You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → MADI/AES Premium Line → Successor of ADI-8 QS?
Is there a chance we get an little hint if there is a successor of the ADI-8 QS on the way, with updated converters like in the ADI 2-Pro fs series? THis would be fantastic 
Don‘t get me wrong, I think the ADI-8 QS is still a great piece but it‘s been on the market since 16 years which is quite some time for a converter… I‘m desperately looking for 2 x 8 channel high quality ADDA converter…
I think the ADI-8 QS is still a great converter.
It even supports 4 reference levels at inputs and outputs: +24 dBu, +19 dBu, +13 dBu, +4.2 dBu.
The setting +4.2 dBu corresponds to consumer level with 12 dB headroom.
The converters are with 12/10 samples converter latency (AD/DA) @44.1 kHz still fast and compareable to e.g. UFX II/+.
The values for THD are partly on a similarly high level as for the new M-1610 Pro and ADI-2 Pro FS. The ADI-2 Pro has only for A/D better values ("by another decimal place").
From other products / threads we can read that different converter (AK vs ESS) deliver no other / better sound. Same well and transparent AD/DA conversion. Most important for such a product seems to be that all relevant components are well designed.
Advantages of more modern products might be more in the following areas:
- easier handling via display / browser
- possibility to adjust the reference level per port
And if it is of importance for you:
- even faster converters for direct monitoring or integration of external devices
- even higher SNR/DR (which is measurable but inaudible)
The successor of ADI-8 QS is M-1610 Pro. If you need more channels: M-32 Pro AD and M-32 Pro DA.
Both products support MADI (per SFP module) and AVB. They can be configured at either the display or via Browser (LAN).
Is your question more about audible or measurable differences?
If audible, can you perform a blind test between ADI-8 QS and e.g. M-1610 Pro?
Is your question more about audible or measurable differences?
If audible, can you perform a blind test between ADI-8 QS and e.g. M-1610 Pro?
Not at the moment. But I made some tests years ago with the FireFace 800 and the Prism; and there were differences. Isn‘t the ADI 8QS made in the same time?
I also could hear immediately a difference between the ADI 2 Pro FS (which we also have, and I think this is a fabulous converter) and the ADI 2. I know that that our mind plays game with us, but this was quite obvious.
A couple of years ago we did some serious testing / comparisons with Prism Orpheus, RME m32AD pro, ADI 2 Pro Fs and Mergin Horus (white noise tests, pink noise, different music, 0-tests, 10 x conversion, etc.) They were all very close. We decided for the m32 AD pro and never regret it
Thank you for your help
Thanks for the information, very interesting.
So, I think it could be interesting to you to perform a blind test between ADI-8 QS and M-1610 Pro.
Maybe there is no audible differences between ESS and AK converter of current products because they are manufactured at about the same time. Between ADI-8 QS and M-1610 Pro (or also M-32 Pro) are a couple of years… Possibly, it could make a little difference.
… The successor of ADI-8 QS is M-1610 Pro. If you need more channels: M-32 Pro AD and M-32 Pro DA.
Both products support MADI (per SFP module) and AVB. They can be configured at either the display or via Browser (LAN).
Actually I need less channels and in 2 devices :-/
2 x 6 I/O is what I actually need. So 2 x 8 I/O is just great. 2 x 16 In and 2 x 10 Out are quite to much 
The price difference between the two products is not high, simply ignore that for €100 more the M-1610 has more input channels than required ;-)
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_adi_8_qs.htm €2499
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_m_1610_pro.htm €2599
You will get a device with MADI and AVB support, Steadyclock FS, redundant power supply and you can send audio also out through ADAT if needed. Line levels are selectable on a per port basis, which can be very useful as well.
And .. the M-1610 Pro is available, this is also important :-)
The price difference between the two products is not high, simply ignore that for €100 more the M-1610 has more input channels than required ;-)
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_adi_8_qs.htm €2499
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_m_1610_pro.htm €2599You will get a device with MADI and AVB support, Steadyclock FS, redundant power supply and you can send audio also out through ADAT if needed. Line levels are selectable on a per port basis, which can be very useful as well.
And .. the M-1610 Pro is available, this is also important :-)
Thank you, this is a good advice I guess I go for this. Do you have an idea for an AVB switch?
Sorry, I do not know many AVB switches or whether there could perhaps be a difference in quality.
For your environment, it might be important to have a fanless device.
Things to consider:
- how many ports you require in total (whether the AVB switch replaces perhaps an existing switch)
- whether switch needs to be remote manageable through web browser or CLI
Regarding remote access via web browser. Is your computer connected to another switch? Or do you need to connect the AVB switch to other non-AVB switches in your network?
In a larger network you need to ensure that audio traffic is not being forwarded through non-AVB switches.
Audio packets need to go through AVB cable switches end to end.
Check this document: https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/ … b-1107.pdf
Thanks for the information, very interesting.
So, I think it could be interesting to you to perform a blind test between ADI-8 QS and M-1610 Pro.
Maybe there is no audible differences between ESS and AK converter of current products because they are manufactured at about the same time. Between ADI-8 QS and M-1610 Pro (or also M-32 Pro) are a couple of years… Possibly, it could make a little difference.
I would be interested to hear this although I doubt that I would hear enough difference to switch from my 10+ YO units. These replaced an Antelope Orion 32+ in my studio back in 2019. I found them to be easily the (audible) equal to the Antelope product.
I would also include functional and operational advantages in such comparisons.
For example, the newer RME products support individual reference levels per "port". Not per "unit", like the ADI-8 QS, which was built for the use case in the studio to connect devices with the same reference level (mixers, …).
Redundant power supply and the possibility to integrate MADI devices into an AVB network if that should be of interest.
What is also more practical in the newer devices from the operation: the new display, on which you can already reach many operating functions easier and then a much more comfortable operation via the web browser.
I recently added a used ADI8 QS to my UFX+ based studio setup. I added a new MADI card - and needed to replace the power supply (fantastic RME still sell replacements).
It was still good value - and works very well.
I’d say the main disadvantage compared to more modern equipment is that the config set up is complex - although the Midi remote is much easier.
A popular alternative commonly seen in RME setups is from Ferrofish.
I’d say the main disadvantage compared to more modern equipment is that the config set up is complex - although the Midi remote is much easier.
Yes, but luckily you only need to enter config setup one time for basic settings.
The rest you operate either from the front or (I am not sure) maybe via Midi Remote (old application) via MIDI over MADI.
Only exception, if you need to configure additional digital gain.
Digital trim gain you can do via the Midi Remote app (either via Madi, or through a direct MIDI connection).
I run totalmix fx talking midi over Madi to two octamic XTCs, and so use a direct midi connection to avoid the two apps conflicting.
Although generally the ADI8 setup stays fixed in my setup once correct.
> Digital trim gain you can do via the Midi Remote app
Thanks, nice to know.
RME User Forum → MADI/AES Premium Line → Successor of ADI-8 QS?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.