MOTU UltraLite-mk5 Review (Audio Interface)

[amirm]

Excellent results! I hope this issue is made aware to and the instructions are available/accessible for all consumers as well

I believe they are going to fix this in firmware so it just works.

 

[acousticshade]

Thanks Amirm for all your great reviews. I was waiting for your review and Julian's as well and glad to see that the big issues seem to be cleared up. This is a real top performer, especially given the price and the number of inputs/outputs. Pretty sure I'm going to pull the trigger and get one.

 

[mdsimon2]

I am thinking of getting one of these for DAC and amplifier measurements, can anyone think of a sub-$1K ADC that would be better performing for that purpose than this?

Michael

Ended up impulse buying one of these as I figured even if it was only a small improvement over the MOTU M4 in terms of measurements the 10 channels of output + master volume control + SPDIF/TOSLINK inputs were enough to justify the purchase.

Overall pretty pleased with it despite a few quirks. I am a mac user and I first tried to use the interface without installing any additional software, in this configuration all outputs are set to -20 dB but you have no indication of this until you install the MOTU software! The level indicators will show full output but if you measure the output voltage you are only getting 0.86 V which is 10X less than the full output voltage of 8.6 V. Once I installed the MOTU software I was able to adjust this up to 0 dB.

From a measurement perspective at full output of 8.6V I found that using the back panel line inputs was best, here is a loop back at full output voltage from output channel 3 to line input channel 4.

For lower voltages I found that using the front panel microphone inputs was best, especially if the -20 dB pad was used with mic gain. Here is 2 V output with the -20 dB pad and +12 dB mic gain, output channel 3 to microphone input 2 (TRS to XLR).

Here is 4 V output with -20 dB pad and +6 dB mic gain, output channel 3 to microphone input 2 (TRS to XLR).

I also found that at least on my unit output channels 1-6 seem to perform a bit better than channels 7-10.

Michael

 

[SylphAudio]

Ended up impulse buying one of these as I figured even if it was only a small improvement over the MOTU M4 in terms of measurements the 10 channels of output + master volume control + SPDIF/TOSLINK inputs were enough to justify the purchase.

Overall pretty pleased with it despite a few quirks. I am a mac user and I first tried to use the interface without installing any additional software, in this configuration all outputs are set to -20 dB but you have no indication of this until you install the MOTU software! The level indicators will show full output but if you measure the output voltage you are only getting 0.86 V which is 10X less than the full output voltage of 8.6 V. Once I installed the MOTU software I was able to adjust this up to 0 dB.

From a measurement perspective at full output of 8.6V I found that using the back panel line inputs was best, here is a loop back at full output voltage from output channel 3 to line input channel 4.

View attachment 140223

For lower voltages I found that using the front panel microphone inputs was best, especially if the -20 dB pad was used with mic gain. Here is 2 V output with the -20 dB pad and +12 dB mic gain, output channel 3 to microphone input 2 (TRS to XLR).

View attachment 140224

Here is 4 V output with -20 dB pad and +6 dB mic gain, output channel 3 to microphone input 2 (TRS to XLR).

View attachment 140225

I also found that at least on my unit output channels 1-6 seem to perform a bit better than channels 7-10.

Michael

Nice loopback performance. Motu M4 can only achieve around -103dB THD+N. Can you repeat measurement and screen capture with dBc instead of dBV?

 

[mdsimon2]

Nice loopback performance. Motu M4 can only achieve around -103dB THD+N. Can you repeat measurement and screen capture with dBc instead of dBV?

Sure thing, obviously the THD+N numbers do not change when using dBc but I do like dBc as it makes visual interpretation of the FFT easier. Results below are using the same settings described in my previous post.

2V

4V

8.6V

Michael

 

[q3cpma]

@amirm, now that I think of it, it'd be nice for DAC tests to include a basic test with the generic UAC driver (UAC2 for Win 10, I think), to know about portability.

 

[AnalogSteph]

In this case would you still recommend the use of a mic activator (like the Se Electronics DM1 Dynamite, for instance) to boost the signal level for mics which do not require phantom power?

That seems largely unnecessary. According to Julian Krause (video posted a few posts up from yours), EIN is well in the green as-is, at -129.8 dBu(A) (150 ohm). As he says, you realistically have little over 1 dB to gain at best, plus you've got oodles of voltage gain available to begin with. Oh, and according to its specs, the DM1 actually has higher EIN (about -126.7 dBu(A) if you do the math).

I might reconsider if you ever find yourself with a mic of less than 150 ohms worth of nominal impedance, but then you still need to select your mic activator carefully.

 

[differenceclouds]

Ultralite owner here!

Looking at the EQ which gave the issue in the driver settings, every channel that supports the EQ has each filter on but at a flat setting. it is rather annoying that you have to turn off each filter individually for every channel (so that's 4 switches for each channel, except the master which has 3). Would be ideal if they had a master EQ switch for each channel, and off by default. For 99% of cases though, the flat EQ setting is most likely okay.

The only other thing I noticed which was odd, is that when I received my unit all the outputs were set at something like -20db. When using line level outboard gear, this is problematic. It's easy enough to set all the outputs to 0db however. Also, a factory reset put them at 0db, so I'm not sure why my unit shipped with this setting (maybe an older firmware version). If the unit amir tested was shipped with the outputs at -20db, it may have affected the s/n ratio measurement.

I've encountered a couple glitches here and there, such as MIDI not being recognized until a system restart for unknown reasons. Also, I get stuttering at ultra low buffer sizes for minimum latency, but these are fairly minor, and MOTU are good about firmware updates (I need to figure out how to replicate the midi issue so I can submit a formal bug report...). Also, for hifi users, ultra-low buffer size isn't really necessary if you're just listening to music with the thing (and I believe buffer size even syncs to video playback, but that is worth investigating).

People who have been in pro audio for a bit know that the 828 line has been a strong contender for a long time now. The stability of the 828 line can be seen plainly as with the right adapters (in my case thunderbolt 2 -> firewire 800 -> firewire 400) the very first 828 mk1 from 2001 can still be used on most modern systems. I believe this was the first firewire interface ever, with older interfaces requiring PCI cards. I would love to see how the 828mk1 measures. There was a lot of great music recorded with one of those (particularly electronic music where super quiet preamps aren't necessary).

Apparently there are some intricacies in the driver software that some people are missing from the 828mk3, but I would much rather my driver software be a simple utility than another piece of complicated software to wrangle alongside the DAW.

If anyone has any questions about the technical aspects of using the unit, let me know.

 

[differenceclouds]

That seems largely unnecessary. According to Julian Krause (video posted a few posts up from yours), EIN is well in the green as-is, at -129.8 dBu(A) (150 ohm). As he says, you realistically have little over 1 dB to gain at best, plus you've got oodles of voltage gain available to begin with. Oh, and according to its specs, the DM1 actually has higher EIN (about -126.7 dBu(A) if you do the math).

I might reconsider if you ever find yourself with a mic of less than 150 ohms worth of nominal impedance, but then you still need to select your mic activator carefully.

agreed, a mic activator is not necessary for this thing. Now, if you are interested in boutique preamps to *add* color, that's another story.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I would love to see how the 828mk1 measures. There was a lot of great music recorded with one of those (particularly electronic music where super quiet preamps aren't necessary).

People have been doing some investigation of the innards if you know what to look for, including some tweaks (though instead of banishing the mains transformer from the device, I would rather have investigated what it's coupling into, either it's electrostatic and some shielding would be required or it's magnetic and there's a ground loop going on in the signal path or grounding scheme somewhere... I won't be surprised if it's not exactly AES48 compliant yet either).

From this it looks like there are 4 pcs. Crystal CS4223 24/48 audio codecs plus a lone AKM AK4321 20/96 DAC (headphone out or something?). They are unlikely to do better than spec, which for the CS4223 is:
Dynamic range 105 dB(A), THD+N -97 dB (both D/A and A/D), A/D antialias filter ripple +/-0.01 dB, filter ultimate -80 dB, with "no" aliasing below 0.4535fs (which works out to just about exactly 20 kHz at 44.1 kHz).
For the AK4321 it's: Dynamic range 100 dB(A), THD+N -90 dB.

Decent midrange tech 20 years ago, a bit long in the tooth by modern standards, and it sounds like there were some implementation issues that would degrade measured performance below chip datasheet level. If the Mk2 is any indication, lurking underneath the rectifiers used as input protection may be one NJM2068 opamp per mic channel... about the least noisy inexpensive opamp you could get but still not entirely a match for a mic input... I mean, two channels in parallel would be decent enough, but surrounding resistor values aren't what I would call super low either. The end result for EIN might be similar to a Steinberg UR22 MkII/C mic input or something (not terrible, but decidedly mediocre)?

It look like these old models never had an official set of tech specs. I did find a max output level for the MkII of +18.5 dBu, so it looks like they did always support proper pro levels.

Other than that, these old things have to go for fairly little nowadays... perhaps consider sending one to someone who can measure them?

 

[amirm]

@amirm, now that I think of it, it'd be nice for DAC tests to include a basic test with the generic UAC driver (UAC2 for Win 10, I think), to know about portability.

I always test with generic class driver. The only exception is these pro interfaces where it is the norm to install their package to get the control software. Once there, I use their ASIO interface as well as otherwise people may question the results.

 

[mdsimon2]

I know that MOTU has a bad reputation when it comes to linux support but I was able to set up a simple CamillaDSP configuration on a RPi 4 running Ubuntu server (5.11.0-1012-raspi kernel) for the ultralite mk5 and it was plug and play. Camilla recognized 18 channels of output and I was able to set up a simple 10 channel output configuration with no issues.

Will need to experiment more with the other inputs / outputs some more to make sure everything else works. Would really like to be able to setup a configuration with a TOSLINK or SPDIF input -> CamillaDSP -> 10 channel output.

Michael

 

[m_u]

Can an anyone please measure an RMS noise of an instrument input?
Would be interesting to know how it's compared to -116db of an rme babyface instrument input
Thanks.
Much appreciated

 

[JohnYang1997]

Can an anyone please measure an RMS noise of an instrument input?
Would be interesting to know how it's compared to -116db of an rme babyface instrument input
Thanks.
Much appreciated

Instrument input is high-z input. So basically it's designed for high impedance source. Thus it means the noise from the source is dominant noise.
Only thing that matters is the immunity to interference. But normally the source is more vulnerable to interference like a guitar pickup.

 

[m_u]

Instrument input is high-z input. So basically it's designed for high impedance source. Thus it means the noise from the source is dominant noise.
Only thing that matters is the immunity to interference. But normally the source is more vulnerable to interference like a guitar pickup.

Depends on the pickups actually, also an audio interface noise floor can affect sound if using high gain apm sims.
Anyway would be good to know.
Thanks

 

[JohnYang1997]

Depends on the pickups actually, also an audio interface noise floor can affect sound if using high gain apm sims.
Anyway would be good to know.
Thanks

As long it's good enough. I have tested several interfaces. There are horrible ones, eg low end m-audio. But once competent enough, there's little difference. Focusrite has been quite good imo so has RME and MOTU.

 

[mdsimon2]

I know that MOTU has a bad reputation when it comes to linux support but I was able to set up a simple CamillaDSP configuration on a RPi 4 running Ubuntu server (5.11.0-1012-raspi kernel) for the ultralite mk5 and it was plug and play. Camilla recognized 18 channels of output and I was able to set up a simple 10 channel output configuration with no issues.

Will need to experiment more with the other inputs / outputs some more to make sure everything else works. Would really like to be able to setup a configuration with a TOSLINK or SPDIF input -> CamillaDSP -> 10 channel output.

Michael

I just set up a CamillaDSP configuration with TOSLINK input -> CamillaDSP -> 10 channel output, it was super easy once I realized I needed to enable resampling in CamillaDSP for this to work. So far latency seems really good with no noticeable lip sync issues but haven't set anything up in the configuration that would cause a delay (like FIR filters). Also have not listened long enough to make sure there are no weird clock sync issues over time but I really do no think there should be.

Man, if the mk5 had remote volume control this RPi 4 + mk5 setup would be an absolute miniDSP killer. Way more flexible processing power and way better analog performance than something like a 4X10HD.

Michael

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

I have tried FIR filters generated by Audiolense and still getting really good sync with the lip sync video on YouTube.

 

[Daverz]

Man, if the mk5 had remote volume control this RPi 4 + mk5 setup would be an absolute miniDSP killer. Way more flexible processing power and way better analog performance than something like a 4X10HD.

I use CamillaDSP's volume control, applied at the beginning of my pipeline. With 64-bit float computation and a 32-bit signal path, this should be as good as any volume control. Dither could also be applied at the end of the pipeline (going from 64-bit to 32-bit).

I use a FLIRC USB IR-receiver dongle on the Pi for the remote and a 7" LCD (non-touch) to display the volume level with a little Python script that communicates with CamillaDSP via websocket. So far I just have volume and mute working.

One thing I haven't investigated yet is whether the analog inputs (on the M4 in my case) can be routed thru CamillaDSP.

 

[mdsimon2]

I use CamillaDSP's volume control, applied at the beginning of my pipeline. With 64-bit float computation and a 32-bit signal path, this should be as good as any volume control. Dither could also be applied at the end of the pipeline (going from 64-bit to 32-bit).

I use a FLIRC USB IR-receiver dongle on the Pi for the remote and a 7" LCD (non-touch) to display the volume level with a little Python script that communicates with CamillaDSP via websocket. So far I just have volume and mute working.

One thing I haven't investigated yet is whether the analog inputs (on the M4 in my case) can be routed thru CamillaDSP.

Wow, that sounds great, I will definitely need to look at remote volume control / indication in CamillaDSP with an external LCD.

I also have a MOTU M4 and actually used that first as a test case for using soundcard inputs instead of a loopback in CamillaDSP, so I can confirm that the analog inputs work OK with CamillaDSP.

Michael