M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

USB headsets to digital audio workstation software...
User avatar
KD1GA
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Location: Apex, NC

M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby KD1GA » Sun Mar 12, 2023 2:45 pm

I wanted to share a few observations I have regarding both these external soundcards. I originally purchased the Motu, it's very well built and great meters and controls. It worked great with all other apps but with my 7000DLE I couldn't get it to work without excessive overflows unless I used a huge buffer size usually 1024 or 2048. I had it set up correctly with the Anan and Windows but still couldn't get it to run at an acceptable buffer. High quality short USB cable and a very a very capable computer. Computer is home built i9 so that certainly wasn't the problem.

I got fed up with the Motu and purchased the M-Audio Air. The M-Audio cruises along with a 64 bit buffer and a high sampling rate and zero overflows. My conclusion is that the drivers for the Motu must not be as good as the M-Audio Air. Hopefully they update them at some point as I like the Motu better; but its a "no go" for now. I hope this post helps someone out. Thanks Vin
Vin KD1GA
K1LSB
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:25 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby K1LSB » Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:17 pm

My own experience has been the opposite of yours. I'm running a MOTU M4 with very low buffer size and an ancient i7-6700k tasked with simultaneously supporting both Thetis and my Chrome browser with multiple tabs open.

My underflow/overflows counters have stayed zeroed for at least the past 2 hours on 75 meters this morning.

Just felt a need to balance the picture you painted.

Mark

Capture-1.jpg
Capture-1.jpg (52.78 KiB) Viewed 4110 times


Capture-2.jpg
Capture-2.jpg (187.26 KiB) Viewed 4110 times
User avatar
KD1GA
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Location: Apex, NC

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby KD1GA » Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:23 pm

Interesting. Are you running Windows 10? I forgot to mention running Windows 11 and perhaps the drivers haven't been optimized yet for 11 Thanks for the information.
Attachments
Screenshot 2023-03-12 112227.png
Screenshot 2023-03-12 112227.png (67.99 KiB) Viewed 4107 times
Vin KD1GA
K1LSB
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:25 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby K1LSB » Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:18 pm

Vin,

I've been running Insider Preview versions of Windows for at least the past 2 years, I'm currently on Windows 11 Beta 22624.1391 (released to the Beta Channel on March 2).

For the record, I've never had any problems with Windows 11, including any of the beta versions.

Mark
w9mdb
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:53 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby w9mdb » Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:38 pm

Couple of questions...

#1 What's the advantage of using one of these? I guess the ASIO drivers might be a bit quicker.
#2 How is it connected to the rig?
Mike W9MDB
K1LSB
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:25 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby K1LSB » Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:29 pm

1) Your assumption is correct, in fact an ASIO driver is lower latency than any other audio driver in Windows. That was the main factor in my decision to go with an audio interface.

2) The MOTU isn't connected to the radio, it's plugged into a USB port on the computer. All audio is transferred between the radio and computer thru VAC1 (at least in my case).

Mark
w9mdb
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:53 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby w9mdb » Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:43 pm

If the MOTU is not connected to the rig what does it have do with the sound channels to the rig?
Surely the audio it not going out the USB and back in again....
One setup show above shows audio connection to Virtual Audio and the other looks like it's connected to the MOTU.
I've never been able to get ASIO working with WSJTX.
Mike W9MDB
K1LSB
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:25 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby K1LSB » Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:30 pm

Both setups (Vin's and mine) show the audio going thru VAC1, which is simply a Virtual Audio Cable between the radio and the computer.

I'm running VoiceMeeter (a software audio mixer that runs in Windows), Vin apparently is not. My VAC1 is connected to VoiceMeeter's Virtual ASIO driver. Vin's VAC1 is connected directly to his MOTU ASIO driver.

I have no idea how to operate WSJTX, I'm strictly SSB ragchew.

Mark
User avatar
KD1GA
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Location: Apex, NC

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby KD1GA » Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:06 pm

Correct Mark, I'm direct for now. But now that my latency issues are solved, ill be setting up VMB and I'm thinking about a DAW Cakewalk. For now I'm keeping my rack mounted audio gear out of it . I'm running a full evaluation copy of Windows 11 Build 23403 pre-release 230225-1635, no problems with the build at all other than perhaps my Motu, really have no idea why it has an issue. I love running audio direct into the computer only connection to the radio is Ethernet to to the Anan, actually fiber converted Ethernet.
Vin KD1GA
User avatar
w-u-2-o
Posts: 5541
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby w-u-2-o » Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:24 pm

w9mdb wrote:If the MOTU is not connected to the rig what does it have do with the sound channels to the rig?
Surely the audio it not going out the USB and back in again....

The "rig", meaning the ANAN box, is not a radio by itself. It is part of a radio. It really does not deserve the title "rig". Most of the radio is the Thetis software. All of the audio processing is done in Thetis for both receive and transmit.

Audio can get to and from Thetis two ways:

1. Via the custom sound interface built into the ANAN box. You can learn more about this in this topic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2612

2. Direct to Thetis from any Windows sound device by way of the Thetis VAC interface. You can use any sound device for this, whether that is the mic and speaker port on your PC, a USB headset, or a fancy, professional audio interface like the M-Audio or MOTU (or Behringer, or Presonus, or Focusrite, etc.)

One advantage of the pro audio interfaces is that they support ASIO sound drivers, and ASIO to/from Thetis is faster and has less latency, if properly tuned, then the custom sound interface built into the ANAN box. The other main advantage of the pro audio interfaces is that they allow using professional microphones, and provide proper 48V phantom power to mic's that need it. They also support professional, powered studio monitor speakers. And everything hooks together with shielded microphone cables you don't need to make.

One setup show above shows audio connection to Virtual Audio and the other looks like it's connected to the MOTU.

That's correct. Using Voicemeeter Potato provides for virtual mixing and virtual cable functions so that you can get the audio routed to both hardware like the MOTU and digi mode programs like WSJT-X simultaneously. But if you are not interested in having a virtual mixing board or virtual cables you can just go direct.

I've never been able to get ASIO working with WSJTX.

Nobody can. No digi mode software supports ASIO, nor does it need to, none of it needs the low latency, not even WinLink Express. See this topic: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4447&p=22887
User avatar
w-u-2-o
Posts: 5541
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby w-u-2-o » Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:27 pm

KD1GA wrote:Correct Mark, I'm direct for now. But now that my latency issues are solved, ill be setting up VMB and I'm thinking about a DAW Cakewalk. For now I'm keeping my rack mounted audio gear out of it .

Vin--why do you feel you need a DAW given all the processing that's already built into Thetis? A lot of time was spent to provide for three stages of compression (one of them 10 band), two stages of EQ (both 10 band), and a phase rotator, just so folks did not have to go with rack gear or a DAW.
User avatar
KD1GA
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Location: Apex, NC

Re: M-Audio 192/4 Air Vs. Motu M2

Postby KD1GA » Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:06 pm

You know great question, I'm not really sure why. I would guess simply to play with something else and to get that real amazing deep sound. To be 100 % honest now that I have all hardware working to my liking and once I can get someone to help me online to tweak the stock audio, if I can get it to sound the way I want then I'm sure I'll be satisfied and leave it alone.
Vin KD1GA

Return to “Digital ("Virtual") Audio”