You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → MADI/AES Premium Line → M-16 vs ADI-8QSm
I'm trying to choose between the two converters. I need 16 IO so I was looking at either the M series or the ADI-8QSm and wondering which one sounds better and if the M-16 would have a longer life due to more room for cooling?
What are the advantages of either. Please help me choose?
I should maybe add...
I am wanting to do a lot of overdubbing both midi and analog so latency is important. Is one or the other better for this?
anyone here?
Someone from RME might want to give Bigtree a hand (check his sig for the possible ramifications of ignoring him 
).
From my non-existent hands-on experience with the QS or the M series, I believe they both offer extremely low conversion latencies (this was one of the QS's claims to fame), but the M series adds MADI as standard (an option on the QS IIRC). As fas as sound quality - I couldn't say. I'd figure the M-series incorporated a few analog section improvements - but that's just a guess. They both seem really nice and are undoubtedly "pro-level" interfaces.
What will you be interfacing with? MADI, AES, or ADAT?
Nice to see you posting here - I'm sure MC will give you his take shortly...
Rock on 
Hey, thank you for being so respectful 
This will be our benchmark for testing gear and producing beautiful sounding music.
I would be interfacing with MADI. I'm debating a total upgrade which would include the interface. I don't need 2 Km of networking so the MADI isn't about that but who knows down the road.
This would be for a our hybrid studio and music production to includes a lot of midi with analog. I've wondered if MADI is an improvement with latency and sound quality?
I would save on AES EBU snakes.
Thanks for answering my questions!
MADI isn't any faster/quicker than AES/EBU - it's just 128 channels (64 x 64) in two small SC Fiber Channel cables. I don't need thousands of feet of cable, either - my MADI setup actually uses a 3' MADI Fiber cable from AD/DA to my RME MADI card! :-) It will CERTAINLY save on AES snakes and breakouts assuming you already have a MADI interface on your computer. Tons of I/O in 2 tiny cables - the extended length MADI Optical allows is a also benefit for some.
I doubt you could go wrong with either the QS or the M - but I'll have to let MC or someone that's had some face-time with the two compare their audible attributes...
Enjoy!
You can read about different latencies in the (online) manuals.
Excerpt:
ADI 8 QS @ 44.1: 0.27 ms (= 12 samples)
M-32/16 AD @ 44.1: 0.84 ms (= 37 samples)
The converter chips are not the same, but obviously quite similar in audio performance. However, the QS has lower latency, as shown above.
What are the advantages of either. Please help me choose?
No input from RME? Sounds like Bigtree is on the verge of dropping $5000-$10,000 on RME gear. Anyone care to respond to him on the sound quality and general comparisons between these two different high-end lines you offer? (the latency Q's have been settled per Ulrich's kind scouring of the manuals - the QS is the clear winner!).
Very odd this place is so vacant with RME higher end support. From a latency POV and the ability to keep the second going should one fail, the QS would be my choice. Thanks again.
Hi,
MADI per se will not reduce latency (as in plugin/VST instrument latency).
Having two units in case one should fail may be an advantage indeed. I would not expect any significant difference in terms of longevity - there are no known heat related issues with the QS, either.
And sound quality - well, that is a purely subjective matter. Let me say there is no difference in sound quality by design....
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
With no more than 5 meters to travel 16 IO to the DAW, is there a difference in sound quality with AES EBU vs MADI optical or BNC. Does one produce better sound?
In other words, in a hybrid DAW system needing 16 high quality I/0, which RME converter and interface would have the best specs right now?
No difference... (And I don't really have a universal definition of "better sound", do you? HeadScratch )
I believe the naked specs of the QS are a tad better (you can compare them in the downloadable manuals), but I would not offer any conclusions on "sound quality" just based on specs.
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
With no more than 5 meters to travel 16 IO to the DAW, is there a difference in sound quality with AES EBU vs MADI optical or BNC. Does one produce better sound?
Both are digital formats. There is no difference. MADI is multiplexed AES/EBU with the same cable specs: 75 Ohm coaxial (or optical).
In other words, in a hybrid DAW system needing 16 high quality I/0, which RME converter and interface would have the best specs right now?
2 x ADI-8 QS is a good choice. Or M-16 AD + M-16 DA.
The best, future proof solution is 2 x Micstasy + ADI-8 QS / M-16 DA. We got customers, which replaced every analog hardware with Micstasys for recording + ADI-8 QS for monitoring and mix completely in the box now. The good thing about MADI is the modularity of the system. You can add other converters or preamps later to the same connection.
Example Setup:
Inputs (24 Analog / 4 x AES/EBU):
- 2 x Micstasy
- 1 x ADI-8 QS
- 1 x ADI-642 (4 x AES/EBU I/O)
Outputs (26 Analog + 4 x AES/EBU):
- 1 x ADI-8 QS (same as above)
- 1 x ADI-642 (same as above)
- M-16 DA
You can also integrate 3rd party converters to the chain, by using AES/EBU or ADAT frontends (ADI-642, ADI-648) or 3rd party MADI converters.
best regards
Knut
Hi,
Madi is 32 x AES. Beside that, Madi Optical will minimise Ground Loops or other Problems in different Locations. The should be no different sound under perfect conditions
between Madi Optical, Madi BNC or AES EBU (XLR or. Sub D).
Regards
12 sec. too late
12 sec. too late
Nope - 1 minute and 19 seconds... fryingpan
Yes, (I chuckled as a pressed save) "better" is subjective and thank goodness the convoy came to the rescue so we didn't have to go down that road explaining better . I never fully trust spec's or reviews. Hearing your real world answers is what I needed.
You've all answered my questions, thank you! Now time to think...
Cheers!
We have a review of the QS on the product website: http://www.alva-audio.de/download/Revie … g_2007.pdf
the review is from the german Studio Magazin. They make the most sound critical and detailed reviews in the world. They even test the QS with a live recording of a vocal ensemble. If they say it´s the best, it is!
You can translate the review with Google.
best regards
Knut
Thanks Knut! I've tried to translate to English with poor results. Do you know the exact link that does this well?
RME User Forum → MADI/AES Premium Line → M-16 vs ADI-8QSm
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.