MOTU 828mk2 > RME FireFace 800?

[Music303]

So, I have been using my RME FireFace 800 for awhile now, but previously used two MOTU 828 MK 2 units. Since I 'upgraded' to the RME, I had some personal matters that kept me from recording much. As I've recently gotten back into it, I have noticed that everything going in and out of the RME produces a muddy harshness in the lo-mid range. I have been dealing with it for awhile until I decided to finally A/B between the the MOTU and RME using a single synth going in/out and I am shocked to say that, to my ears, the MOTU sounds much better. "Shocked" because the RME is supposed to be much better than the MOTU, yet the MOTU is a brighter and warmer and is not producing the muddy lo-mid. The RME literally sounds dull and has less width. The MOTU replicates the synths better when comparing the outs between direct from the synth (i.e. connecting the synth directly to speaker monitors) and through the MOTU whereas the RME is consistently muddier.

The difference is consistent during playback too, so it's not necessarily a pre-amp issue - playing back other pre-recorded music sounds better and more full through the MOTU.

I compared using both monitors and DT-770 headphones.

Am I crazy? Anyone else settle on MOTU after comparing other comparable pro-sumer interfaces?

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

I never experienced anything like that with my RME. What I experienced from MOTU was a cavalier lack of support and a feeling of being blown off rather than helped, and I was left with a very expensive interface that did not work properly when it worked at all.

[TimOBrienFlorida]

Whereas I have used my 828mkII for over 5 years with ZERO need of support. Zero problems.

[Music303]

I can actually attest to MOTU's poor support. One of the backlights on my MOTU went out and they weren't willing to do anything helpful (and it took a month to reply). I had another issue, I don't recall what it was, but remember them not being helpful there either.

Anywho, I'm less concerned with the stability (as weird as that sounds) because I've really never had a problem with my MOTU units (other than the back light issue which was very prevalent in earlier units) and have always felt they did just fine but I always thought about upgrading believing the reviews that there is better clarity and overall sound quality in slightly upper level units like the RME, but, and this is not meant to bash RME, I am not hearing an improvement in the RME over the MOTU, in fact, audio-quality-wise, I am hearing a downgrade in quality. The reason I am so perplexed to the point I started this thread is the RME is so highly touted and the MOTU, well, poo-poo'd quite a bit in comparison.

EDIT: I remember what my other issue was... I could never get the two MOTUs to see each other via FW like they're supposed to. Not a huge deal for me really, but wanted it to work. MOTU weren't able to provide any help.

[Music303]

Originally Posted by LPF

Don't believe everything on the web.......especially here with all those kids-know-it-all-i'm-a-producer-beat maker-lap top music maker.

Agreed. Though, it bugs me.

[Music303]

Well, I'm thinking of selling the RME and replacing it with an 828mk3 - any known issues with the mk3 I should be aware of? Product serial # range with faulty units?

[CJ Mastering]

The MOTU and RME interfaces use the same converters. If your hearing such a difference, then your RME unit is going bad or there is something wrong with a setting to your signal chain.

The MOTU mk3 Hybrid is a great interface, if you need some reassuring.

[Music303]

@ CJ Mastering - thanks for the comment. I wouldn't say that the audio differences indicate a faulty unit, just that the audio coming in/out of the RME are noticeably duller and the signal has less width and clarity than when I run the same source in/out of the MOTU. I thought perhaps this was just the RME being more revealing (since it is supposed to be reveal more detail), but then when I listen directly from a synth via its own headphone jack, the synth and MOTU sound the same while the RME 'colors' it in the low-mids and it just doesn't seem to reproduce the original signal in a pleasant way.

I think the issue, while noticeable, may also be considered subtle, but it's enough to convince me MOTU sounds better.

If my RME is going bad, how would I really know?

[Lukas101]

i would get that rme looked at or check your signal chain i doubt that the motu would sound better then rme but thats just my opinion i owned both a motu interface and a rme fireface and imho the converters on the rme are wayyy better and super stable aswell

[gravyface]

For what it's worth, the MOTU mk2 is slaying the RME fireface on the AD/DA converter uber thread:
The Ultimate Converter DA/AD Loopback Shootout Thread!

[Music303]

Originally Posted by gravyface

For what it's worth, the MOTU mk2 is slaying the RME fireface on the AD/DA converter uber thread:
The Ultimate Converter DA/AD Loopback Shootout Thread!

I saw that earlier today in searching around on this subject. Interesting that the MOTU mk2 is seeming to do better than the mk3 too.

[Jose]

Judging one interface for just one synth recording it is a bit risky, don't you think?Both are good but none of them mega-stellar.I had a Motu Traveler which I sell for driver/stability problems with W7 and bought a RME FF 400.Drivers are rock solid but sound quality is a matter of prefference, the Motu was "warmer" but muddier, some call it the Motu cloud.Use what you enjoy working with!!

[Music303]

Originally Posted by Jose

Judging one interface for just one synth recording it is a bit risky, don't you think?Both are good but none of them mega-stellar.I had a Motu Traveler which I sell for driver/stability problems with W7 and bought a RME FF 400.Drivers are rock solid but sound quality is a matter of prefference, the Motu was "warmer" but muddier, some call it the Motu cloud.Use what you enjoy working with!!

Hi Jose - I know what you're saying, but I I believe that judging quality based on a single synth is completely legitimate, particularly since I have been using the RME for a couple years and the synth for several years and know what to expect out of both. So, sound quality wise, I think basing my concern on the use of a single source/synth is adequate. That said, basing my decision without analyzing acoustic instruments and/or vocals may be hasty, but I am entirely dealing with hardware synthesizers.

[Mats H]

Originally Posted by Music303

@ CJ Mastering - thanks for the comment. I wouldn't say that the audio differences indicate a faulty unit, just that the audio coming in/out of the RME are noticeably duller and the signal has less width and clarity than when I run the same source in/out of the MOTU. I thought perhaps this was just the RME being more revealing (since it is supposed to be reveal more detail), but then when I listen directly from a synth via its own headphone jack, the synth and MOTU sound the same while the RME 'colors' it in the low-mids and it just doesn't seem to reproduce the original signal in a pleasant way.

I think the issue, while noticeable, may also be considered subtle, but it's enough to convince me MOTU sounds better.

If my RME is going bad, how would I really know?

Have you checked empathis setting in the RME control panel? It shouldn't be on and could make the sound duller.

[Muser]

I guess you mean emphasis Mat. didn't know RME had that.
not sure why they decided to put emphasis on. emphasis should add more top end not lessen it. I would have thought they would have had a de-emphasis as well. ? a de-emphasis would be more like a top end reduction.

It might be that the chips they have chosen can be flagged to have emphasis or de-emphasis. and they chose to use that feature and have their own emphasis curve to compensate. hard to tell. Roland products can often use the emphasis / de-emphasis systems in chips. D to A chips usually.

in any case, it's best to know what's going on with the way any emphasis system is working. e.g. is the reason Motu seems to have more top end (because) emphasis is flagged to be switched IN at record -- or -- is it that RME switches in some de-emphasis by default and need some secondary emphasis to compensate.

it can get a bit complex but it's best to know for sure what's going on.

as for the Motu, it might be that the Motu MKII has a better power rail design than the MKIII. something like that can become more apparent as you run more ins and outs at the same time, as the power draw increases in those cases.

as someone said, a single channel test with one kind of instrument is not going to be the whole story.

also headphone amp quality is another issue. the headphone out on the synth the Motu and the RME will all be different. I don't tend to like the sound of headphone amp circuits that use surface mount capacitors. but that doesn't tell you much about what has been recorded. a good headphone amp plugged into the outs of a unit is usually a better way to test that.

[Music303]

I plan to re-connect my FF800 today and I'll check for the emphasis switch. I didn't know it had that either (noob alert). I see from the manual states:

"Note: Recordings with (pre-) emphasis show a treble boost (50/15 ?s), which has to be compensated at playback. Therefore, when selecting Emphasis all analog outputs will be processed by a treble filter based on 50/15?s, which sounds like a high cut."

It looks to be associated with the spdif out settings...? I'll have to have a loot at this.

[Muser]

some early CD masters were processed with pre-emphasis and didn't include a de-emphasis flag. but Its unlikely they decided to use the option for those rare cases. Theoretically if you had one though, you could do a Data rip of the CD and then switch on the emphasis, which would in turn switch on de-emphasis on all the outs. possibly including the Digital outs.

then if you captured that to an external medium the CD would come out correct.

no point in recapturing through the RME's A to D as it looks like it might just re pre-emphasize the signal. unless of course the inputs are able to be individually switched to emphasis. in that case you might be able to recapture.

also if that technique is possible, you could leverage these emphasis characteristics to alter the frequency responses of your DAWs Music tracks.

that could be useful because you use that to alter some of your tracks. via a loopback.
well only maybe being able to de-emphasize certain tracks. because it looks as though they are saying that when ever you switch emphasis on on any input, correspondingly ALL the outputs go into a de-emphasis curve.

however, you could emphasize something as you record it from an external source I guess. which again could be useful.

If you add emphasis on an external source input though, I would take care to record it 12db below zero. especially if it's a cymbal or anything with a lot of high frequency content. unless they auto compensate for the high frequency gain boost by dropping the gain an appropriate amount.

These curves are very precisely worked out curves btw. you can't shape an EQ to copy them.. unless it's a good matching EQ.

generally though, keep emphasis switched off.

[nms]

Originally Posted by gravyface

For what it's worth, the MOTU mk2 is slaying the RME fireface on the AD/DA converter uber thread:
The Ultimate Converter DA/AD Loopback Shootout Thread!

It's true. The 828mk2 is in another league than the RME's and it's been tested and confirmed from several angles. Haven't tested the preamps though. Shocking upsets of common belief tend to happen when that common belief relies heavily on hearsay, brand bias, and poor testing!

The other mistake is thinking all units from a company sound the same or improve each time a newer unit is released. The 828mk2 is a cleaner unit than the mk3 or any later Motus. Also, the converter chips in the 828mk2 and 2408mk3 aren't found in any RME unit.

Interesting to see the Music303's post testing the units side by side and noticing the clear difference between them. Good job.

[drummerGlyn]

I doubt I'd ever purchase another MOTU unit myself. Had a 896HD a few years back which was nothing but trouble. Support in the UK wasn't too bad, as I was dealing with a distributor that was only an hour or so drive away.

Got through 3 units in a little under 14 months. Ended up cutting my losses and sold the brand new unit I got back on ebay.

I ended up with a FF800 which has been rock solid. Not the most soulful of units, but it's never once let me down. Paired with a DAV BG1u, I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get out of it

[Mats H]

Originally Posted by Muser

I guess you mean emphasis Mat. didn't know RME had that.
not sure why they decided to put emphasis on. emphasis should add more top end not lessen it. I would have thought they would have had a de-emphasis as well. ? a de-emphasis would be more like a top end reduction.

Yeah your're right, I sometime prove to others that English is not my first language...

I've done this mistake before, the emphasis button was engaged and the resulting sound was really muffled.

[nms]

Originally Posted by CJ Mastering

The MOTU and RME interfaces use the same converters.

I don't get it. Why do people say these kind of things? It implies that all models by a company are made the same with the same parts which is of course totally untrue. The two interfaces mentioned here share niether the same DA or AD chips. The only RME product that has anything in common with the 828mk2 is the Multiface with the same DA chip.

If your hearing such a difference, then your RME unit is going bad or there is something wrong with a setting to your signal chain.

The 828mk2 has a (test proven & measurably) cleaner sound than the firefaces. Of course this excludes any units in need of repair. There are a lot of Motus out there in need of servicing and there's a particular voltage regulator connection that induces distortion when it begins to fail.. thus causing reported cases of poor sound. I ordered a new $1 chip to solder in and fix the one I grabbed off ebay.

The MOTU mk3 Hybrid is a great interface, if you need some reassuring.

another example of the fact that from one revision to the next the parts and sound can and often do change and not always for the better. I had my 828mk3 for a couple weeks before selling it and grabbing an 828mk2. You lose all the bells and whistles, but gain significantly cleaner sound (though maybe lesser quality preamps, I wouldn't know as I don't use onboard pre's).

I suspect the reason the OP observed better sound was because the 828mk2 sounds better. The only other Motu that sounds the same as an 828mk2 is the 2408mk3 (and maybe the 24 i/o?) which is built on the same converters and parts. To reference the sound of these in the same group as any of their other gear is a mistake.

[kedbear]

Originally Posted by nms

The 828mk2 has a (test proven & measurably) cleaner sound than the firefaces. Of course this excludes any units in need of repair. There are a lot of Motus out there in need of servicing and there's a particular voltage regulator connection that induces distortion when it begins to fail.. thus causing reported cases of poor sound.

i hope you're not referencing the recent pseudo science posts here comparing converters which have been debunked somewhat.

[binarymilton]

Funny, my experience of the MOTU 838mkII is the exact opposite of that described in the original post.

I've always found it on the dull and muddy side: thought so the very second I bought it and plugged things into it.

So I sold the MOTU, eventually, and bought a Fireface UC. Much better. Can't comment on the Fireface 800 - never used one - but I record vocals and acoustic instruments (ac guitar, violins, banjos etc) and with the MOTU I always felt there was like a veil across everything. Not so much that it was pointless recording with it, but you know when there's something not quite right. And, sure enough, since I've owned my Fface UC, I've got my attack, sparkle, transients, details, sharpness, precision, dynamics back. The way I hear them in the room.

[nms]

Originally Posted by kedbear

i hope you're not referencing the recent pseudo science posts here comparing converters which have been debunked somewhat.

There's nothing pseudo about phase cancellation.. or THD, intermodulation distortion, freq response, dynamic range, slew rate.

I'm referencing any test you can throw at it. Take your pick. I'd know, I've done so and analyzed a tonne of audio from all the units.

Another thing people get led astray with is when statements are made about a unit without judging the preamps and conversion separately. Some interfaces have great converters and lacklustre preamps.. others have the reverse. Your intended use of a unit obviously weighs in considerably.

Regardless of all of it though, at the end of the day you still get people making opposite claims about their observations on a piece of gear and this thread is just another example of that. In contrast, any properly performed scientific tests or measurements remain the same despite the user's monitoring or psychological expectations.

[locust_tree]

I cut my teeth on a MkII 828. I remember cringing when I heard my mixes off the console after they'd taken a pass through the A/D in that thing.

That being said, I'm now running a MkIII Hybrid at home and it's been THE most hassle free interface I have ever owned, period. I've installed it on 2 different Windows machines - XP and 7, respectively. No issues at all and I run it with the outputs maxed out - all 26 of 'em! And if it sounded as bad as that old MkII I definitely would not have held on to it.

When the MkIII came out people were saying it was almost on par with the BLA modded MkII's; what changed? Can anyone provide white papers comparing the latest model to the MkII's?

I'm not going to knock RME as there are a LOT of people who have had great success with them. I will say that they're in a very different price range vs. MOTU units with comparable features. I've always attributed that to better converters but if that ain't it, then what? And please don't say driver stability if you haven't checked out the latest MOTU drivers, because if I can get that stuff running on Windows rigs, that's really saying something!

[nms]

If more people knew how to test their gear or identify a unit that's in need of repair a lot of those people would have a more accurate assessment of said gear. Right Mark Audio Analyzer can pick out a faulty 828mk2 in no time. Compared to a working 828mk2 all the RME's I've seen tested flat out do not perform nearly as well on handling low end material in as tight and controlled a manner. I have 5gb worth of level matched recordings (of one test file full of separate sounds and music) for most converters used today. As for 828mk2 vs 828mk3 or any forum consensus from these brands or units, a few people on a forum throwing around hasty appraisals from loose testing should never be interpreted as an accurate measure of any piece of gear. This place is after all full of enthusiasts, not scientists and engineers. I finally learned that lesson a while back after getting rid of a few forum favorites.

[emptyman]

I use BLA-modded MOTU 828mkii into BLA-modded RME Fireface; they both sound good, although I'd argue that the RME sounds better (and doesn't emit an annoying low-level power-on hum like the MOTU does).

[slapatron]

Read this post a couple of days ago cos my 828 mk2 was acting up (after 10 years of use) - Thought I'd post a different perspective on the negative comments on MOTU customer support.
Spoke to MOTU today (i did have to hold for Half an hour) -
But when I got through I had great support and they were very helpful. Returning my old unit and they will replace it with a refurb for a nominal fee.