Topic: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Upgrading the studio and have a question...

Will the Madi fx card and the RME pro 32 ad and da converters offer lower round trip latency than the current PCIe card into old digiface with various ADAT equipped converters I have now?  I have lots of outboard and love how Totalmix allows me basically use it like a patchbay.

On a somewhat related topic, I’m also considering a ferrofish a32 to link up a second room...  I certainly love the price point.  Will I notice a huge difference in the conversion between it and the RME?

I apologize in advance for the newbie question(s). 


Brett

2 (edited by ramses 2020-04-23 00:07:11)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Connecting other AD/DA solutions behind ADAT or MADI doesn't make that much of a difference. Better look at the features that you get.

With 32 channels a RayDAT would be full @44.1. So better use a MADI based solution.
Either HDSPe MADI FX or UFX+.

The HDSPe MADI FX is an excellent card: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … Pro-FS-BE/

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

A32 is perfect for the price but not up to the same spec as the M32 Pro.

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:

Connecting other AD/DA solutions behind ADAT or MADI doesn't make that much of a difference. Better look at the features that you get.

With 32 channels a RayDAT would be full @44.1. So better use a MADI based solution.
Either HDSPe MADI FX or UFX+.

The HDSPe MADI FX is an excellent card: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … Pro-FS-BE/

No kidding?  Hmm...  I guess I misunderstood.  I thought the Madi fx Card had better handling/latency than the older rme pcie cards

5 (edited by ramses 2020-04-23 10:27:17)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

As I mentioned in my review (see PDF in my link) the HDSPe MADI FX has a special driver which saves system resources.
I/O ports are organized in groups of 8 channels, where the driver doesn't allocate resources if no channel in such a group of 8 is being used to transfer audio.

If you look at my diagram below (snapshot from Excel) from another blog article about the UFX+, there you can see the RTL (Round trip latency) times of different RME products compared to the UFX+: Input-, output latency and the sum of both which is the RTL. So the latency of the whole signal chain, e.g.: A/D conversion at analog in, time for transfer to DAW and back and D/A conversion towards connected speakers.

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2343-UFX-UFX-RayDAT-Latencies-v2-jpg/

Lets have a look at the RTL values at 64 samples as reported by the ASIO driver to the DAW.
Note: for digital cards like HDSPe MADI FX and RayDAT you have to add the converter latency of an AD/DA converter.
You can take these values from the excellent RME manuals, which even contain these values.

In the case of the
- HDSPe MADI FX with Octamic XTC connected via MADI: additional 0,91ms for AD/DA converter latency
- RayDAT with UFX connected via ADAT in standalone mode: addtitional 0,9ms for AD/DA converter latency

Everything at 44.1 kHz sample rate, with higher sample rate (double speed) the values are even smaller.

HDSP MADI FX 3,605+0,91 (for AD/DA converter latency of XTC) = 4,5ms
RayDAT            3,742+0,9   (for AD/DA converter latency of UFX) = 4,6ms
UFX+ via TB                                                                                     4,0ms
UFX+ via USB3                                                                                 4,5ms
UFX via USB                                                                                      5,1ms
UFX via Fw                                                                                        5,6ms

As you can see
- even for the old USB driver of UFX the difference in RTL is close to the performance of PCIe (RayDAT): 5.1ms vs 4.5ms
- the new USB driver of the UFX+ is on par with the HDSPe MADI FX, both 4.5ms
- the best values you get with UFX+ via TB which is 4.0ms
But I think the main reason for this is that the UFX+ is the newer product with faster converters:
So lets compare the converter latency of Octamic XTC and UFX+ according to manual:
Octamic XTC: 0,28 + 0,63ms = 0,91ms
UFX+           : 0,28 + 0,16ms = 0,44ms which is 0,47ms less compared to the converter latency of the XTC.
There you have the around 0.5ms difference, the UFX+ is simply the newer product with faster converters.

But 0.5ms, well this is a low difference.

I would like to sum it up this way:

1. all RME driver deliver very good RTL values
2. RTL times of USB and FW drivers are on par with the performance of PCIe based products where TB (Thunderbolt) is "external PCIe".
3. times for digital transport like ADAT or MADI are not significant in the calculation
4. RayDAT and HDSPe MADI FX card would have slightly better values when connecting devices via ADAT/MADI that have more modern converters with lower D/A conversion times. So if you would choose one of the newer products of RME then you might save here maybe around 0.5ms I would guess.

Therefore I recommended you to look more at the products feature set:
- number of MADI busses
- MADI redundancy features of the HDSPe MADI FX
- driver optimizations of the HDSPe MADI FX
- whether the devices have a FX chip
- number of optical MADI channels (with the optional card you can have 3x optical MADI busses with the HDSPe MADI FX which delivers galvanic isolation
- UFX+ has DUREC and can be easily connected to devices via USB and TB and has a lot of different ports on board

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

I can highly recommend the directout Madi converter !

-> https://www.directout.eu/produkte/andiamo-2/

I have a Andiamo 2 in combination with a madiface pro and it is great. And with globcon, you have a very good control software !

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

frabo wrote:

I can highly recommend the directout Madi converter !

-> https://www.directout.eu/produkte/andiamo-2/

I have a Andiamo 2 in combination with a madiface pro and it is great. And with globcon, you have a very good control software !

I’ve seen these in my internet diving lol...

Ramses’ knowledge dump was illuminating...  i don’t mind at all when confronted with my own ignorance... 

Latency aside, I either can buy 24 new channels of ADAT equipped conversion for my current PCIe Digiface system OR replace that system with Madi fx and new conversion...  I think the latter makes more sense as I can plug my existing ADAT converters into my new Madi units for even more channels, etc...

8 (edited by ramses 2020-04-23 21:18:55)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

MADI will give you more options Studiocity.

With ADAT you have a length limitation to 10m, although 15m is usually also doable.
As soon as you work with double or quad speed, then the amount of channels vaporizes from 8 to 4 (96) to 2 (192 kHz).

MADI has 64 channels and still 32@96kHz.
Each fiber cable (between the devices) may be up to 2km long giving you more options for placement compared to 10/15m.
MADI allows you to loop in other PCs with MADI recording interfaces so that you can share the preamps capacity.
As far as I understood the concept, then every PC can read and write to the 64 channels of a MADI bus.
Reading is ok so far for multiple devices, sending audio needs of course to be done in a more organzed way.
But this way somebody could easily work with Octamic XTC1 on recording room one and with another PC you could work with Octamic XTC2 on recording room two.

MADI allows also for remote controlling RME devices via "MIDI over MADI".
So for remote controlling you do not require a separate MIDI cabling which otherwise would be needed.

I am using for example an UFX+ with two Octamic XTC.
The XTC has the special feature, that it can be integrated as so called AUX device into TM FX (like a channel strip).
By this you can remote control most channel settings like Gain, PAN, Phantom Power, Instr, PAD
and save and restore these settings even in TM FX snapshots and Workspace Quick Select slots ...

MADI is the way to go if you can afford it and even if you do not need everything today, the investment is save for the future if of all sudden you get a new demand to scale up your environment.

Watch for the features of the new RME devices like Mic12, M-1610 Pro or M-32 Pro. They will give you additionally options like AVB, I am not sure whether they will get AUX device support, but if then this would integrate excellent into TM FX like with the XTC.

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:

MADI will give you more options Studiocity.

With ADAT you have a length limitation to 10m, although 15m is usually also doable.
As soon as you work with double or quad speed, then the amount of channels vaporizes from 8 to 4 (96) to 2 (192 kHz).

MADI has 64 channels and still 32@96kHz.
Each fiber cable (between the devices) may be up to 2km long giving you more options for placement compared to 10/15m.
MADI allows you to loop in other PCs with MADI recording interfaces so that you can share the preamps capacity.
As far as I understood the concept, then every PC can read and write to the 64 channels of a MADI bus.
Reading is ok so far for multiple devices, sending audio needs of course to be done in a more organzed way.
But this way somebody could easily work with Octamic XTC1 on recording room one and with another PC you could work with Octamic XTC2 on recording room two.

MADI allows also for remote controlling RME devices via "MIDI over MADI".
So for remote controlling you do not require a separate MIDI cabling which otherwise would be needed.

I am using for example an UFX+ with two Octamic XTC.
The XTC has the special feature, that it can be integrated as so called AUX device into TM FX (like a channel strip).
By this you can remote control most channel settings like Gain, PAN, Phantom Power, Instr, PAD
and save and restore these settings even in TM FX snapshots and Workspace Quick Select slots ...

MADI is the way to go if you can afford it and even if you do not need everything today, the investment is save for the future if of all sudden you get a new demand to scale up your environment.

Watch for the features of the new RME devices like Mic12, M-1610 Pro or M-32 Pro. They will give you additionally options like AVB, I am not sure whether they will get AUX device support, but if then this would integrate excellent into TM FX like with the XTC.

That’s interesting about other madi equipped PCs... 

I look at a card like the madi fx as a great brain that I can keep plugging stuff into as I need to...

10 (edited by ramses 2020-04-24 08:07:36)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

> That’s interesting about other madi equipped PCs... 

The RME "MADI info center" from old webserver has more information about MADI...
https://archiv.rme-audio.de/en/products/madi-center.php

...and also presents different setups:
https://archiv.rme-audio.de/en/products/madi-setups.php

https://archiv.rme-audio.de/images/products/en_madi_center_studio_net.gif



Normally you would use a MADI router to connect different equipment / rooms to different PCs.
But if memory serves me right it should also be possible without MADI router like this:

      HDSPe MADI FX
      |
+---+MADI Bus1...........................................................MADI Bus2---------------------------------MADI Bus3
|     |
|     + M-32 Pro AD (MADI 1..32 IN)
|     |
|     + M-32 Pro DA (MADI 1..32 OUT)
|     |
|     + Octamic XTC (MADI 33-40 IN for Mic Pre, MADI 33-40 Out for e.g. 4x AES OUT)
|     |
|     + MADIface Pro --- PC2 (Room2)
|     |
+---+ MADIface Pro --- PC3 (Room3)

The HDSPe MADI FX with its three MADI busses can also act as MADI router and
has additionally some nice features, like Mirror MADI1 Output to MADI2 and 3 see manual:
https://www.rme-audio.de/download/hdspemadifx_e.pdf

By this you can mirror MADI1 to the other two MADI busses and connect there i.e. an UFX+ and use it with its DURec feature as backup recorder to USB disk or SSD or USB stick connected to the USB front port.

See also my blog article about HDSPe MADI FX: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … Pro-FS-BE/


Overview of the setup for the review:


https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2362-03-Solution-Overview-jpg/



Here you see the RME driver settings dialogue window where you can enable the Redundancy Features and in particular to setup the card to mirror MADI1 to MADI 2+3 with the purpose to use the UFX+ as flexible harddisk DURec recorder:


https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2363-04-Settingsdialogue-jpg/



Here you see TM FX in action which can show you two different presentations, left side MADI bus 1, right side MADI bus 2 with the connected UFX+:


https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2364-05-TotalMixFX-jpg/



You can even record with a combination of Global Record (Windows only) and DURec on the UFX on MADI Bus 2:


https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.php/Attachment/2365-06-GlobalRecord-jpg/

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

I’m thinking of the SPL Madisons instead of the ferrofish a32...

Any thoughts?

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Ok... newbie question:

So, say I buy the new RME m32 pro Ad and DA... they both have Madi in and out; however, can I just run a single Madi cable from each unit into the Madi fx card... so:

M32 ad pro Madi out to Madi iN #1 on Madi fx
M32 da pro Madi in to madi out #1 on Madi fx

So, essentially using only one “pair” of Madi on the Madi fx...? Or, is that not correct?


I’m sorry I’m so dumb... first Madi experience

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

*******UFX+********               ******M32 A/D*****                 *****M32 A/D******
MADI IN           MADI OUT---------->MADI IN       MADI OUT------------->MADI IN     MADI OUT------+
   ^                                                                                                                                              |
    |                                                                                                                                              |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

You can chain the devices ... e.g.
- 8x Octamic XTC à 8ch @44.1/48
- 4x Octamic XTC à 8ch @88.2/96
- 2x M-32 Pro A/D and 2x M-32 Pro D/A @44.1/48 kHz
- 1x M-32 Pro A/D and 1x M-32 Pro D/A @88.2/96 kHz

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:

*******UFX+********               ******M32 A/D*****                 *****M32 A/D******
MADI IN           MADI OUT---------->MADI IN       MADI OUT------------->MADI IN     MADI OUT------+
   ^                                                                                                                                              |
    |                                                                                                                                              |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

You can chain the devices ... e.g.
- 8x Octamic XTC à 8ch @44.1/48
- 4x Octamic XTC à 8ch @88.2/96
- 2x M-32 Pro A/D and 2x M-32 Pro D/A @44.1/48 kHz
- 1x M-32 Pro A/D and 1x M-32 Pro D/A @88.2/96 kHz

This didn’t translate well...  I don’t understand your response.

Let me ask my original question a different way...  both m32 AD and m32 have MADI In and MADI Out; however, my thought is that I would only need to plug single cables as so:

M32 AD MADI Out to Madi fx MADI #1 IN
M32 DA MADI IN  to Madi fx MADI #1 OUT

No word clock cable required

Is that correct and/or best practice?

Thanks!

Brett

15 (edited by ramses 2020-04-26 08:38:46)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Hi Brett,

if you have multiple devices, then you can chain them as my ASCII drawing shows (at least I hoped it shows something):

"From the recording interface MADI OUT to the 1st device MADI IN
from the 1st device MADI OUT to the 2nd device MADI IN
until you are back to the recording interface"

WC is not needed you can clock from MADI. RME Steadyclock technology eliminates the clock jitter.
https://www.rme-audio.de/steadyclock-fs.html
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/rme-designs

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

16

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

This only works when the M 32 AD is clock master, the other two are clock slaves then - can do. A ring cabling as suggested by ramses with a third connection between AD and DA will give the freedom to let any of the three units be the clock master. Switching between 44, 48 kHz, 88 and 96 kHz can be done by the card as clock master, which might be much more comfortable.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

17

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Aaah, the early guys on a Sunday morning... smile

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Yep wink

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

My ideal setup would be to have the Madi fx card be the master...

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:

Hi Brett,

if you have multiple devices, then you can chain them as my ASCII drawing shows (at least I hoped it shows something):

"From the recording interface MADI OUT to the 1st device MADI IN
from the 1st device MADI OUT to the 2nd device MADI IN
until you are back to the recording interface"

WC is not needed you can clock from MADI. RME Steadyclock technology eliminates the clock jitter.
https://www.rme-audio.de/steadyclock-fs.html
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/rme-designs

I’m only confused with the RME m32 series because each box only handles one side of the conversion, so, one AD box and a second for DA

21

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

So you missed that both units have MADI In and Out? Unused chanels are passed through...In a ring cabling you would go from MADI FX to DA, from DA to AD, from AD to FX. The line in-between is only used for clocking in this specific case.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

MC wrote:

So you missed that both units have MADI In and Out? Unused chanels are passed through...In a ring cabling you would go from MADI FX to DA, from DA to AD, from AD to FX. The line in-between is only used for clocking in this specific case.

Thanks, Ramse

I couldn’t see that on the ascii here on my phone (computer is disconnected at the moment)

Thanks

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Spl madison...  thoughts?

Credit card is coming out in 3...2...1...

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Studiocity wrote:

Spl madison...  thoughts?

Credit card is coming out in 3...2...1...

The M32 Pro are extremely cool with a lot of options...

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:
Studiocity wrote:

Spl madison...  thoughts?

Credit card is coming out in 3...2...1...

The M32 Pro are extremely cool with a lot of options...

Lol...  ramses is number 1...  RME is number 1

https://youtu.be/18vTWgUjHcY

26 (edited by ramses 2020-04-28 22:58:24)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

Maybe I forgot to ask for your budget .. but if I remember right you started mentioning these RME devices as well wink

A massage is really something I could need wink

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

I went with the ferrofish (for now)...  now I’m sketching the outlines of putting together a lower count but mastering grade adda converters for 2 buss...  looking at the rme adi 2 pro

Quick question...  On the Madi fx card...  is it silly using the audio out to send to my monitor controller?

28 (edited by ramses 2020-05-01 21:33:10)

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

The analog output is unbalanced for phones.
I recommend using an ADI-2 Pro* connected to the AES output of the HDSPe MADI FX.

In terms of integration of ADI-2 Pro *
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro20H2, Cub11Pro, UFX+ (v0.9735), XTC, 12Mic, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE

Re: MADI fx question (a dumb one probably)

ramses wrote:

The analog outputs is unbalanced for phones.
I recommend using an ADI-2 Pro* connected to the AES output of the HDSPe MADI FX.

In terms of integration of ADI-2 Pro *
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

That’s what I figured...  and the adi pto is what I’m looking at!

Thanks