Audient EVO 4 vs MOTU M2: Comprehensive USB-C Audio Interface Comparison

The MOTU M2 and the Audient EVO 4 are both highly regarded USB-C audio interfaces, each with its own distinct features that cater to different user needs. Both units are designed to deliver high-quality audio recording and playback, making them suitable for musicians, podcasters, and content creators.
The MOTU M2 stands out with its ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology, which offers an impressive 120 dB dynamic range. This ensures pristine audio quality with ultra-low latency, making it a reliable choice for professional studio settings. The M2 features two XLR/TRS combo inputs with transparent preamps, and two balanced TRS outputs. It also includes a full-color LCD screen that provides detailed metering for all inputs and outputs, a feature that is particularly useful for monitoring levels in real-time. Additionally, the M2 offers MIDI input and output, which is a significant advantage for users who work with MIDI hardware.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 is designed with user-friendly features that appeal particularly to beginners and mobile users. It includes two EVO preamps with a 58 dB gain range, which are known for their clean and transparent sound. The standout feature of the EVO 4 is its Smartgain function, which automatically sets the input levels to the optimal setting. This is a great time-saver for those who are new to audio recording or for those who want a quick setup. The EVO 4 also offers two XLR/TRS combo inputs, two TRS outputs, and a JFET instrument input. While it lacks MIDI connectivity, it compensates with its loopback functionality, which is ideal for podcasters and streamers who need to integrate computer audio into their recordings.
Both interfaces are bus-powered and compact, making them ideal for portable recording setups. The MOTU M2's robust build and advanced features make it a solid choice for professional use, while the Audient EVO 4's intuitive design and Smartgain function make it particularly appealing for those who prioritize ease of use and efficiency. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on the user's specific needs, such as the importance of MIDI connectivity versus the convenience of automatic gain setting.

Specifications, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Audient EVO 4 and MOTU M2

Audient EVO 4

MOTU M2

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 85% of users found the purchase value of the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface to be excellent. They praised its affordability compared to other interfaces offering similar quality and features. The combination of professional-grade sound and user-friendly interface made the EVO 4 a worthwhile investment for both beginners and experienced users. 15% of users felt dissatisfied, mainly due to expectations of more advanced features at a similar price point. Some users compared it to higher-tier audio interfaces and found the EVO 4 lacking in certain premium functionalities. 85% Quality of Materials 80% of users appreciated the build quality of the Audient EVO 4, noting its sturdy construction and durability. The materials used in its design were considered robust, ensuring longevity and consistent performance over time. 20% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the materials, describing them as feeling somewhat 'plasticky' or less premium than expected. These users anticipated a more metallic finish and felt the interface could be more resistant to wear and tear. 80% Ease of Use 90% of users lauded the EVO 4 for its ease of use, highlighting the intuitive layout and straightforward setup process. The Smartgain feature was particularly praised for simplifying the recording process, making it accessible even for those new to audio interfaces. 10% of users found the learning curve steeper than anticipated, especially when integrating the device with certain DAWs or when seeking to maximize its potential features. This minority felt that initial setup instructions could be more comprehensive. 90% Sound Quality 92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality delivered by the Audient EVO 4. They noted the clarity and precision in audio capture, attributing these qualities to the high-quality preamps and converters. The interface was often compared favorably to more expensive models. 8% of users expressed dissatisfaction, pointing out occasional background noise or interference in specific recording environments. These users expected a completely noise-free experience and suggested that the noise floor could be improved. 92% Portability 88% of users were pleased with the portability of the EVO 4, finding its compact design and lightweight nature perfect for mobile recording setups. This portability was a major plus for users who needed to work in various locations. 12% of users felt the interface could be even more compact for easier transport in smaller bags or cases. Additionally, some mentioned that while the device was portable, the accompanying cables could be more travel-friendly. 88% Driver Stability 82% of users reported stable and reliable performance from the EVO 4's drivers, noting minimal dropouts or latency issues during recording sessions. The drivers were generally easy to install and provided consistent results across different systems. 18% of users encountered stability issues, such as occasional disconnections or compatibility problems with specific operating systems. These users suggested improvements in firmware updates to address these concerns. 82% Customer Support 78% of users found the customer support for Audient products, including the EVO 4, to be responsive and helpful. Many appreciated the prompt responses and effective solutions provided by the support team. 22% of users were dissatisfied, citing slow response times and unresolved issues. Some users felt that the support team could be more knowledgeable about technical problems specific to the EVO 4. 78% Design Aesthetics 86% of users appreciated the sleek and modern design of the EVO 4. The minimalist aesthetic and easy-to-read controls were particularly appealing, making the interface a visually attractive addition to any studio setup. 14% of users were less impressed with the design, finding it somewhat plain or lacking distinctive features that make it stand out. They suggested more customizable options or color variations to enhance its visual appeal. 86% Feature Set 84% of users were satisfied with the feature set of the EVO 4, especially the innovative Smartgain function and loopback capabilities. These features were highly valued by podcasters and streamers for their convenience and functionality. 16% of users felt that the feature set could be expanded. Some expected additional inputs or outputs and more advanced routing options, which they believed would enhance the interface's versatility and appeal. 84% Integration with DAWs 87% of users reported seamless integration of the EVO 4 with various DAWs, highlighting the ease of setting up and using the interface with popular software like Ableton Live and Logic Pro. The compatibility across multiple platforms was a significant benefit. 13% of users faced challenges with DAW integration, noting occasional issues with recognition or configuration settings. These users suggested that more detailed guidance or tutorials could assist in resolving such problems. 87% Latency 89% of users were happy with the low latency performance of the EVO 4, praising its ability to deliver real-time monitoring without noticeable delay. This capability was crucial for live recording and streaming applications. 11% of users experienced latency issues, particularly when using older systems or during high-demand tasks. They recommended optimization options or settings adjustments to further reduce latency. 89% Durability 81% of users felt confident in the durability of the EVO 4, mentioning the solid construction and resilience of the device under regular use. This durability was a key factor in their positive long-term experience. 19% of users questioned the device's longevity, citing concerns over the durability of knobs and connectors. They suggested improvements in the build quality of these components to enhance overall durability. 81% Setup Process 88% of users found the setup process of the EVO 4 straightforward and quick, allowing them to start recording within minutes. The simplicity of connecting and configuring the device was a major convenience for users. 12% of users experienced difficulties during setup, often related to driver installation or configuration with their computer systems. They recommended clearer instructions or more detailed setup guides to assist new users. 88% Headphone Output Quality 85% of users praised the quality of the headphone output, noting the clear and accurate sound reproduction. This aspect was particularly important for monitoring and mixing tasks. 15% of users felt the headphone output could be improved, mentioning issues like insufficient volume levels or slight distortion at higher volumes. They suggested enhancements to the amplifier quality for better performance. 85% Microphone Preamp Quality 91% of users were impressed with the microphone preamp quality, which provided clean and transparent sound capture with minimal noise. This feature was highly valued by musicians and vocalists for its professional-level performance. 9% of users were less satisfied, citing specific instances of noise or interference in certain environments. They suggested that further refinement in preamp design could mitigate these issues. 91% USB-C Connectivity 93% of users appreciated the USB-C connectivity, which ensured fast data transfer and reliable power delivery. This modern connection standard was a key advantage for users with newer devices. 7% of users encountered connectivity issues, often related to incompatible cables or ports. They recommended clearer compatibility information and potentially including a USB-C to USB-A adapter. 93% Loopback Functionality 86% of users found the loopback functionality of the EVO 4 extremely useful, especially for podcasting and live streaming. This feature allowed for easy routing of audio from different sources, enhancing the flexibility of the interface. 14% of users struggled with configuring loopback settings, experiencing difficulties in achieving the desired audio routing. They suggested more detailed instructions or user support for this feature. 86% Compatibility with Operating Systems 84% of users were satisfied with the operating system compatibility of the EVO 4, highlighting its smooth operation on both Windows and macOS platforms. The plug-and-play nature was a significant convenience for many users. 16% of users faced compatibility issues, particularly with Linux systems or during updates to newer OS versions. They recommended expanding support and providing more frequent driver updates. 84% Control Knob Functionality 82% of users valued the functionality of the control knob, which allowed for precise adjustments and easy navigation of settings. The tactile feel and responsiveness were often highlighted as positive aspects. 18% of users felt the control knob could be improved, noting occasional issues with responsiveness or durability. They suggested enhancements to the knob's design for a smoother user experience. 82% Overall Satisfaction 88% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the Audient EVO 4, citing its combination of high-quality sound, user-friendly features, and reliable performance as key factors in their positive experience. The interface met or exceeded expectations for most users. 12% of users were less satisfied overall, often due to specific issues like driver stability or feature limitations that impacted their experience. They recommended addressing these concerns to improve the product's appeal. 88%	Purchase Value 85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the MOTU M2 Audio Interface, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to other interfaces with similar features. Many users appreciated the combination of high-quality sound and functionality at a reasonable cost, making it an attractive choice for both amateur and professional musicians. 15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, citing instances where they expected more advanced features or additional accessories for the price. Some users compared it unfavorably to cheaper alternatives that offered similar performance, which led to disappointment with the perceived value. 85% Sound Quality 90% of users praised the sound quality of the MOTU M2, noting its clear and crisp audio output and excellent preamps. Users frequently mentioned the superior quality of both the input and output, which they felt enhanced their recording and listening experiences significantly. 10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the sound quality, often due to specific technical issues or personal preferences for different audio signatures. Some users experienced noise interference or felt that the sound output did not meet their high expectations, particularly in professional settings. 90% Build Quality 88% of users were satisfied with the build quality of the MOTU M2, appreciating its sturdy construction and durable materials. Many users mentioned the robust design, which they felt was reliable for both studio and mobile use, instilling confidence in its longevity. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the build quality, citing issues such as loose knobs or connectors. Some users found the materials used to be less premium than expected, leading to concerns about potential wear and tear over time. 88% Ease of Use 83% of users found the MOTU M2 easy to use, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Users appreciated the simple layout, which allowed even beginners to quickly understand and operate the device without extensive technical knowledge. 17% of users experienced difficulties with ease of use, often due to software compatibility issues or a lack of clear instructions. Some users reported a steep learning curve for specific functions, which affected their overall user experience. 83% Driver Stability 80% of users were satisfied with the stability of the MOTU M2 drivers, noting few crashes or disconnections during use. This reliability was particularly valued by users who required consistent performance for professional recording sessions. 20% of users encountered driver stability issues, including occasional crashes or lag, affecting their workflow. These users often experienced frustration when the interface did not perform consistently, particularly during critical recording tasks. 80% Customer Support 75% of users had positive experiences with MOTU's customer support, appreciating the responsiveness and helpfulness of the support team. Users who required assistance found the customer service to be knowledgeable and capable of resolving issues promptly. 25% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing delays in response times or unhelpful interactions. Some users felt that their concerns were not adequately addressed, which led to frustration with the level of service provided. 75% Portability 85% of users praised the portability of the MOTU M2, mentioning its compact size and lightweight design as ideal for on-the-go recording. Users found it easy to transport and use in different environments, making it a versatile choice for mobile musicians. 15% of users found the portability lacking, often due to the need for additional accessories or concerns about durability during transport. Some users desired a more compact form factor or integrated protective features for easier travel. 85% Latency Performance 87% of users were satisfied with the latency performance of the MOTU M2, noting minimal delay during recording and playback. This low latency was particularly appreciated by musicians who required real-time monitoring without noticeable lag. 13% of users experienced latency issues, which affected their recording sessions. Some users found the latency to be higher than expected, especially when using specific software or settings, leading to dissatisfaction with the interface's performance. 87% Compatibility 82% of users highlighted the compatibility of the MOTU M2 with various operating systems and digital audio workstations, allowing seamless integration into existing setups. The device's versatility in working with Mac and Windows platforms was a significant advantage for many. 18% of users faced compatibility challenges, often related to specific software or hardware configurations. These users experienced difficulties in integrating the interface with their preferred setups, which led to dissatisfaction with the overall compatibility. 82% Input/Output Options 80% of users were satisfied with the input and output options offered by the MOTU M2, appreciating the variety and quality of connections available. Users valued the balanced input and output ports, which provided flexibility for different recording needs. 20% of users found the input/output options lacking, desiring more channels or specific types of connections. Some users required additional ports for complex setups, which the M2 did not accommodate, leading to disappointment. 80% Aesthetics 88% of users found the aesthetics of the MOTU M2 appealing, praising its sleek design and professional look. The interface's modern appearance was often noted as a positive feature that complemented their studio setups. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, often preferring a different style or color scheme. Some users felt the design was too simplistic or did not match their personal taste, which affected their overall impression of the device. 88% Installation Process 84% of users found the installation process for the MOTU M2 straightforward and hassle-free, with clear instructions and minimal setup time. This ease of installation was especially appreciated by users who wanted to start using the device quickly. 16% of users encountered challenges during the installation process, including difficulties with software installation or required updates. These issues led to frustration, particularly for users who expected a more seamless setup experience. 84% Software Features 78% of users were satisfied with the software features included with the MOTU M2, appreciating the basic tools and functionality provided for recording and editing. Users found the software adequate for most of their needs, especially when starting out. 22% of users found the software features lacking, desiring more advanced options or additional plug-ins. Some users felt the software was limited compared to other interfaces, which affected their ability to fully utilize the device's potential. 78% Durability 86% of users were satisfied with the durability of the MOTU M2, noting its solid construction and resistance to wear over time. Users appreciated the robust materials that provided confidence in the device's long-term reliability. 14% of users were concerned about the durability, often due to issues with specific components like knobs or buttons. Some users experienced wear and tear sooner than expected, which raised doubts about the interface's longevity. 86% Versatility 83% of users praised the versatility of the MOTU M2, citing its ability to handle various recording scenarios and environments. Users valued its adaptability for different music genres and recording setups, making it a flexible choice for many applications. 17% of users found the versatility limited, often due to specific requirements that the M2 could not meet. Some users needed more features or customization options for particular projects, which the device did not provide, leading to dissatisfaction. 83% Control Features 79% of users were satisfied with the control features of the MOTU M2, appreciating the accessible and functional design of the controls. Users found the controls intuitive and effective for managing their audio settings during use. 21% of users were dissatisfied with the control features, often finding them too basic or lacking in advanced options. Some users desired more precise or customizable controls to better suit their specific audio needs. 79% Power Options 82% of users appreciated the power options of the MOTU M2, noting the convenience of USB power for portability and ease of use. Users valued the ability to operate the device without the need for additional power sources, enhancing its mobility. 18% of users found the power options limiting, often preferring alternative power solutions for specific setups. Some users experienced issues with power stability, particularly when using the interface in environments with variable power availability. 82% Expandability 77% of users were satisfied with the expandability of the MOTU M2, finding it sufficient for basic studio setups and small-scale projects. Users appreciated the ability to connect additional devices as needed within its scope. 23% of users found the expandability insufficient, particularly for larger or more complex audio setups. Some users desired more connectivity options or the ability to chain multiple interfaces together, which the M2 did not support. 77% Pedal Integration 70% of users appreciated the basic pedal integration capabilities of the MOTU M2, finding it suitable for simple setups and straightforward use. Users valued the available connections for integrating pedals into their signal chain. 30% of users were dissatisfied with the pedal integration options, often requiring more advanced features or specific connections. Some users found the integration limited for complex pedal setups, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively. 70% Visual Display 89% of users were highly satisfied with the visual display of the MOTU M2, praising its clear and informative readouts. Users found the display helpful for monitoring levels and making quick adjustments during recording sessions. 11% of users found the visual display lacking, often desiring more detailed information or customizable display options. Some users felt the display could be improved for better visibility in different lighting conditions. 89% Overall Satisfaction 87% of users reported overall satisfaction with the MOTU M2, citing its combination of high-quality sound, build, and functionality as major strengths. Users appreciated its value for money and suitability for a wide range of applications, making it a popular choice among audio enthusiasts. 13% of users expressed overall dissatisfaction, often due to specific unmet expectations or technical issues. Some users encountered compatibility or performance problems that detracted from their experience, leading to disappointment with the interface. 87% Show More

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews

Purchase Value

85% of users found the purchase value of the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface to be excellent. They praised its affordability compared to other interfaces offering similar quality and features. The combination of professional-grade sound and user-friendly interface made the EVO 4 a worthwhile investment for both beginners and experienced users.

15% of users felt dissatisfied, mainly due to expectations of more advanced features at a similar price point. Some users compared it to higher-tier audio interfaces and found the EVO 4 lacking in certain premium functionalities.

85%
Quality of Materials

80% of users appreciated the build quality of the Audient EVO 4, noting its sturdy construction and durability. The materials used in its design were considered robust, ensuring longevity and consistent performance over time.

20% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the materials, describing them as feeling somewhat 'plasticky' or less premium than expected. These users anticipated a more metallic finish and felt the interface could be more resistant to wear and tear.

80%
Ease of Use

90% of users lauded the EVO 4 for its ease of use, highlighting the intuitive layout and straightforward setup process. The Smartgain feature was particularly praised for simplifying the recording process, making it accessible even for those new to audio interfaces.

10% of users found the learning curve steeper than anticipated, especially when integrating the device with certain DAWs or when seeking to maximize its potential features. This minority felt that initial setup instructions could be more comprehensive.

90%
Sound Quality

92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality delivered by the Audient EVO 4. They noted the clarity and precision in audio capture, attributing these qualities to the high-quality preamps and converters. The interface was often compared favorably to more expensive models.

8% of users expressed dissatisfaction, pointing out occasional background noise or interference in specific recording environments. These users expected a completely noise-free experience and suggested that the noise floor could be improved.

92%
Portability

88% of users were pleased with the portability of the EVO 4, finding its compact design and lightweight nature perfect for mobile recording setups. This portability was a major plus for users who needed to work in various locations.

12% of users felt the interface could be even more compact for easier transport in smaller bags or cases. Additionally, some mentioned that while the device was portable, the accompanying cables could be more travel-friendly.

88%
Driver Stability

82% of users reported stable and reliable performance from the EVO 4's drivers, noting minimal dropouts or latency issues during recording sessions. The drivers were generally easy to install and provided consistent results across different systems.

18% of users encountered stability issues, such as occasional disconnections or compatibility problems with specific operating systems. These users suggested improvements in firmware updates to address these concerns.

82%
Customer Support

78% of users found the customer support for Audient products, including the EVO 4, to be responsive and helpful. Many appreciated the prompt responses and effective solutions provided by the support team.

22% of users were dissatisfied, citing slow response times and unresolved issues. Some users felt that the support team could be more knowledgeable about technical problems specific to the EVO 4.

78%
Design Aesthetics

86% of users appreciated the sleek and modern design of the EVO 4. The minimalist aesthetic and easy-to-read controls were particularly appealing, making the interface a visually attractive addition to any studio setup.

14% of users were less impressed with the design, finding it somewhat plain or lacking distinctive features that make it stand out. They suggested more customizable options or color variations to enhance its visual appeal.

86%
Feature Set

84% of users were satisfied with the feature set of the EVO 4, especially the innovative Smartgain function and loopback capabilities. These features were highly valued by podcasters and streamers for their convenience and functionality.

16% of users felt that the feature set could be expanded. Some expected additional inputs or outputs and more advanced routing options, which they believed would enhance the interface's versatility and appeal.

84%
Integration with DAWs

87% of users reported seamless integration of the EVO 4 with various DAWs, highlighting the ease of setting up and using the interface with popular software like Ableton Live and Logic Pro. The compatibility across multiple platforms was a significant benefit.

13% of users faced challenges with DAW integration, noting occasional issues with recognition or configuration settings. These users suggested that more detailed guidance or tutorials could assist in resolving such problems.

87%
Latency

89% of users were happy with the low latency performance of the EVO 4, praising its ability to deliver real-time monitoring without noticeable delay. This capability was crucial for live recording and streaming applications.

11% of users experienced latency issues, particularly when using older systems or during high-demand tasks. They recommended optimization options or settings adjustments to further reduce latency.

89%
Durability

81% of users felt confident in the durability of the EVO 4, mentioning the solid construction and resilience of the device under regular use. This durability was a key factor in their positive long-term experience.

19% of users questioned the device's longevity, citing concerns over the durability of knobs and connectors. They suggested improvements in the build quality of these components to enhance overall durability.

81%
Setup Process

88% of users found the setup process of the EVO 4 straightforward and quick, allowing them to start recording within minutes. The simplicity of connecting and configuring the device was a major convenience for users.

12% of users experienced difficulties during setup, often related to driver installation or configuration with their computer systems. They recommended clearer instructions or more detailed setup guides to assist new users.

88%
Headphone Output Quality

85% of users praised the quality of the headphone output, noting the clear and accurate sound reproduction. This aspect was particularly important for monitoring and mixing tasks.

15% of users felt the headphone output could be improved, mentioning issues like insufficient volume levels or slight distortion at higher volumes. They suggested enhancements to the amplifier quality for better performance.

85%
Microphone Preamp Quality

91% of users were impressed with the microphone preamp quality, which provided clean and transparent sound capture with minimal noise. This feature was highly valued by musicians and vocalists for its professional-level performance.

9% of users were less satisfied, citing specific instances of noise or interference in certain environments. They suggested that further refinement in preamp design could mitigate these issues.

91%
USB-C Connectivity

93% of users appreciated the USB-C connectivity, which ensured fast data transfer and reliable power delivery. This modern connection standard was a key advantage for users with newer devices.

7% of users encountered connectivity issues, often related to incompatible cables or ports. They recommended clearer compatibility information and potentially including a USB-C to USB-A adapter.

93%
Loopback Functionality

86% of users found the loopback functionality of the EVO 4 extremely useful, especially for podcasting and live streaming. This feature allowed for easy routing of audio from different sources, enhancing the flexibility of the interface.

14% of users struggled with configuring loopback settings, experiencing difficulties in achieving the desired audio routing. They suggested more detailed instructions or user support for this feature.

86%
Compatibility with Operating Systems

84% of users were satisfied with the operating system compatibility of the EVO 4, highlighting its smooth operation on both Windows and macOS platforms. The plug-and-play nature was a significant convenience for many users.

16% of users faced compatibility issues, particularly with Linux systems or during updates to newer OS versions. They recommended expanding support and providing more frequent driver updates.

84%
Control Knob Functionality

82% of users valued the functionality of the control knob, which allowed for precise adjustments and easy navigation of settings. The tactile feel and responsiveness were often highlighted as positive aspects.

18% of users felt the control knob could be improved, noting occasional issues with responsiveness or durability. They suggested enhancements to the knob's design for a smoother user experience.

82%
Overall Satisfaction

88% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the Audient EVO 4, citing its combination of high-quality sound, user-friendly features, and reliable performance as key factors in their positive experience. The interface met or exceeded expectations for most users.

12% of users were less satisfied overall, often due to specific issues like driver stability or feature limitations that impacted their experience. They recommended addressing these concerns to improve the product's appeal.

88%

Purchase Value

85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the MOTU M2 Audio Interface, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to other interfaces with similar features. Many users appreciated the combination of high-quality sound and functionality at a reasonable cost, making it an attractive choice for both amateur and professional musicians.

15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, citing instances where they expected more advanced features or additional accessories for the price. Some users compared it unfavorably to cheaper alternatives that offered similar performance, which led to disappointment with the perceived value.

85%
Sound Quality

90% of users praised the sound quality of the MOTU M2, noting its clear and crisp audio output and excellent preamps. Users frequently mentioned the superior quality of both the input and output, which they felt enhanced their recording and listening experiences significantly.

10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the sound quality, often due to specific technical issues or personal preferences for different audio signatures. Some users experienced noise interference or felt that the sound output did not meet their high expectations, particularly in professional settings.

90%
Build Quality

88% of users were satisfied with the build quality of the MOTU M2, appreciating its sturdy construction and durable materials. Many users mentioned the robust design, which they felt was reliable for both studio and mobile use, instilling confidence in its longevity.

12% of users were dissatisfied with the build quality, citing issues such as loose knobs or connectors. Some users found the materials used to be less premium than expected, leading to concerns about potential wear and tear over time.

88%
Ease of Use

83% of users found the MOTU M2 easy to use, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Users appreciated the simple layout, which allowed even beginners to quickly understand and operate the device without extensive technical knowledge.

17% of users experienced difficulties with ease of use, often due to software compatibility issues or a lack of clear instructions. Some users reported a steep learning curve for specific functions, which affected their overall user experience.

83%
Driver Stability

80% of users were satisfied with the stability of the MOTU M2 drivers, noting few crashes or disconnections during use. This reliability was particularly valued by users who required consistent performance for professional recording sessions.

20% of users encountered driver stability issues, including occasional crashes or lag, affecting their workflow. These users often experienced frustration when the interface did not perform consistently, particularly during critical recording tasks.

80%
Customer Support

75% of users had positive experiences with MOTU's customer support, appreciating the responsiveness and helpfulness of the support team. Users who required assistance found the customer service to be knowledgeable and capable of resolving issues promptly.

25% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing delays in response times or unhelpful interactions. Some users felt that their concerns were not adequately addressed, which led to frustration with the level of service provided.

75%
Portability

85% of users praised the portability of the MOTU M2, mentioning its compact size and lightweight design as ideal for on-the-go recording. Users found it easy to transport and use in different environments, making it a versatile choice for mobile musicians.

15% of users found the portability lacking, often due to the need for additional accessories or concerns about durability during transport. Some users desired a more compact form factor or integrated protective features for easier travel.

85%
Latency Performance

87% of users were satisfied with the latency performance of the MOTU M2, noting minimal delay during recording and playback. This low latency was particularly appreciated by musicians who required real-time monitoring without noticeable lag.

13% of users experienced latency issues, which affected their recording sessions. Some users found the latency to be higher than expected, especially when using specific software or settings, leading to dissatisfaction with the interface's performance.

87%
Compatibility

82% of users highlighted the compatibility of the MOTU M2 with various operating systems and digital audio workstations, allowing seamless integration into existing setups. The device's versatility in working with Mac and Windows platforms was a significant advantage for many.

18% of users faced compatibility challenges, often related to specific software or hardware configurations. These users experienced difficulties in integrating the interface with their preferred setups, which led to dissatisfaction with the overall compatibility.

82%
Input/Output Options

80% of users were satisfied with the input and output options offered by the MOTU M2, appreciating the variety and quality of connections available. Users valued the balanced input and output ports, which provided flexibility for different recording needs.

20% of users found the input/output options lacking, desiring more channels or specific types of connections. Some users required additional ports for complex setups, which the M2 did not accommodate, leading to disappointment.

80%
Aesthetics

88% of users found the aesthetics of the MOTU M2 appealing, praising its sleek design and professional look. The interface's modern appearance was often noted as a positive feature that complemented their studio setups.

12% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, often preferring a different style or color scheme. Some users felt the design was too simplistic or did not match their personal taste, which affected their overall impression of the device.

88%
Installation Process

84% of users found the installation process for the MOTU M2 straightforward and hassle-free, with clear instructions and minimal setup time. This ease of installation was especially appreciated by users who wanted to start using the device quickly.

16% of users encountered challenges during the installation process, including difficulties with software installation or required updates. These issues led to frustration, particularly for users who expected a more seamless setup experience.

84%
Software Features

78% of users were satisfied with the software features included with the MOTU M2, appreciating the basic tools and functionality provided for recording and editing. Users found the software adequate for most of their needs, especially when starting out.

22% of users found the software features lacking, desiring more advanced options or additional plug-ins. Some users felt the software was limited compared to other interfaces, which affected their ability to fully utilize the device's potential.

78%
Durability

86% of users were satisfied with the durability of the MOTU M2, noting its solid construction and resistance to wear over time. Users appreciated the robust materials that provided confidence in the device's long-term reliability.

14% of users were concerned about the durability, often due to issues with specific components like knobs or buttons. Some users experienced wear and tear sooner than expected, which raised doubts about the interface's longevity.

86%
Versatility

83% of users praised the versatility of the MOTU M2, citing its ability to handle various recording scenarios and environments. Users valued its adaptability for different music genres and recording setups, making it a flexible choice for many applications.

17% of users found the versatility limited, often due to specific requirements that the M2 could not meet. Some users needed more features or customization options for particular projects, which the device did not provide, leading to dissatisfaction.

83%
Control Features

79% of users were satisfied with the control features of the MOTU M2, appreciating the accessible and functional design of the controls. Users found the controls intuitive and effective for managing their audio settings during use.

21% of users were dissatisfied with the control features, often finding them too basic or lacking in advanced options. Some users desired more precise or customizable controls to better suit their specific audio needs.

79%
Power Options

82% of users appreciated the power options of the MOTU M2, noting the convenience of USB power for portability and ease of use. Users valued the ability to operate the device without the need for additional power sources, enhancing its mobility.

18% of users found the power options limiting, often preferring alternative power solutions for specific setups. Some users experienced issues with power stability, particularly when using the interface in environments with variable power availability.

82%
Expandability

77% of users were satisfied with the expandability of the MOTU M2, finding it sufficient for basic studio setups and small-scale projects. Users appreciated the ability to connect additional devices as needed within its scope.

23% of users found the expandability insufficient, particularly for larger or more complex audio setups. Some users desired more connectivity options or the ability to chain multiple interfaces together, which the M2 did not support.

77%
Pedal Integration

70% of users appreciated the basic pedal integration capabilities of the MOTU M2, finding it suitable for simple setups and straightforward use. Users valued the available connections for integrating pedals into their signal chain.

30% of users were dissatisfied with the pedal integration options, often requiring more advanced features or specific connections. Some users found the integration limited for complex pedal setups, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively.

70%
Visual Display

89% of users were highly satisfied with the visual display of the MOTU M2, praising its clear and informative readouts. Users found the display helpful for monitoring levels and making quick adjustments during recording sessions.

11% of users found the visual display lacking, often desiring more detailed information or customizable display options. Some users felt the display could be improved for better visibility in different lighting conditions.

89%
Overall Satisfaction

87% of users reported overall satisfaction with the MOTU M2, citing its combination of high-quality sound, build, and functionality as major strengths. Users appreciated its value for money and suitability for a wide range of applications, making it a popular choice among audio enthusiasts.

13% of users expressed overall dissatisfaction, often due to specific unmet expectations or technical issues. Some users encountered compatibility or performance problems that detracted from their experience, leading to disappointment with the interface.

87%

Pros:
High-quality preamps with 58dB gain range. Smartgain feature for automatic level adjustment. Compact and portable design. USB-C connectivity for fast data transfer. Low latency performance. User-friendly interface with LED metering.	Excellent sound quality with ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology. Low latency performance for real-time monitoring. Sturdy and compact build, suitable for mobile use. USB-C connectivity ensures fast data transfer. Clear and detailed LCD metering.

Cons:
Limited to two input channels. Plastic construction may feel less durable. No MIDI input/output. Requires USB-C compatible devices for optimal performance.	Limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs. No onboard DSP effects. Some users may find the software bundle lacking. Requires a USB-C port for optimal performance, which may not be available on all computers.

Key Specs
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 96 kHz	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs
Maximum Sampling Rate
96 kHz / 24-Bit	192 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
2 Preamps	2 Preamps
Analog Audio I/O
2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output	2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (DC-Coupled) 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Output
Host Connection
1x USB-C	1x USB-C
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.7.5 or Later Windows 7 or Later (32-/64-Bit) 6 or Later	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C audio interfaces both offer high-quality features but cater to slightly different needs and preferences in the realm of audio production.
MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface: The MOTU M2 provides 2 analog inputs and 2 outputs with a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It includes 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS inputs that support mic, line, and Hi-Z signals, offering flexibility for various types of audio sources. The interface also features 2 balanced 1/4" TRS line outputs, 2 unbalanced RCA TS line outputs, and a single 1/4" TRS headphone output. It connects to your host device via USB-C and is compatible with macOS 10.11 or later, and Windows 7 or later systems. The device is powered via USB bus power, making it highly portable and convenient for mobile setups.
Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface: The Audient EVO 4, on the other hand, provides 2 analog inputs and 2 outputs with a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It also includes 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line inputs but adds a dedicated 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input for instruments like guitars. The outputs include 2 balanced 1/4" TRS monitor outputs and a 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output. Similar to the MOTU M2, it connects via USB-C and is compatible with macOS 10.7.5 or later and Windows 7 or later systems. It also relies on USB bus power, promoting ease of use and portability.
In summary, while both interfaces offer 2 inputs and 2 outputs, the MOTU M2 stands out with its higher maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz and additional RCA TS unbalanced line outputs. The Audient EVO 4, however, provides a dedicated Hi-Z input and balanced monitor outputs, catering more specifically to users needing direct instrument input and high-quality monitoring options. Both interfaces are versatile, USB-C powered, and compatible with both macOS and Windows, making them suitable for a wide range of recording and production environments.

General
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 96 kHz	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs
Maximum Sampling Rate
96 kHz / 24-Bit	192 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
2 Preamps	2 Preamps
Input Level Adjustment
2x Automatic 1x Knob	2x Knob
Expansion Slots

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface both offer compelling features for audio production, yet they have some distinguishing characteristics.
The MOTU M2 provides 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs with a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It is equipped with 2 microphone preamps and utilizes knob-based input level adjustment. However, it does not feature a built-in microphone or any expansion slots.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 also offers 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs but at a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz at 24-bit resolution. Similar to the MOTU M2, it includes 2 microphone preamps. A notable difference is that the EVO 4 has an automatic input level adjustment in addition to a single knob for manual adjustment. Like the MOTU M2, it does not have a built-in microphone or expansion slots.
In summary, the MOTU M2 stands out with its higher maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz compared to the 96 kHz offered by the Audient EVO 4. The Audient EVO 4, however, provides the convenience of automatic input level adjustment, which might appeal to users seeking more automated control. Both units share common features like the same number of analog inputs and outputs, microphone preamps, and lack of built-in microphones and expansion slots.

Signal Processing
Pad

Gain/Trim Range
Mic/Line/Hi-Z Inputs: 58 dB	Mic Inputs: 0 dB to +60 dB Line/Hi-Z Inputs: 0 dB to +57 dB
High-Pass Filter

Solo/Mute
Mute per Input Channel, Master

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface offers a gain/trim range of 0 dB to +60 dB for mic inputs and 0 dB to +57 dB for line/Hi-Z inputs. It does not feature a pad or a high-pass filter, and it also lacks solo/mute functionality.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface provides a gain/trim range of 58 dB for mic, line, and Hi-Z inputs. Similar to the MOTU M2, the EVO 4 does not include a pad or a high-pass filter. However, it does offer mute functionality per input channel and for the master output.
In summary, both interfaces lack pad and high-pass filter features. The MOTU M2 provides a slightly wider gain/trim range for mic inputs compared to the EVO 4. The Audient EVO 4 stands out with its mute functionality for individual input channels and the master output, which the MOTU M2 does not offer.

Connectivity
Analog Audio I/O
2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output	2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (DC-Coupled) 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Output
Phantom Power
48 V ± 4 V, Selectable On/Off (Selectable on Individual Inputs)	48 V, Selectable On/Off (Selectable on Individual Inputs)
Digital Audio I/O

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

Sync I/O

Network I/O

MIDI I/O
	1x DIN 5-Pin Input 1x DIN 5-Pin Output

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface are both compact, versatile, and well-regarded audio interfaces, each with a unique set of features catering to different user needs. Comparing them based on their specifications reveals key differences and similarities.
The MOTU M2 offers a comprehensive range of analog audio I/O, including 2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z inputs, 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone output, 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line outputs (DC-Coupled), and 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line outputs. Additionally, it provides 48V phantom power, selectable on individual inputs, which is crucial for powering condenser microphones. The standout feature for MIDI enthusiasts is the inclusion of 1x DIN 5-Pin MIDI Input and 1x DIN 5-Pin MIDI Output, allowing for easy integration with MIDI hardware. The interface connects via USB-C using the USB 2.0 protocol.
In contrast, the Audient EVO 4 is slightly more streamlined in its analog audio I/O offerings, with 2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line inputs, 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z input, 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor outputs, and 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone output. Like the MOTU M2, it also provides 48V phantom power, selectable on individual inputs, with a phantom power current of 10 mA per channel. However, the EVO 4 does not feature any MIDI I/O, which may be a limitation for users who need to connect MIDI devices. The Audient EVO 4 also connects via USB-C using the USB 2.0 protocol.
Both interfaces lack digital audio I/O, sync I/O, and network I/O capabilities, focusing instead on providing high-quality analog audio connections and straightforward USB connectivity. The presence of MIDI I/O on the MOTU M2 makes it a more versatile choice for users who require MIDI connectivity, while the Audient EVO 4 may appeal to those looking for a more straightforward and streamlined audio interface solution without the need for MIDI integration.

Performance
Frequency Response
Mic Inputs: 10 Hz to 40 kHz ±0.5 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 10 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.5 dB A/D Converters: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB D/A Converters: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB Headphone Outputs: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB	Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB Line Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB
Maximum Input Level
Mic Inputs: +16 dBu Hi-Z Inputs: +10 dBu	Mic Inputs: +10 dBu (Min Gain) Line/Hi-Z Inputs: +16 dBu (Min Gain)
Maximum Output Level
D/A Converters: +11 dBu	Line Outputs: +16 dBu (Balanced) Line Outputs: +9.5 dBu (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: +12.5 dBu
Impedance
Mic Inputs: > 3 Kilohms (Balanced) Line Inputs: > 10 Kilohms (Balanced) Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm (Unbalanced)	Mic Inputs: 2.65 Kilohms Line Inputs: 2 Megohms Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm Line Outputs: 100 Ohms
Dynamic Range
AD/DA Converters: 113 dBA	Mic Inputs: 115 dBA Line/Hi-Z Inputs: 114 dBA 1/4" Line/Monitor Outputs: 120 dBA RCA Line Outputs: 119 dBA Headphone Outputs: 115 dBA
THD+N
A/D Converters: < 0.001% (1 kHz, at -1 dBFS) D/A Converters: < 0.0015% (1 kHz, at -1 dBFS) Headphone Outputs: < 0.0015% (1 kHz, at -1 dBFS) Hi-Z Inputs: < 0.3% (1 kHz) Mic/Line Inputs: < 0.0015% (1 kHz)	Mic Inputs: < -97 dB / < 0.0014% Line/Hi-Z Inputs: < -100 dB / < 0.001% 1/4" Line/Monitor Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.00032% RCA Line Outputs: < -105 dB / < 0.00056% Headphone Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.0003%
EIN
Mic/Line Inputs: < -128 dB	Mic Inputs: -129 dB A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface both offer high-quality audio performance, but they differ in several key specifications.
Frequency Response: The MOTU M2 has a frequency response for mic inputs of 20 Hz to 20 kHz with a precision of +0/-0.1 dB, and for line and Hi-Z inputs, it offers 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB. On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 offers a broader frequency response for mic inputs ranging from 10 Hz to 40 kHz ±0.5 dB and for line and Hi-Z inputs from 10 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.5 dB.
Maximum Input Level: The maximum input level for the MOTU M2 is +10 dBu for mic inputs and +16 dBu for line/Hi-Z inputs. Conversely, the Audient EVO 4 supports a higher maximum input level of +16 dBu for mic inputs and +10 dBu for Hi-Z inputs.
Maximum Output Level: MOTU M2 provides a maximum output level of +16 dBu for balanced line outputs, +9.5 dBu for unbalanced line outputs, and +12.5 dBu for headphone outputs. The Audient EVO 4, however, offers a maximum output level of +11 dBu for its D/A converters. The headphone output power of the EVO 4 varies with impedance, offering up to 52 mW into 60 Ohms, which is an important consideration for users with specific headphone requirements.
Impedance: For impedance, the MOTU M2 has mic inputs at 2.65 Kilohms, line inputs at 2 Megohms, and Hi-Z inputs at 1 Megohm, with line outputs at 100 Ohms. The Audient EVO 4 features mic inputs greater than 3 Kilohms, balanced line inputs greater than 10 Kilohms, and unbalanced Hi-Z inputs at 1 Megohm.
Dynamic Range: The MOTU M2 boasts an impressive dynamic range of 115 dBA for mic inputs, 114 dBA for line/Hi-Z inputs, 120 dBA for 1/4" line/monitor outputs, 119 dBA for RCA line outputs, and 115 dBA for headphone outputs. The Audient EVO 4's dynamic range for its AD/DA converters is 113 dBA.
THD+N: Regarding Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise (THD+N), the MOTU M2 exhibits very low values with mic inputs < -97 dB / < 0.0014%, line/Hi-Z inputs < -100 dB / < 0.001%, 1/4" line/monitor outputs < -110 dB / < 0.00032%, RCA line outputs < -105 dB / < 0.00056%, and headphone outputs < -110 dB / < 0.0003%. The Audient EVO 4 offers < 0.001% for A/D converters, < 0.0015% for D/A converters and headphone outputs at 1 kHz, and < 0.3% for Hi-Z inputs.
EIN: The Equivalent Input Noise (EIN) for the MOTU M2 is -129 dB A-weighted for mic inputs (150-ohm source, max gain), whereas the Audient EVO 4 has an EIN of < -128 dB for mic/line inputs.
In summary, both interfaces have their strengths: the MOTU M2 excels with its precise frequency response, high dynamic range, and low THD+N values, making it suitable for professional-grade audio recordings. The Audient EVO 4, with its wider frequency response range, high maximum input level for mic inputs, and specific headphone output power specifications, offers a versatile option for various recording needs.

Digital Audio
Sample Rates
Up to 96 kHz	Up to 192 kHz
Sample Rate Conversion

Bit Depths
Up to 24-Bit	24-Bit
Latency
5 ms at 44.1 kHz (Dependent on Buffer Size, Input to Output) 4.1 ms at 96 kHz (Dependent on Buffer Size, Input to Output)	Zero-Latency Direct Monitoring2.5 ms at 96 kHz (Dependent on Buffer Size, Input to Output)
Sync Sources
Internal	Internal

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface, several key features differentiate these two products.
The MOTU M2 supports sample rates up to 192 kHz, offering high-resolution audio recording capabilities, whereas the Audient EVO 4 supports sample rates up to 96 kHz. Both interfaces lack sample rate conversion capabilities and offer a bit depth of up to 24-bit, ensuring high-quality audio recording and playback.
In terms of latency, the MOTU M2 provides zero-latency direct monitoring and has a latency of 2.5 ms at 96 kHz, depending on the buffer size and input to output settings. On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 exhibits a latency of 5 ms at 44.1 kHz and 4.1 ms at 96 kHz, also dependent on the buffer size and input to output settings.
Both interfaces use internal sync sources for clocking, ensuring stable and reliable audio performance. However, the Audient EVO 4 also specifies its dBFS reference levels, with inputs at +8 dBu equating to 0 dBFS and outputs at +11 dBu equating to 0 dBFS, which can be important for users needing precise level matching in professional audio environments.
In conclusion, the MOTU M2 offers higher sample rates and lower latency options compared to the Audient EVO 4, while the EVO 4 provides detailed dBFS reference levels for inputs and outputs, which may be beneficial for certain professional audio applications.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface share a notable similarity in their specifications: neither of these audio interfaces includes a memory card slot. This design choice is consistent across both devices, indicating that they are both tailored more towards direct audio interfacing with computers and other devices rather than standalone recording or storage solutions.
The absence of a memory card slot in both the MOTU M2 and the Audient EVO 4 means that users will need to rely on external storage solutions, such as computer hard drives or external SSDs, for recording and storing their audio files. This could be a relevant consideration for users who require a mobile recording setup or who prefer devices with integrated storage capabilities. However, it also suggests that both the MOTU M2 and the Audient EVO 4 are focused on providing high-quality audio inputs and outputs, leveraging their robust connectivity options to integrate seamlessly with digital audio workstations (DAWs) on computers.
Overall, the lack of a memory card slot in both the MOTU M2 and the Audient EVO 4 reflects a design focus on their primary function as high-quality audio interfaces rather than multifunctional recording devices. This makes them suitable for users who prioritize direct connectivity and integration with their existing digital audio production environments.

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.7.5 or Later Windows 7 or Later (32-/64-Bit) 6 or Later	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Processor Requirement
Mac: Intel PC: 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 AMD	Mac: 1 GHz Intel PC: 1 GHz Intel Pentium
RAM Requirements
1 GB	2 GB, 4 GB Recommended
Required Hardware
Available USB 2.0 Port USB Cable (Included)	Available USB 2.0 Port USB Cable (Included)
Internet Connection
Required for Registration, Software/Driver Download	Required for Software/Driver Download

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface are both high-quality audio interfaces designed to meet the needs of musicians, producers, and audio professionals. Below is a detailed comparison of these two products based on the specified features:
OS Compatibility: The MOTU M2 is compatible with macOS 10.11 or later, and Windows 7 or later operating systems. In comparison, the Audient EVO 4 supports macOS 10.7.5 or later, and Windows 7 or later (32-/64-bit) systems. Both interfaces are also compatible with iOS devices, with the EVO 4 requiring iOS 6 or later, while the MOTU M2 requires iOS 9 or later.
Processor Requirements: For processor requirements, the MOTU M2 requires at least a 1 GHz Intel processor for both Mac and PC systems. On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 specifies an Intel processor for Mac systems and a minimum of 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 or an AMD processor for PC systems. This highlights a slightly higher processing power requirement for the EVO 4, especially for PC users.
RAM Requirements: The MOTU M2 recommends a minimum of 2 GB of RAM, with 4 GB being recommended for optimal performance. In contrast, the Audient EVO 4 has a lower minimum RAM requirement of just 1 GB, making it potentially more accessible for users with older or less powerful systems.
Required Hardware: Both the MOTU M2 and Audient EVO 4 require an available USB 2.0 port and come with a USB cable included in the package. This makes them easy to set up and use right out of the box without needing additional cables or adapters.
Internet Connection: An internet connection is required for both the MOTU M2 and Audient EVO 4, primarily for downloading necessary software and drivers. For the Audient EVO 4, an internet connection is also required for registration purposes.
In summary, both the MOTU M2 and Audient EVO 4 offer robust compatibility with macOS and Windows systems, though the EVO 4 supports a wider range of macOS versions. The MOTU M2 has slightly lower processor requirements, while the Audient EVO 4 is more lenient in terms of RAM requirements. Both interfaces require a USB 2.0 port and an internet connection for software setup, ensuring they are accessible and user-friendly options for various recording and production needs.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

Both the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface share a common feature in their power requirements; both interfaces are powered via USB Bus Power. This means that they draw the necessary power directly from the connected USB port, eliminating the need for an external power supply.
The MOTU M2 is designed to provide high-quality audio performance with its ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology, offering a dynamic range of 120 dB. It includes two mic/line/instrument inputs with preamps, two TRS outputs, MIDI in/out connectors, and a headphone output, all in a robust and compact form factor. The MOTU M2 also features a full-color LCD screen that provides real-time metering for all inputs and outputs, enhancing the user experience by giving immediate visual feedback.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 focuses on ease of use and innovative features. It comes with two EVO preamps, Smartgain mode for automatic level adjustment, and loopback functionality for recording computer audio. The interface also includes two inputs and two outputs, as well as a JFET instrument input designed to replicate the input stage of a classic valve amplifier. Additionally, the Audient EVO 4 boasts a sleek and modern design with a large central knob for intuitive control and LED level meters for visual monitoring.
In summary, both interfaces meet the power requirements through USB Bus Power, making them convenient and portable solutions for audio recording. The MOTU M2 highlights high-fidelity audio performance and real-time metering, while the Audient EVO 4 emphasizes user-friendly features and innovative functionalities.

Physical
Dimensions
5.51 x 2.64 x 2.64" / 14 x 6.71 x 6.71 cm	7.5 x 4.25 x 1.75" / 19.1 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm (Chassis Only)
Weight
12.7 oz / 360.0 g	1.4 lb / 0.6 kg

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface differ in several key physical specifications. The MOTU M2 is equipped with an anti-theft feature, namely a Kensington Security Slot, which provides an added layer of security for users who are concerned about theft. In terms of dimensions, the MOTU M2 measures 7.5 x 4.25 x 1.75 inches (19.1 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm), making it relatively compact but larger compared to the Audient EVO 4. Additionally, the MOTU M2 weighs 1.4 lb (0.6 kg), giving it a more substantial feel.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 does not come with any specified anti-theft features. It is more compact in size, with dimensions of 5.51 x 2.64 x 2.64 inches (14 x 6.71 x 6.71 cm), making it more portable and easier to fit into smaller spaces. The EVO 4 is also lighter, weighing in at 12.7 oz (360.0 g), which enhances its portability and makes it an attractive option for users who need a lightweight audio interface for mobile recording setups.
In summary, while the MOTU M2 offers the added security of a Kensington Security Slot and has a slightly larger and heavier build, the Audient EVO 4 is more compact and lightweight, making it easier to transport.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
1.29 lb	1.8 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
6.8 x 3.85 x 3.55"	10 x 7.45 x 2.75"

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface has a package weight of 1.8 lb and box dimensions of 10 x 7.45 x 2.75 inches. It features a robust build and is designed to offer high-quality audio performance with minimal latency. The inclusion of MIDI support makes it a versatile option for musicians and producers who require both audio and MIDI capabilities in their setup.
On the other hand, the Audient EVO 4 USB-C Audio Interface has a lighter package weight of 1.29 lb and more compact box dimensions of 6.8 x 3.85 x 3.55 inches. This makes it a more portable option for users who need a reliable audio interface on the go. The EVO 4 is known for its user-friendly design and features such as Smartgain, which automatically sets the input levels for optimal recording.
In summary, the MOTU M2 is slightly heavier and larger, offering additional MIDI capabilities, while the Audient EVO 4 is lighter and more compact, focusing on ease of use and portability. Both interfaces connect via USB-C and provide high-quality audio, catering to different user preferences and needs.