Topic: RME Product Choice Advice--Fireface v. PCIe

Hi all.  I used to use a FF800 and enjoyed it.  My one issue was that I wasn't thrilled with the latency.  I have a new, fast computer, need a new audio input and would like some advice on which RME product fits me best.  I primarily use softsynths and guitard to record on Cakewalk Sonar.  I also use a lot of software instruments and effects.  I also have a couple analog synths that I operate via MIDI and like to route to my computer.  Thus I generally need 6 analog inputs, an 2 analog outputs for monitors (plus headphones).  Preamps are a bonus, but not necessary. 

I really like RME products so I'm trying to decide between a PCIe Multiface II, used FF800 or new Fireface UC.  I can't really tell the difference, aside from the preamps.  To me, it seems like the PCIe Multiface II set up would be best because I'm told (but have no idea) that it provides the lowest latency and smoothest operations.  I'm not even sure this would have any impact on my softsynths/effects as I understand the computer determines that.  I'm concerned, however, that the Mutiface technology is out of date and not has advanced as the Fireface UC.  Would I be missing anything by going with the Multiface?  What are the differences in terms of quality and latency?  I have no idea and thought someone here could provide an informed opinion. 


Re: RME Product Choice Advice--Fireface v. PCIe

I an interested in this as well.  Can any one comment on the converters of
these two units?  Specs are very similar but curious about real world experience.

Lincoln Mitchell
Mac Pro 2x2.66_FFUC_PT9

Re: RME Product Choice Advice--Fireface v. PCIe

Hi qwatkins  and  Lincoln M

I run:-

- Windows 7 X64
- Intel 3.6gig i7 DAW
- Sonar 8.5.3 X64
- all my Plugs and Softsyths and Amp SIms are Native x64

I decided to go with the FireFace UC.
Audio quality and fidelity - one word ...... ASTOUNDING  !!
What about latency ?  WOW again !
The only 2  latency differences between the UC and the PCI-E units is that:-

-  the UC has an in-built  32 Sample [ ~0.8ms ]   Safety Buffer only on the output stage and its minimum Buffer setting is  48 Samples

- the PCI-E units dont use a Safety Buffer and can go down to a 32 Sample Buffer

What does this mean in practice:-

UC = at 48 Sample Buffer  results in a CEntrance Real World Round Trip Loop Back latency of  4.88ms  and everything is absolutely rock-solid.

PCI-E = at 32 Sample Buffer  results in a CEntrance Real World Round Trip Loop Back latency of   3.7ms  and everything is absolutely rock-solid.

So for soft-synths and amp sims, the total latency differential is  ~0.6ms going in  and  ~0.6ms  coming out.

If you can feel or hear that differential [ and you wont ]  then you have the best set of ears in the world !!!!!!

I've been running projects with  >%80 cpu load at  48 Samples - not a pop or click or glitch anywhere - I'm even trying to cause a drop-out - no go
Also, I loaded up a " test project "  at 48 Samples and  I made up  -  100 Tracks running  500 plugin instances of 5 different plugs with all tracks live input monitored on and all 500 efx engaged - CPU sits around %84 and systems is smooth as silk !!!!!!!
RME have built a USB 2 unit  that for all intents and purposes runs virtually  as efficiently both in terms of load and low latency, as a PCI-E unit

If it has all the inputs you need and you can afford it - JUST BUY IT !!!!


Re: RME Product Choice Advice--Fireface v. PCIe

Thanks the uc.  True it sounds really nice.  Extremely stable, flexible and agile.  Very happy to be in the rme camp.   Fyi I'm running pt9 and with the exception of the input monitoring situation, its a perfect fit.  Using total mix is taking some time to adjust to but over all very pleased.

Thanks again and thanks to rme.

Lincoln Mitchell
Mac Pro 2x2.66_FFUC_PT9