Ok thanks. So having Steadyclock FS would only improve jitter for phones output? The adat outputs would be exactly the same with Steadyclock or FS?

And takes care of getting a lock much quicker and keeping the lock reliably even if there should be an enormous amount of jitter, see the RME video where such a high jitter has been dialed-in during the test (which would normally never occur in a real-life scenario).

Just to answer original question....

Digiface USB has SteadyClock, not SteadyClock FS.

Userguide page 6.
https://www.rme-audio.de/downloads/dface_usb_e.pdf

EDIT.
I have overloked, that MC has already answerred it....

My point and rightfully so is that conversion happens in the da ad device and there the quality of the clock and syncing and relocking etc is most important. Yes a digiface will send out a steadyclocked optical stream, adat or spdif, but audio quality is about how the external gear deals with this clock. You can not improve any external gear with a better clock, only if it is a bad design without anything comparable to steadyclock, degrade it with a bad external clock.
The beauty of steadyclock fs is that you can no longer degrade a rme device with a bad external clock and that it will carry this optimised clock also on its digital outputs. Again this is somewhat useful on the digiface for that reason, but the clocking quality of the external gear comes first with a big lead. Hope this cleared things up
Cheers!
Vincent

If I use HD280 headphones (64 ohms) and I like to listen not too loud, wouldn't lower output power mean I can keep the digital volume higher and have more dynamic range?

Yea that's fine. When I said standalone, I just meant without being connected to the uln-2, which is how I would use it just with headphones. I wouldn't ever use it without a laptop. I realise the ucx II can record without a laptop/pc. It's nice to have that option, but would I ever use it?

If the Digiface USB is the master clock, would the phones output be exactly the same as if the Digiface had the FS clock instead? So does FS only make a difference when it's slaved? As I would mostly use it as master clock, I suppose the only difference between the phones output on the Digiface and Babyface is a different amp, maybe different da converter? If the phones output is good enough for listening not too loud mostly with either hd280 or 650 then maybe I should get that instead of Babyface. Definitely deciding soon anyway

So FS has less jitter even in master clock mode? The phones would be ok with hd280 though?

https://www.rme-audio.de/steadyclock-fs.html

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=34869

I've read that link on Steadyclock FS. I suppose an improvement in 'self-jitter' means it's a better clock in master mode than non-fs. If that's definitely the case, I will stick with a FS device.

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still a little confused. So the old Steadyclock (one in Digiface USB?) has more self jitter than the Babyface Pro FS? Doesn't that mean it has more jitter when using internal clock?

Ok, thanks. So the I guess the internal clock just gets updated, but not really advertised. In other words the latest oscillator is used, so the older devices will have a less accurate internal clock. So I wouldn't really know if the internal clock in the Digiface is more accurate than the Babyface FS? Just the fact that the Babyface is newer might mean it has a better quartz or whatever?

It's interesting reading the specs for the different interfaces. Like the Digiface USB has: "Internal clock: 800 ps Jitter, Random Spread Spectrum". The newer devices don't mention any jitter spec for the internal clock. Also the fs seem to have either "Jitter suppression of external clocks: > 50 dB (2.4 kHz)" or "Jitter suppression of external clocks: > 50 dB (> 1 kHz)" or even "Jitter suppression: > 50 dB (> 1 Hz)". I'm not sure if one of the Hz/kHz is a typo? But I'm assuming these differences in spec are because of different clocks.

If I choose to buy just on features I need, then the Digiface might be better. I still Dynaudio BM15 monitors and a Hafler amp, but I'd be looking to replace these with the KH120 IIs. And that would mean I don't need analog xlr out. But as a have a Mteric Halo interface currently (only changing to RME really since I'm moving from Mac to Windows), I'm used to a great clock that came with the 3D card upgrade. So would using phones with the Digiface suddenly sound not as good? That's my main concern on getting it.

It's either Babyface or Digiface, and once I've installed the 2 new Samsung 990 Pro 4TB drives and the Samsung 8TB ssd in my Windows laptop, I'll be needing to decide on one. Looking more like Digiface though. Though I'm not sure

Or get the both BF and DF test it for yourself and return in time one of them..... The best is to try it side by side.

Yes, I am well, you got my idea.

The BBF Pro FS is at the edge of what's doable for a USB bus powered interface; therefore, I wouldn't expect a successor with even more ports/features or stronger headphone outputs.

The "larger BBF Pro FS" is the UCX II. With a small bag, the 9.5" format is portable.

I would not split hair over a few dB here and there.

But it would bring me back to a more basic thing. What types and number of channels do you require?

You told something about two preamps, where one of it can only be connected analog as it seems, the other can be connected by either using AES or optical SPDIF.

With the Digiface AES you would block the two mic inputs if you would use them as line input.

The UCX II is very flexible as it also offers e.g.
- analog inputs and outputs without blocking your two mic/line inputs
- DURec
- connector for ARC USB / DURec on the back
- full implementation of FX section
- loopback implementation pre-fader
- damping of the switch-on crackling
- faster converter on output

Side note, before purchasing a Digiface AES for €1998 I would think about whether portability is that crucial for you.
For €2099 you can get an UFX II and for €2689 you can get an UFX III.
Or for €1376 an UCX II which has more ports and a richer feature set.

The weight and size is not a real problem, he may hire a porter to carry it. ;-)

I'm beginning to get the impression that you're getting caught up in contradictions. Mobile, bus powered and (now simplified) "the best technical data in all areas" are simply requirements that cannot be easily reconciled.

With the AKM converters of the former ADI-2 Pro FS, the UFX III probably has the best analog section of all recording interfaces. The microphone inputs are in no way inferior to the 12Mic.

In addition, the device is expandable and has a lot of very useful features. The new Room EQ is also coming soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-qxkIqbWY

Whether and which other products still have enough space / performance reserves in the FPGA is not yet clear. If I were you, I'd get a UFX III, you've got a top product and you're done.

Or a combination of recording interface and ADI-2 Pro FS or ADI-2/4 Pro SE.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/

I thought you want the best, then you need to be willed to pay not only for quality but also for some features, even if you do not need them. That's life, most products are not exactly to the point in terms of what you require. IMHO better too much, than too few …

I am not sure whether you understood my idea to combine recording interface with a reference converter?
To be on the safe side, I would like to ask whether you saw and understood my idea.
Especially because of the quality, features for monitoring and the attractive form factor of the ADI-2 DAC/Pro series.
ADI-2 DAC/Pro can even run battery powered.

Regarding BBF Pro FS. Not bad, but I would think twice if this is really sufficient.
Because with your two preamps, this interface is full.

I would think twice whether it makes sense to invest this much money and have no reserves in terms of ports if your demands should increase. You have merely a port free for loopback recording. Buying too small is not a good idea.

But I wouldn't get the Digiface until it has the better clock and updated headphone amp. Otherwise I'll just simply get the bf in the next few weeks.

Found the answer.

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=37753

Next time I'll search first

I decided to buy the Digiface USB with a Black Friday deal. It has a headphones output that should be good enough for what I need. I don't need any mic inputs. I've never used the ones in my uln-2. I will use it with the uln-2 to have analog balanced outs for monitors. If I upgrade to kh120 IIs which I probably will at some point, then I can just use digital outs. But this way, I keep the uln-2, because Metric Halo are great at allowing to update hardware and there's the Edgecard options. I also get to use the newer RME drivers, and can even get 32 sample buffers, not that I'm likely to use that setting often though. But the newer drivers might make adding another rme interface later, or upgrading, a bit easier.

I'm not sure if I'll have the Digiface or uln-2 as the master clock. I'll be using da from the uln-2, except when I'm working in a mobile capacity. But having the Digiface as master might cause less complications for changing sample rate.

I still don't really know if the quartz in the Digiface is the same one used in the Babyface Pro FS. I might have to open it up just to satisfy my curiosity. Unless someone can tell me?

Sorry Ramses that I didn't get the ufx III. I could never justify it for what I need. If I do need extra features later, I can maybe get that or just have the options with the uln-2.

If anyone can answer on the quartz used in Digiface that would save me some time. Thanks.

I did want to get one with the best specs. But specs will be better in a year and although the Digiface doesn't have the femto clock (though if anyone anywhere could clarify this, as I'm still not sure if fs means different quartz crystal or just different circuit) I can just upgrade later if I feel the quality of the phones is lacking slightly.