M-Audio Firewire vs RME Fireface

[Flavius]

I've been looking to get back to recording and spent some time reading posts about software and hardware.

I was inititally going to look at sawstudio for my software, but that seems a little more geared toward an engineer looking to start recording on a computer. I also want to do midi stuff (and sequencing).

I've narrowed my software choice down to either SONAR 6 or Cubase 4, and I'm leaning toward SONAR 6. Reviews here and other places say that's a really good product.

My question is about the audio interface. I was leaning heavily toward an M-Audio firewire 1814:
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...1814-main.html

A lot of people had great things to say about the RME products. MoreDynamics said he was getting a Fireface 800, I believe:

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

The M-Audio is about $600 US dollars. The fireface 800 is around $1500US. I'd be really interested in feedback on both of these products.

I certainly want the best band for my buck. But I don't want to needlessly spend an extra $1000.

Thanks!

[Led]

Hi, one of the younger guys here has an mbox - not the firewire,but compared to a ff800 the mbox is a whole world under it it terms of sound quality. Sorry don't know about the m audio firewire thingy.

[Sirocco]

u cant compare products in those too price ranges..unless ur roger nichols

[jeremy.c.]

I have an RME Multiset with a PCI card and an MAudio 1814. I got the 1814 looking towards simplfying my setup with onboard mic pres for plugin and play and get my scratch ideas down without tweaking with my pres and patchbay and converters, etc...
The sound quality is SO SIGNIFICANTLY lower, even to my ears, that I had to go back to the multiset and from what everyone tells me the Fireface is head and shoulders above the multiset...
I plan on keeping the firewire 1814 just for laptoping about, but if you're going to spend some money just go for the Fireface, save yourself the cost of having to resell and buy it eventually anyway.

[djbrough]

I'm in a sililar situation. The fireface is great, but I'd like to have more XLR inputs. Have you considered the m-audio projectmix i/o? It's 300 bucks cheaper than the fireface, and basically has the guts of the 1814. This thing is a control surface which works with all the major DAW's (includeing pro tool m-powered) and it gives you 8 xlrs, 8 line ins, 2 headphone outs, and a lcd scribble strip/meter. Ltos of bang for the buck. I'm going for it.

[bassmutant]

I've had 3 m-audio products over the years, audiophile 2496, delta 1010lt, and now an audiophile firewire, and for a low end budget, I think their adequate. That being said, RME definitely produces prosumer quality products with great support and good sounds, from everything I've ever read here and other places. The same definitely cannot be said about m-audio. Their gear just seems flimsy to me, and periodically flakey driver issues make me want to smash my macbookpro oftentimes.

[chrysb93065]

Go with the Fireface, it's an order of magnitude above almost everything else. The only other convertors near it are Apogee and Lynx. If you need more inputs, add an OctamicD to the FF800. It has 8 more XLR Combo jacks with preamps, and you can connect it to the FF800 via adat lightpipe. I actually use 2 of those in our studio thereby giving me 26 simultaneous inputs. The sound quality is tremendous and they update the drivers almost every month. BTW, you of course know m-audio is owned by AVID (Pro-Tools).

[quincyg]

i have both. i actuallu only use the adat ports so i cant comment on converters or pres. but clearly the rme stuff is great. both have been stable. i am not sure if there is a sonic difference between the adat ports. shouldn't be, but i should do a test.
isn't there cheaper rme ff400?

[jangoux]

Never used it, but guys at another thread were talking about the echo Audiofire soundcards. It looks they have converter of the same quality as the RME ones.

[adi]

The Echo AudioFire 12 is worth getting over the RME. You won't lose any conversion, and you don't have to deal with the weak RME pres.

[lovingj]

Originally Posted by adi

The Echo AudioFire 12 is worth getting over the RME. You won't lose any conversion, and you don't have to deal with the weak RME pres.

Hell no. The audiofire 12 does not even compare. I've had the m-audio audiophile, delta 1010, echo audiofire 12, and I am currently using the fireface 800. Wasted alot of money to get to that point. But I can tell you from first hand experience the Audiofire 12 is not as good. You can't compare a 700 dollar interface to a 1500 dollar one. However, it is good for that price range. But the driver updates were awfully slow and the stereo field on the echo was narrow as all hell.

If you find that the fireface is too much for you, you could always try buying it from american musical. They will let you split it into five payments once a month and they ship it to you when they recieve the first payment.

[AdamJay]

why not go with the Fireface400 for $999

if you were on a Mac, i'd say get a MIO 2882 and be done with it. But for Windows, RME is fantastic.

[insomnio]

What about the Presonus firepod. I've heard nice things about it, and is $500.
Have anyone compared firepod vs fireface?

Insomnio

[The Marrvel]

Using the M-Audio Firewire Solo, I was in a great need for new preamps AND converters. I thought this was going to be a $1500 upgrade until someone on this forum suggested the $400 i88x. With convertors nearly RME quality and preamps that remind me of the Grace 101, this thing was a Godsend.

[redddog]

LJ,

I have also used both the FF800 and the Audiofire 12.

I gotta tell you, my experience couldn't be more different. I have found the drivers to be rock solid. I'm not sure what more you would want than that. Echo supports their stuff in a great way and the one time I had a question, I called and talked to a developer in minutes.

As for the sound, again, I really couldn't disagree more. I find the sound to be as good if not better than the FF800 - having DIRECTLY compaired the two. I sold the FF800 one week after I had an Audiofire12.

You shouldn't compare units based on their price. The fact that the Audiofire costs so much less and stands up so well is the whole point. I feel that with the FF800, the extra you're paying is for the subpar preamps. If they took the pres out, it would cost about the same as the Audiofire(think Multiface).

But to say that the Audiofire doesn't sound as good and that the stereo field was "narrow as hell" just doesn't make sense to me.

[AdamJay]

reddog,

nice of you to chime in. how low of input and output latency are you getting with the Audiofire 12?

[redddog]

I'm getting between 32 and 64 samples of latency. It's incredibly stable. I'm not having a single problem with it. I'm not really sure why the AF12 gets a bad rap but I think it has something to do with Echo's lack of marketing acumen. I don't get the comments about the stereo field being narrow. I really wanted to NOT like the AF12 but when I heard it... well I was blown away. I made a pretty unpopular move (by most GS standards) and gave the conversion duties of my rig to the AF12 over the FF800. I didn't need all the features of the FF800 (mainly the pres)and was turned off by the complexity of the Totalmix software mixer. I added a Central Station and I really feel that the combo of the CS and the AF12 is way better for me than the FF800 was. I do not feel that I have sacrificed at all the level of conversion - at all.

There was a blind listening shootout done on another forum that had the AF12, a behringer piece(of shit) and the Apogee AD16. Most everyone (I'd say 85%) picked the AF12. The rest called it too close to call. Most of the comments adressed how wide and detailed it was. That's why the "narrow" comment surprises me. The funny thing about that shootout was that even after the converters were identified, everyone still liked the AF12. Usually, the psuedo-acoustic listeners say they like the more expensive conversion after the true identity has been let out. But not here. I understand that these bind tests are usually flawed to some extent but everyone was amazed nevertheless. I think it was homerecording.com. I saw it after I made my decision.

My point is, listen to them and make your decision. Pick the one you like the most and try not to let the ubersluts talk you out of a great piece of gear simply because it doesn't cost enough. If you don't have the opportunity to listen to then, I can promise you that you won't be disappointed with the AF12.

I've had extemely low latency, 12 channels of glitch-free simultaneous recording and not a single hiccup. I'm getting another one soon for 24 channels - just as soon as I finish two racks of SCA pres.

This is just my take. Of course, others could very well have a completely different experience. I would never feel qualified to discount their experiences and never do so. I'm just saying that I've had a really good experiece with this box and would not feel bad recommending it to anyone.

Hope it helps.

[lovingj]

Originally Posted by redddog

LJ,

I have also used both the FF800 and the Audiofire 12.

I gotta tell you, my experience couldn't be more different. I have found the drivers to be rock solid. I'm not sure what more you would want than that. Echo supports their stuff in a great way and the one time I had a question, I called and talked to a developer in minutes.

As for the sound, again, I really couldn't disagree more. I find the sound to be as good if not better than the FF800 - having DIRECTLY compaired the two. I sold the FF800 one week after I had an Audiofire12.

You shouldn't compare units based on their price. The fact that the Audiofire costs so much less and stands up so well is the whole point. I feel that with the FF800, the extra you're paying is for the subpar preamps. If they took the pres out, it would cost about the same as the Audiofire(think Multiface).

But to say that the Audiofire doesn't sound as good and that the stereo field was "narrow as hell" just doesn't make sense to me.

I disagree. The audiofire is a great product, don't get me wrong, but the conversion is not as good.

Price is not always an indicator of quality, I agree, but usually is. However, the foundation of my argument doesn't simply rely on price.

Finally, the stereo field is noticeably narrower. Check out this quote from sound on sound, "the Audiofire 12's image was noticeably 'narrower' but with more pinpoint-precise positioning." You can find the full review for the audiofire 12 at http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct0...oaudiofire.htm.

Again, this is not to discourage anyone from purchasing the echo, just to give them realisitic expectations. The RME is clearly better. More I/O options, better stability, and better converters but you got to be willing to chalk up twice as much.

[redddog]

If you take the subpar preamps out of the FF800, the 2 units are pretty close in price. And as far as stability, the Echo is every bit as stable. I've not had a single problem with mine in the 3 months I've had it. I couldn't say that with the FF800.

As for the sound and the quality of conversion, I guess we should just agree to disagree.

[Kappi]

Try this, insert the Analog outoputs of the m-audio FW 1814 into your stereo-bus short-circuit them with any patchkabel and send a sinewave through it. You will see a circle on the gonio instead if a vertical line like it should be. I found out, that all the analog channels are not phasekoherent.Its something about 16-18 samples on one side.So you can't track any serious stereo source with that.
Its a toy.

dfegad

[stag]

The analog bit of FireFace won´t take you anywhere the M-audio wouldn´t.
If you after instant gratification on this price range go for the Onyx 400f, identical convertyers as in the fireFace but oversample at x64, the pres\DI don´t even compare.

The Echo has, alledgelly, the best converters of them all, at least acording to SOS review team. I can´t say cause i never tried it.

I´m looking for a new interface too, i come from the FF800, so i bougth an M-Audio Ozonic just to discover that RME is the best well kept myth around... Probably now it will the Rosetta, since Apogee don´t release Emsemble for PC, i just hope not being tricked by hype and fora opinion makers again.

[theblotted]

i have both, and used both for awhile.

FF800 is tight and clean. drivers extremely stable. lots more in/outs. preamps are pretty much the only thing to avoid. i've heard some negative comments on the MIDI I/O, but i never had a problem with it. also, a decent headphone amp.

FW1814 is darker and muddier. driver not as stable, but getting better after each update. not as many in/outs (total), and in's are unbalanced. headphone knobs are digitally controlled (unlike FF800 or even FW410), which can be annoying. more portable than FF800 tho.

both have Word Clock, which is very useful to have.

the bottom line for not getting FF800 would be monetary issue, so i would also recommend FF400. supposedly the preamps are better than FF800 on this one, and it's cheaper. it's also portable like FW1814.

FW1814 can work in a pinch; but unless you need it for ProTools, i would go FF400. very, very bang for buck.



btw, replies to other posts above:

if you need more XLR inputs for FF800, just add a XLR patchbay. or a regular patchbay will work, just be careful with phantom power.

FF800 or even RME is more than just prosumer. when i think of prosumer, i think of more Mackie stuff. could just be semantics, ymmv.

don't compare interface/converters with mere converter chips. the analog components surrounding it makes a difference also. otherwise, you can compare an Apogee to an Edirol (or some other converter using the same chips). but one will fail miserably.

[syzygywell]

Originally Posted by redddog

There was a blind listening shootout done on another forum that had the AF12, a behringer piece(of shit) and the Apogee AD16. Most everyone (I'd say 85%) picked the AF12. The rest called it too close to call.

This was the shootout that caused me to go with the AF12. I didn't doubt that the RME and the Apogee were possibly better. I just didn't get the feeling that they were $1000 dollars better and definitely not twice as good. The fact is that the RME has more options. The AF12 is straight up 1/4 jack I/O firewire and wordclock. The 8 had 2 mic pres (average), the headphone output and 2 channel inserts. The new 8 has s/pdif and ADAT. I just needed I/O since I have AD conversion in my H8000.

If you have the option of getting the RME without the mic pres then that is another matter. Why pay for them? I figured I could wait several years and get better mic pre's which I did when I got a good deal on the pacifica. The A designs pacifica and the AF12 cost the same as the apogee ensemble. Although its taken several years to realize all of this in the studio I still think it was the smart decision for sound and money. In the future if I decide to get a better AD/DA it will be at the level where $2000 bucks sounds 2x as good and is not up for debate on shoot outs.

[phas3d]

You probably won't need RME FF800, unless you want 4 mic pres. Go FF400 and don't even think twice. Sound is WAY better than M-Audio

[PaPi61]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I've narrowed my software choice down to either SONAR 6 or Cubase 4, and I'm leaning toward SONAR 6.

Huh? Is there a particular reason why you want an older OOP version?
Sonar 8.5 and Cubase 5.5 are sooooo much better than their predecessors (and yes, IMHO Sonar is the better choice, especially if you intend to use the x64 version.)

As for the interface, no need to bother with FW any longer. Depending on how much you want to spend, the M-Audio Fast Track Ultra (or Ultra 8R, if you can use 8 analog I/O's) has latency performance comparable to any M-Audio FW interface (I have both the FTU8R and ProFire 2626, the latency performance on these two is virtually identical.) If you want a higher end product, the RME FF UC (USB 2.0) is even better than the FF 400 when it comes to latency. RME engineers are claiming that on their webpage and many people on their forums have confirmed it.

[phas3d]

They actually did.

"The smallest buffer offered under Windows has 48 samples, under Mac OS X 14 samples"

How about that?

[PaPi61]

Originally Posted by phas3d

They actually did.

"The smallest buffer offered under Windows has 48 samples, under Mac OS X 14 samples"

How about that?

Moot point, no one is going to use a 14-sample buffer. And no, that's not any proof that the mac is better for audio, fanboy. But then again, you wouldn't know. FYI, the PC crushed a similar mac in all tests performed by Steinberg.

[phas3d]

[gingataff]

Originally Posted by PaPi61

Huh? Is there a particular reason why you want an older OOP version?
Sonar 8.5 and Cubase 5.5 are sooooo much better than their predecessors (and yes, IMHO Sonar is the better choice, especially if you intend to use the x64 version.).

I think this answers your question:
20th October 2006, 03:40 AM

[superjc]

Originally Posted by phas3d

You probably won't need RME FF800, unless you want 4 mic pres. Go FF400 and don't even think twice. Sound is WAY better than M-Audio

I'm hoping someone can expound on this for me, I currently use Cubase 5 with a M-Audio FW410. I mostly do sample-based electronica, and even when I start out with the most pristine samples/VSTi's (also UAD1 & Powercore PCI) my final mixes always have a cloudy digital grittyness and loss of detail.

I'm trying to justify upgrading to an RME FF400, will the internal rendering retain more of the clarity that I started out with?

Please help a fellow GS take that leap to make a slutty purchase and know it will be a huge upgrade from where I stand today!

** I know what mixing issues vs. sound quality degradation, been at this 15 years:

Joe Grandberg - SIZZLE FUNK BEAT on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Youtube videos of major label audio sound better than my final .WAVs, depressing....