Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

zappa · 8th December 2006

@Andrew B.
As I started to read your post I was going to point out that the analog stages are just as important, then you saved me the trouble!

It is my understanding that the MOTU devices (828mk2, Traveller, Ultralite) all use the same type AKM ADA converters as the RME FF400/800. I believe that the MH units also use these converters. Although the FF800 converters are different to the FF400 (separate chips for DA and AD on the 800, vs. 1 ADA chip on the 400), they (the chips themselves) are of a similar cost but are designed for slightly different surrounding electronics. I doubt that RME would have consciously chosen a weaker converter for the FF400 design, especially considering that the component costs are so similar. More likely the decision was made for other reasons: I'm guessing here but most likely is that the separate chip solution can handle more physical channels than the single chip, as needed by the FF800, with the added expense of a more complicated PCB design.

I've read elsewhere that the (original) Multiface sounds noticeably less detailed and more muddy than the FF400 - I suppose the MF2 might have been released to address some of these issues and will probably sound much better. In short, the analog stages are just as important as the ADA side of these units, hence the substantial sonic improvement that can be achieved with the Black Lion upgrades to MOTU products (mainly analog mods).

The other thing to bear in mind is the timeline of these products. If my understanding is correct the original Multiface is the oldest of these products; the FF400 being the newest. RME have chosen to improve the pres and AD side of the 400 as part of the evolution of this product line; chances are there will be an FF800mk2 that has improved pres and some other refinements. What would be the point of making these improvements to the 400 in the knowledge that the unit would be downgraded on the output side?

For these reasons, the opinion of baikonour above and until I hear the FF800 for myself, I am prepared to go with (RME) Daniel's position on this, that the DA specs of the 800 are marginally better, whereas the pres on the FF400 are slightly improved. The language suggests that the differences between the two units are little more than academic.

At the same time I would not assume that because the Multiface (mk1) uses the same converter chip that it sounds the same as the FF400. More likely it uses that converter chip because it has similar I/O to the FF400 and does not need to handle more channels concurrently, hence (just like the FF400) the PCB is more cost-effective to design with a 1-chip converter.

Of course, these are just opinions and I'm still very interested to hear the views of anyone else out there that's compared the sonic quality of the 400 and 800, particularly on the output side.

z.

8th December 2006	#20
zappa Gear interested Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 10	@Andrew B. As I started to read your post I was going to point out that the analog stages are just as important, then you saved me the trouble! It is my understanding that the MOTU devices (828mk2, Traveller, Ultralite) all use the same type AKM ADA converters as the RME FF400/800. I believe that the MH units also use these converters. Although the FF800 converters are different to the FF400 (separate chips for DA and AD on the 800, vs. 1 ADA chip on the 400), they (the chips themselves) are of a similar cost but are designed for slightly different surrounding electronics. I doubt that RME would have consciously chosen a weaker converter for the FF400 design, especially considering that the component costs are so similar. More likely the decision was made for other reasons: I'm guessing here but most likely is that the separate chip solution can handle more physical channels than the single chip, as needed by the FF800, with the added expense of a more complicated PCB design. I've read elsewhere that the (original) Multiface sounds noticeably less detailed and more muddy than the FF400 - I suppose the MF2 might have been released to address some of these issues and will probably sound much better. In short, the analog stages are just as important as the ADA side of these units, hence the substantial sonic improvement that can be achieved with the Black Lion upgrades to MOTU products (mainly analog mods). The other thing to bear in mind is the timeline of these products. If my understanding is correct the original Multiface is the oldest of these products; the FF400 being the newest. RME have chosen to improve the pres and AD side of the 400 as part of the evolution of this product line; chances are there will be an FF800mk2 that has improved pres and some other refinements. What would be the point of making these improvements to the 400 in the knowledge that the unit would be downgraded on the output side? For these reasons, the opinion of baikonour above and until I hear the FF800 for myself, I am prepared to go with (RME) Daniel's position on this, that the DA specs of the 800 are marginally better, whereas the pres on the FF400 are slightly improved. The language suggests that the differences between the two units are little more than academic. At the same time I would not assume that because the Multiface (mk1) uses the same converter chip that it sounds the same as the FF400. More likely it uses that converter chip because it has similar I/O to the FF400 and does not need to handle more channels concurrently, hence (just like the FF400) the PCB is more cost-effective to design with a 1-chip converter. Of course, these are just opinions and I'm still very interested to hear the views of anyone else out there that's compared the sonic quality of the 400 and 800, particularly on the output side. z.