MOTU UltraLite-mk5 Review (Audio Interface)

[Nickerz]

Can someone fill me in about the 8 channel ADC mode? Is that something that needs to be specifically selected? Or is it determined by the number of inputs seeing a signal? This unit tested very poorly in the loopback tests and I wonder if that would change paying attention to the ADC.

 

[Grooved]

Can someone fill me in about the 8 channel ADC mode? Is that something that needs to be specifically selected? Or is it determined by the number of inputs seeing a signal? This unit tested very poorly in the loopback tests and I wonder if that would change paying attention to the ADC.

It has nothing to do with the settings or any menu options, what we were talking about is a design choice.
The units with AKM ADC have one 8ch ADC chip, the units with ESS ADC have 2 x 4ch ADC
The modes are not in the menu (like in the Cosmos ADC, being able to choose 2ch mode or 1ch mode)

What do you mean by "very poorly in the loopback tests"? which tests and results?

 

[Nickerz]

It has nothing to do with the settings or any menu options, what we were talking about is a design choice.
The units with AKM ADC have one 8ch ADC chip, the units with ESS ADC have 2 x 4ch ADC
The modes are not in the menu (like in the Cosmos ADC, being able to choose 2ch mode or 1ch mode)

What do you mean by "very poorly in the loopback tests"? which tests and results?

Gearspace.com - View Single Post - Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

Post 16204050 -Forum for professional and amateur recording engineers to share techniques and advice.

gearspace.com

Performed orders of magnitude worse than the old Motu stuff in a simple null test.

 

[mdsimon2]

Gearspace.com - View Single Post - Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

Post 16204050 -Forum for professional and amateur recording engineers to share techniques and advice.

gearspace.com

Performed orders of magnitude worse than the old Motu stuff in a simple null test.

Those tests are primarily dominated by very, very small differences in frequency response as discussed here -> #2 and are a very flawed way to measure performance.

As some who has several old MOTU interfaces as well as a UL Mk5 I'd choose the UL Mk5 any day.

Michael

 

[Grooved]

Gearspace.com - View Single Post - Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

Post 16204050 -Forum for professional and amateur recording engineers to share techniques and advice.

gearspace.com

Performed orders of magnitude worse than the old Motu stuff in a simple null test.

The important thing is for you to get the same results than the other got with the same device. It, without guaranteeing it, that your device is not faulty.
And if you're not using it for loopback recording (to add external processing), it's not important.

Those tests are primarily dominated by very, very small differences in frequency response as discussed here -> #2 and are a very flawed way to measure performance.

As some who has several old MOTU interfaces as well as a UL Mk5 I'd choose the UL Mk5 any day.

Michael

To test a loopback, it's not completely a flaw way. The problem is that the result depends a lot from the filters used for example, which are not the same on all device, which means it's not only the DAC/ADC combo that are measured.
If there was a way to test all device without filters, it would have been nearer a good way to measure, and again, it would not be measuring the ADC or the DAC performance, but the combo performance, which would not match any listening or recording use, but the combo of both chips.

It gives the same results than when tested with Deltawave in it's simplest mode. The interesting thing with Deltawave is that you can find more the source of the difference.

 

[redeyes]

That page does not seem to have MK5 data, its the older model which is not the MK5.. seems like https://gearspace.com/gear/motu/ultralite?via=gear_post_link

 

[mdsimon2]

That page does not seem to have MK5 data, its the older model which is not the MK5.. seems like https://gearspace.com/gear/motu/ultralite?via=gear_post_link

It has both.

Michael

 

[Biblob]

At least on the Mk5 you need to do the following to use a TOSLINK source.

-Set clock source to optical
-Set optical input to TOSLINK (not ADAT)
-Set sample rate to match your source sample rate, it will not automatically switch
-Route TOSLINK input to desired output using Cuemix or your DAW

Michael

Do you also set the samplerate source to Toslink instead of "internal"?

If so, I assume, if that's necessary, it won't be usable as a DAC connected to a PC simultaneously?

 

[mdsimon2]

Do you also set the samplerate source to Toslink instead of "internal"?

If so, I assume, if that's necessary, it won't be usable as a DAC connected to a PC simultaneously?

That was the first line in my instructions "set clock source to optical".

The only way to have the clock source set to internal and use a TOSLINK source would be if you had the ability to use the coaxial output of the UL Mk5 to clock your TOSLINK source. At the end of the day you need to find a way to make sure the UL Mk5 and your TOSLINK source are clock synchronized.

What is your application where you want to use UL Mk5 connected to a PC while using a TOSLINK source? I think this should be feasible if your TOSLINK source constantly outputs a signal (not all of them do) so the UL Mk5 can stay clocked via TOSLINK, but to be honest I have not tried it.

Michael

 

[manisandher]

The interesting thing with Deltawave is that you can find more the source of the difference.

For best results, the clocks of the DAC and ADC need to be synchronised, requiring DeltaWave to just match levels and deal with intersample offsets, and nothing else. I can get RMS differences of around -100dB with a sine tone and around -80dB with music with just these two selected in settings. This is substantially better than most of the Gearspace results.

And I find that DeltaWave's PK Metric correlates well with what I hear.

Mani.

 

[Biblob]

That was the first line in my instructions "set clock source to optical".

Sorry, should not combine work and ASR at the same time.

The only way to have the clock source set to internal and use a TOSLINK source would be if you had the ability to use the coaxial output of the UL Mk5 to clock your TOSLINK source. At the end of the day you need to find a way to make sure the UL Mk5 and your TOSLINK source are clock synchronized.

What is your application where you want to use UL Mk5 connected to a PC while using a TOSLINK source? I think this should be feasible if your TOSLINK source constantly outputs a signal (not all of them do) so the UL Mk5 can stay clocked via TOSLINK, but to be honest I have not tried it.

Michael

Yeah, I tried using the Toslink source and connect my Topping BC3 with it, but still only white noise.

The application is to add LDAC Bluetooth to my Windows based PC while using the MK4 as the multichannel DAC for my active setup. But if I won't get Toslink and USB to work at the same time I can still use the analog-out of the BC3 and use the UL MK4 analog in. I'll have to figure out the internal routing again though, so that I can have multiple inputs/sources that go to the same output.

 

[mdsimon2]

Sorry, should not combine work and ASR at the same time.


Yeah, I tried using the Toslink source and connect my Topping BC3 with it, but still only white noise.

The application is to add LDAC Bluetooth to my Windows based PC while using the MK4 as the multichannel DAC for my active setup. But if I won't get Toslink and USB to work at the same time I can still use the analog-out of the BC3 and use the UL MK4 analog in. I'll have to figure out the internal routing again though, so that I can have multiple inputs/sources that go to the same output.

But why do you want to TOSLINK and USB inputs at the same time? Are you playing different sources to different rooms or something?

Michael

 

[Biblob]

But why do you want to TOSLINK and USB inputs at the same time? Are you playing different sources to different rooms or something?

Michael

No, it's just that I don't want to hassle of needing to switch manually between the clock sources. I want to use Bluetooth for the ease of use, friends connecting it via bluetooth for example. So it looks like I'll just stick with connecting bluetooth via an analog input.

 

[MCH]

No, it's just that I don't want to hassle of needing to switch manually between the clock sources. I want to use Bluetooth for the ease of use, friends connecting it via bluetooth for example. So it looks like I'll just stick with connecting bluetooth via an analog input.

Bluetooth receiver > toslink > small toslink to USB card > computer > motu
Or Bluetooth USB dongle without ldac?

 

[Biblob]

Bluetooth receiver > toslink > small toslink to USB card > computer > motu
Or Bluetooth USB dongle without ldac?

Bluetooth receiver > toslink > motu (in) > computer > motu (out)

Or, what I probably will use:
Bluetooth receiver > analog > motu (in) > computer > motu (out)

 

[MCH]

Bluetooth receiver > toslink > motu (in) > computer > motu (out)

Or, what I probably will use:
Bluetooth receiver > analog > motu (in) > computer > motu (out)

Mine were suggestions to solve your problem without having to do a DA conversion (not claiming they are better options)

 

[Bamboszek]

IMO MOTU ADCs are transparent enough, especially for already limited Bluetooth transmission.
I'm doing similar thing: android phone/work laptop -> Apple USB-C dongle -> analog-in to save some hassle with reconnecting USB from desktop PC.
Additionally you don't need to run PC all the time as MOTU could work standalone when configured correctly.

 

[Biblob]

Mine were suggestions to solve your problem without having to do a DA conversion (not claiming they are better options)

Like @Bamboszek says, I believe that the Motu will be transparant in it's DA conversion, espesically for the already lower Bluetooth quality.

 

[MCH]

Like @Bamboszek says, I believe that the Motu will be transparant in it's DA conversion, espesically for the already lower Bluetooth quality.

The Motu? For sure!!! now the BC3 dac... well...
But as said, i am not claiming that my proposals are better, just wanted to give ideas, that's it

 

[Biblob]

The Motu? For sure!!! now the BC3 dac... well...
But as said, i am not claiming that my proposals are better, just wanted to give ideas, that's it
View attachment 256490

Not the best no. But I'm willing to sacrifice the audio quality for the convenience. Bluetooth won't be used that much anyways