• Registered: 2010-09-26
  • Posts: 11

Topic: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

Hi,
I need to add 8 more inputs/outputs to my FireFace 800.  I have a 16 channel mixer that has 16 direct outputs and I want to run those all in simultaneously to my computer.  Because I'm using the pres of the Mixer, I only need line inputs/outputs.  What is my cheapest/best option to do that with the ability to run all channels at 24bit/96khz?
I was looking into the MultiFace ii.  It seems with the "smux" doubling option, I can do this.  Am I right?  If so, how would I set that up exactly.  I was even looking into buying another FF800 or FF400.   Also, are there any older/cheaper units that I can find used that would do this. 
Thank you in advance whoever can help.

  • From: Seevetal
  • Registered: 2007-05-03
  • Posts: 405

Re: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

Something like this?
http://www.thomann.de/de/focusrite_octopre_mkii.htm

UFX+, FireFace 802 FS, Digiface USB
12 Mic, M1610 pro, Micstasy
MacBookPro M1
Logic Pro X

3 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,433

Re: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

Buying another FF 800 is the best option. You get:

- programable stand-alone mode, so just use the second FF 800 as hi-quality AD/DA, giving you multiple I/Os in various configurations, added to your existing FF 800 by ADAT and SPDIF connection.

- a second interface that can replace the first one when it fails

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-09-26
  • Posts: 11

Re: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

Thanks guys, I think the second FF800 is the way to go.  I have looked at other adat pres but most of them cannot bypass there pre amps which I don't want.  The point about having a backup is also a very very good one which I hadn't considered. 
Cheers
S

  • Registered: 2022-05-02
  • Posts: 7

Re: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

HI!
I thought having to aggregate two audio interfaces was always less "solid" than using one interface and extending that one with adat.
Am i wrong?

6 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2022-12-12 21:54:26)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,861

Re: Best options for expanding line inputs of FireFace 800

I think it's more a matter of OS and functionality.

Under MacOS aggregation of devices is a standard feature of the Apple MacOS / it's audio infrastructure.

Under Windows there are two options:
a) aggregation of same or different interfaces supported by the same ASIO driver
b) aggregation of devices with different types of drivers, even ASIO and non-ASIO, by using a 3rd party tool: ASIO4ALL.
Option b) has the disadvantage to create a non-standard / not supported setup, because ASIO4ALL is an additional driver layer on top of the real hardware drivers. By this the application has not the direct access to the HW, all has to go through ASIO4ALL at first.

Operational aspects:

When using multiple recording interfaces in parallel you have one TotalMix FX instance per recording interface, where you can't route channels across TM FX boundaries.

For pure recording this is no big issue as the DAW can access all channels of up to three or more (not officially tested by RME) recording interfaces.

But if you want to route audio from one to another recording interface then you have always the latency over USB/FW and you need to route in the DAW.

This can "partially" be solved by using ADAT ports for connections between the recording interfaces, which you can also use for clock synchronisation (instead of using word clock).

But .. ADAT has here a certain limitation. A maximum of 8 channels is supported at single speed (44.1/48 kHz. Even less at higher sample rates (4ch@double, 2ch@quad speed).
And .. maybe you need those ports more urgently for connecting external devices such as preamps or converters.

So .. there are tradeoffs to be made.

In contrast to use several interfaces in parallel with some tradeoffs you have the alternative to use a MADI-, AVB- or Dante-based setup. Ok  the prices might be higher but you have a few clear advantages:
- full TM FX routing capabilities
- more headroom for future expansions
- longer cable lengths compared to TOSLINK

While we are at it, in such a multi-recording-Interface setup, all interfaces need to be clock synchronized. Under Windows you need to configure the same ASIO buffersize in the driver settings for all connected devices supported by this driver.

It should best be the same type of interfaces to have the same converter latency to avoid offsets between recorded tracks.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13