Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Add those few additional specs because we could be missing some part that would get you the best answer. As for now, it seems to be pay attention to what the individual plugins are, and define your buffer settings to immediate requirements.
After plugging in and powering up, I installed and opened the Universal Control application, assuming it would provide a way to create cue mixes and provide other software mixing features, which is usually the case with units that offer this many channels.Once you are in the Thunderbolt realm for audio, it does not matter if you have Thunderbolt 2, 3, or 4. They are all so fast relative to even multi-channel 192k audio it is not worth considering one vs. the other.
As on the Studio 192, the level of the main outputs is governed by a large front-panel knob. This applies attenuation in the analogue domain rather than digitally, which helps preserve sound quality at low levels, and means it should still be operational in the event of some digital calamity spewing noise into your speakers. Within UC, it’s also possible to bring any or all of the other output pairs under the control of this attenuator; so if, for instance, you want to use four of the line outputs to connect the subsidiary speakers in a surround system, you can have global volume control over all six 5.1 channels. Mute, dim and mono fold-down are also accessible from UC as well as from the front panel, but there is no provision for alternate speaker switching (which, personally, I’d find more useful than the dim control). In as much as the PreSonus software is straightforward to use, if you want to get the freebies that are on the Studio Magic bundle you will have to be more resilient.Pros of the PreSonus Quantum 2626. I am running Windows 10 on a Dell XPS 15 laptop. Again, I have connectivity, I just can't get my headphone outs to work or route them to my Mains like I've seen people do on the Quantum 26x32 interface through Universal Control, like in this video: I've had the chance record a full band and I'm quite pleased with the sound especially for this price range. Overall it's quite a clean sounding interface but not harsh, sounds great on drums, guitars and vox. Does good job of capturing transients and has a nice rounded character. Removal of some features that drop the price is common and standard practice for products. Thunderbolt tech is not cheap to develop and it is hard to meet these price points. I've already outlined the differences in the products so I'm not going over it again.
RME Babyface Pro FS Audio Interface – A Real-World Review
This year’s Quantum 2626 is a streamlined version of the earlier flagship model, offering similar headline features but at reduced cost. Gone is the detailed LED metering, the digitally controlled preamps and the monitor-controller functions of the first Quantum. What remains is the focus on the lowest possible latencies, plus a wide range of ins and outs, including the lauded XMAX mic preamps. The dark side steinber wrote2-My computer is a 2018 Mac Mini that uses Thunderbolt 3, with a USB-C form factor connector. That means that with the newer Quantum 2626 I could just plug in a normal thunderbolt 3 "C to C" cable, but with the original Quantum, I would need to use a Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter. The absence of a routing matrix, DSP mixer, built-in effects and so on make using the Quantum 2626 refreshingly simple. You select your sample rate, open your DAW of choice, set your buffer size (I used the lowest option of 32 samples), and you're set. Everything behaved exactly as expected, with the one exception being that the headphone outs never quite went fully off; even at 'zero' there was still a very low-level signal. In terms of sound quality, though, there was nothing to fault. Indeed, the noise and distortion specs appear completely unchanged across the board compared with the original Quantum, and they are certainly more than good enough to not impose themselves. All types of signal I tried it with — mic, line and instrument — were handled perfectly well. I tend to really dig in when I'm playing bass, for example, and can easily overload lesser instrument inputs and DI boxes, but that wasn't the case here. I even had to turn the gain up a bit on the 2626, which made a nice change from having to turn my bass down or find a device with a pad to put between me and the input. Since using the 2626, I've actually come to enjoy using my DAW more. From a bandwidth point of view the Quantum 2632 (th2) will easily cope with all the inputs and outputs even with four units connected together - Subject to a fast CPU (possibly) with more cycles per second eg - Intel 7700 K @ 4900 Mhz - Delidded for example or a 10 Gen Intel 10850 K and you'll get all the performance you'll ever need.
PAE Seth wroteQuantum Series DOES NOT have hardware leveling mixing. At no time have we ever advertised otherwise. People are lying if they say otherwise. With a barely measurable round-trip latency of less than 1 ms, it's no wonder Sound on Sound magazine dubbed Quantum-series Thunderbolt audio interfaces the "fastest audio interface on the planet." The Quantum 2626 uses the Thunderbolt 3 bus and PreSonus®' proprietary driver to achieve the lowest round-trip latency of any audio interface (as low as <1 ms). Now you can record and monitor with up to 24-bit, 192 kHz fidelity through your favorite plug-ins, without leaving the DAW.According to PreSonus, the unit has the “lowest round-trip latency of any audio interface available.” They say it can be under 1ms round-trip, depending on your setup. That seems right in the ballpark based on the performance I was getting. I don’t have the statistics available to compare it to other Thunderbolt 3 interfaces, but I can say unequivocally that it’s the fastest interface I’ve ever used. To preface, I'm now a pretty simple setup, and I'm usually working on demos or other projects, podcasts, videos, etc, and on the music side, at the most I'll have a few people in the room. I am in no way running any kind of complicated studio from home. Has anyone used the monitor controls on both and found one of them more comfortable or better feeling than the other. I know this is getting more than a little anal retentive, but this is the control I will use the most and want it to feel nice when adjusting, not loose or wobbly, fiddly to reach for and adjust, etc. Connect and switch on quantum and open Universal Control (This was when I got the solid blue light that we all have been searching for).
I didn't explain that well, it was just a way to narrow down problem synth, if that is the case - not for permanent change of song. The first two inputs are designed for mic or instrument, while the remaining Inputs (3-8) interchange between mic and line. This depends on the kind of connector that is used. Next to these are preamp gain controls and simple multicolored LED metering to signify the activity and clipping on each channel. If you don't see a benefit to having as close to real time monitoring, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Plenty of folks enjoy this workflow, including myself. Personally, if I wanted hardware DSP and routing, I'll just use a Digital Mixer, which offers a lot more than some 8 channel interface. rodatarodi wrote PAE Seth wroteQuantum Series DOES NOT have hardware leveling mixing. At no time have we ever advertised otherwise. People are lying if they say otherwise.The PreSonus Quantum offers spectacularly low latency and a simplified way of working. Is it the best Thunderbolt interface you can buy?
Great Deal 
New Comment