Rosetta 200 0r Fireface 400

[elfy]

Hi guys, i know this keeps popping up.



Any one heard these two units.

Im currently using the digi 002 for everything, how much of an improvement will i get
with the converters from these units?

Cheers

[Rep]

Originally Posted by elfy

Hi guys, i know this keeps popping up.



Any one heard these two units.

Im currently using the digi 002 for everything, how much of an improvement will i get
with the converters from these units?

Cheers

From the 002 to the Rosetta, You will see greater separation .
The Big improvement will be when You have Many Tracks Stacked.
they will cut thru better and cleaner .

[LightningBefore]

Rosetta 200. . . goodness I had it on my 002 and it was worth every penny. If you dont necessarily have to do drums, buy it buy it! Otherwise if you do, decide what you want to put them on. I used it on overheads but then moved to kick and snare and it made a way bigger difference. Not only with the 200 do you get the improved conversion in and out, you can have the 002 slave to the Rosetta as the master clock.

You just cant lose!

[elfy]

Originally Posted by Rep

From the 002 to the Rosetta, You will see greater separation .
The Big improvement will be when You have Many Tracks Stacked.
they will cut thru better and cleaner .

Thanks man.

Sounds like the Rosetta could be in the studio soon.

[elfy]

Originally Posted by LightningBefore

Rosetta 200. . . goodness I had it on my 002 and it was worth every penny. If you dont necessarily have to do drums, buy it buy it! Otherwise if you do, decide what you want to put them on. I used it on overheads but then moved to kick and snare and it made a way bigger difference. Not only with the 200 do you get the improved conversion in and out, you can have the 002 slave to the Rosetta as the master clock.

You just cant lose!

Cheers also dude.


Yeah i wont need it for drums so it looks like it might be a go ahead.


I think if im gonna step up from the converters of the digi 002 i might as wel go for something like the Rosetta.


Any other suggestions

Cheers guys

[dlmorley]

Don't underestimate the RME stuff.
The Fireface 400 is apparantly better spec'd than the 800 and I read a review comparing a RME to Apogee 8 channel convertors (forget which but the apogee was $7500 the RME $3000) and it wasn't clear which was better. Both were excellent.

I'd give the RME a try or wait for feedback on it (it's just come out) before comitting to one or the other

I#m in the same boat kind of. I am replacing my Motu 896 and it's either RME 400/800 or Apogee Ensemble so am waiting for feedback on the ensemble and 400 before commiting.

Good luck!
David

[pingu]

Anyone tried the FF 400

What are the pres like?

[Harsh]

I didn't know that had a ff 400, where can I see it? Or when does it come out?

[Harsh]

nevermind I see it now.......

[theblotted]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Don't underestimate the RME stuff.
The Fireface 400 is apparantly better spec'd than the 800 and I read a review comparing a RME to Apogee 8 channel convertors (forget which but the apogee was $7500 the RME $3000) and it wasn't clear which was better. Both were excellent.

where did you read that FF400 is better spec'd than 800?

FWIW, i shot out FF800 vs. Rosetta800. while Rosetta has a tighter bottom, i preferred FF800 much, much better. more organic and life-like. Apogee's in general sound more stale and almost too digital for my tastes. ymmv.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by theblotted

where did you read that FF400 is better spec'd than 800?

FWIW, i shot out FF800 vs. Rosetta800. while Rosetta has a tighter bottom, i preferred FF800 much, much better. more organic and life-like. Apogee's in general sound more stale and almost too digital for my tastes. ymmv.

Hi
I didn't read it, RME told me it at the Frankfurt Messe.
How, why, what etc, I don't know....

Maybe better clock? Analogue Circuitry?

[mhartman]

Get slutty and get both!

[theblotted]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Hi
I didn't read it, RME told me it at the Frankfurt Messe.
How, why, what etc, I don't know....

Maybe better clock? Analogue Circuitry?

hmm...

i hope it's not a pitch they throw for new products, tho it wouldn't surprise me since if a product starts to do well, companies usually will find ways to cut costs and start riding the coattail of a name..

if you look at the spec sheets, 800 is a bit less noisy.

http://www.rme-audio.com/english/firewire/ff400.htm
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/firewire/ff800.htm

..........but sheets don't mean jackshit half the time.

[tnjazz]

This may not be relevant either, but according to Daniel at RME the 400 has a combined A/D-D/A chip, while the 800 A/D and D/A are separate chips.

I got to looking for differences last night on the RME newsgroup and so far that's all I've found (other than the fact that it uses the MFII converters).

I'm interested, since I just picked up an 800 and am on the fence whether or not to add a 400 to my "arsenal" for mobile work...

Dirk

[djk]

Originally Posted by tnjazz

This may not be relevant either, but according to Daniel at RME the 400 has a combined A/D-D/A chip, while the 800 A/D and D/A are separate chips.

Interesting. Anyone know whether the Multiface II (or any other RME gear, for that matter) uses separate chips like the 800 or combined chips like the 400?

[BorrelNote]

Originally Posted by djk

Interesting. Anyone know whether the Multiface II (or any other RME gear, for that matter) uses separate chips like the 800 or combined chips like the 400?

Good question !

[levens]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Don't underestimate the RME stuff.
The Fireface 400 is apparantly better spec'd than the 800 and I read a review comparing a RME to Apogee 8 channel convertors (forget which but the apogee was $7500 the RME $3000) and it wasn't clear which was better. Both were excellent.

Maybe you have seen this comparison between an Apogee AD-8000 and a RME API -8DS?

If not, it can be found here...

www.rme-audio.de/english/review/a8dscomp.pdf

[TrueZebra]

"Maybe you have seen this comparison between an Apogee AD-8000 and a RME API -8DS?"

i don't see why you want to refer to a machine which is 8 years old and designed 9 years old ?
I would suggest not looking at A/D D/A specs from the 90's.
So much has changed.

The FF400 specs on paper are not as good as the FF800
the FF800 is still a better machine and actually for the price between them i find the FF400 a worse option in buying.
Get the FF800 if you want to choose an RME device.
I once thoughted about the FF400 until i saw the specs, the options versus price so i was going for the FF800... until the apogee ensemble came along...

But a/d d/a specs are not the most important issue. Audio path, powersupply, preamps, clock are more important. the FF800 looks to be a winner compaired to the FF400.

But if you even are considering a rossetta for that price point you might want to look into the ensemble.

[levens]

Originally Posted by bugsstar

"Maybe you have seen this comparison between an Apogee AD-8000 and a RME API -8DS?"

i don't see why you want to refer to a machine which is 8 years old and designed 9 years old ?
I would suggest not looking at A/D D/A specs from the 90's.
So much has changed.

I agree it's changed, but dimorley referred to a test between an Apogee 8-channel converter and a RME product of the same caliber, so I thought it might have been this test. But the AD-8000 is still used and adored today, isn't it? My point was just to ask whether it was this test. If it wasn't, fine. If it was, it's not mentioning either the Rosetta 200 nor the Fireface 800, thereby not really relevant for the actual topic (but people started talkin about RME so I felt I had to ask..). It was meant to aid and help.

If I were you, I'd go for the Rosetta, though. The conversion is better and it sounds cleaner. The Fireface can have a tendency to sound "flat" and dead, IMO.

[BorrelNote]

Originally Posted by bugsstar

"Maybe you have seen this comparison between an Apogee AD-8000 and a RME API -8DS?"

i don't see why you want to refer to a machine which is 8 years old and designed 9 years old ?
I would suggest not looking at A/D D/A specs from the 90's.
So much has changed.

The FF400 specs on paper are not as good as the FF800
the FF800 is still a better machine and actually for the price between them i find the FF400 a worse option in buying.
Get the FF800 if you want to choose an RME device.
I once thoughted about the FF400 until i saw the specs, the options versus price so i was going for the FF800... until the apogee ensemble came along...

But a/d d/a specs are not the most important issue. Audio path, powersupply, preamps, clock are more important. the FF800 looks to be a winner compaired to the FF400.

Why are specs worse in FF400 exactly ?

[BorrelNote]

Originally Posted by levens

If I were you, I'd go for the Rosetta, though. The conversion is better and it sounds cleaner. The Fireface can have a tendency to sound "flat" and dead, IMO.

Can anyone using a Fireface800 confirm this ? I would love to hear a clip of something recorded thru Apogee and FF800 to compare..

[TrueZebra]

the thing with converters is, almost everybody uses the same converters !
depends on price range but the manufacturer is mostly the same.

when they made that RME ADI-8DS (which they still sell) there were more converter options, it's about 1.5 years apart in development i think.

apogee doesn't always take the newest converters, they probably test it but they'll check the specs on their designed audioboard with a few types and choose which one is perfect.

For the clock alone i would choose the rossetta, but it's 2 channels
so look into the ensemble also ... less converter quality than rossetta (newly designed and better than the mini-me which sound great actually) , 4 improved preamps, same clock as the rossetta 200... looks like a winner but it's not out yet and you always have to open an apogee to see what converter they used but it could be the same as a fireface 800 and still sound better. It's all in the design of the audio path, converter path and clock.... oh yeah and powersupply.

[TrueZebra]

"Why are specs worse in FF400 exactly ?"

just look at the numbers
but it's paper (or screen) and numbers

The 1db improvement in the FF400 Dynamic range AD is not going to do it in making it better.
You do get a preamp with 64db gain but while the FF800 is mentioning class A it doesn't say anything for the FF400... digital controlled and external powersupply..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FF800:
Dynamic range AD: 109 dB RMS unweighted, 112 dBA
THD AD: < -110 dB (< 0.00032 %)
THD+N AD: < -104 dB (< 0.00063 %)
Crosstalk AD: > 110 dB

Dynamic range DA: 116 dB RMS unweighted, 119 dBA (unmuted)
THD DA: < -103 dB (< 0.0007 %)
THD+N DA: < -100 dB (< 0.001 %)
Crosstalk DA: > 110 dB

Frequency response AD/DA, -0.1 dB: 5 Hz - 21,5 kHz (sf 48 kHz)
Frequency response AD/DA, -0.5 dB: < 5 Hz - 43.5 kHz (sf 96 kHz)
Frequency response AD/DA, -1 dB: < 5 Hz - 70 kHz (sf 192 kHz)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FF400:
Dynamic range AD: 110 dB RMS unweighted, 113 dBA
THD AD: < -110 dB (< 0.00032 %)
THD+N AD: < -104 dB (< 0.00063 %)
Crosstalk AD: > 110 dB

Dynamic range DA: 110 dB RMS unweighted, 112 dBA (unmuted)
THD DA: < -100 dB (< 0.001 %)
THD+N DA: < -97 dB (< 0.0014 %)
Crosstalk DA: > 100 dB

Frequency response AD/DA, -0.5 dB: 5 Hz - 21 kHz (sf 44.1 kHz)
Frequency response AD/DA, -0.5 dB: < 5 Hz - 43.3 kHz (sf 96 kHz)
Frequency response AD/DA, -1 dB: < 5 Hz - 70 kHz (sf 192 kHz)

[TrueZebra]

Originally Posted by levens
If I were you, I'd go for the Rosetta, though. The conversion is better and it sounds cleaner. The Fireface can have a tendency to sound "flat" and dead, IMO.

"Can anyone using a Fireface800 confirm this ? I would love to hear a clip of something recorded thru Apogee and FF800 to compare.."




i think on another post someone mentions that an apogee is too flat , too digital
and the rme colors nicely...
all opinions

what has been told is that the apogee is better for drums.
but all opinions

"I would love to hear a clip of something recorded thru Apogee and FF800 to compare.."

If that happens we need a line level signal no pre-amping, same clock.
it is actually difficult to do this because mostly on individual tracks you won't notice much... it's when it has different tracks and you listen to the mix.

and nothing with performances (many times there are these a/b tests with guitar players and nobody plays 100% the same), just 16 midi tracks converted into digital from the same synth or something.

there are many positive FF800 users.. i think everybody actually.

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by bugsstar

Originally Posted by levens
If I were you, I'd go for the Rosetta, though. The conversion is better and it sounds cleaner. The Fireface can have a tendency to sound "flat" and dead, IMO.

"Can anyone using a Fireface800 confirm this ? I would love to hear a clip of something recorded thru Apogee and FF800 to compare.."




i think on another post someone mentions that an apogee is too flat , too digital
and the rme colors nicely...
all opinions

what has been told is that the apogee is better for drums.
but all opinions

"I would love to hear a clip of something recorded thru Apogee and FF800 to compare.."

If that happens we need a line level signal no pre-amping, same clock.
it is actually difficult to do this because mostly on individual tracks you won't notice much... it's when it has different tracks and you listen to the mix.

and nothing with performances (many times there are these a/b tests with guitar players and nobody plays 100% the same), just 16 midi tracks converted into digital from the same synth or something.

there are many positive FF800 users.. i think everybody actually.

I have not heard the Apogee Rosetta 200 so I cannot say for sure, but I find it likely that it would beat the RME Fireface 800. I have the Fireface myself, it thickens up the high end and removes decay, the clean is gone... It's a big loss in my opinion...

Always try before you buy though! What others have and like might not be the answer, you might have better ears than they/I have.

[Rodney Gene]

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

I have not heard the Apogee Rosetta 200 so I cannot say for sure, but I find it likely that it would beat the RME Fireface 800.

If you haven't tried it, it isn't worth speculating IMO. I think you would be surprised, particularly blind testing. I did it a year ago and posted a bunch of clips here on GS. So unless the 200 has improved since, the FF800 is it's equal on transparency but with so many more options.

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

Always try before you buy though! What others have and like might not be the answer, you might have better ears than they/I have.

Agreed. Your ears should actually have the biggest influence on your choice. Unfortunately so many people around here are afraid to trust thier own ears or afraid to embrace gear on thier own merit. So often name, price or perr hype totally outwiegh reality or genuine results.

Much Respect,

[TrueZebra]

"I have not heard the Apogee Rosetta 200 so I cannot say for sure, but I find it likely that it would beat the RME Fireface 800. I have the Fireface myself, it thickens up the high end and removes decay, the clean is gone... It's a big loss in my opinion...
Always try before you buy though! What others have and like might not be the answer, you might have better ears than they/I have."

So you are not that happy with the FF800 if i understood your it's a big loss quote correctly ?? or a big loss for the apogee if it's cleaner ?

I prefer cleaner, i work with old synths, mix amps and rooms... there's alot of noise in there also. Noise adds an 'analog'/'older' character... I might add noise but like i said before i want it to be recorded like i hear it.

I still believe and know the clock inside the rossetta is better than the FF800.
The FF800 has way more options and FW800 !
And i'm still getting an ensemble, just out of experience of using and testing previous units.

If you want a better device you can always go upwards in price ... RME has some better A/D's around than the FF800, or apogee, lavry, mytek, benchmark, prism,...

As for getting demo units for testing, record and mix a track don't just run a cd track thru there... it's at the mix that you'll notice the most difference , unless it really screws up your sound or sounds weird (digi002).

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by tnjazz

This may not be relevant either, but according to Daniel at RME the 400 has a combined A/D-D/A chip, while the 800 A/D and D/A are separate chips.


Dirk

They may be using the Cirrus CS4272 combo chip, thats the only one I know of that combines the adda. I guess that would also mean, you couldnt use seperate adda with that interface? You would have to use both adda, and not just one?

[TrueZebra]

I think most RME (and apogee and tascam and digidesign) devices use AKM chips.
They have a whole variety including single, stereo, a/d/d/a and seperate...

[thermos]

The Fireface and the rosetta both use akm chips (the same maybe even on the d/a side) but the A/D chips themselves are not top of the heap in the fireface. I have used the Rosetta 200 and the Fireeface (800) side by side and the Rosetta is leagues better.