Need 16 inputs. Is it more sensible to get quite expensive all-in-one Arturia Audiofuse 16 rig which has 16 inputs on board or get both an Audient Evo 16 and SP8. Downside of the Audient option is more cables but it’s actually quite a bit cheaper and prob has comparable sound.
Any thoughts?
What are you going to be plugging in? If you need more than two mic/instrument inputs, the Audient pair is the way to go.
I was considering these options myself a few months ago.
I got a 16Rig because I use mostly line level sources, it can handle more I/O when fully expanded, and it has a few other nice features I like. Plus, I’ve had good experiences with other Arturia gear and no experience at all with Audient. It was a pretty subjective decision for me in the end, though.
Are you on Windows or Mac?
Not sure about Macs, but if you’re on Windows, the Roland Studio-Capture is worth a look. 16 analog inputs, 12 with mic preamps.
Hi, good question. “Lucky” me, my crowdfunding purchases keep delaying so I still can use my Evo 16 without an expansion. I am also wondering what to buy if and when the new synths arrive, since I will need more ports.
The Audiofuse 16 is newer and therefore triggers extra GAS on me the days I feel weak. It has more control possibilities when disconnected from a PC, which is a useful feature for Linux users like me. But yeah, it is more expensive and it has many more features that, well, I won’t need.
The Evo16 is working well for me. Once I fined tune the settings with a PC, it does what I need when connected and standalone. It offers the flexibility I need and more (I’m not using talkback or the digital inputs). Although in theory line inputs are enough for synths, I am making good use of the gain available in the Evo16 inputs. I find their quick automatic calibration of gain is convenient too.
For these reasons, if I had to decide today, I would go for the SP8 expansion instead of selling the Evo16 and buying the Audiofuse 16. But I don’t have to decide yet, so I keep reading topics like this one just in case. 
PS: just for documentation purposes:
Just recently I replaced my old and trusted Scarlett 18i20 with EVO16+SP8 and have been very happy with the combo! I record both synths and acoustic instruments and the preamps sound great for both.
The auto gain feature is actually super handy when tracking multiple channels at the same time, and I had no problems with syncing the two devices. I also like Audient’s mixer control software. Routings and presets etc work just as expected.
The only thing that I miss in EVO16 is a MIDI interface, which the Scarlett and Audiofuse have. That’s something to keep in mind, if you use MIDI.
If you’re on windows, I recommend against the arturia hardware in the strongest possible terms — the drivers are absolute crap. Ditched mine for an RME that I’m exponentially happier with.
Thanks all,
I have no mics, purely drum machines and synths that I want to track out.
One benefit of two devices is I can physically move them apart and therefore spread the cabling. Although an all-in-one sounds simpler, and Arturia can be expanded beyond 16 inputs.
Only thing I’m less sure on having now sold my Tascam Model 12, is how I route a submix back to my sampler. Assume either Arturia and Evo16 have mixer routing capabilities via the software, but would be great to hear how that works in practice?
Essentially need to route my synths to a submix out back into my S2400. Ideally being able to toggle submix on and off would be good but I guess I can live with turning volumes down on the synths themselves.
I have a Mac, not windows.
I don’t know whether this would solve your problem, but in the Evo16 you can define several cue mixes and then you can designate different outputs for each cue mix.
This review does a good job showing the Arturia’s mixer, routing to outs and a demo of the round-trip latency. The routing matrix is super easy to follow. Just pop open the software, point your inputs to the appropriate out, save the mixer configuration & you’re good to go (even with the Mac off).
This demo from Arturia shows how simple it is to route an input to multiple outs simultaneously.
The Evo is probably capable of the same functionality, including the same almost non-existent latency.
Considerations:
I just bought the Arturia last weekend (haven’t had a chance to set it up yet). Got it because I don’t care about having loads of mic pres or internal FX, have a bit of outboard gear I want to use (including samplers like you). I also like Arturia’s software bundle.
Even with the cheaper price tag, reliability of ADAT & word clock, I personally wouldn’t get 2 devices like the Evos at once. I prefer to focus on learning on one thing at a time to learn that thing better.
Huh. This is the first I’ve heard about this! What problems did you run into?
Although the Evo16 and SP8 are two pieces indeed, the SP8 doesn’t add anything other than ports, I think? You learn to use the Evo 16, you plug the SP8, you see more ports but there is no new functionality to learn, I believe.
It’s been a couple of years, but everything from install glitches to constant driver crashes, often requiring a power off reboot of both the computer and interface, and on at least one occasion a driver reinstall. I’m pretty used to managing windows boxes, and it was genuinely shocking, especially compared to the SSL 2 I had before or the RME that I have now, both of which basically just work.
Originally, as I understood it anyway, they were just using generic ASIO drivers.
However, according to Arturia’s website, they have a new driver with firmware 1.1…
I’m currently in the market for a new interface, and the Audiofuse has been on my shortlist for a while now. So, if anyone can comment on these purported improvements, I’d be all ears.
Like, are they talking about an actual proprietary driver here?
Cheers!
That’s extremely encouraging, and may push me to finally purchase one!
I should probably mention that my AudioFuse 16Rig has had a few problems that are minor for me, but something to be aware of.
Happy with the sound and stability otherwise?
I’d find this encouraging and would sway me also, except that I haven’t seen a single report of less than 4.6 - 5 anywhere from users. 3ms? Hmm… under what conditions? (not that reported latencies have been horrible, but 3 would be stellar and I’ve not seen that…
5ms is still crazy good though.
Cheers!
Yeah, very happy overall. I am a hobbyist, not a professional, but it suits my needs perfectly.
I would imagine they’re talking about the overhead latency caused by the driver/USB communication, which you would add to the inherent latency of the buffer size you’re using.
