1 Topic by 9wind (edited by 9wind 2012-10-24 07:02:15)

  • 9wind
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2012-10-24
  • Posts: 3

Topic: Any suggestions for a new setup?

Hello everyone,

I have been a serious musician for 14 years now, and while my focus has always been on composing/performing I do have significant recording experience as well, though mainly with analog devices.  I finally have the opportunity to build a dedicated music studio from scratch, so I have been researching and learning all I can about digital audio recording (wow, a lot has changed!) and the associated hardware.  What a tsunami of products!  I'm a fast learner, but it's a bit overwhelming to decide which products are ideal.  So, here I am! 

These are my requirements: I will be recording mainly vocals and "real" instruments, including drum kits, so I need at least 8 mic preamp inputs.  I might occasionally use MIDI instruments or synths, but anything beyond the basics for this is overkill (for now).  It would be nice to have a built-in FX processor and two headphones outs.  I have no need for this setup to be portable or compact; it will be used in the studio only.  I will be using a PC with (probably) Windows 7, but I don't mind modifying/upgrading it - if need be - to work with whatever hardware I decide on.  I would (obviously) like the best quality I can get within about a $5k budget (not including mics/cables/etc. of course).

RME has really stood out to me as a top-notch manufacturer.  I was considering the FF800 or UFX, and adding on a QuadMic for the extra 4 preamps I need.  Is the only difference between the FF800 and UFX that the UFX has an onboard FX engine (and updated converters etc.)?  It is my understanding that the QuadMic has it's own converters onboard; is this redundant if I buy the FF800/UFX?  Couldn't I just get analog preamps and connect them to the FF800/UFX's analog inputs (saving money or getting nicer preamps)?  Would it also be an option to get an OctaMic (or similar) paired with ....??  Beyond Firewire and USB (both of which I can use), I am honestly not familiar with the other connection options' advantages and requirements; I'm willing to go that route if it's worth the effort though (and roughly within my budget).

As I'm starting from scratch hardware-wise, I wanted to consult this forum first in case those more experienced might suggest more practical/efficient setups.  Any suggestions/help would be appreciated. 

Thanks!

  • 9wind
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2012-10-24
  • Posts: 3

Re: Any suggestions for a new setup?

I forgot to add that since I would also need to buy a DAW (probably Cubase or Protools), which I think all come with built-in effects, would that make the UFX's effects engine unnecessary?  I really only need basic effects (reverb, delay and EQ, comp, gate, etc.) but they absolutely must be high-quality.  Is the UFX's effects leaps and bounds better than what you'd find on a conventional DAW?

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,786

Re: Any suggestions for a new setup?

9wind wrote:

I forgot to add that since I would also need to buy a DAW (probably Cubase or Protools), which I think all come with built-in effects, would that make the UFX's effects engine unnecessary?  I really only need basic effects (reverb, delay and EQ, comp, gate, etc.) but they absolutely must be high-quality.  Is the UFX's effects leaps and bounds better than what you'd find on a conventional DAW?

No, the onboard fx are near zero latency, for use during recording. For example that the singer has some reverb during tracking. It is impossible the have zero latency when using the fx of your daw when tracking. So if you are or work with a singer, the onboard fx are really usefull.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • From: Germany
  • Registered: 2007-04-10
  • Posts: 9,783

Re: Any suggestions for a new setup?

Vincent is right. Indeed the effects are not designed to be far better than high-quality plugins or even external DSP devices. They are an added bonus.

Also, their use with a DAW is limited, since you can not store UFX effects setups as part of your audio project, and the project would not work correctly on another computer without UFX (plugs can be transferred).


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

RME Support's Website

5 Reply by marQs (edited by marQs 2012-10-24 12:08:45)

  • marQs
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-08-20
  • Posts: 194

Re: Any suggestions for a new setup?

5k $ for a new setup is plenty, I'd say. Go for FF800 or UFX as basic interface.
The QuadMic doesn't have converters, it's a pure analog device very nice for adding mic preamps to the analog line-ins on 800/UFX.
Both, FF800 and UFX have 2 x ADAT providing another 16 optical ins/outs. If you just need more preamps, go for an RME OctaMic D. Then you're set with 16 mic inputs of really great quality.

I have 2 FF800 running for years, extremely flawless. Starting from scratch/having the budget I'd probably go for UFX (but actually I don't really need the extra features).

There are a lot of different 8-channel preamps with ADAT ability on the market though. Maybe look into Universal Audio 4-710d (4 preamps, 4 line-ins where you could hook up another QuadMic i.e.)

  • 9wind
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2012-10-24
  • Posts: 3

Re: Any suggestions for a new setup?

Thank you for the replies, it has helped a lot.  I think I'm settled on the UFX for my interface.  Perhaps I'll do more research for 8-channel preamps with ADAT ability.  It seems like the right direction to head in for my needs.

I have an additional question about the 2 headphone outputs on the UFX:  I'd like to buy (separate) headphones for both tracking and mixing (of course not mixing exclusively with them, just as a supplemental reference tool) that match the driving capabilities of the UFX well.  I read that the UFX has a phones output impedance of 30 ohms, which tells me I should have headphones with an impedance of 240 ohms or greater.  I was considering the Sennheiser HD600, which has an impedance of 300 ohms; would this be an appropriate pair of mixing headphones for use with the UFX's phones output?  It is my understanding that headphones incorrectly matched to driven outputs will distort the sound quality being heard, and/or possibly be too quiet. 

Also, virtually all tracking headphones (i.e. closed back) I have looked at have much lower impedances (roughly 54-32 ohms); would these be inappropriate for use with the UFX?  If it matters, a specific example I'm considering is the Direct Sound EX-29, which has an impedance of 32 ohms.

Are there other headphone models anyone would specifically recommend for use with the UFX?