MOTU M4 vs MOTU M2: Comprehensive USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface Comparison

The MOTU M2 and M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces are high-quality devices designed for musicians, podcasters, and audio engineers. Both interfaces offer exceptional sound quality, low latency, and robust build quality, making them ideal for various recording and playback needs. However, there are key differences between the two that cater to different user requirements.
MOTU M2: The MOTU M2 is a 2-in/2-out USB-C audio interface designed for users who need a compact and straightforward recording solution. It features two combo XLR/TRS inputs with preamps, allowing you to connect microphones, instruments, or line-level sources. The M2 also includes two balanced 1/4" TRS outputs for studio monitors and a dedicated headphone output. It supports 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution, ensuring pristine audio quality. The interface boasts ultra-low latency performance thanks to its ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology. The front panel features an easy-to-read LCD screen that displays input and output levels, giving you instant visual feedback. Additionally, the M2 includes MIDI I/O for connecting MIDI controllers and other MIDI-enabled gear.
MOTU M4: The MOTU M4 builds on the M2’s foundation by offering more input and output options, making it suitable for more complex recording setups. It is a 4-in/4-out USB-C audio interface, featuring four combo XLR/TRS inputs with preamps. This allows you to record multiple microphones or instruments simultaneously. Similar to the M2, the M4 supports 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution and uses the same ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology for superior sound quality and low latency. The M4 has four balanced 1/4" TRS outputs, providing greater flexibility for routing audio to external gear. It also includes a dedicated headphone output with an independent volume control. The front panel features an LCD screen displaying input and output levels, and like the M2, it offers MIDI I/O for seamless integration with MIDI hardware.
Conclusion: Both the MOTU M2 and M4 offer excellent audio quality, low latency, and a user-friendly interface, making them suitable for a wide range of recording scenarios. The M2 is ideal for solo musicians, podcasters, and small home studios that require a simple and compact setup. In contrast, the M4 is better suited for users who need additional inputs and outputs, such as small bands, multi-instrumentalists, or those who require more routing options in their recording setup. Choosing between the two will depend on your specific needs and the complexity of your recording environment.

Specifications, Advantages, and Disadvantages

MOTU M4

MOTU M2

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 87% of users found the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio Interface to be a great value for money, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to other interfaces with similar features. Many appreciated the high-quality preamps and low-latency performance, which are often found in more expensive models. Users noted that the interface provided excellent sound quality and a robust build, making it a worthwhile investment for both amateur and professional audio creators. 13% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, feeling that the interface did not meet their expectations in terms of performance relative to its price. Some users encountered issues with the software or compatibility with certain operating systems, which they felt detracted from the overall value. Additionally, a few users mentioned that other brands offered similar features at a lower cost. 87% Sound Quality 92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality provided by the MOTU M4. They praised its clear and transparent audio output, which significantly improved their recording and playback experience. Many users appreciated the pristine sound and the high-quality DA converters, which they felt allowed for professional-level recordings without colorization of the input signal. 8% of users were not satisfied with the sound quality, mainly due to individual preferences or specific issues with their setup. Some reported that the sound output did not meet their expectations for clarity or depth, which may be attributed to mismatched equipment or improper calibration. A few users experienced noise or interference that they believed was related to the interface. 92% Build Quality 90% of users praised the MOTU M4 for its solid build quality. They appreciated the sturdy metal chassis, which provided durability and a premium feel. Many users noted that the interface could withstand the rigors of both studio use and on-the-go recording, and liked the high-quality knobs and buttons that enhanced the user experience. 10% of users were not satisfied with the build quality, citing issues such as loose knobs or buttons that felt flimsy. A few users experienced physical defects, such as poorly fitted parts or cosmetic damage. While these cases were relatively rare, they impacted the overall perception of the interface's durability for those affected. 90% Ease of Use 85% of users found the MOTU M4 user-friendly, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive controls. Many appreciated the clear labeling and layout of the interface, which made it easy to navigate without prior technical experience. Users felt that the accompanying software was well-designed and complemented the hardware effectively, adding to the convenience of use. 15% of users found the MOTU M4 challenging to use, often due to difficulties with the initial setup or software installation. Some users mentioned that the documentation was not detailed enough, requiring them to seek additional help online. Others experienced configuration issues with certain DAWs, which took time to troubleshoot and resolve. 85% Software Compatibility 78% of users were satisfied with the software compatibility of the MOTU M4, reporting smooth integration with major digital audio workstations (DAWs) and operating systems. They appreciated the stable drivers and the ease of configuring the interface with their existing audio setups, which facilitated seamless recording and editing sessions. 22% of users encountered software compatibility issues, particularly with less common DAWs or older operating systems. Some reported driver instability or lag during sessions, which affected their workflow. A number of users also pointed out the lack of dedicated apps or support for mobile devices, limiting the interface's versatility for certain use cases. 78% Latency Performance 91% of users were highly satisfied with the latency performance of the MOTU M4, noting its low-latency monitoring capabilities and efficient driver performance. This aspect was particularly praised by musicians and producers who require real-time audio feedback for recording and mixing, as it allowed them to work without noticeable delay. 9% of users experienced latency issues, which they attributed to their specific computer configurations or the need for additional optimization. Some users found that latency increased when using multiple plugins or high sample rates, which disrupted their workflow and required adjustments to mitigate. 91% Customer Support 74% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by MOTU, appreciating the responsive and helpful service they received when encountering issues with the M4. Many users found the support team knowledgeable and capable of resolving their problems efficiently, which increased their overall satisfaction with the product. 26% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, reporting slow response times and unhelpful resolutions to their inquiries. Some users felt that their issues were not adequately addressed, leading to prolonged downtime and frustration. A few also mentioned that the support resources available online were insufficient for troubleshooting their specific problems. 74% Portability 89% of users appreciated the portability of the MOTU M4, noting its compact size and lightweight design. This made it easy to transport and ideal for mobile recording setups or small studio spaces. Users liked that it could easily fit into a backpack or gear bag, making it convenient for musicians and producers on the move. 11% of users found the portability of the MOTU M4 lacking, primarily due to the need for additional cables or power sources in certain setups. Some users mentioned that while the size was compact, the interface did not feel as rugged as other portable options, causing concern about potential damage during transport. 89% Input/Output Options 82% of users were satisfied with the input/output options offered by the MOTU M4, highlighting the versatility provided by the combination of XLR, line, and MIDI inputs. Users enjoyed the ability to connect a range of instruments and devices, which made the interface suitable for various recording scenarios. 18% of users felt that the input/output options were limited, particularly for more complex audio setups. Some users desired additional inputs or outputs to accommodate larger sessions, while others found the lack of digital I/O options a drawback for integrating with certain studio equipment. 82% Design 88% of users appreciated the design of the MOTU M4, praising its sleek, modern look and intuitive control layout. The interface's aesthetic appeal and practical design elements, such as the large volume knob and clear metering displays, were frequently mentioned as positive aspects that enhanced the user experience. 12% of users were not satisfied with the design, citing minor ergonomic issues such as cramped control spacing or less intuitive button placement. Some users felt that the visual design could be improved for easier navigation during sessions, particularly in low-light environments. 88% Durability 86% of users were satisfied with the durability of the MOTU M4, noting its robust construction and resilience to wear and tear. Many users felt confident in its long-term performance, even with regular use in demanding environments. This aspect added to the perceived value and reliability of the interface. 14% of users expressed concerns about durability, often due to personal experiences with wear-related issues or defective units. Some users reported problems with connectors or components becoming loose over time, which affected their confidence in the interface's longevity. 86% Aesthetic Appeal 84% of users were pleased with the aesthetic appeal of the MOTU M4, appreciating its sleek, understated design that blended well with other studio equipment. Users liked the clean lines and professional appearance, which contributed to a positive perception of the product's quality. 16% of users were less impressed with the aesthetic appeal, feeling that the design was too plain or lacking distinctive features. Some users suggested that more vibrant color options or unique design elements could enhance the interface's visual presence. 84% Setup Process 80% of users found the setup process for the MOTU M4 straightforward and hassle-free. They appreciated the clear instructions and minimal steps required to get the interface up and running. The straightforward installation of drivers and software contributed to a smooth start for most users. 20% of users encountered challenges during the setup process, often related to driver installation or compatibility with their specific operating systems. Some users reported issues with outdated instructions or the need for manual troubleshooting to resolve initial setup problems. 80% Connectivity 81% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options of the MOTU M4, highlighting the versatile USB-C connection that provided stable data transfer. Users appreciated the convenience of a single cable for power and data, which simplified their setup and reduced cable clutter. 19% of users had issues with connectivity, primarily related to USB-C compatibility with older systems or the need for adapters. Some users experienced intermittent connection problems, which they attributed to cable quality or port compatibility issues. 81% Driver Stability 75% of users were pleased with the stability of the drivers provided with the MOTU M4, noting that they facilitated consistent and reliable performance across different applications. Users appreciated the regular updates and support from MOTU to maintain optimal driver functionality. 25% of users experienced driver stability issues, which impacted their usage of the interface. Some reported crashes or glitches during sessions, requiring frequent updates or reinstallations to resolve. Others found the drivers less stable on certain operating systems, leading to frustration. 75% User Interface 83% of users were satisfied with the user interface of the MOTU M4, praising its intuitive design and easy-to-navigate controls. Users found the interface straightforward, with clearly labeled inputs and outputs that simplified the recording process. 17% of users found the user interface lacking, mainly due to personal preferences or specific workflow needs. Some users desired more customizable options or advanced features that were not available with the current interface design. 83% Preamp Quality 89% of users were impressed with the preamp quality of the MOTU M4, noting the clean and transparent sound that enhanced their recordings. Users appreciated the low noise floor and ample headroom provided by the preamps, which allowed for detailed and dynamic audio capture. 11% of users were not satisfied with the preamp quality, often citing noise issues or insufficient gain for certain microphones. Some users found that the preamps did not perform as well as those in higher-end interfaces, though they acknowledged the trade-off for the price point. 89% Firmware Updates 77% of users appreciated the availability of firmware updates for the MOTU M4, which improved functionality and addressed common issues. Users valued the proactive approach taken by MOTU to enhance the interface's performance over time through updates. 23% of users were dissatisfied with the firmware update process, often due to difficulties in installation or lack of clear instructions. Some users experienced problems after updates, such as changes in settings or new bugs, which required further troubleshooting. 77% Overall Satisfaction 88% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the MOTU M4, praising its performance, build quality, and value. Users felt that it met or exceeded their expectations in most areas, making it a highly recommended choice for those seeking a reliable audio interface. 12% of users were not fully satisfied with their experience, often due to isolated issues with specific features or compatibility. While most found the product to be satisfactory, these users highlighted areas for improvement to enhance the overall user experience. 88% Metering Accuracy 84% of users were satisfied with the metering accuracy of the MOTU M4, noting the clear and precise visual feedback provided during recording and playback. Users appreciated the detailed meters that allowed for effective monitoring of audio levels. 16% of users encountered issues with metering accuracy, often related to discrepancies between the interface's meters and those in their DAW. Some users found the visual feedback less responsive or precise than expected, impacting their ability to accurately monitor levels. 84% Output Quality 90% of users were impressed with the output quality of the MOTU M4, highlighting its clear and detailed sound reproduction. Many users noted the high-quality headphone and line outputs, which provided accurate audio representation for mixing and monitoring. 10% of users were not satisfied with the output quality, often due to specific issues with their setup or preferences. Some users experienced faint noise or distortion, which they attributed to external factors or mismatched equipment rather than the interface itself. 90%	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

87% of users found the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio Interface to be a great value for money, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to other interfaces with similar features. Many appreciated the high-quality preamps and low-latency performance, which are often found in more expensive models. Users noted that the interface provided excellent sound quality and a robust build, making it a worthwhile investment for both amateur and professional audio creators.

13% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, feeling that the interface did not meet their expectations in terms of performance relative to its price. Some users encountered issues with the software or compatibility with certain operating systems, which they felt detracted from the overall value. Additionally, a few users mentioned that other brands offered similar features at a lower cost.

87%
Sound Quality

92% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality provided by the MOTU M4. They praised its clear and transparent audio output, which significantly improved their recording and playback experience. Many users appreciated the pristine sound and the high-quality DA converters, which they felt allowed for professional-level recordings without colorization of the input signal.

8% of users were not satisfied with the sound quality, mainly due to individual preferences or specific issues with their setup. Some reported that the sound output did not meet their expectations for clarity or depth, which may be attributed to mismatched equipment or improper calibration. A few users experienced noise or interference that they believed was related to the interface.

92%
Build Quality

90% of users praised the MOTU M4 for its solid build quality. They appreciated the sturdy metal chassis, which provided durability and a premium feel. Many users noted that the interface could withstand the rigors of both studio use and on-the-go recording, and liked the high-quality knobs and buttons that enhanced the user experience.

10% of users were not satisfied with the build quality, citing issues such as loose knobs or buttons that felt flimsy. A few users experienced physical defects, such as poorly fitted parts or cosmetic damage. While these cases were relatively rare, they impacted the overall perception of the interface's durability for those affected.

90%
Ease of Use

85% of users found the MOTU M4 user-friendly, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive controls. Many appreciated the clear labeling and layout of the interface, which made it easy to navigate without prior technical experience. Users felt that the accompanying software was well-designed and complemented the hardware effectively, adding to the convenience of use.

15% of users found the MOTU M4 challenging to use, often due to difficulties with the initial setup or software installation. Some users mentioned that the documentation was not detailed enough, requiring them to seek additional help online. Others experienced configuration issues with certain DAWs, which took time to troubleshoot and resolve.

85%
Software Compatibility

78% of users were satisfied with the software compatibility of the MOTU M4, reporting smooth integration with major digital audio workstations (DAWs) and operating systems. They appreciated the stable drivers and the ease of configuring the interface with their existing audio setups, which facilitated seamless recording and editing sessions.

22% of users encountered software compatibility issues, particularly with less common DAWs or older operating systems. Some reported driver instability or lag during sessions, which affected their workflow. A number of users also pointed out the lack of dedicated apps or support for mobile devices, limiting the interface's versatility for certain use cases.

78%
Latency Performance

91% of users were highly satisfied with the latency performance of the MOTU M4, noting its low-latency monitoring capabilities and efficient driver performance. This aspect was particularly praised by musicians and producers who require real-time audio feedback for recording and mixing, as it allowed them to work without noticeable delay.

9% of users experienced latency issues, which they attributed to their specific computer configurations or the need for additional optimization. Some users found that latency increased when using multiple plugins or high sample rates, which disrupted their workflow and required adjustments to mitigate.

91%
Customer Support

74% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by MOTU, appreciating the responsive and helpful service they received when encountering issues with the M4. Many users found the support team knowledgeable and capable of resolving their problems efficiently, which increased their overall satisfaction with the product.

26% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, reporting slow response times and unhelpful resolutions to their inquiries. Some users felt that their issues were not adequately addressed, leading to prolonged downtime and frustration. A few also mentioned that the support resources available online were insufficient for troubleshooting their specific problems.

74%
Portability

89% of users appreciated the portability of the MOTU M4, noting its compact size and lightweight design. This made it easy to transport and ideal for mobile recording setups or small studio spaces. Users liked that it could easily fit into a backpack or gear bag, making it convenient for musicians and producers on the move.

11% of users found the portability of the MOTU M4 lacking, primarily due to the need for additional cables or power sources in certain setups. Some users mentioned that while the size was compact, the interface did not feel as rugged as other portable options, causing concern about potential damage during transport.

89%
Input/Output Options

82% of users were satisfied with the input/output options offered by the MOTU M4, highlighting the versatility provided by the combination of XLR, line, and MIDI inputs. Users enjoyed the ability to connect a range of instruments and devices, which made the interface suitable for various recording scenarios.

18% of users felt that the input/output options were limited, particularly for more complex audio setups. Some users desired additional inputs or outputs to accommodate larger sessions, while others found the lack of digital I/O options a drawback for integrating with certain studio equipment.

82%
Design

88% of users appreciated the design of the MOTU M4, praising its sleek, modern look and intuitive control layout. The interface's aesthetic appeal and practical design elements, such as the large volume knob and clear metering displays, were frequently mentioned as positive aspects that enhanced the user experience.

12% of users were not satisfied with the design, citing minor ergonomic issues such as cramped control spacing or less intuitive button placement. Some users felt that the visual design could be improved for easier navigation during sessions, particularly in low-light environments.

88%
Durability

86% of users were satisfied with the durability of the MOTU M4, noting its robust construction and resilience to wear and tear. Many users felt confident in its long-term performance, even with regular use in demanding environments. This aspect added to the perceived value and reliability of the interface.

14% of users expressed concerns about durability, often due to personal experiences with wear-related issues or defective units. Some users reported problems with connectors or components becoming loose over time, which affected their confidence in the interface's longevity.

86%
Aesthetic Appeal

84% of users were pleased with the aesthetic appeal of the MOTU M4, appreciating its sleek, understated design that blended well with other studio equipment. Users liked the clean lines and professional appearance, which contributed to a positive perception of the product's quality.

16% of users were less impressed with the aesthetic appeal, feeling that the design was too plain or lacking distinctive features. Some users suggested that more vibrant color options or unique design elements could enhance the interface's visual presence.

84%
Setup Process

80% of users found the setup process for the MOTU M4 straightforward and hassle-free. They appreciated the clear instructions and minimal steps required to get the interface up and running. The straightforward installation of drivers and software contributed to a smooth start for most users.

20% of users encountered challenges during the setup process, often related to driver installation or compatibility with their specific operating systems. Some users reported issues with outdated instructions or the need for manual troubleshooting to resolve initial setup problems.

80%
Connectivity

81% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options of the MOTU M4, highlighting the versatile USB-C connection that provided stable data transfer. Users appreciated the convenience of a single cable for power and data, which simplified their setup and reduced cable clutter.

19% of users had issues with connectivity, primarily related to USB-C compatibility with older systems or the need for adapters. Some users experienced intermittent connection problems, which they attributed to cable quality or port compatibility issues.

81%
Driver Stability

75% of users were pleased with the stability of the drivers provided with the MOTU M4, noting that they facilitated consistent and reliable performance across different applications. Users appreciated the regular updates and support from MOTU to maintain optimal driver functionality.

25% of users experienced driver stability issues, which impacted their usage of the interface. Some reported crashes or glitches during sessions, requiring frequent updates or reinstallations to resolve. Others found the drivers less stable on certain operating systems, leading to frustration.

75%
User Interface

83% of users were satisfied with the user interface of the MOTU M4, praising its intuitive design and easy-to-navigate controls. Users found the interface straightforward, with clearly labeled inputs and outputs that simplified the recording process.

17% of users found the user interface lacking, mainly due to personal preferences or specific workflow needs. Some users desired more customizable options or advanced features that were not available with the current interface design.

83%
Preamp Quality

89% of users were impressed with the preamp quality of the MOTU M4, noting the clean and transparent sound that enhanced their recordings. Users appreciated the low noise floor and ample headroom provided by the preamps, which allowed for detailed and dynamic audio capture.

11% of users were not satisfied with the preamp quality, often citing noise issues or insufficient gain for certain microphones. Some users found that the preamps did not perform as well as those in higher-end interfaces, though they acknowledged the trade-off for the price point.

89%
Firmware Updates

77% of users appreciated the availability of firmware updates for the MOTU M4, which improved functionality and addressed common issues. Users valued the proactive approach taken by MOTU to enhance the interface's performance over time through updates.

23% of users were dissatisfied with the firmware update process, often due to difficulties in installation or lack of clear instructions. Some users experienced problems after updates, such as changes in settings or new bugs, which required further troubleshooting.

77%
Overall Satisfaction

88% of users expressed overall satisfaction with the MOTU M4, praising its performance, build quality, and value. Users felt that it met or exceeded their expectations in most areas, making it a highly recommended choice for those seeking a reliable audio interface.

12% of users were not fully satisfied with their experience, often due to isolated issues with specific features or compatibility. While most found the product to be satisfactory, these users highlighted areas for improvement to enhance the overall user experience.

88%
Metering Accuracy

84% of users were satisfied with the metering accuracy of the MOTU M4, noting the clear and precise visual feedback provided during recording and playback. Users appreciated the detailed meters that allowed for effective monitoring of audio levels.

16% of users encountered issues with metering accuracy, often related to discrepancies between the interface's meters and those in their DAW. Some users found the visual feedback less responsive or precise than expected, impacting their ability to accurately monitor levels.

84%
Output Quality

90% of users were impressed with the output quality of the MOTU M4, highlighting its clear and detailed sound reproduction. Many users noted the high-quality headphone and line outputs, which provided accurate audio representation for mixing and monitoring.

10% of users were not satisfied with the output quality, often due to specific issues with their setup or preferences. Some users experienced faint noise or distortion, which they attributed to external factors or mismatched equipment rather than the interface itself.

90%

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 performance with ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology. Ultra-low latency performance, making it suitable for real-time monitoring. Comprehensive metering with full-color LCD display for precise level monitoring. USB-C connectivity ensures fast data transfer and compatibility with modern devices. Sturdy build quality and compact design, ideal for portable use. Loopback functionality for easy live streaming and podcasting.	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.

Pros:

High-quality audio performance with ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology.
Ultra-low latency performance, making it suitable for real-time monitoring.
Comprehensive metering with full-color LCD display for precise level monitoring.
USB-C connectivity ensures fast data transfer and compatibility with modern devices.
Sturdy build quality and compact design, ideal for portable use.
Loopback functionality for easy live streaming and podcasting.

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 4 inputs and 4 outputs, which may not be sufficient for larger setups. No built-in DSP effects, which could limit flexibility for some users. Only USB bus-powered, which might not be ideal for all scenarios. No ADAT or S/PDIF connectivity, limiting expansion options.	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: 4 Inputs / 4 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 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Input 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output 4x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (DC-Coupled) 4x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Output	2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (DC-Coupled) 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Output
Host Connection
1x USB-C	1x USB-C
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces are both high-quality products from MOTU, designed to cater to different user needs with slight variations in features.
The MOTU M2 features 2 channels of analog input and output, supporting a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. It includes 2 microphone preamps, with analog audio I/O comprising 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced mic/line/Hi-Z inputs, 1 unbalanced 1/4" TRS headphone output, 2 balanced line outputs via 1/4" TRS (DC-coupled), and 2 unbalanced line outputs via RCA TS. The interface connects to the host via a USB-C port and is compatible with macOS 10.11 or later, Windows 7 or later. It is powered directly via USB bus power.
In comparison, the MOTU M4 offers an expanded set of features with 4 channels of analog input and output, while maintaining the same maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. Similar to the M2, it includes 2 microphone preamps. However, the analog audio I/O in the M4 includes 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced mic/line/Hi-Z inputs, 2 additional balanced line inputs via 1/4" TRS, 1 unbalanced 1/4" TRS headphone output, 4 balanced line outputs via 1/4" TRS (DC-coupled), and 4 unbalanced line outputs via RCA TS. The host connection is also via USB-C, with compatibility for macOS 10.11 or later, Windows 7 or later. The power requirements are met through USB bus power, similar to the M2.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and M4 offer high-resolution audio recording and playback with USB-C connectivity and USB bus power, the M4 provides additional input and output channels, making it a more versatile option for users needing more extensive I/O capabilities.

General
Channels of I/O
Analog: 4 Inputs / 4 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 and MOTU M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces are both high-quality devices designed for audio recording and MIDI interfacing, but they differ primarily in their input and output capabilities.
The MOTU M2 offers 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs. This setup is ideal for solo musicians or podcasters who require a straightforward, reliable interface with high-quality audio conversion. It supports a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit depth, ensuring professional-grade audio fidelity. The M2 features 2 microphone preamps, each with an individual input level adjustment knob, allowing for precise control over input levels. However, it does not include a built-in microphone or expansion slots, focusing on simplicity and ease of use.
On the other hand, the MOTU M4 extends the functionality by providing 4 analog inputs and 4 analog outputs, catering to users who need additional I/O capabilities, such as small bands or more complex recording setups. Like the M2, the M4 supports a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit depth, maintaining the same high standard of audio quality. It also includes 2 microphone preamps with dedicated input level adjustment knobs for each channel. Similar to the M2, the M4 does not feature a built-in microphone or expansion slots, keeping the focus on core audio and MIDI interfacing capabilities.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 share similarities in audio quality, microphone preamps, and input level adjustments, the key difference lies in the number of analog inputs and outputs. The M2 is best suited for users with minimal I/O needs, while the M4 is ideal for those requiring additional inputs and outputs for more complex recording situations.

Signal Processing
Pad

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

Solo/Mute

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface share several similar features. Both devices do not include a pad, which means they lack the ability to attenuate the signal level for very loud sources directly on the interface. This can be important for users who need to manage high input levels directly at the interface.
In terms of gain/trim range, both the M2 and M4 offer identical specifications. The mic inputs on both interfaces provide a gain range from 0 dB to +60 dB, while the line/Hi-Z inputs offer a gain range from 0 dB to +57 dB. This range is sufficient for capturing a wide variety of sound sources, from quiet vocals to louder instruments, ensuring flexibility in different recording scenarios.
Neither the MOTU M2 nor the MOTU M4 includes a high-pass filter, meaning users will need to apply any desired low-frequency filtering within their recording software or through external hardware. This may be a consideration for those looking to manage low-end rumble or proximity effect directly at the interface level.
Additionally, both interfaces lack solo and mute functions. This means that users cannot isolate individual channels or mute them directly on the interface, potentially requiring these controls to be handled within the recording software or via an external mixing console.
Overall, the MOTU M2 and M4 are nearly identical in these specific features, offering the same gain/trim range and lacking in pads, high-pass filters, and solo/mute functions. The choice between the two would likely come down to other factors not covered in this comparison, such as the number of inputs/outputs, additional software, or overall user experience.

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

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

Sync I/O

Network I/O

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

The MOTU M2 and M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces both offer robust features tailored for high-quality audio recording and playback, but they differ in several key areas that may influence a user's choice depending on their specific needs.
In terms of analog audio I/O, the MOTU M2 provides 2x combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z inputs, which are versatile for different types of microphones and instruments. Additionally, it includes 1x 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output, 2x 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs (DC-coupled), and 2x RCA TS unbalanced line outputs. This configuration is suitable for users who need a straightforward setup with essential input and output options.
The MOTU M4, on the other hand, expands on this by offering 2x combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z inputs as well, but it adds 2x 1/4" TRS balanced line inputs, bringing more flexibility for connecting additional line-level devices. Furthermore, it includes the same 1x 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output but doubles the line outputs to 4x 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs (DC-coupled) and 4x RCA TS unbalanced line outputs. This makes the M4 more suitable for users needing more extensive output options, such as connecting to multiple monitors or external gear.
Both interfaces offer 48V phantom power, selectable on individual inputs, ensuring compatibility with condenser microphones that require external power. Neither interface provides digital audio I/O, sync I/O, or network I/O, focusing instead on analog and MIDI connections.
For host connection, both the M2 and M4 use a single USB-C port, adhering to the USB 2.0 protocol, which offers sufficient bandwidth for the audio channels they handle. They do not support USB (non-host) connections, which means they are designed primarily for use with computers rather than standalone or mobile devices.
Finally, in terms of MIDI I/O, both interfaces include 1x DIN 5-pin MIDI input and 1x DIN 5-pin MIDI output, allowing for integration with MIDI controllers, keyboards, and other MIDI-capable devices.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and M4 share many similarities in terms of core functionality and connectivity, the M4 stands out with additional line inputs and outputs, making it a more versatile choice for users with more complex setup requirements. The M2, however, remains a solid option for those needing a simpler, yet still high-quality, audio interface.

Performance
Frequency Response
Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB Line Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.07 dB Line Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB	Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB Line, Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB Line Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB
Maximum Input Level
Mic Inputs: +10 dBu (Min Gain) Line/Hi-Z Inputs: +16 dBu (Min Gain) Line Inputs: +18 dBu (Min Gain)	Mic Inputs: +10 dBu (Min Gain) Line/Hi-Z Inputs: +16 dBu (Min Gain)
Maximum Output Level
Line Outputs: +16 dBu (Balanced) Line Outputs: +9.5 dBu (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: +12.5 dBu	Line Outputs: +16 dBu (Balanced) Line Outputs: +9.5 dBu (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: +12.5 dBu
Impedance
Mic Inputs: 2.65 Kilohms Line Inputs: 2 Megohms Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm Line Outputs: 100 Ohms	Mic Inputs: 2.65 Kilohms Line Inputs: 2 Megohms Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm Line Outputs: 100 Ohms
Dynamic Range
Mic Inputs: 115 dBA Line/Hi-Z Inputs: 114 dBA Line Inputs: 115 dBA Line/Monitor Outputs: 120 dBA RCA Outputs: 119 dBA Headphone Outputs: 115 dBA	Mic Inputs: 115 dBA Line/Hi-Z Inputs: 114 dBA 1/4" Line/Monitor Outputs: 120 dBA RCA Line Outputs: 119 dBA Headphone Outputs: 115 dBA
THD+N
Mic Inputs: < -97 dB / < 0.0014% Line/Hi-Z Inputs: < -100 dB / < 0.001% Line Inputs: < -106 dB / < 0.0005% Line/Monitor Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.00032% RCA Outputs: < -105 dB / < 0.00056% Headphone Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.0003%	Mic Inputs: < -97 dB / < 0.0014% Line/Hi-Z Inputs: < -100 dB / < 0.001% 1/4" Line/Monitor Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.00032% RCA Line Outputs: < -105 dB / < 0.00056% Headphone Outputs: < -110 dB / < 0.0003%
EIN
Mic Inputs: -129 dB A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)	Mic Inputs: -129 dB A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)

The MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces share many similarities but also have distinct differences in their specifications. Both interfaces offer high-quality audio performance, but the M4 provides additional features that may be beneficial for specific users.
Frequency Response: Both the MOTU M2 and M4 have a frequency response for mic inputs of 20 Hz to 20 kHz with a tolerance of +0/-0.1 dB. For line and Hi-Z inputs, both maintain a response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.15 dB. However, the M4 offers a slightly better tolerance for line inputs at ±0.07 dB. Both models offer line outputs with a frequency response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB.
Maximum Input Level: In terms of maximum input levels, both the M2 and M4 offer +10 dBu for mic inputs and +16 dBu for line/Hi-Z inputs at minimum gain. The M4, however, includes an additional specification for line inputs at +18 dBu, providing a higher input level capacity.
Maximum Output Level: The maximum output levels are identical for both interfaces. Line outputs can reach +16 dBu when balanced and +9.5 dBu when unbalanced. Headphone outputs on both interfaces can reach +12.5 dBu.
Impedance: The impedance specifications for mic inputs, line inputs, Hi-Z inputs, and line outputs are the same for both models. Mic inputs have an impedance of 2.65 Kilohms, line inputs 2 Megohms, Hi-Z inputs 1 Megohm, and line outputs 100 Ohms.
Dynamic Range: The dynamic range for mic inputs is 115 dBA on both models. For line/Hi-Z inputs, both interfaces offer a dynamic range of 114 dBA. The line/monitor outputs have a dynamic range of 120 dBA, and RCA outputs are 119 dBA on both models. Headphone outputs on both interfaces have a dynamic range of 115 dBA.
THD+N: Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise (THD+N) values are remarkably close between the two models. For mic inputs, both have a THD+N of < -97 dB / < 0.0014%. The line/Hi-Z inputs are < -100 dB / < 0.001% for both models. However, the M4 offers an additional THD+N specification for line inputs at < -106 dB / < 0.0005%. For line/monitor outputs, both have a THD+N of < -110 dB / < 0.00032%, and RCA outputs are < -105 dB / < 0.00056%. Headphone outputs on both models have a THD+N of < -110 dB / < 0.0003%.
EIN: The Equivalent Input Noise (EIN) for mic inputs is identical in both models, measured at -129 dB A-Weighted with a 150-Ohm source at maximum gain.
In summary, while the MOTU M2 and M4 share many core specifications, the M4 offers slightly better line input tolerance and an additional maximum input level specification, making it a more versatile choice for users requiring these features.

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

The MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interfaces share several key specifications, making them quite similar in many respects. Both interfaces support sample rates up to 192 kHz and a bit depth of 24-bit, ensuring high-quality audio recording and playback. Neither interface features sample rate conversion, which means they rely on the sample rates set within your recording software for optimal performance.
In terms of latency, both the MOTU M2 and M4 offer zero-latency direct monitoring, with a latency of approximately 2.5 ms at 96 kHz, though this can vary depending on the buffer size and the input-to-output configuration. This low latency is beneficial for real-time audio monitoring during recording sessions. Additionally, both units utilize internal sync sources, which helps maintain stable and reliable audio synchronization during operation.
Overall, the MOTU M2 and M4 exhibit very similar specifications in terms of sample rates, bit depth, latency, and sync sources, providing high-quality audio performance suited for professional and home studio environments.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface, one notable similarity is that both devices lack a memory card slot. This absence indicates that neither interface supports direct recording or playback from memory cards, necessitating the use of connected computers or other external storage solutions for managing audio files.
Both the MOTU M2 and M4 are designed to provide high-quality audio and MIDI interfacing through USB-C connectivity, ensuring fast data transfer and low latency performance. Despite this shared feature set, the omission of a memory card slot in both models means that users must rely on their connected devices for storage capabilities, rather than having the convenience of onboard memory card support.
In summary, the MOTU M2 and M4 both deliver robust audio and MIDI interfacing capabilities through USB-C but do not include a memory card slot, which might be a consideration for users who prioritize direct storage options in their audio workflows.

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

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface share many similarities in their specifications, making them both suitable for a wide range of professional audio applications. Both interfaces are compatible with macOS 10.11 or later and Windows 7 or later, ensuring they can be integrated into most modern computer systems. They also both support iOS 9 or later, making them versatile options for users who need to interface with mobile devices.
In terms of processor requirements, both the MOTU M2 and the MOTU M4 require a minimum of a 1 GHz Intel processor, whether on a Mac or a PC. This makes them accessible even for users with older or less powerful machines. For optimal performance, both interfaces recommend having 4 GB of RAM, although they will function with a minimum of 2 GB.
The hardware requirements for the MOTU M2 and M4 are identical as well. Both units require an available USB 2.0 port, and they come with a USB cable included, simplifying the setup process. An internet connection is required for downloading the necessary software and drivers for both interfaces, ensuring users have access to the latest updates and features.
Although these two interfaces share nearly identical specifications in terms of OS compatibility, processor and RAM requirements, hardware needs, and internet connectivity, they may differ in other areas such as the number of inputs and outputs, additional features, or price points. However, based on the provided specifications, the MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 offer the same foundational capabilities and system requirements, making either a solid choice depending on additional user needs.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface both share a common feature in terms of their power requirements, as both interfaces are powered via USB bus power. This means that neither device requires an external power supply and can operate efficiently by drawing power directly from the connected USB port, making them highly portable and convenient for mobile recording setups.
The USB bus power feature in both the MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 simplifies the setup process, reducing the number of necessary cables and making these interfaces ideal for musicians, podcasters, and producers who need a reliable and easy-to-use audio interface on the go. This attribute enhances their usability in various environments, whether in a home studio, on the road, or during live performances.
Overall, in terms of power requirements, the MOTU M2 and MOTU M4 are identical, providing users with the same convenience and portability through USB bus power.

Physical
Anti-Theft Features
Kensington Security Slot	Kensington Security Slot
Dimensions
8.25 x 4.25 x 1.75" / 20.96 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm (Chassis Only)	7.5 x 4.25 x 1.75" / 19.1 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm (Chassis Only)
Weight
1.6 lb / 0.7 kg	1.4 lb / 0.6 kg

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface, several key features stand out. Both devices include anti-theft features such as a Kensington Security Slot, ensuring that they can be securely fastened to prevent unauthorized removal.
In terms of dimensions, the MOTU M2 measures 7.5 x 4.25 x 1.75 inches (19.1 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm), making it slightly more compact than the MOTU M4, which has dimensions of 8.25 x 4.25 x 1.75 inches (20.96 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm). This difference in size might be a consideration for users with limited desk space or those who require a more portable solution.
When it comes to weight, the MOTU M2 weighs 1.4 lb (0.6 kg), whereas the MOTU M4 is slightly heavier at 1.6 lb (0.7 kg). This minor weight difference may not be significant for most users but could be a factor for those who prioritize lightweight devices for mobility.
Overall, both the MOTU M2 and M4 provide similar anti-theft security with the Kensington Security Slot, but they differ in size and weight, with the M2 being more compact and lighter compared to the M4.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
2.15 lb	1.8 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
10.6 x 7.3 x 2.8"	10 x 7.45 x 2.75"

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface differ slightly in their physical specifications. The MOTU M2 has a package weight of 1.8 lb and box dimensions of 10 x 7.45 x 2.75 inches. In contrast, the MOTU M4 is slightly heavier with a package weight of 2.15 lb and slightly larger with box dimensions of 10.6 x 7.3 x 2.8 inches.
These differences suggest that the MOTU M4 is marginally bulkier and heavier compared to the MOTU M2. This could be due to additional features or components housed within the M4, potentially offering more functionality or robustness. However, the differences in size and weight are relatively minor and might not significantly impact portability or ease of handling for most users.