Multi-channel DACs?

S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
While there are plenty of stereo stand alone usb DACs out there to get computer audio library's stereo music to a receiver, integrated amp, or preamp, which does not have an internal DAC, I have not seen any external DACs which accomodate multi-channel music I have on my computer. It appears the only way to enjoy multi-channel music is via a digital AVR, or prepro, or am I not up to date? Right now, the only way I've found to get multi-channel music to my non HDMI prepro is via a thumb drive plugged into my OPPO 205. It however will not play multi-channel music from computer's usb output.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
My usual smart ass response would be sure there are multi-ch dacs...called avrs and pre-pros, or even your bluray player. :) Last I saw a multich dac was pretty much nonexistent as a separate stand-alone component so am interested in what possibilities there are even though I don't particularly need one. I play my multich audio files via thumb drive either in my bluray players usb inputs or hooked directly into my avrs' usb inputs (haven't got around to figuring it out via wifi).
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
There are a number of options for doing this.

https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/u-dac8

This is the cheapest consumer multichannel DAC I am aware of. It has been reviewed well, but the DAC chip in it isn't anything special. Keep that in mind. An HDMI connection to a mid grade receiver would give the same performance.

https://www.exasound.com/e38/e38DACOverview.aspx
This seems to be a popular, though expensive, audiophile option. I heard one at an audio show, but have no direct experience.

I'm sure there are a number of other audiophile options. The Oppo UDP-205 made a great audiophile 8 channel DAC.

The best value option is likely a pro audio interface with 8 analogue outputs. I have the Motu 828x, which has been replaced by the 828es (which has ESS Sabre32 DAC's with greater dynamic range than the 828x-118db vs 123db).
http://motu.com/products/proaudio/828es

This likely equals any audiophile piece with near-perfect technical performance at a reasonable price. It's performance, for me, has been great. I have a 2-channel ESS Sabre32 based top end DAC hooked to a high end Yamaha 2-channel receiver, it's built in lower end ESS Sabre DAC, and BB 1796 based DAC, and my Motu, and I think the MOTU sounds as good as any of these. The Motu measurements are better than most of these DAC's too. Noticably quieter if you put your ear up to the speaker (the top ESS sabre model is just as quiet). It's a good price for what you get.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Thought for a minute and revisited miniDSP but Matthew beat me to it LOL.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
There are a number of options for doing this.

https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/u-dac8

This is the cheapest consumer multichannel DAC I am aware of. It has been reviewed well, but the DAC chip in it isn't anything special. Keep that in mind. An HDMI connection to a mid grade receiver would give the same performance.

https://www.exasound.com/e38/e38DACOverview.aspx
This seems to be a popular, though expensive, audiophile option. I heard one at an audio show, but have no direct experience.

I'm sure there are a number of other audiophile options. The Oppo UDP-205 made a great audiophile 8 channel DAC.

The best value option is likely a pro audio interface with 8 analogue outputs. I have the Motu 828x, which has been replaced by the 828es (which has ESS Sabre32 DAC's with greater dynamic range than the 828x-118db vs 123db).
http://motu.com/products/proaudio/828es

This likely equals any audiophile piece with near-perfect technical performance at a reasonable price. It's performance, for me, has been great. I have a 2-channel ESS Sabre32 based top end DAC hooked to a high end Yamaha 2-channel receiver, it's built in lower end ESS Sabre DAC, and BB 1796 based DAC, and my Motu, and I think the MOTU sounds as good as any of these. The Motu measurements are better than most of these DAC's too. Noticably quieter if you put your ear up to the speaker (the top ESS sabre model is just as quiet). It's a good price for what you get.
One complaint. Audiophile is a person, not gear. What makes your definition of dac "audiophile" particularly?
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
My usual smart ass response would be sure there are multi-ch dacs...called avrs and pre-pros, or even your bluray player. :) Last I saw a multich dac was pretty much nonexistent as a separate stand-alone component so am interested in what possibilities there are even though I don't particularly need one. I play my multich audio files via thumb drive either in my bluray players usb inputs or hooked directly into my avrs' usb inputs (haven't got around to figuring it out via wifi).
Amongst consumer grade equipment, that really is the best option.

If we can lose ourselves in the specs for a minute, many of the surround processors and receivers use monolithic chip volume controls of relatively poor quality. They measure technically well compared to the old potentiometers but have relatively poor channel separation. Is it bad enough to be audible? Probably not, but we don't care, this is science-based Audiophile land where all we care about is the technical perfection of the sound. From that standpoint, the multichannel audiophile looking for the best is going to need the absolute best and cleanest dual differential multichannel DAC with equal circuits on every channel, completely separate monoblock channels, and volume control that is physically larger and separates the channels more.

https://spl.audio/studio/smc-7-1/?lang=en
Like this! -93dB of crosstalk and 115dB of dynamic range. Not bad, not perfect, but not bad. I don't believe there are many if any processors out there that could better it.
https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/denon-avp-a1hdci/measurements-analysis
This I suppose could.

http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/fireface_ufx_2.php#8
This is one of the best performing multichannel interfaces on the market and would make an amazing DAC.

channel separation, 110dB, distortion -110db, dynamic range 118dBa. All pretty impeccable. It could be used as a volume control as well, it might be cleaner than using that SPL thing.

This is what we should all aspire to!
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
One complaint. Audiophile is a person, not gear. What makes your definition of dac "audiophile" particularly?
I use the term "audiophile" quality to mean a product an audiophile should be happy to own. Meaning it reproduces the incoming signal with minimally audible degradation.

I know that has become a loaded term, I don't use it that way. To me an audiophile isn't, by definition, the crazy person spending all their time on cables and isolators. It's a person who is interested in the accurate reproduction of the musical event. My MOTO 828x in loopback mode measured as having .00085% THD and a noise floor of around -115dB. That was with my measurements and I found that adding ferrite beads to the USB cables, routing them differently, you name it could change those numbers, suggesting I was measuring such little noise that I was picking up everything imaginable. Even the way the controls were set impacted this dramatically, so I wouldn't be shocked if I didn't have it setup perfectly for the lowest possible noise.

Bandwidth? Well my software was limited in how it could measure, so I was able to measure only out to 96khz and it was flat to that point. I will be fixing this problem soon for my reviews, because clearly, you all want to know if it is flat to 200khz!

Channel separation? Worse case I measured was 100dB (unweighted) and that was adjoining channels.

What else could you ask for? It's a technically excellent interface that makes a great DAC, right? I have crazy audiophiles tease me about this as my DAC all the time, but I don't see any reason not to like it.

Is that an acceptable definition of Audiophile and reason to call this an "audiophile" dac?
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/976.html

This would also make a pretty good multichannel DAC for under a grand. When I reviewed this I had a consumer grade Soundblaster top end soundcard as my interface for measuring equipment and my measurements are mostly the noise of that card, this processor was better.

The DAC chips are BB 1796 and the opamp is a TI model with silly low noise and distortion and ultrawide bandwidth. It's a pretty high-end product at its core.

I was going to buy my review sample but they needed it back for other reviewers and I ended up getting the 828.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I use the term "audiophile" quality to mean a product an audiophile should be happy to own. Meaning it reproduces the incoming signal with minimally audible degradation.

I know that has become a loaded term, I don't use it that way. To me an audiophile isn't, by definition, the crazy person spending all their time on cables and isolators. It's a person who is interested in the accurate reproduction of the musical event. My MOTO 828x in loopback mode measured as having .00085% THD and a noise floor of around -115dB. That was with my measurements and I found that adding ferrite beads to the USB cables, routing them differently, you name it could change those numbers, suggesting I was measuring such little noise that I was picking up everything imaginable. Even the way the controls were set impacted this dramatically, so I wouldn't be shocked if I didn't have it setup perfectly for the lowest possible noise.

Bandwidth? Well my software was limited in how it could measure, so I was able to measure only out to 96khz and it was flat to that point. I will be fixing this problem soon for my reviews, because clearly, you all want to know if it is flat to 200khz!

Channel separation? Worse case I measured was 100dB (unweighted) and that was adjoining channels.

What else could you ask for? It's a technically excellent interface that makes a great DAC, right? I have crazy audiophiles tease me about this as my DAC all the time, but I don't see any reason not to like it.

Is that an acceptable definition of Audiophile and reason to call this an "audiophile" dac?

So you're saying an avr's dac isn't sufficient, tho? It doesn't provide accurate playback?

ps I just don't like the term "audiophile" randomly associated with gear due all the craziness that can imply. I can appreciate your analysis of your dac and wouldn't have any problem with using it, altho I rely on avrs for multich dac use, don't really need one for 2ch use.
 
Last edited:
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
So you're saying an avr's dac isn't sufficient, tho? It doesn't provide accurate playback?

ps I just don't like the term "audiophile" randomly associated with gear due all the craziness that can imply. I can appreciate your analysis of your dac and wouldn't have any problem with using it, altho I rely on avrs for multich dac use, don't really need one for 2ch use.
Like I said before, this isn't about audibly good enough. This is about technical perfection. Do I think a good receiver is audibly good enough? Absolutely. Do I think the 828x sounds better? Its noise is audibly lower, other than that, I can't really say.

I need my 828 for practical reasons and use it for a DAC because why not. Nothing else to it. I leave it to everyone else to decide if one sounds better than another.

I don't really have an alternative word than audiophile for a person who wants audio perfection. Audioholic? Audioholic approved? Hows that?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Like I said before, this isn't about audibly good enough. This is about technical perfection. Do I think a good receiver is audibly good enough? Absolutely. Do I think the 828x sounds better? Its noise is audibly lower, other than that, I can't really say.

I need my 828 for practical reasons and use it for a DAC because why not. Nothing else to it. I leave it to everyone else to decide if one sounds better than another.

I don't really have an alternative word than audiophile for a person who wants audio perfection. Audioholic? Audioholic approved? Hows that?
There is no audio perfection, just better specs in some units...IMHO. I don't think it needs the moniker "audiophile" due all the bullshit out there about what that entails. I don't know if you can speak for all audioholics (yet) :)
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
There is no audio perfection, just better specs in some units...IMHO. I don't think it needs the moniker "audiophile" due all the bullshit out there about what that entails. I don't know if you can speak for all audioholics (yet) :)
Ok fine, it is Matt approved. That's all I got.

And yes...this is all specmanship.

I think perfection becomes an OK term in that some gear is now at a point where even the best research into the audibility of this stuff would no longer support any chance of audibility. For example, we have some really conflicting research around distortion, and thresholds are a little tricky. Some studies have found really low levels of harmonic distortion to be audible, especially the higher order stuff. Really high order has hardly been studied, yet is probably the most audible. Noise? if the gear is louder than the room the noise is a problem. That being true or not depends on the sensitivity of the speaker and how much you have the controls cranked. I have very sensitive speakers, so noise is a common issue (my Onkyo is, for example, noisy).

What about bitrate or sampling rate? It's an unknown as far as I'm concerned. The research sucks. Certainly, most peoples gear can't take advantage of the higher sampling rate, but the research actually supports that it is audible. That research wasn't very good and none of it is of the right type to know what it is perceived as. What if it was audible because it makes things worse? The research could actually support that, all they did was ABX testing, not MUSHRA.
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591

Channel separation? Conflicting research, not good quality, so who knows. Some research suggests the old standards suggesting -60dB to be more than adequate was actually misleading. That it's frequency dependent and can affect localization at levels at or below that point. But those studies were done with special headphone experiments, so is that true of speakers in a room? Probably not, but it's never been studied.

Which gets back to the idea that maybe the best answer is not that there is a number that represents good enough, but instead, the lower the better. My view, if it's possible and not expensive, we want it. Why not? Since this kind of technical excellence isn't always cheap, I obviously would advocate focusing on the most important stuff first and focusing on minimum standards for the rest.

I think that @shadyJ has faced this as well, but sometimes when I talk to a company about reviewing something, they will ask what I have for gear. Even if it's silly, telling them that my processor is an Onkyo receiver doesn't go over well. They are usually ok with the Motu or that Yamaha receiver I was sent. If not, well, then they just send more gear.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Ok fine, it is Matt approved. That's all I got.

And yes...this is all specmanship.

I think perfection becomes an OK term in that some gear is now at a point where even the best research into the audibility of this stuff would no longer support any chance of audibility. For example, we have some really conflicting research around distortion, and thresholds are a little tricky. Some studies have found really low levels of harmonic distortion to be audible, especially the higher order stuff. Really high order has hardly been studied, yet is probably the most audible. Noise? if the gear is louder than the room the noise is a problem. That being true or not depends on the sensitivity of the speaker and how much you have the controls cranked. I have very sensitive speakers, so noise is a common issue (my Onkyo is, for example, noisy).

What about bitrate or sampling rate? It's an unknown as far as I'm concerned. The research sucks. Certainly, most peoples gear can't take advantage of the higher sampling rate, but the research actually supports that it is audible. That research wasn't very good and none of it is of the right type to know what it is perceived as. What if it was audible because it makes things worse? The research could actually support that, all they did was ABX testing, not MUSHRA.
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591

Channel separation? Conflicting research, not good quality, so who knows. Some research suggests the old standards suggesting -60dB to be more than adequate was actually misleading. That it's frequency dependent and can affect localization at levels at or below that point. But those studies were done with special headphone experiments, so is that true of speakers in a room? Probably not, but it's never been studied.

Which gets back to the idea that maybe the best answer is not that there is a number that represents good enough, but instead, the lower the better. My view, if it's possible and not expensive, we want it. Why not? Since this kind of technical excellence isn't always cheap, I obviously would advocate focusing on the most important stuff first and focusing on minimum standards for the rest.

I think that @shadyJ has faced this as well, but sometimes when I talk to a company about reviewing something, they will ask what I have for gear. Even if it's silly, telling them that my processor is an Onkyo receiver doesn't go over well. They are usually ok with the Motu or that Yamaha receiver I was sent. If not, well, then they just send more gear.
Pretty much deserves a thread of its own rather than to continue to derail this one, but many good points and why "audiophile" alone just doesn't work. Headphones vs speakers is another (and as a non-headphone guy I often simply forget about using headphones at all). Audiophilia has gotten bad over the years with so much nonsense, tho, so hard for me to stomach what some people consider sufficiently revealing or resolving or what other audiophiliac terms are used....
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Pretty much deserves a thread of its own rather than to continue to derail this one, but many good points and why "audiophile" alone just doesn't work. Headphones vs speakers is another (and as a non-headphone guy I often simply forget about using headphones at all). Audiophilia has gotten bad over the years with so much nonsense, tho, so hard for me to stomach what some people consider sufficiently revealing or resolving or what other audiophiliac terms are used....
Fair point and thanks.

IF you guys do trophy’s for most..., I think I’m in the lead for most derailed threads in a month.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Fair point and thanks.

IF you guys do trophy’s for most..., I think I’m in the lead for most derailed threads in a month.
FWIW that's a good trophy as it introduces additional conversation and helps to unify ideas. I really appreciate your input overall, no doubt whatsoever. Thanks.
 
M

mojave

Audiophyte
While there are plenty of stereo stand alone usb DACs out there to get computer audio library's stereo music to a receiver, integrated amp, or preamp, which does not have an internal DAC, I have not seen any external DACs which accomodate multi-channel music I have on my computer
I have used a computer exclusively for music/movies since 1991 and have had multichannel DAC's since the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 soundcard. There are many current ways to utilize a multi-channel DAC with the PC. I've used AES3 (also calledAES/EBU),ADAT Lightpipe, Firewire, MADI, USB, AVB (via ethernet),Dante (via ethernet), Thunderbolt, HDMI, and DisplayPort. The best multi-channel DAC I've used and what I would recommend is the MOTU 1248 with Thunderbolt. I also own the MOTU 624 and Ultralite AVB.

The Motu 1248 is best with a PC for many reasons:
Web App Support - The control software (mixer, routing, settings) for the Motu is a web app located on the audio device. Any browser on any web client platform can access the software. You can use your phone, tablet, or computer to access the software and make changes or see what is going on.

Routing - Any input can be routed to any output. This makes it easy to setup ASIO channels the way you want. This has valuable considerations for multi-zone output.

12 balanced outputs - There are two output labeled "Main", two outputs labeled "Monitor", and eight labeled "Analog Out." You can route up to 64 channels out through ASIO and can assign any ASIO outputs to any of these 12 physical outputs.

2 headphone outputs - Like any of the Motu outputs, these can be assigned whatever channels you want. If you want the headphones to get the same output as Left and Right speakers, you can do that. If two people want to listen to different playlists on two Zones in JRiver Media Center, then each headphone output can be assigned to a different Zone.

ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC converters - high SNR and 32 bit output means volume control is completely transparent, excellent sound quality. Your media player should be set to dither to 32 bits rather than 24 bits.

Low Noise Floor - With the ear up to the tweeter and nothing playing I hear no noise at all. Some audio devices will have a hiss that can be annoying with higher sensitivity speakers.

No noise on sample rate changes - Sample rate changes are completely silent! No slight tick, pop, or anything else. This is perfect for home use when listing to a playlist of mixed sample rates.

No noise during on/off when amps are on - You can turn the Motu 1248 on/off and never get any noise out of the amps - no tick, pop, click!

Multi-client ASIO driver - This is a huge feature! With most ASIO devices including my 16 channel Lynx Aurora 16TB, you can only use one instance of the ASIO driver. With the Lynx, if eight channels are in use then you can use the other 10 channels for other Zones. With the Motu, it is truly multi-client. You can access channels 1-8 for a home theater and use the other channels, simultaneously, for output to other Zones. You can also access the headphone output Zones the same time as the other Zones and even use both headphone outputs simultaneously with different content.

DC Coupled Output - With no capacitors in the signal chain, there is no rolloff or phase shift of the low frequencies.

+20 dBu line output max level - The maximum level out I've seen of any DAC is +24 dBu (Lynx Aurora VT, Solid State Logic Alpha Link). You can compare the maximum output to get an idea of maximum volume differences among DACs. For example, the Behringer Firepower FCA1616 has a maximum output of +8 dBu and the Steinberg UR824 has a maximum output of +18 dBu. The Motu can output 12 dB more volume than the Behringer and 2 dB than the Steinberg. This is helpful when using EQ or convolution because this DSP always lowers the output signal.

Output Trim range of 24 dBu (+20 dBu down to -4 dBu) - Even though the maximum output is 20 dBu, you can lower the maximum output level on each channel using 32-bit digital trim levels. This is helpful if matching speakers or amps with different sensitivities. You can also use it to make sure you don't ever overload the input on a small amp used on one of your Zones.

Mic with phantom power and line inputs - To do room measurements using software such as Room Equalization Wizard (REW),you can just connect a microphone, push the +48v phanton power buttom, and start measuring. No extra mic preamp is necessary. If you have an Earthworks M30BX microphone, with built in preamp, you can connect it to the line input without having to go through the preamp section. The Mic and line inputs also let one play other instruments such as a keyboard along with music and even do karaoke with up to 4 microphones.

Guitar inputs - These probably aren't helpful to most, but it does let one connect an electric guitar or bass and play through their system along with the music.

Auto-sensing mic inputs - If you put a TRS jack into the mic input, it will disable the phantom power option. You can only use XLR jacks for the phantom power to be available. This prevents you from accidentally damaging equipment.

Thunderbolt connectivity - You can connect with Thunderbolt and get about half the latency of USB.

Variable USB buffer and ASIO buffer - You can change the USB buffer using 5-6 different settings from Lowest Latency all the way to Safe. You can also change the ASIO buffer size.

AVB Network - You can connect a 2nd device using the ethernet jack or 5 interfaces using the AVB hub to increase channel counts. There may be 2 channel AVB compatible devices in the future that would let you easily add Zones that are always in sync.
 
M

MarkusNordstrand

Audiophyte
I have used a computer exclusively for music/movies since 1991 and have had multichannel DAC's since the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 soundcard. There are many current ways to utilize a multi-channel DAC with the PC. I've used AES3 (also calledAES/EBU),ADAT Lightpipe, Firewire, MADI, USB, AVB (via ethernet),Dante (via ethernet), Thunderbolt, HDMI, and DisplayPort. The best multi-channel DAC I've used and what I would recommend is the MOTU 1248 with Thunderbolt. I also own the MOTU 624 and Ultralite AVB.

The Motu 1248 is best with a PC for many reasons:
Web App Support - The control software (mixer, routing, settings) for the Motu is a web app located on the audio device. Any browser on any web client platform can access the software. You can use your phone, tablet, or computer to access the software and make changes or see what is going on.

Routing - Any input can be routed to any output. This makes it easy to setup ASIO channels the way you want. This has valuable considerations for multi-zone output.

12 balanced outputs - There are two output labeled "Main", two outputs labeled "Monitor", and eight labeled "Analog Out." You can route up to 64 channels out through ASIO and can assign any ASIO outputs to any of these 12 physical outputs.

2 headphone outputs - Like any of the Motu outputs, these can be assigned whatever channels you want. If you want the headphones to get the same output as Left and Right speakers, you can do that. If two people want to listen to different playlists on two Zones in JRiver Media Center, then each headphone output can be assigned to a different Zone.

ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC converters - high SNR and 32 bit output means volume control is completely transparent, excellent sound quality. Your media player should be set to dither to 32 bits rather than 24 bits.

Low Noise Floor - With the ear up to the tweeter and nothing playing I hear no noise at all. Some audio devices will have a hiss that can be annoying with higher sensitivity speakers.

No noise on sample rate changes - Sample rate changes are completely silent! No slight tick, pop, or anything else. This is perfect for home use when listing to a playlist of mixed sample rates.

No noise during on/off when amps are on - You can turn the Motu 1248 on/off and never get any noise out of the amps - no tick, pop, click!

Multi-client ASIO driver - This is a huge feature! With most ASIO devices including my 16 channel Lynx Aurora 16TB, you can only use one instance of the ASIO driver. With the Lynx, if eight channels are in use then you can use the other 10 channels for other Zones. With the Motu, it is truly multi-client. You can access channels 1-8 for a home theater and use the other channels, simultaneously, for output to other Zones. You can also access the headphone output Zones the same time as the other Zones and even use both headphone outputs simultaneously with different content.

DC Coupled Output - With no capacitors in the signal chain, there is no rolloff or phase shift of the low frequencies.

+20 dBu line output max level - The maximum level out I've seen of any DAC is +24 dBu (Lynx Aurora VT, Solid State Logic Alpha Link). You can compare the maximum output to get an idea of maximum volume differences among DACs. For example, the Behringer Firepower FCA1616 has a maximum output of +8 dBu and the Steinberg UR824 has a maximum output of +18 dBu. The Motu can output 12 dB more volume than the Behringer and 2 dB than the Steinberg. This is helpful when using EQ or convolution because this DSP always lowers the output signal.

Output Trim range of 24 dBu (+20 dBu down to -4 dBu) - Even though the maximum output is 20 dBu, you can lower the maximum output level on each channel using 32-bit digital trim levels. This is helpful if matching speakers or amps with different sensitivities. You can also use it to make sure you don't ever overload the input on a small amp used on one of your Zones.

Mic with phantom power and line inputs - To do room measurements using software such as Room Equalization Wizard (REW),you can just connect a microphone, push the +48v phanton power buttom, and start measuring. No extra mic preamp is necessary. If you have an Earthworks M30BX microphone, with built in preamp, you can connect it to the line input without having to go through the preamp section. The Mic and line inputs also let one play other instruments such as a keyboard along with music and even do karaoke with up to 4 microphones.

Guitar inputs - These probably aren't helpful to most, but it does let one connect an electric guitar or bass and play through their system along with the music.

Auto-sensing mic inputs - If you put a TRS jack into the mic input, it will disable the phantom power option. You can only use XLR jacks for the phantom power to be available. This prevents you from accidentally damaging equipment.

Thunderbolt connectivity - You can connect with Thunderbolt and get about half the latency of USB.

Variable USB buffer and ASIO buffer - You can change the USB buffer using 5-6 different settings from Lowest Latency all the way to Safe. You can also change the ASIO buffer size.

AVB Network - You can connect a 2nd device using the ethernet jack or 5 interfaces using the AVB hub to increase channel counts. There may be 2 channel AVB compatible devices in the future that would let you easily add Zones that are always in sync.
Hello, I created an account just to be able to ask you this question:

I am considering using MOTU 1248 with my Windows PC for 7.1 sound, but I cannot find any information that it is possible to control the volume of all channels simultaneously. According to the user manual you can only do "full" volume control of the Phones, Main and Monitor outputs. The analog outputs only allow for "trim" (-24 to 0dB). Maby you can route all channels through the mixer, but then I struggle to find how to "gang" the faders together so that all channels are volume controlled simultaneously. How do you manage multi channel volume control using the MOTU 1248?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Haven't been back in a while. FWIW the Okto dac8 I've seen some good comments about since....
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Hello, I created an account just to be able to ask you this question:

I am considering using MOTU 1248 with my Windows PC for 7.1 sound, but I cannot find any information that it is possible to control the volume of all channels simultaneously. According to the user manual you can only do "full" volume control of the Phones, Main and Monitor outputs. The analog outputs only allow for "trim" (-24 to 0dB). Maby you can route all channels through the mixer, but then I struggle to find how to "gang" the faders together so that all channels are volume controlled simultaneously. How do you manage multi channel volume control using the MOTU 1248?
You can use loop back and Main output to control the volume. Another device that has less features but with VC is the Topping DM7, review here

 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top