Hi

Does that mean that if I use the octopre I will have to use the octopre as the master and the babyface as the slave (since the octopre doesnt have any adat input)?

I'm wondering do I lose anything by going this route? Is there any reason why I would want the babyface to be the master for instance? Just trying to make sure I cover all my bases.

Cheers

Newt

Yes, if you only have these two devices connected to each other.

This will work fine. You will just need to make sample rate changes by manually switching the Octopre.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

It surely will work.

But you will loose RME's superior clocking mechanism (steadycock) which might make a little difference in the quality of A/D conversion (octopre) and AD/DA conversion on the BBF.

And it's usually nicer in term of handling when the DAW project sets the sample rate of the directly connected BBF (as clock master) via the ASIO driver and the rest of the equipment follows these settings by receiving the clock via inbound digital connections like ADAT or WC.

In that regards you could improve your setup in the future (to take the better clock as master).

Hey Ramses (and  hi Daniel),
Everything runs best with it's internal clock or equal at best. Steadyclock is exactly for that, removing degradation because of the incoming clock. Not only because this clock can be inferior, but also because locking to an external clock is no simple thing. Sound on sound tested this and their conclusion was simple, all devices they tested had worse jitter when running on external, also when that external clock was better, yes it didn't even matter if the external clock was better or worse, the problems are with locking on the external clock. Except one audio device (yes the most expensive) that one was able to keep its quality when clocked externally, but again not get better by using an external super clock. That said, it is a good idea to have the recording device as master when recording to get the lowest jitter in your recordings. When mixing you can switch to setting the monitoring DA as master if you would like. If this is an RME device it is not needed because of steadyclock, it works equal internally and clocked externally.
Unless you hear a difference with your ADI2 pro int or ext.

Thanks Vinark, did I understand correctly that you mean in this case it could be even better when he uses the clock of the Octopre and to let the BBF remove the jitter of the incoming clock signal from Octopre ??

I know the ADI-2 Pro refreshes every incoming clock signal so that it doesn't matter which clock quality comes in.

Daniel is this the same also for the BBF to refresh any incoming clock ?

Additional question, is the refreshing of external clock signal part of every steadyclock implementation?

Yes
yes
yes
yes
you get it!

I think this is a real interesting thread.

Maybe a brief summary why I gave my recommendation.

I read from other people that ie their inexpensive Behringer Mic Preamp should have sounded better after getting clocked by a RME recording interface.

This of course could be a case of psychoacoustic effect that they expected this result and were prebiased so that it only seemed to sound better for their ears.

Then we all know that a clock with less jitter is good for any ADDA conversion.

But there is simply information missing
- up to what point this is still audible or at least recommended to be on the safe side or
- how to make best use of steadyclock (like discussed in this thread

My impression / understanding of steadyclock so far is that RME has developed steadyclock also further and one of the latest implementations is Steadyclock III ie on the ADI-2 Pro with even more reduced clock jitter.

When Steadyclock is able to reduce jitter from incoming clock signals and re-clocks internally and is being developed further by RME then I would think that the clock is  superior to those of many other more inexpensive devices.

Of course surrounding conditions also count.

But even if somebody can not hear it I think it's simply a best practice approach to make thought's about how to clock correctly to get ADDA being done in the best possible way so that at the end the wave files in your DAW have the best possible quality as source for further processing.

You info Vinark that some devices might not handle external clocks well is definitely very welcome.

I only knew up to now that the WC implementation of cheaper devices might be of poor quality so that it's much better to clock using digital connections like AES, ADAT, MADI.

Indeed, yes, every RME device with Steadyclock does this. But mind that this will not improve or correct recorded signal from a (hypothethical) external converter with really bad jitter specs. It will only make sure that the RME device's own converters do not suffer from the bad external clock quality.

So if the clock quality of the Octopre were absolutely terrible, it might gain from external clock. But I would doubt that... So use the devices you have with confidence for now, and if you ever have a chance to try out some kind of Word Clock unit, you can try out if extenal clock makes a noticeable difference with the Octropre.... But beware of confimation bias, you may be hearing things because you want to hear them....

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Many thanks Daniel for taking the time to detail this.

Try out what works best for you. You only have to test 2 solutions.

Maybe it's easier from operational perspective to work with only one instance of TM FX and to adjust gain on the Octopre.

On the other hand Potis are usually not so good on focusrite devices, much fiddeling around at the last quarter of poti settings with "micrometer style" of adjustments.

For this reason it might be easier to recall all settings digitally on the Multiface II and to adjust digitally.

Thanks vinark,

Ive seen a fireface 800 on ebay for £450 (which has steadyclock), I could sell the multiface for £200 and use the fireface instead? This would give me good pres? I would then need to get DI boxes for any guitars?

There is also the option of a 2nd hand octamic at around £300. I could plug that into the multiface. However, it wouldnt have steadyclock I guess and there's lots of things in the signal chain that arent needed?

Or maybe a Mackie Onyx mixer to get the pres into the multiface?

Would any of these be a better option than the octopre?

Yeah its just too over my budget really.

I either have £200-300 to spend, or £500 (including the sale of the multiface, if that needs selling).

Im wondering what the next best thing might be?

Hmm sounds interesting. However, maybe a little overkill for what I need.

There is the 2nd hand fireface UC or 400 which seems interesting.

I have 3 guitars, so one can go in the instrument level on the baby and the 2 other guitars could go into the instrument level on the fireface?

Then I've got 3 mic/line slots (between the babyface and fireface) and also another 4 line ins on the fireface.

Then I could sell my multiface?

Hi,

I wonder if the fireface 400 might be the best solution for the budget?

Between the babyface and the fireface, that gives me 3 mic pres and 3 instrument level inputs. Then there are a further 4 line level inputs on the fireface.

I can pick up a fireface 400 for around £400, or a UC for around £600.

I could then sell my multiface for £200-300.

Would this be a better option than the octopre, which seems a little overkill (I might not need the extra 4 mic inputs)?

Since I'm just using it through adat Im guessing there is no need to get a UC since I wont be using it as a firewire audio interface?

Cheers

N

Yes, Im live looping. They will always need to be plugged in.

I guess the question is 2nd hand fireface 400 vs new octopre, because they are about the same price? Are the preamps better in the fireface? Would I get better bandwidth with the steadyclock? I guess not? The RME devices also have adat in so more expandable?

Firewire is a dead horse. Better get an UC, make it to your primary device.

2 of it's analog inputs (3+4 at the front ) can be used as Instructed inputs, the 3rd you can connect via D/I Box.

Expand as you like/need via ADAT.

You can also use an ARC USB to control the device/TM FX.

Get a behringer ADA8200,more then enough for DIed guitars. You will need DI's.

Thanks so much for the help.

Yes I had avoided the berhinger until now because apparently they fail quite quick, so was thinking to get fireface 800 because it's only £100 extra and get some Di boxes going in.

Will I need di boxes for all the guitars?

RME used gear prices are relatively high compared to other products (around 70-75% of new price) because of quality, features and further driver / application development up to 15+ years.

So even if you'd buy a new one the loss is not much. But what loss ... you will be able to keep it for a very long time. In contrast to this you might loose a FF400 relatively quick because of age and might have problems to sell it because Firewire is ... you know what I mean.

Ok, I get it now. The UC is the best choice. Thanks for this suggestion.

I'm planning on getting rid of the multiface, keeping the babyface and buying a used UC.

Would it be possible to use the babyface to extend the ins of the fireface UC? (an extra 1 mic preamp and instrument input)

This would give me 3 mic preamps, 3 instrument inputs and 4 analog ins in total, which I think would be just enough.

Cheers

N

I agree, unless you are already as handy with totalmix as Ramses and me or are willing to invest in getting to full grips with it.

You can choose whether to take ADA8200 or UC  as clock master. The pros and cons have been discussed in detail in this thread.

Best should be to use ADA8200 as clock master. The UC you can easily configure to get its clock from ADAT port. Steadyclock will then refresh the clock signal and remove any jitter from it.

The clock will be transferred over the ADAT connection from ADA8200 to the UC.

As the ADA8200 also has an ADAT IN port connect also a second TOSLINK cable from UC ADAT OUT to ADA8200 IN. Then you can also make use of the analog out ports of the unit.

By this you can use up to three external stereo devices as outboard equipment to put an example. If you need only the inputs of the unit and if clock comes from the ADA8200 then you do not need to connect the 2nd TOSLINK cable and keep it as reserve.

If possible I would rack both devices into a 2 or 3 RU case, as TOSLINK cables are more fragile than ie Mic cable's.  Then you can use shorter TOSLINK cables of ie 1m length to have a little reserve.

You need to try whether 2 RU are sufficient.  Sometimes it's better to have 1 RU on top if devices have a different length. Makes plugging and unplugging of cables easier. Also good for better heat dissipation if you leave some space between devices and between device and the rack. Distribute the space equally.

The cables from MUTEC are of good quality. I wouldn't take anymore the thick manteled cables from Sommercable as they are too stiff and you have then an instant tension on the ADAT ports. MUTEC cables connect very precisely and anchor well but are still easy to disconnect.