You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → RME Website → ADI-2 Pro & ADI-2 DAC: links to firmware versions are wrong
RME User Forum → ADI-2 Pro & ADI-2 DAC
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewforum.php?id=21
The links to the different firmware versions are always the same:
https://www.rme-audio.de/downloads/fut_madiface_win.zip
A redundant saving of "fut_madiface_win.zip" under a suitable ADI-2 folder structure of your WEB server could solve the problem.
Hi weme,
nice to hear from you again, I see the good intention, like in other contributions that you did over the past years (just had a quick look to rememeber), but sorry if I say it like that, I get the impression you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
This is my personal view after many years of experience with RME, not only with this product. Maybe my view helps you a bit to see it from another angle and maybe to come to the same or similar conclusions like me. Last but not least, no matter what I think/write, RME will also read your request and maybe give their own views on this...
The link is the same because the fut supports multiple devices and RME wants customers to always use the latest version with the latest bug fixes and features.
The advantages for the customer are obvious:
1. Any potential bugs of older firmware versions do not re-appear of all sudden again. This makes support easier for all of us users/customers helping each other and also for RME. Everybody who wants can check/validate with the latest firmware.
2. Customers receive the current features as described in the current documentation (no confusion, everything easy and straightforward)
3. The more customers using the latest firmware, the more feedback on the latest version and a higher certainty that there is no hidden bug or a higher probability of finding one.
4. RME fixes bugs very promptly.
5. So far I haven't experienced a bug that immediately required a rollback to an older firmware, with none of the RME devices I have and there are quite a few.
6. Should it be necessary, RME will upload older firmware and provide the URL for it.
If you are still not convinced that this is completely sufficient or, like me, simply have the habit of wanting more options, then you can take action yourself and rename the just downloaded file and add a version number to it.
Also comments about features, whatever you prefer.
However, you may find over the years (like me) that it is not really necessary, but I still do most of the time (if I do not forget) 
Hi weme,
nice to hear from you again, I see the good intention, like in other contributions that you did over the past years (just had a quick look to rememeber), but sorry if I say it like that, I get the impression you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
This is my personal view after many years of experience with RME, not only with this product. Maybe my view helps you a bit to see it from another angle and maybe to come to the same or similar conclusions like me. Last but not least, no matter what I think/write, RME will also read your request and maybe give their own views on this...
The link is the same because the fut supports multiple devices and RME wants customers to always use the latest version with the latest bug fixes and features.
The advantages for the customer are obvious:
1. Any potential bugs of older firmware versions do not re-appear of all sudden again. This makes support easier for all of us users/customers helping each other and also for RME. Everybody who wants can check/validate with the latest firmware.
2. Customers receive the current features as described in the current documentation (no confusion, everything easy and straightforward)
3. The more customers using the latest firmware, the more feedback on the latest version and a higher certainty that there is no hidden bug or a higher probability of finding one.
4. RME fixes bugs very promptly.
5. So far I haven't experienced a bug that immediately required a rollback to an older firmware, with none of the RME devices I have and there are quite a few.
6. Should it be necessary, RME will upload older firmware and provide the URL for it.If you are still not convinced that this is completely sufficient or, like me, simply have the habit of wanting more options, then you can take action yourself and rename the just downloaded file and add a version number to it.
Also comments about features, whatever you prefer.
However, you may find over the years (like me) that it is not really necessary, but I still do most of the time (if I do not forget)
I am not surprised by your message:
When I read the topics that interest me, I also read your comments carefully or then skip them because the topic was unfortunately missed by you again. Your tips here are good and useful! But just stay on the topic - it will save your time.
If I have replied to an article of yours, it has always been constructive. That your table could be improved was also just a constructive hint from me.
We don't know each other and we will never meet.
You are certainly a respected expert in your field. But you have not studied to be able to develop something in the fields listed below. Therefore, you cannot understand the potential of my constructive suggestions.
Hardware, Electronics, Software, User Interfaces, ... These activities must also be documented.
But I can do more, so I can confirm that your answers to 1. to 3. (because only these are part of my hint) are correct!
That's exactly how I would do it, but I would just remove the links to the software!
In #1 I did not fully describe the "problem". Here are the details and the correction:
For firmware updates, I like to use the extracted information from the readme.txt locally or online. In doing so, I noticed:
Topic: Firmware Update ADI-2 DAC 66 / 47 and ADI-2 Pro 259 / 111
https://www.rme-audio.de/downloads/fut_madiface_win.zip
readme.txt: ADI-2 Pro series: FPGA 262, DSP 112 - ADI-2 DAC: FPGA 78, DSP 48
...
Topic: Firmware Updates ADI-2 Pro 193 / 93 and DAC 26 / 28
https://archiv.rme-audio.de/download/fu … ce_win.zip
readme.txt: ADI-2 Pro series: FPGA 213, DSP 97 - ADI-2 DAC: FPGA 27, DSP 33
I report such insignificant errors (?) only out of my very great sympathy for products and people from RME, because I think that perfect products also require a perfect website.
In #1 I did not fully describe the "problem". Here are the details and the correction:
For firmware updates, I like to use the extracted information from the readme.txt locally or online. In doing so, I noticed:
Topic: Firmware Update ADI-2 DAC 66 / 47 and ADI-2 Pro 259 / 111
https://www.rme-audio.de/downloads/fut_madiface_win.zip
readme.txt: ADI-2 Pro series: FPGA 262, DSP 112 - ADI-2 DAC: FPGA 78, DSP 48
...Topic: Firmware Updates ADI-2 Pro 193 / 93 and DAC 26 / 28
https://archiv.rme-audio.de/download/fu … ce_win.zip
readme.txt: ADI-2 Pro series: FPGA 213, DSP 97 - ADI-2 DAC: FPGA 27, DSP 33I report such insignificant errors (?) only out of my very great sympathy for products and people from RME, because I think that perfect products also require a perfect website.
Read and observe the date.
RME User Forum → RME Website → ADI-2 Pro & ADI-2 DAC: links to firmware versions are wrong
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.