MOTU 2408 MkIII series vs RME series

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neelix
  • Start date Start date
N

Neelix

New member
I really like the modular design (and the monitoring features) of the MOTU PCI424 series interfaces, especially considering I can load up on IO with only one PCI slot (G4 system). Compared to the RME stuff (which will eat up more space in the computer and cost more), do the MOTU AD's sound as good, and are they as stable as the RME stuff? I'm specifically considering two 2408 MkIII's and a 308 for the MOTU rig, or the same basic layout in RME (which will cost a lot more and eat up more room in the computer).

Thanks for any insight anyone can provide!
 
Based on your needs, the MOTU may fit what you want better, but I think the RME is more stable and sounds better. What about a pair of firefaces?
 
I read on gearslutz some guy was swapping out crappy JRC op amps on his MOTU. If they use them in one type of unit, they'll use them in others. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find JRC junk in an RME.

I have no respect for any company that uses those in the audio chain when there are better selections to be made. Those JRC chips are the very bottom of the food chain.

My .02 cents.

Bob
 
Really trying to avoid firewire interfaces if possible to keep CPU load down. I like the idea of MOTU's (and RME's) monitoring mixers built into the hardware, which will definitely make life easier in a lot of situations, but you can't do that with FW interfaces (they have to rely on the CPU).

Here's a scenario - Since the MOTU's ergonomics are a lot better (one PCI slot with up to 4 rack interfaces of whatever I need), if I only used the MOTU digital IO's and used external converters for all analog connections (RME ADI-8 series or other quality converters like that), and used a good external 48K or Adat clock generator, how would the two platforms stack up? Again, it's on an upper end G4 system with OS-X (MOTU is supposed to be much more stable on this platform than a PC).

Comments??? Thanks!
 
Actually, the fact that the Fireface is firewire has nothing to do with hardware monitoring. Maybe you should contact someone at Sweetwater or someplace like that to get the real scoop on the differences and limitations of each. I did not notice in your first post that you were using a G4. MOTU stuff is certainly more reliable on a mac than on a PC. Rme used to have some little quirks on Mac's, but those have been worked out for quite some time now.
 
FW wouldn't be a problem if I could use only one interface. The thing with FW interface monitoring is that I would end up using multiple interfaces to cover everything and need to monitor out of one, so anything tracked on the second interface would have to be routed through the CPU to be monitored on the first one's outs, and if I'm not mistaken, this may have to go through the host application to be done (Cubase, Nuendo, etc). Not the case with the PCI series stuff from MOTU or RME. One the FW interfaces, even though they have a software mixer, that mixer uses CPU power to route stuff across interfaces. . The PCI based systems run the same mixer software on their own DSP chips, which is a big difference when cutting a lot of tracks in a single pass.
 
I can see your pooint there. It is logical, but may not be true. The MOTU's have to be linked somewhere to let more than one unit input monitor at a time. Th RME Firefaces may have a way of linking to give you a 0 latency mix of all units. I say you should just check into them both since the RME will offer better quality.
 
xstatic said:
I can see your pooint there. It is logical, but may not be true. The MOTU's have to be linked somewhere to let more than one unit input monitor at a time. Th RME Firefaces may have a way of linking to give you a 0 latency mix of all units. I say you should just check into them both since the RME will offer better quality.
Click to expand...

The MOTU's all go into the PCI card (up to 4 of them), which is the hardware that runs the monitoring, etc. For monitoring back across all interfaces, the PCI card's DSP handles it without burdoning the computer's CPU. With RME, as long as your interfaces all go into the primary card you're in the same tidy boat, but as soon as you have to use a second card for more IO, the CPU has to come into play. You can get 0 to near 0 out of almost any of the modern interfaces, but the CPU load is the big issue when you have to monitor back a lot of live tracks across multiple PCI cards or FW interfaces. Multiple FW interfaces have to use the computer's CPU as they don't share any one DSP (something has to combine them, which would be software running on the CPU). The MOTU and RME PCI hosted interfaces do not (unless you're using two separate RME cards for more IO).

Assumming that the MOTU system's dig IO's work as well as the RME system, I would assume you could add whatever hi end AD/DA converters to either and get the same results (using a good clock source, of course).
 
Neelix said:
Really trying to avoid firewire interfaces if possible to keep CPU load down. I like the idea of MOTU's (and RME's) monitoring mixers built into the hardware, which will definitely make life easier in a lot of situations, but you can't do that with FW interfaces (they have to rely on the CPU).

Here's a scenario - Since the MOTU's ergonomics are a lot better (one PCI slot with up to 4 rack interfaces of whatever I need), if I only used the MOTU digital IO's and used external converters for all analog connections (RME ADI-8 series or other quality converters like that), and used a good external 48K or Adat clock generator, how would the two platforms stack up? Again, it's on an upper end G4 system with OS-X (MOTU is supposed to be much more stable on this platform than a PC).

Comments??? Thanks!
Click to expand...

They have hardware monitoring. The motu hd896 is a firewire unit with hardware monitering. It doesnt go to the cpu for that. In fact they say you can use it as a standalone mixer if needed (never tried). It also has the low latencly monitering thing too.

Keep in mind that firewire is also a faster bus than PCI. Wether or not it's actualy taken advantage of is different.
 
It's when you use more than one FW interface that it becomes an issue. The second FW interface has to have its signals routed to the first one for monitoring (assumming your creating a monitor mix in the computer), so the computer's CPU has to handle all of that with software, where-as the RME or MOTU stuff that uses a PCI host card actually does all of this with its own DSP power without using the CPU. One interface, it's apples and apples. Two interfaces, it's an apple and papaya.
 
I was under the impression that if you wanted to run two RME Firefaces that you would actually plug the second one straight onto the first, and not directly to your CPU. This would mean that all of the hardware monitoring would be done from the first unit in the chain which would happen before it even gets to the CPU, which would actually 1 step (extremely small step) faster than using the DSP on a PCI card like the MOTU 2408's use. It seems like the big difference is where the DSP chip is actually located. In the Fireface it is probably inside the unit itself, whereas the MOTU 424 card has it located on the card. If I am correct than there is absolutely no difference whatsoever:) Thats why i recommended you make a phone call or two, to find out what the real deal is:)
 
I am quite sure that the Fireface has the DSP on-board. this is the hip new thing in FW interfaces.....To have the DSP on-board. Metric Halo does this, so does MOTU's latest interfaces, along with RME, and the Focusrite Saffire.
 
cycosuicide said:
I am quite sure that the Fireface has the DSP on-board. this is the hip new thing in FW interfaces.....To have the DSP on-board. Metric Halo does this, so does MOTU's latest interfaces, along with RME, and the Focusrite Saffire.
Click to expand...

They do have onboard DPS, for their own hardware, but not for the second one. Each FW interface could handle its own monitoring, but when you're monitoring interface #2 through the outputs of interface #1, the computer's CPU has to come into play as the info has to go into the FW bus, get told what to do and where to go, then back out the FW bus to the other interface. On the MOTU and RME PCI hosted stuff, all of this routing gets done on the PCI card (that's what it's designed to do), so the CPU doesn't have to deal with it.
 
Well, it sounds like you have made up your mind on MOTU. Personally, I think that a series of RME Firefaces will monitor just as fast as the MOTU (which BTW does get processed by windows, just not the DAW application. I think they will both offer the same features as far as input monitoring goes. Keep in mind that the MOTU 424 is a glorified PCI Firewire card that also happens to have some DSP on board instead of in the rack mount (which might actually be a disadvantage depending on how many units you are running). The MOTU PCI card still has to communicate with windows in order to know which inouts and outputs to run to where.
 
Neelix, why 2- 2408mkii? Are you using many digi i/o? For the analog side, you may consider the 24i/o or hd192. They don't make the 308's anymore, though you could get a used one.
Don't own any RME and/or firewire devices so can't comment on the comaprisons. Though the firface has gotten great reviews-converter wise. The pre amps(if you need them) aren't slouches either. But just what i've read, so take that with a grain of salt.

I was looking at the fireface, but it dawned on me that all this firewire stuff is good for portability. Plus I don't have the doug at this time for a new interface.

I've got the 1224 and 2408mkii and am quite satisfied.

Are you on a PC or MAC? What sequencer are you running.
 
Bob's Mods said:
I read on gearslutz some guy was swapping out crappy JRC op amps on his MOTU. If they use them in one type of unit, they'll use them in others. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find JRC junk in an RME.

I have no respect for any company that uses those in the audio chain when there are better selections to be made. Those JRC chips are the very bottom of the food chain.

My .02 cents.

Bob
Click to expand...


Bob what interface is this about?
 
xstatic said:
Well, it sounds like you have made up your mind on MOTU. Personally, I think that a series of RME Firefaces will monitor just as fast as the MOTU (which BTW does get processed by windows, just not the DAW application. I think they will both offer the same features as far as input monitoring goes. Keep in mind that the MOTU 424 is a glorified PCI Firewire card that also happens to have some DSP on board instead of in the rack mount (which might actually be a disadvantage depending on how many units you are running). The MOTU PCI card still has to communicate with windows in order to know which inouts and outputs to run to where.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely wanting to go PCI based because of monitoring across multiple interfaces, and I think the MOTU system has the most flexibility for a larger system without spending a fortune on RME's MADI series stuff.

For Monitoring, the MOTU doesn't have to route signals through the CPU - the whole trick with the PCI424 card is being able to handle all of that on the card itself. When cutting a lot of live tracks on a G4, it can become an issu (Cubase SX3 is a bit of a hog). When communicating with the software, yes, it has to go through the CPU like anything else, but creating the monitor mix (and keeping it at near zero latency!) is handled on the card. This is one of MOTU's big selling points for the PCI424 series. The RME PCI stuff works the same way. My only gripe is that there are only 3 Adat IO's taking up 2 PCI slots, so ergonomically it's not as cool as the MOTU rig.

As long as using better converters (like the RME ADI 8 series, which is getting rave reviews) the MOTU would sound as good as the RME host, I'm all over it. Just want to make sure there's no tradeoff because the only gripe I've heard on the MOTU is the quality of the AD converters. I would use an external clock on eother of them, btw...
 
Tonio said:
Neelix, why 2- 2408mkii? Are you using many digi i/o? For the analog side, you may consider the 24i/o or hd192. They don't make the 308's anymore, though you could get a used one.
Don't own any RME and/or firewire devices so can't comment on the comaprisons. Though the firface has gotten great reviews-converter wise. The pre amps(if you need them) aren't slouches either. But just what i've read, so take that with a grain of salt.

I was looking at the fireface, but it dawned on me that all this firewire stuff is good for portability. Plus I don't have the doug at this time for a new interface.

I've got the 1224 and 2408mkii and am quite satisfied.

Are you on a PC or MAC? What sequencer are you running.
Click to expand...

Not MkII, MkIII (3). I'll be usung a lot of Dig IO for hooking up better converters and a couple of multi-channel pre's (probably starting with the PreSonus Digimax and upgrading later to something like the Focusrite 428, which are a killer deal). Plus I use a lot of synth gear (getting a 308 to handle multiple SPDIF's if there aren't any problems with using them on the 424 card), and a PC laptop with Adat out for running some PC only plugs and instruments. Not really interested in the 24IO or the 192's as I'll be using better pre's and converters already.
 
My point was that in order to use the MOTU hardware monitoring, it is controlled through Cue Mix which is a program run from inside windows. That is NOT on the PCI card. the whole "on the PCI card" thing is a little bit of marketing hype. Just about every soundcard out there now has that same feature.

If you want to go MOTU, thats completely cool. Especially if you will be running it on a mac. I just don't accept the reasoning behind not going firewire because it does not sound correct to me. I think you have misinterpreted how hardware monitoring functions and thought that the MOTU PCI card sets it aside form other forms. In reality, I do not think it does. As a matter of fact it stands to reason for me that if the DSP hardware montioring comes from inside the external rack than technically it would be even faster. Like I said in my first post though, it sounds like the MOTU system may be ther better system for you, I just don't accept the hardware monitoring thing as a valid reason is all. In the end, if I am right, the Fireface solution gives you more analog I/O, plenty of digital I/O, some preamps, , better converters, and just as good an input monitoring system for less money than the MOTU solution.

Lets take it one step further even, what about a pair of Alesis HD24's and a pair of HDSP 9652's? Now you also have a slick portable solution as well:D
 
xstatic said:
My point was that in order to use the MOTU hardware monitoring, it is controlled through Cue Mix which is a program run from inside windows. That is NOT on the PCI card. the whole "on the PCI card" thing is a little bit of marketing hype. Just about every soundcard out there now has that same feature.
Click to expand...

xstatic, The Cue Mix application just programs the DSP on the PCI-424 card. The audio itself does not go through Cue Mix. It's completely handled by the dedicated processor on the card. Cue Mix is just a front-end application.

Barry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top