828x sound quality

[larrysharp11]

Greetings fellow MOTU users!

As a geezer myself (according to my teenage kids) it's nice to see people up on here talking about "old" MOTU gear and making stuff last longer/work with modern setups, etc. I was on Unicornation years ago when I was a more or less "legit" producer and used DP and MOTU hardware purt much ever' day, and I remember that was the culture there too.

Roight, so what does that have to do with anything? Well my question is one I asked before, and I think the reason no one commented on the sound quality of the 828x is that most users of this forum are more of the "working musician" type guy/gal, as opposed to the "gear snob/dude with a ton of kit who actually doesn't make music". The former types seem to focus on the music and what works in practice, not so much on name brands and nitty gritty of recording details. The latter, ironically, agonize over sound quality and recording details, but at the end of the day, don't do much where those differences would matter.

I fall somewhere in the middle at this stage of my life. Music is purely a hobby now, though a very serious one - a vocation is a better word than hobby. I am a musician, haha! So I have no deadlines or pressure in my studio, and can afford to dink around and futz with what sounds best, etc.

So with that incredibly important background that I'm sure you all were dying to know!...

I have an 828mkII that sounds ok to my ears when tracking synths through the line ins, but I don't like the sound of the mic pres (compared to Mackie Onyx mic pres, or my LA 6176 - which is an "unfair" comparison, I know). Most importantly though, I don't like the sound of the DA on the 828mkII. My Mackie 400F (FW interface) sounds better to me (clearer, less noisy, "warmer") and it was a $700 interface so it's not a boutique product by any stretch.

I recently got a new Macbook which I'm going to use as my main DAW machine with DP, and I want to upgrade my interface too. I know I could use a FW-TB adapter with the 828mkII, but that would be a step backwards in quality for me since I've been using the 400F (on a Vista PC). One interface I'm considering is the 828x, mainly because of the native TB connection and MOTU being a "known quantity" to me.

What I'd like to know from anyone who has an opinion, is how the 828x sounds, either by itself, or especially compared to the 828mkII or any other common reference.

Thanks!
ld

[4stripes]

I doubt a company like MOTU uses different components or designs for conversion across its different products. A mass-market engineering firm typically designs the "utility" stuff once, and implements it across the entire line. If you want the absolute best conversion, you must get something from a "boutique" brand that only does that one thing. Benchmark, Mytek, Lavry come to mind. That said, conversion is so good now, there is little point in worrying too much about it, as you touched on in your post.

[mikehalloran]

The 828x is the 828mkIII Hybrid with a TB port replacing the two FW ports - there are no other differences.

There are online reviews comparing the mkII and the mkIII. The mkIII and X include CueMix FX. I'm thinking of upgrading mine for that reason.

The converters do quite well in actual a/b comparisons - as opposed to the armchair 'experts' who hear with their eyes and don't let their lack of knowledge get in the way of their posts.

If you prefer the sound of your Onyx, just plug it into the line inputs.

[bayswater]

I doubt a company like MOTU uses different components or designs for conversion across its different products. A mass-market engineering firm typically designs the "utility" stuff once, and implements it across the entire line.

MOTU might be using the same converters for all of its current product line, but I think it less likely that old products like the 828-2, built a long time ago, use the same converters as new 828-x, or that the chips originally used for the 828-2 are even still available. I can say that my 828-3 and 2408-2 don't sound the same. That might be because of differences in converters, or it might be differences on the analog side.

I'm interested in the same question Larry asks. The 828-3 (in my case) sounds OK, but not great. When I replace it, I'm hoping some of the newer MOTU equipment has better sound.

[larrysharp11]

Thanks for the replies. Anyone here own an 828x that can comment on the sound?

In response to some of the comments, I have thought about getting a separate DA box, like the Benchmark DAC-1 or equivalent, but it would be nice if, as someone pointed out, modern interfaces had ADA stages that were up to that quality (since the DAC-1 is, what, at least 5 years old now?) As I said, I'm happy with the DA converters on my Mackie 400F, which was only $700 and includes 4 really nice preamps and a FW interface to boot. (BTW, it's unsupported and never worked on my old G4 so I'm assuming it's a no go on the rMB too, but I haven't tried it yet...)

I was more or less aware that the 828x is the 828mkIII with TB instead of FW, and that the 828mkIII has an updated clock ckt from the 828mkII and supposedly sounds better - I have read some of those reviews/comparisons. I was hoping to hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from someone who actually has heard an 828x. As was mentioned, who knows what other subtle or not-so-subtle changes they may have made? The cynic in me says they're just looking for a way to sell more 828's (of any flavor) and the FW to TB switch is an opportunity to swap out a connector and associated circuitry, slap a new name on it, and call it "new and improved" (which, to MOTU's credit, they don't actually claim, apart from native TB compatibility for newer Macs). However, I wonder if they also had to write new drivers - I don't know enough about it to know if they could use the old FW drivers somehow. If so, maybe they took the opportunity to tweak a few other things that have come up since the 828mkIII came out.

I had a 24io years ago, and for a while had the 828mkII at the same time. I liked the sound of the 24io a little better actually, but never did any real A/B tests, so it may have had more to do with the source material, mics, outboard gear, etc. I don't know how much of the ADA circuitry in those boxes was the same.

Larry

[4stripes]

You guys are assuming that 1) actual IC converter chips have improved as time marches on and 2) this is the only piece that matters. 1) Is flatly no longer the case and 2) clearly doesn't make sense. Companies like Cirrus are dropping their high-end product lines left and right because no one puts a $3 chip (expensive) in a phone. Unfortunately pro audio is a peanuts business compared to the other applications of these chips.

To say that the DAC1 is five years old (more like 10) and therefore must not be better than a $400 interface from this year misses the point of what makes a converter great--it's everything else but the chip! That's where the real attention to detail comes through on a boutique product. The input and output stages are carefully designed by a lifelong electronics pro, instead of pulled right off the IC manufacturers recommended datasheet schematic.

Logically, simply, consider this:

• The DAC1 one and the UltraLite are the same size and weight.
• The DAC1 does one thing, stereo out conversion.
• The UltraLite does dozens of things--multiple IO conversion, PC interface, DSP mixer, DSP FX, LCD screen, software control...
• Clearly, the UltraLite must be leaving some things out of the equation to pack all this into the same size and weight as the DAC1.
• Do we really believe that MOTU has spent as many man-hours on the IO and power stages as Benchmark, when they have so much else to do?

Interface products that do many things are made for a competitive featureset. They are not made for the highest possible capabilities. It's as simple as that. Whether one $400 interface is better than another is splitting hairs and not worth the discovery--they are all pretty damn good. There are other things worth more to improve, like microphones and monitor acoustics.

[larrysharp11]

Hi 4stripes - thanks for the reply.

With all due respect, I'm not assuming either of the things you mentioned, and for the most part I agree with your assessment.

As for 1), what I actually said was that the clock circuitry was improved (something I read online so don't know for sure, and one of the reasons I'm asking for the opinions of people who have actually heard an 828x). I didn't say it had better or even different converter chips. However, as you point out, there are many things that affect sound quality of audio interfaces besides the ADA converters. I think most manufacturers would like to improve their product lines in order to generate more sales; so for example I'd be surprised if MOTU's business plan was to keep cranking out the same audio interface for the indefinite future, and just update connectors and names every few years. In fact I know that the 828mkIII has features (like built-in FX), if not circuitry, that are different/"improved" over the 828mkII, so this is evidence that their business plan is not so cynical.

As for 2), I never said that or implied that. I know, for example, that there are reasons the Apollo Duo TB interface costs the same as the 828x but has only 2 analog channels. My guess is the biggest reason is the UA brand name; after that is the analog design of the preamps and circuitry surrounding the ADC/DAC, and after that it's probably the privilege of paying many times more than the cost of the interface to have access to their (admittedly great) plug-ins. My question is focused and specific, and has to do with the sound of the 828x - not the features or value or even what converter chips are used - and even more specifically, the sound of the DA converters - as in, when you play a mix out of the box (or monitor through CueMix, etc.)

I agree with what you said re: the DAC1 and the Ultralite. I think perhaps you read too much into my reference to the DAC1. What I was suggesting by pointing out how old it was (and if you want to be logical, "at least 5 years old" includes "10 years old" ) was that the "expensive" converter technology from 5 or 10 years ago may now be the "cheap" technology, or at least cheap enough that it may make it into prosumer gear like MOTU. I was certainly not implying, and didn't say "the DAC1 is 5 years old... and therefore must not be better than a $400 interface from this year". BTW, we're not talking about $400 interfaces; the 828x sells for $850.

I also agree with your statement that "whether one $400 interface is better than another is splitting hairs and not worth the discovery". However I'm not asking that question. I'm not interested in comparing a Behringer to a Focusrite USB interface or whatever. I'm asking how the 828x sounds to people, and in particular if it sounds better than the 828mkII; that's all. I can hear a difference between the DA of my 828mkII and Mackie 400F that is significant enough to me to motivate me to buy a new audio interface (as the Mackie has long been unsupported but has 4 great pres so stays in my kit). I resent the assumption that there are other things worth more (to me) to improve and therefore my question is invalid or irrelevant. I'm happy with my mics - I don't do much acoustic recording now anyway - and if I can hear a difference through my monitors, the fact that there are better ones out there doesn't negate the fact that I can hear a difference. In fact I would argue that better monitors would only amplify that difference, and make me less satisfied with the 828mkII, not more.

I appreciate your point of view, and as I said I actually agree with most of what you said; I just think you misread much of what I said, and made some assumptions yourself that are inaccurate. Basically you're preaching to the choir; I'm just not interested in that sermon right now.

Cheers!
ld

[mikehalloran]

The cynic in me says they're just looking for a way to sell more 828's (of any flavor) and the FW to TB switch is an opportunity to swap out a connector and associated circuitry, slap a new name on it, and call it "new and improved" (which, to MOTU's credit, they don't actually claim, apart from native TB compatibility for newer Macs).

Don't be cynical - I confirmed all of the above in person at NAMM.

[bayswater]

The cynic in me says they're just looking for a way to sell more 828's (of any flavor) and the FW to TB switch is an opportunity to swap out a connector and associated circuitry, slap a new name on it, and call it "new and improved" (which, to MOTU's credit, they don't actually claim, apart from native TB compatibility for newer Macs).

No so cynical as obvious. Of course they want to sell more 828s. Selling products is what companies do. Of course they put a new name on it. You need to know what you're buying. And, as you say, they didn't claim it's better, they said it works with TB, which is a useful piece of information. Taking one of the best selling interfaces on the planet and making it work with new communication protocols is a commendable business decision.

Back to your question: If, as Mike says, the 828x is identical to the 828-3 other than the TB interface, then my 828-3 sounds the same as a 828x. It's a very useful piece of equipment from the perspective of connectivity and features, but the sound is pretty average, and not noticeably better than my 2408-2.

[larrysharp11]

Back to your question: If, as Mike says, the 828x is identical to the 828-3 other than the TB interface, then my 828-3 sounds the same as a 828x. It's a very useful piece of equipment from the perspective of connectivity and features, but the sound is pretty average, and not noticeably better than my 2408-2.

Thanks for the feedback; that's the kind of thing I was looking for. So it may not be noticeably better than the 828-2 either, if the 2408-2 and 828-2 sound much the same (which I can't say as I've never used/heard a 2408-2).

Anyone heard an 828x and an Apollo Twin who cares to comment on the sound quality of each? I assume the Apollo has the edge, but I wonder how big the difference is.

I'm deciding between these two and my assumption has been that the Apollo wins on sound and plugins, and the 828x wins on I/O and overall features. If there's little difference in the sound (of the DA stage in particular), I'll go with the 828x; otherwise I'll probably get the Apollo. The preamps aren't as important to me, since I have several I really like already.

ld

[bayswater]

Anyone heard an 828x and an Apollo Twin who cares to comment on the sound quality of each? I assume the Apollo has the edge, but I wonder how big the difference is.

I'm deciding between these two and my assumption has been that the Apollo wins on sound and plugins, and the 828x wins on I/O and overall features. If there's little difference in the sound (of the DA stage in particular), I'll go with the 828x; otherwise I'll probably get the Apollo. The preamps aren't as important to me, since I have several I really like already.

ld

Have a look at posts by SDFALK about two years ago. He bought an Apollo when they first came out and told us quite a bit about it.