MOTU 16A or . . . (for multi-channel)?

Seeking advice . . .

For a 10 to 16 multi-channel configuration (2 subs + remaining channels being “regular”) would the MOTU 16A be a good choice for Mac computer?

I’m wanting to interface with the computer using thunderbolt, which does reduce the choices.

I also want to run at 94 kHz, and have concerns about some interfaces cutting the number of channels in half, when running at this resolution.

Would the MOTU 16A be a good choice, or would something else be recommended?

Lawrence

I've considered the MOTU 16A as well. It should be a good choice based on how well the other MOTU interfaces perform. Right now I would order one except that I already have an ADAT unit to expand beyond 10 outputs with my Scarlett 18i20. I especially like that the 16A has all the input and outputs present on the back panel without adding special adapters.

[mdyde]

Hello Lawrence,

[Topic moved here.]

I have a MOTU 16A, and it works well for me on macOS. Its number of analogue channels is the same at 96 kHz as 48 kHz (although the number of ADAT channels will halve, of course, as with any ADAT port/device).

It uses the same driver as the 24A. It has less analogue audio output channels than than the 24A, but it does have Thunderbolt, and the analogue audio channels have individual balanced sockets.

I haven't tried it via Thunderbolt, since I don't have a spare Thunderbolt port, but it works well via USB (and AVB).

I have a 24Ao with 22 output channels active at 96kHz, and USB 2.0 has more than sufficient capacity for it. Unless Thunderbolt is the only port you have left, paying 50% extra for a 16A might be unnecessary.

The 24Ao does need from one to three DB25 to TRS (or XLR) 8 channel snake cables, since it doesn't have TRS ports. I found that that kept my cable runs neater.

Hello Lawrence,

[Topic moved here.]

I tried to post in the correct place. Not always clear where things should go, though.

I have a MOTU 16A, and it works well for me on macOS. Its number of analogue channels is the same at 96 kHz as 48 kHz (although the number of ADAT channels will halve, of course, as with any ADAT port/device).

It uses the same driver as the 24A. It has less analogue audio output channels than than the 24A, but it does have Thunderbolt, and the analogue audio channels have individual balanced sockets.

I haven't tried it via Thunderbolt, since I don't have a spare Thunderbolt port, but it works well via USB (and AVB).

Thanks, Martin. That's helpful information.

I’m finally going to move on upgrading to multi-channel! (So far I’ve been limited to the stereo input of the Rodgers, so . . )

I’m dreading having to deal with the mixer, but other users have indicated that it will be worth it, in the end.

I plan to continue to run two channels through the Rodgers console, for cross over for the passive subs, and the remaining eight channels will bypass the organ and go directly from the 16A to the amplifiers.

Is there an optimal number of channels? I could add two or four more to the 10 if 12 or 14 would be beneficial.

I have a 24Ao with 22 output channels active at 96kHz, and USB 2.0 has more than sufficient capacity for it. Unless Thunderbolt is the only port you have left, paying 50% extra for a 16A might be unnecessary.

Thank you.

My interest in Thunderbolt is simply that it is more robust and has with far greater bandwidth than USB 2.0, so I assume tighter/lower latency will be obtainable. (It's also the devil I know, running a Thunderbolt interfaced in my project studio (Apogee Symphony II).

The 24Ao does need from one to three DB25 to TRS (or XLR) 8 channel snake cables, since it doesn't have TRS ports. I found that that kept my cable runs neater.

Doesn't really impact, since a tech will be wiring things up, and interfacing with the Rodgers amplifiers.

[mdyde]

Thanks, Lawrence.