M-Audio AIR 192|4 vs Focusrite Scarlett Solo 4th Gen: In-Depth Comparison

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both excellent choices for musicians, podcasters, and home studio enthusiasts. Each offers unique features that cater to different needs and preferences.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo (4th Gen) is renowned for its exceptional sound quality and user-friendly design. It features a single upgraded Scarlett mic preamp with switchable Air mode to give your recordings a brighter, more open sound. The unit also includes a high-headroom instrument input for guitars and basses, as well as balanced outputs for clean audio playback. The Scarlett Solo is compact, making it highly portable, and is powered via USB-C, ensuring low latency and high-speed data transfer. The interface comes with a comprehensive software bundle, including Ableton Live Lite and Pro Tools First, providing all the tools needed to start recording right away.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers a bit more flexibility with its 2x2 configuration, allowing for simultaneous recording of vocals and instruments. It boasts a high-speed USB-C connection for ultra-low latency and pristine audio quality, with a 24-bit/192 kHz resolution. The interface includes Crystal preamps and pristine A/D converters, ensuring transparent sound. It also features a large central volume knob for easy control and LED VU meters for accurate level monitoring. The AIR 192|4 comes with a robust software suite, including Pro Tools First, Ableton Live Lite, and Eleven Lite, among others, providing a versatile toolkit for various recording needs.
In summary, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo (4th Gen) is ideal for solo musicians and podcasters looking for a high-quality, straightforward interface with excellent sound quality. Its portability and simple setup make it a great choice for those who need to record on the go. Meanwhile, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers more input flexibility and additional control features, making it suitable for users who require the ability to record multiple sources simultaneously and prefer more hands-on control over their recording levels. Both interfaces are excellent, but your choice should depend on your specific recording needs and workflow preferences.

Specifications, Advantages, and Disadvantages

Focusrite Scarlett Solo (4th Generation)

M-Audio AIR 192|4

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation). Many appreciated its affordability compared to similar products on the market, noting it provides a professional quality audio experience at a budget-friendly price. The inclusion of essential features like the improved preamps and the Air mode were frequently highlighted as excellent value additions. 15% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to expectations of more features that are available in higher-priced models. Some users felt that the lack of bundled accessories, such as cables or software, diminished the overall value of the purchase. 85% Quality of Material 90% of users found the quality of material to be excellent. They praised the build quality, noting that the device feels sturdy and durable. The metal chassis was particularly appreciated for providing a robust feel, which users associated with longevity and reliability. 10% of users were dissatisfied with the quality of material. Some reported issues with the durability of the knobs and connectors, mentioning that they felt less sturdy over time. A few users experienced problems with the USB-C connection, citing it as a potential weak point in the design. 90% Ease of Use 88% of users were satisfied with the ease of use of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. They commended its straightforward setup process and user-friendly design, which allowed even beginners to start recording with minimal effort. The clear labeling and intuitive layout were also frequently praised. 12% of users found the device less user-friendly than expected. Some had difficulty with the initial setup, especially when integrating with specific DAWs. Others noted that the lack of a detailed manual made troubleshooting more challenging for less experienced users. 88% Sound Quality 92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality provided by the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. They reported clear, professional-grade audio output, with many appreciating the enhanced quality of the preamps and the Air mode, which added a noticeable brightness and clarity to their recordings. 8% of users were not fully satisfied with the sound quality. Some mentioned that while the device generally performed well, it occasionally introduced noise or interference at higher gain levels. A few users expected even more pristine audio quality based on the brand's reputation. 92% Connectivity 87% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options of the Scarlett Solo. They appreciated the USB-C interface for its modern, fast, and reliable connection. Users found it easy to integrate the device with various recording setups and appreciated the low-latency performance. 13% of users faced issues with connectivity. Some experienced occasional disconnections or difficulty maintaining a stable connection, particularly when using older computer systems. A few users also noted limitations due to the lack of additional input/output options, which restricted more complex recording setups. 87% Software Integration 83% of users were pleased with the software integration capabilities of the Scarlett Solo. Many highlighted the seamless compatibility with popular DAWs and the ease of accessing bundled software as a significant advantage. 17% of users encountered challenges with software integration. Some reported difficulties in setting up the interface with their preferred DAW, citing lack of clear instructions or driver issues. Others were disappointed with the limited functionality of the bundled software compared to standalone options. 83% Portability 89% of users appreciated the portability of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. Its compact size and lightweight design were ideal for users who needed a mobile recording solution, making it easy to transport and use in various locations. 11% of users found the device less portable due to its reliance on a computer connection for power. Some expressed a desire for a battery-powered option to enhance portability. Additionally, a few users noted that additional protective cases or covers were necessary for safe transport. 89% Durability 91% of users were satisfied with the durability of the Scarlett Solo. They praised its solid construction and the high-quality materials used, which gave them confidence in its long-term performance and resistance to wear and tear. 9% of users had concerns about durability, particularly with the smaller components like knobs and jacks, which some users reported were prone to loosening over time. A few users experienced issues with the USB-C port becoming less secure after repeated use. 91% Aesthetic Design 93% of users were highly satisfied with the aesthetic design of the Scarlett Solo. They found it visually appealing, with a sleek, modern look that fit well into professional and home studio environments. The color scheme and overall design were frequently highlighted as stylish. 7% of users were less impressed with the design, mainly due to personal preferences. Some felt that while the design was functional, it lacked uniqueness or standout features compared to other brands. A few users were also concerned about the potential for visible wear over time. 93% Customer Support 84% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by Focusrite. Many appreciated the prompt and helpful responses they received when encountering issues, as well as the availability of online resources and tutorials. 16% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing long wait times and unhelpful responses in some cases. A few users felt that the support team lacked the technical knowledge needed to resolve more complex issues efficiently. 84% Latency 88% of users praised the low latency performance of the Scarlett Solo. They reported minimal delay during recording and playback, which was crucial for live monitoring and multi-track recording sessions. 12% of users experienced latency issues, particularly when using older or less powerful computers. Some users found that the advertised low latency was not always achievable without additional configuration or adjustments in their DAW settings. 88% Preamps 90% of users were impressed with the quality of the preamps in the Scarlett Solo. They noted a significant improvement in audio clarity and detail, with many highlighting the preamps as a standout feature of the device. 10% of users found the preamps less impressive, noting that they introduced noise at higher gain levels. Some users expected better performance based on their experiences with other products in the Focusrite range. 90% Driver Stability 86% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the Scarlett Solo. They reported consistent performance and reliability across different operating systems, which was essential for uninterrupted recording sessions. 14% of users encountered issues with driver stability, experiencing occasional crashes or compatibility problems with certain software updates. Some users found the process of updating drivers cumbersome or confusing. 86% Input/Output Options 80% of users were content with the input/output options provided by the Scarlett Solo. They found the available connections sufficient for basic recording needs and appreciated the simplicity of the layout. 20% of users desired more input/output options, especially those looking to expand their recording capabilities. Some users felt limited by the lack of additional ports for more complex setups or simultaneous multi-instrument recording. 80% Brand Reputation 95% of users expressed trust in Focusrite's brand reputation, noting their history of producing reliable and high-quality audio interfaces. Many users mentioned that the brand's positive reputation influenced their purchase decision. 5% of users were skeptical about the brand reputation, often due to personal negative experiences or issues with previous products. A few users felt that the brand's reputation did not always translate to superior customer support or product innovation. 95% Compatibility 88% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the Scarlett Solo with various systems and software. They found it easy to integrate with both Windows and Mac operating systems, as well as with popular DAWs. 12% of users faced compatibility issues, particularly when using less common DAWs or older operating systems. Some users encountered problems with driver installation or configuration, which affected their initial setup experience. 88% Setup Process 87% of users found the setup process for the Scarlett Solo to be straightforward. They appreciated the clear instructions and quick installation process, which allowed them to start using the device with minimal hassle. 13% of users encountered difficulties during setup. Some reported unclear instructions or missing steps in the setup guide, which led to a more complicated installation process. A few users required additional support to resolve initial setup issues. 87% Firmware Updates 82% of users were satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of firmware updates for the Scarlett Solo. They appreciated the improvements in performance and functionality that updates provided, helping to maintain the device's reliability. 18% of users were dissatisfied with the firmware update process. Some found it difficult to navigate or encountered issues with updates failing to install properly. Others felt that updates were infrequent or did not address key issues they experienced. 82% Instruction Manual 78% of users found the instruction manual helpful for basic setup and operation. They appreciated the inclusion of essential information that aided in understanding the device's core functions. 22% of users were dissatisfied with the instruction manual, citing it as lacking in detail or clarity. Some users found it insufficient for troubleshooting more complex issues or for understanding advanced features of the device. 78% Overall Performance 89% of users were satisfied with the overall performance of the Scarlett Solo. They praised its reliability, sound quality, and ease of use, which met or exceeded their expectations for a USB audio interface in its price range. 11% of users were less satisfied with the overall performance, often due to specific issues like connectivity problems or noise at high gain levels. Some users felt that while the device performed well generally, it did not excel in any particular area compared to higher-end models. 89%	Purchase Value 85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 Audio Interface. They appreciated the combination of affordability and features, noting that it offers excellent value for money compared to other interfaces in the same price range. Users highlighted the high-quality sound output and the inclusion of necessary inputs and outputs as key factors in their satisfaction. 15% of users were dissatisfied with the purchase value, primarily due to occasional sales and promotions that made them feel they overpaid at the time of purchase. Some also mentioned that they expected more advanced features based on the price. 85% Quality of Materials 78% of users found the quality of materials used in the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 to be satisfactory. They appreciated the sturdy build and premium feel of the device, which contributed to their confidence in its durability. Many users felt that the materials used were appropriate for a product in this price range, providing a good balance between cost and quality. 22% of users were dissatisfied with the quality of materials, citing concerns about the plastic components feeling less sturdy. Some reported issues with knobs and connectors becoming loose over time, which affected their overall perception of the product's durability. 78% Sound Quality 90% of users praised the sound quality of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting clear and crisp audio output, which enhanced their recording and playback experiences. Users particularly appreciated the low noise floor and the high fidelity of the sound, which they felt was comparable to more expensive models. 10% of users were dissatisfied with the sound quality, mentioning that they experienced occasional static or interference. Some users felt that the interface did not perform well with certain types of microphones or instruments, which affected their overall experience. 90% Ease of Use 82% of users were satisfied with the ease of use of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Many appreciated the simplicity of the controls, which allowed them to quickly start recording without a steep learning curve. 18% of users found the interface less user-friendly, particularly citing issues with the initial setup and driver installation. Some users experienced difficulties in configuring the device with their preferred software, which led to frustration. 82% Software Compatibility 75% of users were pleased with the software compatibility of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it worked seamlessly with popular DAWs and recording software. Many users appreciated the bundled software, which added value to their purchase. 25% of users were dissatisfied with software compatibility, reporting challenges in configuring the interface with specific DAWs or experiencing limited functionality with older software versions. Some users faced latency issues that hindered their recording process. 75% Design 88% of users were satisfied with the design of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, commending its sleek and modern look. The compact size and layout of controls were appreciated for their convenience, making the interface easy to integrate into various setups. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the design, mainly due to the placement of certain controls which they found inconvenient. Some users felt that the interface was too compact, leading to potential issues when connecting multiple devices. 88% Portability 80% of users were satisfied with the portability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating its lightweight and compact design. This made it easy for them to transport the interface for mobile recordings or to different studio locations. 20% of users were dissatisfied with portability, noting that the lack of a protective case or bag made it susceptible to damage during transport. Some users felt that additional features, such as battery power, would enhance its portability. 80% Durability 77% of users were happy with the durability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, stating that it withstood regular use without showing significant wear and tear. They felt confident in its ability to last over time given its solid construction. 23% of users were dissatisfied with durability, citing issues with components such as knobs and connectors becoming loose or malfunctioning after prolonged use. Some users expected a more robust build quality for extended durability. 77% Customer Support 70% of users were satisfied with the customer support offered by M-Audio, appreciating the prompt responses and helpful assistance they received when encountering issues with the AIR 192\|4. Many users felt that the support team was knowledgeable and provided effective solutions. 30% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, mentioning delays in response times or difficulty in obtaining satisfactory resolutions to their problems. Some users felt that the support staff lacked technical expertise, leading to unresolved issues. 70% Driver Stability 73% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, reporting smooth operation and minimal issues with crashes or disconnects. Many users appreciated the regular updates that helped maintain compatibility with various operating systems. 27% of users were dissatisfied with driver stability, experiencing frequent crashes or disconnects during use. Some users reported issues with installing or updating drivers, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively. 73% Latency 81% of users were satisfied with the low latency performance of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it allowed for seamless real-time monitoring and recording. This feature was particularly appreciated by musicians and producers who required precise timing. 19% of users were dissatisfied with latency, experiencing delays that affected their recording sessions. Some users found that latency increased with certain software or when using higher sample rates, which impacted their workflow. 81% Input/Output Options 84% of users were satisfied with the input and output options provided by the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating the versatility and ability to connect various audio equipment. The interface's combination of XLR and instrument inputs was particularly valued. 16% of users were dissatisfied with the input/output options, feeling limited by the number of available connections. Some users wished for additional outputs for more complex setups or found the existing options insufficient for their needs. 84% Bundled Software 76% of users were pleased with the bundled software that came with the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, finding it useful for getting started with recording and production. Users appreciated the added value and variety of tools included in the package. 24% of users were dissatisfied with the bundled software, expressing that it was either too basic or not compatible with their preferred workflow. Some users experienced issues with software installation or activation, which hindered their experience. 76% Aesthetics 86% of users were satisfied with the aesthetics of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, complimenting its sleek design and professional appearance. The modern look was appreciated by those who valued both functionality and style in their audio equipment. 14% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, feeling that the design was too minimalistic or not aligned with their personal taste. Some users preferred a more traditional look for their recording equipment. 86% Setup Process 79% of users were satisfied with the setup process of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, finding it straightforward and easy to follow. The clear instructions and quick installation allowed users to begin using the interface with minimal hassle. 21% of users were dissatisfied with the setup process, encountering complications during driver installation or setup with their DAW. Some users found the instructions unclear or lacking in detail, leading to a frustrating experience. 79% Integration with DAWs 74% of users were satisfied with the integration of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 with various DAWs, noting seamless connection and functionality with popular software. This compatibility was crucial for users looking to incorporate the interface into their existing setups. 26% of users were dissatisfied with DAW integration, facing issues with compatibility or limited functionality with specific software. Some users experienced connection problems or required additional configuration to achieve optimal performance. 74% Noise Levels 87% of users were satisfied with the low noise levels of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, noting that it provided clean recordings without unwanted interference. This was particularly important for users working on professional audio projects requiring high fidelity. 13% of users were dissatisfied with noise levels, reporting occasional static or hum during recordings. Some users felt that the noise floor was higher than expected, affecting the quality of their audio outputs. 87% Control Layout 83% of users were satisfied with the control layout of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, praising the intuitive design that made adjusting settings easy and accessible. The layout was seen as user-friendly, allowing quick changes during recording sessions. 17% of users were dissatisfied with the control layout, finding some controls too small or closely placed, leading to difficulty in making precise adjustments. Some users felt that the layout could be improved for better ergonomics. 83% Output Quality 89% of users were satisfied with the output quality of the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, appreciating the clarity and depth of sound it delivered. This high-quality output was essential for both playback and monitoring during production. 11% of users were dissatisfied with the output quality, experiencing inconsistencies or lack of volume control precision. Some users felt that the output did not meet their expectations for certain professional applications. 89% Firmware Updates 72% of users were satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of firmware updates for the M-Audio AIR 192\|4, which helped in resolving bugs and improving performance over time. Regular updates were seen as a positive aspect of the product maintenance. 28% of users were dissatisfied with firmware updates, citing infrequent releases or lack of significant improvements. Some users experienced issues with the update process itself, which sometimes led to temporary malfunctions. 72% Value for Professionals 82% of users, including professional musicians and producers, were satisfied with the M-Audio AIR 192\|4 as a reliable tool for their work. They valued its balance of features and quality, which supported their professional audio needs without requiring a substantial investment. 18% of users felt that the interface did not fully meet the demands of professional work, citing limitations in features or performance compared to higher-end models. Some professionals required more advanced options to match their specific technical requirements. 82% Show More

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews

Purchase Value

85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation). Many appreciated its affordability compared to similar products on the market, noting it provides a professional quality audio experience at a budget-friendly price. The inclusion of essential features like the improved preamps and the Air mode were frequently highlighted as excellent value additions.

15% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to expectations of more features that are available in higher-priced models. Some users felt that the lack of bundled accessories, such as cables or software, diminished the overall value of the purchase.

85%
Quality of Material

90% of users found the quality of material to be excellent. They praised the build quality, noting that the device feels sturdy and durable. The metal chassis was particularly appreciated for providing a robust feel, which users associated with longevity and reliability.

10% of users were dissatisfied with the quality of material. Some reported issues with the durability of the knobs and connectors, mentioning that they felt less sturdy over time. A few users experienced problems with the USB-C connection, citing it as a potential weak point in the design.

90%
Ease of Use

88% of users were satisfied with the ease of use of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. They commended its straightforward setup process and user-friendly design, which allowed even beginners to start recording with minimal effort. The clear labeling and intuitive layout were also frequently praised.

12% of users found the device less user-friendly than expected. Some had difficulty with the initial setup, especially when integrating with specific DAWs. Others noted that the lack of a detailed manual made troubleshooting more challenging for less experienced users.

88%
Sound Quality

92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality provided by the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. They reported clear, professional-grade audio output, with many appreciating the enhanced quality of the preamps and the Air mode, which added a noticeable brightness and clarity to their recordings.

8% of users were not fully satisfied with the sound quality. Some mentioned that while the device generally performed well, it occasionally introduced noise or interference at higher gain levels. A few users expected even more pristine audio quality based on the brand's reputation.

92%
Connectivity

87% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options of the Scarlett Solo. They appreciated the USB-C interface for its modern, fast, and reliable connection. Users found it easy to integrate the device with various recording setups and appreciated the low-latency performance.

13% of users faced issues with connectivity. Some experienced occasional disconnections or difficulty maintaining a stable connection, particularly when using older computer systems. A few users also noted limitations due to the lack of additional input/output options, which restricted more complex recording setups.

87%
Software Integration

83% of users were pleased with the software integration capabilities of the Scarlett Solo. Many highlighted the seamless compatibility with popular DAWs and the ease of accessing bundled software as a significant advantage.

17% of users encountered challenges with software integration. Some reported difficulties in setting up the interface with their preferred DAW, citing lack of clear instructions or driver issues. Others were disappointed with the limited functionality of the bundled software compared to standalone options.

83%
Portability

89% of users appreciated the portability of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. Its compact size and lightweight design were ideal for users who needed a mobile recording solution, making it easy to transport and use in various locations.

11% of users found the device less portable due to its reliance on a computer connection for power. Some expressed a desire for a battery-powered option to enhance portability. Additionally, a few users noted that additional protective cases or covers were necessary for safe transport.

89%
Durability

91% of users were satisfied with the durability of the Scarlett Solo. They praised its solid construction and the high-quality materials used, which gave them confidence in its long-term performance and resistance to wear and tear.

9% of users had concerns about durability, particularly with the smaller components like knobs and jacks, which some users reported were prone to loosening over time. A few users experienced issues with the USB-C port becoming less secure after repeated use.

91%
Aesthetic Design

93% of users were highly satisfied with the aesthetic design of the Scarlett Solo. They found it visually appealing, with a sleek, modern look that fit well into professional and home studio environments. The color scheme and overall design were frequently highlighted as stylish.

7% of users were less impressed with the design, mainly due to personal preferences. Some felt that while the design was functional, it lacked uniqueness or standout features compared to other brands. A few users were also concerned about the potential for visible wear over time.

93%
Customer Support

84% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by Focusrite. Many appreciated the prompt and helpful responses they received when encountering issues, as well as the availability of online resources and tutorials.

16% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing long wait times and unhelpful responses in some cases. A few users felt that the support team lacked the technical knowledge needed to resolve more complex issues efficiently.

84%
Latency

88% of users praised the low latency performance of the Scarlett Solo. They reported minimal delay during recording and playback, which was crucial for live monitoring and multi-track recording sessions.

12% of users experienced latency issues, particularly when using older or less powerful computers. Some users found that the advertised low latency was not always achievable without additional configuration or adjustments in their DAW settings.

88%
Preamps

90% of users were impressed with the quality of the preamps in the Scarlett Solo. They noted a significant improvement in audio clarity and detail, with many highlighting the preamps as a standout feature of the device.

10% of users found the preamps less impressive, noting that they introduced noise at higher gain levels. Some users expected better performance based on their experiences with other products in the Focusrite range.

90%
Driver Stability

86% of users were satisfied with the driver stability of the Scarlett Solo. They reported consistent performance and reliability across different operating systems, which was essential for uninterrupted recording sessions.

14% of users encountered issues with driver stability, experiencing occasional crashes or compatibility problems with certain software updates. Some users found the process of updating drivers cumbersome or confusing.

86%
Input/Output Options

80% of users were content with the input/output options provided by the Scarlett Solo. They found the available connections sufficient for basic recording needs and appreciated the simplicity of the layout.

20% of users desired more input/output options, especially those looking to expand their recording capabilities. Some users felt limited by the lack of additional ports for more complex setups or simultaneous multi-instrument recording.

80%
Brand Reputation

95% of users expressed trust in Focusrite's brand reputation, noting their history of producing reliable and high-quality audio interfaces. Many users mentioned that the brand's positive reputation influenced their purchase decision.

5% of users were skeptical about the brand reputation, often due to personal negative experiences or issues with previous products. A few users felt that the brand's reputation did not always translate to superior customer support or product innovation.

95%
Compatibility

88% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the Scarlett Solo with various systems and software. They found it easy to integrate with both Windows and Mac operating systems, as well as with popular DAWs.

12% of users faced compatibility issues, particularly when using less common DAWs or older operating systems. Some users encountered problems with driver installation or configuration, which affected their initial setup experience.

88%
Setup Process

87% of users found the setup process for the Scarlett Solo to be straightforward. They appreciated the clear instructions and quick installation process, which allowed them to start using the device with minimal hassle.

13% of users encountered difficulties during setup. Some reported unclear instructions or missing steps in the setup guide, which led to a more complicated installation process. A few users required additional support to resolve initial setup issues.

87%
Firmware Updates

82% of users were satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of firmware updates for the Scarlett Solo. They appreciated the improvements in performance and functionality that updates provided, helping to maintain the device's reliability.

18% of users were dissatisfied with the firmware update process. Some found it difficult to navigate or encountered issues with updates failing to install properly. Others felt that updates were infrequent or did not address key issues they experienced.

82%
Instruction Manual

78% of users found the instruction manual helpful for basic setup and operation. They appreciated the inclusion of essential information that aided in understanding the device's core functions.

22% of users were dissatisfied with the instruction manual, citing it as lacking in detail or clarity. Some users found it insufficient for troubleshooting more complex issues or for understanding advanced features of the device.

78%
Overall Performance

89% of users were satisfied with the overall performance of the Scarlett Solo. They praised its reliability, sound quality, and ease of use, which met or exceeded their expectations for a USB audio interface in its price range.

11% of users were less satisfied with the overall performance, often due to specific issues like connectivity problems or noise at high gain levels. Some users felt that while the device performed well generally, it did not excel in any particular area compared to higher-end models.

89%

Purchase Value

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

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

85%
Quality of Materials

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

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

78%
Sound Quality

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

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

90%
Ease of Use

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

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

82%
Software Compatibility

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

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

75%
Design

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

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

88%
Portability

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

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

80%
Durability

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

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

77%
Customer Support

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

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

70%
Driver Stability

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

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

73%
Latency

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

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

81%
Input/Output Options

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

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

84%
Bundled Software

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

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

76%
Aesthetics

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

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

86%
Setup Process

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

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

79%
Integration with DAWs

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

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

74%
Noise Levels

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

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

87%
Control Layout

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

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

83%
Output Quality

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

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

89%
Firmware Updates

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

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

72%
Value for Professionals

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

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

82%

Pros:
High-quality preamps for clear sound recording. USB-C connectivity provides fast and reliable data transfer. Compact and portable design. Easy to use with straightforward controls and setup. Included software package offers great value.	High-quality 24-bit/192kHz audio resolution. User-friendly interface with large central volume knob. Includes software bundle with Ableton Live Lite and more. Direct monitoring feature with no latency. Compact and portable design.

Cons:
Limited to 2 input channels, which may not suffice for larger setups. No MIDI input/output ports. Phantom power is not individually switchable for each input. Higher price compared to some entry-level audio interfaces. Requires a computer to function, not standalone.	Limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs. No MIDI input/output. Build quality can feel less robust compared to higher-end models. USB Type-C connection may require adapters for some users. Only one headphone output.

Key Specs
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 192 kHz	Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 192 kHz
Maximum Sampling Rate
192 kHz / 24-Bit	192 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
1	1 Preamp
Analog Audio I/O
1x XLR 3-Pin Balanced Mic Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Headphone Output (Front Panel)	1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)
Host Connection
1x USB-C	1x USB-C (Class-Compliant)
OS Compatibility
macOS Windows	macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power, USB Power Adapter (Not Included)	USB Bus Power

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both high-quality audio interfaces designed to cater to the needs of musicians, podcasters, and home recording enthusiasts. Here's a comparative overview of their key features:
Channels of I/O: Both interfaces offer 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, supporting high-resolution audio at 192 kHz.
Maximum Sampling Rate: Each device supports a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz / 24-bit, ensuring professional-grade audio quality.
Number of Microphone Inputs: Both interfaces come with 1 microphone input. The Focusrite Scarlett Solo utilizes a single XLR 3-pin balanced mic input, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 features a combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line input, offering more flexibility for connecting different types of microphones or line-level signals.
Analog Audio I/O: The Focusrite Scarlett Solo has 1 XLR 3-pin balanced mic input, 1 1/4" TS unbalanced line/Hi-Z input, 2 1/4" TRS balanced monitor outputs, and 1 1/4" TRS headphone output on the front panel.
The M-Audio AIR 192|4 includes 1 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line input, 1 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input, 2 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs, and 1 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output on the front panel. The combo input on the M-Audio AIR 192|4 provides added versatility for connecting different types of sources.
Digital Audio I/O: Neither interface offers digital audio I/O, focusing instead on analog connectivity.
Host Connection: Both interfaces use a USB-C connection for communication with the host computer. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 is class-compliant, meaning it requires no additional drivers for macOS 10.8 or later and Windows 7 or later. The Focusrite Scarlett Solo also supports macOS and Windows operating systems.
Power Requirements: Both interfaces are USB bus-powered, which means they draw power directly from the connected USB port, eliminating the need for an external power supply. However, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo also mentions the option to use a USB power adapter, although it is not included.
In summary, while both the Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface share many similarities in terms of I/O channels, sampling rate, and power requirements, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers a more versatile combo input and class-compliant USB-C connection. The Focusrite Scarlett Solo, on the other hand, remains a robust choice with its dedicated mic and line/Hi-Z inputs and balanced monitor outputs.

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

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both offer similar capabilities in terms of their channels of I/O and sampling rates.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo provides 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, with a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It features one microphone input and does not include a built-in microphone or expansion slots. The input level adjustment is managed via two knobs. Notably, the Scarlett Solo does not come with built-in DSP (Digital Signal Processing).
Similarly, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, matching the same maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It also includes a single microphone input with a preamp and does not have a built-in microphone or expansion slots. The input level adjustment is likewise controlled through two knobs.
Both interfaces provide equivalent input and output channels, sampling rates, and input level adjustment mechanisms. However, a key difference is that the Scarlett Solo does not incorporate built-in DSP, which may be a consideration depending on your need for real-time audio processing capabilities.

Signal Processing
Gain/Trim Range
Mic/Line Inputs: Up to +69 dB Hi-Z Inputs: 62 dB	Mic/Line Inputs: 55 dB Hi-Z Inputs: 24 dB

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) offers a notable gain/trim range with its mic/line inputs providing up to +69 dB and Hi-Z inputs up to 62 dB. This expansive range allows for a versatile input handling, making it suitable for a variety of microphones and instruments, ensuring clear and detailed sound capture even at lower signal levels.
In comparison, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface has a more limited gain/trim range. Its mic/line inputs offer a gain/trim range of 55 dB, which, while sufficient for many applications, is less accommodating than that of the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. The Hi-Z inputs on the M-Audio AIR 192|4 provide a gain/trim range of 24 dB, significantly lower than the Focusrite's 62 dB, potentially limiting its effectiveness with certain high-impedance instruments.
Furthermore, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 lacks features such as a pad, a high-pass filter, and solo/mute options. These omissions could impact its flexibility and control in various recording scenarios. The absence of a pad means it may be more challenging to handle high-level input sources without distortion. The lack of a high-pass filter means users won't be able to easily eliminate low-frequency rumble or noise directly on the interface. Lastly, the absence of solo/mute functions may limit its usability in more complex monitoring setups.
Overall, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) appears to provide a broader and more versatile gain range, making it a potentially more robust choice for users requiring flexibility and higher input sensitivity. In contrast, the M-Audio AIR 192|4, while still a competent interface, may be more limited in terms of gain handling and additional features.

Connectivity
Analog Audio I/O
1x XLR 3-Pin Balanced Mic Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Line/Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Headphone Output (Front Panel)	1x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output (Front Panel)
Phantom Power
48 V, Selectable On/Off	48 V, Selectable On/Off
Digital Audio I/O

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

Sync I/O

Network I/O

MIDI I/O

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both popular choices for home studios, with each offering a range of features tailored to different recording needs.
In terms of analog audio I/O, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo provides a straightforward setup with 1x XLR 3-pin balanced mic input, 1x 1/4" TS unbalanced line/Hi-Z input on the front panel, 2x 1/4" TRS balanced monitor outputs, and 1x 1/4" TRS headphone output on the front panel. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers a bit more versatility with a combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line input, 1x 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input on the front panel, 2x 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs, and 1x 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output on the front panel. The combo input on the M-Audio adds flexibility for users who may need to switch between XLR and TRS connections for their microphone or line inputs.
Both interfaces are equipped with 48 V phantom power, which is selectable on or off, allowing the use of condenser microphones that require external power.
Regarding digital connectivity, neither the Focusrite Scarlett Solo nor the M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers digital audio I/O, sync I/O, network I/O, or MIDI I/O, which makes them more streamlined options primarily focused on analog audio recording.
For host connections, both interfaces use 1x USB-C, adhering to the USB 2.0 protocol, ensuring compatibility with modern computers and providing sufficient speed for their audio processing needs. Neither device supports additional USB (non-host) connections.
In summary, while both audio interfaces share many similarities in terms of their USB-C connectivity, phantom power capabilities, and lack of digital and network I/O, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 stands out with its combo input offering more input flexibility. On the other hand, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo maintains a straightforward and efficient design, making it a solid choice for users needing a simple yet effective recording solution.

Performance
Frequency Response
XLR Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.06 dB 1/4" Line Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz 0.05 dB 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz 0.15 dB	Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.1 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.05 dB Monitor Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.06 dB
Maximum Input Level
XLR Mic: 9.5 dBu 1/4" Line: 22 dBu 1/4" Hi-Z: 12 dBu	Mic Inputs: +1.5 dBu Line Inputs: +16 dBu Hi-Z Inputs: +6 dBu
Maximum Output Level
1/4" Line: +16 dBu	Line Outputs: +7 dBu (Balanced, 1 kHz)
Impedance
XLR Mic Inputs: 3 Kilohms 1/4" Line Inputs: 60 Kilohms 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohms 1/4" Line Outputs: 200 Ohms 1/4" Headphone Outputs: < 50 Ohm	Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: 10 Ohms (Balanced)
Dynamic Range
XLR Mic Inputs: 113 dBA 1/4" Line Inputs: 113 dBA 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs: 112 dBA 1/4" Line Outputs: 120 dB 1/4" Headphone: 112 dB (at 33 Ohms) 115 dB (at 300 Ohms) Digital A/D Converters: 120 dB Digital D/A Converters: 130 dBA	Mic Inputs: 104 dB (A-Weighted) Hi-Z Inputs: 100 dB (A-Weighted) Monitor Outputs: 102 dB (A-Weighted)
THD+N
XLR Mic Inputs: -100 dB (at Minimum Gain) 1/4" Line Inputs: -100 dB (at 8 dB Gain) 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs: -80 dB (at Minimum Gain) 1/4" Line Outputs: -100 dB (at Minimum Gain) 1/4" Headphone Outputs: -97 dB (at 33 Ohms) -102 dB (at 300 Ohms) Digital A/D Converters: -110 dB Digital D/A Converters: -115 dB	Mic/Line Inputs: 0.003% Hi-Z Inputs: 0.004% Headphone/Monitor Outputs: 0.005%
EIN
XLR Mic Inputs: -127 dBu A-Weighted	Mic Inputs: -128 dBu A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both cater to the needs of audio enthusiasts, but they differ significantly in their specifications and performance metrics.
In terms of frequency response, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo boasts XLR Mic Inputs with a range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.06 dB, 1/4" Line Inputs at 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.05 dB, and 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs at 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 offers Mic Inputs with a frequency response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.1 dB, Line and Hi-Z Inputs at 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.05 dB, and Monitor Outputs at 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0.06 dB.
Regarding maximum input levels, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo accommodates XLR Mic Inputs up to 9.5 dBu, 1/4" Line Inputs up to 22 dBu, and 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs up to 12 dBu. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 supports Mic Inputs up to +1.5 dBu, Line Inputs up to +16 dBu, and Hi-Z Inputs up to +6 dBu. For maximum output levels, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo has 1/4" Line Outputs at +16 dBu, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 provides Line Outputs at +7 dBu (Balanced, 1 kHz).
The headphone output power for the Focusrite Scarlett Solo is 32 mW into 33 Ohms and 22 mW into 300 Ohms, whereas the M-Audio AIR 192|4 does not specify the output power in its provided specifications but lists the headphone output impedance at 10 Ohms (Balanced).
In impedance, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo features XLR Mic Inputs at 3 Kilohms, 1/4" Line Inputs at 60 Kilohms, 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs at 1 Megohm, 1/4" Line Outputs at 200 Ohms, and 1/4" Headphone Outputs at less than 50 Ohms. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 has Hi-Z Inputs at 1 Megohm (Unbalanced) and Headphone Outputs at 10 Ohms (Balanced).
Dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) show significant differences. The Focusrite Scarlett Solo offers XLR Mic Inputs at 113 dBA, 1/4" Line Inputs at 113 dBA, 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs at 112 dBA, 1/4" Line Outputs at 120 dB, 1/4" Headphone Outputs at 112 dB (at 33 Ohms) and 115 dB (at 300 Ohms), Digital A/D Converters at 120 dB, and Digital D/A Converters at 130 dBA. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 has Mic Inputs at 104 dB (A-Weighted), Hi-Z Inputs at 100 dB (A-Weighted), Monitor Outputs at 102 dB (A-Weighted), and SNR for Mic Inputs at 104 dB (A-Weighted), Line Inputs at 101 dB (A-Weighted), Hi-Z Inputs at 102 dB (A-Weighted), and Monitor Outputs at 102 dB (A-Weighted).
The total harmonic distortion plus noise (THD+N) for the Focusrite Scarlett Solo is XLR Mic Inputs at -100 dB (at Minimum Gain), 1/4" Line Inputs at -100 dB (at 8 dB Gain), 1/4" Hi-Z Inputs at -80 dB (at Minimum Gain), 1/4" Line Outputs at -100 dB (at Minimum Gain), and 1/4" Headphone Outputs at -97 dB (at 33 Ohms) and -102 dB (at 300 Ohms), with Digital A/D Converters at -110 dB and Digital D/A Converters at -115 dB. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 lists its THD+N for Mic/Line Inputs at 0.003%, Hi-Z Inputs at 0.004%, and Headphone/Monitor Outputs at 0.005%.
Finally, the equivalent input noise (EIN) for the Focusrite Scarlett Solo is -127 dBu A-Weighted for XLR Mic Inputs, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 has an EIN of -128 dBu A-Weighted for Mic Inputs (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain).
These differences highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each interface, catering to different needs and preferences of audio professionals and enthusiasts.

Digital Audio
Sample Rates
44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 / 192 kHz	Up to 192 kHz (AD/DA Conversion)
Bit Depths
24-Bit	24-Bit (AD/DA Conversion)
Sync Sources
Internal	Internal

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are both high-quality audio interfaces suitable for various recording needs, but they have some differences in their specifications.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo offers a range of sample rates including 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, and 192 kHz, providing flexibility for different recording and production requirements. It supports a bit depth of 24-bit, ensuring high-resolution audio quality. The device uses internal sync sources to maintain timing accuracy during recordings.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 also supports sample rates up to 192 kHz for AD/DA conversion, similar to the Scarlett Solo. However, it does not offer sample rate conversion. The bit depth is 24-bit for AD/DA conversion, ensuring high-quality audio similar to the Scarlett Solo. The M-Audio interface mentions a latency of 2.59 ms, which can vary depending on buffer size and is critical for real-time audio monitoring and recording. Like the Scarlett Solo, it also uses internal sync sources for maintaining accurate timing.
In summary, both interfaces offer high sample rates up to 192 kHz and 24-bit depth, but the Focusrite Scarlett Solo provides a broader range of sample rates, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 emphasizes low latency performance. Both devices use internal sync sources to ensure reliable operation during recording sessions.

Audio Storage & Playback

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS Windows	macOS 10.8 or Later Windows 7 or Later

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface both offer robust connectivity and compatibility features, but they differ in several key areas.
In terms of OS compatibility, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo supports both macOS and Windows operating systems, making it versatile for users across different platforms. Similarly, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 also supports macOS (version 10.8 or later) and Windows (version 7 or later), ensuring broad usability.
When it comes to mobile device compatibility, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo stands out as it is compatible with iPadOS, allowing for greater flexibility for mobile recording setups. On the contrary, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 does not offer compatibility with mobile devices, focusing solely on desktop or laptop use.
The M-Audio AIR 192|4 requires specific hardware setups, including an available USB 2.0 port or USB-C port, and it comes with a USB cable included for convenience. Additionally, it necessitates an internet connection for registration and downloading the required software and drivers. The Focusrite Scarlett Solo does not specify such hardware requirements, implying a more straightforward plug-and-play experience.
In summary, while both interfaces cater to macOS and Windows users, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo offers additional mobile compatibility with iPadOS and seems easier to set up without the need for specific hardware or internet connection requirements. The M-Audio AIR 192|4, though robust, requires more specific setups and lacks mobile device support.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power, USB Power Adapter (Not Included)	USB Bus Power

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface are two popular choices for audio recording enthusiasts and professionals. In terms of power requirements, both interfaces utilize USB bus power, which means they draw power directly from the connected USB port, eliminating the need for an additional power supply in most cases.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo, however, offers additional flexibility with its power requirements. It can also be powered by a USB power adapter, although the adapter is not included in the package. Specifically, it requires a 5 VDC power adapter at 900 mA. This additional power option can be useful in scenarios where USB bus power might be insufficient or when connecting to devices that do not provide adequate power through USB. The Scarlett Solo has a power consumption rate of 4.5 watts.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 sticks to a simpler design with only USB bus power as its power source. This straightforward approach can be advantageous for users who prefer a minimalistic setup without needing to worry about additional power adapters or managing extra cables.
In summary, while both audio interfaces are designed to operate primarily on USB bus power, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo offers a secondary power option via a USB power adapter, which might be beneficial for certain setups. The M-Audio AIR 192|4 keeps things simple with its sole reliance on USB bus power, making it a more streamlined choice for users who prefer fewer components in their recording setup.

Physical
Dimensions
5.63 x 3.78 x 1.79" / 14.3 x 9.6 x 4.55 cm	8 x 6 x 2.76" / 20.3 x 15.2 x 7.01 cm
Weight
0.8 lb / 363.0 g	2.0 lb / 0.9 kg

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface differ in several key aspects related to dimensions and weight.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo is more compact with dimensions of 5.63 x 3.78 x 1.79 inches (14.3 x 9.6 x 4.55 cm) and a lighter weight of 0.8 lb (363.0 g). This makes it a more portable option, ideal for musicians and producers who need a lightweight and small form factor interface that can easily fit into a backpack or small carrying case.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 is larger and heavier, with dimensions of 8 x 6 x 2.76 inches (20.3 x 15.2 x 7.01 cm) and a weight of 2.0 lb (0.9 kg). This extra size may provide a more robust and potentially more feature-rich interface, but it does make it less portable compared to the Scarlett Solo. Additionally, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 includes an anti-theft feature with a Kensington Security Slot, which could be an important consideration for users who need to secure their device in a fixed location.
In summary, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo offers a more compact and lightweight design, making it highly portable, while the M-Audio AIR 192|4 provides a larger, heavier, and potentially more secure interface with its anti-theft feature. Users will need to choose based on their priorities for portability versus additional features and security.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
1.305 lb	2.85 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
7.2 x 6.1 x 2.5"	11 x 7.5 x 4.8"

The Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB-C Audio Interface (4th Generation) and the M-Audio AIR 192|4 Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio Interface differ significantly in terms of package weight and box dimensions.
The Focusrite Scarlett Solo has a package weight of 1.305 lb, making it a lightweight option for users who prioritize portability. Its compact box dimensions are 7.2 x 6.1 x 2.5 inches, indicating that it is relatively small and easy to transport or store in a limited space.
On the other hand, the M-Audio AIR 192|4 is notably heavier, with a package weight of 2.85 lb. This additional weight might suggest a more robust build or additional components. The box dimensions for the M-Audio AIR 192|4 are 11 x 7.5 x 4.8 inches, which means it occupies more space compared to the Focusrite Scarlett Solo. This larger size could be a consideration for users with limited desk space or those who prefer a more compact setup.
In summary, the Focusrite Scarlett Solo is more lightweight and compact, making it an ideal choice for users seeking portability and convenience. The M-Audio AIR 192|4, being heavier and larger, might appeal to users looking for a potentially more substantial and robust audio interface.