| Author
|
pulsar vs motu
|
Eduardo
Tactical Strike
Started Topics :
15
Posts :
53
Posted : Oct 4, 2004 17:34
|
Anybody got any intresting info on both ?
What is your opinion about them ? which is better ?
What features one has that other dont (or is better) .
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 4, 2004 18:48
|
They are really two completly different cards.
What I understand about the Motu is that it is good if you need many decent quality analog I/O and good drivers at a limited budget.
The pulsar is good if you want good sounding and flexible synthesis, mixing and fx.
I am a severly biased pulsar user myself, but I can see that for some having what is like two virtual studios in your machine can be a bit bewildering.
The pulsar don't have multi analog i/o, so you need extra ADAT/analog converters if you like to have multiple hardware units recorded or mixed at the same time.
It's also a bit more heavy on resources, but will of course free up the CPU with it's DSP as well.
The bright side is that the synths sound great and there is plenty of them for free.
And the goodies you can buy for it is just amazing.
The included FX is not great though. If you like the DSP primarily for mixing, I would look at the UAD-1 or powercore, or buy some plugins for the pulsar, like the sonic timeworks.
So, if you have much hardware you want connected and don't want to spend more than on a MOTU unit the motu might be a good idea.
With the pulsar you will be adding a bunch of fine DSP synths to your arsenal, with facilities that is very hard to find elsewhere.
You can either quit using the hardware, or record it down track-by-track, or eventually spend some more to get ADAT/analog A/D.
Sure, you might have more problems getting to grips with all the new equipment you get at once, but the exploration of the devices, patching possibilities, modular synth and mixers was mostly pleasure for me anyway.
Well, I tried to stay objective...but still sounded like a salesman  |
|
|
|
Analog Xperience
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
32
Posts :
326
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 01:00
|
|
like spinddrift sayed ... motu is good for outher jobs .. and pulsar for outher .. they have each one some things bether than outhers .. but my choice would be for motu if u use hardware .. is u dont use much hardware ... pulser is great . |
|
|
|
Zoolog
Zoolog
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
783
Posted : Oct 7, 2004 14:08
|
|
motu is the best... pulsar is a toy |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 7, 2004 16:44
|
Ehh...nice informative comment Zoolog...what a helpful chap sharing his knowledge.
But your right, but pulsar is not only a toy, it's a bunch of seriously fun toy's.
There is stuff to play with, which it's not on the MOTU.
If you are trying to say that the synths or fx available sound unprofessional......sorry dude, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
WAVELOGIX
Wavelogix
Started Topics :
136
Posts :
1214
Posted : Oct 9, 2004 20:42
|
|
well said spindrift .... i second u !!!! |
|
|
|
Zoolog
Zoolog
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
783
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 09:57
|
I am trying to say: that the synths or fx available sound unprofessional!!!! And i do know what im talking about. All algorythms for computer based synths and effects are being constantly updated, and guess who doesnt follow....
I've known and heard creamwares products during the last 4 years, and their effects and synths, have not impressed me (not even their modular).
However i DO like their sampler and their interfaces, but they are too expensive....
What i wanna use my dsp power for is: Mixing! |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 10:08
|
MOTU has better input/output quality. While Pulsar's ADDA quality is in the same league as m-audio product - meaning the low end of home studios - MOTU uses the same ADDA as RME products, with it's audio quality not that far behind from the $1000+ range cards, something that is VERY important for getting a crisp sound to your mixdowns.
The many inputs/outputs on the MOTU card are also very impressive if you want to work with hardware, even if it's just a mixer where you can do some very rough EQ work when you want to know how to plan your mixdown - anyone that's been a DJ can appreciate this way of work as making things much simpler with much less of a headache.
It runs like a charm with very low latencies, and different than the Pulsar and Luna cards does not occasionally go buggy on any music production software that isn't the version of Cubase prior to the newest one.
The Pulsar's only advantage is that it can use it's own FX and synths without a major CPU hit. Personally, with current VST technology, it's better to invest in a powerful CPU and an m-audio Delta66 than a Pulsar. The way VST technology is advancing... MOTU seems like a much stronger option. Especially if you'll want to use hardware (even if it's just a mixer and using many outputs and 1-2 hardware effects to fatten up your mix), in which it will leave most other cards in the dust. The MOTU 828 is a better investment for the long run for sure, and probably for the short run too, unless you are dazzled by the Pulsar's FX/synths.
About saying that the effects of the Pulsar sound unproffesional, let me remind you that people still use the crappy VB-1 in 'proffesional' tracks. High end VSTs can be as proffesional as the Pulsar's plugins though (specifically, anything made by Native Instruments). http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Patrik
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
18
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 10:44
|
|
err... actually RME cards use the same AKM converters as the m-audio cards, audiophile for example) |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 11:07
|
First of all, this is not true - only the delta1010 uses the same ADDA as RME cards, and even then, the multiface uses the 'high performance' version of the same chip. The audiophile 2496 uses the AK4528VF ADDA, the 1010 uses the AK4393 as the DA and AK5383 AD. RME uses the AK5383VS on it's digi96/8 (priced at $300 btw), which is considered substantially better (and also much more expensive).
Anyone that's used an RME card will tell you that it just sounds clearer than any other - from an electronical point of view, RME's cards are a masterpiece in smooth design. MOTU is not far behind - even though it uses the exact same AKM chip, the rest of the design of the ADDA conversion circuitry cut a few corners (it IS $300 cheaper, they had to cut corners somewhere).
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 11:16
|
ok...zoolog....you obviously don't know what you are talking about. And discussing quality of instruments in terms of if they sound professional or not is really only silly. There is professional sounding tracks with casio synths in them....professionality is not about what synths you use.
I used the scope stuff intensivly since it was released.
I won't bother to write you a long list with some of the biggest producers in the scene who use the pulsar to achive their sound.
That the interfaces is to bloated, and the sampler is not worth bothering with is a common opinion among the people who use it. How you can say thats the only good features boggles me.
Doeas really the sonic timeworks EQ compressor and Reverb sound unprofessional to you.
Zarg synths don't really cut it for you, or adern flexor sound toyish to you....mind me asking, what does actually sound good to you?
Fine you want a card with analogue I/O and very basic mixing facilities....have your MOTU and enjoy it....but saying that pulsar is an unprofessional toy just shows me that you have bad ears or is extermly ignorant.
And Kaz
You haven't understood converters.
Look at your specs all you want, they wont tell you how a converter sounds.
Did you know that apogees top of the range converters was using the same crystal converters as budget card like event or emu/creative.
Thats according to a guy in apogee anyway. The curcuitry around the converter is much more a deciding factor for the end quality.
Sure the MOTU probably have better quality analogue I/O. For me it's not important, since I ditched my hardware, and consequently only use it for my monitoring...the converters don't touch my production.
And compare the amount of floating point calculations that can be made on a regular CPU to a specialized DSP chip. Thats why you will find that native plugs will sound thinner and less analogue than the ones using DSP based solutions.
You get a lot more power for you money if you get a pulsar/powercore/UAD-1 than invest on the latest CPU.
Have you compared zarg dark star to the native instruments Pro-5?
I still can't find a geat bass sound on any VSTi.
The VB-1 sound thin and artificial to me....sure you can make a professional sounding track with it...i guess GMS is considered pro....but their tracks don't come across as fat and heavy to me, which i like when tracks do. Rather sterile and clean.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 12:25
|
Spindrift: I only started with the tech-talk after Patrik's comment. MOTU are a league above m-audio in quality, but are not as good as RME (as I mentioned earlier, alongside with the fact that they use the same AKM chips). The MOTU 828 just sounds much 'cleaner' than creamware products (and less colored than m-audio ones). I study electronical engineering myself, and I know the problems in ADDA design (took a course on it actually). I've designed (very basic) ADDAs myself. I also know the advantages of DSPs in floating point operations.
The bottom line is this: unless you intend to dish out around $1000 on a soundcard, the MOTU 828 is a league above m-audio and creamware products in everything EXCLUDING the DSP features.
And there are a few nice bass VSTis, like the Arturia Moog and some (very few) plugins for Reaktor, but in the end, all digital sound is still leagues behind analog in this (even when they take 40%+ CPU power like the mentioned plugins do - and even when they come in hardware. Digital synths just don't give you that fat analog sound in bass work).
You need to compromise somewhere - the long term choice would be to stick with the cleanest sound and wait for technological improvements in digital technology. Use CPU-intensive software and output it to .wav if you want a richer sound. Or even better, buy some hardware.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 15, 2004 12:57
|
Kaz:
I only saw your technical explanation after I posted
After reading that I have to apologize, you definatly know what you áre talking about here.
And pulsar for sure might have lesser sounding converters, I haven't had the opportunity to do a AB test myself.
And I did state that the motu would give you more, and I think, better analogue I/O than pulsar. Of course you could get an ADAT-analogue box of higher quality than the motu, and when converter technology advances you can replace them.
If you are not interested in the DSP, it would of course be more expensive solution.
Also the drivers is not the most efficient on pulsar, RME leads the field there, and motu should be very good indeed.
And if your setup is including a lot of hardware you want to use, I would recommend the MOTU as well.
Personally though, I ditched the hardware.
For me a DSP soulution is best. I hate having a room full of harware where I have to move around to reach the different synths. I used most of the hardware synths that people rave about. I don't like the sound of supernovas, or the modern microwaves. Virus sound good but is so recognisable and over used.
I worked in a couple of studios where I helped them set up the pulsar, and the owners of the studios started selling their harware to get a second pulsar instead, because they also agreed that they didn't get as nice sounds out of them as the pulsar.
Analogue synths is another business though. Sometimes I contemplate getting some studio electronics or doepher system sometimes, but the depth a vibrancy of the pulsar synths is really good enough for me to avoid the hassle of integerating any harware in my current setup. And I don't feel i was getting better basses when I was actually using a studio electronics for the bass.
I would rather spend the cash on more pulsar plugins really.
I think here also there is no good and bad, just different ways of working.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
|
