• Registered: 2024-05-04
  • Posts: 2

Topic: Is it a good idea to use Babyface Pro FS for 5.1 monitoring via ADAT?

I am trying to get a hold off an rme since a year. But in my country, only the BFP FS is available.

So if I use BFP's ADAT channels for surround monitoring, would it put out the same quality DA conversion as the native outputs of high end interfaces like UCX ii or UFX iii? And is this a good idea at all?

I do audio post production, sound design for films and occasionally mixing for festivals.

Mac Studio M1 MAX, Macbook Air, JBL 308p mk ii

2 Reply by oli77sch (edited by oli77sch 2024-05-04 23:29:06)

  • Registered: 2016-06-14
  • Posts: 1,142

Re: Is it a good idea to use Babyface Pro FS for 5.1 monitoring via ADAT?

Hi
Using an ADAT device, the DA conversion would happen there and therefore the quality is mainly related to what unit you would use. The Babyface pro FS would have almost no influence on the sound quality. Only its stable and precise clock could be a factor. And if so, it would be as good as other RME interfaces. The question is: what ADAT converter do you have?

UCX - FF 400 - Babyface pro - Digiface USB - ADI-2 (original)
Mac mini M1 - Macbook pro - iPad Air2
  • Registered: 2024-05-04
  • Posts: 2

Re: Is it a good idea to use Babyface Pro FS for 5.1 monitoring via ADAT?

oli77sch wrote:

Hi
Using an ADAT device, the DA conversion would happen there and therefore the quality is mainly related to what unit you would use. The Babyface pro FS would have almost no influence on the sound quality. Only its stable and precise clock could be a factor. And if so, it would be as good as other RME interfaces. The question is: what ADAT converter do you have?

Is Ferrofish pulse 16 good enough for this?

Mac Studio M1 MAX, Macbook Air, JBL 308p mk ii

4 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2024-05-05 09:05:31)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,196

Re: Is it a good idea to use Babyface Pro FS for 5.1 monitoring via ADAT?

Keep in mind that a Ferrofish has 16 analog ports.
The BBF Pro FS has only 1x ADAT I/O, so you can use only 8 of the 16 ports at single speed.

At higher sample rates, even less due to the usual port multiplexing:
- 8 of its 16 ports @single speed (44.1/48 kHz)
- 4 of its 16 ports @double speed (88.2/96 kHz)

IMHO not really needed, but for completeness:
- 2 of its 16 analog ports @quad speed (176.4/192 kHz)

Therefore, the Ferrofish has 4x ADAT I/O to support up to double speed for its 16 analog ports.

There are two RME products which support 4x ADAT I/O: Digiface USB and RayDAT (PCIe).
The RayDAT offers a lot of useful I/O but is a complete digital card without any analog ports or mic preamps.
For the moment, you can also use the BBF Pro, but then only 8ch @single speed.

While we are at it, an alternative is to use MADI. RME has different products to support MADI (USB and PCIe based), but it would cost more compared to the other solutions.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14
  • Registered: 2016-06-14
  • Posts: 1,142

Re: Is it a good idea to use Babyface Pro FS for 5.1 monitoring via ADAT?

prithibi wrote:

Is Ferrofish pulse 16 good enough for this?

To my knowledge the Ferrofish units are really good products. As stated by ramses, it would be sort of 'channel waste'. Depending on what’s available in your country you could consider the Black Lion Audio Revolution EXP. It’s a similar product but with eight analog i/o only.

UCX - FF 400 - Babyface pro - Digiface USB - ADI-2 (original)
Mac mini M1 - Macbook pro - iPad Air2