximum Input Level | OdBu@ Gain=L, 17dBu@ Gain=H
Noise @A-wt | 1 uVrms
Output Impedance | 1 Ohms
Connector Type | 6.35mm stereo headphone jack:
Tip(Left), Ring (Right) & Sleeve (Shield)
6.35mm stereo headphone jack | 580mWx2@320 THD+N<1%
380mW x 2@64Q THD+N<1%
198mW x 2 @1500 THD+N<1%
105mW x 2@3000 THD+N<1%
55mW x 2@6000 THD+N<1%
 
Last edited:
Coming from E-MU's 20 year performance which is on par with those (and way better at some aspects) one wonders about the evolution of the cheap interfaces.
I was expecting SSL to be way better,that's disappointing.

Thanks for the review!
 
Coming from E-MU's 20 year performance which is on par with those (and way better at some aspects) one wonders about the evolution of the cheap interfaces.
I was expecting SSL to be way better,that's disappointing.
Indeed. The E-MU 0404 USB was a premium offering at that time based on AKM chipsets, not comparable to these audio interfaces. Still, I hoped for better results because technology has advanced. Of course, we get better performance from E1DA or RME, but have to pay more.

I think SSL could have done better with these ESS chipsets..
 
Good job testing and posting the results in a useful manner.

If dollars weren't a big deal, and I planned on heavy use I'd go with the SSL as it is adequate, and I much prefer the ergonomics. SSL should team up with Topping for their budget interface.
 
How is the software UI on these? Sometimes a hard thing to review concisely, but valuable if you can.
 
surely the SSL wins based on the KLF alone...
 
How is the software UI on these? Sometimes a hard thing to review concisely, but valuable if you can.
If you mean the SSL Production Pack, I haven't had a chance to experience it. Just used both devices' control panel apps. In the case of SSL, it was just about adjusting essential settings.
 
Very glad to see an independent and very comprehensive measurement of the audio interface.

Nice to see Topping came out tops.
 
Silly question: By definition, IMD+N ≥ IMD. So why are there regions where IMD+N drops below IMD? Am I missing anything?
Not a silly question at all. I did not interpret that IMD+N measure from Multitone Loopback Analyzer since I could not find its precise definition. I know Audio Precision calculates IMD+N which Amir includes in his review. Not sure if Paul Kane wanted it to calculate exactly the same thing as AP does. If so, there's something wrong in the current version of the software about its calculation of IMD+N.
 
Last edited:
Excellent !

Nice to see systematic testing of those interfaces.

A few suggestions:

You may get more accurate results in mono.

For low level testing, a passive attenuator after the DAC is the most efficient.
My personal setup is to merge both of the DAC's balanced outputs with an Y cable (each output includes a resistor, so little risk to break it), followed by a Shure A15AS or Behringer Monitor1.

2 other interesting results are
- the sensitivity of the mic input for min and Max gain.
- Shorted input noise at Max gain
You need an XLR male plug, with pins 2 and 3 shorted for that measurement.
Combined with the sensitivity at max gain, you should get an approximation of EIN.
Even if you don't have an accurate True RMS Multimeter to evaluate the sensitivity accurately, you may, at least, compare the interfaces vs each other.

For DAC measurements, you may get best results by using an Y cable to send the same output to both ADC's inputs.
Then, use the ADCIso in Stereo and Cross correlation averaging on either REW or the very last Multitone (released this week).

Of course, all this works only in Mono.
And, to be frank, performance of both devices should not require that much, since they are more than 10dB worse than your ADC anyway.

And in case you want to test the headphones power, I can only recommend the excellent E1DA headphones load board.
Solder 2 XLR- terminated cables to it abd you'll have a perfectly capable load board for tests.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for great review! btw, would you test ADC on TRS, instead of XLR? Both of them use XLR as mic input, not as line input. It may not be critical, but I'd like to see results on TRS too!
 
Thanks for great review! btw, would you test ADC on TRS, instead of XLR? Both of them use XLR as mic input, not as line input. It may not be critical, but I'd like to see results on TRS too!
Usually in this price range, the interfaces will use the same amplifying circuit as the mic input, but it will be padded down. The padding will increase the resistance. The increased resistance will raise the noise floor from thermal noise. Otherwise everything else will change very little.

PS- you appear to be posting for the first time. Welcome to ASR.
 
Coming from E-MU's 20 year performance which is on par with those (and way better at some aspects) one wonders about the evolution of the cheap interfaces.
I was expecting SSL to be way better,that's disappointing.

Thanks for the review!
Indeed. The E-MU 0404 USB was a premium offering at that time based on AKM chipsets, not comparable to these audio interfaces. Still, I hoped for better results because technology has advanced. Of course, we get better performance from E1DA or RME, but have to pay more.

I think SSL could have done better with these ESS chipsets..

My thoughts exactly.

I'm working on a design (not audio interface) using the ES9017 dac and es9821 adc all from a single supply and I'm getting far better performance. I don't know what could be going so wrong... what is the SSL doing for the audio reference voltage those chips need? Are they using X7R capacitors instead of C0G? Or maybe just ground current pollution from some processor on the same board, but this should be similar on the higher end products.

P.S. Can you check what DC bias voltage the ADC is getting on its inputs? This ESS chip is strange because it uses 1.9v bias. However even the datasheet seems confused because it shows V_ref 1/2 and V_ref Buf both of which are not needed. I see V-ref Buf on the PCB there which is part of the confused datasheet schematic. If this is wrong it could explain the issues at higher input level.
 
Last edited:
Had the SSL been tested several years ago, before Topping et al had come on so quickly, it's been given a clean set of results I'm sure. The brand has a huge following in pro circles over here I believe, so what ten years ago was 'good' or even 'very good,' is today perhaps perceived as 'adequate enough.' Maybe they need a 'Schiit Moment' to refine further and show the likes of Topping what they can do :) I've absolutely no idea, but I wonder how their higher-tier products compare and at what level of sophistication is 'mastering grade' for release, if you get my meaning?
 
Very nice review, a lot of work in tests, and very well explained, congrats !

I like the idea of comparing other budget audio interfaces. Interfaces have more functionnalities than more expensive Dacs/headphones and nowadays, their performances are definitely not ridiculous compared to good hifi gear. For example, what about the AUDIENT new generation ?

But as for interfaces, measured performance isn't the only choice criteria, assuming today's performances aren't bad anyway. Some differencs in figures may be audible, but not that much. By the way, it's a pity you didn't compare the headphone outputs, interfaces being often used with headphones too.

But, maybe more importantly, their sofware's ease of use and completion is a criteria as important (and maybe more, to some extent) than the audio test figures.
I would like to see a comparison between them too.

And how do they compare, for hardware and software as well, with top range and much more expensive interfaces (RME, Merging/Neumann, Antilope, etc.) ?
 
Back
Top Bottom