motu

[peat]

just heard about these products (guess im a bit behind)
what are peoples opinions on them?
what other software are they compatible with?

www.motu.com

[astrovic]

Other than the in-built pre's, only heard good things about them.

When upgrading my interface, it was a toss up between a motu and and a rme multiface (he says lovingly patting his new (second hand) multiface he finished setting up 5 mins ago)

[Chris H]

I have been using an 896 since they came out and it's been great.I'm on a mac using Logic Peak toast and iTunes, so it works with all my software.

[Kris]

I have an 828mk2. No troubles here. Does the job quite well.

[Sheer Noise]

I too have an 828mkII that I run with Logic Pro. I like it cause it's simple, but the converters could be better... I can't afford to do the upgrade, but may one day... who knows.

Dave

[graemeh]

I've got a 2408 Mk3/PCI-424 system - it's worked faultlessly every day for 3 years so far. And 2 of their Midi Interfaces also - well engineered and sturdy.

Their email support is quick and thorough as well.

[Jason Dirckze]

Another 2408mkIII owner here... hasnt skipped a beat, and I've had it for over 4 years now. Agree with the average converters though, but for home/project studio work it gets the job done.

[peat]

what defines a converter as average in your opinon?

[Sheer Noise]

the sound :P

[heathen]

I had an 828mk2 and sold it, I never liked the conversion quality either, very handy unit though. Much happier with Apogee.

Good converters should have great detail from the lowest freq's to the highest in the spectrum, they should have minimal jitter due to having a great internal wordclock. Main thing is they should have minimal artifacts, what goes in is what should come out, in a perfect world they should be transparent.

For a home setup the motu stuff is pretty good and usually reliable.

[heathen]

Average converters will sound grainy or hollow due to jitter and poor clocking, poor front end circuitry design and poor metering. They will have much less detail.

[chris p]

I've used a MOTU 828 (Mk I) for many years, so I reckon I know all about average.

Peat, to answer your question fully you need to think about the 3 things inside a MOTU unit: the preamps, the clock, and the converter. It is the design and integration of all three that makes one converter great and others just average.

The MOTU preamps are not world class, and here's the problem because everything, including line level inputs, generally goes through these preamps in MOTU designs. They tend to lack headroom, and are based on run-o-the-mill opamp ICs that are OK in their sweet zone but less OK outside that. Its a cost thing, but its a pity that you have to route everything through them, 'cause they can deaden the sound a bit.

The MOTU clock is again not its strongest point. A weak clock means jitter, which in technical terms means that samples are not taken at equal intervals, but in sound terms means an unfocussed sound stage. This can be fixed with a good external word clock, BUT that's more moolah.

The MOTU converters, however, are right up there. This is the chip that turns the analog into digital, and I for one have no probs with this aspect of MOTU units.

How it all gets integrated is also important. The clock signal inside the box can affect the signal going to the preamps, for instance, so purists would say to keep preamps and clocks in different boxes. Noise floor in the audio signal from the power and clock can also be a factor.

Compare this with the more highly regarded RME units, for example, and you are getting better (but not tremendously better) preamps, similar converter chips BUT a world class clock system. You also get some clever software around timing and limiting, but the reason RME costs more is (in my view at least) almost entirely the better clock, which gives noticably better recordings (even though the converter chips themselves are very similar).

So my tuppence is that a MOTU can deliver a top result PROVIDED you have good alternative preamps, you take care not to work the internal preamps too hard, and you have a solid external clock to which you can sync.

All that said (and I'm sorry to rant on),

[peat]

:)
last sentence made me laugh

thanks alot for your analysis and descriptions chris
i still cant believe how much crazy shit is involved with digital audio

right now at school i am using digi 96 i/o's and a creamware a/d
on a HD-2 pro mac and a control 24
so im pretty happy with that

but as you can imagine
i could never ever have enough money for that myself (being a student)
so im looking at alternatives
and the MOTU caught my attention

but as usual i guess i should stick to the industry standard
get a used 002 sometime soon

thanks for your help

[JulienG]

Personally, I'd go for more gear in the analog domain.

$5k buys at least 8 channels of good and varied mic pres, twice that on mics buys at least 8 really good mics and a few 57's for when you just need more channels.

That's my own basic plan for gear with the backend depending on the situation, I have an old 8 channel digidesign setup which I use when I need something local otherwise I plan to hire the backend for the recording and mix (mostly) in the box.

Yes a good digital clock is probably a good idea for most setups, and practically essential for setups with multiple devices.