• Registered: 2025-03-21
  • Posts: 3

Topic: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

Hello everyone,
perhaps someone in the forum has a recommendation for a planned purchase?
Currently, I'm using a UFX III with an RME M-32 AD Pro II-D (I am very satisfied with this combination).

Now I'd like to increase my channel count and am torn between an RME M-1620 Pro and a Ferrofish A32 Pro MM.
I plan to connect a summing mixer to 16 of the converters outputs.
Despite having twice the number of channels, the Ferrofish is bit cheaper than the M-1620.

Is this noticeable in the sound quality, especially since the outputs will be used for summing?
Is there a significant difference in the build quality of the two devices?

Is there anyone here with experience using both devices?
I would be very grateful for any recommendations!

2 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2025-11-20 11:31:32)

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,938

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

I cannot comment on the sound quality differences between the two.

If you are familiar with RME products like the M-32 Pro II, you can expect a similar level of performance from the M-1620.

If Dante might become relevant in your setup, consider the M-1620 Pro D, as your M-32 converter already supports both MADI and Dante.

From a functional standpoint, the M-1620 Pro handles signals up to 24 dBu, whereas the Ferrofish A32 series does not. Only select Ferrofish converters can be special-ordered with 24 dBu support.

Ultimately, both units will perform well. Ideally, get both and test them in your workflow.
Personally, I would stick with RME to maintain consistency in device class and quality across your setup.

Also, from a support perspective, RME is an excellent choice; see https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=42540

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent
  • Registered: 2025-03-21
  • Posts: 3

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

Thank you for the comments.

I have another question: I'm not currently using Dante. I ordered the M-32-Pro II-D converter with Dante to be future-proof.

However, my understanding was that I could order the M-1620 Pro without Dante, since I could connect it to the M-32-Pro II-D via MADI and thus indirectly control both via Dante if necessary. Am I missing something here?

The Ferrofish A-32's inability to process signals up to 24 dBu (I believe Ferrofish can handle up to 20 dBu) wouldn't be a problem, as I would then have 32 input channels up to 24 dBu (via the M-32-Pro II-D) and another 32 input channels up to 20 dBu (via the Ferrofish A-32), allowing me to assign the incoming signals to the appropriate converter.

Therefore, the question of comparing converter quality might indeed be decisive.

  • Registered: 2013-08-24
  • Posts: 12

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

This could not have come at a better time for me... I am in  the process of moving from my Sony DMX r100 digital console that Ive had since 1999 to a more in the box approach... but, saying that I have been doing quite a bit of purchasing of external devices ... Last year I added 2ea of the NEVE 1073 OPX pres (per request of a special client) and we changed our Headphone system to the Behringer 16 channel.   My sony has been connected to our DAW using the RME Raydat with 4 ADAT in and out it made things easy.   I'm ready to move to a new interface and the items I need to make the change.   

I am headed to getting the RME Fireface UFX III ... but since I need more expansion I started looking at the M-1620 pro that alot of you have mentioned it has an 4 ADAT in and out which really helps me for future expansion....       But now the Ferofish A32 pro with madi really caught my eye..... the 20 vs 24DB probably would never be an issue in our set up I just need the connections and since the Neve outputs both the Digital and Analog signal per channel it really expands my options.. The 1620 pro could probably work but for the same price the A-32 pro could really step up my game.  I don't have any clients that request 96k but with all the Analog options on the A32pro it just may come in handy...  The only outboard I use are my LA2a and other compressors... no external effects as such.

In my first thouught getting both units with the rme badge is a real thought but with the A32pro bringinng so much more to the table (with Madi)  I am wanting to now explorer if that may be even a bitter choice for me.

Ass a refference  Our business is mainily acoustic, some country but lots of real players and real insteruments the last 15 years Bluegrass folks have seemed to found us and were doing lots of bluegrass projets were a small studio but focused on capturing of real acoustic projets. 

I look forward to following this tread and any comments and suggestions are welcome.. Keep in mind I am replaceing a boad that has lots of inputs and  outs so I tend to look to get as many as I can in the box.....
Thanks so much

  • waedi
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Swiss Zürich
  • Registered: 2020-12-08
  • Posts: 7,781

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

davidk wrote:

This could not have come at a better time for me... I am in  the process of moving from my Sony DMX r100 digital console that Ive had since 1999 to a more in the box approach... but, saying that I have been doing quite a bit of purchasing of external devices ... Last year I added 2ea of the NEVE 1073 OPX pres (per request of a special client) and we changed our Headphone system to the Behringer 16 channel.   My sony has been connected to our DAW using the RME Raydat with 4 ADAT in and out it made things easy.   I'm ready to move to a new interface and the items I need to make the change.   

I am headed to getting the RME Fireface UFX III ... but since I need more expansion I started looking at the M-1620 pro that alot of you have mentioned it has an 4 ADAT in and out which really helps me for future expansion....       But now the Ferofish A32 pro with madi really caught my eye..... the 20 vs 24DB probably would never be an issue in our set up I just need the connections and since the Neve outputs both the Digital and Analog signal per channel it really expands my options.. The 1620 pro could probably work but for the same price the A-32 pro could really step up my game.  I don't have any clients that request 96k but with all the Analog options on the A32pro it just may come in handy...  The only outboard I use are my LA2a and other compressors... no external effects as such.

In my first thouught getting both units with the rme badge is a real thought but with the A32pro bringinng so much more to the table (with Madi)  I am wanting to now explorer if that may be even a bitter choice for me.

Ass a refference  Our business is mainily acoustic, some country but lots of real players and real insteruments the last 15 years Bluegrass folks have seemed to found us and were doing lots of bluegrass projets were a small studio but focused on capturing of real acoustic projets. 

I look forward to following this tread and any comments and suggestions are welcome.. Keep in mind I am replaceing a boad that has lots of inputs and  outs so I tend to look to get as many as I can in the box.....
Thanks so much

You say you need more expansion but you also say the outpoard gear is only some analog compressors.
The question is, do you want to keep the Sony console in the setup or move on ?
With the UFX lll you have plenty enough channels to record and mix all in the computer, no need for the console other than having faders and knobs for the hand.
It even has enough analog connectors to include the compressors without any further equipment.
May be one UFX lll is all you need...?
Paired with a 12Mic you have 16 mic inputs, and still the option to expand a lot.

M1-GoldenGate, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver and blue
  • Registered: 2013-08-24
  • Posts: 12

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

I apologize for my post and not being clear so Lets try this... If  I plan to purchase the new Hardware like discussed... the Sony is going away for a set up of In the box and no console.   (I actually have a second DAW where I will switch my RayDat to and connect to the Sony in another room...  being somewhat new to the idea of In The box I was thinking of the Fireface UFX III and then getting a second set of converters like the 1620 or the Ferrofish for future expansion.  In looking at the M-1620 with 16 x16 and the Ferrowfish A32 pro with a 32x32 set up and both units have 4 ADAT in and out.... for cost they are about the same but my question is quality , reliability and compatibility with the UFX III.   Although I have had my Raydat working with my Sony for years I have been very happy with RME and the support Ive received through the years....but since Ferrofish in the US are distributed and supported by the same team as RME I may feel comfortable the Ferrofish would be ok...But just a first look  16x16 vs 32x32 and the same quality would one go with the larger count?  Our main DAW is Cubase and ProTools.

  • waedi
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Swiss Zürich
  • Registered: 2020-12-08
  • Posts: 7,781

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

My voting point goes to the M1620Pro because it is RME.
The sound quality of both will be comparable they have modern converters.
RME provide a long list of detailed tech specs while Ferrofish offers not that much numbers. (point goes to RME)
UFXlll plus M1620Pro Madi expansion converter is an excellent set, top notch hightech, not cheap but reliable, it is professional equipment.

M1-GoldenGate, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver and blue
  • Registered: 2025-03-21
  • Posts: 3

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

After much deliberation, I've finally decided on the RME M-1620 Pro-D. The deciding factors for me were RME's excellent support, as well as the build quality and reliability. Furthermore, I think the RME unit will likely hold its value much better. Therefore, I'm happy to forgo twice the number of channels in favor of the improved quality.
I think this way I'm on the safe side and won't be disappointed if I'm not satisfied with the Ferrofish after all.

  • Registered: 2013-08-24
  • Posts: 12

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

Thanks for the posts.... I can say that to me support is extremely important and with my Raydat Ive been using for over 15 years now I have experience the best support from RME that any other products I have purchased... so Kudos to them.   In a Studio up time is money and if any issues come up I can say that I have had excellent support by Jeff at RME. 

Not to get too confused... I notice the same support numbers and Jeff Peterson are listed under support... I assume he would give the best support to the Ferrofish products as well.     

I am leaning towards the RME M1620 as well.. If I need more converters Ill just by another RME expansion.

  • Sciss
  • AD/DA expert
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 50

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

We're currently having the same thought. I can see this:

in favour of Ferrofish A32 Pro MM:

- in stock (M-1620 expected in two months or so from major vendors)
- 32 analog channels in and out
- cheaper

In favour of RME M-1620 Pro:

- DC-coupled outputs (if you want to be able to feed modular synths etc.)
- dedicated level LEDs (like them a lot more; the meters on the UFX's TFT are really "meh")
- built-in power supply

11 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2025-12-05 12:11:04)

  • ramses
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 15,938

Re: RME M-1620 Pro vs Ferrofish A32 Pro MM

Sciss wrote:

We're currently having the same thought. I can see this:

In favour of RME M-1620 Pro:

- DC-coupled outputs (if you want to be able to feed modular synths etc.)
- dedicated level LEDs (like them a lot more; the meters on the UFX's TFT are really "meh")
- built-in power supply

M-1620 Pro [D]:
   + max input and output level +24 dBu
   + SteadyClock FS (proven RME technology)
   + MADI and AVB (Milan certified)
   + Routing matrix with fine granularity, on a per-port basis
   + Remote control via web browser
   + Built-in blower with settings "silent, cool, off"
      In the setting "silent" you do not hear the blower from the outside, but this ensures a little ventilation inside the unit (*)

Ferrofish A32 Pro
   - max input and output level +20 dBu, no +24 dBu BTO option available like for the Pulse 16 series of devices:
     see https://www.ferrofish.com/ferrofish-ad- … 02f0889301
   - No AVB support, only an optional Dante model
   - Routing is configurable in blocks of 8 ports.
   - Remote control seems to be only via the remote fish application, not via a web browser.
   - Fanless design, but IMHO without real advantage, as the manual recommends to ensure at least 1RU of space
     both above and below the unit for adequate ventilation

(*) My personal preference is to leave a little space around RME devices like the UFX III, M-1620 Pro, 12Mic,
       which I can easily achieve by putting only 3 devices into a 4 RU rack.
       A rack for equipment with a depth of up to 20 cm supports the airflow in a passively cooled rack additionally:
       https://www.thomann.de/de/thon_rack_4he … ompact.htm

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent