EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface vs M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C
EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface vs M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C compared — specs, features, and which one to buy for your setup. See the full breakdown on CreatorConfig.
The Ruling
EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface or M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C? Get the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface.
The EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface wins Preamps, Monitoring, Creator Features and Connectivity.
At a Glance
Where each one actually leads
Every axis is scored out of 10 from the catalog specs below. The scores are relative to the products on this page, so a 10 means “best of these”, not “perfect”, and two identical columns mean the catalog genuinely cannot separate them. Axes the catalog holds no figure for on both sides are left off entirely rather than guessed at.
| Category | EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface | M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C |
|---|---|---|
| Audio Resolution | 10/10 | 10/10 |
| Preamps | 10/10 | 9.3/10 |
| Mic Inputs | 10/10 | 10/10 |
| Monitoring | 10/10 | 7.5/10 |
| Creator Features | 10/10 | 5/10 |
| Connectivity | 10/10 | 5/10 |
The Split
What each one wins
EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface
Desktop audio interface intended for creator workflows, microphone input, monitoring, and clean signal routing.
On paper the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface takes loopback (Yes), headphone outputs (2, +1), TRS outputs (4, +2) and dynamic range (113dB, +9dB). It also leads on preamp gain. It concedes nothing measurable on the sheet. The two are priced the same, so price does not decide it.
Leads on
-
LoopbackYesNo
Loopback routes computer audio back into the stream without a second interface or cable.
-
Headphone Outputs +121
A second headphone output lets a guest monitor without a splitter.
-
TRS Outputs +242
More TRS outputs allow routing to studio monitors and outboard gear.
-
Dynamic Range +9dB113dB104dB
Wider converter dynamic range means less noise between the quietest and loudest parts of a take.
-
Preamp Gain +3dB58dB55dB
More gain drives quiet dynamic microphones like the SM7B without a separate booster.
M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C
Desktop audio interface intended for creator workflows, microphone input, monitoring, and clean signal routing.
It gives up loopback and headphone outputs to the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface. The two are priced the same, so price does not decide it.
Leads on
- Nothing on the spec sheet goes this one’s way.
Where they’re identical
These 9 specs are the same on both of them, so none of it is part of the decision.
- Connection Type usb-c, xlr, trs
- Operating System windows, macos
- Sample Rate 192kHz
- Bit Depth 24-bit
- Phantom Power Yes
- XLR Inputs 2
- Direct Monitoring Yes
- ADAT Expansion No
- Bus Powered Yes
The Record
19 specs, grouped by area
A group is won by whoever takes more of its rows outright. Specs the catalog cannot rank are shown but never decide a group.
Bottom Line
Who each one is for
The EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface is the pick on the specs the catalog holds, but “better on paper” and “right for you” are different questions. Each case below names what the product is actually good at and who that suits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface and M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C?
The clearest difference is loopback, which the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface has and the M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C does not. Across the catalog's specification sheet the two differ on 5 specs. They match on 9 specs, including connection type, operating system and sample rate. Two audio interfaces from Evo and M-Audio, each taking a different approach to audio quality and I/O flexibility.
Which is better for streaming, EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface or M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C?
Get the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface. The EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface wins Preamps, Monitoring, Creator Features and Connectivity.
What do the EVO 4x4 USB-C Audio Interface and M-Audio M-Track 2x2M-C have in common?
Both share 9 specifications in the catalog, including connection type (usb-c, xlr, trs), operating system (windows, macos), sample rate (192kHz) and bit depth (24-bit), among others. None of those is a reason to pick one over the other.