• Registered: 2012-12-27
  • Posts: 28

Topic: Adding UFX to my existing ADI-8/RayDat rig

I’m currently running one ADI-8 DS and one ‘Pro into a RayDat. I/O via optical, DS is master with coax to the ‘Pro for clock.
I was considering integrating an early version UFX previously used for portable live tracking into this base rig to expand the I/O.
My main question is if the UFX might offer any benefit taking the roll of master clock?
Tanks
Wayne

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,738

Re: Adding UFX to my existing ADI-8/RayDat rig

There are no 100% rules, but since both adi's don't have steadyclock(AFAIK) one of those should be the master depending on the role it has.
But we are talking about very minimal differences if at all.
If you are willing to chance clocking as you work it would be:
Recording device master during recording,
playback device master during mixing and mastering.
Best clocking is through adat optical, not WC or spdif

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

3 Reply by mixsit (edited by mixsit 2019-08-03 22:58:31)

  • Registered: 2012-12-27
  • Posts: 28

Re: Adding UFX to my existing ADI-8/RayDat rig

vinark wrote:

There are no 100% rules, but since both adi's don't have steadyclock(AFAIK) one of those should be the master depending on the role it has.
But we are talking about very minimal differences if at all.
If you are willing to chance clocking as you work it would be:
Recording device master during recording,
playback device master during mixing and mastering.
Best clocking is through adat optical, not WC or spdif

Wow this is very interesting. I follow the above BTW, but I had to do a bit of refresh on my RME manuals, never having even paid attention to the roll of Steadyclock. I ran the DS as master only for it being a bit more modern of the two choices. So, the DS and UFX have Steadyclock, the Pro does not. Since it's roll is in improving clocking in the slave mode, ..I guess unless there are overriding differences in converter quality (the UFX being the most modern of the three now), technically the Pro' ought to be master?

4 Reply by vinark (edited by vinark 2019-08-03 23:18:42)

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,738

Re: Adding UFX to my existing ADI-8/RayDat rig

Yes that would be the best for the pro. Depending on the role it has. If it is a unimportant function, slave would be fine too. But if You have A MK1 DS, that one does not have steadyclock.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632