1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Difference between MOTU 896 and 896HD

Discussion in 'Pro Audio Equipment' started by rigbybmj, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. rigbybmj

    rigbybmj Guest

    The subject says it all, besides the sample rates, is there any other major difference between the two? Also, is it worth having the 8 mic pres with the 896 or to just go with the 828?


    Jay Rigby
  2. itchy

    itchy Guest

    this completely depends on what you're recording. if you're recording any source that requires more than two mics (i.e. drums), you'll need more than 2 mic pres. also, if you plan on recording multiple players at the same time, 2 mics won't cut it.

    honestly, if you have the $$, i would get the 896 HD, and not think twice about it. i believe they use the same converters as the motu 192HD, which is also the same as protools HD, if I'm not mistaken.

    I own a lynx setup, and while i love the quality, i had to start with a low track count, and upgrade pres and channels as i went. if i could do it again, i would've probably bought the 896HD. would've been more cost effective in the long run, and you can use it right out of the box.

    hope this helps,
  3. rigbybmj

    rigbybmj Guest

    I think I will go for the 896, but what are the differences between the 896 and the 896HD?
  4. Duardo

    Duardo Guest

    You're not really mistaken, but you are misled. They use the same converter chips that Digidesign uses in their 192I/O, but that doesn't mean they're the same converters. The analog circuitry is different, the clock is different, the power supply is different...all of which will probably impact the sound of the converters more than the chips themselves, at least in combination. Not that the MOTU stuff sounds bad...it doesn't, and it certainly sounds better than E-Mu's converters, which also are the "same"...but it's a little deceptive the way they market it.

    Aside from the converters being improved, I think the main difference on a practical level is the CueMix DSP feature, which lets you monitor all of your inputs...including anything you may run through the digital inputs...with no latency.

  5. itchy

    itchy Guest

    yes, yes, i'm aware of that - i was just typing in a bit of a rush. sorry if that confused anyone. the chips are the same. the whole converter is what matters most though.

  6. Arrowfan

    Arrowfan Guest

    MAJOR difference between 896 and 896HD!!! I have both, I know...

    The 896 does not have any digital mixing features. Even MOTU's 2408 had better latency free monmix busing. The 896 allows 2 inputs to be routed to 2 outputs.

    Of course you could try to coax your players into monitoring with latency, but that's not advisable. (the mon mixes would be "through the computer", motu ins-> computer -> cubase outs ->motu outs-> phones)

    To have latency free monmixes it means if you're recording a drum kit with 5 mics at the same time as a bass player running D.I., a guitarist and a vocalist (in iso room) ... you'll simply have to use a mixer (adding noise and more hassles patching). Unless your vocalist doesn't need to hear self and settles for ... say kick drum and overhead left!

    Whereas, the 896HD is essentially a digital mixer.

    You can create 4 independant monitor mixes (mixes of inputs) and bus them to 4 stereo out pairs.

    This is a HUGE advantage.

    Get the 896HD unless the 896 is offered at a very good price, in which case get both. l;)

Share This Page