Some people claim that newer RME converters sound better compared to the very old ones like in FF800/400.
Whether this is really true and has been proven by valid blind tests ...

I would expect little improvement, how much this means to you in your room with your monitors, you have to try that out.

The AD/DA converter of the UFX III will be fully sufficient.
The ADI-2 Pro series offers converters where you can change AD and DA filter which is not possibly with the converters being used in recording interfaces.
Additionally, it offers some very useful features that you won't see in any recording interface:
- 4 reference levels
- auto reflevel selection to optimize SNR/dynamics over wider range
- dynamic loudness
- 5(7 with B/T) Band PEQ
- SRC (sample rate converter)
- high power phones outputs which can drive any headphones
- balanced phones output
- Bit test to check for end-to-end lossles audio path
- remappable keys
- crossfeed
- and more

An option for you would be to integrate only an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE or ADI-2/4 Pro SE to your FF800.

More information here in my Blog, if you are interested:
- https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/
- https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … ses-EN-DE/

I make good experience with the combination of
- UFX+ and ADI-2 Pro FS R BE (for recording and for music playback with ADAT connection to my HiFI corner) and
- separate ADI-2 Pro FS R BE for A/D and D/A conversion in my HiFi corner

My current setup:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … setup-jpg/

Such sound comparison you should do yourself.
Nobody has your ears, room, monitors, other equipment, your personal tastes for sound.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with RME. Converters are at a high level nowadays and RME knows how to drive them in the best possible way and to design the analog amplification stages accordingly high quality.

You can consider the conversion as high quality, transparent.
Just look at what RME gets out of the converters compared to high-end studio devices that cost 3 to 4 times as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHG32aXBDY

Apart from transparent, high-quality conversion and technologies to minimize jitter (SteadyClock FS), I think RME is the only manufacturer that does everything right in all relevant areas.

FPGA based design, USB/… Communication via FPGA (no 3rd party devices), drivers, documentation, TotalMix FX. Extreme long driver support (up to 20 years for some products). Excellent support via User Forum. You have direct access to RME via the user forum.

In addition, high resale value on the used market because of the quality / reputation and the very long driver support, there are still the old Firewire interfaces from ~2004 for a pretty good price sold on the used market.

I would simply try that in your place.

> Totally valid and great point. I just don't want to spend $3200 to find out. Thanks.

You can surely ask your dealer, whether he sends you both devices so that you can check it out yourself.
Sadly, all prices went up due to Corona, delivery chain problems and other economic factors.

It should also be completely clear on the dealer side that you simply have to try something out in certain constellations. To ease your conscience, call the dealer of your choice and ask him the question.
If he can answer it (which I doubt), then you would have an answer (which may or may not be correct). I rather think that he will respond to your request and send you 1-2 units, after all he has a concrete chance to make the deal with you.
That's just the crux of the mail order business, and the stores have also bought into this sales model.
If you do it in moderation and do not overdo it, then there should be nothing against it.

Sound is such a hot discussed topic. I hope I do not tell too much nonse below.
At least this is my personal impression. But I might be wrong

@Daniel, are we all really saying the same thing in this thread?

I think you're possibly talking about easily perceptible sound differences, that a device doesn't add anything to the sound, transparent conversion. All RME devices certainly fall under this category, regardless of the age of the converter and the price.

Now, a counter example: KaiS prefers the slow filter on his ADI-2 Pro FS because he has found in listening comparisons that percussive sound sources are easier to locate. I haven't been able to determine that myself in my (acoustically unoptimized) environment and the mostly lower volume levels, but I believe him. In my opinion, he has the necessary background and the methodology to find out something valid.

Recording interfaces do not use D/A converters, where you can set different filters. I think there are only default filter in use with the highest possible linearity over the entire frequency response / low latency. Where the differences are, if I understood KaiS exactly, are mostly only hearable when using single speed.

But does that automatically mean that with different recording interfaces, nothing is happening around D/A conversion?
From discussions on audioscience review forum, I read some interesting postings on that topic. There appears to be a recognizable consensus that converter technology is basically at a high level. The main thing here would be the quality of the amplification stages behind it, which bring the signal to line level. Certainly also things like signal routing, activation of the converters in the firmware and whatever else.

Well, I can't prove it and I don't know if my ears are made for the job. But to be honest, I can't really imagine, when I take in all these impressions and information, that it doesn't really matter whether you're using a fairly old FF800 with converters from 2004 or a top current device like the UFX III or ADI-2 DAC/Pro .

That would also make your "promotional videos" like the Converter Shootout, where an ADI-2 Pro FS competes against HEDD and Lavry, somehow "ad absurdum". First, regarding the statement that Mr. Einstmann prefers the ADI-2 Pro for certain styles with its linearity/resolution in the bass (if I recall that correctly). I think he also says in the video that he prefers one of the three converters, depending on the sound material. At least here the good news, RME delivers devices that are nearly as good as high-end studio converters (specialized for AD and without add-on features) to a fraction of the price.

Well, RME may design the devices carefully, converts them transparently and squeezes out the last bit of quality. But, conversely, does that really mean that there are absolutely no differences, no matter how far back in time you go with the converters?

As I said, I can't prove it, but somewhere I can understand when such topics irritate in a certain way.
Am I doing right buying this or that etc ...

To sum up, up to a certain degree, I see it like you, RME does a high quality transparent conversion with all products.
But I doubt a little that there is nothing more to say than that.

Personally, I see it all quite pragmatically. With RME devices, I have a great sound at home, also with high-end HiFi devices. I trust RME the most here, without any (marketing-) Voodoo, to deliver the best quality with current converters.

But I really think everyone should find out with their ears because not all ears, rooms, setups, tastes are the same.

You can’t assume new is better. What about all the people with vintage hi fi who swear by it? New may have a lot more features and compatibility. You’re only going to get a subjective answer on here even if someone does have them side by side. One may suit the playback equipment better yet not on different playback equipment.

I know RME strive for neutral and have the best driver support which lasts over decades not years. I moved to RME a couple of years ago and that is where I will stay if the ethos remains the same. The best move I ever made.

In terms of converters,  15 years isn't that old... I think people tend to believe that converter technology progress is somehow comparable to e.g. digital cameras or mobile phones. But it isn't. Converters do not sound dramatically different (upwards of a certain quality level, and then it's more likely the whole circuitry, not just the AD and DA that's inferior).
You can immediately see that a video recording is 20 or 30 years old, but could you identify a high-end classical music recording as being from the 90s because of the converters? Hardly.
If you can't make a good recording with the converters in e.g. a Fireface 800, chances are you just can't make a good recording, and the UFX III won't save you (generic "you" here)...
And whether the differences you believe you heard between devices would stand in a double-blind test with exactly matched levels - who knows... And if, there's more to a device than the converters only.

Interesting discussion!
I'm also still making music with a Fireface 800 and was thinking of upgrading, but then it would be nice if sound quality improved. That would justify a new interface.

I really appreciate the last post of RME Support, but also curious to know what user Nitras heard.. and if I would hear the same difference in my semi-treated room with Sonarworks.

IMHO it is not the same even if using digital path. Newer RME will have lower jitter than old ones. And it may, may not improve sound on external DA depending on how well it handles jitter.

I would say it in different words.
I see your intention, you want to say, that jitter doesn't disturb or alter digital audio data.
Ok, but only up to a point where the jitter doesn't become too high, that you might lose lock/synch.
Fortunately, RME devices have Steadyclock, which can handle even an extreme amount of jitter, see comment in MCs video.

But Jitter is not part of the converter. The converter needs a clock signal for AD or DA conversion.
If the clock signal would have too much jitter, then the conversion quality is impacted.
You can only produce a nice waveform, when the time basis (the clock) is solid and not jittered.

Here comes Steadyclock [FS] into play ... it can lock and synch fast on a digital connection and keeps the lock reliably.
Most people use such a digital link like ADAT, SPDIF, AES, MADI for both, transport of data AND the clock (alternatively WC, but in most cases only if needed, to save the additional WC cabling).

So .. even if you have a jittered clock signal via either a digital port or via WC, Steadyclock eliminates jitter to a high degree which makes the D/A conversion better.

On devices like ADI-2 DAC/Pro, ADI-2/4 the design goes so far, that the final conversion is being performed with the internal FS clock even if the device operates as (clock) slave.

What I want to point out, not the D/A or A/D converter has jitter in the "analog domain", then quality of conversion depends on the clock signal no matter whether it comes from a digital port or WC. Jitter is IMHO not a "feature" or "problem" of the converter itself.

The Fireface 800 has the 'old' Steadyclock built in. The difference to the UFX III with Steadyclock FS is probably not relevant. The more regarding the fact only good quality units are involved (ADI-2 pro and Audient ASP880).
And I really like Daniels statement in post nr. 14!