MOTU M2 vs Universal Audio Volt 2: A Comprehensive Comparison

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface with the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface, it's clear that both devices cater to musicians, podcasters, and content creators seeking high-quality audio recording and playback. However, they each have unique attributes that set them apart.
The MOTU M2 stands out for its impressive audio performance, boasting a 120 dB dynamic range on its outputs and ultra-low latency. It features ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology, which is typically found in high-end audio interfaces. The M2 offers two mic/line/hi-Z inputs with individual preamps that deliver pristine audio clarity, making it suitable for various recording needs. Additionally, it includes a full-color LCD screen that provides real-time level monitoring for precise adjustments, and it supports MIDI I/O for connecting external MIDI gear.
On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 also delivers exceptional audio quality, with a focus on vintage analog sound. It features a built-in Vintage Mic Preamp mode, which emulates the rich and warm tones of Universal Audio's classic 610 tube preamp, adding character to your recordings. The Volt 2 has two combo inputs for mic/line/hi-Z sources and offers 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution. While it lacks a full-color LCD screen, it compensates with a robust build quality and an aesthetically pleasing retro design. The Volt 2 also supports MIDI I/O, allowing for seamless integration with MIDI controllers and instruments.
Both interfaces are bus-powered via USB-C, ensuring portability and ease of use. They are compatible with major DAWs and come bundled with a suite of software, though the specific offerings differ. The MOTU M2 typically includes Performer Lite, Ableton Live Lite, and a collection of virtual instruments and loops, whereas the Volt 2 comes with a more extensive software package, including Ableton Live Lite, Melodyne Essential, and a range of UAD plug-ins.
In conclusion, the MOTU M2 is ideal for users seeking high-fidelity audio performance and real-time monitoring capabilities, whereas the Universal Audio Volt 2 appeals to those who desire a vintage analog sound and a stylish, durable design. Both interfaces offer excellent value and functionality, making them strong contenders in the USB-C audio interface market.

Specifications, Advantages, and Disadvantages

Universal Audio Volt 2

MOTU M2

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to similar products on the market. Many users appreciated the advanced features offered at a relatively lower price point, making it an attractive option for both beginners and experienced audio professionals. 15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, primarily due to the perception that some features lacked depth compared to higher-end models. A few users mentioned that while the price was affordable, the interface did not fully meet their expectations in terms of performance and additional functionalities. 85% Quality of Materials 90% of users praised the quality of materials used in the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting its robust build and durable design. They appreciated the solid construction that gave them confidence in the longevity of the product, with several users emphasizing the premium feel of the interface. 10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of materials, citing concerns about the durability of certain components. Some users encountered issues with the knobs and connectors, which they felt could have been made sturdier to align with the overall quality of the device. 90% Sound Quality 92% of users were satisfied with the sound quality provided by the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface. They reported clear and crisp audio output, noting that the preamps delivered professional-grade sound that enhanced their recording and listening experiences. 8% of users were not entirely satisfied with the sound quality, mentioning occasional issues with noise levels and interference. Some users felt that the audio interface did not meet their expectations for high-end studio recording applications, leading to some disappointment. 92% Ease of Use 88% of users found the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface easy to use, highlighting its intuitive interface and straightforward setup. Users appreciated the user-friendly design that allowed them to quickly start recording without extensive technical knowledge. 12% of users faced challenges with the ease of use, often due to software compatibility issues or complex initial setup procedures. Some users felt that the interface could benefit from more comprehensive instructions or better customer support for troubleshooting. 88% Software Integration 80% of users were pleased with the software integration capabilities of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, particularly praising its seamless compatibility with various DAWs and recording software. Users valued the added convenience of bundled software and plugins that enhanced their recording experience. 20% of users experienced difficulties with software integration, often citing compatibility issues with specific DAWs or operating systems. Some users found the bundled software to be limiting in features or not fully compatible with their preferred recording setups. 80% Portability 87% of users were satisfied with the portability of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating its compact size and lightweight design. Users found it convenient to transport for mobile recording sessions, making it a versatile tool for on-the-go audio projects. 13% of users felt the portability could be improved, usually due to the lack of a protective case or concerns about potential damage during transport. Some users also noted that the requirement for external power limited its use in truly mobile environments. 87% Durability 89% of users were satisfied with the durability of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, often mentioning its resilience to daily wear and tear. Users valued the sturdy construction and high-quality materials that contributed to its long-lasting performance. 11% of users had concerns about the durability of certain parts, particularly the connectors and knobs, which they felt might not withstand heavy use over time. Some users reported minor issues with components becoming loose or less responsive after extended use. 89% Customer Support 78% of users appreciated the customer support provided by Universal Audio, noting helpful and responsive service when they encountered issues. Users valued timely assistance and the availability of resources to resolve technical problems. 22% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, often citing slow response times or inadequate solutions to their problems. Some users felt that the support team lacked the necessary expertise to handle complex technical inquiries efficiently. 78% Latency 91% of users were satisfied with the low latency performance of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, praising its ability to deliver real-time audio processing with minimal delay. Users found this feature particularly beneficial for live recording and monitoring. 9% of users experienced latency issues, which they felt impacted the quality of their recordings. Some users reported occasional delays that were noticeable during critical recording sessions, leading to frustration. 91% Design 94% of users were impressed with the sleek and modern design of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface. They appreciated the aesthetic appeal and ergonomic layout, which they felt added to the overall user experience. 6% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the design, often due to personal preferences in layout or control placement. Some users felt that the design favored aesthetics over functionality, making certain controls less accessible during use. 94% Compatibility 82% of users found the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface to be highly compatible with a wide range of devices and software. They appreciated the flexibility it provided in integrating with existing setups, enhancing their overall workflow. 18% of users faced compatibility issues, often related to specific operating systems or older software versions. Some users reported difficulties in achieving seamless integration, which hindered their productivity. 82% Preamps 93% of users were satisfied with the quality of the preamps in the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting their ability to deliver clear and detailed sound. Users appreciated the low noise levels and high gain capabilities that improved their recording quality. 7% of users were not fully satisfied with the preamps, citing issues with insufficient gain for certain microphones or instruments. Some users felt that the preamps did not offer the same level of performance as standalone preamp units. 93% Input/Output Options 86% of users were pleased with the input/output options available on the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting the versatility it provided for different recording setups. Users valued the balance between analog and digital connectivity options. 14% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the input/output options, often wishing for additional connectivity features. Some users found the existing ports insufficient for more complex studio configurations, limiting their creative possibilities. 86% Build Quality 90% of users were impressed with the build quality of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, often highlighting the premium materials and attention to detail in its construction. Users felt confident in the product's ability to withstand rigorous use. 10% of users had concerns about the build quality, particularly regarding the durability of external components. Some users noted minor manufacturing defects or issues with assembly that affected their experience. 90% Power Supply 84% of users were satisfied with the power supply options for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating the reliable performance and consistent power delivery. Users found the interface's power management suitable for most recording environments. 16% of users were dissatisfied with the power supply, often due to the lack of a battery-powered option for mobile use. Some users encountered issues with the power adapter, which they felt could be more robust or versatile. 84% Firmware Updates 81% of users appreciated the availability of firmware updates for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting improvements in performance and added features over time. Users valued the manufacturer's commitment to enhancing the product through software updates. 19% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the firmware updates, citing issues with installation or lack of significant enhancements. Some users felt that updates were infrequent or did not address critical bugs, impacting their overall satisfaction. 81% User Manual 77% of users found the user manual for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface helpful, appreciating the clear instructions and detailed explanations provided. Users felt that the manual facilitated a better understanding of the product's features and functions. 23% of users were dissatisfied with the user manual, often finding it lacking in detail or difficult to follow. Some users felt that the manual could include more troubleshooting tips or examples to assist with common issues. 77% Feature Set 88% of users were satisfied with the feature set of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating the comprehensive range of functionalities it offered for diverse recording needs. Users found the features to be well-suited for both home and professional studio use. 12% of users felt the feature set was lacking, often wishing for more advanced options or customizable settings. Some users perceived the interface as too basic for their specific recording requirements, limiting their creative potential. 88% Brand Reputation 95% of users were confident in the brand reputation of Universal Audio, trusting the company's history of producing high-quality audio equipment. Users felt reassured by the brand's commitment to innovation and customer satisfaction. 5% of users were concerned about the brand reputation, often due to personal experiences with past products or negative reviews. Some users felt that the brand's reputation did not necessarily guarantee the best value or performance for their needs. 95% Aesthetic Appeal 92% of users were pleased with the aesthetic appeal of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, praising its modern and stylish design. Users felt that the interface added a professional look to their recording setups, enhancing their overall experience. 8% of users were less impressed with the aesthetic appeal, often preferring a more understated or minimalistic design. Some users felt that the emphasis on aesthetics might have compromised certain functional aspects, leading to mixed opinions. 92% Overall Satisfaction 89% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting its excellent performance, value for money, and user-friendly design. Users felt that the product met or exceeded their expectations in most areas, making it a worthwhile investment. 11% of users were not fully satisfied overall, often due to specific issues with compatibility, customer support, or feature limitations. Some users felt that while the interface was generally good, certain shortcomings prevented it from being a perfect solution for their needs. 89%	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 were satisfied with the purchase value of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to similar products on the market. Many users appreciated the advanced features offered at a relatively lower price point, making it an attractive option for both beginners and experienced audio professionals.

15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, primarily due to the perception that some features lacked depth compared to higher-end models. A few users mentioned that while the price was affordable, the interface did not fully meet their expectations in terms of performance and additional functionalities.

85%
Quality of Materials

90% of users praised the quality of materials used in the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting its robust build and durable design. They appreciated the solid construction that gave them confidence in the longevity of the product, with several users emphasizing the premium feel of the interface.

10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of materials, citing concerns about the durability of certain components. Some users encountered issues with the knobs and connectors, which they felt could have been made sturdier to align with the overall quality of the device.

90%
Sound Quality

92% of users were satisfied with the sound quality provided by the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface. They reported clear and crisp audio output, noting that the preamps delivered professional-grade sound that enhanced their recording and listening experiences.

8% of users were not entirely satisfied with the sound quality, mentioning occasional issues with noise levels and interference. Some users felt that the audio interface did not meet their expectations for high-end studio recording applications, leading to some disappointment.

92%
Ease of Use

88% of users found the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface easy to use, highlighting its intuitive interface and straightforward setup. Users appreciated the user-friendly design that allowed them to quickly start recording without extensive technical knowledge.

12% of users faced challenges with the ease of use, often due to software compatibility issues or complex initial setup procedures. Some users felt that the interface could benefit from more comprehensive instructions or better customer support for troubleshooting.

88%
Software Integration

80% of users were pleased with the software integration capabilities of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, particularly praising its seamless compatibility with various DAWs and recording software. Users valued the added convenience of bundled software and plugins that enhanced their recording experience.

20% of users experienced difficulties with software integration, often citing compatibility issues with specific DAWs or operating systems. Some users found the bundled software to be limiting in features or not fully compatible with their preferred recording setups.

80%
Portability

87% of users were satisfied with the portability of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating its compact size and lightweight design. Users found it convenient to transport for mobile recording sessions, making it a versatile tool for on-the-go audio projects.

13% of users felt the portability could be improved, usually due to the lack of a protective case or concerns about potential damage during transport. Some users also noted that the requirement for external power limited its use in truly mobile environments.

87%
Durability

89% of users were satisfied with the durability of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, often mentioning its resilience to daily wear and tear. Users valued the sturdy construction and high-quality materials that contributed to its long-lasting performance.

11% of users had concerns about the durability of certain parts, particularly the connectors and knobs, which they felt might not withstand heavy use over time. Some users reported minor issues with components becoming loose or less responsive after extended use.

89%
Customer Support

78% of users appreciated the customer support provided by Universal Audio, noting helpful and responsive service when they encountered issues. Users valued timely assistance and the availability of resources to resolve technical problems.

22% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, often citing slow response times or inadequate solutions to their problems. Some users felt that the support team lacked the necessary expertise to handle complex technical inquiries efficiently.

78%
Latency

91% of users were satisfied with the low latency performance of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, praising its ability to deliver real-time audio processing with minimal delay. Users found this feature particularly beneficial for live recording and monitoring.

9% of users experienced latency issues, which they felt impacted the quality of their recordings. Some users reported occasional delays that were noticeable during critical recording sessions, leading to frustration.

91%
Design

94% of users were impressed with the sleek and modern design of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface. They appreciated the aesthetic appeal and ergonomic layout, which they felt added to the overall user experience.

6% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the design, often due to personal preferences in layout or control placement. Some users felt that the design favored aesthetics over functionality, making certain controls less accessible during use.

94%
Compatibility

82% of users found the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface to be highly compatible with a wide range of devices and software. They appreciated the flexibility it provided in integrating with existing setups, enhancing their overall workflow.

18% of users faced compatibility issues, often related to specific operating systems or older software versions. Some users reported difficulties in achieving seamless integration, which hindered their productivity.

82%
Preamps

93% of users were satisfied with the quality of the preamps in the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting their ability to deliver clear and detailed sound. Users appreciated the low noise levels and high gain capabilities that improved their recording quality.

7% of users were not fully satisfied with the preamps, citing issues with insufficient gain for certain microphones or instruments. Some users felt that the preamps did not offer the same level of performance as standalone preamp units.

93%
Input/Output Options

86% of users were pleased with the input/output options available on the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting the versatility it provided for different recording setups. Users valued the balance between analog and digital connectivity options.

14% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the input/output options, often wishing for additional connectivity features. Some users found the existing ports insufficient for more complex studio configurations, limiting their creative possibilities.

86%
Build Quality

90% of users were impressed with the build quality of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, often highlighting the premium materials and attention to detail in its construction. Users felt confident in the product's ability to withstand rigorous use.

10% of users had concerns about the build quality, particularly regarding the durability of external components. Some users noted minor manufacturing defects or issues with assembly that affected their experience.

90%
Power Supply

84% of users were satisfied with the power supply options for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating the reliable performance and consistent power delivery. Users found the interface's power management suitable for most recording environments.

16% of users were dissatisfied with the power supply, often due to the lack of a battery-powered option for mobile use. Some users encountered issues with the power adapter, which they felt could be more robust or versatile.

84%
Firmware Updates

81% of users appreciated the availability of firmware updates for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, noting improvements in performance and added features over time. Users valued the manufacturer's commitment to enhancing the product through software updates.

19% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the firmware updates, citing issues with installation or lack of significant enhancements. Some users felt that updates were infrequent or did not address critical bugs, impacting their overall satisfaction.

81%
User Manual

77% of users found the user manual for the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface helpful, appreciating the clear instructions and detailed explanations provided. Users felt that the manual facilitated a better understanding of the product's features and functions.

23% of users were dissatisfied with the user manual, often finding it lacking in detail or difficult to follow. Some users felt that the manual could include more troubleshooting tips or examples to assist with common issues.

77%
Feature Set

88% of users were satisfied with the feature set of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, appreciating the comprehensive range of functionalities it offered for diverse recording needs. Users found the features to be well-suited for both home and professional studio use.

12% of users felt the feature set was lacking, often wishing for more advanced options or customizable settings. Some users perceived the interface as too basic for their specific recording requirements, limiting their creative potential.

88%
Brand Reputation

95% of users were confident in the brand reputation of Universal Audio, trusting the company's history of producing high-quality audio equipment. Users felt reassured by the brand's commitment to innovation and customer satisfaction.

5% of users were concerned about the brand reputation, often due to personal experiences with past products or negative reviews. Some users felt that the brand's reputation did not necessarily guarantee the best value or performance for their needs.

95%
Aesthetic Appeal

92% of users were pleased with the aesthetic appeal of the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, praising its modern and stylish design. Users felt that the interface added a professional look to their recording setups, enhancing their overall experience.

8% of users were less impressed with the aesthetic appeal, often preferring a more understated or minimalistic design. Some users felt that the emphasis on aesthetics might have compromised certain functional aspects, leading to mixed opinions.

92%
Overall Satisfaction

89% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the Universal Audio Volt 2 Audio Interface, highlighting its excellent performance, value for money, and user-friendly design. Users felt that the product met or exceeded their expectations in most areas, making it a worthwhile investment.

11% of users were not fully satisfied overall, often due to specific issues with compatibility, customer support, or feature limitations. Some users felt that while the interface was generally good, certain shortcomings prevented it from being a perfect solution for their needs.

89%

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 audio conversion and preamps for professional sound. Compact and portable design, ideal for mobile recording. USB-C connectivity for fast and reliable data transfer. Includes vintage preamp mode for added warmth and character. Compatible with most major DAWs and recording software.	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, which may not be enough for larger recording sessions. No digital I/O options such as ADAT or S/PDIF. Lacks onboard DSP for real-time effects processing. Higher price point compared to some other entry-level interfaces.	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	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs
Maximum Sampling Rate
192 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/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)	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 10.14 or Later Windows 10 (64-Bit Only) 14 or Later iPadOS 14 or Later	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Power Requirements
AC/DC Power Adapter (Not Included) or USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface are both high-quality audio interfaces that offer 2 channels of analog input and output, with a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. Both interfaces include 2 preamp microphone inputs, making them suitable for a variety of recording needs.
The MOTU M2 features 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced inputs for mic, line, and Hi-Z instruments, along with 2 balanced TRS line outputs, 2 unbalanced RCA TS line outputs, and a 1/4" TRS headphone output. It connects to the host via USB-C and is compatible with macOS 10.11 or later, Windows 7 or later, and iOS 9 or later. The MOTU M2 is powered via USB bus power, which simplifies setup and reduces the need for additional power adapters.
The Universal Audio Volt 2 also includes 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced inputs for mic, line, and Hi-Z instruments, with 2 balanced TRS monitor outputs and a 1/4" TRS headphone output located on the front panel. It connects to the host via USB-C and is compatible with macOS 10.14 or later, Windows 10 (64-bit), iPadOS 14 or later. The Volt 2 can be powered either through an AC/DC power adapter (not included) or via USB bus power, providing flexibility depending on your setup and power availability.
In summary, both the MOTU M2 and Universal Audio Volt 2 offer similar features in terms of I/O channels, sampling rates, and microphone inputs. The main differences lie in their power options and specific OS compatibility requirements, with the MOTU M2 supporting a broader range of operating systems and being solely USB bus-powered, while the Volt 2 offers additional power flexibility via an optional power adapter.

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

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface both offer a range of features suited for various audio production needs. Here’s a direct comparison of the two interfaces based on the specified features:
Both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 provide 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, allowing for similar connectivity options for recording and playback. They both support a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution, ensuring high-quality audio recording and playback capabilities.
In terms of microphone inputs, both interfaces come with 2 preamps, enabling users to connect and record with two microphones simultaneously. Both devices also feature input level adjustment through 2 knobs, giving users control over the input levels for each channel.
Neither the MOTU M2 nor the Universal Audio Volt 2 includes built-in microphones, meaning users will need to connect external microphones for recording. Additionally, both interfaces lack expansion slots, indicating that additional connectivity options like ADAT or SPDIF are not supported.
In summary, the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 are quite similar in their specifications, offering 2 analog inputs and outputs, 192 kHz / 24-bit maximum sampling rate, 2 preamps, input level adjustment via 2 knobs, and no built-in microphones or expansion slots.

Signal Processing
Pad

High-Pass Filter

Solo/Mute

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface share several common specifications but also have distinct differences that cater to varying user needs.
Both interfaces lack pad switches, high-pass filters, and solo/mute functions. This means that neither device offers the ability to attenuate the input signal via a pad, filter out low frequencies using a high-pass filter, or isolate/mute individual channels for monitoring purposes. These missing features suggest that both interfaces are designed with simplicity in mind, focusing on core recording functionalities without additional signal processing options.
One significant difference between the two interfaces is the gain/trim range for the mic and line/Hi-Z inputs. The MOTU M2 offers a gain range of 0 dB to +60 dB for mic inputs and 0 dB to +57 dB for line/Hi-Z inputs. This range provides users with a considerable amount of flexibility in adjusting input levels to accommodate various signal strengths, making it suitable for a wide range of microphones and instruments. On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 does not specify its gain/trim range in the given information, which could imply a more limited or undefined adjustment capability compared to the MOTU M2.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 share the absence of certain features such as pads, high-pass filters, and solo/mute options, the MOTU M2 distinguishes itself with a clearly defined and extensive gain/trim range for its inputs. This makes the MOTU M2 potentially more versatile in handling different audio sources.

Connectivity
Analog Audio I/O
2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)	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, Selectable On/Off (Applied to All 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	1x DIN 5-Pin Input 1x DIN 5-Pin Output

The MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 are two high-quality USB-C audio/MIDI interfaces that cater to both professional and home studio setups. However, they have some key differences in their specifications that may influence your decision depending on your specific needs.
Starting with analog audio I/O, both interfaces offer 2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Inputs, but the MOTU M2 places these on the front panel, whereas this placement detail for the Volt 2 was not specified. Additionally, both interfaces provide 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output, although the Volt 2's headphone output is notably on the front panel. For line outputs, the MOTU M2 offers more flexibility with 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Outputs (DC-Coupled) and an additional 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Outputs, while the Volt 2 offers 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Outputs.
When it comes to phantom power, both interfaces provide 48V phantom power. The MOTU M2 allows for selectable phantom power on individual inputs, offering greater control for mixed microphone types. In contrast, the Volt 2 applies phantom power to all inputs simultaneously, which might be less flexible for setups using both condenser and dynamic microphones at the same time.
Both devices lack digital audio I/O, USB (Non-Host) connections, sync I/O, and network I/O, indicating a focus on straightforward analog and MIDI connectivity without additional digital routing or networking capabilities.
For MIDI I/O, both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 provide 1x DIN 5-Pin Input and 1x DIN 5-Pin Output, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of MIDI gear.
In terms of host connection, both interfaces use 1x USB-C with USB 2.0 protocol, ensuring a modern and efficient connection to your computer or other host devices.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and Universal Audio Volt 2 share many similarities, the MOTU M2 offers slightly more flexible output options and individual phantom power control, making it potentially more versatile for certain audio setups. On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 provides a simpler and more streamlined interface, which might appeal to users looking for straightforward functionality.

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

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

The MOTU M2 and Universal Audio Volt 2 are both USB-C Audio/MIDI interfaces that offer high-quality audio recording and playback capabilities, each with their own unique features and strengths.
The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface supports sample rates of up to 192 kHz and a bit depth of 24-bit, providing high-resolution audio. It boasts zero-latency direct monitoring as well as a latency of 2.5 ms at 96 kHz, though this is dependent on the buffer size and input to output configuration. The sync source for the MOTU M2 is internal.
Similarly, the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface also supports sample rates up to 192 kHz with a 24-bit depth, ensuring detailed audio quality. It features zero-latency direct monitoring, which is crucial for real-time audio monitoring without delay. The sync source for the Volt 2 is also internal.
In summary, both the MOTU M2 and Universal Audio Volt 2 offer comparable specifications in terms of sample rates, bit depths, zero-latency direct monitoring, and internal sync sources. The notable difference is the specific latency detail provided by the MOTU M2, which mentions 2.5 ms at 96 kHz depending on buffer size and input-output configuration, a detail not specified for the Volt 2.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

Both the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface share a critical specification: neither of these devices features a memory card slot. This similarity indicates that both interfaces rely on direct computer storage and connectivity for recording and data transfer, rather than offering an onboard option for memory card usage.
The absence of a memory card slot in both models suggests that users will need to ensure that they have adequate storage solutions available on their connected devices, such as laptops or desktop computers, to handle their audio recordings and MIDI data. This design choice might be reflective of a focus on high-quality, real-time data transfer and processing capabilities, which are typically managed through the USB-C connection to the host computer.
Ultimately, for potential buyers evaluating these interfaces, the lack of a memory card slot means that considerations around workflow and data management will be similar for both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2, with neither offering an advantage in this specific area.

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.14 or Later Windows 10 (64-Bit Only) 14 or Later iPadOS 14 or Later	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Processor Requirement
Mac: Intel Apple M1 PC: Intel AMD	Mac: 1 GHz Intel PC: 1 GHz Intel Pentium
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 Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface both offer robust and modern solutions for audio recording and MIDI interfacing, but they differ in several key specifications.
OS Compatibility: The MOTU M2 is compatible with macOS 10.11 or later and Windows 7 or later, which makes it suitable for a broader range of operating systems, especially older versions. In contrast, the Universal Audio Volt 2 requires macOS 10.14 or later and Windows 10 (64-bit only), making it less flexible for users with older operating systems. Additionally, the Volt 2 is compatible with iPadOS 14 or later, offering more versatility for mobile device users, specifically iPad and iPhone.
Processor Requirement: For processor requirements, the MOTU M2 requires at least a 1 GHz Intel processor on both Mac and PC platforms. On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 supports both Intel and Apple M1 processors on Mac and Intel and AMD processors on PC, providing more options for users with newer hardware setups.
RAM Requirements: The MOTU M2 has a minimum RAM requirement of 2 GB, with 4 GB recommended for better performance. The Universal Audio Volt 2 does not specify RAM requirements in the provided specifications, suggesting that it may be more accommodating of various system configurations, or the RAM requirement is implicit within the supported OS requirements.
Required Hardware: Both interfaces require an available USB 2.0 port and include a USB cable. This ensures that users can easily connect their devices without needing additional purchases.
Internet Connection: Both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 require an internet connection for software or driver download. Additionally, the Volt 2 mandates an internet connection for registration.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 provide essential features for audio and MIDI interfacing, the MOTU M2 offers broader OS compatibility and simpler processor requirements, making it a versatile choice for a wider range of users. The Universal Audio Volt 2, however, supports newer processors and mobile device compatibility, catering to users with more modern setups and those looking to integrate iPads or iPhones into their workflow.

Power
Power Requirements
AC/DC Power Adapter (Not Included) or USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface differ significantly in their power requirements. The MOTU M2 is designed to be powered solely through USB bus power, which simplifies its setup and makes it highly portable and convenient for use with laptops or other devices that supply USB power.
On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 offers more flexibility in its power options. It can be powered either through USB bus power or via an AC/DC power adapter, which is not included with the unit. The AC/DC power adapter required is 5 VDC. This dual power option allows the Volt 2 to be used in a wider range of scenarios, including those where USB bus power might not be sufficient or available.
In summary, the MOTU M2 focuses on simplicity and portability with its exclusive reliance on USB bus power, while the Universal Audio Volt 2 provides more versatility with its ability to use either USB bus power or an external 5 VDC power adapter.

Physical
Anti-Theft Features
Kensington Security Slot	Kensington Security Slot

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface share some common features, but also have distinct differences that may influence a user's choice based on their specific needs.
Both the MOTU M2 and the Universal Audio Volt 2 are equipped with anti-theft features, specifically a Kensington Security Slot, which allows users to secure their devices in environments where theft might be a concern. This is an important feature for those who need to ensure the safety of their equipment in public or semi-public spaces.
In terms of physical 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 a compact unit that is easy to transport and fit into various studio setups. It also weighs 1.4 lbs (0.6 kg), which adds to its portability without compromising on build quality. The dimensions and weight of the Universal Audio Volt 2 are not specified in the provided information, which might require potential buyers to seek out further details if size and weight are critical factors for their setup.
The detailed specifications provided show a clear similarity in terms of anti-theft features, but the MOTU M2 provides more explicit information on its physical dimensions and weight, which can be crucial for users looking to integrate the interface into a specific physical setup or for those who are frequently on the move and need to consider portability.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
2.205 lb	1.8 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
9.2 x 7.3 x 3.9"	10 x 7.45 x 2.75"

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the Universal Audio Volt 2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface each offer distinct specifications regarding package weight and box dimensions.
The MOTU M2 has a package weight of 1.8 pounds and box dimensions of 10 x 7.45 x 2.75 inches. This indicates a relatively lightweight and compact form factor, which can be beneficial for portability and space-saving in a studio setup.
On the other hand, the Universal Audio Volt 2 has a package weight of 2.205 pounds and box dimensions of 9.2 x 7.3 x 3.9 inches. While slightly heavier than the MOTU M2, the Volt 2 remains relatively compact but with a bit more depth in its box dimensions, suggesting a possibly more robust build or additional features within its packaging.
Both interfaces utilize USB-C connectivity, catering to modern connectivity standards, but their physical specifications highlight the MOTU M2 as slightly lighter and more compact, while the Universal Audio Volt 2 offers a marginally larger and heavier package.