Page 1 of 1

Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:07 am
by nordlead26
Hello, just like that: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

What can you tell me about it? pros and cons of have an Steinberg UR816C, is there something that make superior this audio interface compared with a MOTU?

Audio bit depths up to 64 bit float now that we have this in Cubase?

Please tell me all your thoughts

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:04 am
by MrSoundman
nordlead26 wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:07 am
Audio bit depths up to 64 bit float
Bit depth is different from internal processing precision. Your MOTU 828 MkII can capture audio with a bit depth of 24 which can already be processed with 64-bit float precision in Cubase (since 9.5) as long as you only use VST3 plugins that are capable of processing with 64-bit float precision. Further information here.

What's new about the UR816C compared to the MOTU 828 MkII is that the analog-to-digital converters (ADC) are capable of digitizing the audio into 32-bit samples vs. 24-bit samples in the 828 MkII. A bit depth of 24, as in the 828 MkII, already gives you a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB. For comparison, the difference between a quiet room and a jumbo jet taking off over your head is about 90-100dB. Will you need a dynamic range of more that 144dB?

An analog-to-digital converter with a resolution (bit depth) of 32 bits has a theoretical* dynamic range of 192dB, but that's around the threshold where sound, in air, ceases to be sound and becomes a shock wave. No musical instrument can create such dynamics, and no microphone can record it.

*it's going to be much less in reality because of the limits (noise) of the analog electronics surrounding the ADC

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:40 pm
by nordlead26
MrSoundman wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:04 am
nordlead26 wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:07 am
Audio bit depths up to 64 bit float
Bit depth is different from internal processing precision. Your MOTU 828 MkII can capture audio with a bit depth of 24 which can already be processed with 64-bit float precision in Cubase (since 9.5) as long as you only use VST3 plugins that are capable of processing with 64-bit float precision. Further information here.

What's new about the UR816C compared to the MOTU 828 MkII is that the analog-to-digital converters (ADC) are capable of digitizing the audio into 32-bit samples vs. 24-bit samples in the 828 MkII. A bit depth of 24, as in the 828 MkII, already gives you a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB. For comparison, the difference between a quiet room and a jumbo jet taking off over your head is about 90-100dB. Will you need a dynamic range of more that 144dB?

An analog-to-digital converter with a resolution (bit depth) of 32 bits has a theoretical* dynamic range of 192dB, but that's around the threshold where sound, in air, ceases to be sound and becomes a shock wave. No musical instrument can create such dynamics, and no microphone can record it.

*it's going to be much less in reality because of the limits (noise) of the analog electronics surrounding the ADC

Apart of this, what about other features? what about stability and what about sound? do you may consider this product as a high quality product? what about drivers? are them updated constantly?

what quality have the converters? are they good components, medium or cheap? my hardware synths would be translated with high quality? in Motu for example I can notice losses when recorded to digital...

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:28 pm
by ca-booter
So many questions of personal taste, what is quality in your ears. And who would these two interfaces to compare them siade by side.
I would say buy one and return it if you don’t like it.