Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

This section is about Steinberg's UR and UR-RT USB audio interfaces product range
Post Reply
User avatar
nordlead26
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:45 pm
Contact:

Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Post 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
Cubase Pro 9.5.50 x64
Windows 10 x 64bit
Intel Core i7 860
20 GB RAM
audio interface MOTU 828 MKII

User avatar
MrSoundman
Senior Member
Posts: 2635
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Post 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
Windows 10 • Cubase 10.5.20 • WaveLab 10.0.40 • SpectraLayers 7.0.10 • HALion 6.4.0 • Groove Agent 5.0.20 • Midex

User avatar
nordlead26
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Post 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...
Cubase Pro 9.5.50 x64
Windows 10 x 64bit
Intel Core i7 860
20 GB RAM
audio interface MOTU 828 MKII

ca-booter
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:38 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Steinberg UR816C vs old Motu 828 MKII

Post 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.
PC ASUS i7-2600 3,4Ghz |Win10-Pro 1909 SSD | 16Gb DDR3 | ASUS R5230 graphics | Cubase Pro 10.5.20, user since Atari | Wavelab 10 EL | Absolute 3 | SuperiorDrummer3 | Yamaha-Steinberg N12 FW | Steinberg UR816C+Behringer ADA8200 | Behringer X-Touch One | M-Audio Axiom 61 | Fishman TriplePlay | Lexicon MX200, Strymon Volante, Art Pro VLA II, Art Pro Channel II, Klark Teknik: KT-2A, 1176-KT, 2* EQP-KT

Post Reply

Return to “Steinberg UR Series”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AedoAlumnus and 3 guests