Hi
For sure the Babyface pro FS is an excellent interface for use on iPad. I would say it’s a step up from the 2i2. I can’t tell you about audible difference to the ADI-2 DAC. I don’t think it’s huge.
You could also consider to sell the DAC and buy an ADI-2 pro which also has analog inputs and works as a class compliant device on iPad. Or you go for a bigger RME interface, UCX II, UFX II or III … many possibilities to choose from.

Happy babyface pro fs user here too!

to -1 The analog inputs on the ADI-2 Pro FS are no instrument inputs.
to -2 ADI-2 DAC also works class compliant according to manual

Least cost: combination of BBF Pro FS and ADI-2 DAC FS (as he already owns the ADI-2 DAC FS).

An alternative might be:

UCX II - more flexibility, could possibly connect sub and satellites and use new feature room EQ
             Possibly Instr inputs have higher gain range to be checked .. just as a check point
             Definitvely more options:
             Autoset - always useful for finding proper input gain for Instr and Mic inputs
             DURec for standalone or backup recordings
             Display
             Full implementation of FX chip
             Mic Pres with 75 dB gain range
             Better headphone outputs
             More reflevels supported on inputs and outputs

UFX II - all as UCX II, but even more quality, ports, possibilities
             has the analog section of UFX III, which uses the converters of ADI-2 Pro FS
             Instrument inputs have a higher gain range if I remember right.
             19" but worth every penny.
             More reflevels supported on inputs and outputs
             Fully independend AES and 2x ADAT ports which now all can be set to optical SPDIF

> My intention was to make clear the ADI-2 pro could be an option which works directly on the iPad
> (for this I mentioned the class compliant ability)

He already has the ADI-2 DAC FS, and now you tell him, why he should get an ADI-2 Pro and you list several features.

If you tell it this way, it sounds as if CC mode would be a unique feature of the ADI-2 Pro
and as if the ADI-2 DAC wouldn't have it, but this is not the case.
The ADI-2 DAC FS also has Class Compliant mode, so this is no reason for him to buy the Pro model.
Do you get my point now?

> has analog inputs which can be used for the guitar with an instrument preamp in front or such

One device more only for having an instrument input? Doesn't make much sense to me because he wants to have
a small setup. As nice as the ADI-2 Pro FS is, it is missing TM FX.
If he needs to have two devices anyway, then it would be much better to combine an RME recording interface with ADI-2 DAC FS. I see no merit to in using an ADI-2 Pro FS alone.

I see it this way.

1. 1st objective, get a good working recording interface with TotalMix FX as a basement for your work.
I would use the BBF Pro FS only then, if you really need mobility.
UCX II and above have a much better feature set. I do not want to list some details again.
Open your mind, read the manual, have yourself a look.

2. If you want to have the very best for your monitoring section, then get an ADI-2 DAC or PRO FS additionally.
It has so useful features for monitoring.

3. If you want to have a (one!) recording interface which does not have all features of an ADI-2 DAC FS / Pro FS R BE,
but the proven converter of the ADI-2 Pro FS series, then get UFX II.
Or UFX III if you want to expand your environment later.

An 802 FS is lacking for my taste the possibility to save and recall gain settings in TM FX snapshots and workspaces.
It is an option to save money, but I would personally prefer the "real deal" instead (UFX II or UFX III).

My $0.02 on this topic.

>> If you tell it this way, it sounds as if CC mode would be a unique feature of the ADI-2 Pro
>> and as if the ADI-2 DAC wouldn't have it, but this is not the case.

> If you think so…?

I looked into the manual. Any doubts on this?

Regarding the rest … it is all in the area of personal experience and preferences, and also us two might have different tastes. I was only curious about some statements of yours and therefore asked back.
I do not see this as a kind of fight or to win, it's simply about information exchange, views to find hopefully the best solution for the person who asked. This is the focus for me.

There are indeed alternative solutions possible, it depends much on
- how he wants to use the device, how he wants the workflow to be
- how much money he would like to spend
- whether he thinks that he could work efficiently without TM FX (and maybe without knowing TM FX

You and me, we also have different experiences and probably also workflows, thus slightly different requirements.
And please, its for me not about to win, I try to find solutions that will really please and support him.

Therefore, I tend to recommend things, which give him not only a solid based but also many options,
so that he has a chance to develop his workflow to find his own optimum one.
If you choose only a reference converter without TM FX, then the capabilities of the unit dictate your workflow.

With TotalMix FX, you have more freedom. You can save routings in snapshots, easily recall them depending on the current use case. This and many other things give him more options to develop an optimum workflow because you have many more capabilities.

That said, my recommendation is, to have a recording interface with TotalMix FX as a solid base.
So, either recording interface alone or a combination with ADI-2 DAC or PRO.

But I wouldn't choose ADI-2 Pro alone.

Yeah, fully agree, thanks Olli ;-)

Yes and here how to set it up:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/

Although this is an ADI-2 Pro the setup of the ADI-2 DAC is more or less the same.