RME Fireface 400 vs 800

[CareerTech1]

buy the FF800 - it is the only audio interface that reliably supports firewire 800 speed and it has the extra i/o. buy the ff400 if you need a portable solution.

[klaus_num]

Certainly a bit late concerning the date of the first post, but as the theme is still actual, I comment on it nevertheless.
I own both a RME FF400 and 800. I do use their analogue line inputs for recording on PC. I use 192 kHz only. The recordings of the 800 sound better. As always, it is difficult to explain, perhaps it is best to describe the 800 as smoother and more detailed while not loosing openness and drive. In my opinion, the price difference between both devices is so small, that I would go for the 800 if sound quality is important. I need the 400 for playback while travelling, and record with my 800 exclusively.

Cheers, Klaus

[rectifier]

Originally Posted by klaus_num

Certainly a bit late concerning the date of the first post, but as the theme is still actual, I comment on it nevertheless.
I own both a RME FF400 and 800. I do use their analogue line inputs for recording on PC. I use 192 kHz only. The recordings of the 800 sound better. As always, it is difficult to explain, perhaps it is best to describe the 800 as smoother and more detailed while not loosing openness and drive. In my opinion, the price difference between both devices is so small, that I would go for the 800 if sound quality is important. I need the 400 for playback while travelling, and record with my 800 exclusively.

Cheers, Klaus

Thanks for this Klaus, I'm looking at both at the moment and leaning towards the 800 but I'm a little fearful of totalmix, looks complicated to me. <- n00b

[zappa]

@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.

[Timur Born]

I advice everyone to decide on the I/Os needed, and by that I don't mean total number, but specific ports.

On the FF400 you get only 2 Mic preamps, but very neutral and good quality ones. The FF800 offers 8 Mic pres, but they are slightly "worse" than the 400 ones.

While you get only 1 HI-Z guitar/bass input on the 800 (which comes with some fancy but mostly useless features) you get two of those on the 400.

The 800 offers only 1 Midi I/O while the 400 offer 2 Midi I/Os.

The 800's total number of ports beats the 400, but only if you are going to use those.

The 800 comes with an analog head-phone output with a real poti knob. Benefit is that you are better protected against digital/driver bugs (no blowing away your ears), disadvantage is that the poti is likely coloring the sound (especially on low volume settings). Some like the "colored" sound of the 800 better though.

For me the decision was about the kind of I/Os. I need two mics, I need two guitars and I prefer two Midi I/Os. Dead simple then, especially if you consider price.

The FF UC (USB) has just been put on the market though, which is a strong contender agains the FF400/800/HDSPe when it comes to low-latency performance (aka better performing). It's technically a clone of the FF400 coming with the same I/Os. Main disadvantage versus the Fireface is the lack of bus-power.

[DavieB]

I tried the RME FF400 for a time but for several reasons I let it go. The main reasons were

1. The inputs into the FF400 dramatically change the sound of the source.
2. It's not balanced across the full range of frequencies.
3. The inputs are noisy.
4. The pre's for mics aren't very good.

Despite being well constructed with plenty of ins/outs, a good front panel control dial, good software I thought it sounded harsh. So what's the point in having it.

One test I did was to compare the output from my Neve 8801 (using the Neve's headphone out) against the RME's line inputs being fed by the Neve which I then monitored from the RME's headphone out. There was a significant difference in the sound. The RME seemed to be louder in the mid's and lacked definition in the lows and introduced alot of noise. It wasn't being faithful to the output from the Neve and I got rid of it.

Anyway I changed to the Orpheus and now what comes out of the Neve, or any source for that matter, is identical to what goes into the DAW, no change in the sound at all. I couldn't be happier with the upgrade.

Cheers, Dave

[ManicMonkey]

I recently upgraded from a Firebox to a Firestudio Mobile. I am very curious as to how it compares to your RME FF400- which is a device I was also considering. My FS Mobile is far superior to my Firebox for clarity and fullness of sound- frequency range. I am using a Universal Audio LA610 as a pre, so I don't care too much about the XMAX pres- but I imagine they are better than my old Firebox pres.

I know the Firestudio Mobile has better converters than the Firebox and it has some licensed technology from TC Electronics called JetPLL- that is some sort of anti-jitter technology that is something like what RME is famous for- I guess they are trying to copy it.

All I know is that my Firebox sounds like trash compared to my Firestudio Mobile. What I want to know is if it is as good as a Fireface by RME. I have never used one.

Remember that I am bypassing the pres on the Firestudio with an LA610, so the pres don't matter much to me.

[357mag]

Originally Posted by DavieB

I tried the RME FF400 for a time but for several reasons I let it go. The main reasons were

1. The inputs into the FF400 dramatically change the sound of the source.
2. It's not balanced across the full range of frequencies.
3. The inputs are noisy.
4. The pre's for mics aren't very good.

Despite being well constructed with plenty of ins/outs, a good front panel control dial, good software I thought it sounded harsh. So what's the point in having it.

One test I did was to compare the output from my Neve 8801 (using the Neve's headphone out) against the RME's line inputs being fed by the Neve which I then monitored from the RME's headphone out. There was a significant difference in the sound. The RME seemed to be louder in the mid's and lacked definition in the lows and introduced alot of noise. It wasn't being faithful to the output from the Neve and I got rid of it.

Anyway I changed to the Orpheus and now what comes out of the Neve, or any source for that matter, is identical to what goes into the DAW, no change in the sound at all. I couldn't be happier with the upgrade.

Cheers, Dave

And doesn't the Fireface cost about $1300 new? I've been led to believe the company makes absolutely fantastic high-level stuff. I guess I'm not used to reading bad reviews on them.

[DavieB]

Yeah it's good and better than most at that price but I was comparing it to my Prism Orpheus which is about $5000. I guess the point to make is you really do get what you pay for. I've actually stopped using my Neve now and I'm recording through the Prism's pre-amps, which sound just as good. They have absolute clarity and the workflow is extremely fast, plug-in, levels, play. Automate the volume, compress post fader in the DAW etc etc. And the sound is crystal. If you've got the money go with the Prism ...

DaveB

Bye the way, if anyone wants to buy a RME 400 firewire in excellent condition, all leads included etc send me a message.

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by DavieB

1. The inputs into the FF400 dramatically change the sound of the source.

dramatically? sorry, i don't think so ...

[kgdrum_nyc]

Originally Posted by majortom

You can always use the line ins. No preamps on those. I believe there are 10. I don't have my Fireface in front of me.

+1

run the pre to a line in
the preamp section is my only gripe w/ the FF. but in this price range it's not realistic to expect Boutique Preamps in the unit.
overall it is a great piece of gear at a very reasonable price.

[baikonour]

Originally Posted by kgdrum_nyc

+1

run the pre to a line in
the preamp section is my only gripe w/ the FF. but in this price range it's not realistic to expect Boutique Preamps in the unit.
overall it is a great piece of gear at a very reasonable price.

It's mad this (good) thread is still going on!
We are still using our fireface (800 and 400) in our studio and we made 2 pretty good (I'm biased) albums with them.
But yeah, the pres are definitely useable but not comparable to boutique stuff. ( We have since this thread started gotten a bit posh and got some nice pres ( Chandler TG2 and Germanium)> I still think the conversion is the best in this price range and the driver+ total mix is awsome. I'm now getting a UA 2192 but I'm still planning to use the fireface for routing and additional AD/DA
Regarding a portable solution I've found the Appogee Duet to sound better overall than the fireface but it's not has flexible as a FF400 because of the lack of digital connections etc...

[DavieB]

Originally Posted by duvalle

dramatically? sorry, i don't think so ...

Ummm, to me what the RME recorded / converted was not what I was hearing when monitoring at the source. The Prism Orpheus on the other hand is identical in every way, even after hours of testing I could not hear any differences. After hearing what the Orpheus could do in terms of capturing the source the RME sounded terrible by comparison; its inputs are noisy and inaccurate. It was a step up from the Motu I was previously using but they are all just as bad as each other until you use an Orpheus. As I said earlier the Orpheus is the only thing I use now in terms of pres, conversion and monitoring; it's a stonking good deal ...

DaveB

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by DavieB

The Prism Orpheus on the other hand is identical in every way ...

i believe that the orpheus is another step up in AD/DA or pre,
but the prism stuff is much more costly ...

did you ever do a loop back test and tried to null the results?
the results of the ff400 are fine imho. nothing dramatic to my ears.
not the best, but sure workable ....

that said:
i added an api a2d and a lavry black da-10 to my ff400 setup via spdif.

[2nd order]

I have the FF800 and it was a step up from my motu828mK2 and even at that point, IMO, its like splitting hairs. I could of easily in my studio gotten away with the FF400, but for what I paid for the 800 it seemed to hold its value a bit more and only a few hundred dollars more then the FF400.


As far as what is better, that I can't be sure, but you can buy the 400
run some samples through it and I can do you the favor of running the same samples through my interface and you can make up your mind.

[357mag]

I use the E-MU 1212 sound card which gives me awesome sound. And it cost what? About $200? For $1300 the Fireface better be more than "usable".

[W.S.]

Originally Posted by Timur

I advice everyone to decide on the I/Os needed, and by that I don't mean total number, but specific ports.

On the FF400 you get only 2 Mic preamps, but very neutral and good quality ones. The FF800 offers 8 Mic pres, but they are slightly "worse" than the 400 ones.

While you get only 1 HI-Z guitar/bass input on the 800 (which comes with some fancy but mostly useless features) you get two of those on the 400.

The 800 offers only 1 Midi I/O while the 400 offer 2 Midi I/Os.

The 800's total number of ports beats the 400, but only if you are going to use those.

The 800 comes with an analog head-phone output with a real poti knob. Benefit is that you are better protected against digital/driver bugs (no blowing away your ears), disadvantage is that the poti is likely coloring the sound (especially on low volume settings). Some like the "colored" sound of the 800 better though.

For me the decision was about the kind of I/Os. I need two mics, I need two guitars and I prefer two Midi I/Os. Dead simple then, especially if you consider price.

The FF UC (USB) has just been put on the market though, which is a strong contender agains the FF400/800/HDSPe when it comes to low-latency performance (aka better performing). It's technically a clone of the FF400 coming with the same I/Os. Main disadvantage versus the Fireface is the lack of bus-power.

thanks for you post. It really helped.
Though I have a question. FF400 got 4 line Ins on the back side. Plus 2 Mic/Line Ins on the front. Thus I can have 6 line ins simultaneously, right? (And use em for example to record 3 stereo outs of my synths). Or I actually have only 4 like ins on FF400?

thanks in advance!

[Timur Born]

It's 4 at the back and 4 at the front for a total of 8. The two Mic inputs double as line-inputs, same applies to the 2 instrument/hi-z inputs that also double as line-inputs.

[improbabilitist]

Originally Posted by vagabond

As for comparing FF400 vs. FF800:

The main difference as I see it is that the 400 is more geared to a user on the go ( mobile market) at the expense of some I/O. And also the 400 does not support Firewire 800 speed.

Would you say that the FF800 would be more stable when recording (a lot of) tracks because of the Firewire 800 speed capability?

Also, this is a really nice thread, just what I needed

[pianoman]

On the RME site, it appears that the 400 has 2xFireWire400 interfaces whereas the 800 has 1xFireWire400 plus 2xFireWire800 interfaces. In practice does this make any difference?

[tex viler]

yeah, i wanna know that too? what do i get with tjese "beter" firewire on FF800?

[kgdrum_nyc]

SynthAxe(RME tech support USA) told me there is no benefit of using fw800 w/ the FF,unless you are using multiple IO's
I guess FW800 technology might have a performance benefit if you are using FW800 hard drives,I use an older Mac w/ a slow FW buss so I to keep the use of FW as simple as possible.
From my understanding if the FF is your only IO as well as only FW device in the system 400 is all you need.

Metric Halo issued this great article on FW technology you might want to read :
http://www.mhsecure.com/technotes/Te...10/TN_0010.php