Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) vs MOTU M2 — which one should I go for?

[MastahG]

Hey everyone,

Thank you very much for your effort to test and measure all the nice Devices

I’m trying to choose between the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) and the MOTU M2, mainly for recording a hardware synth in true stereo (L/R line inputs) and doing headphone-based Producing and mixing. I´m a Hobby Musician doing Electronic Music. I want to enjoy producing and beeing "in a Room" or beeing in the bubble.
Means: When i tweaked a Synth or VST i can play with that very long to enjoy the sounds. For example i love the Sound of the Virus C, Virus TI, JP8000. On the VSt side i like DIVA, Sylenth1.
Warmer sounds.

My setup​

• Headphones: Beyerdynamic DT 700 Pro X (48 Ω)
• Sources: One stereo hardware synth
• Preferences: I like a warmer sound and a wide, spacious stereo image
• System: Mac OSX & Bitwig DAW

---

What I found so far (based on Julian Krause’s measurements):​

Spec	Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen)	MOTU M2
Output Power @ 33 Ω	42.8 mW	65.0 mW
Output Power @ 150 Ω	28.0 mW	28.6 mW
Output Impedance @ 1 kHz	1.0 Ω	0.35 Ω
Dynamic Range (A-weighted)	–109.7 dB	–111.8 dB
Noise Floor	–106.6 dBV	–107.1 dBV

---

Interpretation​

• The MOTU M2 has a stronger headphone amp and lower output impedance, meaning better control and linearity with most headphones.
• The Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) is still excellent — slightly less power, but often described as having a warmer, smoother character.
• Both interfaces support true stereo line-in recording (Inputs 1+2).

---

My questions​

1. Has anyone directly compared the M2 and the Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) in terms of headphone soundstage and overall tonality?
2. Which one feels warmer or more musical to your ears?
3. Any noticeable difference in line-in quality for stereo synths?
4. Can you suggest me Alternatives for my Production workflow? A low latency would be nice because i also use a lot VSTs.
   For example this guy has also good values. But i never heard about the company:
   Topping E2X2

---

Side note:
I recently tested the Audient iD14, but honestly, I was a bit disappointed — the bass felt lacking, and the soundstage seemed quite narrow compared to what I expected.
Thanks a lot for your insights!
I’m leaning toward the MOTU M2 for its specs, but still curious if the Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) delivers a more musical and engaging sound in practice.

Cheers

 

[jkim]

I was also interested in audio interfaces in that price range and ended up even writing a measurements-based comparative review of these two devices.

In fact, the performance of most of the similarly priced audio interfaces is not that different from each other. But I still think SSL 2 MKII and Topping E2x2 (w/ or w/o OTG) are the two most balanced products in performance and functionality.

By the way, are you sure you got the specs from Julian's measurements? The numbers do not match his measurements:

Also, unless you have some significantly weird DAC output (e.g., intentionally added harmonics, intentionally changed tonal balance, tube output stage, etc.), there's no such thing as warmer or colder sound AMONG properly designed DAC products---those things are just in your head (i.e., comparisons not made in a tightly controlled, blind testing condition). If you like warmer sound, just get correctly functioning electronics and add EQ. That's the sensible way to tweak sound to your liking.

EDIT. In this price range you still don't want to consider audio interfaces with a Cirrus Logic CS431xx DAC chip, like Audient iD14 MKII or Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 4th Gen. See this review.

 

[RPoitou]

It is 'not allowed' to suggest that respectably performing equpment can sound different on this site but if you believe that some DACs sound 'warmer' than others then go for something containing a Burr Brown (TI) chip - I can personally recommend the Steinberg IXO22.

 

[DVDdoug]

• The MOTU M2 has a stronger headphone amp and lower output impedance, meaning better control and linearity with most headphones.
• The Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) is still excellent — slightly less power, but often described as having a warmer, smoother character.

I CAN believe that one goes louder than the other but there's no reason for one to be "warmer" and "smoother", whatever that means...

Sometimes "warm" means a mid-bass boost which can be achieved with EQ or headphone speakers with a mid-bass boost. (But of course if YOUR headphones/speakers have a bass boost, your production/mix will probably end-up with insufficient bass.)

Or sometimes "warm" means slight "pleasing distortion". There are plug-ins that can generate "tube distortion" or other distortions.

The interface has no effect on soundstage and soundstage with headphones depends a lot on your brain. Headphone soundstage survey. It will also depend on your keyboard and how you mix the stereo.

Any noticeable difference in line-in quality for stereo synths?

Generally no. Line levels are pretty easy. The mic preamps will generate some noise (hiss) so they can be more critical.

A low latency would be nice because i also use a lot VSTs.

That may depend more on your computer, and software. Latency mostly depends on the VSTs, and buffer size, and the computer. Buffers (which are also delays) are required because of the multitasking system, which is always multitasking. The less "junk" you have running the less the audio will be interrupting and you can get-by with smaller buffers. And a faster computer can finish-up the other stuff faster, also allowing a smaller buffer.

If the interface has ASIO drivers, ASIO was designed for low latency. You also need a DAW that supports ASIO. (Most "real DAWs support ASIO, but Audacity, which doesn't claim to be a DAW, does not.)

If you aren't using real-time VST effects, both of those interfaces have zero-latency direct-hardware monitoring for the line inputs (where the monitoring doesn't go through the computer).

Side note:
I recently tested the Audient iD14, but honestly, I was a bit disappointed — the bass felt lacking, and the soundstage seemed quite narrow compared to what I expected.

I doubt the Audient has weak bass. It seems to have good reputation. It might be a perception from listening quieter* or just one of those random perceptions that goes-away in a proper blind, level matched listening test.

There's no mechanism for an interface (or any electronics) to affect soundstage unless one side is louder than the other, or unless there is a defect mixing left & right to mono.



* When you turn down the volume, it sounds like the bass has been turned down more. It's just the way our ears/brain works (Equal Loudness Curves).

 

[MastahG]

Hello and thank you very much for your feedback.
Yesterday I ordered the Focusrite 2i2 3rd Gen.

With the help of the internet i tried to find a answer which sounds plausible for me. I'm not a pro or expert but it sounds plausible.
I was used the sound of the Focusrite for years. Than the different sound of the ID14 shocked me. Doesn't mean it is bad ^^

Why the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) Sounds “Warmer”
1. THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise)
According to Julian Krause’s measurements, the THD+N value of the Scarlett 2i2 (3rd Gen) is around –48 dB, which equals roughly 0.4 % distortion at a typical listening level (300 mV @ 32 Ω).

These distortions mainly come from harmonic overtones, especially 2nd and 3rd harmonics.
Such “harmonic” distortion isn’t destructive — it’s similar to what you get from analog gear or tube saturation.
→ The result: a softer, fuller, and warmer sound character.

2. Compared to the MOTU M2
The MOTU M2, on the other hand, measures at about –73 dB (~0.022 %), nearly 20 times lower distortion.
This gives it a cleaner, more transparent, and neutral sound with tighter bass and precise stereo imaging.
Technically, that’s more accurate — but to many ears, it can feel colder or less musical.

3. Why You Hear the Difference
Your Beyerdynamic DT 700 Pro X (48 Ω) is very responsive to the amplifier’s behavior:

• With the Scarlett, the slightly higher harmonic distortion adds subtle saturation and warmth, especially in the upper mids and low end.
  
  
• With the MOTU, the signal stays perfectly linear, so you don’t get that extra harmonic “body.”

That’s why you might describe the Scarlett as:

“Warm and full,”
while the MOTU or Audient might sound more like:
“Clean but a bit flat or sterile.”

In short
Interface THD+N @ 300 mV / 32 Ω Perceived Sound
Focusrite 2i2 (3rd Gen) –48 dB ≈ 0.4 % Warm, rounded, slightly saturated
MOTU M2 –73 dB ≈ 0.02 % Clear, neutral, analytical
Audient iD14 MKII –79 dB ≈ 0.01 % Very neutral, slightly “dry”

 

[JSmith]

It is 'not allowed' to suggest that respectably performing equipment can sound different on this site

Incorrect, however it would be expected that any comparison was done level matched and without peeking at a minimum. Data is key, not feelings or unsubstantiated opinions.


JSmith

 

[Gary_G]

Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Audio Interface Gen 3 Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Audio Interface (DAC/ADC). I was talked into buying it recently. The 2i2 costs US $140 including free Prime shipping so very reasonable for amount of functionality. For a budge device, the Scarlett 2i2 looks pretty good...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Motu M2 Review (Audio Interface)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Motu M2 Audio Interface (DAC, ADC and headphone amplifier). It is on kind loan from a local member and costs US $179. I previously reviewed Motu M4 which is its larger brother. The M2 has the look of other Motu products: I like the color...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[jkim]

With the help of the internet i tried to find a answer which sounds plausible for me. I'm not a pro or expert but it sounds plausible.

The text you quoted must be from AI. Right? Definitely incorrect explanation---hallucination!

 

[MastahG]

Yes. The text is from GPT 5. Also the Pro Version
But it sound logical to me.
So I trust you when you say he was hallucinating.

Anyway. I ordered the 2i2 because it was on Super cheap sale for 119 euro. For 200 I could get a used Motu M2. But I hope I can keep the sound I'm used to from the Focusrite. It took me a long time to get used to that.

 

[jkim]

But it sound logical to me.

That is a very good definition of AI hallucination.

Anyway. I ordered the 2i2 because it was on Super cheap sale for 119 euro. For 200 I could get a used Motu M2. But I hope I can keep the sound I'm used to from the Focusrite. It took me a long time to get used to that.

At the end of the day you made a good choice. According to Amir's test, the 2i2 3rd gen is a fine audio interface with no peculiar behavior. It definitely will not add audible harmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion from your headphones will completely dominate any harmonic from the audio interface. You cannot hear harmonic distortion in electric signals from an audio interface unless you hear it through transducers. Enjoy!

 

[AnalogSteph]

The 2i2 gen3 headphone out is about the definition of potato. While output impedance is low, it is not happy driving low-impedance headphones to higher levels. From Amir's review:

If memory serves, that's an NJM8065 opamp, barefoot. The part was never designed to drive low-impedance loads and starts to exhibit substantial crossover distortion around 1 mW into 33 ohms. This level should be adequate for some in-ears, but may be cutting it close for "grown-up" headphones. (You should get to a bit above 100 dB SPL with the DT700 PRO X, not ample but adequate.) Shared ground return resistance for the headphone jack is a bit so-so as well, which may be perceived as an artificial widening of soundstage.

I can only recommend using an external headphone amplifier as an "afterburner" with an output like that. Since it presents a high-impedance load, this addresses the weaknesses very effectively. Results should be similar to or better than the 300 ohm case then:

 

[jkim]

The 2i2 gen3 headphone out is about the definition of potato. While output impedance is low, it is not happy driving low-impedance headphones to higher levels. From Amir's review:

If memory serves, that's an NJM8065 opamp, barefoot. The part was never designed to drive low-impedance loads and starts to exhibit substantial crossover distortion around 1 mW into 33 ohms. This level should be adequate for some in-ears, but may be cutting it close for "grown-up" headphones. (You should get to a bit above 100 dB SPL with the DT700 PRO X, not ample but adequate.) Shared ground return resistance for the headphone jack is a bit so-so as well, which may be perceived as an artificial widening of soundstage.

I can only recommend using an external headphone amplifier as an "afterburner" with an output like that. Since it presents a high-impedance load, this addresses the weaknesses very effectively. Results should be similar to or better than the 300 ohm case then:

Oh, I missed that part. Although I knew its HP amp has just 1V max output, I didn't catch this poor distortion.

The 4th gen Scarlett 2i2 is not good, either. It is based on the problematic CS43131 chip and its HP output has whopping 50 ohm impedance.

Still, my budget audio interface recommendation is SSL 2 MKII or Topping E2x2.

 

[MastahG]

Thank you everybody
I had horrible 2 days

I got the Focusrite 2i2 GEN3 an was very dissapointed about the LINE INs. I couldn´t get my synth right. The Focusrite adds his own "flavor"
Also the Headphone output was terrible and changed the Sound dramatically.
Everything sounded compressed and somewhow "distorted". I had more bass than with the Audient 14, but the i2i lacked of transients or was not snappy enough on my headphones. Also The Stereo Stage was less than the ID14 and Solo G1. (Delays, Reverbs etc.)

I tried to create a aggregate Device on my Mac. So i could use the Inputs of the Audient 14 and the Speaker/HF Output from the Focusrite.
This worked, but is unstable.

So i ordered the Topping E2x2. I can test and give back, when it´s also not my sound the last interface on my checklist will be the Motu M2.
I make Electronic music with lots Delay, Reverb, Percussions. But my ears cannot stand harsh highs anymore.
So there is a specific sound i really like, but not so easy to describe.
I just hope the e2x2 and my Dt700 Pro X will be friends

Thank you very much for your feedback

 

[AnalogSteph]

I got the Focusrite 2i2 GEN3 an was very dissapointed about the LINE INs. I couldn´t get my synth right. The Focusrite adds his own "flavor"

That's odd, given that these have been popular measurement interfaces (some also used them for vinyl recording and the like) and should be able to take typical unbalanced line levels just fine. As long as you choose a combination of output level and (near minimum) input gain that gives recordings well out of clipping, keep both INST and AIR mode off, use suitable cabling and manage to avoid ground loop hell, I would not expect any unusual problems. Just don't do silly things like connecting a stereo headphone output to a single line input channel with a 1/4" TRS to TRS cable (instead of using the correct stereo 1/4" to 2x 1/4" TS splitter cable). But that would go for the iD14 all the same.

 

[SnakeLord]

I got the Focusrite 2i2 GEN3 an was very dissapointed about the LINE INs. I couldn´t get my synth right. The Focusrite adds his own "flavor"
Also the Headphone output was terrible and changed the Sound dramatically.
Everything sounded compressed and somewhow "distorted".

While i would agree that 2i2s HP out might not be suffficient/best for many of the headphones out there which would kinda fit in your description of "compressed" sound, you should do yourself a favor and free your mind from the subjective impressions. Just accept the fact, that you cannot rely on subjective feelings while trying to somehow measure the quality of the devices sound by listening to it (considering the fact, that none of the devices is defective).
This is the first step and the most important one! Otherwise the hunt for "perfect" sound will go forever and you wont be able to win this race.

If its still hard to accept for you, the second step should be at least some level matched A/B listening. Something like connecting the devices to a preamp for fast level matched switching would be enough. Get the 2 devices you are considering as an option, compare those directly to each other and keep the one you like the most.

Yor brain is playing tricks on you, your listening is not "good" enough to hear all the described changes in sound, nor do the measurments are backing up your personal impressions. You should learn to rely on the objective values of those devices, not personal feelings.