You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Fireface 400 - sound quality
I need to know the following:
Can I expect an auditable increase in sound quality with a Fireface 400 over a HDSP 9632 regarding
- stage (depth, width, localization)
- high frequency resolution (e.g. clearer complex orchester passages with easyer distinguishable details, less "smeer" of high freq.)
assuming the system is well optimized (Fireface via firewire) with very high quality speakers/earphones?
Thanks for your quick help.
Once you reach a certain level of quality (and both these units are well over the threshold) you'll find that changing interface is probably the LEAST effective way of buying an improvement in audio quality.
Thanks Laurence.
I expect that to a certain extent. But I want confirmation.
Could you make suggestions what would be more effective instead from your point of view?
I went from a HDSP9652 with either an emu 1212m or tascam fw1804 as DA to a RME ADI8AE for DA (and AD). I noticed a dramatic increase in staging and low level detail.
BUT!!!! only on great mixes/productions. It seems bad ones seem even more flat and lifeless now. Funny, but my own work seems in between. Not flat, but also not nearly as multi dimensional as a great production. So I need to get to work on that!
Not sure if this was helpful, but I´m not sure what problems you are trying to solve.
Remember that best resolution is always when the DA is running on it´s internal clock.
My guess is that you won´t see to much of a difference going from a 9632 to a fireface. Most important aspects for stage and detail are speaker placement and room treatment.
Oh and BTW when I bought the ADI8 I had the option to return it when it wouldn´t improve quality enough.
Thanks Vincent. Those personal, subjective insights are very helpful for me.
I believe there must be differences in the overall ability of an interface to reproduce detail stored on a CD (or whatever), in this case surveyed through the example of sound stage and hights clarity. Otherwise there couldn't be a market for so many products. I don't know what exactly causes these differencesw and if we are able at present to measure them validly. But the differences exist.
One might presume that parts and other details with possible influence on sound/detail reproduction differ to a certain extent in both interfaces and that "more bucks cause better sound" (a fragile thesis, I know). And that is what I'm asking for:
Confirmation or rejection by experience.
At least jitter is known to destroy sound stage and overall clarity.
And yes higher price can be caused by ao;
Better quality
more features (8 mic preamps instead of 2)
more profit (if your brand/reputation allows it).
The hdsp and firface are somewhat in the same quality bracket (with different features and therefore prices), so I wouldn´t expect a big (or even small) difference.
Maybe, if you want to stay with RME an ADI2 would be an improvement?
Funny: I've tried the ADI-2 already and found virtually indistinguishable sound compared to the 9632.
I regard the jitter problem real and important, and that's why the Fireface came into my field of view: due to its design with asynchronous data transfer from the PC to the interface, only one clock in the system and good ASIO drivers I expect less jitter to occur.
On the other hand: clocks are identical in both interfaces, I believe ("Steady Clock") with jitter specifications around 1 ns - which is not top notch as high end DACs are sometimes specified with jitter down to ~10 ps.
But after all: is that the crucial point? I don't know. Ears may decide. That's why I'm collecting experience from other users.
Thanks Laurence.
I expect that to a certain extent. But I want confirmation.
Could you make suggestions what would be more effective instead from your point of view?
Very much depends on what sort of recording you do. But once you're kitted up with equipment of adequate quality (and today's "adequate" equates to the "absolutely amazing!" of only a few years ago) I'm a strong believer in the adage "It isn't about the gear!"
The biggest issue is finding something WORTH recording. I know this sounds obvious, but a lot of people spend a lot of time doing what could be bluntly described as "turd-polishing".
Given a good performance, position a suitable mic in front of it, in a pleasant-sounding room. Experience helps, but it's not THAT hard :-)
Or maybe you're an electronic, multitracking sort of musician/recordist?
Funny: I've tried the ADI-2 already and found virtually indistinguishable sound compared to the 9632.
I regard the jitter problem real and important, and that's why the Fireface came into my field of view: due to its design with asynchronous data transfer from the PC to the interface, only one clock in the system and good ASIO drivers I expect less jitter to occur.
On the other hand: clocks are identical in both interfaces, I believe ("Steady Clock") with jitter specifications around 1 ns - which is not top notch as high end DACs are sometimes specified with jitter down to ~10 ps.
But after all: is that the crucial point? I don't know. Ears may decide. That's why I'm collecting experience from other users.
Just to get facts straight. Data transfer on the PCI(e) bus is also asynchronous and the clock of the hdsp determines the jitter not the pc/cpu.
For a fact you are more likely to have performance issues (not audio quality) with firewire. For me PCI(e) is always first choice and firewire only when really needed (portable).
And if you found the ADI2 indistinguishable from your HDSP a fireface is certainly no going to be better! It is a strong indication that the interface is not the weak link in your chain! Next in line are speakers (and room) and source, what are you listening to? And what monitors?
Yes, the interfaces clock determines the jitter (the PC contributes, but well tweaked only very little).
Since I expect the clocks to be identical (ARE THEY REALLY COMPLETELY???) I do not expect too much difference in general.
But maybe there are other aspects of importance. As I said: I just wanted to collect experience... (open outcome)
At the moment my listening equipment consists of earphones only (Beyerdynamic DT880).
I find the 9632, which I'm testing soundwise at the moment, mostly pleasing, but soundstage is very wide with fairly little depth (if I bear in mind headphone effects), and hights are somewhat smeered in complex passages. Maybe I cannot improve that with my budget. I'm not willing to step up into the 2k-4k-league.
What source material are you listening to?
Regular 16/44.1 CD stuff, if possible XRCDs.
Mostly classical and handmade (folk, jazzy).
I'm upsampling to 192 in the PC (SRC), not in the DAC.
Recording has no priority.
Have you tried not upsampling? It may sound strange but accuracy decreases with higher sample rates (jitter wise that is).
Maybe a nice hifi DAC is more what you are looking for?
Or some higher end Senheisers phones, very detailed and open, and compared to DAC´s very affordable (love my old HD580).
Do you use an amp for the headphones? Even a simple hifi amp might improve things drasticly with phones.
And unfortunately imaging/stage is 100% absent with phones, it´s a psychoacoustic phenomenon, which simply can´t exist going directly into the ears.
Regular 16/44.1 CD stuff, if possible XRCDs.
Mostly classical and handmade (folk, jazzy).
I'm upsampling to 192 in the PC (SRC), not in the DAC.
Recording has no priority.
Why on earth are you considering an interface with microphone preamps and 36 channels then?
And what is upsampling to 192KHz meant to achieve? There might be some point if you intend to process the audio further, but for simple playback? It can't ADD information, and there's some opinion that it actually degrades quality.
I fear you may have become contaminated by audiophoolery. Wanna buy some magic cables? :-)
:-]]] Audiophoolery - I like that.
I can't totally deny that, and I know you guys here are "clocked" differently. I respect that.
But I do believe indeed that there are more influences on sound than you usually care about.
And cables only sound if you drop them... I'm not yet esoteric, even though I'm probably closer to it than you.
There's no point in repeating the ever lasting discussion about what components might have an influence on sound on its way through the signal path. But fact is: pro musicians equipment provides a way better price-quality-ratio than the endlessly overpriced hifi/highend stuff (which is due to too much esoteric). If I have to accept more channels than I need or mic inputs for it - who cares? A Fireface's sound quality mady by a socalled highend brand would cost me many times more. That's why I'm here. And there are many more folks like me out there... ;-}
There's always the BabyFace
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_babyface.php
Laurence,
I must have overlooked that one. No idea why. Yes, indeed, thats a more reasonable option than the Fireface.
For my purposes such a completely external device can be generally advantageous under certain circumstances.
But again: internals appear to be pretty much the same as in 9632 and Fireface according to descriptions.
Is it possible? EXACTLY the same?
Need to know it in advance since only existing diffrences let a real world listening test in comparison to the 9632 make sense.
My brain tells me that upsampling could achieve that the lower sample-rate filters on DA converters are out of the equation. Whether today's software SRC is better than today's DA hardware filters is another topic though. 
This is really interesting. Audio professionals discussing different SRC algorithms since years to find the one that sounds most close to the original and here is somebody who found an algorithm that sounds better than the original. What is the name of your SRC?
Its the old question: what is original? Original is different for you, for me, for him...
The same instrument sounds different in two different pairs of musicians hands, on two different days with varying humidity, in two different rooms...
I think its better to say "what do I FEEL is right" (or original). And some may FEEL an upsampled sound is closer to what is real in their personal, subjective perception. Hearing may be absolute and measurable - the mental procession of sound is surely not.
So lets not get lost in unreal discussions. Upsampling is not the point here.
A given sound device DOES have a sonical footprint, for one reason or another.
And I'm trying to find out if different RME products can be expected to have an auditibly different sonical footprint, or if they are just too similarly built to really sound different.
I'm trying to collect some kind of evidence other than my own hearing/listening. Im doing this because I don't want to buy tons of equipment and then send it back because its all sounds alike. I want to save a little time and avoid unfairness against the dealers who are offering the stuff.
Alors: when listening very closely and without prejudice, can differences be expected between Babyface, Fireface and 9632?
when listening very closely and without prejudice, can differences be expected between Babyface, Fireface and 9632?
Not really. It needs a huge amount of mental procession to recognize a difference.
Alors: when listening very closely and without prejudice, can differences be expected between Babyface, Fireface and 9632?
I would certainly not rule that out entirely - but there is no possible way to objectively name or quantify such differences. And they would not be caused by any form of intentional sound design, just by possible differences between converters and surrounding analog electronics.
No RME device is designed to have a specific sound character, different from other RME or third party devices. Neutrality is the most important goal.
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
OK, from a subjective and intention-wise point of view that makes things quite a bit clearer already.
What about the hardware side: are the Fireface, Babyface and 9632 really as similar as descriptions suggest?
I. e. are the electrical parts used truly identical - except maybe very few additional parts in each device to provide specific functions for the user (rather than intending to manipulate sound)?
Or are there noticable hardware differences that might carry the possibility to influence sound with only a few basic parts (like e.g. a Hammerfall-chip/eeprom or so) being identical? I'm no specialist in these things, but those who are might be able to judge.
I know noone here expects the devices to sound different or searches for possible differences. So, to avoid overstretching of the topic I'm finally asking about these hardware differences to bring things to an end while collecting comprehensive evidence.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and actually answer your question. 
The Babyface should deliver the best D/A performance of the devices mentioned in this thread. Whether you consider it a noticeable difference is (of course) up to your ears.
If you plan to use high-impedance headphones for listening at high levels, then it may not be the best choice. As a USB bus powered device, it's headphone amp is not as powerful as the others.
Do you refer to pure D/A-performance alone, or do you include further stages of the signal path (analog out or whatever)?
If you refer to D/A you explicitly speak about clocking performance as well, I suppose?
On the Babyface's homepage I cannot find any hint about its USB mode: is it asynchronous?
On the other hand: page 25 of the manual says that the ASIO driver is not capable of asynchronous operation. Can I conclude that ASIO function is equivalent to USB function in that case?
And the Babyface has an external power inlet which I would use if possible. Does it work with the NTCB-EU?
Power inlet or not, if the headphone amp isn't designed to drive hi-Z cans loudly, it won't!
Will the audio interface with headphones directly connected be your ONLY method of listening? Not too many CDs are recorded for binaural listening! As you are interested in reproducing the recorded sound stage, you must surely give this a chance of success by playback on speakers? Does their amplifier have a headphone socket?
Final listening will be via tube amp (with high quality headphone connection) to true highend speakers.
At the moment I'm using the Beyer DT880 because the speakers are getting new veneer.
I know that soundstage through earphones is very different from speakers, of course.
But soundstage is not absent with earphones, it is only projected differently. So device differences are still clearly audible.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Fireface 400 - sound quality
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.