RME Fireface 400 vs 800

[Zuewi]

Hi!
I'm standing for the buying decision of a new soundcard or interface.

I was wondering if there is a big difference from the Fireface 400 and the 800?
I heard that the mic preamps are a little bit better at the 400 but the D/A should be little better at the 800 is that right?
Anyone Compared them yet 1:1?

Is that true that i have no possibility at these two units to add after the mic- preamp a external kompressor?

Do i have to buy a Midi breakout cable for the Fireface 400 or is it includet?

Would you buy a Fireface 400 or 800? and tell me the reason why you come to this choice.

Are there any alternative products what doen't cost more and come at the same or maybe better qulity?
I've heard that the Apogee Rosetta 800 should be very good also, but thats definitly to expensive i think.

Thanks a lot!

[CareerTech1]

get the FF800 - its the only interface that i know of that has rock solid 1394b drivers that work - with very low latency - giving you the higher speed / throughput than the 400. i believe the pre's are the same between the 400 and 800 - not sure where you heard that.

[thermos]

The pres aren't that great on the ff 800, so I wouldn't worry about adding a compressor after. The pres on the metric halo 2882 are better, but the conversion isn't as good.

[SingingTrousers]

I just bought a Fireface 400, and while I haven't used an FF800 to compare it with, I think it's great. The preamps are very clean, and sound better than my low-end Focusrite Trakmaster (which I'm now selling). My previous soundcard was an M-Audio 24/96, and the difference is (very) noticable.

A MIDI breakout cable is included.

According to Daniel Fuchs (RME support):

"The FF 400 uses a combined ADDA chip (AK 4620), while the FF800 has separate chips (5385/4395). S/N and THD for AD are almost identical, DA specs are marginally better on the FF800. The preamps on the FF400, however, have been slightly improved"

He also mentions that the Fireface 400 uses the same converters as the Multiface.

Hope this is helpful.

K

[zappa]

I'm also interested in hearing about direct comparisons between the Fireface 400 and 800, particularly with regard to the sound quality differences between the AD/DA converters of each unit.

Not needing the extra I/O of the 800, I'm about to invest in a 400, but if the 800 has a more than academic sound quality improvement I would consider moving up.

I'm also interested to find out whether the 800's soft-clip and instrument specific dsp functions are worth having (they're missing on the 400) and whether having pre-AD (analog) gain on the 800 proves beneficial sonically for inputs that sit awkwardly outside or between the reference +4 and -10 reference levels.

My last concern is about stability of the unit(s) regarding using them as direct out to a nice pair of powered monitors (running Mackie 824s). These units ever crash internally? Ever send anything offensive to your monitors. Do you guys trust a digital attenuator as a last stage before your monitors?

Last thing, does the digital knob on the 400 remember which channel(s) it's controlling between switch-off and on?

z.

[baikonour]

Hi,
We have both ff400 and ff800 in our studio. As as stated before in another thread THEY DO SOUND THE SAME AND THEY USE THE SAME DRIVER. So there's no stability issue with the new ff400 (it is incredibly stable actually)
Specs wise the ff400 has a slightly better AD and slightly inferior DA but once again, that's specs and I can't hear a friggin difference. The pres on the ff400 seems a tad better though. there's no soft limit , drive or cab emulation on the ff400 instrument input. (I don't miss it though I never use them on the ff800... there's way enough headroom before cliping anyway and the cab/drive thingy is irrelevant for me)
the RME software is great and you have variable input levels on the mic pres of course (they can be used as line ins too)
the instru ins gives a choice of different impedances and I never had a problem with the +4/-10 ref inputs you've got a extra 6db boost available too.
I hope that helps

[zappa]

Thanks baikonour

Out of interest, what's your monitoring setup, especially when you compared the 400 and 800? I've assumed the differences between the units to be small, but I'm guessing those differences would be revealed better on higher end monitors and/or cans.

Do you use the FF 400/800 as the unit that connects to your monitors or do you have some kind of attenuator sitting between the FF and the monitors?

Last question (sorry to repeat myself) does the digital knob on the 400 remember which channel(s) it's controlling between switch-off and on?

Thanks again! z.

[baikonour]

Originally Posted by zappa

Thanks baikonour

Out of interest, what's your monitoring setup, especially when you compared the 400 and 800? I've assumed the differences between the units to be small, but I'm guessing those differences would be revealed better on higher end monitors and/or cans.

Do you use the FF 400/800 as the unit that connects to your monitors or do you have some kind of attenuator sitting between the FF and the monitors?

Last question (sorry to repeat myself) does the digital knob on the 400 remember which channel(s) it's controlling between switch-off and on?

Thanks again! z.

the ff800 outs are directly connected to the Dynaudio bm6 (you can control the monitor volume with the RME software)
the ff400 outs feeds a drawmer 1968 ME then goes through a presonus headphones/monitor controler thingy to a pair of Adam A7
not sure about the digital knob...i guess it keeps the last setting in the flash memory as it's related to the routing software...But I'm not sure...you should check the manual on the RME website.

best

[Zuewi]

Most people of you say very positive things of the ff400 and the 800, I think i will go for the fireface 400 cause it's much cheaper, slightly better mic preamps and better A/D then the 800.
And also a lot of inserts and features like the 800.
The aditional stuff on the 800's mic pres shouldn't be that excellent i heard so i wouldn't need it in anyway.


But what is if i want to add a compressor for my mic at the setup where to connect this? Then I would need an external preamp right?

Would i run out of connections with the ff400 if i use much outband gear?

The speed of the 400 and the 800 is the same i heard cause the Firewire 400 connection is enought for a lot of tracks and would only be needed if i hang some other firewire devices behind the interface right?

Does anyone of you guys having a ff400 or ff800 with an external D/A? Does it alter the sound much?

[zappa]

My FF400 arrived today and I have been playing. I'm very impressed with it - in fact, I'm over the moon. All my concerns further up the thread have been met positively.

I have been conducting some comparisons between the FF400 and the MH ULN-2 (a friend owns one on a mac) and first thoughts are that the FF400 stacks up very well indeed, and thats not factoring in the price difference.

Put simply the sound quality of the FF400 is excellent. Very detailed, crystal clear with effortless and smooth delivery even in the most busy music. The control software is a breeze and my worries about connecting it directly up to high end powered monitors are unfounded. I have a small issue with my FF; for some reason input 4 has a higher noise floor than all the other inputs according to TotalMix. When I increase the gain on inputs 3+4 the noise floor difference between inputs 3 and 4 increases as the gain increases. I think there's a noisy analog circuit on input 4 of my unit.

When I've conducted some more thorough tests comparing the MH and the FF, I will post back my thoughts (comparisons so far have been with different monitors, which hardly makes a fair comparison possible). The only tiny thing I miss on the FF is a level VU for a stereo pair - it's a bit disconcerting not knowing visually what's going out to your monitors. Totalmix tells you this, but I'd like it on the front panel of the unit.

To sum up, my advice would be to get the 400 unless you need the extra I/O and pres of the 800. Sonically, I expect the units will be so similar that the differences are negligible - RME have said that, and so have others (people I know) who've compared both units closely.

@Zeuwi..

With regard to compressors, if you're recording at 24/96 or even 24/48, there's no need to worry about using a compressor on the analog side (ie. before the FF). There's so much headroom, just leave the levels fairly low to handle the wide dynamics of the mic then use your favourite software compression in your DAW (my personal favourites are the URS EQs and dynamics right now). You'll lose nothing in quality; in fact you'll gain quality, since there will be no analog makeup gain you'll get a much lower noise floor from your mic.

The FF400/800 have no inserts but plenty of IO and internal routing possibilities.

Would you run out of connections? That's a tough one for anyone to answer but you. You have 8 analog ins and outs on the 400, which can be mixed with up to 16 channels from the PC. In reality, you will be mixing in your DAW down to stereo which will only use 2 channels in the FF. You could mix your outboard in with that or route the inputs back to the DAW for recording. I don't know if its possible to route the entire FF mix back to the PC for recording yet, thought you'd probably want to record all your inputs into the DAW for further processing and mixing in the DAW. In short: 8 analog ins + 8 adat ins + 2 spdif = up to 18 ins. Most outboard outputs stereo so assume you will need 2 inputs per outboard.

The amount of tracks you use in the DAW does not affect the firewire bandwidth because the tracks are mixed down to stereo before being sent to the FF. Firewire bandwidth becomes an issue if you're recording lots of inputs simultaneously, or using more outputs than 2 from the PC. Take a look at the FF manual (on RME's site) for more info about what you can expect from the FF400 in terms of firewire limitations.

I don't really see much point in using external D/A. The FF400's DA is really very good and although there is better you will be paying for the privilege. In this thread there's a comparison of the FF800 against the Rosetta 800 and the poster reports that the Rosetta's DA output stage is better than the FF but in terms of AD and inputs the units seem to be very similar; to my ears the FF800 is actually better.

Early days yet, but I can highly recommend the FF400 both sonically and in terms of stability and usability too.

z.

[SingingTrousers]

Nice post

[CareerTech1]

Originally Posted by zappa

My FF400 arrived today and I have been playing. I'm very impressed with it - in fact, I'm over the moon. All my concerns further up the thread have been met positively.

I have been conducting some comparisons between the FF400 and the MH ULN-2 (a friend owns one on a mac) and first thoughts are that the FF400 stacks up very well indeed, and thats not factoring in the price difference.

Put simply the sound quality of the FF400 is excellent. Very detailed, crystal clear with effortless and smooth delivery even in the most busy music. The control software is a breeze and my worries about connecting it directly up to high end powered monitors are unfounded. I have a small issue with my FF; for some reason input 4 has a higher noise floor than all the other inputs according to TotalMix. When I increase the gain on inputs 3+4 the noise floor difference between inputs 3 and 4 increases as the gain increases. I think there's a noisy analog circuit on input 4 of my unit.

When I've conducted some more thorough tests comparing the MH and the FF, I will post back my thoughts (comparisons so far have been with different monitors, which hardly makes a fair comparison possible). The only tiny thing I miss on the FF is a level VU for a stereo pair - it's a bit disconcerting not knowing visually what's going out to your monitors. Totalmix tells you this, but I'd like it on the front panel of the unit.

To sum up, my advice would be to get the 400 unless you need the extra I/O and pres of the 800. Sonically, I expect the units will be so similar that the differences are negligible - RME have said that, and so have others (people I know) who've compared both units closely.

@Zeuwi..

With regard to compressors, if you're recording at 24/96 or even 24/48, there's no need to worry about using a compressor on the analog side (ie. before the FF). There's so much headroom, just leave the levels fairly low to handle the wide dynamics of the mic then use your favourite software compression in your DAW (my personal favourites are the URS EQs and dynamics right now). You'll lose nothing in quality; in fact you'll gain quality, since there will be no analog makeup gain you'll get a much lower noise floor from your mic.

The FF400/800 have no inserts but plenty of IO and internal routing possibilities.

Would you run out of connections? That's a tough one for anyone to answer but you. You have 8 analog ins and outs on the 400, which can be mixed with up to 16 channels from the PC. In reality, you will be mixing in your DAW down to stereo which will only use 2 channels in the FF. You could mix your outboard in with that or route the inputs back to the DAW for recording. I don't know if its possible to route the entire FF mix back to the PC for recording yet, thought you'd probably want to record all your inputs into the DAW for further processing and mixing in the DAW. In short: 8 analog ins + 8 adat ins + 2 spdif = up to 18 ins. Most outboard outputs stereo so assume you will need 2 inputs per outboard.

The amount of tracks you use in the DAW does not affect the firewire bandwidth because the tracks are mixed down to stereo before being sent to the FF. Firewire bandwidth becomes an issue if you're recording lots of inputs simultaneously, or using more outputs than 2 from the PC. Take a look at the FF manual (on RME's site) for more info about what you can expect from the FF400 in terms of firewire limitations.

I don't really see much point in using external D/A. The FF400's DA is really very good and although there is better you will be paying for the privilege. In this thread there's a comparison of the FF800 against the Rosetta 800 and the poster reports that the Rosetta's DA output stage is better than the FF but in terms of AD and inputs the units seem to be very similar; to my ears the FF800 is actually better.

Early days yet, but I can highly recommend the FF400 both sonically and in terms of stability and usability too.

z.

really nice post

dweezil?

[Don S]

Originally Posted by Zuewi

Most people of you say very positive things of the ff400 and the 800, I think i will go for the fireface 400 cause it's much cheaper, slightly better mic preamps and better A/D then the 800.

I asked the rep here in the US that same question about the converter quality in the 2 boxes. He said the 800 has better converters. The 400's converter design is based on the multiface. Were the 800 is designed close to the ADI series.
FWIW.

[zappa]

Thanks for the nice comments about my post

dweezil?

@Don S

According to Daniel from RME support on this thread:

Originally Posted by RME Support

The FF 400 uses a combined ADDA chip (AK 4620), while the FF800 has separate chips (5385/4395). S/N and THD for AD are almost identical, DA specs are marginally better on the FF800. The preamps on the FF400, however, have been slightly improved.

Regards,
Daniel Fuchs
RME Support

I know an engineer who's used both units extensively and reports no discernable difference between them in the studio or with reference cans. I hope to be borrowing a FF800 shortly to carry out some tests of my own, I'll report back my findings.

z.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by zappa

Thanks for the nice comments about my post

dweezil?

@Don S

According to Daniel from RME support on this thread:



I know an engineer who's used both units extensively and reports no discernable difference between them in the studio or with reference cans. I hope to be borrowing a FF800 shortly to carry out some tests of my own, I'll report back my findings.

z.

Good to hear they improved the mic pres on the 400. They are awful on the 800!

[rectifier]

Originally Posted by Don S

Good to hear they improved the mic pres on the 400. They are awful on the 800!

didn't you once say:

Originally Posted by Don S

I can highly reccommend the FireFace800. Solid drivers and hardware. Excellent AD (in that price range) with usable preamps. Great sounding DA. 28 channels of IO. Since you already have pre and AtoD, this would be good addition. At 1000 USD, you will have to look for used, but I just saw one in the classified section.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by rectifier

didn't you once say:

Wow, I'm never sure if anyone ever reads my posts! Glad they do.
I believe that in that post I'm comparing the pres to other interfaces in that price range. However, compared to a pro level pre, they are "awful". I can hear that they paid more attention to quality of the converters. Sorry to contradict myself

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by Don S

I asked the rep here in the US that same question about the converter quality in the 2 boxes. He said the 800 has better converters. The 400's converter design is based on the multiface. Were the 800 is designed close to the ADI series.
FWIW.

I own the original Multiface and a FF800. The convertors (D/A anyway) are clearly better on the FF800, in a kind of next generational way. A step change similar - but not as pronounced - as going from my Meridian 203 (high quality 10yr old CD player) to the Benchmark DAC1 (no intro needed). The Meridian and Multiface both have very acceptable D/A that is smooth and sweet and reasonably detailed. But the FF800 and (especially) the Benchmark have another level of clarity and definition beyond that.

So I'm wondering whether RME's comments aren't based on the Multiface 2 rather than the original Multiface? Either that or the FF400's DAC is significantly inferior to that of the FF800, which I kind of doubt from the comments others have made on various threads.

EDIT: I've just found a listing of the specs of the Multiface II vs the Mutiface original. It seems that the only DAC differences are in the power supply and the analog output stages (inc the headphone socket that I use for either monitors or headphones) so THAT must be what I'm hearing. I guess it goes to show that the analog stages might be as important as the chip(s) themselves.
http://noisetheatre.blogspot.com/200...announced.html


Andrew

[Sinewave]

If i wanted to bypass the FF 800 mic pre's and use an external one , are there any problems in doing so ?

[zappa]

@Andrew B.
As I started to read your post I was going to point out that the analog stages are just as important, then you saved me the trouble!

It is my understanding that the MOTU devices (828mk2, Traveller, Ultralite) all use the same type AKM ADA converters as the RME FF400/800. I believe that the MH units also use these converters. Although the FF800 converters are different to the FF400 (separate chips for DA and AD on the 800, vs. 1 ADA chip on the 400), they (the chips themselves) are of a similar cost but are designed for slightly different surrounding electronics. I doubt that RME would have consciously chosen a weaker converter for the FF400 design, especially considering that the component costs are so similar. More likely the decision was made for other reasons: I'm guessing here but most likely is that the separate chip solution can handle more physical channels than the single chip, as needed by the FF800, with the added expense of a more complicated PCB design.

I've read elsewhere that the (original) Multiface sounds noticeably less detailed and more muddy than the FF400 - I suppose the MF2 might have been released to address some of these issues and will probably sound much better. In short, the analog stages are just as important as the ADA side of these units, hence the substantial sonic improvement that can be achieved with the Black Lion upgrades to MOTU products (mainly analog mods).

The other thing to bear in mind is the timeline of these products. If my understanding is correct the original Multiface is the oldest of these products; the FF400 being the newest. RME have chosen to improve the pres and AD side of the 400 as part of the evolution of this product line; chances are there will be an FF800mk2 that has improved pres and some other refinements. What would be the point of making these improvements to the 400 in the knowledge that the unit would be downgraded on the output side?

For these reasons, the opinion of baikonour above and until I hear the FF800 for myself, I am prepared to go with (RME) Daniel's position on this, that the DA specs of the 800 are marginally better, whereas the pres on the FF400 are slightly improved. The language suggests that the differences between the two units are little more than academic.

At the same time I would not assume that because the Multiface (mk1) uses the same converter chip that it sounds the same as the FF400. More likely it uses that converter chip because it has similar I/O to the FF400 and does not need to handle more channels concurrently, hence (just like the FF400) the PCB is more cost-effective to design with a 1-chip converter.

Of course, these are just opinions and I'm still very interested to hear the views of anyone else out there that's compared the sonic quality of the 400 and 800, particularly on the output side.

z.

[vagabond]

Originally Posted by zappa

@Andrew B.
It is my understanding that the MOTU devices (828mk2, Traveller, Ultralite) all use the same type AKM ADA converters as the RME FF400/800.
z.

zappa,

Does this mean that the MOTU Ultralite will perform as well as the fireface 400 w.r.t. A/D/A ?

I currently own PreSonus Firebox but need 8 analog outputs. Am looking for better A/D/A (mic pres are not important in my applications). So, I could

1. buy fireface 400
2. buy MOTU Ultralite (cheaper and maybe similar performance)
3. buy a second firebox (cheapest solution. This will only work if I can use both Firebox at the same time to get 8 analog outputs).
4. Buy a D/A converter to convert the existing SPDIF output from Firebox to the 4th pair of analog outs.

I have not heard the Ultralite nor the Fireface 400. Are they really worth the money? I think the Firebox is a great performer for the price ($299).

Does the Ultralite sound about 2x as good as Firebox (as the price suggests)?

For that matter, does the Fireface 400 sound 3x better? I am mainly digitizing my vinyl at 24-bit/44.1KHz.

Comments?? Suggestions??

Thanks in advance,

-vagabond

[zappa]

@vagabond:

Does this mean that the MOTU Ultralite will perform as well as the fireface 400 w.r.t. A/D/A ?

Doubtful, though I have not carried out direct A/B tests myself. A large body of opinion suggests that the Fireface units sound much better than the MOTU firewire units (Ultralite, Traveler and 828mk2). The reasons for this are threefold: 1. Much higher quality analog stages (all input circuitry prior to the actual converter). The improvements include but are not limited to the mic pres of the unit. 2. Wordclock generator. RME units have the steadyclock function which massively improves wordclock accuracy; inaccuracies of the wordclock lead to sonic smudging and lack of detail. 3. Internal resolution of the supporting architecture on the digital side. The design of the RME allows for a significant amount of digital makeup gain to be applied to the inputs with no loss of signal precision. This and all other operations in the digital domain happen at a higher precision than the sample bitdepth resulting in a very 'true' signal that's finally passed to/from the host. To further corroborate the above, note that Black Lion Audio will upgrade the MOTU products' analog and wordclock stages which reportedly improve the sonic performance of those units substantially.

I would suggest if you were going to make this kind of upgrade you would be better off replacing the Presonus Firebox with one of these units. When I made this decision, sound quality was paramount; for me in the end the RME was the clear winner in terms of sound quality, at its price point. It also had an impressive and flexible feature-set and has so far been rock stable in operation. Although (as you say) the Presonus units represent great value for money, I am confident that you will notice a significant leap in sonic performance with the RME, as well as gaining the extra I/O you need.

The separate DAC option will address your output issues (to whatever quality determined by the quality of DAC you buy) but it will not benefit the quality of your recordings. It is probably least appealing in cost/benefit terms.

I have not heard the Ultralite nor the Fireface 400. Are they really worth the money? I think the Firebox is a great performer for the price ($299).

Does the Ultralite sound about 2x as good as Firebox (as the price suggests)?

For that matter, does the Fireface 400 sound 3x better? I am mainly digitizing my vinyl at 24-bit/44.1KHz.

These questions are more subjective. In my opinion, as an engineer and as someone with (again imo!) a very good pair of ears, the RME gear stacks up sonically very well against equipment costing 2-3 times the price. By that measurement, they represent excellent value for money. Also, their features, flexibility and drivers are pretty excellent - that makes them really usable in all kinds of situations - stand alone, portable (laptop) recording, studio monitoring, studio recording/monitoring etc. etc..

The Ultralite has certain benefits. It has a nicer interface, has a slightly higher quality construction and has an analog control for the main monitor outs. The RME's digital control(s) scared me in the beginning but having used them with no nasties at all I can happily say I'm now comfortable to hook up my £2,000 powered monitors straight to the unit. I know the 828mk2 unit quite well having used them in various recording and monitoring situations - the Ultralite and Traveler are based on the same design and component costings as the 828 so I imagine those units will sound similar. Sadly, I was not impressed with their sound for the money - what you are getting for your buck is more I/O, solid drivers and good quality construction, rather than the best sound you can get for your money. I expect that the MOTU will sound better than the Presonus but not significantly; the RME on the other hand will really impress you. Is that 2x, 3x better? who knows - Each product is different and based around a different set of priorities and philosophies.

I will also say that in A/B simple listening tests the RME 400 (with different monitoring configurations but of approximately similar cost) seems to stack up very well against the Metric Halo ULN2, a 2x2 analog channel unit (with pres) costing a good $400 more than the (8x8) FF 400. These comparisons have not been at all scientific but I'm not really hearing the kind of difference I would expect with the cost and I/O differences between these units.

To sum up, I don't think any of this kit represents "bad" value really. It depends on your priorities. But I can highly recommend the RME Fireface 400 and if you sell your Presonus you will take a big step up. You'll also put around $200 towards the RME.

Happy New Year - z.

Tip. Whatever you choose, find a store who'll supply it on approval - I did. If you're really not happy after a week or so, send it back.

[vagabond]

Originally Posted by zappa

Although (as you say) the Presonus units represent great value for money, I am confident that you will notice a significant leap in sonic performance with the RME, as well as gaining the extra I/O you need.

===snip

I know the 828mk2 unit quite well having used them in various recording and monitoring situations - the Ultralite and Traveler are based on the same design and component costings as the 828 so I imagine those units will sound similar. Sadly, I was not impressed with their sound for the money - what you are getting for your buck is more I/O, solid drivers and good quality construction, rather than the best sound you can get for your money. I expect that the MOTU will sound better than the Presonus but not significantly; the RME on the other hand will really impress you.

Thanks for this feedback - it's exactly the kind of commentary I was looking for. My general fear with the MOTU interfaces was that I would buy one of them and not hear any significant difference when compared to the PreSonus I/O. Your comments above have pushed me over the fence. So, I ordered the fireface 400 yesterday. I'll play with it next week and post my observations.

BTW, I figured out a way to get 4 pairs of outputs from the PreSonus Firebox. I connected a Y adapter that has a pair of RCA plugs to my headphone output. In the PreSonus Firebox Mixer, I assign the source of the headphones to be the SPDIF output.

Viola!! But, I'm also after great analog I/O sound for both live performance and for digitizing all the dance vinyl that I have accumulated over the past 20 years. Once digitized, I can use the digitized versions with Native Instruments Traktor!!

Thanks again for the tips.

-vagabond

Originally Posted by zappa

Tip. Whatever you choose, find a store who'll supply it on approval - I did. If you're really not happy after a week or so, send it back.

Oh yea, Sweetwater is great for this. 30 days - I only pay return shipping for non-defected purchases.

[vagabond]

Originally Posted by zappa

Although (as you say) the Presonus units represent great value for money, I am confident that you will notice a significant leap in sonic performance with the RME, as well as gaining the extra I/O you need.

===snip

I know the 828mk2 unit quite well having used them in various recording and monitoring situations - the Ultralite and Traveler are based on the same design and component costings as the 828 so I imagine those units will sound similar. Sadly, I was not impressed with their sound for the money - what you are getting for your buck is more I/O, solid drivers and good quality construction, rather than the best sound you can get for your money. I expect that the MOTU will sound better than the Presonus but not significantly; the RME on the other hand will really impress you.

Thanks for this feedback - it's exactly the kind of commentary I was looking for. My general fear with the MOTU interfaces was that I would buy one of them and not hear any significant difference when compared to the PreSonus I/O. Your comments above have pushed me over the fence. So, I ordered the fireface 400 yesterday. I'll play with it next week and post my observations.

BTW, I figured out a way to get 4 pairs of outputs from the PreSonus Firebox. I connected a Y adapter that has a pair of RCA plugs to my headphone output. In the PreSonus Firebox Mixer, I assign the source of the headphones to be the SPDIF output.

Viola!! But, I'm also after great analog I/O sound for both live performance and for digitizing all the dance vinyl that I have accumulated over the past 20 years. Once digitized, I can use the digitized versions with Native Instruments Traktor!!

Originally Posted by zappa

Tip. Whatever you choose, find a store who'll supply it on approval - I did. If you're really not happy after a week or so, send it back.

Oh yea, Sweetwater is great for this. 30 days - I only pay return shipping for non-defected purchases.

Thanks again for the tips.

-vagabond

[majortom]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

If i wanted to bypass the FF 800 mic pre's and use an external one , are there any problems in doing so ?

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.

[Don S]

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.

Yup - 8 on back and 4 on the front. 7&8 are switchable (via software) to Front, back or both.

[Zuewi]

Any more impressions of comparing the FF400 with the FF800?
I still don't know what to take

Now a really stupid question:
What outupts do i get from a hardware Kompressor, EQ, Tube Preamp or A/D converter?
(like Massive Passive, Lavry Blue,.....)
Cause i want to buy them in the future (maybe one year or two...) will i have problems with the FF400 cause i don't have the right connections or to less connections?

Thanks for the comments.

[vagabond]

Originally Posted by Zuewi

Any more impressions of comparing the FF400 with the FF800?
I still don't know what to take

Now a really stupid question:
What outupts do i get from a hardware Kompressor, EQ, Tube Preamp or A/D converter?
(like Massive Passive, Lavry Blue,.....)
Cause i want to buy them in the future (maybe one year or two...) will i have problems with the FF400 cause i don't have the right connections or to less connections?

Thanks for the comments.

Go to the websites of the equipment you are interested in and look at the manual and pictures of the back of the unit.

All fireface 800 inputs are balanced and all the high quality equipment you mentioned above should also be balanced. It's just a matter of XLR<=>TRS cables for outboard micpres.

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.

-vagabond

[sergioelectro]

Hello,

I know it is a little bit off the subject but how the Yamaha I88x compares to the RME Fireface 800 or 400 ? ? ?

I may plan to change my I88X for Fireface : I would like to take the imprint of analog hardware , and I believe the converters on the RME are better ? ?

What do you guys think

Thanks for your opinion


Sergio

[MattiMattMatt]

Main difference:

400 = smaller (more portable, less i/o)
800 = bigger (less portable, more i/o)