• HKC
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-02-15
  • Posts: 5

Topic: M series versus QS8

Hi the fact that I haven't posted here before says a lot about how few problems I have had over the years with my ancient 9652.
Anyway I will upgrade my computer when the next MacPro lines comes which probably won't be long now. I will have to upgrade everything coming from all PCI and going to PCIe and that of course leads me to wonder which interface is more interesting, MADI HDSPe or Raydat.
Of course with the Raydat I could keep my converters which is a plus for the lightpipes. On the other hand I am already tempted by the low internal conversion time of the QS8 and could very well end up buying a couple of those anyway which puts the MADI solution back in the game again.
I haven't found anything on the net about the M series internal conversion time which leads me to believe that they are maybe slower than the QS8 in which case I find that the QS8 is a better choice for me where latency is very important.
I have measured quite a few converters lately and it's certainly true that most converters have a conversion time around 40-50 samples which is a lot compared to the QS8's 12 samples in 48KHz. On the other hand if I am wrong and the M series have as good data as the QS8 the MADI solution seems a little smarter all together. Does anybody know if there is a difference soundwise on the two systems.
Finally am I correct in assuming that I could buy the M-16/32 AD and keep my lightpipe converters for the outputs. It seems to be possible to connect the DA lightpipe converters to the M-32 or what.....

Thanks for any input
Henrik

2 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 24,880

Re: M series versus QS8

The conversion times are listed in detail in the manuals. These are available as pdf on our website. Higher as the QS but better than your example ;-)

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • HKC
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-02-15
  • Posts: 5

Re: M series versus QS8

Hmm I guess that I will go for the QS then. I suppose that lightpipe is not in danger of becoming oldfashioned any time soon anyway.
I cannot see myself (or many of my collegues) changing the bandwidth anytime soon. I find that more and more clients come and record their backing tracks and lead vocals, then go home to do overdubs like backing vocals and then return to mix again.
Therefore recording at a higher bandwidth than 44.1/24 rarely makes sense which again means that the more powerful connection of MADI is not a real issue for me and with Raydat I will still have the option of 16 tracks at once in 96 KHz.
At this point I think that MADI is still most interesting for the big boys who "needs" to record many 16+ tracks at once in 192 KHz. Maybe next time I upgrade then....... unless somebody has a really good reason to go there right away.

PS my rooms aren't big enough to ever do more than the average rockband so no symphonic orchestra will come this way:-)

  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: M series versus QS8

At this point I think that MADI is still most interesting for the big boys who "needs" to record many 16+ tracks at once in 192 KHz.

The biggest advantage of MADI is the connection: 64 channels with a thin, optical cable over long distances (2000 m). Plus the option to build a free modular system of all necessary I/Os on the input or output chain.

Eg. 3 x QS + 3 x Mictasy + 8 x AES/EBU I/O (ADI-642). Or 64 AES/EBU I/O channels or 6 x ADAT I/Os or 128 analog channels ... or any other combination of digital and analog I/Os on a single MADI card ...

... with all I/O devices remote controlled from the main studio DAW or notebook.

best regards
Knut

  • HKC
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-02-15
  • Posts: 5

Re: M series versus QS8

No doubt about that but if you already have everything for the lightpipes, the connections is not a big deal.
In my case where I have 16 I/O already and only really need 8 more it's just doesn't make sense for me to take the step.
I realize that there will be a difference in both quality (which I don't worry much about since I am pretty happy with the ones I have) and worse the conversion latency but it's not hard to find out how many samples there are between two different converters and delaying 8 tracks with 30 samples is not a big deal either.
Anyway I am very happy for the input I have had here, now if only Apple would update their Proline.......