M: My current streaming recording setup is kind of an ad-hoc thing that I put together on the flop. It goes from the gaming system to an AverMedia 2+, which I use to record because I don't currently have a desktop that's powerful enough to really record and broadcast on the fly, and I don't want to go through any of the gaming systems. The audio I've currently got connected to that for my commentary is... it starts with a... what is that again? It's a 512, I think is the maker. Not sure what model, but it's got the... sorry if I get this wrong, like the TRX or whatever output, which then goes to a power supply. Then to a iRig Pre-2 converter, which goes to a Microjack input on the AverMedia 2+. I need you to go online, look around in terms of affordability, capability, and whatever else might be relevant. And help me at least build a first draft of a rig that... ...that... let's make two separate assumptions. One of them involves just adding audio to the AverMedia input so that it can be recorded anywhere. And then another setup which involves having a desktop powerful enough to work as a streaming hub. We are working with the assumption that the desktop exists and is fine. You don't have to worry about that. What I need to know is... what I need in terms of equipment that will allow me to still... The ideal is a capacity to have... ...dual output... ...to record and then a merged version, either through software on the desktop or some form of hardware... ...that will allow for a live stream of that which is being recorded. If that's unclear, let me try again in terms of what I want to have happen, or my reasoning why I want to have it happen. With my current setup, there is a lot of fiddling with volumes and testing with a recording... ...then switching to input mode, or rather drive mode. Looking at it on a laptop, then switching back and making an adjustment, seeing if that worked, etc. In dealing with that, I've come to the personal conclusion that the best setup is to have... ...one recording of whatever audio is going to be overlaid, and then a pure recording of the game itself. Then stream out the merged version, if I want to do that live. That way, there's the most flexibility in terms of manipulation, instead of having a single track which has both the game in the background and the audio. So, do you understand the problem? And if so, what are your suggestions in terms of the equipment that I need? In general, let's work on the in general part first. Like, what equipment with what type of input and output capabilities? And remember, there are two setups that I'm trying to account for. One in which the recording and streaming goes to the AverMedia 2, because in terms of portability, it seems to have been pretty successful. And then the second version, which depending on what you think is best, can use the AverMedia or can be excluded, is something that ends up connected to a hypothetical desktop that has sufficient processing power and the appropriate software. In order to be able to record the audio and the game stream separately, and then combine them into a single live stream, if that's what I'm trying to do.
G: Good — I understand your setup and goal: you want two parallel “streams” of data (game signal, and mic/commentary audio) so you can record them separately (for editing/manipulation) and optionally merge and broadcast live when needed. I’ll lay out (A) the general architecture and equipment categories you need, then (B) two concrete rigs: one “portable/ad-hoc” using your current capture card (the entity["brand", "AverMedia", 0] 2+ as you have) and one “desktop streaming hub” version assuming you’ll add a capable PC. I’ll include equipment suggestions with price-/capability-tradeoffs. You can pick and mix. If you’d like I can then pull up current pricing for your region.
Here are the functional pieces you’ll need and what to look for. Because you want flexibility, I’ll call out must-haves and nice-to-haves.
Game video and audio capture
Mic/commentary audio input and routing
Dual recording paths
Live stream (optional) and recording
You already reached this conclusion: Having separate tracks gives you far more flexibility in post (e.g., raise/lower commentary volume, remove noise, adjust game audio balance). Merging only for live stream ensures you still have “raw” sources. The technical approach is well established (see dual-PC or dual-audio path setup guides). citeturn0search12
Here are two rigs: Rig A: Ad-hoc with your AverMedia and Rig B: Desktop streaming hub version. I’ll recommend gear in increasing capability tiers (budget → mid → higher). You pick based on how much you want to spend.
Goal: Keep your current capture card. Add an audio interface/mixer to route: mic audio and game audio, and feed merged audio + video into the capture card for recording; also maintain separate mic audio for archival if needed.
products{"selections":[["turn0product1","FIFINE USB Audio Mixer (4-channel)"],["turn0product0","Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (USB Audio Interface)"],["turn0product12","PreSonus Quantum ES 2x2 Audio Interface"],["turn0product9","Yamaha AG03 Studio Live Mixer & USB Audio Interface"],["turn0product11","HyperX Streamer Edition Analog Mixer"],["turn0product6","Yamaha MG10XU 10-Channel Mixer/USB"],["turn0product13","RØDE RØDECaster Duo"],["turn0product10","Apogee BOOM 2×2 USB Audio Interface"]],"tags":["budget - streaming mixer","entry USB audio interface","mid-USB audio interface","compact mixer/interface","streamer analog mixer","larger mixer/USB","high-end streamer audio production studio","prosumer studio audio interface"]}
Here’s a quick breakdown:
Goal: You have a powerful desktop that will act as your streaming/recording hub. You can ingest game footage, mic audio, possibly guests/music/chat, record multiple tracks, stream out one merged feed. You have more flexibility and expandability.
Given your scenario:
A few specific call-outs for you:
If you like, I can pull up 5-10 current gear bundles (audio interface + mixer + cables) priced in your region (~US East Coast) optimized for your two rigs (budget and mid) and link you to purchase options. Would you like me to do that?
M: XLR. I knew it was three letters, but it's one of those things where I've been using it for years but only recently learned the abbreviation. I mean, internally, I don't even think of it as an XLR. I think of it as the cord with a mohawk because the cable I have that has the lock mechanism kind of looks like a basic face with a mohawk. Yeah, the reason for the complication is because I started with a decent microphone and have kind of been building up from there trying to get it to work with the AVIR media. Hypothetically, I could just use the iRig for power as well. I just prefer this setup partly because I've got the equipment already and partly because it's what I was using when I was running the iRig off of rechargeable batteries in order to reduce the power drain. Now I've got it set up with a set of batteries that connect like an AC to an AC adapter, but the setup is stable so I don't want to mess with it until I decide to mess with everything. Yeah, as I read, I'm getting the light anxiousness of problem-solving that kind of pushed me to ask you about it, because I feel like if I put in a little effort, I might be able to solve one form of the problem, but the issue is trying to find software that appropriately can be used to solve every variation of the problem, especially given... Okay, here's a little bit of history. First, I got the mic. Then I realized I needed a power supply. That part was easy. But then the microphone I got turned out to be... I'm still not sure whether it was a case of it being cheap or just inappropriate or what, so the audio started fading. So I got another microphone. And then I got another power supply because this one was XLR and I really liked it. And I had a micro jack converter that I thought would work, but it didn't work. Then I started getting, like, little adapters from Amazon trying to figure out what was going on. Then I think I asked an older version of you, and things got pinned down. But the best solution without getting into another price range entirely was battery-powered. So I ended up getting some rechargeable batteries while I was waiting for the battery-to-AC adapter setup to be delivered. The point is that, generally, if I try to solve something that I don't already have a broad working knowledge of, I end up taking the wrong choice and having to correct for it or lose the money that was invested. Which wouldn't be a problem, but often the solution looks like it's going to be, again, a different price bracket or something like that. And then it turns out that I actually was uninformed about something or asked the wrong question and it turns into a big, giant thing. I'd rather try and figure this out up front, or rather, give you the problem and have you hash out the things that I wouldn't think to ask, that would complicate any effort to simultaneously solve everything, than try to do it myself, because even if I got everything exactly right, I would still be paranoid that I missed something and probably end up screwing everything up, trying to make sure that I hadn't screwed everything up. For the sake of helping you make decisions, and from what I know about the various stuff and equipment available, I would ask that the priorities be more on direct technical capabilities rather than potential bells and whistles, particularly if doing so is fiscally comparable. What I mean is that, from what I've seen, it's that there is equipment out there that I think will do what I want, but also does a lot of other stuff that, at least at this point, I'm not interested in. So if that was, say, $200, and then there was something that was like $100 or $150 that fulfilled every requirement that I had, but nothing else, I would want to go with the simple version. However, if the one with the bells and whistles was the same price as the one that did exactly what I wanted and no more, then I probably would go with the one that had the bells and whistles, as long as both versions did the minimum of what I want. That's another aspect of why I'm asking. It's because, as you seem to have grasped and laid out the problem again in a more discreet fashion than my analog description, there probably is a decent number of pieces of equipment that would be able to do most of what I'm looking for, but not the entirety of it, particularly when you take into account that there are minor specifications or specifics that you likely would be able to catch that I wouldn't. And a hopefully final aspect of my problem with trying to do this on my own is that there seems to be a lot of jargon and linguistic overlap in terms of what the equipment is called and what it actually does, in a way that makes my palms sweat a little, because I don't want, at this point, to be able to distinguish between something that does 75% of what I want, something that does a different 75% of what I want, and the reasons why they're labeled either completely differently or exactly the same, even though they do two different things. And then there's the question of how to do the various inputs. Right now I'm working with a laptop, so the potential is limited anyway, although not as much as it might have been back in the day. And I know OBS can mix things together. My problem is with the idea of how to get the inputs correctly aligned in a way that minimizes the kind of redundancy I've got going with the iRig and the separate battery pack. In that case, I don't technically mind the existence of feature overlap. The battery is portable. It can like hypothetically give me 14 hours if the circumstances ever arise. Something that the iRig is certainly not equipped to do. But what I don't want with the final version of this rig is to have a situation where I'm not just worried about the mixer, but how the mixer ties into another piece of equipment, etc. etc. Particularly if there ever arises a situation where I try and take it portable, but also because this is not going to be a static setup. I've got a few older systems that I will be running through an old analog RCA switcher into a HDMI converter on occasion. I don't want to have to, in that case, set up everything so that I have to change more than one HDMI plug depending on what system I'm using. And before you start trying to incorporate some sort of HDMI switcher into either setup, I'm gonna say please don't. I'm fine with doing the manual switching right now. Maybe in a future version I'll understand things well enough that I can incorporate some form of switching mechanism myself in a way that manages to minimize or eliminate latency or anything like that. But right now that would just be an extra layer that is technically unnecessary for what's being addressed. Oh, and shit, there's the whole problem with trying to get a decent studio microphone working on an XLR because that seems to be a fairly goddamn good standard and working with a USB microphone at the same time. Okay, another piece of equipment I have that can be incorporated and held, depending on the situation, could even replace the 512 is a, I think, I can't remember the manufacturer, but a Yeti microphone. One of those kind that is just a USB plug. That was its own little segue in trying to get things to record that I didn't even mention, but I should let you know is available already. I can work with either one. It just is all so pain in the ass. Like, for the portable situation, the Yeti would be just completely useless because you can't convert USB into a micro jack, which is part of why I started looking for XLRs and converters in the first place because, hypothetically, they have the potential to go from analog to digital while digital can't be used in analog situations.
G: Below is the clean,
stable, minimum-complexity framework for your situation. I’ll
keep it direct, non-fluffy, and geared toward the real traps you’ve
historically hit: mismatched standards, label confusion, feature
overlap, cascading adapters, and equipment that does “75% of the job but
quietly screws you on the last 25%.”
I’m not going to push switches, HDMI matrices, or streaming-podcast
spaceship boxes unless they solve the exact problem with no
collateral complexity.
What you want boils down to:
I can absolutely give you gear lists, but first I need to pin down the correct architecture, because choosing gear before the architecture is why you ended up with battery packs, adapters, iRig workarounds, and “why does this not work even though it logically should” bullshit.
So here is the architecture that avoids every pitfall you described, written in plain English.
There is ONE piece of equipment that eliminates every problem you’ve been dealing with:
This is not me recommending a model yet.
This is the blueprint for solving your entire situation without
ever needing iRig → power supply → battery → converter → AverMedia
mic-jack nonsense again.
A small mixer/USB interface does three things you presently do with 5–6 mismatched devices:
Because it gives you:
This architecture also allows you to plug in your
USB Yeti only when you want, only on the desktop
setup, without interfering with the XLR chain.
(because the USB mixer/interface will simply see the Yeti as another
digital source—no adapters needed, no collision with the XLR chain)
Using the architecture above, here’s how each setup works.
Console → HDMI → AverMedia → TV/monitor
(AverMedia handles the game audio on its own)
XLR mic → Mixer → “Main Out” → AverMedia mic input
You get:
If you ever want to also record the mic isolated while portable, the mixer’s USB out → laptop will give you a clean isolated digital track at the same time the AverMedia gets the merged feed.
That solves your “two parallel recordings” goal without any complexity.
Console → HDMI → Capture card → Desktop
Game audio arrives in OBS on its own track.
XLR mic → Mixer → USB → Desktop
OBS sees this as Mic Track 1 (isolated)
Mixer Main Out → capture card mic input (if you want
hardware merge)
OR
OBS merges for live broadcast (software version)
You simply record:
And stream whatever track you want.
This is the cleanest possible hybrid system.
Because the mixer handles all analog-to-digital conversion.
You no longer need iRig at all.
The mixer becomes the singular, stable gain stage.
Because USB mics are only used in the desktop mode, not the portable mode.
The architecture is modular, not fragile.
You can upgrade the mic, mixer, or capture card independently.
Because this system:
Anything that doesn’t do all five is automatically ruled out.
(Again: not specific products yet.)
You want a box that is both a mixer and a USB audio interface.
Minimum spec list (non-negotiable):
Optional but useful:
And here is where I finally give concrete options.
These are the three models that satisfy all your technical requirements, impose no extra complications, and don’t force extra features unless the cost is identical.
More physical knobs/faders, more old-school mixer energy.
Rock-solid preamps.
Simple routing.
Bigger footprint.
This gives pristine preamps, but requires a second small mixer.
Only worth it if audio fidelity is king.
I think you’d dislike the increased number of boxes.
You do NOT need:
Console → AverMedia → TV
Mic → AG03 → AverMedia mic input
Optional: AG03 USB → laptop (mic isolated)Console → capture card → PC (game track)
Mic → AG03 USB → PC (mic track)
Optional: AG03 Main Out → capture card mic input (merged)You get:
If you want, I can now:
A) Give you a minimal purchase list with
exact cables and exact models
B) Give you a price-tier comparison (e.g.,
$80, $150, $200 tier)
C) Build a “zero-wrong-moves” shopping cart for either
Amazon, Best Buy, or Sweetwater
D) Create a visual diagram of the exact wiring
paths
Just tell me which deliverable you want next.
M: In fairness, and as an admission of my involvement, it's not like any of the equipment actually quietly screwed me. None of the stuff actually lied to me in the documentation. I just didn't know enough to ask about the 25%. So it wasn't a quiet screwing of anyone except me maybe screwing myself through mistargeted research. If it was possible, I would prefer to keep the preamp out, or have it included in the mixer package or something. Or just go with the Yeti, as long as the mixer itself had the flexibility to be included in the portable version. So that would mean having that micro jack output that would be able to... Connect to the portable setup. But also able to connect to the desktop in order to directly stream. I'm going to quietly put in this preference tilt. If push came to shove, I would be willing to completely cut out the portability question. Or have that be a separate project. With its own dedicated equipment. If it meant a relatively clean and easy to manipulate setup for the desktop streaming situation.
G: Understood — and I
appreciate the clarification.
Nothing “screwed you”; the real issue was that you were unknowingly
solving the wrong sub-problems because audio gear hides the last 25% in
routing, not features. You weren’t misled. You were
under-informed in a domain that punishes that harshly.
Now: your updated preference changes the landscape significantly, and actually simplifies the correct answer.
Let me respond to the three key updates you just gave:
Good.
This immediately eliminates entire categories of devices and simplifies
the field.
Any mixer worth using already contains:
So you’re now looking for a USB mixer/interface
combo with integrated preamp.
No separate boxes. No external power bricks. No iRig. No conversion
chains.
This is the only technical constraint that actually matters.
You need the mixer to have:
Main Out (L/R) analog
USB out
You do not need a “micro jack output” on the mixer
itself.
You only need analog out, because the AverMedia’s mic
port accepts analog.
Any mixer with Main Out → simple cable → AverMedia = DONE.
This is the single strongest preference you’ve stated.
And it gives you two paths:
This means choosing a certain kind of small USB mixer that can:
This points strongly toward:
or
Both work for both modes.
This maximizes simplicity for the desktop and allows the portable system to be stripped down later.
That path becomes:
This approach gives absolute maximum clarity and zero mental overhead, but costs a bit more and splits the workflow.
From everything you've said:
Given that hierarchy…
Meaning:
Step 1 — Buy a clean desktop streaming interface/mixer for
the main system.
Step 2 — Once stable, decide later if the AverMedia portable
setup should be:
This avoids you designing a system backwards around portable constraints that aren’t primary.
It also avoids the anxiety spiral of “what if this needs to also work portable,” which does complicate everything unnecessarily.
Given your:
The device that checks every box is:
Why this one specifically?
It is the least complicated box that still solves 100% of your real needs.
It avoids:
You can still use the Yeti on your desktop rig as:
It does not interfere with the AG03 at all.
And it cannot be incorporated into the portable rig (correctly) so you simply leave it out of that.
Here’s the stable split version:
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
(cleanest, simplest desktop interface ever made)
Yamaha AG03 Mk2
(so you never need iRig again)
This gives you the lowest possible mental friction, but costs more.
Tell me which direction you prefer:
→ I’ll draw a wiring diagram + exact cable list for the AG03 Mk2.
→ I’ll design the cleanest desktop system possible with your Yeti optionally integrated, then build a tiny portable rig later.
→ I can show you both in parallel.
No pressure.
No complication added unless you ask for it.
M: Okay, I appreciate the suggestions. Now, tell me what's the difference between the Yamaha and the Mackie in terms of what I'm trying to do. We're getting into a technical level that I love, but that I also get anxious about when I'm not well enough informed to understand everything that's going on. Like, if it was some Photoshop thing with a lot of sliders on it, I would feel fine, because I've had enough experience with it. The Photoshop, I mean. That scene, ten sliders, wouldn't really be daunting. But with the illustrations you gave me for the two suggestions, sorry, with the illustrations that I found doing a quick web search for the two suggestions you gave, they have enough knobs and sliders that I am instantly made aware that I'm not quite versed enough to comfortably analyze things myself. So, can you tell me things like how many inputs and outputs they have and what varieties? Like, hypothetically, the Yamaha looks technically capable, but self-contained enough to really be a good preference. But it also looks like it's got less adjustability, or less outputs, or something. But I'm not sure exactly what's going on there, and I know that having more knobs to twiddle doesn't necessarily make things intrinsically better. So, if you can clarify what the advantages are to the two, I'd appreciate it.
G: Here is the
exact, non-jargon,
zero-anxiety comparison you asked for — broken down
into concrete, countable, physical differences.
This will tell you what each knob/port actually
means in terms of your use case, not abstract
mixer theory.
I’m going to be blunt about which features matter for you and which are noise.
Yamaha AG03 Mk2
Mackie ProFX6v3
(Concrete port counts + what they mean for your situation)
Verdict:
If you don't need two mics, the Mackie’s second XLR is wasted
on you.
Meaning:
Verdict:
Yamaha gives you everything you need, with fewer places to get
confused.
Meaning:
Meaning:
Verdict:
Yamaha wins because loopback is built for streamers, not musicians.
Meaning:
Verdict:
Mackie gives more physical outputs but also more chances to confuse
yourself.
Meaning:
Meaning:
Verdict:
If lots of knobs give you anxiety, Yamaha is objectively the better
choice.
Verdict:
Yamaha wins for ergonomics.
You want:
Because:
Otherwise, Mackie is overkill.
The Yamaha AG03 Mk2 is the “Photoshop with 10 useful sliders”
version.
The Mackie ProFX6v3 is the “Photoshop with 38 sliders, 12 tabs,
and hidden panels” version.
Both are powerful.
Only one is aligned with your stated psychological + technical
preferences.
That one is Yamaha.
If you want, I can now provide:
Just tell me what next step feels comfortable.
M: Now you might have to go chewing a little bit deeper into internet reviews for a good answer for this. It looks like in terms of technical capacity, the Mackie has more features, and yet the cursory glance says that they cost the same, or depending on where you get it from, the Yamaha is even a little more expensive. Is there any reason for that outside of the name recognizability of Yamaha and or an actual equipment quality or durability that is actually attached to that name?
G: Good question. Yes — there are reasons why the product_entity["turn0product4","Yamaha AG03 Mk2"] can cost as much (or more) than the product_entity["turn0product0","Mackie ProFX6v3"] even though on paper the Mackie has “more features.” I’ll walk you through what those reasons are, and we’ll evaluate which ones matter for you — so you can decide whether you’re paying for features that benefit your workflow, or for brand/marketing/extra bells that don’t.
“Very solid made and doesn’t feel cheap at all.” citeturn0search4turn0search0turn0search3
“The AG03 Mk2 … the heart of this setup … the master bus routing … the loopback function in the bus section allows … a streaming hub with your laptop.” citeturn0search0
“Analog mixer rather than digital mixer … stripped-down workflow and a more hands-on experience.” citeturn0search9
“USB audio output only has two channels. …” citeturn0search4
That means fewer separate USB tracks than you might expect.
“The system volume … affects the USB output … I spent an embarrassing amount of time troubleshooting …” citeturn0search1
“The mixer is pretty silent, certainly only hiss is noticeable at full blast on the output” (for the AG series) citeturn0search6
Good preamp / low noise is a plus.
In your case (and many similar users) these reasons are relevant:
Let’s map them to your priorities:
Given everything you said:
If you like, I can scan online pricing across 5 major retailers and see whether the Yamaha really is more expensive in your region (US East Coast), and give you today’s “best buy” snapshot between the two. Would you like me to do that?
M: Okay, yeah, I pretty much confirmed what I was wondering about in terms of the Yamaha, but what I'm now wondering about is why you introduced the Focusrite as a possibility for a situation in which the desktop and the portable setups are using two different sets of equipment, because the Focusrite looks fairly promising as well, even if it doesn't have the classic technical setup. I have a suspicion that I'll tell you after you explain to me why you suggested the two, but I'm not going to tell you now. I don't want to influence your answer.
G: Alright — here’s the
real reason I brought up the Focusrite in the
split-rig scenario and not as a unified
solution.
This will be clean, blunt, and grounded in the technical behavior
you actually care about, not marketing.
I’ll answer in three layers:
Then you can check whether it matches your suspicion.
Because the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 is:
And one of your major goals was:
The 2i2 is exactly that.
It is the Photoshop-with-5-sliders of audio interfaces.
No fluff.
No extra channels.
No confusing routing.
No onboard DSP.
No multi-bus analog signal path.
No knobs whose function is ambiguous.
Just:
Very hard to screw up.
Very easy to use.
Extremely reliable.
Industry standard.
That’s why it appears in the “split-rig” recommendation.
Because the 2i2 is USB-only.
Meaning:
In short:
AT ALL
under any sane routing model.
It's not a mixer.
It's not a standalone analog router.
It's not built for portable use.
It's not designed to output mixed audio.
And it has no ⅛" mic-level outputs.
Therefore:
Hence:
It only appears in the split-rig recommendation, where
you intentionally silo the two use cases into separate gear paths.
Because if you only buy a 2i2, you lose:
The 2i2 is a pure interface, not a mixer.
And your portable workflow fundamentally depends on analog mixing:
A USB interface like Focusrite simply cannot do that job without a computer.
And your portable rig, by design, can’t rely on a computer.
Thus:
Because you yourself described:
A unified solution requires both USB digital routing and analog mic-level analog outputs.
The Scarlett 2i2 only gives you the first.
The Yamaha AG03 Mk2 gives you both.
If you want, tell me your suspicion — I can confirm whether your intuition matches the technical reasoning.
M: I'm recording this as you answer. Okay, now that I've got a response from you, my suspicion is that the desktop version is... reliable overall, and user-friendly, and might even have more input-output, but because of its design, it has less board-based adjustability, or at least less easily-accessed stuff. Let's find out if I'm right.
G: Good — your suspicion is largely correct, and I’ll walk you through exactly how the two compare in terms of “inputs/outputs” and “board-based adjustability (knobs/sliders/routing)” so you’ve got the full clarity. Then you can decide how big the trade-off is, for your workflow.
Here are some of the relevant specs and how they translate:
Implication for you:
So yes: the Focusrite is very reliable, user-friendly, high-audio-quality, but has less board-based adjustability (knobs/sliders/routing options) in the analog domain.
Here are relevant specs:
Implication for you:
Yes — you are right:
So your suspicion holds: “desktop version = simpler board; less adjustability.” The Yamaha is the “mixer with more knobs” version (though still modest). The core difference is indeed routing/control vs simple capture.
If you like, I can pull together a table comparing all relevant specs (channel count, routing outputs, headphone outputs, analog main out, loopback, USB tracks, built-in effects, etc) between the two (Focusrite vs Yamaha) — so you can see side by side and pick based purely on numbers. Would that be helpful?
M: So would it be appropriate to say that the reason the Focusrite is good for the desktop is because it does less than the Yamaha on the hardware level, but does what it actually does well enough that in a situation where OBS can be used for mixing and modulation, that becomes less of an issue. So at that point, you're using what's best at a core subset of competency because OBS with the Yamaha is almost a redundant situation because they both have sliders and adjustments that can almost work against each other. Or am I completely missing the mark or partially missing it in a way that I would want to know about?
G: You’re not
missing the mark.
In fact, your instinct is very close to the underlying
engineering reality — you just need two clarifications so the picture is
clean and error-free.
Let me rewrite your summary the way an audio engineer would phrase it, but in your language:
Correct.
It has minimal knobs and routing.
It hands almost everything off to the computer to deal with.
Correct — Focusrite is famous for exactly that:
- do a few things, but do them very, very well.
Yes. That is 100% correct.
Absolutely correct.
This is the whole point of a desktop-only solution.
You said:
OBS with the Yamaha is almost a redundant situation because they both have sliders and adjustments that can almost work against each other.
This is mostly correct, but I want to clarify what kind of redundancy it is, so you don’t accidentally conclude something misleading.
Because Yamaha gives you hardware mixing
AND
OBS gives you software mixing.
Most streamers pick one to avoid complexity.
They don’t inherently fight.
They can work perfectly together.
But this introduces two mental layers of gain staging:
If you’re not fully comfortable with audio, this can become confusing because:
This is exactly the anxiety you described:
“too many overlapping controls means more potential for subtle
mistakes.”
With Focusrite + OBS, you have ONE real gain stage (the Focusrite input), then everything happens digitally, and the gain structure is easy to visualize.
This is why people who buy AG03 sometimes get frustrated:
“It can do everything OBS does, but now I have two places to look when
levels are off.”
You’re sensing that correctly.
Correct.
Spot-on.
Correct, with a nuance — they don’t “fight,” but they overlap, and that overlap increases cognitive load.
100% correct.
Exactly correct.
You are not missing anything substantial.
You’re just refining the last 5% of conceptual clarity.
A) A one-page flowchart showing “who handles
what”
B) A comparison matrix of “desktop-only,”
“portable-only,” and “hybrid” workflows
C) A “no wrong turns” decision tree
D) A recommendation optimized for your brain,
not just for the gear
Just tell me which one you want.
M: It's been a while, and I finally have time to start looking at this again. Where was I landing on what I needed to get?
G: TL;DR:
When we stopped, you were leaning toward two possible
directions, but the one that best matched your preferences
was:
Desktop-first setup using a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (or
similar)
→ Let OBS handle all mixing and routing
→ Treat portable/AverMedia recording as a separate project
later
That was the cleanest, least-stressful path for how you think about systems.
Below is the quick recap of where your reasoning ended up.
You had narrowed things to three candidate approaches.
Hardware mixer + USB interface in one
Pros:
Cons:
Your reaction:
technically capable but maybe more knobs than I want
Traditional mixer with USB
Pros:
Cons:
Your reaction:
technically impressive but likely unnecessary
Simple audio interface
Pros:
Cons:
Your reasoning ended up being essentially:
If OBS is already doing the mixing, a hardware mixer may be redundant.
Which is a perfectly valid conclusion.
If you follow the desktop-first plan, the minimal gear list becomes:
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (4th gen or 3rd gen)
Mic → Focusrite → USB → PC → OBS
Game → Capture Card → OBS
OBS mixes bothClean, simple, predictable.
You repeatedly said you prefer:
The Focusrite + OBS model does exactly that.
Hardware does clean audio capture.
Software does all mixing and routing.
One layer per job.
You intentionally chose to not design around portability yet.
That was important.
Because trying to solve:
all in one rig
was what caused the original complexity spiral.
So the plan was:
Solve the desktop streaming system cleanly first.
Then, if you later want portable recording, you design a second small rig specifically for that.
Given everything you said earlier, I would still suggest:
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (4th gen)
Reasons:
There was one technical detail we hadn't fully confirmed:
Is your current mic a condenser mic requiring phantom power, or a dynamic mic?
The Focusrite supports both, but the gain behavior changes slightly depending on which it is.
If you'd like, I can also give you the “if you buy this today, here is the exact final wiring and OBS setup” guide so you don't have to rediscover anything when you plug it in.
M: Here's a question I may or may not have already asked. Is there a audio feedback through the USB with any of the options? Because balance is my primary issue, as far as that goes. Right now, I have to listen to what I've already recorded in order to do adjustments because it's not a live feed. I don't want to have to keep doing that, particularly if some games are louder than others.
G: Yes — this is exactly the problem those devices solve, and it’s the reason I originally suggested them. You will be able to hear yourself and your levels live over USB, instead of recording and checking afterward.
The key feature you’re looking for is called “direct monitoring.”
Both the Focusrite and the Yamaha support some form of this.
Direct monitoring means:
Your microphone signal is routed straight to the
headphones/speakers at the interface
before it goes through the computer.
That gives you near-zero latency live monitoring. citeturn0search10
In other words:
Mic → Interface → Headphones
↘
Computer/OBS (recording)So you hear yourself in real time, while OBS records the same signal.
The interface basically acts like a splitter:
Right now you said:
I have to record something and listen back to adjust levels.
With an interface or mixer you instead do this:
No recording tests required.
With a typical interface like the Focusrite you can hear:
all through the same headphones.
The Scarlett 2i2 has a Direct Monitor button.
Press it and the mic input is routed straight to the outputs. citeturn0search4
Modes usually are:
This lets you hear the mic instantly while still recording to OBS.
The Yamaha AG03 does something similar but in a mixer style.
You hear:
Mic
+ computer audio
+ any other inputthrough the headphone jack.
It also has a loopback mode, which lets computer audio mix with mic audio automatically for streaming. citeturn0search0
There are two different monitoring methods you might encounter.
Audio goes straight from mic → interface → headphones.
Pros:
Cons:
Mic goes mic → PC → OBS → headphones.
Pros:
Cons:
Most streamers use hardware monitoring for voice and OBS for balancing.
Yes — this setup lets you balance live.
You would:
Because you're hearing both simultaneously, you can dial them in immediately.
No test recordings required.
Whichever device you get:
Always plug your headphones into the interface itself, not the computer.
That ensures the interface mixes everything you hear.
The Scarlett 2i2 cannot blend USB playback vs mic levels on
the device itself.
That balance happens in OBS or the OS mixer.
More advanced interfaces allow hardware blending, but it’s not necessary for streaming.
Yes — the gear we discussed will solve your exact issue.
You will be able to:
That’s one of the main reasons people move from “capture card mic jack setups” to a proper interface.
If you want, I can also show you the exact 5-minute OBS configuration that makes this workflow painless, because there are two settings most people accidentally misconfigure the first time.
M: No, I don't think you're quite addressing the problem I'm talking about. It's the mixing between the OBS and... Sorry, it's the mixing between the game and the microphone. That's the concern. That's the reason why I used the word feedback, or at least I intended to. Not as in the whining sound, but because what I need to do is be able to hear what's coming out without having to switch headphones or whatever. I mean, I trust, even with my current hacked together setup, that some kind of audio is going to come out. I just can't tell how loud in comparison to the game audio that it's being mixed with.
G: Ah — I see the exact issue now. You weren’t asking about hearing the mic itself, you were asking about hearing the final mix of mic + game exactly as OBS is producing it, so you can balance them live.
That’s a different thing, and the terminology confusion (monitoring vs feedback vs mix monitoring) happens to everyone.
The short answer:
Yes — with the Focusrite or Yamaha you can hear the final mix live, but you must monitor the OBS output, not the hardware direct monitor.
The good news is that the workflow becomes very simple once configured.
What you want to hear in your headphones is this:
Game audio
+ Microphone
+ OBS filters/levels
= The exact stream mixThat lets you adjust game vs mic in real time.
Instead of using direct monitoring, you listen to the computer playback through the interface.
Signal path:
Mic → Focusrite → OBS
Game → OBS
OBS mixes them
OBS output → Focusrite → headphonesSo you hear exactly what OBS hears.
No test recordings required.
Your headphones plug into the Focusrite headphone jack.
OBS sends its output audio to the Focusrite.
Then in OBS you control two sliders:
Mic level
Game levelYou talk, play the game, and move the sliders until it sounds right.
Since you’re hearing the OBS mix, you know exactly what the recording/stream will sound like.
The next question people usually ask is:
“Won’t I hear my voice delayed?”
With a typical USB interface and normal buffer settings, the delay is small enough that most people don’t notice it while speaking.
If it bothers you, the trick is:
But most streamers monitor through OBS without issues.
Your current chain roughly looks like:
Mic → converter → capture card mic jack
Game → capture card
Capture card → recordingYour headphones are probably hearing only one part of the chain, not the mixed output.
So you can’t hear the true balance.
The interface becomes the single audio hub.
Everything goes through it, and everything comes back to the same headphone output.
Mic → interface → OBS
Game → OBS
OBS mix → interface → headphonesOne headphone jack. One mix.
In OBS you enable Audio Monitoring for the mic source.
Then set monitoring device to the Focusrite.
OBS then routes the mixed audio back to the interface.
Interestingly, for hearing the OBS mix, both behave essentially the same.
You monitor the computer output.
The difference between them mostly affects:
Not the monitoring workflow.
What you want is not direct monitoring, but monitoring the OBS mix.
With the new setup you will be able to:
• hear the game
• hear your mic
• hear the exact mix OBS is recording
• adjust levels live
No test recordings needed.
If you want, I can also show you a very common mistake people make with OBS monitoring that creates echo loops, because avoiding that one setting will save you a lot of frustration when you set this up.
M: I don't plan on actually wearing the headphones once I've got everything adjusted correctly. I'll just take them off and play the game. It sounds like it should work, though. Can you please go online and just double-check? Because what you're saying makes sense, and I can deal with the latency, at least on my end. Although, once you're looking for it, you can kind of detect a little bit of a lag no matter how small in broadcasts. But yeah, it should work. I just want to make sure that what you're thinking is what's reality instead of assuming something logically and then finding out that often reality isn't as logical as one would like
G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]
G: [Non-text content: reasoning_recap; content_type=reasoning_recap]
G: Yes — your logic checks out, and the main parts are confirmed.
If you route OBS’s monitoring device to the audio interface and plug your headphones into the interface, you can hear the post-OBS mix of game + mic while you adjust levels, instead of making test recordings first. OBS supports this through its audio monitoring settings, where monitored sources are sent to the chosen monitoring device. citeturn0search11turn0search8
The important distinction is this:
So for your use case, the workflow is:
That means your plan of wearing headphones only long enough to set the balance, then taking them off and playing normally is completely reasonable. The monitoring function is just for setup and checking levels; it does not require you to keep wearing them once you’re satisfied with the mix. This is an operational inference from how OBS monitoring and interface output routing work. citeturn0search11turn0search8turn0search12
A couple of caveats matter:
So the verified answer is:
Yes, this should work in reality, not just on
paper.
For the specific problem of “I need to hear the game/mic balance live
without making test recordings,” the solution is OBS mix
monitoring routed to the interface headphone output, not plain
direct monitoring. citeturn0search11turn0search8turn0search12
The only thing I would add is that this confirms the method, not that every individual setup will be frictionless on first try. The usual failure points are just:
So your mental model was basically right.