in case you were curious: RME vs. MOTU A/D comparison

[six_wax]

the test:

I recently came into psoession of the MOTU with the intent of using it as a mixer/router in my nascent live rig (VirusC, MPC1k, Live, Reason). I already owned the RME converters, but those serve a difference role, and don't offer some of the features of the 828...

so, the shootout: RME ADI-8 DS vs. MOTU 828 mkII

outputs from the synth and sampler were multed (at a patchbay) and routed to the above converters. the signals were then piped digitally** to my Apogee PSX-100 for D/A conversion & monitoring. I just switched back & forth between the 2 digital inputs (same audio into the RMEs and 828mkII, respectively) to the PSX with the press of a button and monitored on my Mackie HR824s.

The difference is not as dramatic as I expected, in fact, it's pretty subtle. I distinctly prefer the RMEs, the bass is slightly rounder and fully feeling, and the top end is smoother and less digital/plastic. Transients felt a wee bit smoother, too.

But I must confess, I'm far more impressed by the 828mk2 than I expected to be. It's A/D conversion is totally usable, and based on my first day impressions, the price to performance ratio is stellar. The CueMix software is useful for simple routing & monitoring, which is basically what I wanted...

HOWEVER...

When I did the corresponding D/A comparison, the RMEs *smoked* the 828mkII. Ate it for lunch. Night and Day. The RME D/As compare very favorably to the Apogee PSX to my ears. The Apogees have a bit more depth and dimension, and are clearly brighter/cleaner. The RMEs add some coloration, but it's not undesirable to my tastes. Both sound good...

otoh, the 828mkII D/As sound shallow and thin by comparison. The bass is discernibly muddier and less defined, and the "dimension" of the sound is greatly lessened. The transient response in the D/A stage seems greatly inferior, and plasticky artifacts are pretty plainly apparent.

I don't think the 828mkII D/As are unusable, but I do think that they are decidedly inferior to the RME ADI-8 DS D/As. (The A/D conversion, as noted above, is more closely matched.) For live performance, I'm pretty certain the 828mkII D/A will be serviceable --it won't affect the sound as much as a bad stylus would a record, or the amp or room will effect the sound, but I can state outright that I wouldn't settle for them for the purposes of studio mixing...

otoh-- you get what you pay for. $700 vs. $1400 (vs. $1700 for 2ch Apogees).

Also worth noting: The spces for the RME ADI-8 DS are different than those for the Multi/Digiface, I believe, so this may have limited applicability wrt the 828mkII vs. Multiface debate. Consult your dealer for details...

[madlab]

I didn't think I was curious about this topic but I turned to be ! Thanks for your post.

[Andrew K]

Thanks for the post. And good job on describing what you heard and giving us a point of reference.

AK

[res]

thanks for posting this. Im actually in limbo right now as to which one of these fine interfaces to choose!

[Teonon]

have you heard the new eMu cards? They ahve a good set of features...wondering how they stack up to RME?

[Guest]

ha ha ha. Are you serious? Emu vs. RME? Just based on the two companies' other products and general market stance and price points, I gotta think the RME's sound quality will decisively beat anything made by Emu. THis is purely conjecture, but the RME costs more for a good reason (and is still a great deal).

Ryan

[gaspode]

Don't forget that as usual... a lot of the artifacts/distortions on either device are both subject to the persons opinion.

Personally I prefer the MOTU 828mkII over the RME and I enjoy the sound better.

I think a much more important minus for the MOTU however is that if you have a poorly implemented firewire connection on your computer you will get a dirty signal.

From personal experience I have also found that it is *much* easier (and computer wise cheaper) to get that low latency with the RME than it is with the MOTU. My friend has been able to hit 1-3 ms latency quite easilly with the RME, while I just barely trimmed my system config down to 3ms after a lot of system tweaking. I still hope to hit 1ms, but it may require a hardware upgrade or dropping even more services/drivers.

[krikor]

Don't forget that as usual... a lot of the artifacts/distortions on either device are both subject to the persons opinion.

Personally I prefer the MOTU 828mkII over the RME and I enjoy the sound better.

I think a much more important minus for the MOTU however is that if you have a poorly implemented firewire connection on your computer you will get a dirty signal.

From personal experience I have also found that it is *much* easier (and computer wise cheaper) to get that low latency with the RME than it is with the MOTU. My friend has been able to hit 1-3 ms latency quite easilly with the RME, while I just barely trimmed my system config down to 3ms after a lot of system tweaking. I still hope to hit 1ms, but it may require a hardware upgrade or dropping even more services/drivers.

I had a 828 before i got my RME multiface, and i'm lot much happier now!!I personnaly prefer the RME's sound compared to a 828, but i haven't tried the MKII. I think the new card from Motu is based on the same system (firewire) which means you won't get a latency as low as the RME's on a Motu, the architecture of the RME card is a lot different, on a laptop, its DSP is directly connected to the motherboard...

[Guest]

pcmcia=faster and lower latency than firewire, plus it keeps your firewire port open for a hard drive. RME's totalmix software's routing possibilities are astounding. Low latency is easy with RME, I can record 16 tracks of 24/48 audio at once into Live at the lowest latency on P4 2.4 gig RAM toshiba laptop (with multiface and external fw 7,200 RPM hds). I use Live with 6 tracks of FL rewired and 10 tracks in Live and tons of effects for live performances with 2 ms latency (second lowest on RME).

Ryan

[gaspode]

I've managed to get my latency down to 3ms on the motu 828mkII... I'll have to try for 2ms tonight, but I think that'll require an act of god.

I think I remember hearing about people hitting 0.5ms latency on the RME before... what is that... a 64 buffer? that'd be amazing!

[Rahlo]

ryan (or whoever else is familiar w/ rme products) ,

I've been looking at the rme pc card for my tibook. Is there an interface that comes with it, or is that something that you have to get separately? I currently use the 828 mkII, which as you probably know, has xlr and quarter inch inputs. If I got the pcmcia card, does it come with breakout cables that give you these options?

thanks.

[Guest]

sadly no, the RME cardbus is only a means of getting the sound into a computer from an RME Multiface or Digiface. The cardbus only works with RME products, and the connection to the cardbus is unique to RME (I think--its not firewire, thats for sure). I think you may leave well enough alone since you already have a good piece of gear in the 828. For the RME money, you could get a pc that can run Live way faster (not trying to flame), or be well on the way to your next mac...just my 2 cents.

Ryan

[Rahlo]

sadly no, the RME cardbus is only a means of getting the sound into a computer from an RME Multiface or Digiface. The cardbus only works with RME products, and the connection to the cardbus is unique to RME (I think--its not firewire, thats for sure). I think you may leave well enough alone since you already have a good piece of gear in the 828. For the RME money, you could get a pc that can run Live way faster (not trying to flame), or be well on the way to your next mac...just my 2 cents.

Ryan

Thanks for the insight dude. I'm running Live for my live shows on a tibook 800, and am trying to squeeze mo' out of it, and was thinking that if I went to the faster cardbus option, that it'd help some.

Thanks for the balanced response to a mac head!