1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

RME Converter Advice and MADI

Discussion in 'Pro Audio Equipment' started by audiokid, Mar 18, 2011.

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Apart from my remote system.... Its getting close, I'm making a decision on a new 16 I/O AD DA system and need some clarification help. Tossing between Lynx and RME and need MIDI but can work around this.

    ADI8-QS-M x 2 are what I'm looking at. I'm guessing this is the interface (HDSPe MADI card )? How do I interface 2 ADI8-QS-M this to this?

  2. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    Hi Chris,

    Easy... take a few 75 Ohms BNC cables and connect them like you need it, Serial or Daisy chain.
    With you it probably will be serial. MIDI is standart with RME...

    How about those?
    RME: M-32 AD

    Have a look at those studio setup with multiple MADI devices.:
    RME: MADI Info Center
    RME: MADI Info Center

    Since the M-32 AD uses only 32* channnels of the MADI signal, unused channels of the input signal are fed through to the output. This way, the signals of two or more units can be combined into one MADI stream of 64 channels, with every unit adding its channels to the input signal, resulting in one line at the output of the last unit. M-32 AD and M-16 AD can be freely combined up to a total of 64 channels. One M-32 AD can be combined with one or two M-16 AD, as can be up to four M-16 AD. Of course, the units can be synced with sample accuracy by word clock.
  3. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Wow, what a cool setup.

    Simple question Rainer. I've asked this before somewhere but just need clarification. Does the Cat5 cable replace the AES EBU going to and from the ADI8-QS-M to the HDSPe MADI card (some sort of breakout cable).
    The Converters only have 25 pin IO. How does the ADI8-QS-M connect to the HDSPe MADI card? That's where I'm old school.
  4. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Ah, I think I understand. I was thinking you were just talking about chaining the two units together, but do I have it right:

    The 8 digital IO > use the BNC or serial for digital instead of the 25pin AES EBU ?
  5. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    What CAT cable?

    The ADI8QSM connects to the Madi card using the build-in MADI board, featuring optical and coax I/Os.
    You don't need the 25 pins...


    I just read your last post...
    Yes, just coax cable: MADI out to in to out to in asf... and another line back for output.

    Serial = Serial connection of coax cables from one MADI unit to the next till you end at the card.
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Cool and finally got it! Thank you. So... save big bucks on cable right off the bat! The coax speed is no different and can go longer runs too?
  7. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Making more sense.

    A lot of those different RME converters are actually for converting AES/EBU or routing AES/EBU in a MADI setup, right? Or simply how to connect various digital formats and route them to various studios.

    Am I finally following MADI and the various RME converter examples shown?
  8. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    And Duh, I finally see the M-16 for what it is and finally getting all this sorted out. Man, coming from Pro Tools TDM to all this has really messed my head up. I have been so confused with the converters, MADI and interfacing. What a relief. I've been looking for connections that don't apply to not understanding the whole interfacing structure that RME is providing.
    Rainer, and everyone, you have been more than patient with me, thank you.
  9. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Rainer or others, do you know anyone that has done a comparison between the ADI-8 QS and the M-16 AD and M-16 DA?

    Could be a better option to go that way instead of two ADI-8's
  10. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Aurora 16 vs M-16 AD DA

    I'd also be interested in opinions on the Lynx Aurora 16 vs the RME M-16 AD and M-16 DA

    When reading specs for converters, I don't trust manufacturers specs much so what are the things you pay close attention to?
  11. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    If you can believe it, I was looking at the picture of the PCIe card and the optical slots looked like cat5 slots. No wonder I've been confused for months. When I think of optical, I'm thinking ADAT and looking for those little plastic pins that you pull or the flip-ups. ROTF with relief. Got to get better glasses.
  12. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    Yes, oglogloglogl...
    If you have miss-interpreted the Optical conns with CAT5, all the time, you must have had some great confusion in ya head how all that works together.

    Your Q about ADI8QSM and M16..from the RME pages:
    The M-16 AD offers an outstanding AD conversion to MADI and ADAT formats in a compact 19" unit with only 2U height. The balanced analog inputs based on RME's reference design from the ADI-8 QS guarantee excellent S/N and THD specs across a wide analog level range. Three different hardware levels are available. Using up-to-date converter technology, the device not only works up to 192 kHz, but also reaches a real-world signal-to-noise ratio of 116 dBA - on all channels.
  13. audiokid

    audiokid Staff


    Its hard to know if one sounds better than the other. The specs are close. Knowing about my requirements and needing a new PCIe MADI card anyway, which would you choose or what else?

    1. Two ADI8-QS-M
    2. one M-16 AD , one M-16 DA?
    Do you have any hands on with either or people that would know? I have no one to ask here or even compare. Too far away from any high end RME user here.

    The M series look clean and to the point and maybe cooler running in a bigger box.

    I'm thinking the fiber connection is the cleaner way to go know that I see it ROTF!

    Thanks for you help!
  14. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    I own the ADI8 QS, not M, and I am very happy with the sound. Since it is the same technology I suppose the sound will be the same, too. If there are features in either one you need or like go for that one. Together with Micstasy it is a pleaure to work with both.
    Pro M16: 1 box, 1 connection... but it is only DA or AD per unit, 1 unit down= studio down
    Pro ADI 8: if ever 1 unit needs repair or is being used outside the studio, there is still 1 left in the rack... 8x I/O in 1 box
    So, for 16 channels I/O it is 2 rack units for the ADI 8 I/O and 4 rack units for the M 16...
    For comparison it might be a good thing to join RME forum. I don't know anybody right away who using the M series, which does not mean that it wouldn't be great, too.
    If I refurbish my studio I might go with M 16 AD/DA MADI as well, but with coax cables.
    I find BNC connections more reliable and I have about 2 dozen in spare...
  15. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Rainer, I'm days away from buying the ADI-8 QS converters. Might do the MADI too.

    Do you know anyone that has done an A/B on " Aurora vs ADI-8 QS "? There is a big difference in price between the two. One ADI-8 QS is the same price and the Aurora 16.
    What I like about the Aurora is its simplicity however, it appears to have built a large percentage of popularity around budget and the gearslutz seed planting too.

    The ADI-8 QS appears to be more advanced technology, more features and possibly a better power supply. Searching the entire www I'm finding so little on them, its weird. What I do find appears to be opinions from more reliable users that aren't being led by the follow-the-leader shilling. Its really apparent to me.

    All being said, I have no way to do the Aurora vs ADI-8 QS comparison so I'm going on gut. I'd rather pay a $1000 more for quality if the ADI-8 QS produces a noticeable difference. I'd rather have less bells and whistles like the Aurora but not at the cost of it being a more budget sounding converter.

    Thoughts anyone?
  16. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Neither of those options are "budget". Lol. Those are both industry standard until you move to Radar and Pyramix. In fact I'm a little surprised you haven't gone for the Radar.
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    The Aurora is a budget compared to the next level. The $3000 price mark is the high end mid price point. So, from this point on, you either are buying high end budget or low end Pro. I'm now trying to figure out who is better at that mid high point right now. Its all perception when you read opinions. What one person thinks is the best and "high end" is someones low end, budget or overkill. Like the FF800. They sell thousands of them, and they are highend Firewire converters but I'm paying for the low end pre's and on a dead end road with firewire. The Orpheus is The high end converter compared. So looking at it from that POV, the FF800 is mid level.

    So, is the RME ADI-8 QS fitting in the low end upper quality, slightly less quality than the Radar, better resale than the Radar, less real estate needed.
    Is the Lynx Aurora More high end featuring less bells and whistles and the value all put into just what it is.

    I am looking at Radar but its got dated written all over it. (yikes, did I say that!) I feel an attack coming ). I get the same old (why did I do that again) feeling looking at Radar as buying into something like the Synclavier 20 years ago. Killer quality, totally boutique but not a good investment for a variety of reasons because you can't sell big when you want to upgrade, no matter how good it is, its not a logical addition to my chain for comparisons to touch on two.
    The power supply in Rader is where I would definitely see why I should buy this system though. I think its definitely the better product hands down than both RME and Lynx but although I want quality, I want to USE something that is more known for testing reasons here and more portable. The video I posted yesterday on Radar was pretty explainatory and impressive but not the converter for the system I'm completing here. Although I'm ranting quality, I'm sticking with more main stream gear that is globally more popular and definitely basing my decision on software that is solid like TotalMix. When the new converters come out, its easy to sell a Lynx or RME and upgrade.

    Its really coming down to a few companies now. I'd like to believe Lynx is the best choice and save $2000!, but it just seems a bit too white and shilled out to me but I would buy it in a heart beat if I am convinced its truthfully better than the new RME line. I wish someone out there has done the comparison between these two.
  18. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    Both sound good, not much difference here. What RME does for me better:
    It has a internally switching powersupply for all voltages , thus better chances to sell to non-230 or non-110 volt countries.
    Digicheck and huge total mix, analog and digital limiter in the A/D path... RME drivers and reliability.
    Some of that might apply for the aurora, too, but I am quite happy with the RME. It gives me many years of trouble-free work.
    Is it worth the extra cash... for me, yes. Otherwise I had gone for something like Aurora.

    Should you buy RME ADI-8 QSM? NO!!
    Because if it ever messes up and needs repairing, you will be over me like a Buzzard over a dead cow in the desert....
  19. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    I've got no dog in the RADAR fight, but I have to say with the latest generation of RADAR items I don't think they are dated anymore. I know I used to feel that way. It has MADI, it has AES, it has ADAT, I just don't see anything dated about it when you can use it both as I & O. That said, I already have an HD24XR so I don't need another hard disk recorder but if I did and had the cash I think the RADAR is the peak.

    As it is, if the time comes I dump the FF800 I'll likely be going with Lynx or RME myself. Rainer, would that be a Red Pied or Black Pied cow?
  20. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I don't think the ADA is a HD recorder, is it? It reeks of ProTools though. Maybe I'm missing something there? I'm basing my opinions on the same old history of RADAR's past though, John.
    I've always thought RADAR was an HD recorder and would never buy into anything like this in this day and age. To much like the old SoundScape, ProFools HD, Tascam DA 88 generation. All excellent but too much off the main direction of the world and online music distribution etc. Big topic from this point on...

    I'm 100% full steam ahead with only using a DAW that is all part of the bigger PC world. I want nothing to do with Apple computers this next 5 years for my main DAW. If its not using the main OS around a PC, I don't want it. I should make that point clear right off the bat. That ought to get some peoples panties in a knot lol.

    To be more definitive, PC = Hybrid -|- Apple = WWW
    German and hybrid and converters/ R&D from that area of the world is becoming more impressive day by day.

Share This Page