On a side note, I do think it's strange that they chose to name it the 802.

All questions answered here:

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_fireface_802.php

No LCD (thus limited standalone operation), no DuREC, no second MIDI, "analog" gainpots, dunno about AD/DA stages. I´m quite happy about it, I feared it be a successor to the UFX

Aside from the obvious differences, the UFX improved the conversion and pres compared to the ff800.  Can rme comment on the conversion and pres of the 802?  Are they the same as the UFX?

compared to the UFX: Are the 802's ADC's faster? Less noise? In which regard else different?
And how about the DACs ?
Will the roundtrip time (ADC-Host-DAC) on a current  MacBook be better on the 802 (compared to the UFX)? with USB? with firewire?
What can I expect as roundtrip-time then?
Are the Mic channels on the 802 better than those in the UFX?
What else is different, apart from the documented hard facts ?

Can someone from RME answer in a detailed way:
A. What are technical (t), quality(q), and performance(p) differences between (UFX vs 802):
1. A/D conversion
2. D/A conversion
3. Latency
B. What are technical(t), quality(q), and performance(p) differences between (UFX vs 802 vs Octamic II vs ADI-8)
1. Pre-Amps
2. Line  Inputs
3. Line Outputs
For the purposes of this discussion:
t= Technical description of the electronic circuit, and comparison/differences between that design approach and the design approaches of the other circuits.
q= Influence (benefits and limitations) of that circuit on the resultant (audio & digital), as compared to the other circuits it is being compared to.
p=technical specs in same formats
These answers do not need to be in terms of better/worse, although of course that is what I am trying to figure out.
Thank you for your always fantastic support!
Linz

Hi!
Because I'm also in process of choosing, I would like to see the anwswers to Lindsey's questions.
Mike

You seem to expect a technical "discussion" of "circuit design approaches" that would be more suitable to esoteric hifi voodoo marketing... But this is not how the 802 was designed. There are no "design approaches" with any intent of achieving a specific "sound quality" (other than as neutral as possible and to work best with the converter chips in use), and quite particularly none that would result in intentional differences of "sound quality" between this and other devices, hence no need to "discuss" or compare such circuitry in detail. Any "better" or "worse" will be entirely subjective. S/N specs etc. aside, the main difference is yet another reduction of A/D and D/A conversion latency, but the small absolute difference of a few samples won't be audible in real life situations when compared to the UFX.

Latency performance won't differ, either, since both units use the same drivers for USB and FW, respectively.

The 802 is not meant to compete directly with the UFX (and to sound "better" despite a smaller feature set), it is meant to replace the FF800 with a modernized, yet similar device. That might sound a bit banal, but that's what it is...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Thanks for the clearing that up. I'm long time user of Fireface 800 (7 years and running without any problems). One guestion though, i'd like expand my IO in future, and i'm thinking of getting Fireface 802 probably, how does the old 800 and 802 work along?. Can i have them on same setup? Or is there better way to expand, if i want my analog IO to have 16 IO's?

There is a Sound on Sound video about the 802 from Musikmesse 2014, in which your representative states that the price will be 599 Euro, with the street price expected to be lower. I went to buy one today in the States, and found a price of $2,000, which is about 1460 Euro. What happened?

Larry

You're right. I ran it down and listened again, and he says "One Thousand five hundred ninety-nine." That's what 28 years of playing hard rock will do for you.

Since the 802 and the UFX are the same price, I think I will go with the UFX for Durec and more inputs.

Larry

One thing I find curious is that (if I'm not mistaken) UFX actually has slower conversion than either UCX or 802.
Since UFX is supposed to be the top of the range, this really should be updated, IMHO.
You can argue it's only few samples, but if it wasn't important you wouldn't improve it in the first place.

Which protocol should be used for best latency, USB 3.0 or Firewire?  Currently, I record at 128 samples with a Raydat/Apogee setup, so I'd like to at least achieve the same latency.

I'm running Nuendo 5.5/Cubase 7.5 on an Intel 2600k with 16 gigs of Ram.  I do have several USB items (iLok2, Synchrosoft Dongle/Elicenser, Oxygen 25, keyboard & mouse and USB 2TB backup drive).  Would they interfere with the performance of the 802 while using USB?

Thanks in advance!

Thank you very much for the response.  My motherboard, an ASUS P8Z68-V/GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68, does not have onboard Firewire, so I'd need to purchase a PCI-e card.  Is there a specific brand or chipset required?

I'd use the main outputs (1/2) to feed a Presonus Central station but I see that the 802 features two headphone outputs.  Would those be suitable for sending signal to a headphone amp and a power amp powering a second set of studio monitors?  If so, would I be able to program the Advanced Remote to control all three sources, eliminating the need for the CS?

Thank you again!