Will Cubase Support 2nd Interface via ADAT ?

Cubase
#1

I’m on Mac…I use an Apogee Element interface with only two outputs. I’d like to set up a single cue send in Cubase for a singer. Someone suggested adding an inexpensive 2nd interface with ADAT in which would connect to the Element. Then when setting up the cue send I would choose the 2nd interface and just have the talent use the headphone out of the 2nd interface.

Will this work? Will Cubase even see the 2nd interface since only the Element will be chosen as the main interface?

Thanks much
Tom

#2

In this instance, the ADAT device will just be an extension of the Apogee Element; you’ll see the additional I/O wherever you currently see the Apogee Element I/O. Although technically, an ADAT device is an “interface”, in this example it isn’t an additional ASIO device.

#3

Great, so just plug the 2nd interface into the Mac as well, connect the two via optical, and I’m done…right? So dumb about this stuff…:wink:

#4

The ADAT device will connect via optical to the Apogee Elements, not the Mac. The Behringer ADA8200 is fine for line signals. The logo even looks like Apogee’s. :stuck_out_tongue:

#5

You do not necessarily need a full fledged audio interface. Depending on what exactly you need, an A/D or D/A converter that outputs to ADAT and connects directly to your Apogee will work.

#6

It might be simpler to connect both interfaces to your Mac, then create an aggregate with the Audio midi app to treat them as a single virtual device.

#7

No, it would be simpler to just add an ADAT converter to the existing Apogee.

#8

There are pros and cons, but I would consider it simpler since there would be no need to bother with the ADAT link. Or are you saying you’ve tried the aggregate approach and it didn’t work?

#9

Why complicate matters? The ADA8200 comes with fibre optic cables, just plug them into the Apogee and there you go – 8 more I/O.

#10

Is that true for ASIO cards running in ASIO?

#11

I think you’re over thinking this, as has been explained if you just use two optical cables to connect the ADAT ‘box’ to your interface your system will just see the extra inputs (and possibly outputs, depending on your ADAT 'box) so as far as your system is concerned nothing has changed, you don’t need extra drivers or to hang crystals above your rig :wink:
It’s INCREDIBLY straight forward as has been described to you already.

Yes this is true for ASIO cards. Have used ADAT and s/pdif for donkey’s years with no issues at all.

One caveat, if you want to work at rates above 48Kkhz some ADAT devices will halve the amount of channels they can provide and some will just refuse to work, as was the case with the original Behringer ADA unit as i found out many years ago when trying to track at 96Khz… that was an interesting session for many reasons lol

#12

The aggregate method will probably work but it will also definitely increase your latency.

I can’t actually think of any pros of using the aggregate method unless you don’t have the option of an ADAT input.

#13

And potentially stability. I love that the option exists for specific tasks but I’d never have it running longterm due to the above issues.

#14

Combining multiple devices will always add a small amount of latency. That’s true of the the ADAT option as well. Assuming the cue mix is direct monitoring, it won’t matter anyway. I use an aggregate every day and my experience has been that it’s quite reliable. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that there are options. For that matter, if the OP only needs a single additional headphone out, they don’t even need a second interface.

#15

+1

#16

How are you defining ‘quite’ good, though? I can’t go more than 2-3 hours in Cubase without an issue occuring using aggregate device. And i’ve tried all different configurations. Not doubting it’s good for you, but it’s the word ‘quite’ that makes me think that it’s not ideal for you also?

It seems to me that more recent MacOS versions seem to be less reliable when using aggregates. Of course, very much depends on connection, device and what latency you’re trying to attain. For me i ideally want under 12ms, and the aggregates have been with workstation synths (Yamaha Montif/Montage) that i wanted to connect their digital/audio interface outs into Cubase, and a Fender Mustang amp.

I’ve never tried with two dedicated audio interfaces however.

#17

By “quite good” I mean I’ve never had any problems. I’ve used it on High Sierra and Mojave. My RT latency is under 15 msec. But for your setup, I assume you’re monitoring direct? In that case latency should be of little consequence.

I’m just offering an idea for an option to the OP, one that could eliminate the need to purchase a second interface. I don’t know enough about the details of what he needs to make any claims about what is “best” for him.

#18

Yeah I see the ADA unit would work, but then it has no headphone out so I would have to take two analog outs from it and go into a headphone amp (another purchase) for the vocalist. Something like the Audient ID14 interface does have a headphone out on it so might be a cheaper solution…thanks all.

#19

Let me start over…

Do you have an audio output on your Mac? If so, you can create an aggregate device that combines that output with your Apogee. That will give you the extra cue mix/output. No second interface required.

Maybe this won’t work for you, but I thought I’d mention in just case it’s a useful idea.

#20

Sorry for the late reply…yes my iMac has a 1/8 inch stereo headphone out jack…