Skip to main content

Has anyone done a comparison between these two units? The ADI-8 QS AD/DA Converter looks fuller in features but how does it sound in comparison to the Aurora 8?


audiokid Tue, 12/14/2010 - 22:02

I think people might be missing this and buying the Lynx because of all the shilling over at GS. I took a ride over there and its almost like they are getting paid to push it. You never read anything good about RME there. And we both know they make really great stuff. The ADI-8 QS looks superior in every way. I'm hoping it sounds as good if not better.

Big K Wed, 12/15/2010 - 06:58

I own the ADI 8 and the QS.
The sound of the QS is noticeably better, but the ADI-8 was already a mighty bang for the buck (also sound-wise).
What else? All my RME stuff, Multiface, HDSP 9652, ADI, Micstasy and Octamic, ... work most reliably and clean. No hardware problems or defects for 10 years and for the last 8 years all drivers were easy to install and run without hickups.
I can not comment on the Lynx. I have not yet worked with it....

Big K Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:45

I just phoned a friend of mine who works with the Aurora and he knows my studio running on ADI-8, when I not yet had the QS. He said, he did not notice that any of them would outrun the other.
If it is the QS you are does sound better and has better specs, too, as its predecessor, the ADI-8. As to features it will be hard to beat...

audiokid Wed, 12/15/2010 - 15:45

While we wait for more info on the converters, I'm trying to figure out which interfaces would be right for "TWO" ADI-8 QS's. I don't see me needing MADI right? I'm not using this for remote work. Strictly for the studio and working with my MixDream. But am I missing an added feature that I should be thinking ahead?

Does this look right?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rme-audi…"]RME: HDSPe AES[/]="http://www.rme-audi…"]RME: HDSPe AES[/]

audiokid Thu, 12/16/2010 - 00:24

Found the first opinion on someone who has both Aurora 16 and the RME ADI-8 QS:

09-23-2009, 06:01 PM

I have both Aurora 16 and RME ADI-8 QS, and to me the QS is notably better.
Both units are however great units and you can't go wrong. I also like the feature set of the QS better. Great remote control tool, great analog limiter. Great headroom, and the supplied remote volume control is awesome if you need it. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.cubendo…"]RME ADI8 QS thoughts anyone??? [Archive] -[/]="http://www.cubendo…"]RME ADI8 QS thoughts anyone??? [Archive] -[/]

audiokid Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:27

I'm the first to admit ignorance, so I need to ask this obvious question about MADI again. I'm finding I just don't understand (looking back....) the obvious until I actually start using them.

Planning ahead.

I'm guessing you still need the AES/EBU interface card in the CP? If I was to get this unit with the MADI option installed, what advantages do I have when using two ADI-8 QS M. and down the road.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.vintagek…"]RME ADI-8 QS M |[/]="http://www.vintagek…"]RME ADI-8 QS M |[/]

audiokid Fri, 12/17/2010 - 19:30

Thanks Rainer,

Do I have this right? If I have two ADI-8 QS :

I link one to the other using a coax and out of the second into a MADI PCIe card ? here: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rme-audi…"]RME: HDSPe MADI[/]="http://www.rme-audi…"]RME: HDSPe MADI[/]
I don't need AES/EBU if I have a MADI card installed in the ADI-8 QS m?
Thus... MADI is faster, less latency and will go longer runs (2000 ft) if I need this length? I would do this if I had a MADI what 2000 ft away? MADI mixer and the ADI-8 were on stage or something? Sorry, still not getting it for studios?

It looks like it transmit MIDI as well so I can use midi keyboards and controllers for programming music ITB/OTB DAW?

Big K Sat, 12/18/2010 - 05:23

Spot on... Madi is not a new format, but finds ever more user and is awesome for stage to FOH, as well as in studios.
Some time ago I made the effort to count the distances an analog signal has to travel in a larger studio:
Recording room to controll room/Input to Pb, Pb to channel, through chanel to PB (Inserts) PB to FX, FX to PB ( maybe mor than once ) Pb to channel, channel to PB, PB to multitrack, ..
then...Multitrack to PB, PB to Channel, Channel to PB, PB to FX ( Inserts times X ), FX to PB, PB to Channel, Channel to master Channel, MC to PB, PB to FX, FX to PB, PB to recorder...
In some cases that was over 150 meters on thinly wires. I mean, any HiFi insider would crumple if he was aware of the thin lines and conducting paths inside and outside an analog console and FX racks.

With DAWs it is quite a bit less, but still you have a number of opticals and cables.
With MADI you connect only with one daisy chained coax line for 64 channels over 100 meters between devices ( if you need to..).
When networking inside a studio complex (2 or more Studios) it is rather simple to lay out a few meters of comparatively cheap coax from one room or floor to another without any loss! Embedded can be RS232 and MIDI. No need for AES/EBU.... No opticals, unless you want to work with those for MADI, which I would not like to do if i don't need to cover a distance of up to 6500 feet.

With existing non-MADI devices one can make use of a MADI bridge and converter.
This is a clean and reliable setup. When I refurbish my studios I will go for that technology. As it is now, everything is up and running fine, as it is, and it is rather sensibly designed, too, with short ways for the signals. I' say maybe 2013...