1 Topic by luis_! (edited by luis_! 2021-08-30 21:43:35)

  • Registered: 2021-08-30
  • Posts: 2

Topic: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

Hi all,

I just got a used Babyface Pro (no FS - which I only realized after having it for two hours big_smile) and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Before, I used a Steinberg UR22, and the sound of the Babyface is, as hoped for, a lot better - unlike the latency and the overall performance. I'm normally working with a 128 sample buffer size, and the Steinberg managed most of my projects really well. Now with the Babyface I have to increase to 512 samples to get similar results.
The DSP performance looks similar between both interfaces on the same sample rates (you can view that live in Bitwig), but on the Babyface there are occasional spikes, which are audible as cracks/pops. After trying it for a few minutes with one of my larger projects, the Babyface actually crashed and wouldn't give out audio, even though there was a moving level meter on the device.
Also I compared both interfaces with a complex Omnisphere preset. The Babyface had occasional cracks with 128 samples buffer, while the UR 22 didn't have any issues at 96 samples - what?

My system is up to date, I'm using a Lenovo Legion 5 with an SSD running Windows 10, a Ryzen 7 4800 H and an Nvidia RTX 2060. My USB Ports are all 3.2. I am using the ASIO Fireface USB Driver. I updated the Babyface's firmware to the current version.
My audio settings are 44.1 kHz with - normally - 96-128 samples.

I have tried turning off my Wifi card and setting the Babyface to not be the standard audio device (was mentioned in the manual as a potential issue). Both didn't change anything.

I have been reading through a lot of posts here on this forum but nothing really gave me an insight as to explain why this device, aimed at the professional customer, would perform so inferior to a really basic entry level interface.
While the interface is definitely usable at 512 samples, that definitely isn't that magic performance boost that everybody here is always raving of, and which got me to get an RME interface as well.

Without changing anything about the system, the UR 22 just performs better than the Babyface. Does anybody have an idea about potential bottlenecks? Or did I just buy a broken interface?

Thank you in advance,
Luis

(Edited for clarification)

2 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,436

Re: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

The UR22 has only 2/2 channels to transmit via USB. The BF Pro has 12/12 channels to transmit. With USB not performing optimally this might already explain the differences that you see. If you search this forum you will find people often have problems with AMD USB. Solutions range from latest BIOS updates up to using a PCIe to USB card to make it work.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

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

Re: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

And what latencies does cubase report for the same setting on both interfaces?

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,866

Re: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

vinark wrote:

And what latencies does cubase report for the same setting on both interfaces?

Good point, usually RME has a lower RTL (Round Trip Latency, Input+Output ASIO latency) when comparing at the same sample rate and ASIO buffersize. So it could be, that the RTL is similar even if you use 512 buffers with RME.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
  • Registered: 2021-08-30
  • Posts: 2

Re: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

The RTL is 4 ms for 64 samples and 13 ms for 256 samples on the RME, can't measure on the UR 22 right now. I'm pretty sure the latency values in Bitwig (my DAW) were similar.

LatencyMon gave pretty good results and said, my PC should be able to run real time audio processing.

I managed to hugely improve the situation by changing my Windows Power Plan settings. There was a setting allowing the USB ports power to be throttled or something like that.

I will still try to streamline my system more to get the best possible performance, looking at a BIOS update now.

A PCI-Express card is not a viable option for a laptop, if I'm not mistaken..?

Thanks for your answers!
Luis

6 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-09-02 04:54:56)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,866

Re: Babyface Pro performing inferior to Steinberg UR 22..?

> LatencyMon gave pretty good results and said, my PC should be able to run real time audio processing.

How long did you test. What is "pretty good" ? Could you identify e.g. drivers causing higher DPCs ?

> I managed to hugely improve the situation by changing my Windows Power Plan settings. There was a setting allowing the USB ports power to be throttled or something like that.

You need to use a power plan for full performance. Cubase can be set to use a power plan of its own which also disables CPU core parking (which also cases higher DPC), at least on a desktop PC.

> A PCI-Express card is not a viable option for a laptop, if I'm not mistaken..?

A laptop is flat, it doesn't offer PCIe slots on the mainboard.

Only Thunderbolt is external PCIe but then you need either a thunderbolt recording interface (UFX+). or a thunderbolt based extension cabinet with one or more PCIe slots which would allow for another USB card under the assumption that the chipset of your laptop causes USB issues.

This would be an expensive solution, no guarantee, that this works / works better. But AFAIK AMD based laptops usually do not have a thunderbolt option anyway.

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