M-Audio AIR 192|4 vs M-Audio M-Track Solo: Which Audio Interface is Right for You?

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both designed to cater to the needs of musicians, podcasters, and home studio enthusiasts, but they offer different features and specifications that cater to different levels of user requirements.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo is the more budget-friendly option of the two, offering a straightforward and easy-to-use interface. It features 2 channels: one XLR and one 1/4" TRS combo input, along with a 1/4" instrument input. The M-Track Solo supports 48 kHz audio resolution, which is adequate for standard recording needs. It also includes a useful direct monitoring feature, enabling zero-latency monitoring of the input signal. The interface connects to your computer via USB-A and is compatible with most DAWs. Its compact and portable design makes it an excellent choice for beginners or those needing a simple solution for basic recording tasks.
In contrast, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 is a step up in terms of capabilities and audio quality. This interface also provides 2x2 channels but boasts a superior 24-bit/192 kHz resolution, offering higher fidelity and more professional sound quality. The AIR 192|4 includes one XLR/TRS combo input and one 1/4" instrument input with Crystal preamps, which are designed to deliver ultra-clean, transparent sound. Additionally, this model features a USB Type-C connection, which allows for faster data transfer and lower latency. The inclusion of a VU LED meter adds a level of sophistication, allowing users to monitor input levels visually. The AIR 192|4 also comes bundled with a comprehensive software suite, including Pro Tools | First M-Audio Edition and Ableton Live Lite, making it a more versatile and complete package for those serious about their audio production.
In summary, the M-Audio M-Track Solo is ideal for beginners or those on a budget, offering essential features and adequate performance for basic recording needs. The M-Audio AIR 192|4, on the other hand, caters to more advanced users who require higher audio quality, better connectivity, and additional software tools to enhance their recording and production capabilities. Each interface has its own strengths, making them suitable for different types of users and applications.

Detailed Specifications and Pros & Cons of M-Audio AIR 192|4 and M-Audio M-Track Solo

M-Audio M-Track Solo

M-Audio AIR 192|4

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the M-Audio M-Track Solo USB Audio Interface, praising its affordability and the range of features it offers for the price. Many users highlighted that it is a great entry-level device for those starting out with audio recording, providing a good balance between cost and functionality. The interface is seen as a reliable option for those who need basic recording capabilities without breaking the bank. A minority of users, accounting for the remaining 15%, expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to the limited features when compared to more expensive models. Some users felt that the audio quality and durability did not match their expectations given the low price, suggesting that it might be more suitable for beginners or less demanding recording tasks. 85% Build Quality 75% of users were pleased with the build quality of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting that it felt solid and durable for a budget device. Users appreciated the simple design and the sturdy knobs and switches, which contribute to a sense of longevity and reliability during regular use. 25% of users, however, were not satisfied with the build quality, citing concerns about the plastic construction and its perceived fragility. Some users reported issues with the durability of the knobs and the USB connection, feeling that the materials used could have been more robust to ensure longer-lasting performance. 75% Sound Quality 80% of users were satisfied with the sound quality provided by the M-Audio M-Track Solo, often noting that it delivered clear and clean audio recordings. Users found it particularly effective for home studio environments, providing enough fidelity for vocals and instruments without noticeable distortion or noise. The remaining 20% of users were dissatisfied with the sound quality, mentioning issues such as occasional noise interference and a lack of depth in the audio output. Some users felt that the interface did not capture the full richness of their recordings, suggesting that it might not meet the needs of more professional or demanding audio projects. 80% Ease of Use 90% of users praised the M-Audio M-Track Solo for its ease of use, highlighting the straightforward setup process and intuitive controls. Many appreciated that it was a plug-and-play device that required minimal technical knowledge to get started, making it ideal for beginners and those looking for a hassle-free recording experience. Only 10% of users found the interface challenging to use, with some citing issues related to software compatibility or driver installation. These users felt that additional support or clearer instructions could have alleviated initial setup frustrations, particularly for those less familiar with audio equipment. 90% Portability 88% of users were satisfied with the portability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting its compact size and lightweight design as major advantages. Many users appreciated the ease with which they could transport the device, making it a suitable choice for mobile recording sessions or small studio spaces. 12% of users, however, felt that the portability was somewhat limited by the need for a stable power source and the fragility of the USB connections. These users suggested that a more robust design would enhance its suitability for on-the-go recording, particularly in less controlled environments. 88% Input Options 70% of users were content with the input options available on the M-Audio M-Track Solo, appreciating the combination of XLR and line inputs which provided adequate flexibility for most basic recording needs. The simplicity of the input design was also praised by users who valued straightforward functionality. 30% of users were dissatisfied with the limited input options, feeling restricted by the lack of additional ports for more complex setups. Some users expressed a desire for more advanced input capabilities or multiple channels to accommodate a wider range of recording scenarios. 70% Compatibility 82% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting its seamless integration with various digital audio workstations (DAWs) and operating systems. Users found it well-suited for both PC and Mac, which contributed to its versatility in different recording environments. 18% of users reported dissatisfaction with compatibility, citing occasional driver issues or challenges when integrating with specific software. These users expressed a need for more consistent and updated driver support to ensure smooth operation across all platforms. 82% Latency 78% of users were happy with the low latency performance of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which allowed for real-time monitoring and recording without significant delays. This aspect was particularly appreciated by musicians and podcasters who require immediate feedback during sessions. 22% of users experienced dissatisfaction with latency issues, particularly when using certain DAWs or during high-demand recording sessions. These users noted that latency could become a problem if not properly managed or when using older computer systems. 78% Customer Support 65% of users found customer support for the M-Audio M-Track Solo to be adequate, with responsive assistance available for common issues. Those who contacted support generally felt that their questions were addressed in a timely manner, helping to resolve their concerns. 35% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, expressing frustration over delayed responses or insufficient assistance for more technical problems. These users felt that improved support services could enhance the overall user experience, especially when encountering complex issues. 65% Software Bundle 77% of users appreciated the software bundle included with the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which provided them with essential tools to start recording and producing music immediately. Users valued the inclusion of popular DAWs and plugins, which enhanced their recording capabilities. 23% of users were not satisfied with the software bundle, either due to limited software options or difficulties in redeeming and installing the bundled programs. These users suggested that more diverse software offerings or improved instructions could enhance the value of the package. 77% Microphone Preamp Quality 73% of users were satisfied with the microphone preamp quality of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, appreciating the clear amplification and minimal noise it provided for vocal and instrument recordings. These users found the preamps to be sufficient for basic recording needs. 27% of users were dissatisfied with the preamp quality, citing issues such as noise or insufficient gain for certain microphones. Some users felt that the preamps did not meet the requirements for more professional or high-fidelity recordings, limiting their usability. 73% Durability 74% of users were satisfied with the durability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting that it withstood regular use without significant wear and tear. Users who handled the device carefully found it to be a long-lasting addition to their recording setup. 26% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the durability, mentioning issues such as wear on the knobs or casing over time. Some users felt that the materials used in the construction could have been more robust to ensure better longevity. 74% Aesthetic Design 79% of users appreciated the aesthetic design of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, finding it sleek and professional-looking. The compact design was particularly praised for fitting well into various studio setups without taking up excessive space. 21% of users were not satisfied with the aesthetic design, feeling that it appeared too basic or uninspired. Some users suggested that a more modern or distinctive look could enhance the appeal of the device, especially for those who value design as part of their equipment. 79% Noise Floor 76% of users found the noise floor of the M-Audio M-Track Solo to be acceptably low, which contributed to clear and interference-free recordings. Many users were pleased with the clean signal it provided, particularly when used in controlled environments. 24% of users were dissatisfied with the noise floor, noting that it could be higher than expected in certain situations, particularly with sensitive microphones or in noisy environments. These users felt that improved shielding or design changes could help reduce unwanted noise. 76% Driver Stability 68% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, finding it reliable for most recording sessions. Users who experienced stable performance appreciated the consistent connection and minimal crashes during use. 32% of users expressed dissatisfaction with driver stability, encountering issues such as software crashes or inconsistencies with certain operating systems. These users suggested that more frequent updates or improved compatibility testing could enhance stability. 68% Output Options 72% of users were content with the output options available on the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which included standard headphone and line outputs. Users found these options sufficient for personal monitoring and connecting to external speakers. 28% of users were dissatisfied with the output options, feeling limited by the lack of more advanced or varied connections. Some users expressed a desire for additional outputs to better accommodate different audio setups and configurations. 72% Software Integration 81% of users were satisfied with the software integration of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which worked smoothly with various DAWs and plugins. Users appreciated the seamless connectivity and ease of incorporating the device into their existing workflows. 19% of users experienced dissatisfaction with software integration, citing issues such as compatibility problems or difficulties in configuring settings with certain programs. These users felt that enhanced driver support and clearer setup instructions could improve integration. 81% Headphone Output Quality 74% of users were satisfied with the headphone output quality, noting that it provided clear and accurate monitoring during recording sessions. Users appreciated the ability to hear their recordings with minimal latency and distortion. 26% of users were dissatisfied with the headphone output quality, mentioning issues such as insufficient volume or clarity. Some users felt that the output did not provide enough detail for critical listening, suggesting improvements in the headphone amp design. 74% Value for Beginners 87% of users felt that the M-Audio M-Track Solo offered excellent value for beginners entering the world of audio recording. The interface was praised for its simplicity, affordability, and the educational resources included, making it an ideal starting point for novices. 13% of users, however, felt that the device might not fully meet the needs of beginners who quickly progress in their skills and require more advanced features. Some users suggested that additional resources or guidance for more complex recording scenarios could enhance its value for newcomers. 87% Latency-Free Monitoring 80% of users were pleased with the latency-free monitoring capabilities of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which allowed them to monitor recordings in real-time without noticeable delay. This feature was especially appreciated by musicians and vocalists who require immediate feedback. 20% of users experienced issues with latency, particularly when using certain DAWs or recording setups. These users noted that latency could become problematic in more complex sessions, suggesting that further optimizations could improve performance. 80% Overall Satisfaction 83% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the M-Audio M-Track Solo, highlighting its cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and adequate performance for home studio setups. The device was seen as a reliable and accessible option for a wide range of recording needs. 17% of users, however, were not fully satisfied, often due to limitations in features or performance compared to higher-end models. These users felt that while the M-Track Solo is a solid entry-level option, it may not meet the needs of more demanding or professional recording projects. 83%	Purchase Value 85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 Audio Interface. They appreciated the combination of affordability and features, noting that it offers excellent value for money compared to other interfaces in the same price range. Users highlighted the high-quality sound output and the inclusion of necessary inputs and outputs as key factors in their satisfaction. 15% of users were dissatisfied with the purchase value, primarily due to occasional sales and promotions that made them feel they overpaid at the time of purchase. Some also mentioned that they expected more advanced features based on the price. 85% Quality of Materials 78% of users found the quality of materials used in the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 to be satisfactory. They appreciated the sturdy build and premium feel of the device, which contributed to their confidence in its durability. Many users felt that the materials used were appropriate for a product in this price range, providing a good balance between cost and quality. 22% of users were dissatisfied with the quality of materials, citing concerns about the plastic components feeling less sturdy. Some reported issues with knobs and connectors becoming loose over time, which affected their overall perception of the product's durability. 78% Sound Quality 90% of users praised the sound quality of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting clear and crisp audio output, which enhanced their recording and playback experiences. Users particularly appreciated the low noise floor and the high fidelity of the sound, which they felt was comparable to more expensive models. 10% of users were dissatisfied with the sound quality, mentioning that they experienced occasional static or interference. Some users felt that the interface did not perform well with certain types of microphones or instruments, which affected their overall experience. 90% Ease of Use 82% of users were satisfied with the ease of use of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Many appreciated the simplicity of the controls, which allowed them to quickly start recording without a steep learning curve. 18% of users found the interface less user-friendly, particularly citing issues with the initial setup and driver installation. Some users experienced difficulties in configuring the device with their preferred software, which led to frustration. 82% Software Compatibility 75% of users were pleased with the software compatibility of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it worked seamlessly with popular DAWs and recording software. Many users appreciated the bundled software, which added value to their purchase. 25% of users were dissatisfied with software compatibility, reporting challenges in configuring the interface with specific DAWs or experiencing limited functionality with older software versions. Some users faced latency issues that hindered their recording process. 75% Design 88% of users were satisfied with the design of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, commending its sleek and modern look. The compact size and layout of controls were appreciated for their convenience, making the interface easy to integrate into various setups. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the design, mainly due to the placement of certain controls which they found inconvenient. Some users felt that the interface was too compact, leading to potential issues when connecting multiple devices. 88% Portability 80% of users were satisfied with the portability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating its lightweight and compact design. This made it easy for them to transport the interface for mobile recordings or to different studio locations. 20% of users were dissatisfied with portability, noting that the lack of a protective case or bag made it susceptible to damage during transport. Some users felt that additional features, such as battery power, would enhance its portability. 80% Durability 77% of users were happy with the durability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, stating that it withstood regular use without showing significant wear and tear. They felt confident in its ability to last over time given its solid construction. 23% of users were dissatisfied with durability, citing issues with components such as knobs and connectors becoming loose or malfunctioning after prolonged use. Some users expected a more robust build quality for extended durability. 77% Customer Support 70% of users were satisfied with the customer support offered by M-Audio, appreciating the prompt responses and helpful assistance they received when encountering issues with the AIR 192\|4. Many users felt that the support team was knowledgeable and provided effective solutions. 30% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, mentioning delays in response times or difficulty in obtaining satisfactory resolutions to their problems. Some users felt that the support staff lacked technical expertise, leading to unresolved issues. 70% Driver Stability 73% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, reporting smooth operation and minimal issues with crashes or disconnects. Many users appreciated the regular updates that helped maintain compatibility with various operating systems. 27% of users were dissatisfied with driver stability, experiencing frequent crashes or disconnects during use. Some users reported issues with installing or updating drivers, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively. 73% Latency 81% of users were satisfied with the low latency performance of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it allowed for seamless real-time monitoring and recording. This feature was particularly appreciated by musicians and producers who required precise timing. 19% of users were dissatisfied with latency, experiencing delays that affected their recording sessions. Some users found that latency increased with certain software or when using higher sample rates, which impacted their workflow. 81% Input/Output Options 84% of users were satisfied with the input and output options provided by the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating the versatility and ability to connect various audio equipment. The interface's combination of XLR and instrument inputs was particularly valued. 16% of users were dissatisfied with the input/output options, feeling limited by the number of available connections. Some users wished for additional outputs for more complex setups or found the existing options insufficient for their needs. 84% Bundled Software 76% of users were pleased with the bundled software that came with the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, finding it useful for getting started with recording and production. Users appreciated the added value and variety of tools included in the package. 24% of users were dissatisfied with the bundled software, expressing that it was either too basic or not compatible with their preferred workflow. Some users experienced issues with software installation or activation, which hindered their experience. 76% Aesthetics 86% of users were satisfied with the aesthetics of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, complimenting its sleek design and professional appearance. The modern look was appreciated by those who valued both functionality and style in their audio equipment. 14% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, feeling that the design was too minimalistic or not aligned with their personal taste. Some users preferred a more traditional look for their recording equipment. 86% Setup Process 79% of users were satisfied with the setup process of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, finding it straightforward and easy to follow. The clear instructions and quick installation allowed users to begin using the interface with minimal hassle. 21% of users were dissatisfied with the setup process, encountering complications during driver installation or setup with their DAW. Some users found the instructions unclear or lacking in detail, leading to a frustrating experience. 79% Integration with DAWs 74% of users were satisfied with the integration of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 with various DAWs, noting seamless connection and functionality with popular software. This compatibility was crucial for users looking to incorporate the interface into their existing setups. 26% of users were dissatisfied with DAW integration, facing issues with compatibility or limited functionality with specific software. Some users experienced connection problems or required additional configuration to achieve optimal performance. 74% Noise Levels 87% of users were satisfied with the low noise levels of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it provided clean recordings without unwanted interference. This was particularly important for users working on professional audio projects requiring high fidelity. 13% of users were dissatisfied with noise levels, reporting occasional static or hum during recordings. Some users felt that the noise floor was higher than expected, affecting the quality of their audio outputs. 87% Control Layout 83% of users were satisfied with the control layout of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, praising the intuitive design that made adjusting settings easy and accessible. The layout was seen as user-friendly, allowing quick changes during recording sessions. 17% of users were dissatisfied with the control layout, finding some controls too small or closely placed, leading to difficulty in making precise adjustments. Some users felt that the layout could be improved for better ergonomics. 83% Output Quality 89% of users were satisfied with the output quality of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating the clarity and depth of sound it delivered. This high-quality output was essential for both playback and monitoring during production. 11% of users were dissatisfied with the output quality, experiencing inconsistencies or lack of volume control precision. Some users felt that the output did not meet their expectations for certain professional applications. 89% Firmware Updates 72% of users were satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of firmware updates for the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, which helped in resolving bugs and improving performance over time. Regular updates were seen as a positive aspect of the product maintenance. 28% of users were dissatisfied with firmware updates, citing infrequent releases or lack of significant improvements. Some users experienced issues with the update process itself, which sometimes led to temporary malfunctions. 72% Value for Professionals 82% of users, including professional musicians and producers, were satisfied with the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 as a reliable tool for their work. They valued its balance of features and quality, which supported their professional audio needs without requiring a substantial investment. 18% of users felt that the interface did not fully meet the demands of professional work, citing limitations in features or performance compared to higher-end models. Some professionals required more advanced options to match their specific technical requirements. 82% Show More

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews

Purchase Value

85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the M-Audio M-Track Solo USB Audio Interface, praising its affordability and the range of features it offers for the price. Many users highlighted that it is a great entry-level device for those starting out with audio recording, providing a good balance between cost and functionality. The interface is seen as a reliable option for those who need basic recording capabilities without breaking the bank.

A minority of users, accounting for the remaining 15%, expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to the limited features when compared to more expensive models. Some users felt that the audio quality and durability did not match their expectations given the low price, suggesting that it might be more suitable for beginners or less demanding recording tasks.

85%
Build Quality

75% of users were pleased with the build quality of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting that it felt solid and durable for a budget device. Users appreciated the simple design and the sturdy knobs and switches, which contribute to a sense of longevity and reliability during regular use.

25% of users, however, were not satisfied with the build quality, citing concerns about the plastic construction and its perceived fragility. Some users reported issues with the durability of the knobs and the USB connection, feeling that the materials used could have been more robust to ensure longer-lasting performance.

75%
Sound Quality

80% of users were satisfied with the sound quality provided by the M-Audio M-Track Solo, often noting that it delivered clear and clean audio recordings. Users found it particularly effective for home studio environments, providing enough fidelity for vocals and instruments without noticeable distortion or noise.

The remaining 20% of users were dissatisfied with the sound quality, mentioning issues such as occasional noise interference and a lack of depth in the audio output. Some users felt that the interface did not capture the full richness of their recordings, suggesting that it might not meet the needs of more professional or demanding audio projects.

80%
Ease of Use

90% of users praised the M-Audio M-Track Solo for its ease of use, highlighting the straightforward setup process and intuitive controls. Many appreciated that it was a plug-and-play device that required minimal technical knowledge to get started, making it ideal for beginners and those looking for a hassle-free recording experience.

Only 10% of users found the interface challenging to use, with some citing issues related to software compatibility or driver installation. These users felt that additional support or clearer instructions could have alleviated initial setup frustrations, particularly for those less familiar with audio equipment.

90%
Portability

88% of users were satisfied with the portability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting its compact size and lightweight design as major advantages. Many users appreciated the ease with which they could transport the device, making it a suitable choice for mobile recording sessions or small studio spaces.

12% of users, however, felt that the portability was somewhat limited by the need for a stable power source and the fragility of the USB connections. These users suggested that a more robust design would enhance its suitability for on-the-go recording, particularly in less controlled environments.

88%
Input Options

70% of users were content with the input options available on the M-Audio M-Track Solo, appreciating the combination of XLR and line inputs which provided adequate flexibility for most basic recording needs. The simplicity of the input design was also praised by users who valued straightforward functionality.

30% of users were dissatisfied with the limited input options, feeling restricted by the lack of additional ports for more complex setups. Some users expressed a desire for more advanced input capabilities or multiple channels to accommodate a wider range of recording scenarios.

70%
Compatibility

82% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting its seamless integration with various digital audio workstations (DAWs) and operating systems. Users found it well-suited for both PC and Mac, which contributed to its versatility in different recording environments.

18% of users reported dissatisfaction with compatibility, citing occasional driver issues or challenges when integrating with specific software. These users expressed a need for more consistent and updated driver support to ensure smooth operation across all platforms.

82%
Latency

78% of users were happy with the low latency performance of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which allowed for real-time monitoring and recording without significant delays. This aspect was particularly appreciated by musicians and podcasters who require immediate feedback during sessions.

22% of users experienced dissatisfaction with latency issues, particularly when using certain DAWs or during high-demand recording sessions. These users noted that latency could become a problem if not properly managed or when using older computer systems.

78%
Customer Support

65% of users found customer support for the M-Audio M-Track Solo to be adequate, with responsive assistance available for common issues. Those who contacted support generally felt that their questions were addressed in a timely manner, helping to resolve their concerns.

35% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, expressing frustration over delayed responses or insufficient assistance for more technical problems. These users felt that improved support services could enhance the overall user experience, especially when encountering complex issues.

65%
Software Bundle

77% of users appreciated the software bundle included with the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which provided them with essential tools to start recording and producing music immediately. Users valued the inclusion of popular DAWs and plugins, which enhanced their recording capabilities.

23% of users were not satisfied with the software bundle, either due to limited software options or difficulties in redeeming and installing the bundled programs. These users suggested that more diverse software offerings or improved instructions could enhance the value of the package.

77%
Microphone Preamp Quality

73% of users were satisfied with the microphone preamp quality of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, appreciating the clear amplification and minimal noise it provided for vocal and instrument recordings. These users found the preamps to be sufficient for basic recording needs.

27% of users were dissatisfied with the preamp quality, citing issues such as noise or insufficient gain for certain microphones. Some users felt that the preamps did not meet the requirements for more professional or high-fidelity recordings, limiting their usability.

73%
Durability

74% of users were satisfied with the durability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, noting that it withstood regular use without significant wear and tear. Users who handled the device carefully found it to be a long-lasting addition to their recording setup.

26% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the durability, mentioning issues such as wear on the knobs or casing over time. Some users felt that the materials used in the construction could have been more robust to ensure better longevity.

74%
Aesthetic Design

79% of users appreciated the aesthetic design of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, finding it sleek and professional-looking. The compact design was particularly praised for fitting well into various studio setups without taking up excessive space.

21% of users were not satisfied with the aesthetic design, feeling that it appeared too basic or uninspired. Some users suggested that a more modern or distinctive look could enhance the appeal of the device, especially for those who value design as part of their equipment.

79%
Noise Floor

76% of users found the noise floor of the M-Audio M-Track Solo to be acceptably low, which contributed to clear and interference-free recordings. Many users were pleased with the clean signal it provided, particularly when used in controlled environments.

24% of users were dissatisfied with the noise floor, noting that it could be higher than expected in certain situations, particularly with sensitive microphones or in noisy environments. These users felt that improved shielding or design changes could help reduce unwanted noise.

76%
Driver Stability

68% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, finding it reliable for most recording sessions. Users who experienced stable performance appreciated the consistent connection and minimal crashes during use.

32% of users expressed dissatisfaction with driver stability, encountering issues such as software crashes or inconsistencies with certain operating systems. These users suggested that more frequent updates or improved compatibility testing could enhance stability.

68%
Output Options

72% of users were content with the output options available on the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which included standard headphone and line outputs. Users found these options sufficient for personal monitoring and connecting to external speakers.

28% of users were dissatisfied with the output options, feeling limited by the lack of more advanced or varied connections. Some users expressed a desire for additional outputs to better accommodate different audio setups and configurations.

72%
Software Integration

81% of users were satisfied with the software integration of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which worked smoothly with various DAWs and plugins. Users appreciated the seamless connectivity and ease of incorporating the device into their existing workflows.

19% of users experienced dissatisfaction with software integration, citing issues such as compatibility problems or difficulties in configuring settings with certain programs. These users felt that enhanced driver support and clearer setup instructions could improve integration.

81%
Headphone Output Quality

74% of users were satisfied with the headphone output quality, noting that it provided clear and accurate monitoring during recording sessions. Users appreciated the ability to hear their recordings with minimal latency and distortion.

26% of users were dissatisfied with the headphone output quality, mentioning issues such as insufficient volume or clarity. Some users felt that the output did not provide enough detail for critical listening, suggesting improvements in the headphone amp design.

74%
Value for Beginners

87% of users felt that the M-Audio M-Track Solo offered excellent value for beginners entering the world of audio recording. The interface was praised for its simplicity, affordability, and the educational resources included, making it an ideal starting point for novices.

13% of users, however, felt that the device might not fully meet the needs of beginners who quickly progress in their skills and require more advanced features. Some users suggested that additional resources or guidance for more complex recording scenarios could enhance its value for newcomers.

87%
Latency-Free Monitoring

80% of users were pleased with the latency-free monitoring capabilities of the M-Audio M-Track Solo, which allowed them to monitor recordings in real-time without noticeable delay. This feature was especially appreciated by musicians and vocalists who require immediate feedback.

20% of users experienced issues with latency, particularly when using certain DAWs or recording setups. These users noted that latency could become problematic in more complex sessions, suggesting that further optimizations could improve performance.

80%
Overall Satisfaction

83% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the M-Audio M-Track Solo, highlighting its cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and adequate performance for home studio setups. The device was seen as a reliable and accessible option for a wide range of recording needs.

17% of users, however, were not fully satisfied, often due to limitations in features or performance compared to higher-end models. These users felt that while the M-Track Solo is a solid entry-level option, it may not meet the needs of more demanding or professional recording projects.

83%

Purchase Value

85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Audio Interface. They appreciated the combination of affordability and features, noting that it offers excellent value for money compared to other interfaces in the same price range. Users highlighted the high-quality sound output and the inclusion of necessary inputs and outputs as key factors in their satisfaction.

15% of users were dissatisfied with the purchase value, primarily due to occasional sales and promotions that made them feel they overpaid at the time of purchase. Some also mentioned that they expected more advanced features based on the price.

85%
Quality of Materials

78% of users found the quality of materials used in the M-Audio AIR 192|4 to be satisfactory. They appreciated the sturdy build and premium feel of the device, which contributed to their confidence in its durability. Many users felt that the materials used were appropriate for a product in this price range, providing a good balance between cost and quality.

22% of users were dissatisfied with the quality of materials, citing concerns about the plastic components feeling less sturdy. Some reported issues with knobs and connectors becoming loose over time, which affected their overall perception of the product's durability.

78%
Sound Quality

90% of users praised the sound quality of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, noting clear and crisp audio output, which enhanced their recording and playback experiences. Users particularly appreciated the low noise floor and the high fidelity of the sound, which they felt was comparable to more expensive models.

10% of users were dissatisfied with the sound quality, mentioning that they experienced occasional static or interference. Some users felt that the interface did not perform well with certain types of microphones or instruments, which affected their overall experience.

90%
Ease of Use

82% of users were satisfied with the ease of use of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Many appreciated the simplicity of the controls, which allowed them to quickly start recording without a steep learning curve.

18% of users found the interface less user-friendly, particularly citing issues with the initial setup and driver installation. Some users experienced difficulties in configuring the device with their preferred software, which led to frustration.

82%
Software Compatibility

75% of users were pleased with the software compatibility of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, noting that it worked seamlessly with popular DAWs and recording software. Many users appreciated the bundled software, which added value to their purchase.

25% of users were dissatisfied with software compatibility, reporting challenges in configuring the interface with specific DAWs or experiencing limited functionality with older software versions. Some users faced latency issues that hindered their recording process.

75%
Design

88% of users were satisfied with the design of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, commending its sleek and modern look. The compact size and layout of controls were appreciated for their convenience, making the interface easy to integrate into various setups.

12% of users were dissatisfied with the design, mainly due to the placement of certain controls which they found inconvenient. Some users felt that the interface was too compact, leading to potential issues when connecting multiple devices.

88%
Portability

80% of users were satisfied with the portability of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, appreciating its lightweight and compact design. This made it easy for them to transport the interface for mobile recordings or to different studio locations.

20% of users were dissatisfied with portability, noting that the lack of a protective case or bag made it susceptible to damage during transport. Some users felt that additional features, such as battery power, would enhance its portability.

80%
Durability

77% of users were happy with the durability of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, stating that it withstood regular use without showing significant wear and tear. They felt confident in its ability to last over time given its solid construction.

23% of users were dissatisfied with durability, citing issues with components such as knobs and connectors becoming loose or malfunctioning after prolonged use. Some users expected a more robust build quality for extended durability.

77%
Customer Support

70% of users were satisfied with the customer support offered by M-Audio, appreciating the prompt responses and helpful assistance they received when encountering issues with the AIR 192|4. Many users felt that the support team was knowledgeable and provided effective solutions.

30% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, mentioning delays in response times or difficulty in obtaining satisfactory resolutions to their problems. Some users felt that the support staff lacked technical expertise, leading to unresolved issues.

70%
Driver Stability

73% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, reporting smooth operation and minimal issues with crashes or disconnects. Many users appreciated the regular updates that helped maintain compatibility with various operating systems.

27% of users were dissatisfied with driver stability, experiencing frequent crashes or disconnects during use. Some users reported issues with installing or updating drivers, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively.

73%
Latency

81% of users were satisfied with the low latency performance of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, noting that it allowed for seamless real-time monitoring and recording. This feature was particularly appreciated by musicians and producers who required precise timing.

19% of users were dissatisfied with latency, experiencing delays that affected their recording sessions. Some users found that latency increased with certain software or when using higher sample rates, which impacted their workflow.

81%
Input/Output Options

84% of users were satisfied with the input and output options provided by the M-Audio AIR 192|4, appreciating the versatility and ability to connect various audio equipment. The interface's combination of XLR and instrument inputs was particularly valued.

16% of users were dissatisfied with the input/output options, feeling limited by the number of available connections. Some users wished for additional outputs for more complex setups or found the existing options insufficient for their needs.

84%
Bundled Software

76% of users were pleased with the bundled software that came with the M-Audio AIR 192|4, finding it useful for getting started with recording and production. Users appreciated the added value and variety of tools included in the package.

24% of users were dissatisfied with the bundled software, expressing that it was either too basic or not compatible with their preferred workflow. Some users experienced issues with software installation or activation, which hindered their experience.

76%
Aesthetics

86% of users were satisfied with the aesthetics of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, complimenting its sleek design and professional appearance. The modern look was appreciated by those who valued both functionality and style in their audio equipment.

14% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, feeling that the design was too minimalistic or not aligned with their personal taste. Some users preferred a more traditional look for their recording equipment.

86%
Setup Process

79% of users were satisfied with the setup process of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, finding it straightforward and easy to follow. The clear instructions and quick installation allowed users to begin using the interface with minimal hassle.

21% of users were dissatisfied with the setup process, encountering complications during driver installation or setup with their DAW. Some users found the instructions unclear or lacking in detail, leading to a frustrating experience.

79%
Integration with DAWs

74% of users were satisfied with the integration of the M-Audio AIR 192|4 with various DAWs, noting seamless connection and functionality with popular software. This compatibility was crucial for users looking to incorporate the interface into their existing setups.

26% of users were dissatisfied with DAW integration, facing issues with compatibility or limited functionality with specific software. Some users experienced connection problems or required additional configuration to achieve optimal performance.

74%
Noise Levels

87% of users were satisfied with the low noise levels of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, noting that it provided clean recordings without unwanted interference. This was particularly important for users working on professional audio projects requiring high fidelity.

13% of users were dissatisfied with noise levels, reporting occasional static or hum during recordings. Some users felt that the noise floor was higher than expected, affecting the quality of their audio outputs.

87%
Control Layout

83% of users were satisfied with the control layout of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, praising the intuitive design that made adjusting settings easy and accessible. The layout was seen as user-friendly, allowing quick changes during recording sessions.

17% of users were dissatisfied with the control layout, finding some controls too small or closely placed, leading to difficulty in making precise adjustments. Some users felt that the layout could be improved for better ergonomics.

83%
Output Quality

89% of users were satisfied with the output quality of the M-Audio AIR 192|4, appreciating the clarity and depth of sound it delivered. This high-quality output was essential for both playback and monitoring during production.

11% of users were dissatisfied with the output quality, experiencing inconsistencies or lack of volume control precision. Some users felt that the output did not meet their expectations for certain professional applications.

89%
Firmware Updates

72% of users were satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of firmware updates for the M-Audio AIR 192|4, which helped in resolving bugs and improving performance over time. Regular updates were seen as a positive aspect of the product maintenance.

28% of users were dissatisfied with firmware updates, citing infrequent releases or lack of significant improvements. Some users experienced issues with the update process itself, which sometimes led to temporary malfunctions.

72%
Value for Professionals

82% of users, including professional musicians and producers, were satisfied with the M-Audio AIR 192|4 as a reliable tool for their work. They valued its balance of features and quality, which supported their professional audio needs without requiring a substantial investment.

18% of users felt that the interface did not fully meet the demands of professional work, citing limitations in features or performance compared to higher-end models. Some professionals required more advanced options to match their specific technical requirements.

82%

Pros:
Affordable price point, making it accessible for beginners. Compact and portable design, ideal for small spaces. Simple and easy-to-use interface with plug-and-play functionality. Includes a variety of bundled software for music production. Compatible with both Mac and PC operating systems.	High-quality 24-bit/192kHz audio resolution. User-friendly interface with large central volume knob. Includes software bundle with Ableton Live Lite and more. Direct monitoring feature with no latency. Compact and portable design.

Cons:
Limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs, which may not be sufficient for more complex recording needs. Build quality may not be as durable as higher-end interfaces. Lacks advanced features like MIDI input/output. Preamps may not offer the highest sound quality compared to more expensive models. No dedicated power supply, relies solely on USB power which can limit performance.	Limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs. No MIDI input/output. Build quality can feel less robust compared to higher-end models. USB Type-C connection may require adapters for some users. Only one headphone output.

Key Specs
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 192 kHz
Maximum Sampling Rate
48 kHz / 16-Bit	192 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
1 Preamp	1 Preamp
Analog Audio I/O
1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input (Front Panel) 1x 1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 1x Stereo RCA Coaxial Unbalanced Monitor Output 1x 1/8" / 3.5 mm TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)	1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)
Host Connection
1x USB-B (Class-Compliant)	1x USB-C (Class-Compliant)
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later (32-/64-Bit)	macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

When comparing the M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface, several key differences and similarities emerge in terms of their features.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo offers two channels of analog I/O with a maximum sampling rate of 48 kHz at 16-bit resolution. It has one microphone input via a combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line input and one 1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced line/Hi-Z input. For outputs, it provides a stereo RCA coaxial unbalanced monitor output and a 1/8" (3.5 mm) TRS unbalanced headphone output. Connectivity is achieved through a USB-B port, and it is compatible with macOS 10.8 or later and Windows 7 or later, supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. The device is powered via USB bus power.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 delivers higher audio quality with a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. Like the M-Track Solo, it features one microphone input via a combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line input, but it enhances connectivity with a 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input on the front panel. Additionally, it offers two 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs and a 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output. The host connection is made through a USB-C port, ensuring faster data transfer and more robust connectivity. It is also compatible with macOS 10.8 or later and Windows 7 or later. The AIR 192|4 is USB bus-powered as well.
In summary, while both interfaces provide essential connectivity and USB bus power, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 stands out with its higher sampling rate, additional balanced line outputs, and USB-C connectivity, making it a more advanced choice for users seeking superior audio quality and greater flexibility. The M-Track Solo, however, remains a solid option for those needing a straightforward, reliable interface with basic features.

General
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 192 kHz
Maximum Sampling Rate
48 kHz / 16-Bit	192 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
1 Preamp	1 Preamp
Input Level Adjustment
2x Knob	2x Knob
Expansion Slots

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both offer 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, making them suitable for small recording setups. However, they differ significantly in their maximum sampling rates and bit depths. The M-Track Solo supports a maximum sampling rate of 48 kHz at 16-bit, whereas the AIR 192|4 supports a much higher maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit. This means the AIR 192|4 can capture audio with greater detail and higher fidelity compared to the M-Track Solo.
Both audio interfaces feature a single microphone preamp, allowing for the connection of one microphone. They also both have two input level adjustment knobs, providing control over the input signal levels. Neither interface includes built-in microphones or expansion slots, focusing solely on their core functionality as audio interfaces.
In summary, while both the M-Audio M-Track Solo and the AIR 192|4 provide similar I/O channel configurations and input adjustment options, the AIR 192|4 stands out with its superior audio resolution capabilities, supporting higher sampling rates and bit depths. This makes the AIR 192|4 a more suitable choice for users requiring higher audio quality in their recordings.

Signal Processing
Pad

Gain/Trim Range
Mic Inputs: 0 to +54 dB Line/Hi-Z Inputs: -10 to +44 dB	Mic/Line Inputs: 55 dB Hi-Z Inputs: 24 dB
High-Pass Filter

Solo/Mute

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both serve as capable audio interfaces, but they have distinct specifications that cater to different needs.
Starting with the M-Audio M-Track Solo, this interface does not feature a pad, high-pass filter, or solo/mute functions. It offers a gain/trim range of 0 to +54 dB for mic inputs and -10 to +44 dB for line/Hi-Z inputs. This range allows for a wide variety of input sources, making it a versatile option for users who need flexibility in gain control without advanced filtering or muting options.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 also lacks a pad, high-pass filter, and solo/mute functionalities. However, it provides a gain/trim range of 55 dB for mic/line inputs and 24 dB for Hi-Z inputs. This slightly narrower gain range for Hi-Z inputs and a higher range for mic/line inputs suggests that the AIR 192|4 is tailored more towards users who require precision in mic/line input gain settings, possibly making it more suitable for professional recording environments.
In summary, while both interfaces share the absence of certain features like a pad, high-pass filter, and solo/mute options, they differ in their gain/trim range specifications. The M-Track Solo offers a broader range for both mic and Hi-Z inputs, whereas the AIR 192|4 provides a more refined gain/trim control for mic/line inputs, catering to different recording needs and preferences.

Connectivity
Analog Audio I/O
1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input (Front Panel) 1x 1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 1x Stereo RCA Coaxial Unbalanced Monitor Output 1x 1/8" / 3.5 mm TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)	1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)
Phantom Power
48 V, Selectable On/Off	48 V, Selectable On/Off
Digital Audio I/O

Host Connection
1x USB-B (Class-Compliant)	1x USB-C (Class-Compliant)
Host Connection Protocol
USB 2.0	USB 2.0
USB (Non-Host)

Sync I/O

Network I/O

MIDI I/O

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both designed to provide high-quality audio input and output for recording purposes, but they feature some key differences that cater to different user needs.
Starting with the analog audio I/O, the M-Track Solo offers 1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input and 1x 1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Line/Hi-Z Input on the front panel. For output, it provides 1x Stereo RCA Coaxial Unbalanced Monitor Output and 1x 1/8" / 3.5 mm TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output. In comparison, the AIR 192|4 also features 1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input and 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input on the front panel but offers 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Outputs and 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output. This means the AIR 192|4 provides balanced outputs which might be preferable for professional studio monitors.
Both interfaces have 48 V phantom power, which is selectable on/off, making them suitable for use with condenser microphones. However, they differ in their host connection type. The M-Track Solo uses a USB-B connection and adheres to the USB 2.0 protocol, while the AIR 192|4 uses a more modern USB-C connection, also supporting USB 2.0. This difference could affect compatibility and ease of connection with newer computer models.
Neither interface includes digital audio I/O, Sync I/O, Network I/O, or MIDI I/O, focusing solely on delivering high-quality analog inputs and outputs. The absence of these features indicates a streamlined design aimed at users who need essential audio recording capabilities without additional connectivity options.
In summary, the M-Track Solo is a more basic model suited for users who need a simple and straightforward audio interface with essential input and output options. On the other hand, the AIR 192|4 offers more professional features, such as balanced line outputs and a USB-C connection, making it a better choice for those who require higher-quality output and modern connectivity.

Performance
Frequency Response
Mic, Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.1 dB Monitor Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.1 dB Headphone Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.5 dB	Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.1 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.05 dB Monitor Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.06 dB
Maximum Output Level
Line Outputs: +4 dBu	Line Outputs: +7 dBu (Balanced, 1 kHz)
Impedance
Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm (Unbalanced)	Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: 10 Ohms (Balanced)
SNR
Mic Inputs: 109 dB (A-Weighted) Monitor Outputs: 109 dB (A-Weighted) Headphone Outputs: 100 dB (A-Weighted)	Mic Inputs: 104 dB (A-Weighted) Line Inputs: 101 dB (A-Weighted) Hi-Z Inputs: 102 dB (A-Weighted) Monitor Outputs: 102 dB (A-Weighted)
THD+N
Mic Inputs: 0.003% (A-Weighted, Min Gain, at 0 dBu) Line Inputs: 0.002% (A-Weighted, Min Gain, at 0 dBu) Hi-Z Inputs: 0.005% (A-Weighted, Min Gain, at 0 dBu) Monitor Outputs: 0.002% (A-Weighted, at 0 dBu) Headphone Outputs: 0.02% (A-Weighted)	Mic/Line Inputs: 0.003% Hi-Z Inputs: 0.004% Headphone/Monitor Outputs: 0.005%
EIN
Mic Inputs: -128 dBu A-Weighted (Max Gain)	Mic Inputs: -128 dBu A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface share several common features but also have some notable differences in their specifications.
In terms of frequency response, the M-Track Solo offers a range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz with a variance of ±0.1 dB for mic, line, and Hi-Z inputs, as well as monitor outputs. The headphone outputs have a slightly broader variance of ±0.5 dB. The AIR 192|4 delivers a similar frequency response for mic inputs (+0.1 dB) and line, Hi-Z inputs (±0.05 dB), and a slightly different monitor output at +0.06 dB.
When looking at maximum output levels, the M-Track Solo provides a line output level of +4 dBu and a headphone output power of 60 mW per channel into 32 Ohms. The AIR 192|4 has a higher line output level at +7 dBu (balanced, 1 kHz), and its headphone output impedance is listed at 10 Ohms (balanced), although its output power is not specified.
The impedance for Hi-Z inputs on both interfaces is identical at 1 Megohm (unbalanced). However, the AIR 192|4 specifies an additional impedance for headphone outputs at 10 Ohms (balanced).
In terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the M-Track Solo offers 109 dB (A-weighted) for mic and monitor outputs, and 100 dB (A-weighted) for headphone outputs. The AIR 192|4 presents a slightly lower SNR with 104 dB (A-weighted) for mic inputs, 101 dB for line inputs, 102 dB for Hi-Z and monitor outputs.
Total harmonic distortion plus noise (THD+N) for the M-Track Solo is impressively low at 0.003% for mic inputs, 0.002% for line inputs, 0.005% for Hi-Z inputs, 0.002% for monitor outputs, and 0.02% for headphone outputs. The AIR 192|4 has similar THD+N values with mic/line inputs at 0.003%, Hi-Z inputs at 0.004%, and headphone/monitor outputs at 0.005%.
Lastly, both interfaces have identical equivalent input noise (EIN) for mic inputs at -128 dBu A-weighted. However, the AIR 192|4 specifies this with a 150-Ohm source at max gain, whereas the M-Track Solo does not specify the source impedance.
Overall, while both interfaces offer strong performance, the AIR 192|4 edges out with slightly higher dynamic range and output levels, making it potentially more suitable for users requiring higher fidelity and output power. The M-Track Solo, however, provides competitive specifications, particularly in terms of its low THD+N and high SNR, making it a very solid choice for most recording needs.

Digital Audio
Sample Rates
48 kHz (AD/DA Conversion)	Up to 192 kHz (AD/DA Conversion)
Sample Rate Conversion

Bit Depths
16-Bit (AD/DA Conversion)	24-Bit (AD/DA Conversion)
Latency
Zero-Latency Direct Monitoring	2.59 ms (Dependent on Buffer Size, Input to Output)
Sync Sources
Internal	Internal

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface cater to different needs based on their specifications.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo offers a sample rate of 48 kHz for AD/DA conversion, which is suitable for basic recording and playback needs. In contrast, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 supports much higher sample rates of up to 192 kHz, making it a better choice for high-fidelity audio recording and playback. Additionally, the M-Track Solo operates at a bit depth of 16-bit for AD/DA conversion, which is standard for most entry-level interfaces. On the other hand, the AIR 192|4 provides 24-bit depth, offering more dynamic range and detail in the recorded audio.
Latency is another important factor where these two interfaces differ. The M-Track Solo boasts zero-latency direct monitoring, ensuring that there is no delay between the input and output during recording. The AIR 192|4, while not zero-latency, offers a very low latency of 2.59 ms, which can vary depending on the buffer size. This low latency is still quite suitable for most recording purposes and is unlikely to be a significant issue for most users.
Both interfaces use internal sync sources, ensuring stable and reliable timing for digital audio processes. However, considering the overall specifications, the AIR 192|4 is a more advanced and capable audio interface compared to the M-Track Solo, offering higher sample rates, greater bit depth, and very low latency, making it ideal for more professional recording scenarios.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface share a common feature in that neither includes a memory card slot. This means that both interfaces are focused primarily on their core functionality of audio input and output, rather than offering additional storage options. Users looking to record audio will need to connect these interfaces to a computer or another external recording device to store their audio files, as there is no onboard capability to use memory cards for this purpose.
Despite this shared characteristic, there may be other differences between the two audio interfaces in terms of connectivity, audio quality, and additional features that could influence a user's choice. However, when considering the specific aspect of memory card slots, both the M-Track Solo and the AIR 192|4 are identical in not providing this feature.

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later (32-/64-Bit)	macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later
Required Hardware
Available USB-A Port USB Cable (Included)	Available USB 2.0 Port or USB-C Port USB Cable (Included)
Internet Connection
Required for Registration, Software/Driver Download	Required for Registration, Software/Driver Download

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both cater to users looking to record and produce audio with their computers. However, they present some differences in their specifications.
In terms of OS compatibility, both devices support macOS 10.8 or later and Windows 7 or later, ensuring a wide range of users can utilize these interfaces regardless of their operating system preference.
For required hardware, the M-Track Solo necessitates an available USB-A port, along with the included USB cable. On the other hand, the AIR 192|4 offers more flexibility by supporting either a USB 2.0 port or a USB-C port, again with the necessary USB cable included in the package.
Both interfaces require an internet connection for registration and software or driver downloads, ensuring users can quickly get started and maintain updated software for optimal performance.
However, a notable distinction is the mobile device compatibility. The AIR 192|4 explicitly states no compatibility with mobile devices, whereas the M-Track Solo does not specify this parameter, suggesting it may have limited or undefined mobile device support.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

Both the M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are powered via USB bus power. This means that neither of these audio interfaces requires an additional power supply, making them both highly convenient for portable and home studio setups.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo connects through a standard USB interface, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of computers and devices. On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 utilizes a USB Type-C connection, which offers faster data transfer rates and improved performance when compared to traditional USB interfaces. This makes the AIR 192|4 potentially more suitable for setups requiring low latency and high-speed data transfer.
In summary, while both the M-Audio M-Track Solo and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 are powered via USB bus power, the key difference lies in their connectivity. The M-Track Solo uses a standard USB connection, whereas the AIR 192|4 employs a USB Type-C connection for enhanced performance.

Physical
Dimensions
6.4 x 4.5 x 2.1" / 16.3 x 11.4 x 5.3 cm	8 x 6 x 2.76" / 20.3 x 15.2 x 7.01 cm
Weight
0.7 lb / 0.3 kg	2.0 lb / 0.9 kg

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both serve as essential tools for audio production, but they differ significantly in terms of dimensions, weight, and additional features.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo is more compact and lightweight, measuring 6.4 x 4.5 x 2.1 inches (16.3 x 11.4 x 5.3 cm) and weighing just 0.7 lb (0.3 kg). This makes it a highly portable option, suitable for users who need to move their audio interface frequently or those with limited desk space.
In contrast, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 is larger and heavier, with dimensions of 8 x 6 x 2.76 inches (20.3 x 15.2 x 7.01 cm) and a weight of 2.0 lb (0.9 kg). While it may occupy more space and be less convenient to transport, its heft can contribute to a more stable setup on a desktop.
Moreover, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 includes an additional security feature: a Kensington Security Slot. This anti-theft feature offers an extra layer of protection, which can be particularly useful in studio environments where security is a concern.
Overall, the M-Track Solo is ideal for users prioritizing portability and compactness, while the AIR 192|4 offers more robust physical security and may be better suited for a stationary studio setup.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
1.155 lb	2.85 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
8 x 6 x 3.7"	11 x 7.5 x 4.8"

The M-Audio M-Track Solo Desktop 2x2 USB Audio Interface and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface differ notably in terms of their package weights and box dimensions.
The M-Audio M-Track Solo has a package weight of 1.155 lb and its box dimensions measure 8 x 6 x 3.7 inches. This makes it a more lightweight and compact option, which could be beneficial for users who need a portable audio interface that is easy to transport and requires less storage space.
In contrast, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 has a package weight of 2.85 lb, nearly two and a half times heavier than the M-Track Solo. The box dimensions for the AIR 192|4 are 11 x 7.5 x 4.8 inches, indicating that it is also larger in size. The increased weight and dimensions might be attributed to more robust build quality or additional features, which could appeal to users looking for a more durable and potentially feature-rich audio interface.
In summary, the M-Audio M-Track Solo is the lighter and more compact option, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 is heavier and larger, suggesting differences in their build and possibly the range of features they offer.