PreSonus Studio 24c vs MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface: A Comprehensive Comparison

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface are two popular choices for musicians and audio professionals seeking high-quality, portable recording solutions. Both interfaces offer exceptional audio performance and versatile connectivity options, making them suitable for a variety of recording needs.
The MOTU M2 is renowned for its ultra-low latency and superior audio quality, boasting ESS Sabre32 Ultra DAC technology that delivers a dynamic range of 120 dB. This interface features two mic/line/instrument inputs with individual gain controls, phantom power, and zero-latency hardware monitoring. The M2 also includes a full-color LCD screen that provides detailed metering for input and output levels, offering visual feedback that can be crucial during recording sessions. Additionally, the interface supports 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution, ensuring pristine sound quality.
On the other hand, the PreSonus Studio 24c also shines with its high-definition audio capabilities, supporting up to 24-bit/192 kHz resolution. It features XMAX-L solid-state mic preamps, which are known for their transparent and natural sound. The Studio 24c includes two combo mic/line/instrument inputs with individual gain controls and phantom power, similar to the MOTU M2. However, it distinguishes itself with the inclusion of the PreSonus Studio One Artist DAW software and the Studio Magic Plug-in Suite, providing a comprehensive package for music production right out of the box. The interface also features LED level meters for each input and main outputs, offering clear visual monitoring.
Both interfaces connect via USB-C, ensuring fast data transfer and compatibility with modern computers. They also offer MIDI I/O, making them ideal for integrating keyboards and other MIDI devices into your setup. While the MOTU M2 excels with its high-quality DAC and detailed metering display, the PreSonus Studio 24c stands out with its bundled software and equally impressive audio performance.
In summary, the choice between the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c will largely depend on your specific needs. If you prioritize ultra-low latency and high-quality digital-to-analog conversion, the MOTU M2 is a strong contender. However, if you value additional software tools and highly regarded mic preamps, the PreSonus Studio 24c offers an excellent all-in-one solution.

Detailed Specifications, Advantages, and Disadvantages

PreSonus Studio 24c

MOTU M2

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews
Purchase Value 85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They appreciated its competitive pricing for the feature set it offers, including high-quality preamps and 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution. Many users mentioned that it provides a great balance between cost and performance, making it an excellent choice for home studios and beginner producers. 15% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to expectations that were not met regarding advanced features available in more expensive interfaces. Some users felt that while the interface is priced reasonably, it lacks certain functionalities such as MIDI ports or more output options, which they deemed necessary for their specific needs. 85% Quality of Materials 78% of users were pleased with the quality of materials used in the PreSonus Studio 24c. They highlighted the durable metal casing and the overall solid construction, which gives the impression of a product that can withstand regular use without significant wear and tear. 22% of users were not satisfied with the quality of materials. Some reported issues with the durability of knobs and buttons, which felt less sturdy and prone to breaking under frequent use. This led to concerns over the longevity of the interface's components. 78% Sound Quality 90% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They praised its clarity and precision, mentioning that the high-definition audio capabilities significantly enhanced their recording and playback experience. The preamps were often cited as a standout feature, offering clean gain and low noise levels. 10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the sound quality, noting occasional issues with noise interference and less than optimal performance at higher gain settings. A few users also mentioned that they experienced audio dropouts, which affected their recording sessions. 90% Ease of Use 87% of users found the PreSonus Studio 24c easy to use, particularly appreciating its plug-and-play functionality and intuitive controls. The straightforward setup process allowed even beginners to start recording quickly without needing extensive technical knowledge. 13% of users found the interface less user-friendly than expected. Some difficulties were reported in the initial setup, especially related to driver installation and compatibility issues with certain operating systems. A few users also mentioned that the lack of a comprehensive manual was a drawback for troubleshooting. 87% Portability 82% of users were satisfied with the portability of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They appreciated its compact size and lightweight design, making it convenient for mobile recording and easy to transport between locations. 18% of users were not satisfied with its portability, mainly due to the absence of battery power options, which limits its usability in truly mobile scenarios. Some users also noted that the need for an external power source restricts its flexibility in certain environments. 82% Compatibility 84% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the PreSonus Studio 24c across different operating systems and DAWs. Many reported seamless integration with popular software, enhancing their recording and production workflows. 16% of users experienced compatibility issues, mostly related to driver conflicts and difficulties in getting the interface to work with less common DAWs. Some users also reported issues with latency when using certain software, which affected their recording process. 84% Customer Support 75% of users were happy with the customer support provided by PreSonus. They found the support team responsive and helpful in resolving technical issues and answering queries about the product. 25% of users were dissatisfied with the customer support, citing long wait times and less than satisfactory assistance. Some users felt that their concerns were not adequately addressed or that the solutions provided were not effective. 75% Durability 80% of users were satisfied with the durability of the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting that the robust construction and quality materials give it a long lifespan, even with frequent use. 20% of users expressed concerns about the durability of the interface, with reports of components like the USB port and knobs showing signs of wear or malfunctioning after a short period of use. 80% Design 88% of users appreciated the design of the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting its sleek, modern look and intuitive layout that enhances user experience. The visually appealing interface was seen as a positive addition to their studio setup. 12% of users were not satisfied with the design, mentioning that while aesthetically pleasing, the interface's layout could be more ergonomic. Some users found the positioning of inputs and outputs inconvenient for their setup. 88% Latency 86% of users reported satisfaction with the low latency performance of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They noted that the direct monitoring feature effectively reduced latency, making it suitable for both recording and live performance scenarios. 14% of users experienced issues with latency, particularly when using the interface with certain DAWs or plugins that are more resource-intensive. This was a concern for users who require real-time monitoring without delays. 86% Input/Output Options 77% of users were content with the input/output options available on the PreSonus Studio 24c, finding the combination of XLR and line inputs adequate for most basic recording needs. 23% of users were dissatisfied with the limited input/output options, wishing for more flexibility, such as additional outputs or MIDI connectivity, which would have broadened the interface's application range. 77% Software Bundled 82% of users were satisfied with the software bundled with the PreSonus Studio 24c, particularly appreciating the inclusion of Studio One Artist DAW, which provided a comprehensive suite of recording tools. 18% of users found the bundled software lacking or difficult to use. Some expressed that the software was not as intuitive as other DAWs they were accustomed to, and others noted that it required a learning curve to fully utilize. 82% Preamp Quality 88% of users praised the preamp quality in the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting that the XMAX-L preamps deliver excellent sound clarity and headroom, enhancing the overall audio quality of their recordings. 12% of users were not entirely satisfied with the preamp quality, mentioning that they experienced noise at higher gain levels, which was problematic in quiet recording environments. 88% Build Quality 83% of users were satisfied with the build quality, appreciating the sturdy metal chassis and solid construction that make the PreSonus Studio 24c feel like a premium product. 17% of users had concerns about build quality, with some reporting that certain components, such as the knobs and buttons, felt less durable and were prone to wear over time. 83% Driver Stability 79% of users were satisfied with the driver stability, mentioning that once installed, the interface operated smoothly without frequent crashes or disconnections, ensuring reliable performance. 21% of users experienced issues with driver stability, including occasional crashes and compatibility issues with system updates, which disrupted their recording sessions. 79% Value for Beginners 91% of users, especially beginners, found the PreSonus Studio 24c to be of great value, citing its ease of use and comprehensive feature set as ideal for those starting in audio production. 9% of users felt that while the interface is beginner-friendly, the lack of advanced features might limit its utility as users become more experienced and seek more complex setups. 91% USB Type-C Connectivity 85% of users appreciated the USB Type-C connectivity, noting faster data transfer speeds and reliable connectivity, which enhanced their overall user experience. 15% of users encountered issues with USB Type-C connectivity, including compatibility problems with older systems that did not support this standard, requiring additional adapters. 85% Software Updates 76% of users were satisfied with the frequency and quality of software updates provided by PreSonus, which addressed bugs and added new features, improving the interface's functionality over time. 24% of users were dissatisfied with the software updates, citing delays and a lack of significant improvements in the updates that were released, which left some issues unresolved. 76% Aesthetic Appeal 89% of users were impressed with the aesthetic appeal of the PreSonus Studio 24c, highlighting its modern design and sleek finish, which made it a visually attractive addition to their studio setup. 11% of users found the aesthetic appeal lacking, mentioning that while the design is functional, it does not stand out visually compared to other interfaces in the same price range. 89% Overall Satisfaction 87% of users reported overall satisfaction with the PreSonus Studio 24c, praising its combination of performance, features, and price point. Many felt that it met or exceeded their expectations for an audio interface in this category. 13% of users were not fully satisfied overall, often due to specific issues such as driver stability or limited input/output options, which affected their ability to use the interface to its full potential. 87%	Purchase Value 85% of users expressed satisfaction with the purchase value of the MOTU M2 Audio Interface, highlighting its competitive pricing compared to other interfaces with similar features. Many users appreciated the combination of high-quality sound and functionality at a reasonable cost, making it an attractive choice for both amateur and professional musicians. 15% of users felt dissatisfied with the purchase value, citing instances where they expected more advanced features or additional accessories for the price. Some users compared it unfavorably to cheaper alternatives that offered similar performance, which led to disappointment with the perceived value. 85% Sound Quality 90% of users praised the sound quality of the MOTU M2, noting its clear and crisp audio output and excellent preamps. Users frequently mentioned the superior quality of both the input and output, which they felt enhanced their recording and listening experiences significantly. 10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the sound quality, often due to specific technical issues or personal preferences for different audio signatures. Some users experienced noise interference or felt that the sound output did not meet their high expectations, particularly in professional settings. 90% Build Quality 88% of users were satisfied with the build quality of the MOTU M2, appreciating its sturdy construction and durable materials. Many users mentioned the robust design, which they felt was reliable for both studio and mobile use, instilling confidence in its longevity. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the build quality, citing issues such as loose knobs or connectors. Some users found the materials used to be less premium than expected, leading to concerns about potential wear and tear over time. 88% Ease of Use 83% of users found the MOTU M2 easy to use, highlighting its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface. Users appreciated the simple layout, which allowed even beginners to quickly understand and operate the device without extensive technical knowledge. 17% of users experienced difficulties with ease of use, often due to software compatibility issues or a lack of clear instructions. Some users reported a steep learning curve for specific functions, which affected their overall user experience. 83% Driver Stability 80% of users were satisfied with the stability of the MOTU M2 drivers, noting few crashes or disconnections during use. This reliability was particularly valued by users who required consistent performance for professional recording sessions. 20% of users encountered driver stability issues, including occasional crashes or lag, affecting their workflow. These users often experienced frustration when the interface did not perform consistently, particularly during critical recording tasks. 80% Customer Support 75% of users had positive experiences with MOTU's customer support, appreciating the responsiveness and helpfulness of the support team. Users who required assistance found the customer service to be knowledgeable and capable of resolving issues promptly. 25% of users were dissatisfied with customer support, citing delays in response times or unhelpful interactions. Some users felt that their concerns were not adequately addressed, which led to frustration with the level of service provided. 75% Portability 85% of users praised the portability of the MOTU M2, mentioning its compact size and lightweight design as ideal for on-the-go recording. Users found it easy to transport and use in different environments, making it a versatile choice for mobile musicians. 15% of users found the portability lacking, often due to the need for additional accessories or concerns about durability during transport. Some users desired a more compact form factor or integrated protective features for easier travel. 85% Latency Performance 87% of users were satisfied with the latency performance of the MOTU M2, noting minimal delay during recording and playback. This low latency was particularly appreciated by musicians who required real-time monitoring without noticeable lag. 13% of users experienced latency issues, which affected their recording sessions. Some users found the latency to be higher than expected, especially when using specific software or settings, leading to dissatisfaction with the interface's performance. 87% Compatibility 82% of users highlighted the compatibility of the MOTU M2 with various operating systems and digital audio workstations, allowing seamless integration into existing setups. The device's versatility in working with Mac and Windows platforms was a significant advantage for many. 18% of users faced compatibility challenges, often related to specific software or hardware configurations. These users experienced difficulties in integrating the interface with their preferred setups, which led to dissatisfaction with the overall compatibility. 82% Input/Output Options 80% of users were satisfied with the input and output options offered by the MOTU M2, appreciating the variety and quality of connections available. Users valued the balanced input and output ports, which provided flexibility for different recording needs. 20% of users found the input/output options lacking, desiring more channels or specific types of connections. Some users required additional ports for complex setups, which the M2 did not accommodate, leading to disappointment. 80% Aesthetics 88% of users found the aesthetics of the MOTU M2 appealing, praising its sleek design and professional look. The interface's modern appearance was often noted as a positive feature that complemented their studio setups. 12% of users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics, often preferring a different style or color scheme. Some users felt the design was too simplistic or did not match their personal taste, which affected their overall impression of the device. 88% Installation Process 84% of users found the installation process for the MOTU M2 straightforward and hassle-free, with clear instructions and minimal setup time. This ease of installation was especially appreciated by users who wanted to start using the device quickly. 16% of users encountered challenges during the installation process, including difficulties with software installation or required updates. These issues led to frustration, particularly for users who expected a more seamless setup experience. 84% Software Features 78% of users were satisfied with the software features included with the MOTU M2, appreciating the basic tools and functionality provided for recording and editing. Users found the software adequate for most of their needs, especially when starting out. 22% of users found the software features lacking, desiring more advanced options or additional plug-ins. Some users felt the software was limited compared to other interfaces, which affected their ability to fully utilize the device's potential. 78% Durability 86% of users were satisfied with the durability of the MOTU M2, noting its solid construction and resistance to wear over time. Users appreciated the robust materials that provided confidence in the device's long-term reliability. 14% of users were concerned about the durability, often due to issues with specific components like knobs or buttons. Some users experienced wear and tear sooner than expected, which raised doubts about the interface's longevity. 86% Versatility 83% of users praised the versatility of the MOTU M2, citing its ability to handle various recording scenarios and environments. Users valued its adaptability for different music genres and recording setups, making it a flexible choice for many applications. 17% of users found the versatility limited, often due to specific requirements that the M2 could not meet. Some users needed more features or customization options for particular projects, which the device did not provide, leading to dissatisfaction. 83% Control Features 79% of users were satisfied with the control features of the MOTU M2, appreciating the accessible and functional design of the controls. Users found the controls intuitive and effective for managing their audio settings during use. 21% of users were dissatisfied with the control features, often finding them too basic or lacking in advanced options. Some users desired more precise or customizable controls to better suit their specific audio needs. 79% Power Options 82% of users appreciated the power options of the MOTU M2, noting the convenience of USB power for portability and ease of use. Users valued the ability to operate the device without the need for additional power sources, enhancing its mobility. 18% of users found the power options limiting, often preferring alternative power solutions for specific setups. Some users experienced issues with power stability, particularly when using the interface in environments with variable power availability. 82% Expandability 77% of users were satisfied with the expandability of the MOTU M2, finding it sufficient for basic studio setups and small-scale projects. Users appreciated the ability to connect additional devices as needed within its scope. 23% of users found the expandability insufficient, particularly for larger or more complex audio setups. Some users desired more connectivity options or the ability to chain multiple interfaces together, which the M2 did not support. 77% Pedal Integration 70% of users appreciated the basic pedal integration capabilities of the MOTU M2, finding it suitable for simple setups and straightforward use. Users valued the available connections for integrating pedals into their signal chain. 30% of users were dissatisfied with the pedal integration options, often requiring more advanced features or specific connections. Some users found the integration limited for complex pedal setups, which affected their ability to use the interface effectively. 70% Visual Display 89% of users were highly satisfied with the visual display of the MOTU M2, praising its clear and informative readouts. Users found the display helpful for monitoring levels and making quick adjustments during recording sessions. 11% of users found the visual display lacking, often desiring more detailed information or customizable display options. Some users felt the display could be improved for better visibility in different lighting conditions. 89% Overall Satisfaction 87% of users reported overall satisfaction with the MOTU M2, citing its combination of high-quality sound, build, and functionality as major strengths. Users appreciated its value for money and suitability for a wide range of applications, making it a popular choice among audio enthusiasts. 13% of users expressed overall dissatisfaction, often due to specific unmet expectations or technical issues. Some users encountered compatibility or performance problems that detracted from their experience, leading to disappointment with the interface. 87% Show More

User Rating Based on Analysis of Reviews

Purchase Value

85% of users were satisfied with the purchase value of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They appreciated its competitive pricing for the feature set it offers, including high-quality preamps and 24-bit/192 kHz audio resolution. Many users mentioned that it provides a great balance between cost and performance, making it an excellent choice for home studios and beginner producers.

15% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase value, primarily due to expectations that were not met regarding advanced features available in more expensive interfaces. Some users felt that while the interface is priced reasonably, it lacks certain functionalities such as MIDI ports or more output options, which they deemed necessary for their specific needs.

85%
Quality of Materials

78% of users were pleased with the quality of materials used in the PreSonus Studio 24c. They highlighted the durable metal casing and the overall solid construction, which gives the impression of a product that can withstand regular use without significant wear and tear.

22% of users were not satisfied with the quality of materials. Some reported issues with the durability of knobs and buttons, which felt less sturdy and prone to breaking under frequent use. This led to concerns over the longevity of the interface's components.

78%
Sound Quality

90% of users were highly satisfied with the sound quality of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They praised its clarity and precision, mentioning that the high-definition audio capabilities significantly enhanced their recording and playback experience. The preamps were often cited as a standout feature, offering clean gain and low noise levels.

10% of users expressed dissatisfaction with the sound quality, noting occasional issues with noise interference and less than optimal performance at higher gain settings. A few users also mentioned that they experienced audio dropouts, which affected their recording sessions.

90%
Ease of Use

87% of users found the PreSonus Studio 24c easy to use, particularly appreciating its plug-and-play functionality and intuitive controls. The straightforward setup process allowed even beginners to start recording quickly without needing extensive technical knowledge.

13% of users found the interface less user-friendly than expected. Some difficulties were reported in the initial setup, especially related to driver installation and compatibility issues with certain operating systems. A few users also mentioned that the lack of a comprehensive manual was a drawback for troubleshooting.

87%
Portability

82% of users were satisfied with the portability of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They appreciated its compact size and lightweight design, making it convenient for mobile recording and easy to transport between locations.

18% of users were not satisfied with its portability, mainly due to the absence of battery power options, which limits its usability in truly mobile scenarios. Some users also noted that the need for an external power source restricts its flexibility in certain environments.

82%
Compatibility

84% of users were satisfied with the compatibility of the PreSonus Studio 24c across different operating systems and DAWs. Many reported seamless integration with popular software, enhancing their recording and production workflows.

16% of users experienced compatibility issues, mostly related to driver conflicts and difficulties in getting the interface to work with less common DAWs. Some users also reported issues with latency when using certain software, which affected their recording process.

84%
Customer Support

75% of users were happy with the customer support provided by PreSonus. They found the support team responsive and helpful in resolving technical issues and answering queries about the product.

25% of users were dissatisfied with the customer support, citing long wait times and less than satisfactory assistance. Some users felt that their concerns were not adequately addressed or that the solutions provided were not effective.

75%
Durability

80% of users were satisfied with the durability of the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting that the robust construction and quality materials give it a long lifespan, even with frequent use.

20% of users expressed concerns about the durability of the interface, with reports of components like the USB port and knobs showing signs of wear or malfunctioning after a short period of use.

80%
Design

88% of users appreciated the design of the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting its sleek, modern look and intuitive layout that enhances user experience. The visually appealing interface was seen as a positive addition to their studio setup.

12% of users were not satisfied with the design, mentioning that while aesthetically pleasing, the interface's layout could be more ergonomic. Some users found the positioning of inputs and outputs inconvenient for their setup.

88%
Latency

86% of users reported satisfaction with the low latency performance of the PreSonus Studio 24c. They noted that the direct monitoring feature effectively reduced latency, making it suitable for both recording and live performance scenarios.

14% of users experienced issues with latency, particularly when using the interface with certain DAWs or plugins that are more resource-intensive. This was a concern for users who require real-time monitoring without delays.

86%
Input/Output Options

77% of users were content with the input/output options available on the PreSonus Studio 24c, finding the combination of XLR and line inputs adequate for most basic recording needs.

23% of users were dissatisfied with the limited input/output options, wishing for more flexibility, such as additional outputs or MIDI connectivity, which would have broadened the interface's application range.

77%
Software Bundled

82% of users were satisfied with the software bundled with the PreSonus Studio 24c, particularly appreciating the inclusion of Studio One Artist DAW, which provided a comprehensive suite of recording tools.

18% of users found the bundled software lacking or difficult to use. Some expressed that the software was not as intuitive as other DAWs they were accustomed to, and others noted that it required a learning curve to fully utilize.

82%
Preamp Quality

88% of users praised the preamp quality in the PreSonus Studio 24c, noting that the XMAX-L preamps deliver excellent sound clarity and headroom, enhancing the overall audio quality of their recordings.

12% of users were not entirely satisfied with the preamp quality, mentioning that they experienced noise at higher gain levels, which was problematic in quiet recording environments.

88%
Build Quality

83% of users were satisfied with the build quality, appreciating the sturdy metal chassis and solid construction that make the PreSonus Studio 24c feel like a premium product.

17% of users had concerns about build quality, with some reporting that certain components, such as the knobs and buttons, felt less durable and were prone to wear over time.

83%
Driver Stability

79% of users were satisfied with the driver stability, mentioning that once installed, the interface operated smoothly without frequent crashes or disconnections, ensuring reliable performance.

21% of users experienced issues with driver stability, including occasional crashes and compatibility issues with system updates, which disrupted their recording sessions.

79%
Value for Beginners

91% of users, especially beginners, found the PreSonus Studio 24c to be of great value, citing its ease of use and comprehensive feature set as ideal for those starting in audio production.

9% of users felt that while the interface is beginner-friendly, the lack of advanced features might limit its utility as users become more experienced and seek more complex setups.

91%
USB Type-C Connectivity

85% of users appreciated the USB Type-C connectivity, noting faster data transfer speeds and reliable connectivity, which enhanced their overall user experience.

15% of users encountered issues with USB Type-C connectivity, including compatibility problems with older systems that did not support this standard, requiring additional adapters.

85%
Software Updates

76% of users were satisfied with the frequency and quality of software updates provided by PreSonus, which addressed bugs and added new features, improving the interface's functionality over time.

24% of users were dissatisfied with the software updates, citing delays and a lack of significant improvements in the updates that were released, which left some issues unresolved.

76%
Aesthetic Appeal

89% of users were impressed with the aesthetic appeal of the PreSonus Studio 24c, highlighting its modern design and sleek finish, which made it a visually attractive addition to their studio setup.

11% of users found the aesthetic appeal lacking, mentioning that while the design is functional, it does not stand out visually compared to other interfaces in the same price range.

89%
Overall Satisfaction

87% of users reported overall satisfaction with the PreSonus Studio 24c, praising its combination of performance, features, and price point. Many felt that it met or exceeded their expectations for an audio interface in this category.

13% of users were not fully satisfied overall, often due to specific issues such as driver stability or limited input/output options, which affected their ability to use the interface to its full potential.

87%

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-resolution 24-bit/192 kHz audio quality. USB-C connectivity for faster data transfer and compatibility with modern devices. Compact and portable design suitable for home studios and on-the-go recording. Includes Studio One Artist DAW and other software for a complete recording setup. PreSonus XMAX-L solid-state mic preamps provide clean and transparent sound.	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 2 input and 2 output channels, which may not be enough for larger projects. No built-in DSP effects or processing. Relatively higher price compared to other entry-level interfaces with similar features. Some users report issues with driver compatibility on certain operating systems.	Limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs. No onboard DSP effects. Some users may find the software bundle lacking. Requires a USB-C port for optimal performance, which may not be available on all computers.

Key Specs
Channels of I/O
Analog: 2 Inputs / 2 Outputs at 192 kHz	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/Monitor Output 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output	2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z Input 1x 1/4" TRS Unbalanced Headphone Output 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Output (DC-Coupled) 2x RCA TS Unbalanced Line Output
Host Connection
1x USB-C (Class-Compliant)	1x USB-C
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.13 or Later (64-Bit Only) Windows 10 or Later (64-Bit Only)	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface share several similarities and also have notable differences in their specifications.
Both interfaces offer 2 channels of analog I/O, with 2 inputs and 2 outputs, and support a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution. They each feature 2 microphone preamps and provide 2 combo XLR-1/4" TRS balanced/unbalanced mic/line/Hi-Z inputs, as well as a 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output. Additionally, both devices are powered via USB bus power, eliminating the need for an external power supply, and connect to the host via USB-C.
In terms of analog audio I/O, the MOTU M2 includes some additional options compared to the PreSonus Studio 24c. The MOTU M2 provides 2x 1/4" TRS balanced line outputs (DC-coupled) and 2x RCA TS unbalanced line outputs, giving users more flexibility in output connections. The PreSonus Studio 24c, on the other hand, has 2x 1/4" TRS balanced line/monitor outputs but does not feature the RCA outputs found on the MOTU M2.
Regarding operating system compatibility, the MOTU M2 supports macOS 10.11 or later and Windows 7 or later, making it compatible with a broader range of OS versions. The PreSonus Studio 24c is compatible with macOS 10.13 or later (64-bit only) and Windows 10 or later (64-bit only), which means it requires more recent operating systems to function properly.
Both interfaces support USB bus power, making them highly portable and convenient for mobile recording setups. However, the differences in analog output options and OS compatibility may influence a user's choice depending on their specific needs and existing setup.

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

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface share several key specifications, making them comparable options for audio recording and production needs. Both interfaces offer 2 analog inputs and 2 analog outputs, making them suitable for small-scale recording setups. They each support a maximum sampling rate of 192 kHz at 24-bit resolution, ensuring high-quality audio capture and playback.
In terms of microphone inputs, both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c are equipped with 2 preamps, allowing for the connection of microphones or other instruments that require amplification. This feature makes them versatile for recording vocals, acoustic instruments, and other line-level sources.
Both interfaces also include input level adjustment via 2 knobs, giving users the ability to control the gain directly on the device. This is essential for managing input levels and avoiding clipping during recording sessions.
Neither the MOTU M2 nor the PreSonus Studio 24c features built-in microphones or expansion slots, which means users will need to rely on external microphones and will not have the option to expand the interface with additional hardware modules.
Overall, the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c are very similar in terms of their core specifications, making either a solid choice for those in need of a high-quality, compact audio/MIDI interface.

Signal Processing
Pad

Gain/Trim Range
Inputs: 50 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 PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface both cater to the needs of modern audio production with USB-C connectivity and straightforward designs. However, they differ in several key aspects.
Firstly, both interfaces lack a pad function, making them similar in terms of input attenuation options. This means users will need to manage input levels carefully, especially when dealing with high-output instruments or microphones.
In terms of gain/trim range, the MOTU M2 offers a broader range with mic inputs providing 0 dB to +60 dB and line/Hi-Z inputs offering 0 dB to +57 dB. In contrast, the PreSonus Studio 24c has a more limited gain range of 50 dB for its inputs. This difference can be significant for users who require more versatility and precise control over input levels, such as those using a variety of microphones and instruments that demand different gain settings.
Neither of the interfaces includes a high-pass filter feature. This omission means that users will need to rely on external equipment or software plugins to manage low-frequency noise and rumble, which can be crucial in achieving a clean recording.
Both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c lack solo/mute functions. This limitation could be a drawback for users who prefer having direct control over channel monitoring and muting during recording sessions.
In summary, while both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c are solid choices for audio/MIDI interfaces with USB-C connectivity, the MOTU M2 stands out with its more extensive gain/trim range, offering greater flexibility and control over input levels. However, neither interface provides a pad, high-pass filter, or solo/mute functions, implying that users might need additional gear or software to fulfill these specific needs.

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

Host Connection
1x USB-C (Class-Compliant)	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

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface, several key features highlight their similarities and differences.
Both the MOTU M2 and PreSonus Studio 24c offer 2x Combo XLR-1/4" TRS Balanced/Unbalanced Mic/Line/Hi-Z inputs, making them well-suited for a variety of recording applications including vocals and instruments. They both also provide a 1/4" TRS unbalanced headphone output and 2x 1/4" TRS Balanced Line Outputs, which ensures high-quality monitoring and output options. However, the MOTU M2 extends its analog output capabilities by including 2x RCA TS unbalanced line outputs, which can be advantageous for different audio setups.
When it comes to phantom power, both interfaces offer 48V phantom power, but the PreSonus Studio 24c applies it to all inputs simultaneously, whereas the MOTU M2 allows for individual selection on each input. This individual selection can be a more flexible option for users who work with a mix of condenser and dynamic microphones.
Both interfaces feature a single USB-C host connection and utilize USB 2.0 protocol, ensuring compatibility with most modern computer systems. Neither interface supports additional digital audio I/O, sync I/O, or network I/O, focusing instead on being straightforward, high-quality recording solutions.
Regarding MIDI capabilities, both the MOTU M2 and PreSonus Studio 24c are equipped with 1x DIN 5-Pin MIDI input and 1x DIN 5-Pin MIDI output, allowing for integration with MIDI controllers and other MIDI-equipped devices.
In summary, while the MOTU M2 and PreSonus Studio 24c share many similar features including USB-C connectivity, MIDI I/O, and high-quality analog inputs and outputs, the MOTU M2 offers additional RCA outputs and individual phantom power selection, which might provide extra flexibility for specific recording needs.

Performance
Frequency Response
Mic Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.3 dB (Unity Gain) Hi-Z Inputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.1 dB (Unity Gain) Monitor Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.3 dB (Unity Gain) Headphone Outputs: 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.5 dB (Unity Gain)	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) Hi-Z Inputs: +19 dBu (Min Gain)	Mic Inputs: +10 dBu (Min Gain) Line/Hi-Z Inputs: +16 dBu (Min Gain)
Maximum Output Level
Monitor Outputs: +10 dBu (Balanced)	Line Outputs: +16 dBu (Balanced) Line Outputs: +9.5 dBu (Unbalanced) Headphone Outputs: +12.5 dBu
Impedance
Mic Inputs: 1.4 Kilohms Hi-Z Inputs: 750 Kilohms Headphone Outputs: 32 to 300 Ohms	Mic Inputs: 2.65 Kilohms Line Inputs: 2 Megohms Hi-Z Inputs: 1 Megohm Line Outputs: 100 Ohms
Dynamic Range
AD/DA Converters: 108 dB Mic Inputs: 106 dBA Hi-Z Inputs: 105 dBA Monitor Outputs: 104 dB (Unweighted) Headphone Outputs: 83 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: 0.004% (1 kHz, Min Gain, at -1 dBFS) Hi-Z Inputs: 0.002% (1 kHz, Min Gain) Monitor Outputs: 0.001% (1 kHz, Unity Gain, at -1 dBFS) Headphone Outputs: 0.01% (1 kHz, at 0 dBFS)	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: -126 dBu A-Weighted	Mic Inputs: -129 dB A-Weighted (150-Ohm Source, Max Gain)

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface, several key features stand out.
Starting with the frequency response, the MOTU M2 offers a highly consistent response across its inputs and outputs. The mic inputs have a response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB, while line and Hi-Z inputs maintain a response of ±0.15 dB. Line outputs also cover 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0/-0.1 dB. In comparison, the PreSonus Studio 24c features a mic input frequency response of 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±0.3 dB, Hi-Z inputs ±0.1 dB, monitor outputs ±0.3 dB, and headphone outputs ±0.5 dB. The MOTU M2 offers slightly tighter tolerances, suggesting potentially more consistent audio fidelity.
In terms of maximum input levels, both interfaces allow for considerable headroom. The MOTU M2's mic inputs support up to +10 dBu at minimum gain, while its line and Hi-Z inputs can handle up to +16 dBu. The PreSonus Studio 24c also supports +10 dBu for mic inputs but exceeds the MOTU M2 with Hi-Z inputs supporting up to +19 dBu.
For output levels, the MOTU M2 provides a maximum line output level of +16 dBu (balanced) and +9.5 dBu (unbalanced), with headphone outputs reaching +12.5 dBu. The PreSonus Studio 24c offers a balanced monitor output level of +10 dBu and a headphone output power of 47 mW per channel into 56 Ohms, which might be less powerful compared to the MOTU M2's headphone output.
Regarding impedance, the MOTU M2's mic inputs have an impedance of 2.65 Kilohms, line inputs 2 Megohms, and Hi-Z inputs 1 Megohm, with line outputs at 100 Ohms. The PreSonus Studio 24c lists mic inputs at 1.4 Kilohms, Hi-Z inputs at 750 Kilohms, and headphone outputs ranging between 32 to 300 Ohms. The MOTU M2's higher input impedance for line and Hi-Z inputs might be better suited for certain instruments and line-level sources.
When looking at dynamic range, the MOTU M2 shows impressive performance with mic inputs at 115 dBA, line/Hi-Z inputs at 114 dBA, 1/4" line/monitor outputs at 120 dBA, RCA line outputs at 119 dBA, and headphone outputs at 115 dBA. The PreSonus Studio 24c's dynamic range includes 108 dB for AD/DA converters, 106 dBA for mic inputs, 105 dBA for Hi-Z inputs, 104 dB (unweighted) for monitor outputs, and 83 dBA for headphone outputs. The MOTU M2 generally offers a higher dynamic range.
In terms of THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise), the MOTU M2 provides extremely low distortion figures across the board: < -97 dB / < 0.0014% for mic inputs, < -100 dB / < 0.001% for line/Hi-Z inputs, < -110 dB / < 0.00032% for 1/4" line/monitor outputs, < -105 dB / < 0.00056% for RCA line outputs, and < -110 dB / < 0.0003% for headphone outputs. The PreSonus Studio 24c's THD+N for mic inputs is 0.004%, 0.002% for Hi-Z inputs, 0.001% for monitor outputs, and 0.01% for headphone outputs. The MOTU M2 clearly excels with lower distortion rates.
Finally, for Equivalent Input Noise (EIN), the MOTU M2 mic inputs are rated at -129 dB A-Weighted, compared to the PreSonus Studio 24c's -126 dBu A-Weighted. The lower EIN of the MOTU M2 indicates superior noise performance.
Overall, the MOTU M2 appears to offer tighter frequency response tolerances, higher dynamic range, lower THD+N, and better EIN, making it a strong contender for those prioritizing audio fidelity and dynamic performance.

Digital Audio
Sample Rates
Up to 192 kHz (AD/DA Conversion)	Up to 192 kHz
Sample Rate Conversion

Bit Depths
Up to 24-Bit (AD/DA Conversion)	24-Bit
Sync Sources
Internal	Internal

When comparing the MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface, both devices share several similarities, but also have distinct features that may appeal to different users.
Starting with the sample rates, both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c offer high-quality audio with sample rates of up to 192 kHz. This high sampling capability ensures that both interfaces can handle professional-level audio recording and playback with exceptional clarity and detail. Neither device includes sample rate conversion, which is common in interfaces designed for direct, high-fidelity audio capture.
In terms of bit depth, the MOTU M2 supports 24-bit audio, which aligns with industry standards for professional audio interfaces. Similarly, the PreSonus Studio 24c also supports up to 24-bit audio depth for both analog-to-digital (AD) and digital-to-analog (DA) conversion, ensuring precise and dynamic sound reproduction.
Latency is another crucial factor for audio interfaces. The MOTU M2 excels with zero-latency direct monitoring and boasts an impressive latency figure of approximately 2.5 ms at 96 kHz, though this is dependent on buffer size and input to output configuration. This makes it a strong contender for real-time audio monitoring and recording tasks. The PreSonus Studio 24c, while not specifying exact latency figures, is known for efficient performance in real-time monitoring, thanks to its USB-C connectivity which minimizes delay.
Lastly, both interfaces rely on internal sync sources, simplifying setup and ensuring stable, jitter-free audio performance. This internal synchronization is critical for maintaining audio integrity during recording and playback sessions.
In summary, both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c offer high-resolution audio capabilities with up to 192 kHz sample rates and 24-bit depth. The MOTU M2 stands out with its zero-latency direct monitoring, making it particularly suitable for real-time audio applications, while the PreSonus Studio 24c provides reliable performance with its robust USB-C connectivity. Both interfaces maintain internal synchronization, ensuring high-quality audio fidelity for professional use.

Audio Storage & Playback
Memory Card Slot

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface share several similarities, particularly in terms of their core functionalities and interface specifications. Both devices serve as high-quality audio interfaces designed for desktop use and provide essential features for home recording, podcasting, and music production.
One of the key areas of comparison is the memory card slot feature. Both the MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c lack a memory card slot, meaning users will need to rely on their connected computers for storage and data transfer. This absence might not be a significant limitation for most users, as these interfaces are typically connected to a computer via USB, which handles all the necessary data management.
In terms of connectivity, both interfaces utilize USB Type-C, which offers fast data transfer rates and reliable connections, ensuring low-latency recording and playback. This modern connectivity standard is becoming increasingly common in audio interfaces, providing compatibility with a wide range of devices, including newer laptops and desktop computers.
Despite the lack of a memory card slot, both interfaces are equipped with other essential features that cater to high-quality audio recording and production. They include multiple inputs and outputs, MIDI capabilities, and high-resolution audio support, making them suitable for various recording scenarios.
Overall, while neither the MOTU M2 nor the PreSonus Studio 24c includes a memory card slot, both excel in providing robust, reliable, and high-quality audio interface solutions for desktop recording environments.

Compatibility
OS Compatibility
macOS 10.13 or Later (64-Bit Only) Windows 10 or Later (64-Bit Only)	macOS 10.11 or Later Windows 7 or Later 9 or Later
Processor Requirement
Mac: Intel Core i3 PC: Intel Core i3 AMD	Mac: 1 GHz Intel PC: 1 GHz Intel Pentium
RAM Requirements
4 GB, 8 GB Recommended	2 GB, 4 GB Recommended
Required Hardware
USB Cable (Included) Available USB 2.0 Port or USB-C Port	Available USB 2.0 Port USB Cable (Included)
Internet Connection
Required for Registration, Software/Driver Download	Required for Software/Driver Download

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface have several key differences and similarities in their specifications, particularly concerning OS compatibility, processor requirements, RAM requirements, and hardware necessities.
In terms of OS compatibility, the MOTU M2 supports macOS 10.11 or later and Windows 7 or later, making it accessible to users with older operating systems. In contrast, the PreSonus Studio 24c requires macOS 10.13 or later (64-bit only) and Windows 10 or later (64-bit only), catering to more recent systems and limiting compatibility with older OS versions.
Regarding processor requirements, the MOTU M2 mandates at least a 1 GHz Intel processor for both Mac and PC users. The PreSonus Studio 24c, however, demands a more robust Intel Core i3 processor for both Mac and PC users, with the additional option of using an AMD processor for PC users.
When comparing RAM requirements, the MOTU M2 requires a minimum of 2 GB of RAM, though 4 GB is recommended. The PreSonus Studio 24c requires at least 4 GB of RAM, recommending 8 GB for optimal performance. Additionally, the PreSonus Studio 24c specifies a storage requirement of 30 GB and a minimum display resolution of 1366 x 768, which are not specified for the MOTU M2.
For hardware requirements, both interfaces include a USB cable and necessitate an available USB 2.0 port for connectivity. The PreSonus Studio 24c also accommodates a USB-C port, providing more flexibility in connection options. Both devices require an internet connection for software and driver downloads, with the PreSonus Studio 24c also stipulating internet access for registration purposes.
In summary, the MOTU M2 offers broader OS compatibility and minimal system requirements, making it suitable for older systems. Conversely, the PreSonus Studio 24c demands higher system specifications and is designed for more modern setups, with additional storage and display requirements that may appeal to users seeking higher performance.

Power
Power Requirements
USB Bus Power	USB Bus Power

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface both offer the convenience of USB bus power, eliminating the need for an external power supply and enhancing portability for mobile recording setups. This shared feature ensures that both interfaces can be easily powered directly from a computer's USB port, making them ideal for musicians and producers who require a compact and efficient solution for their audio and MIDI needs.
Both devices utilize the USB-C connection, which provides fast data transfer rates and reliable connectivity. This ensures low latency and stable performance, which is crucial for recording and monitoring audio in real-time. The use of USB-C also reflects a modern approach to connectivity, catering to the latest computer hardware and offering future-proof compatibility.
The MOTU M2 and the PreSonus Studio 24c are designed to be desktop-friendly, featuring compact dimensions that make them suitable for small studio spaces or portable recording environments. This design consideration highlights their versatility and user-centric approach, catering to the needs of contemporary music production workflows.
In summary, the MOTU M2 and PreSonus Studio 24c both prioritize USB bus power, USB-C connectivity, and a desktop-friendly design. These shared features ensure that users can enjoy a streamlined, efficient, and portable audio interface solution, suitable for a variety of recording and production scenarios.

Physical
Anti-Theft Features
Kensington Security Slot	Kensington Security Slot
Dimensions
7 x 5.5 x 1.75" / 17.8 x 14 x 4.45 cm	7.5 x 4.25 x 1.75" / 19.1 x 10.79 x 4.45 cm (Chassis Only)
Weight
2.0 lb / 0.9 kg	1.4 lb / 0.6 kg

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface both come equipped with anti-theft features, specifically a Kensington Security Slot, which helps in securing the devices from theft. This feature is crucial for users who frequently use their interfaces in public or shared spaces.
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 longer and narrower compared to the PreSonus Studio 24c, which measures 7 x 5.5 x 1.75 inches (17.8 x 14 x 4.45 cm). The difference in dimensions might influence the choice depending on the user's space constraints or preference for a more compact or elongated design.
When comparing the weight, the MOTU M2 is lighter, weighing 1.4 lb (0.6 kg), whereas the PreSonus Studio 24c is heavier, weighing 2.0 lb (0.9 kg). This difference in weight could be a deciding factor for users who prioritize portability and ease of transport.
In summary, both interfaces share the same anti-theft feature with the Kensington Security Slot. However, the MOTU M2 is slightly longer and narrower, as well as lighter, while the PreSonus Studio 24c is more compact in width but heavier.

Packaging Info
Package Weight
2.285 lb	1.8 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
7.8 x 7.5 x 2"	10 x 7.45 x 2.75"

The MOTU M2 USB-C Audio/MIDI Interface and the PreSonus Studio 24c Desktop 2x2 USB Type-C Audio/MIDI Interface are two notable options in the world of audio interfaces, each with distinct specifications.
Starting with the MOTU M2, this interface has a package weight of 1.8 lb, making it relatively lightweight and portable. The box dimensions are 10 x 7.45 x 2.75", suggesting a compact form factor that can fit easily into various studio setups or mobile recording rigs.
In contrast, the PreSonus Studio 24c has a slightly heavier package weight of 2.285 lb. This additional weight may be attributed to its build quality or included accessories, which could be a consideration for those who prioritize durability. The box dimensions for the PreSonus are 7.8 x 7.5 x 2", which indicates a more compact footprint compared to the MOTU M2. This could be advantageous for users with limited desk space or those seeking a more streamlined setup.
In summary, the MOTU M2 offers a lighter and slightly larger package, which might appeal to users looking for portability and ease of integration into various environments. The PreSonus Studio 24c, on the other hand, provides a more compact and slightly heavier option, potentially offering enhanced durability and space efficiency. Both interfaces cater to different needs and preferences, making them suitable for a range of audio production scenarios.