Audient EVO 8 vs MOTU M4: In-Depth USB-C Audio Interface Comparison

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface are both high-quality audio interfaces designed to cater to the needs of musicians, producers, and content creators. However, they offer distinct features that may appeal to different users based on their specific requirements.
The Audient EVO 8 is a compact and user-friendly audio interface that features four EVO preamps, class-leading converters, and Smartgain technology, which automatically sets the input levels for optimal recording. It offers a 4-in/4-out configuration, making it versatile for small to medium-sized recording setups. The EVO 8 features a sleek, modern design with an intuitive control layout, including a large central knob for easy level adjustments. It also provides loopback functionality, which is highly beneficial for podcasters and streamers. One of the standout features of the EVO 8 is its excellent audio quality, thanks to its 24-bit/96kHz resolution, delivering clear and detailed recordings.
On the other hand, the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface is known for its impressive performance and robust feature set. The M4 offers a 4-in/4-out configuration with ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology, ensuring high-quality audio conversion and low-latency performance. It includes both audio and MIDI connectivity, making it a versatile choice for users who need to integrate MIDI equipment into their setup. The M4 features a full-color LCD screen that provides real-time metering for all inputs and outputs, giving users precise visual feedback. Additionally, the M4 supports loopback functionality, which is ideal for live streaming and podcasting.
Both interfaces are bus-powered via USB-C, promoting portability and ease of use. While the Audient EVO 8 emphasizes simplicity and automatic gain setting with its Smartgain feature, the MOTU M4 offers more advanced metering and the inclusion of MIDI capabilities. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on the user’s specific needs—whether they prioritize the intuitive, automatic setup of the EVO 8 or the comprehensive metering and MIDI integration of the M4. Both interfaces provide exceptional audio quality and are excellent choices for enhancing any recording setup.

Detailed Specifications and Review of Audient EVO 8 and MOTU M4

MOTU M4

Audient EVO 8

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 were satisfied with the purchase value of the Audient EVO 8, citing that it offers a great balance between price and features. Many appreciated the interface's affordability compared to other devices with similar specifications. Users pointed out the high-quality preamps and the smart gain feature as standout aspects that provide excellent value for money. 15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, often comparing it unfavorably to cheaper alternatives or expecting more features at this price point. Some users mentioned that while the device is affordable, it lacks certain advanced functionalities found in slightly more expensive models. 85% Quality of Materials 80% of users expressed satisfaction with the quality of materials used in the Audient EVO 8. They appreciated the robust build and the sleek, modern design. Many highlighted the durability of the device and the quality of the knobs and connections, which felt sturdy and reliable. 20% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of materials, noting that the plastic components felt less premium than expected. Some users reported issues with the durability of the knobs over time, suggesting that the materials could be improved to enhance longevity. 80% Ease of Use 90% of users were highly satisfied with how easy the Audient EVO 8 is to use, praising its intuitive design and straightforward setup process. The smart gain feature was particularly well-received for simplifying the recording process, making it accessible for beginners and convenient for experienced users alike. 10% of users felt the ease of use was lacking, primarily due to initial setup challenges or compatibility issues with certain operating systems. A few users also found the manual and instructions insufficiently detailed, which led to frustration during the installation process. 90% Audio Quality 95% of users were extremely satisfied with the audio quality provided by the Audient EVO 8, with many praising the clarity and detail it delivers. The high-quality preamps were frequently mentioned as a highlight, along with the low noise floor that enhances recording quality. 5% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the audio quality, often due to specific issues like background noise or interference that they encountered. Some users also noted that while the quality is generally high, it may not meet the standards of professional studio requirements. 95% Portability 75% of users were satisfied with the portability of the Audient EVO 8, appreciating its compact size and lightweight design, which makes it easy to transport for mobile recording sessions or live performances. 25% of users were dissatisfied with the portability, citing that the device, while compact, still requires additional equipment like cables and a laptop, which can complicate truly portable setups. Some users desired a more integrated solution. 75% Connectivity Options 85% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options offered by the Audient EVO 8. They found the USB Type-C connection reliable and appreciated the multiple input and output options, which cater to a variety of recording needs. 15% of users were not satisfied with the connectivity options, mainly due to limitations in digital outputs or the lack of certain ports they considered essential for their specific setups. Some users felt that more advanced connectivity options would have improved versatility. 85% Software Integration 80% of users were satisfied with the software integration, finding it seamless with most digital audio workstations (DAWs). Many praised the included software for enhancing the functionality of the interface. 20% of users experienced dissatisfaction with software integration, often due to compatibility issues with less common DAWs or operating systems. Some users reported difficulties in accessing all features through the software interface. 80% Customer Support 70% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by Audient, noting prompt responses and helpful guidance during troubleshooting. Many users appreciated the availability of online resources and community forums for additional support. 30% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing delayed responses or inadequate solutions to their issues. Some users felt that the support team lacked the expertise needed to address more complex technical problems effectively. 70% Durability 75% of users expressed satisfaction with the durability of the Audient EVO 8, mentioning that it withstood regular use without significant wear and tear. Users appreciated the sturdy construction, which gave them confidence in the product's longevity. 25% of users were dissatisfied with the durability, reporting that certain components, like the knobs or ports, showed signs of wear or malfunctioned after extended use. Some users expected a more rugged build to withstand frequent transportation. 75% Versatility 85% of users appreciated the versatility of the Audient EVO 8, noting its ability to handle various recording scenarios from podcasts to music production. The multiple input options and smart gain feature were highlighted as key aspects that enhance versatility. 15% of users found the versatility lacking, particularly those who required more specialized features or higher channel counts. Some users felt that while versatile for its size, it didn't meet the needs of more demanding recording environments. 85% Latency Performance 90% of users were impressed with the low latency performance of the Audient EVO 8, which ensured smooth recording and monitoring experiences. Many users mentioned that the latency was negligible, making it ideal for real-time applications. 10% of users experienced issues with latency, often linked to specific software configurations or hardware setups. Some users noted that while generally low, latency could become noticeable when pushing the device to its limits. 90% Aesthetic Design 80% of users were pleased with the aesthetic design of the Audient EVO 8, appreciating its modern and sleek appearance. The compact form factor and minimalistic interface were frequently praised for their visual appeal. 20% of users were less satisfied with the design, expressing that the minimalistic approach sometimes compromised functionality, such as having fewer physical controls available. Some users preferred a more traditional design with more tactile feedback. 80% User Manual Clarity 70% of users found the user manual to be clear and helpful, providing adequate information for setup and operation. Many users appreciated the straightforward language and diagrams that aided their understanding. 30% of users were dissatisfied with the user manual, finding it lacking in detail or not covering advanced features sufficiently. Some users had to resort to online resources or customer support to fill in the gaps. 70% Driver Stability 85% of users reported satisfaction with the stability of the drivers for the Audient EVO 8, noting that they experienced few to no crashes or glitches during operation. Many users appreciated the regular updates that kept the interface running smoothly. 15% of users encountered issues with driver stability, including occasional crashes or compatibility problems with certain operating systems. Some users felt that the drivers needed more frequent updates or better optimization. 85% Smart Gain Feature 95% of users were thrilled with the smart gain feature, which made setting levels easy and efficient. Many praised it as a game-changer for both novice users and professionals, as it significantly simplified the recording setup process. 5% of users were less impressed with the smart gain feature, mainly because they preferred manual control over gain settings. A few users found it occasionally inconsistent in achieving the desired levels, especially in complex recording environments. 95% Size and Weight 80% of users were satisfied with the size and weight of the Audient EVO 8, finding it compact and lightweight enough for easy transportation, which is ideal for users with limited workspace or those who travel frequently. 20% of users found the size and weight to be less satisfactory, feeling that the compactness sometimes resulted in a cramped layout of controls. Some users would have preferred a slightly larger device with more space for additional features. 80% Included Software 75% of users appreciated the included software, which added value to the Audient EVO 8 by enhancing its functionality. Many users found the software to be a great starting point for beginners, offering good basic tools for recording and editing. 25% of users were dissatisfied with the included software, feeling that it was too basic or limited in features. Some users expected more comprehensive options or compatibility with a wider range of professional software suites. 75% Preamp Quality 90% of users were impressed with the preamp quality of the Audient EVO 8, highlighting the clean and transparent sound it delivers. Many users praised the preamps for their ability to capture detailed audio without introducing noise. 10% of users were dissatisfied with the preamp quality, noting that while generally high, it occasionally fell short in very demanding recording situations. Some users compared it unfavorably to more expensive, high-end preamps. 90% Compatibility with DAWs 85% of users reported good compatibility with a wide range of DAWs, appreciating the seamless integration and plug-and-play functionality. Many users found that setting up the Audient EVO 8 with their preferred DAW was quick and hassle-free. 15% of users faced compatibility issues with certain DAWs, requiring additional configuration or workarounds. Some users felt that more effort could be made to ensure smoother integration with less common or older DAWs. 85% Noise Floor 90% of users were satisfied with the low noise floor of the Audient EVO 8, which contributed to clear and pristine recordings. Many users highlighted this feature as a key advantage, especially when recording in quieter environments. 10% of users found the noise floor to be a problem, mainly when using the device in less controlled environments where noise could become noticeable. Some users expected even lower noise levels for more demanding audio applications. 90% Overall Performance 88% of users were satisfied with the overall performance of the Audient EVO 8, praising its reliability, excellent audio quality, and user-friendly features. Users felt that it met or exceeded their expectations for a device in its price range. 12% of users were less satisfied with the overall performance, often due to specific issues like software glitches or build quality concerns. Some users felt that while the device performed well in general, certain aspects could be improved to enhance the user experience. 88% 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 were satisfied with the purchase value of the Audient EVO 8, citing that it offers a great balance between price and features. Many appreciated the interface's affordability compared to other devices with similar specifications. Users pointed out the high-quality preamps and the smart gain feature as standout aspects that provide excellent value for money.

15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, often comparing it unfavorably to cheaper alternatives or expecting more features at this price point. Some users mentioned that while the device is affordable, it lacks certain advanced functionalities found in slightly more expensive models.

85%
Quality of Materials

80% of users expressed satisfaction with the quality of materials used in the Audient EVO 8. They appreciated the robust build and the sleek, modern design. Many highlighted the durability of the device and the quality of the knobs and connections, which felt sturdy and reliable.

20% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of materials, noting that the plastic components felt less premium than expected. Some users reported issues with the durability of the knobs over time, suggesting that the materials could be improved to enhance longevity.

80%
Ease of Use

90% of users were highly satisfied with how easy the Audient EVO 8 is to use, praising its intuitive design and straightforward setup process. The smart gain feature was particularly well-received for simplifying the recording process, making it accessible for beginners and convenient for experienced users alike.

10% of users felt the ease of use was lacking, primarily due to initial setup challenges or compatibility issues with certain operating systems. A few users also found the manual and instructions insufficiently detailed, which led to frustration during the installation process.

90%
Audio Quality

95% of users were extremely satisfied with the audio quality provided by the Audient EVO 8, with many praising the clarity and detail it delivers. The high-quality preamps were frequently mentioned as a highlight, along with the low noise floor that enhances recording quality.

5% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the audio quality, often due to specific issues like background noise or interference that they encountered. Some users also noted that while the quality is generally high, it may not meet the standards of professional studio requirements.

95%
Portability

75% of users were satisfied with the portability of the Audient EVO 8, appreciating its compact size and lightweight design, which makes it easy to transport for mobile recording sessions or live performances.

25% of users were dissatisfied with the portability, citing that the device, while compact, still requires additional equipment like cables and a laptop, which can complicate truly portable setups. Some users desired a more integrated solution.

75%
Connectivity Options

85% of users were satisfied with the connectivity options offered by the Audient EVO 8. They found the USB Type-C connection reliable and appreciated the multiple input and output options, which cater to a variety of recording needs.

15% of users were not satisfied with the connectivity options, mainly due to limitations in digital outputs or the lack of certain ports they considered essential for their specific setups. Some users felt that more advanced connectivity options would have improved versatility.

85%
Software Integration

80% of users were satisfied with the software integration, finding it seamless with most digital audio workstations (DAWs). Many praised the included software for enhancing the functionality of the interface.

20% of users experienced dissatisfaction with software integration, often due to compatibility issues with less common DAWs or operating systems. Some users reported difficulties in accessing all features through the software interface.

80%
Customer Support

70% of users were satisfied with the customer support provided by Audient, noting prompt responses and helpful guidance during troubleshooting. Many users appreciated the availability of online resources and community forums for additional support.

30% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing delayed responses or inadequate solutions to their issues. Some users felt that the support team lacked the expertise needed to address more complex technical problems effectively.

70%
Durability

75% of users expressed satisfaction with the durability of the Audient EVO 8, mentioning that it withstood regular use without significant wear and tear. Users appreciated the sturdy construction, which gave them confidence in the product's longevity.

25% of users were dissatisfied with the durability, reporting that certain components, like the knobs or ports, showed signs of wear or malfunctioned after extended use. Some users expected a more rugged build to withstand frequent transportation.

75%
Versatility

85% of users appreciated the versatility of the Audient EVO 8, noting its ability to handle various recording scenarios from podcasts to music production. The multiple input options and smart gain feature were highlighted as key aspects that enhance versatility.

15% of users found the versatility lacking, particularly those who required more specialized features or higher channel counts. Some users felt that while versatile for its size, it didn't meet the needs of more demanding recording environments.

85%
Latency Performance

90% of users were impressed with the low latency performance of the Audient EVO 8, which ensured smooth recording and monitoring experiences. Many users mentioned that the latency was negligible, making it ideal for real-time applications.

10% of users experienced issues with latency, often linked to specific software configurations or hardware setups. Some users noted that while generally low, latency could become noticeable when pushing the device to its limits.

90%
Aesthetic Design

80% of users were pleased with the aesthetic design of the Audient EVO 8, appreciating its modern and sleek appearance. The compact form factor and minimalistic interface were frequently praised for their visual appeal.

20% of users were less satisfied with the design, expressing that the minimalistic approach sometimes compromised functionality, such as having fewer physical controls available. Some users preferred a more traditional design with more tactile feedback.

80%
User Manual Clarity

70% of users found the user manual to be clear and helpful, providing adequate information for setup and operation. Many users appreciated the straightforward language and diagrams that aided their understanding.

30% of users were dissatisfied with the user manual, finding it lacking in detail or not covering advanced features sufficiently. Some users had to resort to online resources or customer support to fill in the gaps.

70%
Driver Stability

85% of users reported satisfaction with the stability of the drivers for the Audient EVO 8, noting that they experienced few to no crashes or glitches during operation. Many users appreciated the regular updates that kept the interface running smoothly.

15% of users encountered issues with driver stability, including occasional crashes or compatibility problems with certain operating systems. Some users felt that the drivers needed more frequent updates or better optimization.

85%
Smart Gain Feature

95% of users were thrilled with the smart gain feature, which made setting levels easy and efficient. Many praised it as a game-changer for both novice users and professionals, as it significantly simplified the recording setup process.

5% of users were less impressed with the smart gain feature, mainly because they preferred manual control over gain settings. A few users found it occasionally inconsistent in achieving the desired levels, especially in complex recording environments.

95%
Size and Weight

80% of users were satisfied with the size and weight of the Audient EVO 8, finding it compact and lightweight enough for easy transportation, which is ideal for users with limited workspace or those who travel frequently.

20% of users found the size and weight to be less satisfactory, feeling that the compactness sometimes resulted in a cramped layout of controls. Some users would have preferred a slightly larger device with more space for additional features.

80%
Included Software

75% of users appreciated the included software, which added value to the Audient EVO 8 by enhancing its functionality. Many users found the software to be a great starting point for beginners, offering good basic tools for recording and editing.

25% of users were dissatisfied with the included software, feeling that it was too basic or limited in features. Some users expected more comprehensive options or compatibility with a wider range of professional software suites.

75%
Preamp Quality

90% of users were impressed with the preamp quality of the Audient EVO 8, highlighting the clean and transparent sound it delivers. Many users praised the preamps for their ability to capture detailed audio without introducing noise.

10% of users were dissatisfied with the preamp quality, noting that while generally high, it occasionally fell short in very demanding recording situations. Some users compared it unfavorably to more expensive, high-end preamps.

90%
Compatibility with DAWs

85% of users reported good compatibility with a wide range of DAWs, appreciating the seamless integration and plug-and-play functionality. Many users found that setting up the Audient EVO 8 with their preferred DAW was quick and hassle-free.

15% of users faced compatibility issues with certain DAWs, requiring additional configuration or workarounds. Some users felt that more effort could be made to ensure smoother integration with less common or older DAWs.

85%
Noise Floor

90% of users were satisfied with the low noise floor of the Audient EVO 8, which contributed to clear and pristine recordings. Many users highlighted this feature as a key advantage, especially when recording in quieter environments.

10% of users found the noise floor to be a problem, mainly when using the device in less controlled environments where noise could become noticeable. Some users expected even lower noise levels for more demanding audio applications.

90%
Overall Performance

88% of users were satisfied with the overall performance of the Audient EVO 8, praising its reliability, excellent audio quality, and user-friendly features. Users felt that it met or exceeded their expectations for a device in its price range.

12% of users were less satisfied with the overall performance, often due to specific issues like software glitches or build quality concerns. Some users felt that while the device performed well in general, certain aspects could be improved to enhance the user experience.

88%

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.	High-quality preamps with 58dB gain range for clean recordings. Smartgain feature automatically sets input levels for optimal recording. USB Type-C connectivity for fast and reliable data transfer. Compact and portable design, ideal for mobile recording setups. User-friendly interface with easy-to-use controls.

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.

High-quality preamps with 58dB gain range for clean recordings.
Smartgain feature automatically sets input levels for optimal recording.
USB Type-C connectivity for fast and reliable data transfer.
Compact and portable design, ideal for mobile recording setups.
User-friendly interface with easy-to-use controls.

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 4 inputs and 4 outputs, which might not be enough for larger setups. No MIDI I/O, limiting connectivity with MIDI controllers and instruments. Plastic construction might not be as durable as metal alternatives. No onboard DSP for real-time effects processing. Requires external power supply, which can limit portability.

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

When comparing the Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface, several key specifications highlight their differences and strengths.
The Audient EVO 8 offers a robust analog I/O configuration with 4 inputs and 4 outputs, featuring 4 microphone preamps, which is beneficial for users needing multiple mic connections. It supports a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz at 24-bit resolution, providing high-quality audio capture. The interface includes 4 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line inputs, a 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input on the front panel, and 4 balanced line outputs, along with 2 unbalanced headphone outputs. It connects via USB-C and is compatible with macOS (10.7.5 or later) and Windows (7 or later, 32-/64-bit), drawing power through USB bus.
On the other hand, the MOTU M4 presents a slightly different configuration, with 4 inputs and 4 outputs, but only 2 microphone preamps. Its maximum sampling rate is higher at 192 kHz, allowing for even greater audio fidelity. The M4 features 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced mic/line/Hi-Z inputs, 2 balanced line inputs, a single unbalanced headphone output, and 4 balanced line outputs, which include DC-coupled connections. Like the EVO 8, it uses a USB-C connection and is compatible with newer versions of macOS (10.11 or later) and Windows (7 or 9 or later), also powered through USB bus.
In summary, the choice between the Audient EVO 8 and the MOTU M4 largely depends on a user's specific needs. The EVO 8 is ideal for those requiring more microphone inputs and a simpler setup, while the M4 excels in audio fidelity with its higher sampling rate and offers slightly more versatile input options.

General
Channels of I/O
Analog: 4 Inputs / 4 Outputs	Analog: 4 Inputs / 4 Outputs at 96 kHz
Maximum Sampling Rate
192 kHz / 24-Bit	96 kHz / 24-Bit
Number of Microphone Inputs
2 Preamps	4 Preamps
Input Level Adjustment
2x Knob	4x Automatic 1x Knob
Expansion Slots

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface both offer robust features for audio recording and production, yet they cater to different needs and preferences.
In terms of Channels of I/O, both interfaces provide 4 inputs and 4 outputs, allowing for a versatile setup for various audio applications. The Audient EVO 8 supports a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz / 24-Bit, while the MOTU M4 outperforms it with a higher maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz / 24-Bit. This makes the MOTU M4 a better option for those seeking higher audio fidelity and detail in their recordings.
Regarding Number of Microphone Inputs, the Audient EVO 8 features 4 microphone preamps, which is advantageous for users who need multiple mic channels for recording instruments or ensembles simultaneously. In contrast, the MOTU M4 comes equipped with 2 microphone preamps, making it more suitable for simpler setups or solo recordings.
Both interfaces include Input Level Adjustment, but the Audient EVO 8 offers a more automated approach with 4 automatic input level adjustments alongside a single knob for manual control. The MOTU M4 features 2 input level knobs, providing straightforward manual adjustment for its microphone inputs, but lacks the automated functionality found in the EVO 8.
Lastly, both devices do not have Expansion Slots, indicating that neither supports additional hardware expansions for further enhancement of their capabilities.
In summary, the choice between the Audient EVO 8 and the MOTU M4 ultimately depends on specific user requirements. The EVO 8 is ideal for those needing multiple microphone inputs and automated level adjustments, while the MOTU M4 is better suited for users looking for higher sampling rates and more straightforward manual controls.

Signal Processing
Pad

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

Solo/Mute
	Mute per Input Channel, Master

The Audient EVO 8 and MOTU M4 are both robust USB-C audio interfaces, but they differ notably in their specifications.
In terms of gain and trim range, the Audient EVO 8 offers a mic/line/Hi-Z input range of up to 58 dB, providing a solid level of amplification suitable for various recording needs. On the other hand, the MOTU M4 features a slightly broader gain range for its mic inputs, from 0 dB to +60 dB, and for line/Hi-Z inputs, it ranges from 0 dB to +57 dB. This allows for greater flexibility in adjusting levels, particularly for mic inputs on the MOTU M4, which may be beneficial for different recording scenarios.
Neither interface includes a high-pass filter, which means that users will need to manage low-frequency handling through other means. When it comes to solo/mute functionality, the Audient EVO 8 provides mute options per input channel as well as a master mute, allowing for more control during live monitoring or playback. In contrast, the MOTU M4 does not offer solo or mute features, which may limit some users' ability to isolate or silence tracks during the mixing process.
Overall, while both audio interfaces lack a pad and high-pass filter, the differences in gain range and mute functionality can influence a user's choice based on their specific recording and mixing needs. The Audient EVO 8 may appeal more to those who require more control over input levels and track management, while the MOTU M4's gain flexibility can be advantageous for varied recording setups.

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	4x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced Mic/Line Input (Pin 2 Hot) 1x 1/4" TS Unbalanced Hi-Z Input (Front Panel) 4x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (Tip Hot) 2x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output
Phantom Power
48 V, Selectable On/Off (Selectable on Individual Inputs)	48 V ± 4 V, Selectable On/Off (Selectable on Individual Inputs)
Digital Audio I/O

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

Sync I/O

Network I/O

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

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface offer distinct features tailored for different audio production needs.
Starting with the Audient EVO 8, it includes a total of 4 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced mic/line inputs, along with an additional 1/4" TS unbalanced Hi-Z input located on the front panel. The interface also provides 4 balanced line outputs and two unbalanced headphone outputs. One of the standout features of the EVO 8 is its selectable 48V phantom power available for each input, making it versatile for various recording scenarios. However, this interface does not support digital audio I/O, MIDI connectivity, or any sync/network I/O, focusing purely on analog audio routing.
In contrast, the MOTU M4 features a more versatile connectivity setup with 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS inputs that can accommodate mic, line, or Hi-Z signals, alongside 2 additional balanced line inputs. It offers a single unbalanced headphone output and 4 balanced line outputs, which includes DC-coupled functionality. Like the EVO 8, the M4 also provides selectable 48V phantom power on individual inputs. A key advantage of the MOTU M4 is its MIDI I/O, featuring both a DIN 5-pin input and output, which makes it suitable for connecting MIDI devices. However, the M4, similar to the EVO 8, does not include digital audio I/O or sync/network I/O.
In summary, while both interfaces have robust analog capabilities and phantom power options, the choice between the Audient EVO 8 and the MOTU M4 ultimately depends on the user's need for MIDI connectivity. The EVO 8 is ideal for users focused solely on analog recordings, whereas the MOTU M4 caters to those who require MIDI integration in their setup.

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, Line Inputs: 10 Hz to 40 kHz ±0.5 dB Hi-Z Inputs: 10 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.5 dB A/D Converters: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB D/A Converters: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB Headphone Outputs: 10 Hz to fs/2 ±0.5 dB
Maximum Input Level
Mic Inputs: +10 dBu (Min Gain) Line/Hi-Z Inputs: +16 dBu (Min Gain) Line Inputs: +18 dBu (Min Gain)	Mic/Line Inputs: +16 dBu Hi-Z Inputs: +10 dBu
Maximum Output Level
Line Outputs: +16 dBu (Balanced) Line Outputs: +9.5 dBu (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: +12.5 dBu	D/A Converters: +11 dBu Headphone Outputs: +10.1 dBu (600-Ohm Load)
Impedance
Mic Inputs: 2.65 Kilohms Line Inputs: 2 Megohms Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm Line Outputs: 100 Ohms	Mic Inputs: > 3 Kilohms (Balanced) Line Inputs: > 10 Kilohms (Balanced) Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm (Unbalanced) Line Outputs: < 100 Ohms (Balanced) Headphone Outputs: < 50 Ohms (Unbalanced)
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	AD/DA Converters: 113 dBA Headphone Outputs: 113 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/Line Inputs: < 0.0015% (1 kHz) Hi-Z Inputs: < 0.3% (1 kHz) D/A Converters: < 0.0015% (1 kHz, at -1 dBFS) Headphone Outputs: < 0.0015% (1 kHz, at -1 dBFS)
EIN
Mic Inputs: -129 dB A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)	Mic/Line Inputs: < -128 dBu

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface both offer robust specifications, but they differ in several key areas.
Starting with frequency response, the EVO 8 excels in its broader range, particularly for mic and line inputs, spanning from 10 Hz to 40 kHz with a tolerance of ±0.5 dB. In contrast, the MOTU M4 has a more limited frequency response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz for its mic inputs, with slightly wider ranges for line and Hi-Z inputs, but still not matching the EVO 8's capabilities. This makes the EVO 8 potentially more suitable for high-fidelity recordings that require extended frequency response.
When it comes to dynamic range, the MOTU M4 edges out slightly with a dynamic range of 115 dBA for mic inputs compared to the EVO 8's 113 dBA. However, both interfaces provide impressive performance for professional audio applications. The maximum input levels also vary, with the EVO 8 offering +16 dBu for mic/line inputs and +10 dBu for Hi-Z inputs, while the MOTU M4 allows for +10 dBu for mic inputs and +16 dBu for line/Hi-Z inputs, indicating a slight advantage in handling signal levels for the MOTU M4.
In terms of THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise), the MOTU M4 again performs better across the board, with its mic inputs showing a THD+N of < 0.0014% and line inputs as low as < 0.0005%. The EVO 8, while still impressive, has higher figures in comparison, particularly for Hi-Z inputs at < 0.3%.
The headphone output power of the EVO 8 is rated at a maximum of 52 mW into 60 Ohms, whereas the MOTU M4 provides a maximum output of 12.5 dBu, suggesting the EVO 8 may be preferable for users requiring powerful headphone output. Additionally, the EVO 8's EIN (Equivalent Input Noise) for mic inputs is -128 dBu, while the MOTU M4 offers an impressive -129 dB A-Weighted, indicating a slightly quieter performance for the MOTU under maximum gain conditions.
In summary, while both audio interfaces deliver high-quality specifications, the Audient EVO 8 provides a broader frequency response and strong headphone output capabilities, making it ideal for detailed recordings and monitoring. On the other hand, the MOTU M4 boasts superior dynamic range, lower THD+N, and slightly better EIN performance, positioning it as an excellent choice for those prioritizing minimal distortion and noise in their audio setups.

Digital Audio
Sample Rates
Up to 192 kHz	44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 kHz
Sample Rate Conversion

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

When comparing the Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface, several key specifications stand out.
The Audient EVO 8 supports sample rates of 44.1, 48, 88.2, and 96 kHz, while the MOTU M4 offers a broader range, with sample rates up to 192 kHz. This advantage in sample rate capability allows the MOTU M4 to capture higher audio fidelity, making it a better choice for users who require superior sound quality in their recordings.
In terms of bit depth, both interfaces provide up to 24-Bit depth, ensuring high-quality audio capture for professional applications. However, the latency performance differs between the two devices. The Audient EVO 8 has a latency of 5 ms at 44.1 kHz and 4.1 ms at 96 kHz, which is relatively low but not the lowest in its class. The MOTU M4, on the other hand, features zero-latency direct monitoring and an impressive 2.5 ms latency at 96 kHz, making it ideal for real-time audio processing without noticeable delay.
Both interfaces utilize internal sync sources, making them reliable for synchronized recording environments. However, the enhanced performance metrics of the MOTU M4, especially regarding sample rate and latency, position it as a more advanced option for users requiring high-quality audio capture and monitoring.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

When comparing the Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface, both products share the feature of not having a memory card slot. This means that users will need to rely on other storage options for their recordings and projects.
The Audient EVO 8 is designed with a focus on user-friendly features and high-quality audio performance. It features four inputs and four outputs, providing ample connectivity for various recording setups. The interface also includes smart gain functionality, which automatically sets input levels, making it an excellent choice for beginners or those who want to streamline their recording process.
On the other hand, the MOTU M4 offers a slightly different approach with its 4x4 configuration and a more extensive set of monitoring features. It boasts high-performance AD/DA converters and a loopback feature that is ideal for live streaming and podcasting. Additionally, the MOTU M4 is known for its low latency and robust build quality, making it a solid choice for both studio and mobile recording environments.
In summary, while both the Audient EVO 8 and MOTU M4 do not include a memory card slot, they cater to different user needs and preferences. The EVO 8 emphasizes ease of use and smart technology, while the MOTU M4 focuses on professional-grade audio quality and versatile monitoring options. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on individual requirements and the specific features that resonate most with the user.

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later	macOS 10.7.5 or Later Windows 7 or Later (32-/64-Bit)
Processor Requirement
Mac: 1 GHz Intel PC: 1 GHz Intel Pentium	Mac: Intel PC: 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2
RAM Requirements
2 GB, 4 GB Recommended	1 GB
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 Audient EVO 8 and the MOTU M4 are both robust audio interfaces designed to meet the needs of musicians, producers, and content creators, but they exhibit notable differences in their specifications and requirements.
Starting with the OS Compatibility, the Audient EVO 8 supports macOS 10.7.5 or later and Windows 7 or later, offering flexibility for users of older systems. In contrast, the MOTU M4 requires macOS 10.11 or later and supports Windows 7 or later, but also includes compatibility for Windows 9, making it slightly more versatile for Windows users.
When it comes to Processor Requirements, the Audient EVO 8 demands a Mac with an Intel processor at 1.6 GHz and a PC with a similar Intel Core 2 requirement. The MOTU M4, however, requires only a 1 GHz Intel processor for both Mac and PC, which could make it more accessible for users with lower-spec machines.
In terms of RAM Requirements, the Audient EVO 8 only needs 1 GB of RAM, while the MOTU M4 necessitates a minimum of 2 GB, with 4 GB recommended. This means that the EVO 8 may be a better option for users with limited system resources.
Both interfaces require an Available USB 2.0 Port and include a USB cable in the package. An Internet Connection is necessary for software and driver downloads for both devices, ensuring that users can easily access the latest updates.
In summary, the Audient EVO 8 offers compatibility with older operating systems and lower RAM requirements, making it ideal for users with less demanding setups. On the other hand, the MOTU M4 provides greater versatility with its processor specifications and supports a broader range of Windows versions, although it demands more RAM. Depending on the user's existing equipment and needs, either interface could serve as an excellent choice for enhancing audio production capabilities.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface both utilize USB bus power for their operation, ensuring a streamlined setup without the need for an external power supply. This feature is particularly beneficial for users who prioritize portability and convenience, as both interfaces can be easily powered through a connected computer or laptop.
In terms of connectivity, both devices are equipped with USB Type-C ports, allowing for fast data transfer and compatibility with modern devices. The Audient EVO 8 offers four inputs and four outputs, making it suitable for multi-track recording scenarios. Its intuitive design and smart gain feature provide users with ease of use, especially for those new to audio interfaces. Conversely, the MOTU M4 also boasts four inputs and outputs, but it includes additional MIDI connectivity, catering to musicians and producers who require integration with MIDI devices.
When it comes to audio quality, both interfaces are designed to deliver high-resolution sound. The Audient EVO 8 is equipped with high-performance converters and preamps that enhance the overall audio experience. The MOTU M4, on the other hand, is known for its exceptional audio performance and ultra-low latency, making it an excellent choice for professional applications. Both interfaces come with software bundles, further enhancing their value for users seeking to create high-quality recordings.
Overall, while both the Audient EVO 8 and the MOTU M4 share the common feature of USB bus power, they cater to slightly different user needs. The EVO 8 is ideal for those looking for a straightforward, user-friendly interface, while the M4 offers advanced features such as MIDI connectivity and superior audio performance, making it suitable for more complex studio setups.

Physical
Dimensions
8.25 x 4.25 x 1.75" / 20.96 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm (Chassis Only)	7.48 x 2.76 x 2.76" / 19 x 7 x 7 cm
Weight
1.6 lb / 0.7 kg	1.0 lb / 0.5 kg

The Audient EVO 8 and MOTU M4 are both excellent USB audio interfaces, but they cater to slightly different user needs with their unique specifications.
In terms of dimensions, the Audient EVO 8 is more compact, measuring 7.48 x 2.76 x 2.76 inches (19 x 7 x 7 cm), making it an ideal choice for those with limited desktop space. It weighs 1.0 lb (0.5 kg), which enhances its portability for traveling musicians or producers. On the other hand, the MOTU M4 is slightly larger and bulkier, with dimensions of 8.25 x 4.25 x 1.75 inches (20.96 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm) and a weight of 1.6 lb (0.7 kg). This additional weight and size may be a consideration for users who prioritize portability.
Another noteworthy feature of the MOTU M4 is its anti-theft capability, equipped with a Kensington Security Slot. This feature is particularly appealing for users who may be using the interface in public spaces or shared environments, providing an added layer of security that the Audient EVO 8 lacks.
In summary, if you require a more compact and lightweight audio interface, the Audient EVO 8 would be a suitable choice. However, if security is a priority along with slightly more robust dimensions, the MOTU M4 may be the better option. Both interfaces offer quality performance, but their specifications cater to different user preferences and situations.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
2.15 lb	1.79 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
10.6 x 7.3 x 2.8"	9.1 x 4.2 x 3.6"

The Audient EVO 8 Desktop 4x4 USB Type-C Audio Interface and the MOTU M4 USB-C Audio-MIDI Interface present distinct features catering to different user needs in the realm of audio recording and production.
In terms of package weight, the Audient EVO 8 is lighter at 1.79 lb, making it a more portable option for musicians and audio engineers who are frequently on the move. Conversely, the MOTU M4 weighs 2.15 lb, which may be slightly bulkier but still manageable for transport. The difference in weight could influence the decision for users who prioritize portability versus those who may not mind a bit more heft in exchange for additional features.
When it comes to box dimensions, the Audient EVO 8 measures 9.1 x 4.2 x 3.6", which offers a compact design suitable for desktop setups with limited space. On the other hand, the MOTU M4 is larger, with dimensions of 10.6 x 7.3 x 2.8". The increased size of the MOTU M4 may suggest more extensive connectivity options or additional features, which could be appealing for users who require more than just basic functionality.
Overall, while the Audient EVO 8 provides a lightweight and compact solution for those on the go, the MOTU M4 offers a slightly bulkier option that may support a wider range of applications and connectivity. The choice between these two interfaces will largely depend on the specific needs and preferences of the user regarding portability and features.