1 Topic by MattiaS (edited by MattiaS 2012-07-13 21:07:46)

  • Registered: 2011-03-17
  • Posts: 6

Topic: RME FF800 with ADI-8 QS or should I change my FF to a UFX?

Hi Guys!

I've been a long time away from the forum but due to all the new interfaces launched in the last years, I started to look the interfaces market again, but I'm a little bit overwhelmed with all the options... and it's hard to know which are the best....

I used to have my own recording studio, but I was forced to move from the house where I was located (the owner is renting the house to other person) so now I'm setting up a small mixing studio for my jobs... I work as a producer, composer, arranger and Recording/Mixing engieneer (I'm a profesional Composer and Audio Engineer) but since I will be away of the recording process for a while, I'm planning to setup my mixing room in a Hybrid way... with a nice summing amp and a couple of pieces of outboard gear that I have... a Couple of Rupert Neve Designs Portico II and a couple of compressors and EQs... So I'm planning to setup, at least, 16 i/o arround the FF800...

My dilema starts when I think about the quality of the converters... I could buy the RME ADI-8 QS and use it in SMUX with the FF but I'm a little bit concerned about the differences in the conversion quality since I'm planning to send 16 channels to a summing amp... I suppose that the ADI's conversion should be WAY better than the FF conversion (in terms of sound quality).

So my questions are... Should I do that? Buy the ADI and hook it up to the FF800?  or Should I update my FF to a UFX and then in the future add the ADI... Or should I buy a Lynx Aurora 16 and only use 44.1 and 48KHz as sample rates and just run my streams through the Aurora? HeadScratch

I really like the RME stability and performance... but I also need and want the best conversion for my bucks... So would be awesome if some of the RME guys in the board can enlight me... I couldn't find reviews of the ADI-8 QS so I don't know too much about the sound quality of the unit... but for me seems to be the logic move if I want to keep my ADAC in the RME family... because the M16DA is a "little bit" out of my budget... hahaha tongue

AH!... I will also need a good 2 Chanels DAC for my monitoring since I will be using the 16 analogs outs for summing.... Is the ADI 2 a good choice? I mean... in terms of sound quality.... Is a improvement in sound over the FF800 DA? HeadScratch

From now, thanks a lot!

Cheers! :-)

  • Registered: 2011-03-17
  • Posts: 6

Re: RME FF800 with ADI-8 QS or should I change my FF to a UFX?

Ohhhh... come on guys!!!!.... 24 view and not even 1 answer?... sad

Help me a little bit! I know you are out there!!! hahaha tongue

Cheers!

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

Re: RME FF800 with ADI-8 QS or should I change my FF to a UFX?

Here is a very detailed review of the QS: http://www.alva-audio.de/download/Revie … g_2007.pdf

You can copy and paste the text in the Google translator.

I suppose that the ADI's conversion should be WAY better than the FF conversion (in terms of sound quality).

In this range the improvement in sound quality is rather small. Everybody who talks about big differences between high-end converters tries to sell you something. Most of the time his expert status.
Anyway the ADI-8 QS is built as reference converter - with no compromises in sound quality. If you want the best, it's the right choice.

best regards
Knut

  • Registered: 2011-03-17
  • Posts: 6

Re: RME FF800 with ADI-8 QS or should I change my FF to a UFX?

Admin Knut wrote:

Here is a very detailed review of the QS: http://www.alva-audio.de/download/Revie … g_2007.pdf

You can copy and paste the text in the Google translator.

I suppose that the ADI's conversion should be WAY better than the FF conversion (in terms of sound quality).

In this range the improvement in sound quality is rather small. Everybody who talks about big differences between high-end converters tries to sell you something. Most of the time his expert status.
Anyway the ADI-8 QS is built as reference converter - with no compromises in sound quality. If you want the best, it's the right choice.

best regards
Knut

Thanks a lot Knut... I will try to read that review... I'm wondering why there's no more reviews about the ADI-8... in english I mean.... any way, so you're saying that the conversion in this range is a subtle change between the FF and the ADI-8.... so, Why the big price difference?... I'm pretty sure that the bucks are in the analog path mainly... is well know that the same converters chips are used for a lot of different manufacturers but the analog circuit is where the men are apart from the boys.... hahahaha big_smile

Probably the weakest link in the FF are the mic pre... I don't use them at all... I used a couple of times and I could listen pretty well some kind of blurriness in the low mid seccion and a little bit less detail in the highs... so that made me wonder if the analog path in the ADI is WAY better than in the FF... I mean, forgeting the pre amps in the FF...

And what about the ADI-2... I still need a good DA for my monitoring.... I will be using the 16 analog outs for summing so I need a 2 channels DA to hook up my monitors... (damn... Why all these implementations are so expensive!!! hahaha)

From now thanks a lot!

Cheers!

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

Re: RME FF800 with ADI-8 QS or should I change my FF to a UFX?

Probably the weakest link in the FF are the mic pre... I don't use them at all...

The preamp/converter combination in the UFX has an improved design, compared to the Fireface 800. If you need 4 first class preamps in your setup the UFX would be a good choice. You can still use the Fireface 800 as an stand-alone ADAT converter with the UFX and maybe replace it later with the ADI-8 QS. This setup will give you 20 outputs with up to 96 kHz - including the monitoring features of the UFX. Outputs: 8 (UFX) + 8 (800) + Main Monitors (UFX) + 1 x Headphone Monitors (UFX) + 1 x Headphone Monitoring (800 - with up to 48 kHz).

any way, so you're saying that the conversion in this range is a subtle change between the FF and the ADI-8.... so, Why the big price difference?...

Just have look on the features of the QS(M). This is not only a simple AD/DA converter. From the product brochure:

The compact 1U device provides a host of extraordinary features, including analog and digital limiter, 4 hardware reference levels up to +24 dBu, AES/EBU and ADAT I/O, optional MADI I/O, remote control via MIDI, digital input trimming for full input calibration, volume control for all 8 analog outputs, either separately, globally or ganged, and much more. 

The QS comes with a hardware remote control for store/recall of presets, volume and dim.

The ADI-8 QS uses a completely symmetrical signal path (including limiter) that guarantees an exceptional sound quality, outstanding low distortion and highest Signal to Noise ratio in all level settings. One of the main issues when working with an AD converter is to maintain the full dynamic range within the best operating level. Therefore the ADI-8 QS internally uses hi-quality electronic switches, which introduce no additional noise or distortion to the audio path. The AD/DA converters provide samplerates up to 192 kHz with a SNR of 120 dBA. On the digital side, SteadyClockTM, RME’s unique clock technology and jitter suppression, further enhances the list of features, ensuring the best sound quality regardless of the quality of the reference clock signal. Of course other typical RME features such as Intelligent Clock Control (ICC), SyncCheck and SyncAlign have also been implemented.

The ADI-8 QS offers an unsurpassed choice of interface options: 2 ADAT I/Os support up to 8 channels at 96 kHz (S/MUX) and 4 channels at 192 kHz (S/MUX4). A 25-pin AES/EBU interface features 8 channels at 192 kHz. All outputs can be used simultaneously, i. e.: analog (balanced TRS and/or D-sub), ADAT, AES/EBU. RME’s I64 option provides the QS with a 64-channel MADI input and output. Coaxial and optical output operate in parallel to the AES/EBU and ADAT output, therefore deliver the same data. Up to 8 ADI-8 QS or other RME MADI devices can thus be combined into one single MADI stream.

Low Latency. The difference to other ADCs is the innovative digital filter, achieving a delay of only 12 samples in Single Speed (0.25 ms), 9 samples in Double Speed (0.09 ms), and 5 (!) samples in Quad Speed (0.026 ms). These values are less than a quarter of those available from other devices and represent an important step in further reducing the latency in the computer-based recording studio. The DA-converter offers similar conversion in the range of 5 to 10 samples, turning analog digital monitoring into real analog-style monitoring.

Limiter. The integrated limiter is available as analog, digital or combined, avoiding not only extreme overload effects, but also prevents the AD converters from being damaged.
Analog Outputs. The ADI-8 QS’M provides separated driver stages for the TRS and D-sub outputs. The servo-balanced TRS jacks will work up to +21 dBu. When selecting +24 dBu the balanced D-sub connector outputs will provide the higher output level while TRS stays at the +19 dBu setting.

Remote Control. All functions of the QS can be controlled via MIDI, or MIDI over MADI. This way, the device can be placed anywhere on stage or in the studio – with full control from the control room or FOH mixer.
MADI.

The I64 MADI Card provides the ADI-8 QSM with a 64-channel MADI i/O. The input is switched automatically, according to where a valid input signal is detected. Full redundancy is ensured by the automatic input switching, immediately changing to the other input in case of loss of the input signal.
The MADI I/O provides serial pass-through capability from one ADI-8 QSM to the next (up to 8). Since each QSM uses only 8 channels, up to 56 channels can be passed through. The device ID determines which MADI channels the ADI-8 QS will use. All 64 combined channels are available at the last device’s output.

best regards
Knut