Would a Mixing Eng notice a big difference between the Motu M6 and Behringer U-phoria UMC404HD A/D converters?

oscarfperez

oscarfperez

New member
Hi. I own a Behringer U-Phoria UMC404HD and I'm considering buying the MOTU M6.

I'm about to record guitar, bass and vocals and bought 2 decent external preamps and compressors.

I just want my mixing Engineer to get the best quality tracks possible.

I'm guessing I shouldn't care too much about the interface's DAC, or preamps, etc and maybe what's most important in my situation is the A/D conversion quality.

If the above is truth, and we pretend my recording abilities, mics, preamps, room, amps, etc are good, would the MOTU M6 be a must-have given its ADC quality vs the Behr?

Should I get the M6?? Many thanks!!
 
If you are recording, and somebody else is mixing then I'd bet they couldn't tell the difference. The important thing is simply the conversion, and I've never known anybody moan about that. My guess is that your "mics, preamps, room, amps, etc" will make far, far more difference to what you record, than faffing around with interfaces. Record clean, with as little noise as you can. job done.
 
I used a Behringer interface for room measurements with REW when I redid my treatment. There is a loop back test you do to build a reference file for the interface. Surprisingly linear from about 10hz to 21khz. I’m with Rob, the care and skill you put into what you record will make a far greater difference.
 
I was just thinking that maybe such an old Behringer wouldnt cut it for hopefully pro recording in terms of aliasing. I will be recording at 96......Thanks everyone!! Really appreciate your feedback!
 
I suppose the thing really is if you can hear the alisasing, or if you're just responding to those people with golden ears who claim they hear it?. Just recently, we've been doing some studies where music is recorded to all sorts of specs, and come to the conclusion that while we hear things, many of us liked the technically lower resolution stiff better, on some content.

I've just tried all sorts of equipment and discovered all sorts of things often criticised over the years are actually just variations on the theme. Not better, not worse to your ears, but to your eyes - there is a difference in the technical specs.
 
rob aylestone said:
I suppose the thing really is if you can hear the alisasing, or if you're just responding to those people with golden ears who claim they hear it?. Just recently, we've been doing some studies where music is recorded to all sorts of specs, and come to the conclusion that while we hear things, many of us liked the technically lower resolution stiff better, on some content.

I've just tried all sorts of equipment and discovered all sorts of things often criticised over the years are actually just variations on the theme. Not better, not worse to your ears, but to your eyes - there is a difference in the technical specs.
Click to expand...
Do you mean like in film vs digital photography? sometimes i do prefer vynil or tape music just because is not perfect. My ear likes the "grit" ...stochastic resonance... anyway, yeap I was afraid my behringer would give me "ugly" artifacts 1000038874.jpg
 
No, i meant reading things rather than listening. We've been told how awful mp3 is since it was invented, but its not, and i have believed the AKG C1000 mic was awful, only useful as a hammer for years, and now ive revisited my one in the bin in the store, i like it. Ive read so many people who hate them, like i did, i believed it till i actually tried it again.
 
rob aylestone said:
No, i meant reading things rather than listening. We've been told how awful mp3 is since it was invented, but its not, and i have believed the AKG C1000 mic was awful, only useful as a hammer for years, and now ive revisited my one in the bin in the store, i like it. Ive read so many people who hate them, like i did, i believed it till i actually tried it again.
Click to expand...
got it! 100% agree. We must use our ears more often when it comes to music! ha!
 
I suspect that the differences in DA/AD converters will be minuscule compared to the rest of the recording chain. Converters have come a long way in the past 30 years, such that even the most basic ones are very good.

oscarfperez said:
Do you mean like in film vs digital photography? sometimes i do prefer vynil or tape music just because is not perfect. My ear likes the "grit" ...stochastic resonance... anyway, yeap I was afraid my behringer would give me "ugly" artifacts
Click to expand...

For the life of me, I can't see why ANYONE would prefer a sound source just because it is "not perfect". I put up with tape hiss, vinyl clicks and pops, scratches, stylus mistracking and high frequency roll off for YEARS. That went away when I went digital. I haven't bought a vinyl record in over 2 decades. I still have LPs but it is only for the content, not the sound quality.

When digital photography first came out, there was a HUGE gap between the 640x480 JPG pictures and a nice 35mm Kodachrome photo. With 25, 35 and 45MP cameras, those differences have essentially disappeared except for some special cases. The resolution is there. The color gamut is there. Obviously you still need to understand things like field of vision, exposure and composition, but that has nothing to do with the technical aspects of capturing the image.

I'm waiting for the day when I see someone extolling the wonderful experience of watching a VHS tape (running at SLP) on a 19" CRT TV compared to a streaming 4K program on a 65" OLED tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top