Digi HD better than Motu HD192?

[Steve Rieck]

how do the convertors/sound quality/stability etc. compare?

How big is the price difference?

(I realize you can't use PT software on the motu interface)

Thanks for any info.

[Lee Blaske]

There's been a thread about this already.

MOTU, in their latest ad, is obviously trying to draw a parallel between their new HD 192 and Digidesign's 192 interface, making the point that it has the same convertor chips as another well known convertor.

In the previous thread, someone already brought up the fact that doing 192 khz recording on a native system with today's hardware is pretty silly, unless you only need a couple of tracks.

Beyond that, the same chip business is a red herring. The convertor chips are not the expensive part of a quality interface. For Digidesign's products, both the 192 and 96 interfaces use the same convertor chips. It's the analog circuitry, power supply, etc. that costs money.

Here, again, is the laundry list of features and refinements that Dave Clementson posted regarding Digidesign's 192 (this is the most concise list of the Digi 192's technology that I've seen to date):

The clock schemes are basically the same on the 192 and 96. Both boxes use the new LVDS-based DigiLink interconnect for tighter timing, longer cable runs, autoconfigure, and higher I/O density per card (thanks, John Weitz). They also use an all-new low phase noise, ECL PLL-based clocking scheme (thanks, Dave Hedberg and Bruce Jackson) to support the new multi-rate Loop Sync architecture. This new clock generator gives better jitter performance than any of the 3rd-party clock sources I've tested (which is all them except Lucent, which I haven't had a chance to measure yet). It also gives good jitter rejection from external clock sources.
Besides what you get with the 192's AES/TDIF/ADAT/SRC card (again, thanks John), the main differences between the 192 I/O and 96 I/O are in the analog signal paths. The 192 has
* ultra-wideband class A discrete bootstrap ADC driver (thanks, Ed Meitner)
* active power decoupling for every active stage (again, thanks Ed)
* fully symmetrical, double balanced signal path
* much better performing ADC chips (the DAC chips are the same as in the 96 I/O but the 192 has better analog circuitry)
* private low-noise shunt regulation for each converter rail
* only Vishay or Beyschlag MELF resistors and dual-biased Wima polypropylene caps in the signal path
* DC-coupled signal path with DC servo offset compensation
* laser-trimmed input network for optimum CMRR
* balanced soft-knee ADC clipper
* separate software-selectable +4 and -10 input jacks
* wideband class-A discrete balanced output driver
* low-noise, wideband current-feedback DAC buffer (thanks for the idea, Michael Grace)
* passive, pulse-optimized DAC anti-image filters
* all relay switching
* dual gain adjusts on each input and output channel for two separate headroom calibration presets
* individually shielded channels for low crosstalk
Oh yea, and it opeates at 192kHz as well, although that wasn't really the point of the design (although its "192" name obscures that fact). The point of the design was to make a truly fine converter box with absolutely no compromises (cost or otherwise) in the signal path, lots of useful features, and the flexibility and future-proofing a modular design affords. And it obviously wasn't an effort by just "anybody."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When MOTU's clever advertising and Design department is finished cleverly trying to convince customers that the two products are equivalent, you might want to ask them to get specific about the actual guts of this box.

Maybe it IS just as good. Then again, maybe they're cutting corners to keep down the price point, and keep up their profits. All those back cover magazine ads cost a fortune, too.

MOTU has always had a stellar advertising department, and they've consitently spent big money placing ads. While their products are OK, if MOTU's hardware, software and support were at the same level as their advertising, they'd be the only game left in town.

Lee Blaske

[MikeC]

There are only a handful of converter chip manufacturers. The real trick is in the supporting circuitry - analogue amplification, filtering, clocks, etc. You can have the identical chip and completely different specs.

Cheers,

Mike

[markjohn]

Stay away from MOTU !!! good software, ok hardware, terrible support, a far cry from a professional product. You don't need the head ache.

regards
MMJ

[Nick Batzdorf]

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that the box that costs three times the price (without a PCI interface card) is going to sound better. But I could well be wrong, or the differences could be very subtle.

So the correct answer is Nobody knows! The MOTU box isn't due out until "sometime in 2003!"

****
By the way, ads are only expensive when they don't translate to sales.