Ambisonic Mic Comparison (& sesquicentennial)
(too old to reply)
Michael Dunn
2017-06-26 20:25:46 UTC
Raw Message
Ha. I bought the MOTU 2408 many years ago. A versatile box for sure, but noticeably bad sound quality. I would never buy anything analog from them again.

Funny -- a few years after that purchase, I read a review (in Electronic Musician IIRC) of the successor model, and the reviewer barely even mentioned the audio performance, sticking mostly to describing all its wonderful patching & routing abilities. His audio review consisted of something like: “I recorded some synth tracks, and they sounded fine.” Nice.


p.s., Canada’s sesquicentennial (150th birthday) is approaching, and I’ve written five articles about the Canadian technology scene (& tech history) that will appear one-per-day this week. The first is:


To see the rest as they appear, hang out at:


There is arguably some surround-sound content in the series ;-)

A Sound on Sound review of the larger box says:

"MOTU don't publish any specifications for the 8Pre's analogue

circuitry, such as frequency response or signal-to-noise ratio. While

it might be nice to know these things, it could be argued that exact

figures are almost meaningless to the typical user the 8Pre is aimed

at. In any case, modern digital electronics design almost always

ensures that signal-to-noise ratio and bandwidth are no longer the

key concerns for the performance of an audio interface."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170626/41828530/attachment.html>