Thanks for the reply..

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

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...

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

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.

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?

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 …