Topic: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Planning on getting an M32 AD Pro for additional AD's, interfacing primarily via MADI to the UFX+, with the bonus of having AVB for future applications.. My questions;

1) What's the recommended clock master and clocking interface in this case? My initial idea is to have the UFX+ as master and clock the M32 via wordclock/BNC - would a different setup be recommended?

2) What is the MADI input on the M32 AD intended for?

Thanks in advance for your input!

2 (edited by ramses 2023-02-07 04:55:39)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

From RME's last comments, I learned that the M-32 Pro behaves a bit different from the ADI-2 Pro regarding conversion.

The ADI-2 Pro always uses its clock for the final AD/DA conversion, even if it is the clock slave. With the M-32 Pro, this is different (*).

Since the M-32 Pro also has FS clock, in this case, I would use the M-32 Pro A/D as clock master and configure the UFX+ as clock slave. No WC cabling is required, the clock synchronization can be done via MADI without any problems.

Not 100% sure whether it's really required in this case to connect UFX+----------->M-32 Pro with a MADI cable as the M-32 Pro is the clock master, and it has no analog outputs. Furthermore, I am not certain, whether a remote control application exists for which MIDI over MADI would be needed. I think the only remote control of this device is via LAN and Browser, but I could be wrong (I do not own this device, this is purely from memory). Better ask RME. Or simply get the 2nd cable, doesn't cost a lot, and try it out yourself. Latest you will be needed if you add another MADI device to the chain with not only inputs but also outputs.

(*) EDIT: not 100% sure whether it was the case with 12Mic, but I assume that it is same with M-32 Pro as the design of the ADI-2 Pro/DAC is special in that regards.

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

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Thanks for the reply..

Just to put it in context, currently the UFX+ is interfacing with an M1Pro (16") via Thunderbolt, very stable operation.

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Anyone from RME that could chip in?

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

1. ramses recommendation will work just fine
2. The MIDI remote software can be used to control the device with MIDI over MADI. The protocol is compatible with the older M-32 (without "Pro") series.
Apart from this, the MADI input extends the range of use cases for the M-32 Pro (as well as the other devices from that series, 12Mic, M-1610 etc) as MADI-AVB-converter. In fact, the M-32 Pro has been the first MADI-AVB converter on the market, there are quite some setups that are using it soley for that purpose, analog I/O is unconnected there...

6 (edited by kfrm 2023-02-08 09:27:09)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Thanks for the input!

1) The only drawback with using the M32 as clock reference in my setup, I suppose, would be losing the ability to switch sample rate from the DAW.

- Any workaround to this?
- Would it really be a loss to use UFX+ as clock reference? How much of a difference does Steady Clock FS provide vs regular Steady Clock?


2) I suppose it means that in the future, if I’d decide to use only AVB, the UFX+ could be used as extension to the M32 via the MADI I/O, good stuff!

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

I think there are measurable but not audible differences.
We had such topics already in the forum around the difference between ADI-2 Pro vs. ADI-2 Pro FS.

Check the great video about Steadyclock FS, there is interesting information from M. Carstens contained which cover your topic/question. https://www.rme-audio.de/steadyclock-fs.html

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

8 (edited by vinark 2023-02-08 13:24:35)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

If you get a M32 pro (with FS) there is absolutely no need to make it clock master. As a slave it will be 100% identical because of steadyclock FS. It is the whole point of FS.
Only with devices with relatively bad jitter suppression, you will get a benefit if the AD is clock master and even then probably inaudible (except with the first generation protools interfaces, which had really bad clockin and started the whole external clocking can improve sound hype)
If one device has steadyclock and the other steadyclock FS, make the first one master, not the FS one. Steadyclock is never about internal jitter when master, alwaya bout being slave and jitter suppression.

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

9 (edited by ramses 2023-02-08 14:13:43)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Maybe I am misreading or misunderstanding.

I understand it this way
SteadyClock is a technology for fast and stable lock (and sync) even when the incoming clock signal has high jitter.
By this RME devices with SteadyClock technology are the perfect clock slave per se.
Later versions in combination with FS (femto second clock) "SteadyClock FS" achieve an even higher jitter suppression (measurable, see Matthias video on this).

FS clock itself is a clock with higher resolution / accuracy, so in theory it is beneficial for AD/DA conversion.
But the results seems to be only measurable, not audible (from what I remember from discussion here on forum about any potential differences in audio quality between ADI-2 Pro "FS"- and "non-FS"-version)

I think at the end of the day the audio quality (what you hear) might be the same.
But if somebody looks for a better clock for his setup, then I think the FS (femto second) clock is the better choice than non-FS (independend of SteadyClock tech).

Is this basically the same as you think or where is perhaps the delta ?
I only would like to know whether I maybe overlooked or misunderstood something.

BTW, I asked this already for the case UFX+ with 12Mic.
I assumed (wrong) that the 12Mic as clock slave does the final A/D and D/A conversion by using its internal FS clock.
RME told me, that this is a special design for ADI-2 DAC/Pro, therefore the clock of UFX+ would be used.

I think when the M32-Pro is your central device and if you want to get the best (potentially only measurable) conversion quality, then you should use the M32-Pro with his FS clock as clock master for this device.

Whether it's a real advantage .. well who knows, you would need to blind test or measure this.
But I think nobody wants to make a science out of it.

For operational reasons its usually an advantage to use the recording interface as master.
In an ideal case the DAW then controls sample rate via ASIO driver and the slaves learn the sample rate.
With a few exceptions if port bundling can't be recognized over ADAT or MADI whether you have double or quad speed.

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

10 (edited by vinark 2023-02-08 14:58:23)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

think when the M32-Pro is your central device and if you want to get the best (potentially only measurable) conversion quality, then you should use the M32-Pro with his FS clock as clock master for this device.

Steadyclock FS negates this need fully. Normal steadyclock might have a slight decrease in measured AD quality (but inaudible). Hence if you have 2 devices you both use, use the one with steadyclock fs as slave.
But you are right, in cases with devices with unknown jitter correction (cheaper ones) use the AD as master for best recording quality. Just not with the M32 pro (FS)

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

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

The logic is sound in both cases, but it would be interesting to hear from the RME reps what they would recommend and why.

I’m new here, does anyone from RME read the forums or should I email the support?

12

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

On the left side you see the number of posts that ramses and vinark have written. That should make clear that their advice is as good as ours. You also got a direct reply from RME already, Marc S, see above.

We do read everything here, but not always react as it mainly is a user forum.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

Thanks MC

I thought since the comments from Ramses and Vinark posted after Marc’s reply were a bit contradictory, that it would be nice to clear out the confusion

So, in other words, the conclusion would be that any of these devices both theoretically and practically are equally suited to being the clock master and the FS device (M32) will operate with the same jitter values regardless of clocking internally or with UFX+ as master, correct?

Also, could using BNC for sync provide any benefit from clocking via the MADI cable? Thinking it must be there for a reason …

14 (edited by vinark 2023-02-09 16:57:52)

Re: Extend UFX+ with M32 AD Pro, two questions

You understood it correctly.
Yes the BNC is there for a reason, for devices that only support BNC wordclock. There are quit a few of those (mostly video equipment and mic preamps with a digital out). It is not better then optical, if anything a little more suspect to bad cabling, terminating issues and interference.

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