Anyone previously recorded with a FF400, and then a newer interface and compared to see if the new and old recordings are noticeably different in quality?

TIA

I still think that 44.1 kHz is already a clever concept for digital audio. No matter how hard I listen I must confess I don't hear a difference with higher sample rates.

Also, there can be ramifications for processing like compression, that have a time/reactive aspect to them.

Hi

Thanks for the replies.

It seems to me that if people can't tell the difference between lower and higher sample rates then there is no chance of them telling the difference between old and new a/d converters?

Personally, I can tell the difference between low and high sample rates when making recordings of acoustic instruments with a lot of high frequency detail such as acoustic guitars and especially things like 12 string acoustics, top end is much more defined with a lot less high-frequency fuzz. Having said that, higher sample rates are arguably academic when the world seems to be streaming music at reasonably low sample rates, but is it worth having high sample rate versions for pressing onto vinyl?

Hmm... I'm still not convinced there is any gain in buying a new device when sampling 44.1 kHz, maybe at the higher sample rates because the newer converters have a flatter response?

Has anyone actually compared old and new recordings at higher sample rates to check if there is a noticeable difference?

Thanks for the reply.

Was thinking about a RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE.

Ideally I would prefer a cutdown version that was cheaper.

What I would like is the highest sampling frequency and new converter chips of the RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE in a no-frills 4 or 8 analogue ins and outs box.

Hmm... I wonder if RME will make something approaching like that in the near future?

I guess a RME Fireface UCX II but with a higher sampling rate.

1. You are using TM FX now? You are aware of, that RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE does not have TM FX?

2. There are often questions about sound, and it simply doesn't make sense to pass the issue on to others. You also generally don't know the people and don't know how valid their tests are in terms of background knowledge for testing / methodology.

> I don't want to mess retailers around by ordering something and sending it back because it doesn't sound any/much different.

Sorry but kind of "lame excuse". What if somebody claims to hear a difference which you are not able to reproduce for yourself (assumed you would also do proper blind tests to be not a victim of your expectation). You should perform this yourself to get a valid result for yourself.

And again, the other persons do not have: your room, your active monitors, your hearing capabilities (either better or worse), you don't know their methodology.

It may be a pious wish of yours that someone can tell you this, but it may have no relevance for you at all. You are simply buying something because someone else has claimed something. And you can live with that? Well, yes.

> professional mastering engineer comes on here and tells me

This is not the typical guy with a FF400, right?

More something like him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHG32aXBDY

I found this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4-DKB4yQ50

but he used MOTU

Thanks

and bye

If you believe in people who for sure will earn money generating Youtube videos ..

At the end of the day it is irrelevant whether you connect the ADI-2 Pro FS to a RME or MOTU recording interface.
Reasons
1) with Steadyclock FS any RME device is a perfect clock slave
2) main reason, the ADI-2 DAC/Pro series of interfaces use per design the internal FS clock for the final D/A conversion no matter whether they are clock master or clock slave.

Additionally, you can use the Bittest whether you have a lossless audio transport between player and the DSP of the unit shortly before D/A conversion (which happens with the internal FS clock as stated above).

I bought a RME ADI-2 FS.

Will arrive next week.

Thanks all.

If anyone is interested.

Not had time to try out the A/D, but have had a listen to the D/A.

To my ears, the D/A at 44.1 is significantly better, a good chunk of top end fuzz is replaced with natural detail.

Bodes well for future tests.

Note the ADI-2 FS has better AD/DA specs than the UCX II. I'll bet the UCX II will sound fractionally worse than the ADI-2 FS.

Also, it seems that some people can hear a difference between AKM and ESS converters: SOME people report ESS is slightly more detail in the top end, some see that as a good thing others as a bit too edgy/harsh - I expect it is personal taste rather than one being better than the other, AKM more natural sounding. I have not tested but I always prefer natural over hyped, so I am glad that the ADI-2 FS has AKM converters.

In summary, so far I am delighted with the upgrade, I have added 2 channels of mastering quality recording/playback to my FF400, and I virtually always only record 1 or 2 channels at a time, and I have no need for the extra features of UCX II etc.