Topic: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

Hello There,

first post here, hopefully soon joining the RME's family...

I want to upgrade my home-studio setup for producing/mixing/mastering as hobby. Given my strong passion in headphones for listening to various genres of music, I was tempted to join both the needs and buy an ADI-2 Pro FS.

As far as the listening task is concerned, I don't have any doubt. However, I am wondering if it is usable as an audio interface too. I need just 1 input at a time for recording vocals or bass guitar, so the number of inputs is fine, but my main concern is the latency (will it be comparable to a BF Pro FS in Logic?) and the lack of TotalMix FX. I am in OSX Catalina, btw.

Many thanks!

Michele

2 (edited by KaiS 2021-04-17 16:53:34)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

The ADI-2 Pro is great as interface for home use.

In the recording studio the lack of Totalmix limits it‘s use, if you‘re heading for low latency, as all mixing and monitoring during tracking has to be done through the DAW.

According to this posting something might change here in the future, but MC‘s (RME head and developer) posting doesn‘t exactly tell what and when:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 69#p169269

Maybe you ask again smile


For vocal recording you need a mic pre in front of ADI-2 Pro, as the analog input is line level only.

Maybe an interface out of the UCX / UFX-series, or the Babyface, might serve you better.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

KaiS wrote:

The ADI-2 Pro is great as interface for home use.

In the recording studio the lack of Totalmix limits it‘s use, if you‘re heading for low latency, as all mixing and monitoring during tracking has to be done through the DAW.

According to this posting something might change here in the future, but MC‘s (RME head and developer) posting doesn‘t exactly tell what and when:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 69#p169269

Maybe you ask again smile


For vocal recording you need a mic pre in front of ADI-2 Pro, as the analog input is line level only.

Maybe an interface out of the UCX / UFX-series, or the Babyface, might serve you better.

Thanks for jumping in. I'd be tracking through the DAW using Logic's low latency mode, though, but I am not sure if the ADI-2 Pro roundtrip latency would be close to 2/3ms which I find to be still usable by the singer.

The UCX/Babyface Pro would be an easier alternative, but I'd need to add an external dac connected via adat + headphone amp so to have an high-quality check for mixing/mastering.

4 (edited by KaiS 2021-04-18 08:56:08)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

michele wrote:
KaiS wrote:

The ADI-2 Pro is great as interface for home use.

In the recording studio the lack of Totalmix limits it‘s use, if you‘re heading for low latency, as all mixing and monitoring during tracking has to be done through the DAW.

According to this posting something might change here in the future, but MC‘s (RME head and developer) posting doesn‘t exactly tell what and when:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 69#p169269

Maybe you ask again smile


For vocal recording you need a mic pre in front of ADI-2 Pro, as the analog input is line level only.

Maybe an interface out of the UCX / UFX-series, or the Babyface, might serve you better.

Thanks for jumping in. I'd be tracking through the DAW using Logic's low latency mode, though, but I am not sure if the ADI-2 Pro roundtrip latency would be close to 2/3ms which I find to be still usable by the singer.

The UCX/Babyface Pro would be an easier alternative, but I'd need to add an external dac connected via adat + headphone amp so to have an high-quality check for mixing/mastering.

If you look at the UFX+ it has all you need.

Once in a while you might find that you have use for the extra i/o channels, e.g. to connect additional monitor speakers or do a live recording.
Or just keep everything connected without the need for endless replugging that holds back creativity.

At least it‘s future proof as central unit to built a studio around it.
And the two headphones outputs are no slouch either.

https://www.rme-audio.de/fireface-ufx.html

5 (edited by KaiS 2021-04-21 06:34:22)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

michele wrote:

..., I am wondering if it {ADI-2 Pro FS} is usable as an audio interface too. I need just 1 input at a time for recording vocals or bass guitar, so the number of inputs is fine, but my main concern is the latency (will it be comparable to a BF Pro FS in Logic?) and the lack of TotalMix FX. I am in OSX Catalina, btw

You can find the answer from the developer here:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 53#p169653

MC:
” The latency is RME style, means low. The manual does not include that info because for DACs it is typically irrelevant, but you can check the Pro manual and read in there. The latency will as usual depend on the ASIO buffer setting, or the buffer set in the app if using Mac.
Using the Short Delay filters in the DAC will ensure that minimum latency is achieved at lower buffer sizes.”

6 (edited by ramses 2021-04-21 07:41:58)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

michele wrote:

Thanks for jumping in. I'd be tracking through the DAW using Logic's low latency mode, though, but I am not sure if the ADI-2 Pro roundtrip latency would be close to 2/3ms which I find to be still usable by the singer.

The UCX/Babyface Pro would be an easier alternative, but I'd need to add an external dac connected via adat + headphone amp so to have an high-quality check for mixing/mastering.

Frankly, I don't understand why you estimate 2-3ms RTL for vocal recording. You listen to the backing track in the headphones connected to the RME recording interface and sing along with it. Then you only have to deal with the much lower latency due to the A/D conversion at the microphone input. With a UFX+ at 44.1 kHz this is just 0.28ms.
And if I am not mistaken, then the DAW in combination with the driver performs a latency compensation for it, knowing the RTL.

A low RTL between recording interface and computer (AD/DA conversion and back/forward via USB/*) is mostly only important when you record/play using virtual instruments (VSTi). And even then RTL up to about 12ms are still manageable (I know this from own experience having played over a virtual guitar amp). With an RME UFX+ this corresponds to ASIO buffersize settings of 32 - 128 which gives you a nice range of possibilities to adjust the buffersize according to project size and still having the RTL below 10ms (at least with Windows ASIO drivers).

Here is an overview of the RTL of different solutions I had in use, from a blog article of mine about the UFX+. By this you can see what you can expect from it. Pls ignore the RTLs of the other ADAT/MADI based examples in this screenshot, in your case now not applicable:

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


As KaiS already noted you have clear advantages if you would first use a RME recording interface with TotalMix FX routing. Such a solution you can always add now or later an ADI-2 DAC or even better an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE to enjoy the device specific features.

Here is a blog article of mine describing the combination of recording interface and ADI-2 Pro, its very easy to be setup and used this way (but you can add this at any time later!): https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

Here is a sticky that gives you an overview of the main differences between ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2 DAC as a quick introduction to this topic, surely of help if you are new to the devices:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 06#p165706

I've been using UFX and UFX+ for over 6 years now and can tell you from my own experience that this really is the best solution. With this you can also get along without ADI-2 Pro FS for the time being, in order to spread the costs over time.

Here is an Excel overview from me with information from various sources (manual, forum, ..), with which you can get a fairly quick and detailed overview of the various devices:
Blog article: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … B-MADIfac/
Direct link to the Excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … 0-08-xlsx/

For a UFX+ would speak in particular that you would then have all conceivable possibilities and freedoms of the connection to the PC. Since you use a Mac, the Thunderbolt interface will certainly be of interest now or later. But you can also connect with USB3 and even USB2 is possible, but then only as a 30-channel interface without the additional MADI channels.

And .. it has all the nice features that you can think of .... wink

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

7 (edited by vinark 2021-04-21 09:36:54)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

michele wrote:
KaiS wrote:

The ADI-2 Pro is great as interface for home use.

In the recording studio the lack of Totalmix limits it‘s use, if you‘re heading for low latency, as all mixing and monitoring during tracking has to be done through the DAW.

According to this posting something might change here in the future, but MC‘s (RME head and developer) posting doesn‘t exactly tell what and when:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 69#p169269

Maybe you ask again smile


For vocal recording you need a mic pre in front of ADI-2 Pro, as the analog input is line level only.

Maybe an interface out of the UCX / UFX-series, or the Babyface, might serve you better.

Thanks for jumping in. I'd be tracking through the DAW using Logic's low latency mode, though, but I am not sure if the ADI-2 Pro roundtrip latency would be close to 2/3ms which I find to be still usable by the singer.

The UCX/Babyface Pro would be an easier alternative, but I'd need to add an external dac connected via adat + headphone amp so to have an high-quality check for mixing/mastering.

I just bought a Babyface pro fs and it sounds superbe, also with assorted headphones and plenty power. I doubt there will be audible differences with the adi2's especialy with the fs version and I have absolutely no problems mixing and mastering on it. It sound better, then my hdsp9632 which sounded great too.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
Babyface pro fs, HDSP9652+ADI-8AE, HDSP9632

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

Frankly, I don't understand why you estimate 2-3ms RTL for vocal recording. You listen to the backing track in the headphones connected to the RME recording interface and sing along with it. Then you only have to deal with the much lower latency due to the A/D conversion at the microphone input. With a UFX+ at 44.1 kHz this is just 0.28ms.
And if I am not mistaken, then the DAW in combination with the driver performs a latency compensation for it, knowing the RTL.

A low RTL between recording interface and computer (AD/DA conversion and back/forward via USB/*) is mostly only important when you record/play using virtual instruments (VSTi). And even then RTL up to about 12ms are still manageable (I know this from own experience having played over a virtual guitar amp). With an RME UFX+ this corresponds to ASIO buffersize settings of 32 - 128 which gives you a nice range of possibilities to adjust the buffersize according to project size and still having the RTL below 10ms (at least with Windows ASIO drivers).

Here is an overview of the RTL of different solutions I had in use, from a blog article of mine about the UFX+. By this you can see what you can expect from it. Pls ignore the RTLs of the other ADAT/MADI based examples in this screenshot, in your case now not applicable:

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

First of all, thanks very much for your detailed contribute. It's a big help for claryfing my ideas. I am realizing that for my needs, a proper audio interface option is the most viable one.

As far as the latency is concerned, I am referring to the typical situation when the singer hears his voice in the headphones slightly delayed.

Thanks again

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

I just bought a Babyface pro fs and it sounds superbe, also with assorted headphones and plenty power. I doubt there will be audible differences with the adi2's especialy with the fs version and I have absolutely no problems mixing and mastering on it. It sound better, then my hdsp9632 which sounded great too.

Good news, thanks for the feedback. Actually I have been checking in Italy, the country I am living in, as well as in the main European e-shops, but it looks impossible to find a BF Pro FS...

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

michele wrote:

I just bought a Babyface pro fs and it sounds superbe, also with assorted headphones and plenty power. I doubt there will be audible differences with the adi2's especialy with the fs version and I have absolutely no problems mixing and mastering on it. It sound better, then my hdsp9632 which sounded great too.

Good news, thanks for the feedback. Actually I have been checking in Italy, the country I am living in, as well as in the main European e-shops, but it looks impossible to find a BF Pro FS...

Yes you are right, I found mine in a smallish online dj shop, that still had one. Might be worth it to keep searching.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
Babyface pro fs, HDSP9652+ADI-8AE, HDSP9632

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS as audio interface

Just to share my happiness after the arrival of a brand new Babyface Pro FS. Possibly I will evaluate if to add the mighty ADI- Pro FS to my setup!

Cheers,

Michele