Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

zappa · 8th August 2009

@klaus_num

Certainly was a bit surprised to see this thread resurrected.

Your point about subjective quality difference on recording makes sense, as it's sensible to assume that the analog input-stage of the 800 is of a slightly higher quality than the 400. This might simply be a function of having physical room on the PCB for more power smoothing components on the analog side. Ordinarily, such differences would be negligible (eg. at 44.1/16 or even 48/24) but at 96k and above the digital resolution and precision of the converters will begin to reveal these differences in the analog signal path.

From the perspective of output stages, however, the difference between them is hardly perceptible to me - the units do sound slightly different, but on blind listening it's impossible to say that one is better than the other; the difference is one of "character". I'd be interested in your view A-B'ing the two interfaces on the same monitors with the same music. To me, the 400 may be slightly more forward at the top end, at the expense of sounding slightly colder. This is probably a function of the slightly lower noise floor of the 800 on the output stage (119dba vs 113dba) as a result of the different converters - combi in 400 vs separate in 800.

Since I use my 400 mainly for monitoring, and not for a huge amount of high resolution line-level recording I find this acceptable, especially since the differences in this area were not so noticeable to me (probably because I was recording at 48/24 on those occasions). I have also come to really appreciate the 2x MIDI and digital attenuator in to 400 (RME have done that well, and I'm a convert!). But it would seem that for 192k mainly line level input applications the 800 might be a better choice.

It would also be interesting to know how record quality compares when using the MIC-pre's, since the 400 is supposedly a slightly better spec here. I don't own the 800 so it's difficult to test that out, perhaps you could give it a try and post back?

Lastly it's nice to see that RME have rubberstamped their own approval on the design of the FF400 with the release of the FF-UC, which happily boasts an almost identical design to the 400, in terms of components and specification.

z.

8th August 2009	#34
zappa Gear interested Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 10	@klaus_num Certainly was a bit surprised to see this thread resurrected. Your point about subjective quality difference on recording makes sense, as it's sensible to assume that the analog input-stage of the 800 is of a slightly higher quality than the 400. This might simply be a function of having physical room on the PCB for more power smoothing components on the analog side. Ordinarily, such differences would be negligible (eg. at 44.1/16 or even 48/24) but at 96k and above the digital resolution and precision of the converters will begin to reveal these differences in the analog signal path. From the perspective of output stages, however, the difference between them is hardly perceptible to me - the units do sound slightly different, but on blind listening it's impossible to say that one is better than the other; the difference is one of "character". I'd be interested in your view A-B'ing the two interfaces on the same monitors with the same music. To me, the 400 may be slightly more forward at the top end, at the expense of sounding slightly colder. This is probably a function of the slightly lower noise floor of the 800 on the output stage (119dba vs 113dba) as a result of the different converters - combi in 400 vs separate in 800. Since I use my 400 mainly for monitoring, and not for a huge amount of high resolution line-level recording I find this acceptable, especially since the differences in this area were not so noticeable to me (probably because I was recording at 48/24 on those occasions). I have also come to really appreciate the 2x MIDI and digital attenuator in to 400 (RME have done that well, and I'm a convert!). But it would seem that for 192k mainly line level input applications the 800 might be a better choice. It would also be interesting to know how record quality compares when using the MIC-pre's, since the 400 is supposedly a slightly better spec here. I don't own the 800 so it's difficult to test that out, perhaps you could give it a try and post back? Lastly it's nice to see that RME have rubberstamped their own approval on the design of the FF400 with the release of the FF-UC, which happily boasts an almost identical design to the 400, in terms of components and specification. z.