• Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 56

Topic: Babyface and dynamics

Hello, there is a lot of discussions about the lack of compressor (or other dynamics, like gate) on Babyface Pro FS, and the common answer is: „If RME would add compressor processor to Babyface, it would be necessary to add a second chip, because current dsp chip doesn't have that much power.  And it will cause, that BF will be less portable and more expensive, and RME don’t want to do that.”
I fully understand, why RME don’t want to make BF less portable and more expensive, but I have 2 questions on two different scenarios:

1) If I understood correct, Babyface reverb and delay – unlike in the higher RME models – are computer CPU based for the same reason: BF DSP chip isn’t so powerfull to handle EQ and reverb, and delay. So why not add CPU based compressor to Totalmix and make it avaible with Babyface? It won’t load DSP procesor and it will be better than nothing.
2) I don’t know if it is technically possible for current Babyface DSP chip to process compressor algorithms  at all, but if yes, if this is only DSP load problem, why not to add compressor and limit it’s capabilities to operate on each channel toghether with EQ. For example sometimes there is no need to use EQ on every In and Out, but just on main outs. And maybe with such a load on the processor there will be enough power to add compressor only on one channel.

2 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2022-02-11 07:55:15)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,859

Re: Babyface and dynamics

Main reason for the current design is that the BBF Pro can still be operated bus powered.
Reverb and dynamics are rendered on the PC through the driver so its already the way like you propose, that it's being calculated on the computer.
Normally the full implementation of FX requires a 2nd DSP, but then bus powered operation is not possible.
So what you get with the BBF Pro is the best compromise for getting a very flexible product that can be used bus powered or not.
Then consider the last facelift where the BBF Pro has again be optimized and you can use it still bus powered.
If this is not sufficient to you, get the UCX II.

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

3 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,432

Re: Babyface and dynamics

Using the CPU for FX is only possible with latency uncritical FX - Echo and Reverb. You can't do this with anything else that needs sample accuracy or real-time latency (read none) - EQ and Dynamics.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 56

Re: Babyface and dynamics

Thank you for clear answer on my first scenario: dynamics are latency critical, that’s why they can’t be implemented like reverb – CPU based.
But still I am not sure the answer on my second scenario. There could be two reasons, why there is no dynamics implementation:
1) second DSP chip is needed, because it is impossible to run dynamics alghorhytms through current BF chip, due to architecture of this chip.
2) it is possible to run dynamics alghorhytms through current BF chip, but there is not enough power to run in the same time EQ and dynamics on all channels.

If this is a second case, why not to add dynamics and limit its use. For example if DSP meter wheel will show full load, the user can’t add more FX to any channel. The FX buttons will turn gray.

  • mkok
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2020-11-04
  • Posts: 623

Re: Babyface and dynamics

The bfp was made so it could run on usb power and does that terrifically but compromises had to be made and this was one of them. What you suggest gets over complicated and maybe even like this there wouldn’t be enough processing power but I’ll kea e that for others. Needless to say it doesn’t have compression and it never pretended to have it.

Babyface Pro Fs, Behringer ADA8200, win 10/11 PCs, Cubase/Wavelab, Adam A7X monitors.
  • Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 56

Re: Babyface and dynamics

I know why RME doesn’t want to add second DSP chip to Babyface. What I would like to know is if with current DSP chip it is possible at all to add dynamics the way I described in my previous post.

  • Registered: 2022-02-02
  • Posts: 8

Re: Babyface and dynamics

I do wonder if this functionality can be had but would be locked to DC power use only.

  • Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 56

Re: Babyface and dynamics

saichoomusic wrote:

I do wonder if this functionality can be had but would be locked to DC power use only.

What I have understood from different statements, full DSP implementation – like in higher models – needs second DSP chip. To add second chip, Babyface have to be rebuild, have to be bigger and more expensive, which RME doesn't want to do. So it is not only the case of power supply.

But still I would like to know the answer to my question. Is it possible to add dynamics and limit it use as I described above? Purely theoretical, because as I can see RME has no such plans.

  • Registered: 2023-02-11
  • Posts: 1

Re: Babyface and dynamics

Agree, all I've read is that it is current consumption related, but the Babyface has a power input, so again, it is probably not about power, I totally understand RME doesn't want to cannibalize the UCX upgrading the Babyface's functionality, I would not do it either probably, but at least it would be nice to let the customer decide, something like, Ok, you can use Dynamics in 1 stereo pair, you choose which one, but that's it, and you need power to use it, or it will simply consume a lot of DSP, which is fine, I'd trade Echo and Reverb any day for Dynamics, we are simply not allowed to, and "that"... sucks.

My two cents. Otherwise I love the babyface, had the 9652HDSP before and loved it, and sold it, and almost cried right after xD

  • mkok
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2020-11-04
  • Posts: 623

Re: Babyface and dynamics

It has a specific aim and design. Why would they then research and test to just answer a theoretical question? I know I wouldn’t

Babyface Pro Fs, Behringer ADA8200, win 10/11 PCs, Cubase/Wavelab, Adam A7X monitors.
  • Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 56

Re: Babyface and dynamics

I don't know which answers to theoretical questions require testing and research, and which questions can be answered based on what RME already knows about their technologies.

Regarding „specific aim and design”. At first, I asked about this topic, because RME states that their products – by design – are very flexible for future changes and improvements. Because of the implemented software. That’s why I was hoped, that maybe there is a chance, that in the future something can change, how BF deals with dynamics.

  • Registered: 2022-07-19
  • Posts: 3

Re: Babyface and dynamics

Is it possible to make some USB C class compliant new interface? So that it could be bus powered and have full DSP