This is the Audient iD4, and even though
it's several years old now, it's probably still my favourite
USB audio interface at its price point.
But they've recently released this similarly specced EVO 4
at a serious price reduction. So, today we're going to see
which is the better buy in 2020. Let's get undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone
and this colour is not a mistake. I did it on "purples".
So, I'd like to give a little disclaimer here.
This video is not sponsored. And I don't fancy myself
an audiophile or an audio professional,
I'm just an enthusiast end user who has specific needs
for my audio hardware. And so, I'd like to just share
my experiences, and if you're anything like me,
hopefully this will be useful to you.
When it comes to recording dialogue in my studio
or on location, I typically use a portable recorder,
like the Zoom F6, and in a previous video
I even demonstrated how I was able to use that Zoom
as my audio interface. But I don't like disconnecting
everything each time I take it with me to record,
so I like a more permanent interface installation.
In the budget realms, I usually recommended Steinberg
or Focusrite for that function. But if you have
a little more cash, I thought Audient was the way to go.
Their preamps and converters sound fantastic
and they also feature better headphone amplifiers
than those budget interfaces to drive your heavier cans.
But the Audient line starts at $199 with the iD4,
which might be cost prohibitive for some people.
Well, now Audient has the EVO 4, which is only $129
and more in line price wise with those budget interfaces.
And best of all, from my testing it sounds pretty much
the same as the iD and keeps all the same functionality
including the excellent headphone amplifier.
To compare the audio quality, I put each interface
through my battery of use cases. Typically, I use them
with a signal microphone for live streaming,
conference calls, or recording tutorials at my desk,
and I occasionally plug in a guitar or keyboard
to track some music or apply real time effects.
So, here's some comparisons of all three of those situations.
For the microphone, I used an Oktava MK-012 into the XLR input
with phantom power on. For the keyboard
I used the same input, but the TRS component of the combo jack
and set it to line level. And then for the guitar,
I used the DI input on the front, which as Audient claims
is a harmonically rich JFET input designed to replicate
the input stage of a classic valve amplifier.
Here's the samples. In the 1980s, Banner once again
gained control over the Hulk, and gained amnesty
for his past rampages. However, due to
the manipulations of the supernatural character,
Nightmare, Banner eventually lost control over the Hulk.
[similar quality] In the 1980s, Banner once again
gained control over the Hulk, and gained amnesty
for his past rampages. However, due to
the manipulations of the supernatural character,
Nightmare, Banner eventually lost control over the Hulk.
["Californication" guitar instrumental]
♪
[equally rich guitar music]
♪
["Für Elise" piano instrumental]
♪
[similar sounding quality]
♪
Now, no processing was applied to those recordings
but I also included a moment of silence
during each of those tests, and then normalized
the recordings to the same level and tested
the noise performance of them, and it ranged from
-69 dB to -75 dB during the quiet parts,
which is excellent and was similar on both devices.
But the EVO 4 did typically beat the iD4 by about 2-3%
when the gain was high. In terms of
the actual sound quality, it's a bit more subjective.
And I'm betting that if you listen to them on anything
but a decent pair of headphones, you probably
didn't hear a difference. My personal take
using my DT 770s is that for the talking vocal
they were identical, save for maybe a little more
compression on the iD4. The guitar sounded a touch better
on the iD4 to my ears. It seemed a little warmer
and smoother during the sustain notes,
and the piano was pretty much the same in terms of tone,
but the iD4 seemed to offer a touch better separation
between the lows and the highs. But that's me
being really picky, and I'd say each of those differences
is less than 5%. But let me know in the comments
which you thought sounded better,
or if you could even hear a difference.
If you read over the spec pages it would seem
that they've made some minor improvements to the hardware
on the EVO. They trade blows, but the EVO 4 wins
in several categories. But in my experience,
the numbers aren't everything when it comes
to what sounds good to your ears. But I'll include links
to each spec page in the description below
if you want to compare the values.
To get more information about the preamps used in the EVO 4
I reached out to the technical manager at Audient
who said that the iD4 uses the same console preamps
they use on all the iD range, as well as their flagship
recording console, which are meant to be fast, clean,
and neutral preamps. That can add a bit more weight
if you start to push them. The EVO 4, on the other hand,
uses a newly developed preamp design
which allows them to be digitally controlled.
This allows them to include features like Smartgain
and stereo grouping. According to Audient,
both use similar converters and the monitor outputs
and headphone amps are pretty much the same
on both units. The stereo grouping function
is quite useful, though, and we'll talk more about that
in a minute. But my advice when it comes to sound quality
is that they're close enough to suggest
buying whichever is cheaper, which in this case is the EVO 4.
So instead, it's going to have to come down
to form and functionality. You can tell the EVO 4
is cheaper because it's made of plastic,
where the iD4 is encased in metal.
It's a strong plastic, but it does have some give to it
and, if you squeeze it, you can make it click and pop
and separate a little, which I don't love. But, of course,
if it's just sitting on your desk, this won't matter.
There are some differences in the ports, though.
The iD4 only has one XLR input, which is a combo jack
with phantom power. And then input 2
is the instrument input on the front.
The EVO 4 has two combo jacks on the back,
both allowing for 48v phantom power,
and then the instrument input on the front,
which overrides one of the rear ports when used.
So, it still only has a total of two inputs,
but more flexibility in the device type,
as you can use two XLR mics, vs only one on the iD4.
Both have balanced TRS outputs and a USB port,
but the EVO 4's port is USB-C, where the iD4
is starting to show it's age here with a full sized
Type B port. On the front, though, the iD4 pulls ahead
with two headphone jacks, one at 1/4", and one at 3.5mm.
Both of which can run simultaneously
without reducing the volume of the other,
and which can run at the same time as the balanced outs.
The EVO 4 only has the one 1/4" headphone output
and it mutes the balanced outs when connected.
I prefer the iD4 here, which has a separate mute button
which you can use to only mute the balanced outputs
giving you more control over how you route your sound.
The iD4 also features dedicated knobs
for the gain of each input, your input DAW mix,
and your master volume. The EVO 4 does this differently
with only a single knob that changes it's function
depending on the button you press last.
So, if you press "1" and then turn the knob,
you're adjusting the gain of input one.
Then, if you press the "mix" button,
now you're adjusting your DAW mix.
And then, if you press the "levels" button,
now you'll be adjusting your volume.
It works fine, but I definitely prefer the dedicated knobs
on the iD4. However, the iD4's volume knob seems to have
a larger dead zone on it, which makes the EVO 4
feel a bit more responsive. And, of course, these differences
change the overall cosmetics of the units, and perhaps
you'd prefer the more modern look of the EVO,
instead of the more classic hi-fi vibes of the iD.
There is one limitation in the design of the EVO, though,
and that has to do with the metering. On the iD4,
the lights are colour coded. They go green,
yellow, and then red, and there's indicators
of -36, -18, -12, -6, and then 0. So, you have a better sense
of your levels. On the EVO, it's just a series of lights
that go around in a circle around the volume knob,
and they don't really give you much of a sense of how
your levels are set. The only thing you can really get
from this is whether you're clipping, which is determined
by if the lights fill all the way up.
But it would have been better, in my opinion
if they would have either colour coded the lights
or included a numerical guide alongside them.
Each device also has a unique button.
On the iD4, it's a function button that allows you
to press it and then use the volume knob
as a scroll wheel on your computer,
which is actually kind of handy for certain applications.
On the EVO 4, it's a Smartgain button that you can use
to set the gain levels automatically.
Now, while I could see the argument for this
providing some time savings, or perhaps helping beginners,
it's not something I would ever use as I prefer
to set my gain manually. Software wise,
they use pretty identical ASIO drivers,
allowing up to 96 kHz at 24-bit,
with a minimum round trip monitoring latency
of 4.1 ms on the EVO 4, and 4.55 ms on the iD4.
So, pretty much identical results.
One interesting quirk, though, is that the drivers
overwrite each other on install
and use a different config panel.
So, you can't actually configure them both
at the same time on the same computer.
Which made my testing a bit more tedious,
but shouldn't effect the average user much.
Generally, you're better off getting a larger interface
with more inputs and outputs than connecting
multiple interfaces. Otherwise, you run the risk
of introducing driver conflicts and software problems.
The EVO 4 does have a couple advantages, though,
on the software side. One, it has a loopback function,
so you can take the audio that you're listening to
through the device, like a song or a backing track,
and loop that back into your DAW as it's own track
to record it and play along with it, and this doesn't count
against your total input usage, so it's an optional
third track for the loopback.
The iD4 does not have this feature.
Also, getting back to that stereo grouping thing,
the EVO 4 installs all of it's inputs as separate devices
instead of a combo driver like on the iD4.
This means that you can enable your typical
left/right stereo pair as your device in the OS,
or you can choose just a mono input or output.
This has advantages in programs like OBS
that tend to treat everything as stereo
and use pan law to decrease your output
to an unwanted -6 dB when downmixing to mono
in the program. Well, with the separated inputs
on the EVO driver, you can choose a mono input in OBS,
which is not subject to the same downmixing issue
and is loaded as a proper mono device.
There is a workaround for this with the iD4,
which is to install the ASIO plugin for OBS,
and then you can separate your inputs in the same way,
but out of the box, this is an advantage to the EVO 4
if you use OBS a lot. Overall, there's really only
two reasons to not get the EVO 4 and save the $70.
First, if you prefer the look and design of the iD4,
because I do find it a bit more logically laid out
and don't love the plastic on the EVO.
Or, if you need that extra headphone jack
without muting your line outs.
The sound quality is slightly better on the iD4,
in my opinion, but I don't think it's $70 better.
But, if you're OK with the design and audio routing
on the EVO 4, then it's a no brainer.
It's $70 less, comes with an extra XLR input,
loopback, and more versatile drivers.
For my personal needs, I still prefer the iD4,
and luckily, both options are still going to be available
as I'm told the iD4 isn't being replaced.
So, now you'll have two fantastic options,
both offering probably the best sound quality
you can get at their respective price points.
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found this video
entertaining or at least helpful. And if you did,
make sure you leave it the old thumbs up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already.
But if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
try setting the playback speed to 75%.
Alright... I'm done.