That’s the problem with some gear and perfectly understandable expectations, flat/accurate can sound more “boring”.
I know when I was looking for interfaces, persons felt the Babyface Pro was more “flat” than its UAD competitors.
2 Likes
Yes I remember noticing that coming from a pcie version of the 1616m box and I noticed how much tracking my Mpc through it made the low end sound good. Then I went to USB interface and after hearing what I tracked it didn’t sound as good.
Yes I also hear RME is very clinical and flat whereas UA does add a little for excitement. I tracked some samplers and drum machines on the Apollo and noticed how much of a boost the low end felt like even without emulation modes.
1 Like
This sounds deader than flat. It’s like the beautify setting on the camera in android that removes all the wrinkles and makes people look like they are made of plastic.
1 Like
But the recording is still monitored thru pci/M audio i guess. It’s not that every pci soundcard sounds better than usb one’s in general: But i dare to say if every interface has 2 models the pci’s would perform better.
Using OB and your own interface you listening to the DA converters of your interface.
…hmmmm…maaaayyybeeee, ur just not used to the new sound…
floor shakin’ lows and sharp clear hi ends…that are atributes that sound good…of course…
in first place…
but it might be the case, that m audio was pushing on those commonly preferred sonic edges to cheat a little…
and what u hear now, is just way more neutral…more the way it should be…
because those sonic edges come with the mix, end of the day…
.
the cheaper avid/pro tools interfaces, once they started to aim for the low price segment, did the same thing…pushing the most obvious to the limit…
and in the end it always ended up in earwashing…all recordings were NOT GOOD for real…
and turned out to need way more finetuning to drain and tame the hurt for proper final mixes…
but for now…get rid of it…was a bad start…and give motu a try…if the “problem” in comparison remains, u know what to do…stop comparing and get comfortable with the fact that m audio super low budget years are BEHIND u from now on…
also keep in mind…wordlength makes a huuge difference…if that old m audio is that old, ur dealing with 16 bit converters here…
3 Likes
Can you try a different - modern, higher-end - interface to check?
1 Like
but it might be the case, that m audio was pushing on those commonly preferred sonic edges to cheat a little…
and what u hear now, is just way more neutral…more the way it should be…
Indeed … if you can a bump on bass and treble and get a similar result that might be what’s going on.
2 Likes
The Presonus is just flatter, you need time to get used to it.
2 Likes
A lot of talk here but no audio samples to listen to and make an informed judgement.
2 Likes
…hardly doubt, any examples dropped HERE, would help to clarify any particular differences in this case…we could start a discussion which browser translates for the better…
same funny story as with all the hard “proof” sound snippets, where they discuss ot’s sound quality here next door… 
2 Likes
This transcends in every threads now.
4 Likes
I can’t speak to the quality of their newer converters, but a buddy of mine ran a studio with two of their older 24 input units daisy-chained together. He had a proper studio with a drum room, vocal booth, and mixing room. Nice mics and preamps. And it all sounded like shit compared to what I was recording with a Komolete Audio 6.
Listening back to some drum recording I made, everything was flat and lifeless. I’d made better kit recordings with a single dynamic mic and a 4 track in my garage. The experience made me swear off all Presonus products.
Not to come in and defecate all over them, I’m sure their quality has improved, but that was my one experience with them.
1 Like
I m keeping a wide safe distance from that corner of the forum
Btw, i m not doubting there is a difference. I think the discussion is around whether it s the inherent sound quality or another problem.
He said ‘Your mum…’
1 Like
not really surprised the 2496 sounds better to be honest. It was a great card on release, everyone loved it and it kept up with some of the best high-end CD players of its time for audio quality. Cost £200 new for a 2x2 card.
The card is named Audiophile 2496. ie 24 bit 96khz. Nothing wrong with the converters on the card and nothing wrong with 16bit converters in general either. 16bit is the dynamic range, which is plenty.
1 Like
M-Audio 1010 arrived in the post today. Just set it up and i think it sounds even better than the 2496. I couldn’t be happier.
1 Like
I have used a PreSonus 1824, then an Audient iD14, then a TASCAM Model 16 mixer as an interface, and now a PreSonus Quantum 2626 after selling the Model 16 within 2 weeks.
I noticed with the TASCAM Model 16, it had the most highs yet also sounded the worst. In an A/B comparison with the delicious Audient iD14 I had to modify the preset to get the same brightness from it. Sound quality is a weird thing.
It had this unpleasant nasally, low quality sound that is hard to describe, yet contained a vast amount of the frequency spectrum in comparison to the Audient which has beloved amps.
When I record I generally have the sound going into the DAW sounding pretty much the way I want it and usually don’t do much in the way of EQing after. I have played my recordings on other people’s equipment and there has been no issue with there being a lack of highs or lows. If I had mixed the same tracks using the Presonus I would be adding a lot more highs to get it to sound clear. It’s not just a case of the Presonus having a more flat response, to my ears the thing sounds dull, lacking and unmusical. That’s no good to me from a working perspective, no matter what technical specs it supposedly has.
Can I ask a question?
I used an M audio 2496 years ago. I actually have two, but I didn’t think computers now adays could house a PCI card? Also what os would have drivers for it. My last PC was windows 98
1 Like