Hi Tom,

MADIface driver supports down to 32 samples, usb driver 48 samples at single speed.
The difference in terms of RTL is low, see RTL for some products using the link below.
Note: the old UFX had the USB driver, these entries you can use to compare with UFX+/UFX III.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … cts-en-de/

If you should need the pitch function, only supported by the USB driver.

You can use my Excel comparison sheet for further comparisons:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

As the Digiface AES costs around €2000 you could also consider getting other recording interfaces.

If the type/amount of ports would be sufficient, e.g. UCX II which has nice preamps up to 75db gain and DURec, by this you would even save some money.
Similar with 802 FS, but the question is whether you like the analog knobs on the mic inputs. I prefer the other recording interfaces where you can save the settings in TotalMix FX "snapshots" to easily save/recall them.

An alternative would be to look directly to the flagship interfaces like e.g. UFX II.

Or even UFX III with MADI which got some nice additional features, see Excel and this blog article:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/

MADI gives you many options to connect devices and also in terms of possible cable lengths, more freedom in placement of additional devices, e.g. to split them across rooms. Bigger investment, I know, but should your demand grow you have with it the best possibilities to grow without having to invest into a new device. You need do look / consider on your own ... I do not know your current and future demands and whether it would fit budget wise.

Really? Now I am confused. PLease help me how you mean that.
Good round trip latency is IMHO not dependend on the PC.

It depends on
- ASIO buffersize (where the small difference between 32 and 48 samples is neglectable)
- Converter latency (much much lower compared to latency caused by ASIO buffersizes, esp higher ones)
- driver quality and how many safety buffers

The PC can have good or bad drivers, thus higher or lower DPC, which gives you more or less headroom to use lower ASIO buffersizes for a given project.
If ASIO buffersize is too low for the project/ASIO load or when cpu cores are blocked by bad drivers (DPC latencies), then you get not more latency but audio drops if the PC is not fast enough to process audio in time.

Thanks for clarifying.
BTW I use mostly 128 samples buffer for normal operation and gaming.
When playing a virtual amp and recording then I use mostly 64 samples.
32 samples is possible but I want some reserves.
A real delay when playing through a virtual amp I feel at 256 samples (13.x ms RTL).
But with everything below 10ms (32..128 samples) I am fine.

I currently use the 1073dpd as the master clock when recording with it, and it sends the word lock over separate BNC. I notice the ucx II had BNC, the Babyface doesn't. Would sending the clock over AES with the audio (converted to toslink with a converter I have) to the Babyface be fine? If the Digiface AES was a little cheaper, I'd choose that, as it measures better, has exactly what I need, uses the newer driver. But I don't think I can justify it when the Babyface is half the price. Sorry, last question, and really appreciate the help, would the Babyface work fine with Sennheiser HD280 pro 64 ohms headphones which I use quite a lot? The Babyface has 0.1 and 10 ohm phones outputs, the Digiface AES has one 5 ohm, which seems a better fit.

Not sure. To my knowledge it would have to be SPDIF (consumer format), not AES/EBU (professional format).

Ah yes, with this two converters it should work. I was wrong anyway, according to the manual:
27.4 Digital Inputs
...
SPDIF optical
- 1 x optical, according to IEC 60958
- Accepts Consumer and Professional format
- Lock Range: 27 kHz – 200 kHz
- Jitter suppression: > 50 dB (2.4 kHz)

And with SteadyClock FS on the Babyface pro you will have a nice and clean digital audio signal from the Neve.

Is there an advantage to using a PSU apart from a more powerful headphone amp? Does it change the sound quality? The ucx II looks good, but I don't need so many analog channels and not sure I would use DURec. So if the Babyface running from bus power means some quality is compromised, I would lean towards the ucx II.

Compare the values / features in the Excel.

The UCX II has definitively the Mic Inputs with higher gain.
The more powerful headphone outputs can driver headphones with higher impedance.
DURec is very useful to have the possibility for backup recordings in addition to the DAW or to simply be used as a tape deck.
The effect section in the BBF Pro is different. The UCX II has a full implementation of FX by an additional FX chip inside.
BBF Pro: FX effects (dynamics/reverbs) are rendered on PC via driver.

Don't get me wrong, the BBF Pro FS is an excellent interface. But it has been designed for mobile use, therefore some tradeoffs / compromises. The UCX II (successor of the UCX) got many useful things from the flagship interface and as it has not been designed for mobile use, it offers more ports, features and has a more powerful analog section.
So it depends, what features are most important for you .. more mobility/lower price or more power/performance features.
A small form factor applies to both.
UCX II you can even expand later with an ADI-2 Pro via AES, but still have one ADAT port free for preamp or converter.

Thanks for this clarification. Will correct it in the Excel soon. I am not certain how this came in.

The Excel chart is very useful, thanks. I think the Digiface AES should show Madiface as driver, not usb. The ufx II having better preamps doesn't matter as much for my use as I usually use the Neve preamps.

What is the difference between the two drivers, is one a different usb implementation and is it better?

I don’t know the difference, but for sure there is not a 'better' and a 'worse' one - for what reason should RME offer drivers in different qualities? Also the two months difference (July / September) between the release of the two Windows drivers are not related to the driver quality.
I have a Babyface pro (USB series driver) and a Digiface USB (MADIface driver) and both the units run equally well on both my Macs (an old Intel MacBook and a new M1 mini, so completely different driver versions).
EDIT!! What am I telling here? On Mac, both BBFpro and Digiface USB use the same driver. Sorry, I was confused, only for Windows there are different drivers!

Beside that, the optional PSU is needed for the use on an iPad (class compliant mode) or as a standalone device.

My Beyer DT-770 250 Ohm headphones work well on the Babyface pro (I have the older model). And the mic gain even is ok to use some ribbon mics.
So this is kind of 'luxus discussion'…

I will need to get my head around Totalmix. Might have to read the manual :-O. I actually have a very old hdsp 9652 pci card, though it's used for something else at the moment, and I want something to use with a laptop. But that has Totalmix, and I used to use that, but never really bothered to understand it as I used a Spirit 328 mixer for reverb then. But it's amazing that this old card still works great on Windows and has really low latency. It looks like the Babyface is winning me over. I should also give a shout-out to Metric Halo. The ULN-2 is amazing too, and the ability to keep upgrading it is great. Less waste. But I want to move away from pentiometers and it doesn't have Windows drivers.

It might work for you but not for others.
I need some of this extra gain when doing silent recording with levels around 70-75 dB.

It is not a luxury discussion, the question is how flexible you want or need to be with your gear.

And if I am not mistaken I told about the advantages about flexibility, not to buy too small, because nobody knows what you are doing in a few months or years. Like me, of all sudden nearly all of my analog I/O are in use.

Final decision -> requester.

Just wanted to say thanks to oli and ramses for their contribution into this thread, and others.

(I'm looking into whether to upgrade my Digiface USB to a setup that has either just UCX II, or Digiface USB+ADI-2* - was going to make my own thread but there's so much information on all these options already on the forum ).

PCI card is not IMHO very convenient for "mobile" setup. Well, one could have rack size computer and have all the gear in one rack, or more.....

Digiface USB may be entry model, but it works fine. Just it does not work standalone (unless one uses workaround) and does not have effects. If I am not mistaken even not via computer in TotalMix (maybe it has global effects, I have never tried). I do like DF USB. I use it to glue together different pieces of gear. Sort of inteligent patch bay, so I do not use it to have 4x8 inputs, I use it to add 8 channels to FF 802, or UCX from three others units.

That's definitely not my opinion. I would rather call it a unit for specific use cases. I can imagine, the RME developer team had very concrete plans for it. Looking at the RME product range, I clearly see the Digiface USB as computer interface for up to four ADI-8 (QS) or maybe M-16/M-32 AD or DA converters or also XTC preamps. Of course it can also be used to connect some other ADAT or SPDIF converters. But keep in mind it has no word clock i/o. That means, the developer previewed connected units with both, ADAT inputs and outputs. Otherwise it becomes difficult to synchronise all devices together.

^^^
Yes. It's useful to see what decisions others make, and why.

I of course can see what both of you, ramses and Kubrak meant by saying 'entry level'. It wasn't my intention to criticise you both - sorry for this. But in my personal opinion, it's really not the right description. Thinking on unexperienced users reading posts in this forum, it could give a false impression of the Digiface USB. In my eyes it's a 'specialist'. The same I think about the Babyface pro (FS), a 'specialist' which can be just the right thing for some users purposes.

I've pretty much decided on the Babyface. It has FS clock, which I would like (rules out Digiface USB connected to uln-2). The uln-2 clock is excellent, but for mobile use I wouldn't have that clock, and the Digiface headphone output is not as good as Babyface. I already have AES to toslink adapters, so I can connect AES to the Babyface. It has less ports than ucx II, but I only need one input and output. If I need more I can add a Digiface USB. The preamps in the ucx II might be slightly better, but I wouldn't use them enough for it to be a major factor. I use the Neve preamp mostly. The extra things the ucx II has like usb recording, auto set, more outputs, word clock are all unnecessary for my use. I prefer the form factor of the Babyface for mobile use. I actually think the xlr's not locking might be better, as I can then disconnect it more easily when I want to take it out of the studio setup to use somewhere else. I don't need the colour display, though it might have been slightly useful. But it uses more energy. Babyface uses less. Better for bills and planet. I won't be playing stuff ear bleedingly loud in headphones, so don't need the extra power. I will at some point upgrade to digital monitors, most likely the kh120 IIs. So will just use toslink and converter for that. Running on bus power means it's more portable, and I would like to be able to use it on a train for example. The Digiface AES looks great, but the form factor is less appropriate for my use, and it is a lot more expensive, so not worth it.

The only thing that's really a negative for the Babyface compared with the Digiface AES is the older driver. I still don't know why the Digiface AES (bus powered usb) and the Babyface Pro FS use different drivers. No-one has given me an answer on that. I think until I get an answer to that I will hold off on buying it just yet. Hopefully I'll get an answer soon though :-)

The drivers models are different in how many channels they support and the way they achieve that. There is no latency performance difference. The newer driver squeezes more channels into usb then was possible with the what you call older one. But they are both current and updated.

BTW that’s interesting: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/rme-digiface-aes

I think the intention was for the following operational reason:

If a customer has already an UCX and gets the new UCX II, then he can access both interfaces with the same "old" usb driver.

In contrast to that, the Digiface AES is an entirely new interface, therefore the MADIface USB driver has been used. No need for backward compatibility for a possibly existing older model.

For the UFX+/ UFX III, UFX II and the older UFX a slightly different story...

UFX+ and UFX III have a much higher channel count and need the USB transfer modes being used in the MADIface driver for this reason.

The UFX+ was delivered before the UFX II. So the UFX II might have got the MADIface driver as well, to be more equal to the UFX+.

As you could see from my blog article that all drivers are on par RTL-wise … there is no better or worse driver.

Therefore, simply use the device which gives you most benefits for now and the future and do not buy too small.

Another tip: if BBF Pro, look that you get cables with angled plus, otherwise the cables to the left and right might disturb on the desk if you do not have much room. There are also TOSLINK cables available with angled plugs, but I don't know about the quality or whether they might dampen the signal because of the 90° angle (for TOSLINK cable length within the specs (<10m) most likely no issue).

Here at least an angled USB cable on left side:

You are aware the 2 phones can be used simultaneously,but do carry the same sound, it's 1 DAC. And of course another DAC for the analog outs.