RME Fireface 400 vs. Fireface 800

[heksu]

I'm planning to buy a new sound card.. I don't have a demand for thousands of tracks.. 4 audio inputs and about 6 outputs. I have thought that RME Fireface could meet my needs and I have heard good about 800. What about 400?

400 has enough tracks for me and specs say that it is almost identical to 800 with an exception of slight differences in dynamic range and distortion in DA conversion. Input specs seem identical with 800. But are they in practice?

Anyone have good/bad experiences of either device?

[Surreal]

the 400 is JUST getting into peoples hands...so hang tight.

the 800 is real nice. funny enough, i am looking at buying teh 400...and i have the 800. the 800 is not portable. i thought i had more endurance than i do, btu gear really adds up.

[dwall]

I'm eagerly awaiting user testimony on how these units compare to each other, particular the sound of the converters...

[stevetgn]

I'd also like to hear comments on the 800 as I'm thinking of buying 2 to give me 16 analogue I/O. Then at a later date adding an Apogee Rosetta 800 via the ADAT interface on the Fireface for 8 higher spec converters (24 I/O in total). Does this sound like a good plan?

[Acoustic Cloud]

Bump....

As soon as I sell a certain mic, I am going with either of these 2.

I dont need preamps, I dont need more than 4 bal 1/4 ins. I dont need any more than 4 outs. Heck, I dont even HAVE to use FW!! I do need mains separated from cans though, local or softwaer.

Obviously some of us have to overbuy on features to get to a certain sound quality, I have learned to accept this!


I suppose the 400 wouldnt skimp on conversion, that wouldnt make sense.

[Lagerfeldt]

The sound in the 400 is almost identical to the 800. *Slightly* lower specs too, but very close.

There's a new ADI-8 coming up, the QS series which have been re-designed quite a bit (internally). But the FF400 is still built on basically the same tech as FF800.

[dwall]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

The sound in the 400 is almost identical to the 800. *Slightly* lower specs too, but very close.

There's a new ADI-8 coming up, the QS series which have been re-designed quite a bit (internally). But the FF400 is still built on basically the same tech as FF800.

I've been waiting a while now for someone who's used both to comment on how they compare, so thanks for the info!

[Lagerfeldt]

I think the FF400 is only interesting if

A) You really don't ever, ever, ever will need extra I/Os (but always end up needing 'em)

or

B) You need a portable solution

The extra cost of getting a FF800 is minor compared to the extra I/Os in my opinion.

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I think the FF400 is only interesting if

A) You really don't ever, ever, ever will need extra I/Os (but always end up needing 'em)

or

B) You need a portable solution

The extra cost of getting a FF800 is minor compared to the extra I/Os in my opinion.

That makes sense. The 800 can be had for just a few hundred more. 4 bal 1/4 ins is the bare minimum I can use, and the 400 has only 4. I dont think the pres auto sense all 3 uses.

[redddog]

Where do we find out more about the new ADI-8 QS?

[jeff@synthax]

Originally Posted by redddog

Where do we find out more about the new ADI-8 QS?

http://www.synthax.com/index_comp.html

More info will be added as it becomes available.