Hello,

I have motifxs8 and now I need more inputs for sound recording and more outputs for different monitorings (clean, , hi-end) during mixing/mastering.

I did not find detailed specifications on the sound interface of motifxs8/mlan16e so I could not compare it to different other external interfaces to choose the one which coressponds better to my needs.

Could you give me more information on the IO specs of motif (a/d, preamp, db range,...) as well as point me out to several audio interfaces that have at least the same sound quality as motif’s audio.

I think about RME Fireface UC, but perhaps there are good alternatives..

Thank you for explanations and help!

mLAN16E2 FireWire Interface basic specifications…
Connectors: 2, 6-pin IEEE1394/i. link
Data Rate: S400
Audio Inputs and Outputs:  6 Ins, 16 Outs
Sampling rate: 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz
Bit depth: Up to 24-bit
MIDI ports: 3 Ins, 3 Outs

The mLAN16E2 MIDI ports are not physical 5-pin-DIN connections.

You may find information in this thread helpful:
http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/451983/

I’m searching more detailed specifications on db range on each frequency, etc…

otherwords to understand the distance between RME Fireface UFX et MotifXS audio (converters, preamps).

vitamusic - 21 November 2016 03:07 PM

I’m searching more detailed specifications on db range on each frequency, etc…

otherwords to understand the distance between RME Fireface UFX et MotifXS audio (converters, preamps).

If you’re looking for specifications such as frequency response, dynamic range, S/N (signal-to-noise ratio), EIN (Equivalent Input Noise), etc., I’ve never seen such information published for the mLAN16E2.

If you already have an XS8 (which seems to be the case based on your previous posting), what aspect of the mLAN16E2 performance do you find lacking?

In general, the mLAN16E2 specs are sufficiently good so that those parameters are not a limiting factor on audible quality. If you have a need to compare the performance of the XS8 with mLAN16E2 versus an external interface, I suggest that you do so by using the hardware rather than reading numbers on a piece of paper. If you can hear a difference, then make a decision based on that.

5pinDIN - 21 November 2016 04:16 PM

If you already have an XS8 (which seems to be the case based on your previous posting), what aspect of the mLAN16E2 performance do you find lacking?

preamp, converters

In general, the mLAN16E2 specs are sufficiently good so that those parameters are not a limiting factor on audible quality. If you have a need to compare the performance of the XS8 with mLAN16E2 versus an external interface, I suggest that you do so by using the hardware rather than reading numbers on a piece of paper. If you can hear a difference, then make a decision based on that.

that is an excellent idea, if I had an access to all the sound cards I want to test at the same conditions
that is not the case, and I did not find comparative recordings, the same conditions but different cards.
if you have the link, I’d be very glad

I discovered that there is lack of details for mixing and mastering.

vitamusic - 23 November 2016 10:26 PM

5pinDIN - 21 November 2016 04:16 PM

If you already have an XS8 (which seems to be the case based on your previous posting), what aspect of the mLAN16E2 performance do you find lacking?

preamp, converters

Specifically what about the “preamp, converters” of the mLAN16E2/XS8 performance doesn’t meet your needs?

Otherwise, frankly, this would appear to be mostly specsmanship.

5pinDIN - 23 November 2016 11:49 PM

Specifically what about the “preamp, converters” of the mLAN16E2/XS8 performance doesn’t meet your needs?
Otherwise, frankly, this would appear to be mostly specsmanship.

the sound has more “soap” and less detailed that does not allow to do the fine control at the final stage of mix and mastering

for playing purposes or sampling at 16bit/44kHz no problem, but for a sound production I’m not sure…

I could compare also the records done on motifxs and protools/focusrite with the similar conditions (mic old akg414c, same vocal,...) the difference is so evident for me (in details).

all this motivates me for searching of an external audio interface, but I’d like to know more in detail the specs of what I actually have (motifxs).

P.S. if for some reasons it is not possible to publish the specs in public topic, I’d be glad to recieve them as a private message.

thank you for your comprehension!

vitamusic - 24 November 2016 06:24 AM

5pinDIN - 23 November 2016 11:49 PM

Specifically what about the “preamp, converters” of the mLAN16E2/XS8 performance doesn’t meet your needs?
Otherwise, frankly, this would appear to be mostly specsmanship.

the sound has more “soap” and less detailed that does not allow to do the fine control at the final stage of mix and mastering

Sorry, but “soap” and “detail” are not quantifiable - they couldn’t be determined from even very complete specifications.

 

vitamusic -

for playing purposes or sampling at 16bit/44kHz no problem, but for a sound production I’m not sure…

Perhaps you missed some of the information in the thread I previously linked to. Yes, the sampler in the XS8 is limited to 16/44.1. However, A/D and D/A are 24-bit, and sample rate of up to 96kHz can be selected.

As I said, I’ve never seen detailed published specs for anything beyond what I’ve posted and are in that thread. While I have equipment that could measure frequency response, dynamic range, S/N (signal-to-noise ratio), EIN (Equivalent Input Noise), etc., I don’t have an mLAN16E2. I have two FW16E interfaces (which perform similarly to the mLAN16E2), one each for my XS and XF, but I haven’t found the need to document the performance.

 

vitamusic -

I could compare also the records done on motifxs and protools/focusrite with the similar conditions (mic old akg414c, same vocal,...) the difference is so evident for me (in details).

The AKG C414 is a condenser mic and requires phantom power. The XS8 would need to be augmented by at least a power supply for that purpose, and if you’re using a preamp to supply the phantom power then its sonic characteristics will affect the total sound.

I’ve provided as much information as I’m aware of. Others may have deeper specs for the mLAN16E2 that they’d be willing to share, or possibly give their opinions of external interfaces in terms you’ll find helpful.

Hi vitamusic,

How do you expect all of your research to affect the quality of your music?

or

Do you just follow the scientific and tech aspects of various studio equipment as part of some kind of personal study?

I’d personally rather record some great music on duct tape, than something bad on the best, or ‘statistically’ the best gear option.

I’m very lucky in that I do have a lot of excellent options, but that’s how I think, because I’m only really concerned with the music.

Cheers

philwoodmusic - 24 November 2016 03:18 PM

...I’d personally rather record some great music on duct tape, than something bad on the best…

I don’t have any information to augment the discussion on specs, but I sure love the approach you have stated above, philwoodmusic!

The natural world has a certain level of background noise and other distractions. Anyone who has ever been in an anechoic chamber knows just how abnormal silence is. In fact, it can literally be maddening…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-quietest-place-will-drive-you-crazy-in-45-minutes-180948160/

There was some great music recorded about 50 years ago, in the days of tape hiss, saturation distortion, frequency peaks and dips, etc. Nowadays many want to record with 120 dB or greater SNR, lots of headroom so nothing clips, ruler-flat extended response… and then use plug-ins to add noise and distortion, re-EQ, etc., so that the recording doesn’t sound quite as sterile.

 

The pursuit of excellence is gratifying and healthy. The pursuit of perfection is frustrating, neurotic, and a terrible waste of time.
  --Edwin Bliss

The trick is to recognize the difference between excellence and perfection.
  --5pinDIN

It took me a long time to see that music making with technology is pretty much made up from a few things that you REALLY need with a whole lot of transitional objects.

When struggling with gear acquisition syndrome or the need to use the best, If one asks one’s self “Will this improve my music?” the answer is commonly NO and the bank account usually looks better, or at least no worse. 

You can take that into every aspect of your music making or production, and ask it at every step. It works for everyone, from the drummer locating a cymbal in an awkward place because it looks good, to the snarky teen with non prescription glasses trying to run 256 simultaneous instances of a string library in Kontakt to a point where his computer shows a sign of doing something once every 40 minutes (or is now in Mars rover mode) because “it’s a REAL orchestra!”.

philwoodmusic - 24 November 2016 10:02 PM

[...] When struggling with gear acquisition syndrome or the need to use the best, If one asks one’s self “Will this improve my music?” the answer is commonly NO and the bank account usually looks better, or at least no worse. [...]

Agreed - there are a lot of things that make much more of a difference than using the latest/greatest gear. If anyone needs proof of that, the PBS “soundbreaking” series should be convincing.
See http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/478263/
Catch episodes online if broadcasts were missed or unavailable.

philwoodmusic - 24 November 2016 03:18 PM

Hi vitamusic,

How do you expect all of your research to affect the quality of your music?

or

Do you just follow the scientific and tech aspects of various studio equipment as part of some kind of personal study?

I’d personally rather record some great music on duct tape, than something bad on the best, or ‘statistically’ the best gear option.

I’m very lucky in that I do have a lot of excellent options, but that’s how I think, because I’m only really concerned with the music.

Cheers

hi, very strange quesion you asked…
I’m searching a good quality sound card that would be better than my actual motif card, there is neither any relation to the quality of my music nor a scientific or other research on a studio equipment.

to take right decision I look on the both sound and tech aspects.
and I do not understand the reason why yamaha do not show the full specs of its gear? if there is the confidential size I’m agree to sign NDA.

5pinDIN - 24 November 2016 09:16 PM

The natural world has a certain level of background noise and other distractions. Anyone who has ever been in an anechoic chamber knows just how abnormal silence is. In fact, it can literally be maddening…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-quietest-place-will-drive-you-crazy-in-45-minutes-180948160/

There was some great music recorded about 50 years ago, in the days of tape hiss, saturation distortion, frequency peaks and dips, etc. Nowadays many want to record with 120 dB or greater SNR, lots of headroom so nothing clips, ruler-flat extended response… and then use plug-ins to add noise and distortion, re-EQ, etc., so that the recording doesn’t sound quite as sterile.

 

The pursuit of excellence is gratifying and healthy. The pursuit of perfection is frustrating, neurotic, and a terrible waste of time.
  --Edwin Bliss

The trick is to recognize the difference between excellence and perfection.
  --5pinDIN

my question is not the history of recording.
I have the professional clients that are not agree with the quality of my sound card for recording, mixing and mastering.
they want more details and precision on recording piano, ac.guitar, vocal,… as well as mastering transparence and mixing precision of 0.2dB.
even if I have a control room with balanced reverberation time on all frequencies, adams and auratones,.. the bottleneck is the soundcard.

in your messages you propose to close the eyes on tech specs and deep in history of music recording, I just would like to know the tech specs.

perhaps, you can give me the contact of a technical person from yamaha who can provide me with these specs ?

thanks

philwoodmusic - 24 November 2016 10:02 PM

It took me a long time to see that music making with technology is pretty much made up from a few things that you REALLY need with a whole lot of transitional objects.

When struggling with gear acquisition syndrome or the need to use the best, If one asks one’s self “Will this improve my music?” the answer is commonly NO and the bank account usually looks better, or at least no worse. 

You can take that into every aspect of your music making or production, and ask it at every step. It works for everyone, from the drummer locating a cymbal in an awkward place because it looks good, to the snarky teen with non prescription glasses trying to run 256 simultaneous instances of a string library in Kontakt to a point where his computer shows a sign of doing something once every 40 minutes (or is now in Mars rover mode) because “it’s a REAL orchestra!”.

once more time....
the question is not the quality of music and its amelioration, but…
the audio interface of motif as a base point (bottleneck in my workflow) in order to choose better one. that’s all.