For the 802 and UFX II, 60 is the highest possible count of channels (in + out) at single speed sample rates. Higher sample rates decimate the count of ADAT channels of course. It can be misleading, yes. Also it can be misleading to sum inputs and outputs … wow, do I really have 60 recording channels at once? … ah, no!
My suggestion would be to call it
'multichannel interface with up to 30 input and 30 output channels'*
*at 44.1 / 48 kHz

@waedi, I don’t understand what you mean concerning the SPDIF channels?

One has to take data with understanding and care. The values may be valid only under certain conditions...

For example one may use up to three Digiface USB units, so potentialy 24 ADAT lines in and 24 out. So one might think that he may have 192 channels in and 192 channels out at single speed. Without any limitation.

But it is achievable only if units are connected to at least two USB controllers. One USB controller is not able to handle so much in/out lines....

How to get at least 16 analog outs on 802 in 192 kHz sample rate?

Assuming you would leave the unbalanced phones outputs for phones: not possible.

You need to add an 8 ports converter.
With quad speed, you would need 8 ports x 4 channels = 32ch / 8 ch = 4 ADAT outputs.
Your 802 has only 2 ADAT ports.

The only solution, use double speed, then 2x ADAT I/O is sufficient.

But I question myself why you require 192 kHz anyway.
For my High End HIFI (Accuphase Class A plus B&W Speaker) even single speed is fully sufficient to get a superb sound.

You're just making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself and requiring 4 ADAT outputs that you don't have.
Do you really want to have to switch to MADI for such a somewhat questionable requirement?

What is your use case / your setup, can you please explain it?

Go MADI..
64ch @single speed
32ch @double speed
16ch @quad speed

PC
|
| USB3
|
UFX III
|       |
|       + M-1610 Pro
|       |
+-<--+

UFX III: 8x Analog OUT
M-1610 Pro: 8x Analog OUT

If you want the same D/A converter

PC
|
| USB3
|
UFX III
|       |
|       + M-1610 Pro
|       |
|       + M-1610 Pro
|       |
+-<--+

If you want the same D/A converter and to save a little bit money

PC
|
| PCIe
|
HDSPe MADI FX - MADI Bus#1 (optical): M-1610 Pro #1
                         - MADI Bus#2 (optical): M-1610 Pro #2
                         - MADI Bus#3 (coax.): reserve (option: optical by an optional daughter card)

- 1 HP out would still work. But it’s maybe not the best solution having a mix of different DA converters on ADAT and AES out.
All fine with 192kHz, no worries.
But then I would seriously consider to buy different hardware (as described by ramses above). With too many devices and output 'types' involved you risk differences in reference levels, sound quality and converter latencies.

EDIT: And no, you absolutely don’t know what I think / 'want to say' about 192 kHz. It’s true, for my own needs 48 kHz are fine. But my question was out of curiosity and also to understand better what your needs are, to give a more accurate reply. As now stated by ramses and myself, someone who wants to work with 192kHz for some reasons shouldn’t work with a mix (or 'zoo' as called from ramses) of three, four, five different DA units.

Yes, in both cases it matches exactly my opinion, too.
And it’s exactly why I wrote what you can read in my post (13)

Yes, possible and then clock sync through either AES or ADAT.

Though I am not a big fan of setups with multiples recording interfaces in parallel as this means, for certain use cases, that he has to route through the DAW. At quad speed he could only route 4 channels across the units across the two ADAT ports.
Would make operation more cumbersome.
He also needs to take care, that in the driver settings both interfaces use the same buffersize (if Windows). How this is being done on Apple, I can't tell. If I remember right he didn't talk about OS.

Therefore, I proposed a more flexible setup with one recording interface, but you are right, it is possible if his computer allows.
I would recommend ensuring not to connect the recording interfaces then to the same USB controller to be on the safe side (and in case packet loss would occur).

Thank you for your time and visual representation, partner.
But wonder why i ask about 802, not the latest UFX ones etc.

All this is out of my budget range.

I wish RME make something like Cymatic Audio uTrack 24  or Orion 32

AudioINTERFACE (not just converter) with a lot of ANALOG I\O with outstanding RME stabilty & quality.

Cymatic Audio is 96K only. Antelope's are crazy unstable on Windows, and i don't know how they will act on Linux (i want to work on Linux in future, but my FF800 is firewire and gives me a big problems there. That's why i start to think about 802.)

Mac is not the option for me, sorry.

UPD:
The uTrack24 can record 24 channels with a sampling rate of 48 kHz and up to 24 bits. And it can record up to 8 channels with a sampling rate of 96 kHz at 24 bits.

* Channel configuration changes to 8-input, 8-output at 88.2 and 96kHz

@vinark: I fully agree, let me add this, because I was already typing .. but you were faster

Then you should think about why the whole thing is so expensive, and perhaps be a little more modest in terms of sample rate. There's no need for 192 kHz, sorry, but I think you're just making it unnecessarily difficult for yourself.

Professional studios are using e.g. excellent 32 channel converter from RME. See the YouTube videos of my blog article here:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … Pro-FS-BE/
The two YouTube Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GArwdlVt-jM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZD6O1ne3lc
Those 32ch of a M-32 Pro AD / DA fit perfectly to one MADI bus (64ch @single speed, 32ch at double speed) when recording at double speed.

Sorry, I do not want to sound or be inpolite, but to bring it to the point. You do not have the budget for that equipment, but have such high requirements, that double speed is not enough for you??? Again sorry, but this doesn't fit to each other.

I would think about it carefully, with the help of this forum and not simply avoid an open discussion.

I've already met a few people here in the forum who came to the wrong conclusions because of wrong testing methodology, not excluding psychoacoustic effects. Maybe you got something wrong which leads you now into the wrong direction.

As I mentioned in some threads .. I have a high-end HiFi (Accuphase Class A amp and B&W speaker).
Single speed recordings sound really great, not only CDs, especially film music has an excellent quality (room, depth).

And double speed gives you an already a much wider frequency range which is fully outside our ears capabilities.
And with double speed, you also have no issues with frequency rolloff of some D/A filter (like slow filter).
[Just in case you would use a reference converter like e.g. ADI-2 Pro, where you can choose from different filters].

To sum up, I would re-thing your setup, with double speed you get an excellent quality and then everything wouldn't be so expensive for you. Just connect an converter to your two ADAT ports and you have 8 more channels for AD/DA.

Have a look here https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM and here https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-r … tal-audio/

Nice.
Forum post only half of my big post here.

Guess who wins?

We find out that all oversampled versions of mix sounds much muffled. Much less impact and transients feeling smudged.
Compare with original high sample rate file (without OS) , it was more natural, percussion are spikey, punchy and fast (in time/phase meaning)
I write this bazzzilion times:

This is because how Oversampling works under the hood.
New "fake" sampling point building algorithm and filtering at the end.
If filtering is lin-phase you will have pre-echo that even worse. Specially on mixbus.

Everyone who participated in the blind test clearly chose the 192 kHz file without any oversampling. I repeat, that's it. Blindly! Repeatedly.
This is a scientific experiment that produces a scientific result.

The criterion for a scientific experiment is:
All possible errors were taken into account and prevented in the experiment.
The result is reliable if it repeats predictably. That is, this is not a coincidence.

Conclusion, despite theoretical postulates, practice and human preferences have shown that a song mixed and recorded at the highest possible sampling frequency is perceived by the listener as higher quality and more pleasant-sounding.

In simple words - 192 kHz mixing is mandatory if you want to preserve details what was in the sound before digital signal processing.

If i mix and produce fully DAWless and analog - i think negative influence of lower sample rates will be less crucial.
I barely hear difference i record drums or any instruments 44.1 vs 192.

But when plugins, gain and pan steps to the stage in the digital realm, my output became much worse (around 20% to my ears on my monitoring system) than my input was.

I hope i clear all what you want to know.
"What is your genre?" etc - it dosen't matter now in this discussion.
Matter is only two things:
- Me, find out something so special and magnificent that force me to search for solution "how to.."
- You, start to doubt in whats you know before, and make your own fair ABX type blind tests.
But most people never will do this. They are afraid to destroy everything they believe the whole life. Like a audiophiles who afraid to do blind test of 10K$ cables with cheap ones etc.

Peace out.

@MFS90
To understand better your workflow: for what exactly do you need the at least 16 outputs? Analog summing? Analog outboard processing?

You may do it using 802.

8 analog out
2 one of headphone outs, the other will be used by headphones

Using additional DA device
2 over ADAT 1
2 over ADAT 2
2 over AES

Gives you 16 analog out. But using two 802 seems to be more sound, you would have the same DA on all outputs. If 192k matters, the same DA on alnalog outs should as well.

The initial questions are answered since post nr. 8 some days ago:
- Using the FF802 at 192 kHz, there aren’t 60 channels (30 in / 30 out) but 'only' 36 (18 / 18).
- 16 outputs are possible but only when additional DA converters are added over ADAT and AES

Maybe it’s better to close the topic now?