DP and MOTU Brand Interfaces vs Other Brands

[JSmith1234567]

I'm thinking about replacing my MOTU audio interfaces with one of the Focusrite audio interfaces.

I use DP8 as my main software, and I do not use the zero latency monitoring.

Are there any advantages you can think of for staying with the MOTU brand interfaces as far as the way they integrate with DP?

Thanks!

[Kubi]

Zero latency monitoring. Don't know how you manage without it, I certainly could not.

I use separate AD converters. The MOTU converters are very competitive for the price, but there are of course better converters that cost more - a lot more per channel. I use the MOTU's digital ins and outs and get to have the best of both worlds - upgraded AD/DA quality and zero latency when I need it.

Other than zero latency, I think there aren't any real disadvantages to using non-MOTU interfaces. I'm sure some interface drivers have more trouble with the Mac OS than others, but that's independent of DP. MOTU drivers are rock solid, so that's a definite plus.

[bayswater]

Zero latency monitoring. Don't know how you manage without it, I certainly could not.

It's not unique to MOTU interfaces. Focusrite does it too. It's really just a matter of having a switch to bounce inputs to outputs.

[oldecuriosity]

One advantage of MOTU interfaces - if you ever have to call tech support for DP, having the MOTU interface makes troubleshooting slightly easier for the technician . . . can't blame the problem on the hardware (or vice versa, I guess). I recently bought another microlite and 4pre, and after having issues with the microlite, I didn't have to worry about one company blaming the other for incompatibility or such.

On the other hand, assuming the hardware works they way it should, can't think of any huge disadvantage on using non-MOTU brands.

[James Steele]

It's funny... I'm sure there are plenty of good third party interfaces out there, but when I first began putting together my studio and knew that I wanted to be using DP, it seemed like the wisest move I could make was to go with MOTU interfaces, just because I knew it it was logical that they'd be the ones best tested with DP.

I'm very happy with my HD192 in terms of the audio quality. I invested in having the fan upgraded and it's quite quiet and I can see it serving my needs for years to come. Plus, because of CueMix, and can get the zero latency monitoring which for me is something I couldn't do without.

[Phil O]

I'm sure there are converters out there that blow the MOTU stuff away, but I'm not convinced any of them are from Focusrite. I think you'll find that the MOTU stuff is probably in about the same class sonically. You may hear some differences, but better? Dunno. I have an old Rosetta 800 from Apogee. It's a step up from my original 828's, but it's not that much better that I've abandoned them. One of them is still hooked into my system for when I need extra channels and the other is part of my mobile rig. MOTU converters are not super high end, but they still do an admirable job. If you're looking for really high end, you'll have to spend a LOT more.

Phil

[Prime Mover]

I was under the impression that for converters, MOTUs were second to none... Though of course preamps go way on up. Wasn't that part of the findings that RadioGal did?

[Babz]

One of the biggest advantages of using DP with a MOTU audio/MIDI interface is that the driver updates are always kept in step with DP or OS updates. Also helps in a tech support situation -- you're dealing with only one company.

The one area where I would like to see improvement is CueMix. I recently decided to go mixerless for the first time and rely on an 828mk3 and Cuemix for everything and it has been a more difficult adjustment than I had hoped. Cuemix is powerful, and you can do all sorts of fancy stuff like multiple monitor mixes with effects, but it is complex and confusing, and poorly documented. It is all about monitoring INPUTS. There is no fader for the adjusting level of the tracks coming from DP relative to the live inputs. Would love to see an a hardware fader on the front of the interface for adjusting the blend between disk tracks and live input. I have a Lexicon interface that did this well, but, alas, Lexicon stopped updating the drivers and let it become a legacy product. MOTU has always been great at keeping their hardware products up to date with contining driver support.

Beyond that, PCI and FW are old technology and it's high time that MOTU started rolling out an affordable Thunderbolt interface!

Babz

[HCMarkus]

I use CueMix for my tracking monitor mixer. I always run the CueMix mixer main fader at full gain, then adjust the relative volume of DP with DP's master fader. Overall level to headphones and/or speakers is controlled by my monitor controller.

That said, CueMix's one screen per stereo bus is challenging to manage when setting up multiple monitor mixes.

By the way, if tracking drums, always have the drummer bring his in-ears. Much easier to get a monitor mix when he can enjoy it at moderate levels. Plus you don't need 100 watt headphone amps that way, and click leakage is virtually eliminated.

I am very happy with the sound of the MOTU converters. Using an 828mkII here, every input and most of the outputs, digital and analog, in service. It has been rock solid for over 6 years. Adding a monitor controller makes volume adjustments a lot more enjoyable, though. I did not like tweezing the 828's little knobs. I rarely touch them now.

One little trick that always impresses my clients: I have an 828 output connected to a Korg rack-mounted tuner that is positioned in the front wall above the center surround monitor in my studio. I can route any input to the tuner, so guitarists can check tuning at a glance no matter where their signal is coming in.

I turn that send off for vocalists, unless they are really good and want to see exactly HOW good.

[Shooshie]

Zero latency monitoring. Don't know how you manage without it, I certainly could not.

It's not unique to MOTU interfaces. Focusrite does it too. It's really just a matter of having a switch to bounce inputs to outputs.

That's true in a technical sense, but MOTU supplies so much more than that with CueMix. Each output has its own configuration: a separate mix for each output on the device. If you've got 8 or 12 headphones for individuals monitoring a preliminary mix during recording, each can have it personalized the way they want it: balance, pan, reverb, EQ… everyone hears what they need to hear to do their best job. As a musician with a good bit of studio time, that's always been important to me, and I've appreciated engineers who could give it to me on a big studio board. Being able to provide that here on a little in-the-box setup is pretty amazing.

Do other interfaces with zero latency monitoring also provide something with the capabilities of CueMix? I honestly don't know, but I would never buy one that does not. I've only used up to about 4 stereo channels of monitoring at once, but I like that with what I have right now I could conceivably provide 10 stereo channels. It's nice to be able to say yes.

Shooshie

[James Steele]

I don't know how other interfaces work, but I like how I can save a configuration for Cue Mix and recall it. I have two basic tracking configs for CueMix that I recall often. One for tracking my own vocals and another for tracking lead guitar. I have a hardware delay and hardware reverb unit hooked up to my 24 i/o and I use them just to patch in for "inspiration" during tracking using CueMix. Of course I'm actually tracking dry without effects, but I just get more "into it" if it sounds more like the finished product would as I'm tracking.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I had good luck with my Focusrite DSP 24 PRO but the Track 16 beats the pants off it.

Thanks MOTU!

[Shooshie]

I had good luck with my Focusrite DSP 24 PRO but the Track 16 beats the pants off it.

Thanks MOTU!

Did I hear that MOTU was going to offer a box to interface with the Track 16? That is, a box of inputs and outputs? The only downside to the Track 16 as I see it is the cable that leads to all those individual plugs. I kind of like having all my rack gear in one place, where I can plug in any cable with one hand, or swap cables, reconfigure it, etc. without having to read the label on each plug. If Track 16 had such a rack mount box to connect to, I'd be more inclined to get it.

Of course, if you prefer to get away from the rack, or if you want to take it on remote location gigs, then NOT having the box might actually be a plus.

Shoosh

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I bought the breakout box. It's been out for a while. $125 on average. Really cool.

[Shooshie]

Of course I'm actually tracking dry without effects, but I just get more "into it" if it sounds more like the finished product would as I'm tracking.

That's exactly how I feel. I like to play for the final sound. If I can get even 50% closer to it during recording, I can put a lot more expression into the performance that will actually be heard in the final product. If I'm performing dry, the tendency is to try to compensate, as I would in an actual "dry" location. If you do a lot of studio work, you learn just to play it dry and not worry about it; the engineer will make it sound the way he wants it. But I AM the engineer, and I want to hear it coming back to me so I can get the most out of it. CueMix is great for that.

Shooshie