MOTU UltraLite-mk5 Review (Audio Interface)

[mdsimon2]

I meant that in terms of Motu hierarchy. The DACs of one generation will probably all have the same chip (?), it's the inputs/gains that differ, right?

I've been researching a lot of these old MOTU DACs for use as standalone ADAT interfaces with a miniDSP MCHstreamer, unfortunately it is very hard to find specifications on them, let alone specific chip information. Fortunately there are a bunch of teardowns available, this site -> https://khronscave.blogspot.com/ is particularly good. Here are the DAC chips that I've been able to piece together, a lot of AK4358s in the mk3 generation but not all.

828mk2: AK4528
828mk3: AK4358
896mk3 hybrid: AK4396
Traveler mk1: AK4358
Traveler mk3: AK4358
Ultralite mk1: AK4620
Ultralite mk3 hybrid: AK4358

If you look at the specs on those chips they are nowhere close to what a modern ESS DAC like the ES9026pro in the Ultralite Mk5 can achieve.

Michael

 

[AnalogSteph]

The downside to using DeltaWave is that you never really know for sure what actually caused the delta. Use e.g. RMAA to find some clues, I imagine they are going to be in the frequency response.

Converter complement:
828 Mk2 - 8x AK4528 ADC + DAC, 1x AK4382 main out
Ultralite Mk5 - ADC AK5578, DAC ES9026PRO

On a hunch, here are the respective digital filter periodic passband ripple specs:
AK4528 A/D +/-0.005 dB
AK4528 D/A +/-0.005 dB
AK4382 D/A +/-0.02 dB (fast) / +/-0.005 dB (slow rolloff)
AK5578 A/D +0.001/-0.06 dB (fast) / +0.001/-0.076 dB (slow rolloff) @ single/double speed
ES9026PRO D/A from +/-0.002 dB (fast rolloff, linear phase) over +/-0.005, +/-0.01, +/-0.015 dB to +/-0.075 dB (apodizing, linear phase), see datasheet

An audio interface is unlikely to be using the apodizing filter, but maybe the fast rolloff, linear phase filter @+/-0.005 dB. or the hybrid @+/-0.01 dB. So our main culprit is likely to be the ADC anti-alias filter. I don't know why even the AK557x series only has these lame filter options, you really want to be using them at 192 kHz or even better 384 kHz. The best performers at 48 or even 44.1 kHz tend to be old midrange and high-end chips from the early / mid 2000s (think AK5385, AK5394, PCM4220/4222).

 

[Grooved]

Are we all suggesting that this interface is actually bad then? should i not be upgrading from motu m4? outside of dac, the actual device has outstanding conversion for mics?

Certainly not, even if the 828 MK2 was better in all measurements, which I don't think, why would this mean that the Ultralite MK5 would be bad ?
Devices are not "great" or "bad" only.

I specified that it's a loopback test so the ADC part have a big role.
The only thing at this moment that it may show is that if you use both devices to do a external (analog) processing, you may have a better result with the 828 MK2 because it gets an unprocessed loopback closer to the original file (per measurement of difference).

Another point, in this context of loopback, to conclude that Ultralite MK5 would be bad, it would implies that the 828 MK2 would be nearly bad, which is not supposed to be since it gets one of the best results in loppback test with Deltawave and Gearspace test.

But if you want to use it as DAC only, I can guarantee you that, first, the 828 MK2 will be a nightmare compared to the Ultralite MK5 regarding the drivers, and that even if I didn't compare both as a DAC at this moment, I'm pretty sure the Ultralite MK5 sounds better as a DAC.

That is a pretty bold claim based on not a whole lot of data, I am very skeptical of it especially with respect to DACs. I've measured and listened to a few of the old MOTU interfaces (828mk2, 896, Ultralite Mk3) and from a DAC perspective they are nowhere close to the Ultralite Mk5. ADCs may be a different story. Definitely need some more investigation here as I am quite sure the Ultralite Mk5 will walk all over the 828mk2 in all of your typical measurements, so why the difference on the loopback?

Michael

"Listened", yes, but while using DAC and ADC, maybe not. I will try to measure the ADC and DAC separately.

Regarding the difference on the loopback (and it was the same reults with different recording levels), I found a very specific case for the 828MK2 (and 2408 and 24I/O) from this generation : they all the same chip, and it does both ADC and DAC, by pair (4 chips, each doing 2 mono OUT and 2 mono IN).
Maybe it help to be more "synced" in the loopback ? but at the same time, I get the same result if use two chips (OUT 1&2 to IN 5&6 for example)

The question is not would it be better as a DAC, but more why it's not better as DAC but better at loopback (while its ADC is also with lower specs)

 

[dasdoing]

AK4358s in the mk3 generation but not all

I think you can call mk3 hybrid's an own generation: https://motu.com/other/press

Traveler mk1: AK4358
Traveler mk3: AK4358

good to know the only diference is added effects (?)

 

[trivenge]

my

Certainly not, even if the 828 MK2 was better in all measurements, which I don't think, why would this mean that the Ultralite MK5 would be bad ?
Devices are not "great" or "bad" only.

I specified that it's a loopback test so the ADC part have a big role.
The only thing at this moment that it may show is that if you use both devices to do a external (analog) processing, you may have a better result with the 828 MK2 because it gets an unprocessed loopback closer to the original file (per measurement of difference).

Another point, in this context of loopback, to conclude that Ultralite MK5 would be bad, it would implies that the 828 MK2 would be nearly bad, which is not supposed to be since it gets one of the best results in loppback test with Deltawave and Gearspace test.

But if you want to use it as DAC only, I can guarantee you that, first, the 828 MK2 will be a nightmare compared to the Ultralite MK5 regarding the drivers, and that even if I didn't compare both as a DAC at this moment, I'm pretty sure the Ultralite MK5 sounds better as a DAC.


"Listened", yes, but while using DAC and ADC, maybe not. I will try to measure the ADC and DAC separately.

Regarding the difference on the loopback (and it was the same reults with different recording levels), I found a very specific case for the 828MK2 (and 2408 and 24I/O) from this generation : they all the same chip, and it does both ADC and DAC, by pair (4 chips, each doing 2 mono OUT and 2 mono IN).
Maybe it help to be more "synced" in the loopback ? but at the same time, I get the same result if use two chips (OUT 1&2 to IN 5&6 for example)

The question is not would it be better as a DAC, but more why it's not better as DAC but better at loopback (while its ADC is also with lower specs)

idc about the dac, i have a better setup externally. I am mainly focusing on the ADC tbh and the quality of it relative to say motu m4, if there is a plausible difference or not in actual quality, idk. I was hoping someone else might be more aware lol

 

[Grooved]

my

idc about the dac, i have a better setup externally. I am mainly focusing on the ADC tbh and the quality of it relative to say motu m4, if there is a plausible difference or not in actual quality, idk. I was hoping someone else might be more aware lol

Sorry, I would help you more if I had the Ultralite MK5 to compare with the 828MK2 (I only have a Ultralite MK5 loopback recording).
Need more test for the 828 but I now saw that the ADC part (chip are doing both ADC and DAC) looks to perform better than the DAC part

I think you can call mk3 hybrid's an own generation: https://motu.com/other/press

good to know the only diference is added effects (?)

For the 828, the MK3 was a totally new design compared to the MK2 (with FX added also).
MK2 had one AKM chip doing ADC/DAC for Main outputs, headphones, Mic/Instrument inputs, and 4 AKM chips doing ADC/DAC for the 8 line inputs/outputs
MK3 had combination of several AKM and Cirus Logic, all doing only one task (dedicated ADC and dedicated DAC)
Yet, on the loopback test, the MK2 performs better in Deltawave and in the Gearspace test...

 

[dasdoing]

Sorry, I would help you more if I had the Ultralite MK5 to compare with the 828MK2 (I only have a Ultralite MK5 loopback recording).
Need more test for the 828 but I now saw that the ADC part (chip are doing both ADC and DAC) looks to perform better than the DAC part



For the 828, the MK3 was a totally new design compared to the MK2 (with FX added also).
MK2 had one AKM chip doing ADC/DAC for Main outputs, headphones, Mic/Instrument inputs, and 4 AKM chips doing ADC/DAC for the 8 line inputs/outputs
MK3 had combination of several AKM and Cirus Logic, all doing only one task (dedicated ADC and dedicated DAC)
Yet, on the loopback test, the MK2 performs better in Deltawave and in the Gearspace test...

guess we an conclued that the loopback test is more usefull for recording, than for playback(?)

 

[Grooved]

guess we an conclued that the loopback test is more usefull for recording, than for playback(?)

Hi, the loopback test in audio (not in measurement) is more matching the case of using of external analog processing, so while mixing or mastering.
loopback test is Digital -> Analog OUT -> Analog IN - > Digital
Recording is Analog IN -> Digital only or Analog IN -> Digital -> Analog OUT if you need monitoring or mixing live

Regarding the better results of the 828 mk2 than Ultralite mk5 in audio loopback test, I did check the 828 mk2 in measurements :
checked the DAC with the Cosmos ADC, and checked the ADC with the Tone2 Pro (both with higher measurements than the Motu) and it appears that even if the chip is doing both ADC and DAC conversion, it performs better in ADC than in DAC.
The ADC measurements of the 828 mk2 with signal coming from the Tone2 Pro are better than audio coming from the Motu output (maybe because the chip only has to work as ADC instead of both ?) : noise is 10dB lower

 

[BoredErica]

I've been waiting months for UL5 to be back in stock and it's really making me question if it's worth waiting for it over the M4. Even Rythmik's sub is coming in soon and they already took forever.

There isn't even a guarantee UL5 is coming mid March. B&H said Feb 18th and then it became 'we have no idea'. Time to scroll through all the pages of M4 review I guess. Lots of talk about reconstruction filter in first page. Don't think it's audible though.

 

[Davide]

Out of curiosity, since it has been measured that the card has a minimum phase filter on the DAC, is there anyone who has also measured the phase shift vs freq? (since it seems to have a custom filter instead of an ESS one)

 

[Davide]

Out of curiosity, since it has been measured that the card has a minimum phase filter on the DAC, is there anyone who has also measured the phase shift vs freq? (since it seems to have a custom filter instead of an ESS one)

Or, can someone kindly tell me what software I can use to make a loopback measurement? Thank you

 

[Grooved]

Or, can someone kindly tell me what software I can use to make a loopback measurement? Thank you

Hi, I'm using Wavelab, but you can use any software that can play and record using your audio interface driver (you could use two software but they certainly won't be able to both select your audio interface), even a free one like Audacity should be OK.
But as it doesn't support ASIO, check if it can select your audio interface with WASAPI. If not, install VB-Audio Hifi Cable and ASIO-Bridge ( https://download.vb-audio.com/Download_CABLE/HiFiCableAsioBridgeSetup_v1007.zip ), it's the opposite of ASIO4ALL so it allow to select Hifi Cable with WASAPI in your software, then you start ASIO Bridge and select the ASIO driver of your audio interface.
I think I only used it as Output, but it should work for both Input/Output

EDIT : not sure if you wanted to do an audio file measurement with Deltawave (in this case, you need an audio recording software like described above), or a signal measurement like with MultiTone or REW (in this case, you only need these software)

 

[mdsimon2]

Or, can someone kindly tell me what software I can use to make a loopback measurement? Thank you

I would use REW. Although if you really want to measure phase shift you need to use an ADC with a linear phase filter and another DAC fed by the same digital source with a linear phase filter as a timing reference.

I can give it a try this weekend.

Michael

 

[Sancus]

I wish this had a rear mounted mic input like some of the other Motus. What's the easiest way to get the cable out of the way for a desktop setup. One of these low profile cables?

 

[Naciketas]

Salve a tutti, this is my first post in this valuable forum that already helped me not to waste my very few "silver bullets" choosing a new pair of speakers.

At the moment, I listen music, mainly streaming from Tidal, on a mid2011 iMac, through an even older Motu 828mk2 as a DAC, and I'm quite satisfied of the result, BUT, having one last bullet spared, I wonder if a more recent, proper DAC, as a Topping D10s/DX3pro+, would be an appreciable upgrade to better the experience of listening.

Thanks

 

[Tks]

Salve a tutti, this is my first post in this valuable forum that already helped me not to waste my very few "silver bullets" choosing a new pair of speakers.

At the moment, I listen music, mainly streaming from Tidal, on a mid2011 iMac, through an even older Motu 828mk2 as a DAC, and I'm quite satisfied of the result, BUT, having one last bullet spared, I wonder if a more recent, proper DAC, as a Topping D10s/DX3pro+, would be an appreciable upgrade to better the experience of listening.

Thanks

Welcome to the forum :]

If you're not having audible distortion from your listening devices, and if you're not having a lack of power (volume output isn't enough), then perhaps a DX3 Pro+ could be a decent thing to solve such issues definitively. If you're not having the two aforementioned issues, "better listening experiences" can mostly be reaped by upgrading end-point devices before upgrading something like a DAC (which should be last in modern reality, to make the discussion brief on the matter).

Those "new pair of speakers" you might've wanted to buy would be the best upgrade; given if they're much better than the current ones you own. Secondarily, you can try things like Equalization, or room treatment and see if that can be tuned a bit, thought room treatment would require measuring the response of your room using a microphone (something more qualified members of the forum can easily help you with if you need aid or advice on how this goes).

If you're set on replacing the Motu, the DX3 Pro + is almost certainly, on paper at the very least, a decent amount better from a performance/fidelity perspective. Will that translate to something tangible when it eventually outputs out of your speakers? Perhaps, given the age of the Motu, but I doubt it'd be some insane difference unless you have power/audible distortion or noise as mentioned previously.

Some folks can't rest easy having that nagging voice in the back of their head telling them to settle the matter knowing that objectively in reality, the new DAC they're getting is state of the art and will be the last time they need to buy a DAC given it's fidelity is beyond the threshold of hearing. The DX3 Pro+ is inexpensive enough where biting this last bullet might be worth it just to quiet that little voice in your head once and for all. Especially if it has any feature you also are looking forward to (Me for instance, I'd appreciate the Bluetooth input which would allow me/you to use your phone and stream music that way without ever even having to power up the iMac).

 

[manisandher]

I don't use Windows so I can't speak to that but on Mac and Linux (5.11 kernel or newer) it works without any driver.

[Highlight mine.]

Hi Michael, thanks for sharing.

I thought I'd give this a go and updated my SOtM sMS-200 to kernel 5.11.22. The SOtM does indeed now work with the UltraLite! However...

It only works at 44.1 & 48kHz rates. Nothing plays at higher rates. Did you have the same problem? If so, did you manage to solve it?

Mani.

 

[mdsimon2]

I run mine at 96 kHz so can confirm it works at rates other than 44.1 / 48. I am not familiar with the SOtM sMS-200 but I bet the issue is related to how the UltraLiteMk5 has different channel counts depending on sample rate. At 44.1 / 48 it has 22 output channel, at 88.2 / 96 it has 18 output channel and at 176.4 / 192 it has 10 output channels, see output from cat /proc/asound/UltraLitemk5/stream0 showing this.

I use CamillaDSP with my Mk5 and if I specify the wrong number of output channels for the sample rate I am using (say 10 when I am running at 96 kHz) it will not work.

michael6@raspberrypi6:~$ cat /proc/asound/UltraLitemk5/stream0 
MOTU UltraLite-mk5 at usb-0000:01:00.0-1.2, high speed : USB Audio

Playback:
  Status: Stop
  Interface 1
    Altset 1
    Format: S24_3LE
    Channels: 22
    Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
    Rates: 44100, 48000
    Data packet interval: 125 us
    Bits: 24
    Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
    Sync EP Interface: 2
    Sync EP Altset: 1
    Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes
  Interface 1
    Altset 2
    Format: S24_3LE
    Channels: 18
    Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
    Rates: 88200, 96000
    Data packet interval: 125 us
    Bits: 24
    Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
    Sync EP Interface: 2
    Sync EP Altset: 2
    Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes
  Interface 1
    Altset 3
    Format: S24_3LE
    Channels: 10
    Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
    Rates: 176400, 192000
    Data packet interval: 125 us
    Bits: 24
    Channel map: FL FR FC LFE RL RR FLC FRC RC SL
    Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
    Sync EP Interface: 2
    Sync EP Altset: 3
    Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes

Michael

 

[manisandher]

I am not familiar with the SOtM sMS-200 but I bet the issue is related to how the UltraLiteMk5 has different channel counts depending on sample rate. At 44.1 / 48 it has 22 output channel, at 88.2 / 96 it has 18 output channel and at 176.4 / 192 it has 10 output channels...

Thanks Michael, that's a great help.

The SOtM is showing the following:

[DAC info]
MOTU UltraLite-mk5 at usb-1c1c000.usb-1, high speed : USB Audio

Playback:
Status: Stop
Interface 1
Altset 1
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 22
Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
Sync EP Interface: 2
Sync EP Altset: 1
Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes
Interface 1
Altset 2
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 18
Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
Sync EP Interface: 2
Sync EP Altset: 2
Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes
Interface 1
Altset 3
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 10
Endpoint: 0x02 (2 OUT) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Channel map: FL FR FC LFE RL RR FLC FRC RC SL
Sync Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN)
Sync EP Interface: 2
Sync EP Altset: 3
Implicit Feedback Mode: Yes

Capture:
Status: Stop
Interface 2
Altset 1
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 20
Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Interface 2
Altset 2
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 16
Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Interface 2
Altset 3
Format: S24_3LE
Channels: 10
Endpoint: 0x83 (3 IN) (ASYNC)
Rates: 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000, 176400, 192000
Data packet interval: 125 us
Bits: 24
Channel map: FL FR FC LFE RL RR FLC FRC RC SL
[/DAC info]

I'll contact SOtM to see if they might be able to do something about this. So far, they've been very responsive, with excellent customer service (unlike iFi).

Mani.

 

[Davide]

In reference to my post in Windows audio thread, I would like to have someone's opinion on the distortion measured with the Mk5's loopback digital channel using the ASIO drivers.
As shown in the graph, at 20hz it is higher than -100dbFS. However Amirm' measurements indicate 114db of SINAD on the analog output.
I am thinking that the Mk5's digital loopback channel is handled by its internal mixer (DSP) and therefore suffers distortion.
Which seems strange to me because the same mixer should also works in some way with the analog output ...
Maybe it's due to ESS' THD reduction algorithm? (I know, I should check which is the worst HD order in previous measurements but forgot to do it).