Arturia AudioFuse Studio Rev2 Review: Hybrid Studio Interface

The Arturia AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is an update to an interface that was already built around a more ambitious idea than simply providing a few microphone inputs. The core 18-in/20-out architecture remains, but Arturia has revised the DiscretePRO preamps, updated the Bluetooth section, and expanded the AudioFuse Control Center with better preset management, routing, clocking, and monitoring options. The important question is whether those changes materially improve the interface in a working studio.

For a hybrid setup, the answer is more interesting than the specification sheet suggests. Four mic/line/instrument inputs, four additional line inputs, four analog inserts, dedicated reamping outputs, ADAT, dual monitor outputs, independent headphone feeds, MIDI, and digital I/O allow the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 to function as a central routing point rather than just an A/D converter with preamps attached. That can remove a surprising amount of patching and auxiliary hardware from a mixing room. For a simple two-channel recording setup, most of that flexibility is unnecessary.

Why the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 Makes Sense in a Modern Hybrid Studio

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is designed for a studio where the interface is expected to do more than handle recording. Its value comes from acting as a permanent routing hub for microphones, instruments, outboard processing, monitors, headphones and digital expansion. That puts it in a different category from compact interfaces built primarily around a small number of inputs and software-based monitoring.

The hardware provides four DiscretePRO mic/line/instrument inputs, four additional line inputs, four analog inserts, dedicated line and reamping outputs, ADAT, S/PDIF, Word Clock and MIDI. Inputs 5–6 also provide RIAA phono preamps, while two independent headphone sections and two pairs of balanced monitor outputs make it practical to serve different monitoring and cueing requirements from the same interface.

The rear-panel USB hub is another small studio-integration detail: three additional USB ports can keep controllers, storage or other peripherals connected to the interface rather than consuming computer ports.

The significance of that I/O becomes clearer once the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is left permanently wired into a working room. Synths can stay connected instead of being patched in for every session. External compressors and EQs can remain on the interface’s inserts. A guitar or bass track can be sent to an amplifier through the dedicated reamping outputs without adding another interface or reamp box. A second monitor pair can remain connected, while ADAT provides a path to additional inputs if the studio grows.

This is where the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 makes its strongest case. None of these functions is particularly unusual on its own, but combining them in a desktop interface reduces the amount of repatching required as a mix moves between recording, hardware processing and monitoring. For a hybrid studio, that operational efficiency is often more valuable than another incremental specification improvement.

What Changed in AudioFuse Studio Rev2 — and What Did Not

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is an evolutionary revision, not a new interface platform. The desktop form factor, 18-in/20-out architecture and hardware-oriented workflow remain largely intact. The meaningful changes are concentrated in the DiscretePRO preamps, Bluetooth implementation and firmware/software side of the system, so the central buying question is not whether Rev2 replaces the original concept, but whether those refinements matter to your particular studio.

For a new buyer, the distinction is less important because Rev2 inherits the original Studio’s unusually broad I/O architecture. For an existing owner, however, the upgrade case depends almost entirely on the revised features rather than on any fundamental change in connectivity or converter architecture.

The main hardware change is the revised DiscretePRO preamp implementation. Current Rev2 coverage describes the redesign as an optimization aimed at lower distortion rather than a completely new preamp architecture. That is a more meaningful change than the unchanged four-channel count suggests, but there is still not enough independent Rev2 measurement data to quantify how large the improvement is in practice.

The software revision is more significant than its position in the hardware specification suggests. AudioFuse Control Center 2.5.0 adds preset import and export, updated clock management, more flexible output routing and expanded monitoring support. Because the AudioFuse Studio’s value depends heavily on managing a large number of physical connections, these changes improve the part of the workflow that determines how easily the hardware can actually be configured and recalled.

What has not changed is equally important. Rev2 remains an 18-in/20-out desktop interface built around analog connectivity, hardware inserts, reamping, dual monitor outputs, independent headphone feeds and digital expansion. It does not introduce an onboard DSP ecosystem comparable to Apollo, and it does not turn the AudioFuse Studio into a fundamentally different converter or routing platform.

That is why the Rev2 should be judged primarily as a refinement of a distinctive studio workflow. If the original AudioFuse Studio already solved the connectivity problems in your room, the new revision is unlikely to transform the system. If you are buying into the platform for the first time, however, the refinements arrive on top of an architecture that was already unusually broad for a desktop interface.

For existing owners, that makes the upgrade case relatively narrow: Rev2 is best understood as a refinement of an already flexible interface, not as a generational replacement that makes the original obsolete.

Four Preamps Are Useful; the Real Advantage Is Everything Around Them

The four DiscretePRO preamps are designed primarily for low-noise, low-coloration capture rather than for imposing a distinctive preamp character. That is a sensible choice for an interface intended to handle everything from vocals and acoustic instruments to synths, guitars and external line-level sources. Arturia’s published specifications indicate low input noise and substantial dynamic range, although those figures should not be treated as a substitute for independent Rev2 measurements.

Independent reviews of the original AudioFuse Studio were positive about the preamp section. Tape Op characterized the preamps as quiet, open and natural, while MusicRadar found them sufficiently transparent that tonal coloration could be handled later in the signal chain. Those assessments are useful context for the Rev2, but they are not measurements of the revised hardware itself.

That distinction is important. There is currently no substantial independent measurement set showing that the Rev2 delivers a dramatic change in noise, distortion, frequency response or dynamic performance compared with the original Studio. The revised preamp design may improve measurable performance, but the available evidence does not justify presenting Rev2 as a fundamentally different-sounding recording interface.

Another Rev2-specific detail is the inclusion of an individual performance certificate with each unit. That does not replace independent laboratory testing, but it is useful supporting evidence that Arturia is documenting unit-level performance rather than relying only on a generic product specification.

For a professional recording and mixing setup, that is hardly a weakness. A neutral preamp is valuable precisely because it does not demand attention. The practical requirements are straightforward: sufficient gain for the source, low noise, adequate headroom and predictable behavior across different sessions. The stronger argument for the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is what happens after those four preamps—the inserts, routing, monitoring and reamping facilities that let them become part of a larger hardware workflow.

Four Analog Inserts: A Major Advantage for Hardware-Based Mixing

The four analog inserts are one of the AudioFuse Studio Rev2’s most useful features for a hardware-based mixing setup. In practical terms, they matter more to most mix engineers than the updated Bluetooth implementation or the bundled software.

The first four channels provide direct integration with external processors, allowing compressors, EQs, saturation units, preamps and other outboard to remain permanently connected to the interface. That changes the workflow in a small but important way: hardware becomes part of the normal signal path rather than something that has to be patched into the system for each session. The same principle is central to the Harrison Flex-10’s analog front-end approach, although that interface puts more emphasis on shaping the source before A/D conversion.

This is particularly useful for repeatable chains. A vocal channel, drum bus or mix-bus processor can occupy a known insert path, while the DAW handles recall of the session and the AudioFuse handles the physical I/O. For a hybrid room, that can make external processing considerably less cumbersome than working with an interface that provides only line outputs and requires additional routing hardware.

There is a clear boundary, though. Four channel inserts do not constitute a general-purpose hardware patch matrix. The available insert points are associated with the interface’s input channels, so they do not provide the same flexibility as a patchbay when routing multiple processors between individual tracks, buses and stereo chains.

For a modest hybrid setup, the built-in inserts can eliminate a significant amount of external infrastructure. Once the number of processors and routing permutations grows, a patchbay still becomes useful. The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is therefore best viewed as a capable central I/O hub with integrated hardware inserts—not as a replacement for a full studio patching system.

Reamping Is a Genuine Workflow Advantage

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2’s two dedicated auxiliary outputs can be used for instrument-level reamping, making it possible to send a recorded DI signal back to an amplifier, pedalboard or other instrument-level chain without adding a separate reamp box to the setup. The outputs can also be used for control-voltage applications with compatible analog equipment, extending their usefulness in electronic-music workflows.

The reamping workflow is straightforward: record a clean guitar or bass DI, keep the performance in the DAW, and route it back out through the appropriate output when the amplifier or effects chain needs to be auditioned. The source performance stays fixed while the hardware chain can be changed later, which is particularly useful during mixing when the right guitar tone has not been decided during tracking.

For a hybrid studio, the value is less about the novelty of reamping itself and more about integration. The required outputs are already part of the interface, so reamping can remain a normal part of the studio’s routing rather than becoming a separate setup that requires additional hardware every time a DI track needs to be processed.

That makes the reamping outputs one of the AudioFuse Studio Rev2’s more practical workflow features—especially for guitar-based production and hardware-heavy electronic setups. For a deeper look at how a dedicated hardware processor can build on the same reamping concept with its own modeled signal paths, see the TONEX Board’s approach to guitar reamping.

Monitoring Is a Major Part of the AudioFuse Studio Workflow

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 has a monitoring section that is unusually complete for a desktop interface. Two balanced monitor outputs, two independent headphone sections, and dedicated controls for functions such as mono, mute and dim make it possible to handle monitoring and cueing without relying entirely on the DAW mixer. The system also includes PFL monitoring and a built-in talkback microphone, with talkback assignable to the speaker and headphone destinations.

Those details matter most during tracking rather than mixing. A producer and performer can work from separate headphone feeds, while the engineer can communicate through the built-in talkback system without adding another monitor controller or cue-routing box.

For mixing, the biggest advantage is the ability to keep two monitor systems permanently connected. Nearfields and a secondary reference system can be switched without reaching behind the desk or repatching the interface. That makes translation checks part of the normal mixing workflow rather than an occasional interruption.

The same principle applies to headphones. Independent headphone outputs allow different listeners to work from separate cue sources, which is useful when a producer and vocalist, musician or engineer need different monitoring feeds. In a small hybrid room, avoiding another layer of headphone distribution can simplify the physical setup considerably.

These functions are not especially impressive as isolated specifications. Their value comes from reducing friction during a session. Monitoring decisions happen repeatedly while mixing, and a routing system that makes those checks immediate is more useful than one that technically supports the same tasks but requires constant patching or software-mixer intervention.

Bluetooth Is a Reference Tool, Not a Monitoring Upgrade

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 updates its Bluetooth implementation with support for AAC, aptX, aptX HD and aptX Low Latency. For a studio interface, the practical benefit is not higher-end monitoring but easier access to a consumer playback reference.

A mix can be checked through the Bluetooth path to get another perspective on how it translates outside the main wired monitoring chain. It is also convenient for quick reference playback from a phone or laptop without changing the studio’s physical routing.

For critical mixing or mastering decisions, however, Bluetooth should remain a secondary reference. Codec processing and the wireless signal path make it inappropriate as a replacement for the primary wired monitoring chain. The useful workflow is simple: make tonal and balance decisions on the main monitors, then use Bluetooth as an additional translation check.

Audio Performance: What the Available Evidence Supports

The original AudioFuse Studio established a solid technical baseline, with published measurements covering input noise, dynamic range, distortion and frequency response. Independent reviews likewise described the interface as quiet and transparent. That evidence is useful context, but it cannot be transferred directly to the revised Rev2 hardware.

The qualification is important because the Rev2 does not yet have a large body of independent laboratory testing covering converter performance, noise, distortion, frequency response, jitter and channel separation. There is therefore no strong evidence at this point to claim a dramatic sonic improvement over the original AudioFuse Studio.

That is a different conclusion from saying the converters are inadequate. For mixing, the available evidence supports treating the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 as a serious professional interface rather than a weak link by default. In a properly calibrated monitoring system, differences between competent modern converters are unlikely to be the first limitation an engineer encounters.

There is one practical limitation worth keeping in mind when planning digital expansion: the AudioFuse platform supports up to eight ADAT channels at 96 kHz. That is more than enough for many 44.1/48 kHz recording setups, but engineers working at higher sample rates should not assume that the full eight-channel ADAT expansion remains available.

For mastering, the evaluation becomes more system-dependent. Monitoring accuracy, room response, gain structure, analog-chain quality and long-term driver stability can have a much larger practical effect on confidence in a mastering decision than a claimed generational improvement that has not been independently measured. The same principle applies before the signal ever reaches the mastering chain: a well-prepared mix gives the engineer far more useful information to work with, which is why preparing a mix for mastering is part of the technical process rather than a separate administrative step.

AudioFuse Studio Rev2 vs. the Main Alternatives

The original AudioFuse Studio was compared directly with an Apollo X Twin in MusicTech’s testing, where the Apollo was judged slightly more defined in spatial and dynamic terms while the AudioFuse was praised for its sound and substantially broader connectivity. That comparison is useful because it illustrates the fundamental trade-off rather than establishing a universal winner.

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 makes the most sense when the interface is being evaluated as part of an entire studio system. An Apollo is the more compelling choice when integrated DSP is central to the workflow; RME becomes attractive when driver maturity and routing infrastructure take priority; MOTU can make more sense when digital expansion dominates the requirements. AudioFuse’s advantage is the combination of analog integration, monitoring and reamping in a single desktop interface.

Who Actually Benefits From the AudioFuse Studio Rev2?

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 makes the most sense when several parts of a studio need to remain connected at the same time. A hybrid producer with multiple synthesizers and drum machines, for example, can use the additional line inputs and digital expansion without constantly repatching the interface. The same architecture works well for a mixing engineer who keeps outboard processors, a second monitor pair and reamping equipment permanently integrated into the room.

It is also easy to identify the situations where the AudioFuse is not the rational choice:

• Two-channel recording: if the studio normally uses one or two inputs, much of the AudioFuse’s architecture will remain unused.
• DSP-first recording: if realtime plugin processing is central to tracking, an Apollo-class ecosystem may be a better fit.
• Maximum driver maturity: if long-term driver support is the overriding priority, RME remains a stronger benchmark.
• Existing AudioFuse Studio owners: a working original unit does not automatically need replacing because the Rev2 retains the same fundamental I/O architecture.

For recording, the four DiscretePRO preamps provide a straightforward way to handle small sessions, overdubs and project-studio tracking while leaving the rest of the I/O available for instruments and external hardware. The interface becomes more compelling as the number of connected sources increases; its value is harder to justify when only one or two inputs are normally in use.

Mastering is a more specific case. The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 can function effectively in a hybrid mastering setup, particularly where monitoring, analog processing and routing flexibility matter. It should not, however, be positioned as a dedicated mastering converter on the basis of the currently available evidence. Its strongest argument is system integration, not a demonstrated generational leap in conversion performance.

The same distinction applies to simpler recording and content-creation setups. At the current U.S. street price of $999, much of the AudioFuse Studio Rev2’s value comes from features such as ADAT, Word Clock, analog inserts, reamping and multiple monitoring paths. If those functions will never be used, a simpler interface can provide a more rational use of the budget.

What the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 Price Actually Buys

At its current market price, the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 should not be evaluated as a four-preamp interface alone. Its price is easier to justify when the same unit also replaces or consolidates part of the studio’s monitoring, hardware-insert, reamping and digital-I/O infrastructure.

The value changes when the entire studio signal path is considered. The AudioFuse combines multiple analog inputs, hardware inserts, dedicated reamping outputs, dual monitor connections, independent headphone feeds and digital expansion in a single desktop unit. Depending on the setup, that can reduce the need for additional routing and monitoring hardware and, more importantly, reduce the amount of physical repatching required during a session.

That makes consolidation the most useful way to think about the price. The question is not how many preamps or converter channels you get for the money, but how much of the studio’s I/O and monitoring infrastructure the interface can replace or centralize. The answer will be very different for a two-channel recording setup than for a hybrid room with several hardware processors and instruments.

The bundled software is a secondary consideration for a professional buyer. Presets, control software and included creative tools add convenience, but they should not determine the purchase. The hardware has to justify the $999 price through its I/O, routing and day-to-day workflow, and that is where the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 makes its strongest case.

Real-World Production Perspective: Mixing, Mastering and Translation

In a real mixing setup, the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 makes the most sense when outboard is part of the normal signal path rather than occasional gear. A compressor can stay on a vocal channel, a hardware EQ can remain available for a stereo bus, and a guitar reamp path can be kept connected between sessions. The DAW handles the project recall, while the interface provides a consistent physical I/O framework around the hardware.

That distinction matters with analog gear. The interface does not magically recall the settings of an external compressor or EQ, but it does eliminate much of the physical setup that would otherwise have to be rebuilt from session to session. Once the hardware connections are established, the engineer can work from a known routing configuration instead of repeatedly moving cables and troubleshooting signal paths.

For mastering, the same connectivity can be useful, but the priorities change. A mastering chain may require a stereo hardware loop, accurate monitor switching and a reliable way to audition references. The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 can accommodate that workflow, but there is currently not enough independent Rev2 measurement data to argue that its conversion is materially superior to other serious professional interfaces. In a mastering environment, the monitoring chain and calibration therefore deserve more attention than claims of a generational converter improvement. The broader question of when analog hardware actually contributes something useful, rather than simply adding another stage to the chain, is covered in Analog Mastering vs Digital Mastering.

Translation work is where the interface’s monitoring flexibility becomes particularly practical. A primary monitor pair and a secondary reference system can remain connected, while the Bluetooth path provides another way to check a production under consumer-oriented playback conditions. The advantage is not that any one of these references is inherently better; it is that switching between them does not require rebuilding the studio’s physical signal flow.

Driver Stability and Long-Term Reliability

With a professional audio interface, driver stability is part of the hardware decision. The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 depends on Arturia’s AudioFuse Control Center and driver software for configuration and computer connectivity, so long-term usability is not determined by the I/O hardware alone.

Arturia is still maintaining the AudioFuse software platform: its current support page lists AudioFuse Control Center 2.5.0.1665, released on September 8, 2026, alongside AudioFuse Studio firmware 1.3.2 from August 2026. That is positive for current support, although it does not by itself establish long-term driver reliability across every OS and DAW configuration.

The more meaningful comparison is with manufacturers that have built an unusually strong reputation for long-term driver support. RME, in particular, has made driver stability and backward compatibility a major part of its professional appeal. AudioFuse does not necessarily need to match that reputation to be a viable interface, but buyers who prioritize years of predictable operation should factor the difference into the decision.

For a project studio, the AudioFuse’s extensive I/O and hardware integration may outweigh the possibility of occasional troubleshooting. In a commercial facility or mastering room, where an interface is expected to remain available with minimal intervention, driver support deserves greater weight because downtime has a direct operational cost.

The practical approach is simple: before buying, verify Arturia’s current driver and firmware support for the specific Windows or macOS version used in the studio. For an interface that may become the central routing point for an entire room, software support is part of the product—not an afterthought.

Is the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 Worth Buying?

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is easiest to justify when its connectivity will be used as part of the studio’s normal signal flow. A room with several hardware instruments, outboard processors, multiple monitor systems, reamping needs or planned ADAT expansion can make practical use of the interface’s unusually broad I/O. In that context, the AudioFuse can consolidate functions that would otherwise require several additional pieces of hardware.

The calculation is very different for a minimal recording setup. If the studio normally uses one or two microphones, a single pair of monitors and headphones, much of the AudioFuse’s architecture remains unused. Paying for inserts, reamping, digital expansion and extensive routing only makes sense when those capabilities solve an actual workflow requirement.

For an existing AudioFuse Studio owner, the upgrade case is narrower. Rev2 retains the original platform’s fundamental I/O architecture, so there is no compelling reason to replace a working unit simply because a newer version exists. The revised preamps, updated Bluetooth and Control Center improvements become relevant when they address a specific limitation in the current setup.

For a new buyer, the argument is stronger. The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 combines extensive analog I/O, hardware inserts, reamping, multiple monitoring paths and digital expansion in a single desktop interface. The purchase makes the most sense when those connections will remain active throughout normal production rather than being occasional features on a specification sheet.

Overall Rating

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 earns its 8.6/10 primarily through connectivity and workflow rather than a claimed generational improvement in sound quality. Its strongest use case is a hybrid studio that will keep outboard, instruments, monitoring and digital expansion connected. The main reservations are the evolutionary nature of the revision, limited independent Rev2 measurements and the importance of long-term software support.

Verdict: An Excellent Studio Hub, but a Modest Revision

The Arturia AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is a strong choice when an audio interface needs to function as the center of a hybrid studio rather than simply provide microphone inputs. Its competitive advantage is unusually clear: it combines recording I/O, analog inserts, reamping, monitoring and digital expansion in one desktop workflow.

That strength should not be confused with a major sonic redesign. Rev2 refines the existing AudioFuse Studio with updated DiscretePRO preamps, a newer Bluetooth implementation and improvements to the AudioFuse Control Center, but the fundamental platform remains the same. There is also not enough independent Rev2 measurement data to support claims of a dramatic converter-performance improvement.

For a new buyer building a hardware-integrated mixing or production setup, that is not a significant drawback. The interface’s value is in how much studio infrastructure it puts behind a single set of I/O and monitoring controls. For an existing AudioFuse Studio owner, the decision is less compelling unless the revised features address a specific limitation in the current system.

The bottom line is straightforward: the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is worth considering for engineers who will use its connectivity every day. It is much harder to justify for a minimal recording setup, and it is not a compelling upgrade solely on the expectation of substantially better conversion. Its strongest feature is the workflow it enables, not the generation number printed on the front panel.

Arturia AudioFuse Studio Rev2 FAQ

Is the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 worth buying?

It makes the most sense for a hybrid studio that will use its analog inserts, reamping outputs, multiple monitor connections, additional line inputs and digital expansion. For basic two-channel recording, much of that I/O goes unused, making a simpler interface a more efficient choice.

Is AudioFuse Studio Rev2 worth upgrading from the original?

For most owners of a fully functional original unit, there is no automatic reason to upgrade. Rev2 refines the DiscretePRO preamps, Bluetooth implementation and AudioFuse Control Center, but the fundamental I/O architecture remains intact. The upgrade makes more sense when one of those specific changes solves a limitation in the existing setup.

Is the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 good enough for professional mixing?

The available evidence supports using it for professional mixing. Independent testing of the original AudioFuse Studio found its audio performance solid and transparent, while the Rev2 retains the same fundamental architecture. Its strongest advantage for mixing is the integration of outboard, monitoring and routing rather than a claimed breakthrough in converter performance.

Can the AudioFuse Studio Rev2 be used for mastering?

It can be a practical interface for a hybrid mastering setup, particularly when external analog processing and multiple monitoring paths are required. There is not yet enough independent Rev2 measurement data to position it as a dedicated high-end mastering converter, so the quality of the complete monitoring and analog signal chain remains the more important consideration.

Does AudioFuse Studio Rev2 have lower latency than the original?

A clear Rev2 latency advantage has not been established by independent published testing. The revision focuses on the preamps, Bluetooth and firmware/software refinements rather than introducing a fundamentally different low-latency architecture. Actual round-trip latency depends on the computer, driver, sample rate, buffer size and session load, so buyers who prioritize extremely low monitoring latency should compare measured performance rather than rely on the Rev2 label alone.

Does AudioFuse Studio Rev2 work with Windows and macOS?

The AudioFuse Studio Rev2 is supported through Arturia’s AudioFuse Control Center and driver software for compatible Windows and macOS systems. Compatibility can change with operating-system releases, so users should check Arturia’s current support documentation for the specific OS version they plan to use.

Is AudioFuse Studio Rev2 better than Apollo?

Neither is universally better. Apollo has the stronger proposition if realtime UAD DSP processing and the UAD software ecosystem are central to the workflow. AudioFuse is more compelling when the priority is extensive physical I/O, analog inserts, reamping and hands-on studio routing.

Is RME better than AudioFuse Studio Rev2?

RME is particularly attractive for engineers who prioritize long-term driver maturity, routing and platform stability. AudioFuse offers a different set of strengths, especially its combination of analog inserts, reamping, monitoring and broad connectivity in a desktop format.

Can AudioFuse Studio Rev2 replace a monitor controller?

It can cover the basic monitoring functions required in many project and hybrid studios, including multiple monitor outputs and dedicated monitor controls. Whether it can replace a dedicated monitor controller depends on the number of sources, monitor systems and routing functions required by the room.

Can AudioFuse Studio Rev2 be used for hardware reamping?

Yes. The two auxiliary outputs can provide instrument-level reamping, allowing a recorded DI track to be sent back through an amplifier, pedalboard or other instrument-level hardware. This can eliminate the need for a separate reamp box in many setups.

What is the difference between the AudioFuse Studio and AudioFuse Studio Rev2?

The Rev2 keeps the original AudioFuse Studio’s core 18-in/20-out architecture, four-preamp design, analog inserts, reamping, monitoring and digital connectivity. The revision focuses on updated DiscretePRO preamps, an updated Bluetooth implementation and firmware/software improvements rather than introducing a fundamentally new converter or routing platform.