The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Messe 2014: RME announces Fireface 802 Audio Interfaces
Old 22nd March 2014
  #91
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneHall View Post
In the long run, RME will prove it's professional grade by reliably delivering the goods as described and not bull****ting people with flashy front panels and crapping on about zero latency playback like it's some kind of divine achievement we should all be in awe of.
Couldn't agree more. And not that rme's latency would be anywhere above the average. It's quite decent actually.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #92
Lives for gear
 
sleepwalker's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossinThreshold View Post
Where do you connect the monitors on this unit?
If you want a hard knob, you can use one of the headphone outs. It will be unbalanced, otherwise you just go out one of the outputs and adjust the volume elsewhere.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #93
Gear Addict
 
ABBA's Avatar
 

What about the quality of the new A/D/A?
The UFC had worse performance than the old FF800 -
and the FF400 was better than both of them.

2 separate tests were done here on GS with measurements.

I love RME but if they would drop the preamps and instead
include high quality converters - they would rule the market!
Old 22nd March 2014
  #94
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
I love RME but if they would drop the preamps and instead
include high quality converters - they would rule the market!
Something like an Orion?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #95
Lives for gear
 
GeneHall's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Man View Post
Something like an Orion?
..if that Orion had RME drivers, to.
My perfect box would be
RME drivers
Antelope clock
prism converters
UAD dsp fx slot no compression, no eq, verb delay imaging only
No preamps.
x4 1/4" / midi x2 front panel connectivity
D-sub for other channels, insert point,
& x2 monitor output.
They can paint it any colour they like.
I'd pay $6k or more for a device such as described.
Can I get that in a 1u box please?
If all the big boys shared their toys and could play nicely with each other, my dream box could be a reality!!
Old 23rd March 2014
  #96
Lives for gear
 

Can the 802 record to the iPad ? Or is it just to control the Totalmix?

If it can record, can we really get all those inputs into an iPad at 48/24 bit?

If so, I`m pretty impressed!

Thomas
Old 24th March 2014
  #97
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasWho View Post
Can the 802 record to the iPad ? Or is it just to control the Totalmix?
If it can record, can we really get all those inputs into an iPad at 48/24 bit?
If so, I`m pretty impressed!
Thomas
It is not the FF802 that actively "records to the iPad", it is the audio application of your choice that does, using the FF802 as audio interface. Not having tried it yet, I assume the 802 will be limited to 22 I/O channels, like the UFX is (only 8 ADAT channels in CC mode).


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 24th March 2014
  #98
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
Think UA´s Twin is faster at playback
An hour's music will still take an hour to play back...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast_Fingers View Post
I wonder if there's a Fireface 402 coming soon for someone who wants the UC/UCX but doesn't want the digitally controlled preamps or the UCX's DSP.
Given that the 400 already had those digitally controlled preamps, that would make little sense...

If you want four analog-controlled preamps, consider the RME Quadmic.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 24th March 2014
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
What about the quality of the new A/D/A?
The UFC had worse performance than the old FF800 -
and the FF400 was better than both of them.

2 separate tests were done here on GS with measurements.
That is something thats puzzled me too, that in those DA-AD loop back tests (thread now deleted sadly) the newer RME's seem to do less well in terms of transparent conversion out and in. Would be nice if RME chimed in on this to explain what might cause this, or whether its even a relevant test?

*edit* just noticed there IS still a thread making such comparisons, this post specifically:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/9967409-post457.html
Old 25th March 2014
  #100
Lives for gear
 
GeneHall's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RME Support View Post
An hour's music will still take an hour to play back...




Given that the 400 already had those digitally controlled preamps, that would make little sense...

If you want four analog-controlled preamps, consider the RME Quadmic.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Quad mic. There's another bit of cost effective kit that gives and gives.

Any thoughts of taking the UFX into a higher class by integrating improved conversion? I'm not complaining but if a , say, UFX-z model with converters to match came forth, id have to own that.
Old 25th March 2014
  #101
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
That is something thats puzzled me too, that in those DA-AD loop back tests (thread now deleted sadly) the newer RME's seem to do less well in terms of transparent conversion out and in. Would be nice if RME chimed in on this to explain what might cause this, or whether its even a relevant test?
*edit* just noticed there IS still a thread making such comparisons, this post specifically:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/9967409-post457.html

I do not really think these tests can be a serious way to measure "transparent conversion". Haven't followed all the discussion, but given the rather lousy "results" quoted even for some undisputed high-end gear like Mytek and Prism Orpheus, I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with these tests. Therefore, I'd prefer not to discuss "sound quality" based on their "results". Specs are on our website, and transparency is always the goal, there is never any intention to provide a certain sound "character" or so... Given the feedback we get from people who actually use gear to record and playback, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneHall View Post
Any thoughts of taking the UFX into a higher class by integrating improved conversion? I'm not complaining but if a , say, UFX-z model with converters to match came forth, id have to own that.
The converters on the UFX are excellent as they are... Have you read the specs? Have you read about the double conversion on the mic inputs? There really shouldn't be anything to worry about, certainly not based on loopback tests. Same for the 802...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 25th March 2014
  #102
Lives for gear
 
GeneHall's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RME Support View Post
I do not really think these tests can be a serious way to measure "transparent conversion". Haven't followed all the discussion, but given the rather lousy "results" quoted even for some undisputed high-end gear like Mytek and Prism Orpheus, I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with these tests. Therefore, I'd prefer not to discuss "sound quality" based on their "results". Specs are on our website, and transparency is always the goal, there is never any intention to provide a certain sound "character" or so... Given the feedback we get from people who actually use gear to record and playback, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that.



The converters on the UFX are excellent as they are... Have you read the specs? Have you read about the double conversion on the mic inputs? There really shouldn't be anything to worry about, certainly not based on loopback tests. Same for the 802...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Like I said Daniel, I'm not complaining and I know the unit intimately yes.
My questions was, and I think it's rationale to pose query on how the UFX might evolve.
Not To confuse anything here. The UFX is a remarkably reliable unit that sits quietly and takes everything I can throw at it. It ain't broke and don't need fixing.

Surely some speculative conversations have been foddered by the renowned success of the UFX. I mean, after all the back pats are passed around, sights must be set on the next challenge to surpass expectations, or maybe honing in on a product development that sees the UFX boldly go beyond where it's been.
Fwiw,
I will not ever be called out not having a UFX available to me with regards to recording. It's money for jam with it on the job.
And for the record Mr Fuchs, this thread is the closest I have ever come to RME customer support. Owned RME gear now for close to 5 years and not once have I had any need to contact support.
Pretty cool huh? :-)
Go well man
Gene
Old 25th March 2014
  #103
Gear Addict
 
ABBA's Avatar
 

Daniel RME:
Quote:
I do not really think these tests can be a serious way to measure "transparent conversion". Haven't followed all the discussion, but given the rather lousy "results" quoted even for some undisputed high-end gear like Mytek and Prism Orpheus, I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with these tests. Therefore, I'd prefer not to discuss "sound quality" based on their "results". Specs are on our website, and transparency is always the goal, there is never any intention to provide a certain sound "character" or so... Given the feedback we get from people who actually use gear to record and playback, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that.
With all due respect Daniel but your reply was rather arrogant. We are amongst your customers who use your gear and
it's strange only to listen to those who praise your products and ignore those that have suggestions or thoughts
of improvements. The tests did not give the Prism or Mytek bad results, on the contrary. They did however put your new products
in a worse position than previous models. For any proffessional maker this should be something to at least look into instead of
waving off the testmethod as fawlty, without even bother to give a proper answer to as why you believe the method is wrong.
To refer to specifications on your website is not the answer people need when these tests have shown that the old stuff performed
better than the new.

I've participated in blindtests of converters several times. As usual the differences are to say the least - small - but verifiable.
You are responding to threads on Gearslutz, Daniel - audio quality is of great importance here.
I'm sure you have a huge fanbase of users with small homestudios that can't find anything more to wish for
in the RME stuff - but here we are very very greedy, we want more than just reliable soundcards. We want them
to sound really good and get improved with newer and more expensive models.

No need to get defensive, we are on your side. And I meant what I said - if RME would put more effort into
the audio quality and still stay (if at all possible) within the same pricerange - you would rule the market.
As it is now, many of us feel that we need to use other converters hooked up to your otherwise excellent products.

We would be more than happy to pay extra for better A/D/A converters in your products.
At least there should be a more pro-oriented unit.

With respect
Mike
Old 25th March 2014
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Mats H's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
Daniel RME:


With all due respect Daniel but your reply was rather arrogant. We are amongst your customers who use your gear and
it's strange only to listen to those who praise your products and ignore those that have suggestions or thoughts
of improvements. The tests did not give the Prism or Mytek bad results, on the contrary. They did however put your new products
in a worse position than previous models. For any proffessional maker this should be something to at least look into instead of
waving off the testmethod as fawlty, without even bother to give a proper answer to as why you believe the method is wrong.
To refer to specifications on your website is not the answer people need when these tests have shown that the old stuff performed
better than the new.

I've participated in blindtests of converters several times. As usual the differences are to say the least - small - but verifiable.
You are responding to threads on Gearslutz, Daniel - audio quality is of great importance here.

No need to get defensive, we are on your side. And I meant what I said - if RME would put more effort into
the audio quality and still stay (if at all possible) within the same pricerange - you would rule the market.
As it is now, many of us feel that we need to use other converters hooked up to your otherwise excellent products.

With respect
Mike
I might catch some flak, but here goes.

I think what Daniel is trying to say (and I've followed those threads) is that the methology for the "nulling tests" is somewhat questionable and don't really give an indication of perceived sound quality. For instance if the FF800 performed better in a nulling test than the UFX, what does that say to me? In MY opinion, which I believe is well informed after using these interfaces for a lot of years, the later RME stuff sound terrific and are improved over the older interfaces. And really, technical details is the only way to be objective about the performance of a piece of hardware.

I have no problem hooking stuff up to my RME Octamic XTC or Fireface UFX instead of my Lavry Blue converters. For most things, the tiny difference doesn't matter at all. It sounds good and I get paid.

Just get out there and use the most reliable pieces of gear you can find, which IMO just happens to be RME gear. And to the others here, don't expect RME to comment on which interface is their best sounding one, it won't happen.
Old 25th March 2014
  #105
Gear Maniac
 

Anyways would be interessting why they null so badly compared to other units - even more so since rme claims they are up to par with highend converters and our own subjective expirience that they sound better than ad/da's that perform much better in such a test (like for example the motu 2408 mk3)
Old 25th March 2014
  #106
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Hi,
don't really want this thread to veer off-course too much, and I'd also rather not be drawn into discussing these "transparency tests", so I'll just respond one last time.. As for questions concerning the 802, I'm all ears, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
The tests did not give the Prism or Mytek bad results, on the contrary. They did however put your new products in a worse position than previous models. For any proffessional maker this should be something to at least look into instead of waving off the testmethod as fawlty, without even bother to give a proper answer to as why you believe the method is wrong.
I misread some figures. Nonetheless, even results of files nulling around -60 dBFS in these tests are terrible for any modern 24-bit conversion... This alone seems to suggest to me that the test method is severely flawed, regardless of the comparison between individual devices.

A Q&D test for a for a bit of perspective: If I take two identical objects (i.e. representing the same wave file), align them on two tracks in Sequoia, and invert one, they null out perfectly. Now if I shift one by one single sample (all at 44k), the resulting mix in louder sections of the signal jumps to around -12 dBFs. That's one sample. Not hard to guess that even half a sample's misalignment will have an effect.
If instead I adjust the level of one object by -0.3 dB (!), the same loud section now mixes to around -35 dBFS. A 3 dB offset produces -18 dBFs (single soloed track about -8 dBFS)... This is just to show that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to perfectly time-align and level-match files for the highest possible degree of "nulling". Many audio interfaces will not have exactly the same electrical output and input levels representing 0 dBFs, making it even more difficult. Considering this happens with identical audio material here, it should be clear that these null test measurements are not indicative of "audio quality" at all. Just for the record, both these effects can be reproduced easily in Reaper.

It is well possible that some combinations of AD and DA conversion might make sufficiently precise time alignment more difficult than others, leading to "inferior" test results, but that does not concern or indicate/measure the quality of the actual conversion either way. If the FF400 "performs better" in these tests than the 800 and others (which would be in contrast to the actual tech specs), that might just be because it features a combined AKM "codec" (integrated ADDA converter chip), as opposed to separate AD and DA chips. Might be interesting to see which of the well-performing devices in these tests also use such codecs. But I won't go into that.

Quote:
To refer to specifications on your website is not the answer people need when these tests have shown that the old stuff performed
better than the new.
Beg to differ - the tech specs are certainly more verifiable/reproducible and better suited to judging conversion quality than a test method of unproven merit, to put it politely. And you will see that these specs have actually improved, e.g. from the FF800 to the 802.

Quote:
I've participated in blindtests of converters several times. As usual the differences are to say the least - small - but verifiable.
And largely subjective, I would add. One person's "clear" may be another's "overbright"...

Quote:
I'm sure you have a huge fanbase of users with small homestudios that can't find anything more to wish for in the RME stuff -
I can assure you that our user base is not at all limited to home studios... Particularly in the case of units like the UFX.

Quote:
but here we are very very greedy, we want more than just reliable soundcards. We want themto sound really good and get improved with newer and more expensive models.No need to get defensive, we are on your side. And I meant what I said - if RME would put more effort into the audio quality and still stay (if at all possible) within the same pricerange - you would rule the market. As it is now, many of us feel that we need to use other converters hooked up to your otherwise excellent products.
We would be more than happy to pay extra for better A/D/A converters in your products. At least there should be a more pro-oriented unit.
The UFX is as pro-oriented as you could ask for - including the conversion quality. And so are converters like the ADI-8 DS, QS, Micstasy, etc., if you wish to pay more - and, of course, so is the new 802. Once again, disregarding these tests, but judging from the actual feedback we get from users who use their ears, there does not seem to be any reason to "improve" the converter quality, which is one of the somewhat less important factors within the full signal chain. And this has nothing to do with being defensive, on the contrary.

At the risk of being called "condescending" again, let me ask you what your definition of "better" would be in this context - producing "better results" with a possibly fatally flawed test method or "better" as in somehow attempting to "improve" the sound quality of the incoming source signal beyond mere accurate reproduction? I can tell you that neither of the two is something we will likely be aiming for.

If, however, you have reason to doubt the accuracy and transparency of the UFX' onboard AD and DA conversion or its tech specs, please let us know in detail what causes this impression (loopback test results aside). This is honestly something we hear very little of in customer feedback, if any, and certainly not enough to see more than individual opinions/tastes behind such comments.

Adding third-party converters or preamps to cater to specific desires in terms of "character" is another matter, and nothing we'd object to in any way, of course...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 25th March 2014
  #107
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats H View Post
And to the others here, don't expect RME to comment on which interface is their best sounding one, it won't happen.
Mats, thanks for the support. And indeed you are right with the above comment...


Quote:
Originally Posted by nept View Post
Anyways would be interessting why they null so badly compared to other units - even more so since rme claims they are up to par with highend converters and our own subjective expirience that they sound better than ad/da's that perform much better in such a test (like for example the motu 2408 mk3)
See my comment above, and how minute offsets in level and time alignment will produce large changes to the degree of "nulling", even with identical material... To me, that indicates these tests are not only flawed, but in fact worthless.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 25th March 2014
  #108
Here for the gear
well, i booked one today, so i'm happy
Old 25th March 2014
  #109
Gear Nut
 
PianoPerson's Avatar
 

Condescending? Arrogant?

No idea what you're talking about. The guy pointed out some obvious flaws in those obviously flawed loopback tests. The suggestion that RME caters to home studios only -- now, THAT's condescending.
Old 26th March 2014
  #110
Gear Addict
 

Daniel, I have a UFX and I'm very happy with it, except for one thing. I was hoping maybe the 802 would solve it, but apparently not.

Is there something inherent in the UFX and 802 architecture that prevents the possibility of the AES/EBU and S/PDIF inputs being used simultaneously? I would like to be able to use the S/PDIF for my Kemper and the AES/EBU for my Burl A/D at the same time, for example. This isn't possible with the UFX, the 802, the Lynx Hilo, the UA Apollo, or any other interface I've looked at. Is there a reason why this is not implemented?

I realize that I could add an ADI-192 (or an ADI-4), but that's a lot of money for one additional digital in. An alternative would be something like an ADI-192 which had a USB interface, I would buy that in an instant.
Old 26th March 2014
  #111
Gear Addict
 

I love the ufx and the baby face,

Would love to see a gate in the UFX though
Old 26th March 2014
  #112
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesC View Post
Is there something inherent in the UFX and 802 architecture that prevents the possibility of the AES/EBU and S/PDIF inputs being used simultaneously? I would like to be able to use the S/PDIF for my Kemper and the AES/EBU for my Burl A/D at the same time, for example. This isn't possible with the UFX, the 802, the Lynx Hilo, the UA Apollo, or any other interface I've looked at. Is there a reason why this is not implemented?
Indeed the FX and 802 only have one stereo digital I/O. As it were, you can use SPDIF coax and optical separately and independently on the UCX...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pass-out View Post
I love the ufx and the baby face,
Would love to see a gate in the UFX though
The dynamics section does allow gating, there is a preset also...


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 26th March 2014
  #113
Gear Addict
 
ABBA's Avatar
 

Hi Daniel!

I thank you for your answer and your participation in this thread.

But I'm still wondering - are you saying that the converters in your later models
UFX and FF802 are superiour to the ones in FF400 and FF800 in all regards?

In out blindtests we thought the 400 sounded subjectively better than UFX
(I'll spare you the fuzzy, vague and poetical terms used by the participants to describe the sound)
- this correlates somewhat with the results from the tests done here on GS - and it bothers me still.
Noise issues are so low, dynamic range so huge, distortion so low - in all your units,
so whats left to judge is what we actually hear.
Surely - you do agree that different converters do not all sound the same?
I understand and agree with you regarding subjective terms of quality preferences but perhaps
you can understand that I feel less inclined to buy the UFX or 802 unless I know
that I will get better - or at least the same - sound.

Are the converters in the 802 the same as those in the UFX?

I have long used - and still use your products. I am very happy with my RME gear.

Thanks again Daniel.

Respectfully
Mike
Old 26th March 2014
  #114
Gear Maniac
 
RME Support's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
But I'm still wondering - are you saying that the converters in your later models
UFX and FF802 are superiour to the ones in FF400 and FF800 in all regards?
In all quantifiable technical parameters - yes...
S/N, THD, and particularly conversion latency have all improved. Latency on the FF802 is down to 7 samples form around 40 on the 800... On a roundtrip, this amounts to more than one ms. As Mats said, you won't hear me say they "sound better" - although in theory, you'd expect a technically better converter to be more accurate and tre to the source, too.

Quote:
In out blindtests we thought the 400 sounded subjectively better than UFX (I'll spare you the fuzzy, vague and poetical terms used by the participants to describe the sound) - this correlates somewhat with the results from the tests done here on GS - and it bothers me still.
I would clearly separate such subjective listening tests from the loopback results, as per my comments above. BTW, were these tests conducted double blind?
The FF400 is definitely not designed to "sound better" - and on paper, the much more modern converters of the UFX are clearly superior, and so is the analog circuitry around it in the larger and more expensive unit.
That doesn't mean you couldn't come to the subjective conclusion that you prefer the reproduction of the FF400...

Quote:
Surely - you do agree that different converters do not all sound the same?
I have rarely compared scientifically. Within a full signal path from hall to musicians to placement and type of mics to preamps to converters, the actual conversion is not only last, but IMHO also least significant...

Quote:
I understand and agree with you regarding subjective terms of quality preferences but perhapsyou can understand that I feel less inclined to buy the UFX or 802 unless I know that I will get better - or at least the same - sound.
You will notice that we do not so much advertise newer and improved devices for huge improvements in "sound quality", but focus on other points - new features etc. But of course, you will certainly not get inferior quality...

Quote:
Are the converters in the 802 the same as those in the UFX?
No.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Old 26th March 2014
  #115
Gear Nut
 

How about AD/DA conversion? Are the same they put into UFX?
I wonder how much will cost to have two more outputs. As I understand, it has 8 analog outs. Considering I would use two for monitors, it means that I would have 6 outputs. Not enough for for a summing unit. The same I saw in the UFX. Please, correct me if I missed something, but a Saffire Pro40 has 8 outputs, and 2 more for monitors... I found that very convenient...
regards
Old 26th March 2014
  #116
Gear Nut
 

How about AD/DA conversion? Are the same they put into UFX?
I wonder how much will cost to have two more outputs. As I understand, it has 8 analog outs. Considering I would use two for monitors, it means that I would have 6 outputs. Not enough for for a summing unit. The same I saw in the UFX. Please, correct me if I missed something, but a Saffire Pro40 has 8 outputs, and 2 more for monitors... I found that very convenient...
regards
Old 26th March 2014
  #117
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinoto View Post
How about AD/DA conversion? Are the same they put into UFX?
I wonder how much will cost to have two more outputs. As I understand, it has 8 analog outs. Considering I would use two for monitors, it means that I would have 6 outputs. Not enough for for a summing unit. The same I saw in the UFX. Please, correct me if I missed something, but a Saffire Pro40 has 8 outputs, and 2 more for monitors... I found that very convenient...
regards

The UFX and the 802 have 12 outputs. Sure, 4 of them are on the front panel but there is no reason that one of them could not be used for Monitors with the right cables. The 802 even labels them as "Phones/Line Monitor"
Old 27th March 2014
  #118
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABBA View Post
Daniel RME:


With all due respect Daniel but your reply was rather arrogant. We are amongst your customers who use your gear and
it's strange only to listen to those who praise your products and ignore those that have suggestions or thoughts
of improvements. The tests did not give the Prism or Mytek bad results, on the contrary. They did however put your new products
in a worse position than previous models. For any proffessional maker this should be something to at least look into instead of
waving off the testmethod as fawlty, without even bother to give a proper answer to as why you believe the method is wrong.
To refer to specifications on your website is not the answer people need when these tests have shown that the old stuff performed
better than the new.

I've participated in blindtests of converters several times. As usual the differences are to say the least - small - but verifiable.
You are responding to threads on Gearslutz, Daniel - audio quality is of great importance here.
I'm sure you have a huge fanbase of users with small homestudios that can't find anything more to wish for
in the RME stuff - but here we are very very greedy, we want more than just reliable soundcards. We want them
to sound really good and get improved with newer and more expensive models.

No need to get defensive, we are on your side. And I meant what I said - if RME would put more effort into
the audio quality and still stay (if at all possible) within the same pricerange - you would rule the market.
As it is now, many of us feel that we need to use other converters hooked up to your otherwise excellent products.

We would be more than happy to pay extra for better A/D/A converters in your products.
At least there should be a more pro-oriented unit.

With respect
Mike

The secret is to just get a RME audio interface and hook any converters or preamps you want to them. I have a Rosetta 200 off a Digiface. Just got a RME Adi-8 QS too and that is one awesome converter. Also, I have a ADI-8 DD to get some ADAT to AES conversion. No one beats RME in versatility and driver reliability/performance.
Old 28th March 2014
  #119
Gear Nut
 

1500 Euro, ouch. Or 1899 Swiss Francs locally.
Old 14th April 2014
  #120
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RME Support View Post
Indeed the FX and 802 only have one stereo digital I/O. As it were, you can use SPDIF coax and optical separately and independently on the UCX...



The dynamics section does allow gating, there is a preset also...


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
WOW awesome I played with it right away. AMAZING that it has it.
gate it and then some compression PERFECT!

VERY happy
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump