1 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-14 17:58:34)

Topic: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

I use the Fireface 400 right now, running through firewire. It is stable as it is.

I will have to expand with more in-/out ports for synths, sound modules, FX units and so forth, and I am planning to do this with a Digiface USB connected to either two Ferrofish Pulse 16 or one Ferrofish A32, for a total of 32 channels in and 32 channels out.

1. How is the Digiface USB compared to the Fireface 400 in terms of latency and stability, if used with two Ferrofish Pulse 16 or one Ferrofish A32 through ADAT?

2. Which would be the best choice concerning synch issues (units out of synth with each other because of different latencies?):
[Digiface USB + 2 x Ferrofish Pulse 16] or [Digiface USB + 1 x Ferrofish A32?]

Both alternatives gives the same amount of in- outs, and is about the same price, maybe the A32 being a bit more expensive in total with the breakout cables.

One thing that is positive with 2 x 16 (compared to 1 x 32) is that if one unit breaks, only "half" the cost to fix. If using one 32, everything goes at the same time if something is broken.

Also, I could buy one now and another at a later date if using two 16's instead of one 32.


But then again, would there be syncing issues if using two of them? Don't want to hear any phasing effect because of them having a little different latencies.

2 (edited by ramses 2021-06-14 18:21:57)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Nobody can predict, whether your computer will run fine with a new recording interface (no matter which brand).
If you need to be 100% sure, get a turnkey system, then somebody else has to take care of a good hardware combination.

Difficult to compare, Digiface USB has only 2 phones channels where the FF400 has lots of analog ports doing AD/DA conversion but with quite dated converter chips having a higher converter latency (not to be confused with RTL over USB/FW/...).
Digiface USB uses the newer MADIface USB driver which uses other USB transfer modes and supports ASIO buffersizes down to 32 samples (if computer / project allows for this ...).

Whether 2 Pulse16 or 1 M32 are being synched through ADAT makes no difference. Use the Digiface USB as clock master, then you can control clock on the PC/the application, then the rest follows in terms of sample rate.

I would see it more from cost and operational aspects:

The Pulse 16 will save you the costs for a breakout box and for MADI ... if you have nothing against TRS plugs on the back.

On the other hand the A32 and a breakout box will be an advantage to be able to place the connectors at the front
and you can connect to certain other peripherals by using the "more efficient" cables with DB-25 plugs instead of having a lot of cables (cable spaghetti).

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

3 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-14 18:31:33)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

ramses wrote:

Difficult to compare, digiface USB has only 2 phones channels where the FF400 has lots of analog ports doing AD/DA conversion but with quite dated converter chips having a higher converter latency (not to be confused with RTL over USB/FW/...).
Digiface USB uses the newer MADIface USB driver which uses other USB transfer modes.

Whether 2 Pulse16 or 1 M32 is being synched through ADAT makes no difference.
Use the Digiface USB as clock master, then you can control clock on the PC/the application, then the rest follows in terms of sample rate.

Okay, so then 2 x Pulse 16 would be a better deal for me, since they actually also have TRS inputs, which I will be needing, thus no need for XLR->TRS adapter. So this is good news.


So only the latency question remains, I guess.

So let me put it this way. Which one would have the lowest latency: Digiface USB vs. MADIface USB vs. Fireface UCX vs. UFX+?

Or does all the models which use the same driver have the same latency?

Though with MADIface or UFX+ I'd have to chose the A32 for MADI (no MADI on the Pulse 16, only ADAT)

4 (edited by ramses 2021-06-14 19:04:27)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

We had already many latency related questions in the forum, the forum has a search function
or use google: <keyword(s)> site:forum.rme-audio.de

Which latency do you mean ?
- DPC latency in the computer
  which has no impact on RTL, but the lower the better to be able to work with smaller ASIO buffersizes
- RTL over USB/FW/TB
- Converter latency (where AD and DA converter latency is included in RTL)

Next .. if you ask for a latency .. then you need to tell which latency / workflow you mean in particular.

You have e.g. a much lower latency if the audio flow is only local on the recording interface when the audio stream stays in the digital routing matrix of the recording interface. Then its more or less only the sum of converter latency for AD and DA and completely independent of ASIO buffersize.
But still be dependend on sample rate, with higher sample rates the converter have a little bit lower converter latency.

If the audio signal has to traverse AD - USB - DAW - USB - DA then you have a much higher latency due to the transfer over USB ... this is the RTL (round trip latency) and AFAIK contains also converter latencies.

So .. before asking this question in such a general way, you should 1st describe your main use case....

And if you want to know converter latencies, there is a section if the manual of every RME recording interface, preamp etc.

If you look at the different recording interfaces that I had here, then you will see, that the RTL is not that much different from each other.

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2343-UFX-UFX-RayDAT-Latencies-v2-jpg/


Don't forget, when you have something connected through ADAT then you need to add the time for the AD / DA conversion of the device behind. Therefore the two additional columns in the screenshot from an excel for UFX connected as preamp and XTC connected through MADI to HDSPe MADI FX.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

5 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-14 19:19:02)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thanks ramses!

You're correct, I was too vague with my latency question. I'm not that good with the specifics and what is what, but I guess I mean the total latency of everything that is outside of the computer, since the computer will be the same in which ever interface I chose. (BTW, the PC is a fairly new system with Intel i9-10850K 3,6GHz 32GB G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL14 RAM, on a ASUS TUF-Gaming Z490-Plus board)
So with other words FF400 as a whole (I use it with its own analogue in-/outs and I'm satisfied with the latency), versus Digiface USB including the Ferrofish Pulse 16 through ADAT. And of course RTL (round trip latency) in both cases.

Ferrofish Pulse 16 data (I state only the ADAT specs)

ADAT I/O: 4 + 4 optical ports
16 channels @32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz
16 channels @64kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
Latency: 2 samples

A/D converter
latency @32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz: 12/fs (0.25ms @48kHz)
latency @64kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz: 9/fs (0.09375ms @96kHz)

D/A converter
latency @32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz: 7.8/fs (0.1625ms @48kHz)
latency @64kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz: 5.4/fs (0.05625ms @96kHz)

Source: https://www.ferrofish.com/public/downlo … csheet.pdf

I'm not sure if all the RME models with same drivers have the same latency?

Very compressed, the question would be: RTL latency for FF400 using its analog in/outs vs. Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 ADAT using its analog in/outs.

I mean, is my proposed setup a good one to get the 32 channels in + 32 out, or would 3 x Fireface UFX+ (to get enough channels) be more stable and faster in terms of latency? (not that I could afford the 3x FF UFX+'s, but just saying)

BTW, I don't need DSP FX inside the RME, that is why Digiface USB is fine for me. As long as it's just as good with channel routing as the other models like Fireface, MADIface, etc.

6 (edited by ramses 2021-06-14 19:29:16)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

The RTL for your FF400 you can see in your DAW.
The RTL of other RME solutions you can see in my Excel to get an idea.
The RTL of the Digiface USB I do not know, I would say roughly compareable with RayDAT and then you need to add AD and DA of Ferrofish. Its an excel job...

You will at the end see, that converter latency is generally much lesser compared to RTL.
Except that for the very old DA/DA converter of an FF400 is its generally higher.

A good comparison of converter latencies of RME recording interface you can get from my Excel of this blog article:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … B-MADIfac/

Direct link to excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … -04b-xlsx/

In line 28 ... from the amount of samples latency and the sample rate you can calculate the time (converter latency).

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thank you once again!

Alright, so I guess 2 samples at 48kHz is 0,041666667ms

So ADAT I/O gives 0,0416 ms each way, so 0,0833 in total.
Plus 0,25ms for AD
Plus 0,1625ms for DA

All these sums up at 0,49583 ms, at 48kHz.

So I guess that is the latency I have to compare to the AD/DA inside an RME interface like the FF400 or FF UCX+, to get the difference between having the in-/outputs inside the RME or having them outside the RME through ADAT.

0,5 ms is not so bad? ...if I'm correct, that is. Does it sound correct? Is it only that extra latency one have to deal with because of extra in-/out's via ADAT?

Then the remaining question is would the Digiface USB + 2 x Ferrofish Pulse 16 be a stable setup without problems. But I guess that may be difficult to answer.

BTW, could I run the FF400 in parallel with my suggestion(Digiface USB + 2 x Ferro), without problems or is it just asking for trouble, concerning one would be using USB one Fireface and different drivers and all?

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/okyl5l9ba4y7xu8/RME%20Recording%20Interfaces%20-%20Converter%20Latencies.jpg?dl=1

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

I would stay at 44.1 kHz, so that you can compare the values with those from my excel screenshot in post #4.

For simply recording with Mics the latency doesn't matter at all, stability is here what counts.
The higher the ASIO buffersize, the lower the CPU / interrupt / context switch load on the computer.

If you work with VSTi then you need a RTL <10ms, which is usually an ASIO buffersize of 128 samples (@44.1 kHz).

If you use want to use VSTs in TotalMix FX to create inserts and AUX sends, then you should stay under 5ms latency which you usually have at 64 samples ASIO buffersize (@44.1 kHz), if the recording interface is not too old.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

darkstar wrote:

Then the remaining question is would the Digiface USB + 2 x Ferrofish Pulse 16 be a stable setup without problems. But I guess that may be difficult to answer.

Depends also on your system, nobody can give you a guarantee.

darkstar wrote:

BTW, could I run the FF400 in parallel with my suggestion(Digiface USB + 2 x Ferro), without problems or is it just asking for trouble, concerning one would be using USB one Fireface and different drivers and all?

By that you increase the amount of channels .. no matter whether you use a channel or not, it becomes transferred through USB and FW. With the Firewire driver you have options in driver settings to reduce the amount of channels (all, only analog, ..).

You need to clock synchronize both interfaces ... which digital port do you want to use for that ?
Or you need to implement word clock.

I wouldn't use Firewire anymore, because it is not officially supported by Microsoft anymore.
I would sell this interface and then get ONE that does all that you want.

If you can affort get UFX+, then you have MADI and a lot of flexibility by that and you have three options to connect to computer:
- USB3
- Thunderbolt
- USB2 (as 30ch interface like UFX II, all channels minus MADI).

The more I think about it ...
UFX+ and only one Pulse 16 with MADI module ... if the amount of channels is sufficient for you, go for it !

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thanks so much! Your chart says 1,61 ms for the FF400 AD/DA, which I suppose would stand against 0,5ms (roughly) for the Ferrofish ADAT.

The 0,5 was calculated with 48kHz so that figure might be a tad worse with 44,1kHz, but anyway.

Good news then!

I guess the rest of the difference would be in the Digiface's USB-transfer, but I guess that's pretty much the same on the models with same drivers? And from what I can see in your earlier chart, the USB models seems to have lower latency than Firewire models.

Yes, I will work with some VSTi's, but it'll be mostly hardware coming in through the analog in's.

VST's in TotalMix FX? I will have to run TotalMix in DAW mode, so I can mix inside the DAW (Cakewalk). It seems that it works fine with VST inserts on live channels there, so I can get VST FX "on the fly" as the audio is coming in on the analog inputs.

I run 64 samples right now, as you stated @ 44,1kHz. I'm not sure why I would record in 48kHz when it's anyway converted to 44,1kHz in the end. I want to keep it simple smile

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Not really VSTs in TM FX
but with the help of a VST host (or DAW) and TM FX (features and flexibility -> routing, loopback)
By that you can build inserts and auxiliary sends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ95oc6zO3w

For my taste it is a little bit too unstable, at least on my machine.
As soon as you do something different on the PC then you can get audio drops.
And if you select a wrong VST preset, then audio can become out of synch.
As some presets do not allow for realtime processing and introduce a delay and then sometimes the chain of VSTs becomes somehow out of sync...

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

ramses wrote:

You need to clock synchronize both interfaces ... which digital port do you want to use for that ?
Or you need to implement word clock.

I don't really know what it means to clock synchronize both interfaces. Is it just like a setting on/off?
Which port? I have no idea smile does it matter?

UFX+ and only one Pulse 16 with MADI module ... if the amount of channels is sufficient for you, go for it !

Oh man, you're giving me GAS now big_smile
For sure I would rather take the UFX+ if it would be closer to €1000-€1200 smile


ramses wrote:

Not really VSTs in TM FX
but with the help of a VST host (or DAW) and TM FX (features and flexibility -> routing, loopback)
By that you can build inserts and auxiliary sends.

Actually, I run TM in DAW mode, thus I do the AUX sends/returns right in there, in Cakewalks own mixer, which is very straight forward, it's more like a real analogue mixer. I've just only tried it yet, started yesterday, but it seems to work fine.

Because I guess I can do the routing and AUX sends / returns just as good in the DAW mixer when running TM in DAW mode, as if I could do in TotalMix directly?
I find it a little bit hard to navigate TotalMix for routing and such, actually smile, but that's much because I've used it so little.


Yes! I saw this video last night actually! Very interesting! However, as I've explain just above, I seem to be able to do the same thing directly in the DAW, when running TM in DAW mode.


For my taste it is a little bit too unstable, at least on my machine.
As soon as you do something different on the PC then you can get audio drops.
And if you select a wrong VST preset, then audio can become out of synch.
As some presets do not allow for realtime processing and introduce a delay and then sometimes the chain of VSTs becomes somehow out of sync...

Which is unstable? Running VST's on live signals in the DAW? My DAW actually got weird for like 30 minutes ago and I had to close all down and so on, to get it running good again. It was dropping out and not running smoothly.. may this be due to the VST's on the live signal?

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

> Which is unstable?
In LiveProfessor

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

15 (edited by ramses 2021-06-14 21:28:26)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Digital Interfaces needs to be clock synchronized to run at exactly the same clock frequency.
You can find many threads about this in the forum.

Digiface USB €357
Pulse 16       €929
Pulse 16       €929     TOTAL:  €2215
----------------------------------------------
Drawback: with double speed you loose already 50% of channels.

UFX+            €2198
Pulse 16MX  €1111    TOTAL: €3309
----------------------------------------------
MADI: 64ch @44.1/48, 32ch €88.2/96

And you have all the advantages of an UFX:
- Thunderbolt, USB 3 and USB2
- 4 excellent Mic / Line / Inst ports at the front
- 8 excellent analog I/O
- 2x ADAT (one switchable for optical SPDIF)
- AES
- 2 excellent phones outputs with high power
- Autoset, DURec, fully stand-alone operateable
- 2 MIDI busses
- ARC USB also useable in stand-alone operation though USB port at the back
- Word clock

Much more scalable and give it some time, then you can easily connect an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE ... through one of the digital ports.

And if you get used to TM FX then it is always good to have some spare channels that you do not use (e.g. MADI channels) which you can use for Loopback and other stuff to make such things like shown in this video, without having to "sacrifice" other channels for it.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

16 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-14 23:27:26)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thanks!

Yes, that sounds indeed tempting! big_smile
The UFX+ is for sure more future proof, but it is also roughly €1100 more sad
I wonder if there are B-stock units, I'll have to check.

And I guess it might be enough with 16+12 analog inputs. Even though those extra 4 would be nice.

Outputs will for sure be enough either way.

The question is if there need to be more "internal channels" for "loopbacks" and whatnot. I'm not quite sure exactly how that works, but I'll have to check the video again.

17 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-15 01:31:32)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

ramses wrote:

And if you get used to TM FX then it is always good to have some spare channels that you do not use (e.g. MADI channels) which you can use for Loopback and other stuff to make such things like shown in this video, without having to "sacrifice" other channels for it.

I was thinking. You mentioned TM FX when writing about it is always good to have spare channels.

1. You mean "running out of channels" only applies when mixing in TM? Or does it apply also if you run TM in DAW mode, and you do the routing in the DAW?

I'm using DAW mode right now and doing some routing inside the DAW just to test it all out:

2. Is there a way to see how many channels are used up in the Fireface? And maybe how many left to use?

3. Let's say I've used up all channels by routing or loopbacks or whatnot. How would I know there's no more channels to use? Would I not be able to do the "next event/next routing", or would the interface just be switching off other used channels, either the first routed channel (to give room for the "next event/next routing") or just randomly shutting them off?

Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but I really have no idea how it works. I've never used my Fireface this way so I have no idea what happens and not.

18 (edited by ramses 2021-06-15 07:23:51)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

I think you are confused now because you only use DAW mode and never really used / understood the advantages of TM FX full mode.

In TM FX DAW mode you route exclusively in the DAW and for every audio flow between HW inputs and HW outputs you have always to deal with the full RTL (round trip latency). This RTL is not static. It is much higher if you need to increase the ASIO buffersize due to a higher DAW load due to number of tracks, VST, VSTi with the goal to prevent audio loss.

In TM FX Full mode you have the freedom to create submixes (for e.g. phones or active monitors) with audio coming
- either from "HW inputs" (top row) in "near-realtime" (with much smaller converter latency)
- or from "SW playback channels" (middle row) with the "full RTL" where sound comes from PC with higher over USB/FW

The latter can become also very useful when using TM FX to route audio across external connected HW.

TM FX full mode gives you a great flexibility and more freedom / control for submixes typically required for monitoring through active monitors and phones.

There are situations where you want to record such a submix, then loopback plugs a virtual cable inside the routing matrix, so that you can record the submix (the HW output) on its corresponding HW input. Its good to use a free pair of outputs and inputs for that.

Other use cases for routing in TM FX and the use of loopback are such trickeries like shown in the video.

TM Full mode is like a patch panel. Audio from computer is not being send directly to the HW outputs but to a layer in front of it, the so called "SW playback channels". Everything that the computer sends through the ASIO driver (or WDM for non-ASIO aware applications) appears in the middle row of TM FX first.

And now in submix mode you select a particular HW output (aka submix, hence the name for this mode) and create the submix for this HW output by dialing-in audio from HW input channels (top row) and SW playback channels (middle row) as you want / need (by simply moving the faders in top/middle row of TM FX).

And this is valid for every HW output, every HW output is a submix / has a submix of its own.

But you can of course make Full Mode appear like DAW mode by creating a routing that is the same like in DAW mode.
You simply send
- SW Playback AN 1/2 to HW output AN 1/2
  [...]
- SW Playback AN 7/8 to HW output AN 7/8
- SW Playback ADAT 1/2 to HW output ADAT 1/2
  [...]
- SW Playback ADAT 15/16 to HW output ADAT 15/16
etc.

Luckily TM FX has a function which does exactly this for you with one mouse click:
Reset Mix -> Straight playback with all to Main Out. All Playback channels are routed 1:1 to the Hard-ware Outputs. Simultaneously all playbacks are mixed down to the Main Out. The faders in the third row are not changed.

This means .. you can have DAW mode in TM FX full mode by "Reset Mix -> Straight playback"
AND you have now the flexibility to add some special TM FX routing to it to enhance your submixes or to use loopback.

I regard it as an advantage to control monitoring with TM FX then you have even more use cases besides DAW work.
I use UFX+ / DURec to use the recording interface as a tape back and later drag and drop the multichannel wave file into the DAW for further processing.

And then you can also very nicely use the ARC USB to switch between pre-configured routings.
You can even store 6 different workspaces to the device itself with its own 8 Snapshots/Routing and use predefined setups / routings in standalone mode.

In the case of the UCX II, UFX II and UFX+ you can even directly attach the ARC USB to the recording interface.
In the case of the UFX II/+ you have even a dedicated plug for ARC USB and for DURec so that you can use both in stand-alone operation mode.

I use my PC also as audio player to HiFi with an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE in front of it.
It is very conveniant to use e.g. the TM FX EQ to perform a quick bass boost when needed.
And this I can recall very quickly by pushing a knob either in TM FX (recall a snapshot) or by doing this with the ARC USB.

And now in terms of spare channels again. If you have only a Babyface Pro with some ports. Its more likely, that at a certain point of time all these channels are assigned. 2 Mics, a few analog ports and then maybe an external AD/DA converter or preamp. Then you have no channel free, all in use.

And now watch e.g. again the video from RME (Adrian Joost). To bring LiveProfessor/the ASIO host into game he needed to use the AS1/2 port which are the 1st two channels of ADAT .. but what if they are already in use ...

Therefore I say, its always more conveniant to be able to have some spare channels.
And as ADAT/SPDIF and alike can quickly be in use, then I regard it as a nice feature, to have MADI channels, where its more unlikely that all of them are needed (although also such setups are possible). 32ch in/out at double speed -> full.

At the end you can of course maintain different settings very easily by saving your workspaces to computer or by using the 32 workspace quick select slots, there the first 9 are easily switchable / selectable by ALT-1 ... ALT-9 ..
This gives you 9*8 = 72 snapshots directly accessible on your keyboard at your fingertips.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

19 (edited by darkstar 2021-06-15 15:45:09)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thank you Ramses!

That was a very detailed description, you truly are a TM FX expert! I will have to read it through several times to fully understand, since I'm a TotalMix newbie smile but I'm trying as hard as I can here.

I'm now testing out in TM FX Full mode with "Reset mix" -> "Straight playback with all to Main Out", as you suggested.
I'm not sure what the difference is between "Straight playback with all to Main Out" and "Straight playback" only, as I don't see anything being altered in TM mix window when choosing these two options.

I have to this date been more of an "analogue mixer" person, so that is what I'm familiar with and I think it is so easy and straight forward with such routings, using cables and push buttons knowing exactly where the signal comes from and then goes.

I guess it is a question of learning with TM FX, but my brain seems to be "hardwired" to the "signal path" type of routing lol

Is there some way to use more of a signal path based routing GUI on TM, like the Creamware did? With plug-in's or something, without sacrificing performance/latency?
Examples:
https://docplayer.net/docs-images/49/25423676/images/3-0.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CgPFQDwnqTyQBME9dz4E8VaIUguE0C2tXOWodEZKuqhvSBkNJ408zS1b8diR0c1EuGH7UFmFnpC9bUIk8tCLuBDdbTu2oltwiB2GfLcC3bBuaupAYlHknQACBlnI0JnusHRk0kQB-r3i
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/2XbCC4R5ivYCiuE7XK0dgTJqaqDBh_mKCbY9iYVfH98qKTHn9Zgqb_KzjsvP6AXjO31IrCzn0aOSIKlU94ZcaX3UqWN0oqMUWg

20 (edited by ramses 2021-06-15 19:39:13)

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Sorry, another wall of text wink

darkstar wrote:

Thank you Ramses!
That was a very detailed description, you truly are a TM FX expert! I will have to read it through several times to fully understand, since I'm a TotalMix newbie smile but I'm trying as hard as I can here.

You made a very interested impression, so I was happy to take the time to sprinkle a few appetizers on what Full Mode is useful for. In fact, except for a few things, I use a lot of the features of TM FX and I can only keep saying it's so awesome.
Before I had Focusrite/Mixcontrol, which didn't have many capabilities and was for my taste not structured and logical enouigh in operation, therefore I never felt comfortably with it.

darkstar wrote:

I'm now testing out in TM FX Full mode with "Reset mix" -> "Straight playback with all to Main Out", as you suggested.
I'm not sure what the difference is between "Straight playback with all to Main Out" and "Straight playback" only, as I don't see anything being altered in TM mix window when choosing these two options.

Maybe you do not know what "Main Out" represents. Look at the assign button. This is the button where you can bring channels of your choice into the Control Room Section of TotalMix FX. They get then special names once you mapped them to the control room, like: Main Out, Main Out B, Phones1..4, ...
Once those channels are in the control room, you can use control room features like Dim, Mono, Speaker B, Mute FX.

Now coming back to "Straight playback" vs "Straight playback with all to Main Out":
Both performs the mapping from Software Playback Channels to the corresponding HW Output
e.g.: SW Playback AN/ADAT/... x/y -----> HW Output AN/ADAT/... x/y

As Main Out in the control room represents the port where usually your active monitors are connected to
the "Straight playback with all to Main Out" (as the name says) performs the mapping above but additionally
creates a routing from all SW Playback channels to Main Out.
So no matter to what output you send audio on your PC, you will finall hear audio on "Main Out" (your active monitors).

So you can either mimicry DAW mode simply from the routing to SW Playback to HW output
and if you want additionally provide a routing for SW Playback to your main monitor in the control room named "Main Out".
Again: Main Out is the HW Output that you assigned to "Main Out" using the "Assign" button in the control room.

darkstar wrote:

I have to this date been more of an "analogue mixer" person, so that is what I'm familiar with and I think it is so easy and straight forward with such routings, using cables and push buttons knowing exactly where the signal comes from and then goes.
I guess it is a question of learning with TM FX, but my brain seems to be "hardwired" to the "signal path" type of routing

Take your time. I think the RME Youtube Videos do a very good job and the rest is simply incremental knowledge day by day.

Most of the time I use the UFX+ now to record using DURec, if I have a nice overdub (played the guitar well), then I copy it over to the DAW.

Then I use the UFX+ to also create a parallel Effect Loop for my Marshall amp.
I plug the guitar straight into the Instrument Input of the UFX+.
The quality of the Instr Inputs is simply brilliant.
I am using then the AUTOSET feature to find a proper input level.
Then I turn of AUTOSET, that it stays on this level.
Then I send this signal out to a Booster (pedal) and from there to the input of the marshal.
And now comes the trickery.
The Amps Effect Send output I send to UFX+ and in the routing matrix I send the signal to two different multi effect, a Lexicon and a GMajor2 where I like modulation effects more.
The Effects are 100% wet and by turning the input level on the multi Effects I can control the amount of Effect being send back to the amp.
The Amps Effect return input gets now 3 signals
a) the unaltered signal from Effect Send, so that the amp keeps the dynamic and punch (which you loose through multieffects)
b) the FX signal from the two Multi-Effects
By this I am gettings a very punchy and rich guitar tone.
Well this is the TM FX use case to act as parallel effect loop for the marshall.
Then I choose several channels so that they become recorded (the signal from backing track, Instrument input, Mics).
As I am recording Backing Track, Two Mics for the amp signal and also the Instrument input I can even reamp by sending the recorded audio from the guitar again to the Booster/Amp.
And to have a great signal in my headphones I am using the TM FX EQ of the UFX+ to implement a low cut and to dampen a little bit the treble tones and using TM FX I can create the perfect submix of the
a) backing track and
b) the slighly polished guitar signal.
With DURec I even record both, the mic'd signal and the polished signal.
I can even send the polished Mic'd Amp signal and the backing track to another output/submix, enable loopback and record the final perfect headphone mix as something like a premix ...

BTW how I started and an example for my DURec recordings and with parallel effect loop for marshall powered by TM FX wink

DURec Guitar Overdub Example 1: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … orrow-mp3/
DURec Guitar Overdub Example 2: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … rding-mp3/

You can find the blog article here: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … Rec-EN-DE/

Here one of the pictures showing the setup for that:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2449-Current-RME-based-setup-jpg/

It is really so cute what you can do all with TM FX !

And later if you have again some money left, then get an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE on top and use this for the monitoring section / mastering. Then you have very high quality for monitors and phones with the enhanced features of the ADI-2 Pro.

My current setup, its also nice to be able to make a connection to HiFi, then I can use the HiFi as "Main Out B":

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2703-05-UFX-in-Current-Setup-jpg/

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thanks again Ramses!

Great tracks there, especially "Maybe tomorrow"!!! I've read everything you wrote and I'm still sorting it out in my head big_smile
Also I've detected the changes between "Straight playback with all to Main Out" and "Straight playback" while doing the reset in "Routing mode" (press X), and I will read your explanation for this over and over again till I get it big_smile

By the way, that's some massive routings! smile

However, for some reason (guaranteed it's me who is the problem), I can't get "Straight playback with all to Main Out" or "Straight playback" work like DAW mode works, not with Cakewalk anyway. Again, I'm probably doing something wrong and I'll will have to see all the videos on the matter, and reading your post several times.

DAW mode works great, it seems, and the routings are quite easy. I know which IN/OUT's are going to the FX units, which IN's are going to the synths, and I set up the sends as audio tracks with the proper in and out, may it be right or wrong, but then I should be able to record also the 100% wet signal if necessary.
I'll try to set them up as buses or whatever but this works too, so why not.

I have not figured out the levels quite yet. When normalizing an audio track it will be waaay loud, even though normalizing is driving it to 0 dB, so it should not clip above 0dB in the RME TM dB meter? I'm not sure, I'll have to be experimenting some.

I've been away from producing quite a while so some things will take some time to come back to me big_smile

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

Thanks

For getting "Straight playback with all to Main Out" to work.

Lets assume your active monitors are connected to HW output AN 1/2.
1. Enter TM FX Full mode
2. Ensure that Submix Mode is enabled (blue area on right side)
3. Perform a total reset of TM FX (Options -> Reset Mix -> Total Reset)
4. Assign Main Out -> AN 1/2
    by this the output channel moves to the TM FX control room, right side, name "Main Out"
5. Options -> Reset Mix -> Straight playback with all to Main Out
    By this all SW playback channels route audio to
   - corresponding HW output and
   - to main out

Select the "Main Out" channel (in submix mode) and hit "Sub" (right side under "layout presets")
This shows all inputs and sw playback channels that route to the submix "Main Out".
You should see now no channel in top row (HW inputs) and all channels in the middle row, because you seleced ".... with all to Main out)

In the DAW you need to take care to route your Stereo Sum to one output, e.g. Analog 1/2.
You will see audio showing up in middle row under SW playback AN1/2.
Then you will also hear audio through Main Out on your monitors.

If you route in your DAW the stereo sum to different outputs at once, then you will see multiple audio signals in the middle row. If this is multiple times the stereo sum which might have signals up to 0dB, then you will of course overload Main Out.
In this case you can select "Main Out" and move the faders of the middle row down and keep only the signals that you require for main out.
Save the routing to Snapshot 1 so that you can recall it at any time.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: FF400 vs Digiface USB + Ferrofish Pulse 16 x 2 or A32 x 1?

good stuff ramses...cheers