anybody using the rme babyface?

[hotjams]

What do you think of it?

[Acousmatic]

basically i wanted to go portable, so got rid of my digi002 and shelled out a bit extra for the baby face.
it worked sweet on my pc.
and now with my macbook it works just as well.
the quality is audibly better than the digi. (i reckon)

i havent got stuck into the bells and whistles in the total mix software yet. but its there when you need it and invisible when you dont.

In a nutshell.....im very happy
hopefully others reply.

[El-Rallef]

I would really like to know whether the volume produced by the Headphone Output is sufficient - can anybody comment?

El-Rallef

[chrisharbin]

I have no idea where the stuff was written (could be one of many forums) but Jim Roseberry (who may of heard of) has given it a vote of confidence from what I can tell.

Hopefully he'll show up and give some insight (I know he's on here with some regularity)

[daverich]

you simply can't go wrong with rme, partly because they write their own protocols to ensure that USB and Firewire work as well as they possibly can.

Top stuff and I've always regretted selling my fireface (although my needs are better met by my 1640onyx)

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[mtsproductions]

I have ordered the Babyface and patiently awaiting its arrival, any more updates from the folks that have one? particularly stabilty on Win7 64 bit?

[shabachstudios]

Love it. Great latency,Sound and solid. For a portable setup on a pc it can't be beat.

Richard

[JonD]

RME's reputation tends to speak for itself...

That said, I'm looking seriously at the Roland Octa-Capture right now. It also has some sort of proprietary protocol that keeps timing in check and promises really low latency.

The listed specs are on par with that of the Babyface. And it's cheaper.

I haven't actually laid my hands on either one, but if the reviews for the Octa-Capture are any indication, it'll give the BabyFace a run for its money (I wouldn't be surprised if RME dropped its price just to compete).

[Jim Roseberry]

Originally Posted by JonD

RME's reputation tends to speak for itself...

That said, I'm looking seriously at the Roland Octa-Capture right now. It also has some sort of proprietary protocol that keeps timing in check and promises really low latency.

The listed specs are on par with that of the Babyface. And it's cheaper.

I haven't actually laid my hands on either one, but if the reviews for the Octa-Capture are any indication, it'll give the BabyFace a run for its money (I wouldn't be surprised if RME dropped its price just to compete).

The OctaCapture is a nice unit for the money... but it's really not a direct competitor to the Babyface (different feature sets).

- The OctaCapture has 8 Mic pres... whereas the Babyface has two.
- The Babyface yields 4.9ms total round-trip latency at a 48-sample ASIO buffer size/44.1k... whereas the OctaCapture yields 7.2ms total round-trip latency at those same settings.
- The Babyface includes TotalMix FX... the OctaCapture has no onboard EFX.
- The Babyface has lightpipe (soft-switchable to optical S/PDIF) whereas the Octacapture has Coax S/PDIF

If you primarily need 8 channels with pretty decent onboard mic preamps... the OctaCapture is a good fit.
If your more concerned with achieving the lowest possible round-trip latency, the Babyface is a better choice.

The Babyface is rock-solid... as is the OctaCapture

I added a Babyface to my live keyboard rig... because it lets me effectively work at a 48-sample ASIO buffer size... and it's extremely small/portable.
The fact that it has balanced outs on XLR is also nice. The soundman and I don't have to fool with direct boxes.

If you're considering the Babyface, it's exactly what you'd expect.
RME quality in a tiny footprint. As will all things RME, it's not the cheapest option... but it's a great performer.

[kachaloo2002]

Originally Posted by El-Rallef

I would really like to know whether the volume produced by the Headphone Output is sufficient - can anybody comment?

El-Rallef

There's a discussion of it I think here

http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=10585

and it's not that reassuring. If that's not the link it's discussed elsewhere on that forum, the gist being that the main admin guy says the usb power ( i don't think it has the option of external power) may not be sufficient to power many headphones and recommends a $1400 pair of ultrasones as fitting the bill.

[JonD]

Jim, one correction....

Octa-capture does have onboard FX. (Compression and reverb, according to the manual). I was looking for a unit that had something better than your usual one-setting onboard reverb... this one definitely does.

[keyman_sam]

Woah - the octacapture actually looks pretty nice.

How did you get the latency figures for octacapture Jim?

[djz]

I was going to buy an FF400, but we needed something we could do live mixing with ASAP so we went with what we had the budget for...an octacapture. I am not at ALL displeased with it. I love it. It's made in japan (unlike some of the other edirol interfaces made in China), the interface is really damn easy, highpass filters, can operate as a standalone mixer, auto-sens makes set up a pinch, and the build in compressors provide a nice transparent lift. Oh, and this thing is VERY quiet and the preamps are unltra-transparent and totally kickass!

I had a much lower end interface (UA25EX) before, and by golly, my analog synths sound so much better going through this thing. For it's price, I think it's unbeatable.

I still want to get an FF400/800 eventually, but the octacapture makes me hella happy and as such the FF has dropped quite low on my gear priority list.

[DeyBwah]

Getting ready to order 2 BabyFaces... one for my partner in crime and myself. We're going to use it primarily for Live Performance. RME drops hammers all day long and arches backs with the best of em.

[Jim Roseberry]

Originally Posted by JonD

Jim, one correction....

Octa-capture does have onboard FX. (Compression and reverb, according to the manual). I was looking for a unit that had something better than your usual one-setting onboard reverb... this one definitely does.

Hi John,

I stand corrected...

[Jim Roseberry]

Originally Posted by keyman_sam

Woah - the octacapture actually looks pretty nice.

How did you get the latency figures for octacapture Jim?

Straight from Brandon Ryan at Cakewalk...
The latest driver update took this and the VS700 down to 7.2ms RTL.

The last couple versions of Sonar actually show round-trip latency.
You can also measure it with the CEntrance loopback tool... and there's another by (I think) Cycling 74

[keyman_sam]

Gotcha.

I'm curious as to what the other advantages of the RME are. I mean, I'm sure its really, really good. But $749 good? Not so sure about that.

The thing is lot of companies nowadays everyone has stable drivers, interface compatibility, great I/O with good noise figures, so I'm curious as to what the thing is that sets the RME a class apart.

[TheCaptain]

I've had a Babyface since the day it came out and I'm very pleased with it. Sound quality and performance under Windows7 x64 is nothing short of excellent.

If I have anything to complain about, it would be that I find the onboard mic preamps a bit thin. That being said, I'm quite happy to use them when I'm "on the road" and portability is important. However, at home I always use a dedicated external mic pre - but I am very picky about that kind of stuff.

I have used all kinds of AD converters, and, in my own very personal opinion, RME smashes everything else into the floor. But I stress, this is a matter of taste. I have also made some very decent recordings using interfaces that were quite frankly rubbish!

[El-Rallef]

I thought it was their way of celebrating April 1st, but I am no longer sure:

http://www.rme-audio.de/download/sheets/ladyface.pdf

!

El-Rallef

[keyman_sam]

Seriously is the conversion quality that big of a deal? We're talking audible difference between 98 dB and 106 dB dynamic range. It's pretty hard to see a difference/catch that unless you record really really quiet material and pump your gain way too high. Not to mention, other analog circuitry that comes after the converters affect the dyn range too.

In normal use, I'd doubt if you can hear the difference in converter quality. I wonder if this RME thing is another case of 'my DAW sounds better than your DAW' marketing gimmick.


i'd seriously ask someone if they can do a blind a/b test and spot the differnce between material recorded in an 0404 vs. an RME.

[drbam]

Originally Posted by keyman_sam

Seriously is the conversion quality that big of a deal? We're talking audible difference between 98 dB and 106 dB dynamic range. It's pretty hard to see a difference/catch that unless you record really really quiet material and pump your gain way too high. Not to mention, other analog circuitry that comes after the converters affect the dyn range too.

In normal use, I'd doubt if you can hear the difference in converter quality. I wonder if this RME thing is another case of 'my DAW sounds better than your DAW' marketing gimmick.


i'd seriously ask someone if they can do a blind a/b test and spot the differnce between material recorded in an 0404 vs. an RME.

I haven't A/B'd the 0404 vs RME but I did with a Layla 3G (very good converters) and RME Multiface 2. The difference was very evident to me with the RME sounding better (clearer & more transparent) - even with the bad case of tinnitus I have. For me, yes, high quality conversion is "that big of a deal".

You make a valid argument but good conversion costs for a reason. Once you are the the RME level and above, the differences become less dramatic so there's a point where one can quickly reach diminishing returns especially if the rest of the chain and monitoring environment isn't the same or near the quality of such converters ("weakest link" rule). I would also add that if the music you're producing involves a lot of distortion, drum kits and other loud, highly compressed material, you won't be able to hear the converter differences (unless you possess those rare so called "golden ears"). And the same holds true if you tend to listen to a lot of mp3 format material, regardless of the music genre. But I would say the bottom line is simple: if one can't hear or notice the difference, then the added expense of higher level gear isn't a good investment.

[mtsproductions]

Originally Posted by keyman_sam

Seriously is the conversion quality that big of a deal? We're talking audible difference between 98 dB and 106 dB dynamic range. It's pretty hard to see a difference/catch that unless you record really really quiet material and pump your gain way too high. Not to mention, other analog circuitry that comes after the converters affect the dyn range too.

In normal use, I'd doubt if you can hear the difference in converter quality. I wonder if this RME thing is another case of 'my DAW sounds better than your DAW' marketing gimmick.


i'd seriously ask someone if they can do a blind a/b test and spot the differnce between material recorded in an 0404 vs. an RME.

Just got mine yesterday

First impressions: RME is really passionate about their products, this is just from reading the getting started guide. Good quality components and it feels well made, not sure how long the paint will stay on with usual wear and tear use.

Setup took about 15 min or so and I was up and running, first time hearing the Babyface against my TC Interface I noticed that the TC coloring the sound in comparison with the Babyface TC had more low's, the Babyface sounded more transparent and clear, haven't played around with the preamps yet but will get to it. I was also able to get down to 96 samples which Reaper showed a 2.1 ms round trip latency and that put a big smile on my face, at first playback Reaper hesitated to see a Baby handle this much but then gave in and ran without a single pop,click through out the whole track. 32 tracks with a total of 4 guitar rig instances and about 6 32 bit bridged plugins and about 12 other fx running at 24/88 with 2.1ms latency
Makes me very happy

I bought the Babyface because of several key factors, stability first, quality second, features third,if you think that a 0404 is on par with RME I would say your Reaper sounds better than mine.

I think i spent my money well!!

[keyman_sam]

Originally Posted by mtsproductions

Just got mine yesterday

First impressions: RME is really passionate about their products, this is just from reading the getting started guide. Good quality components and it feels well made, not sure how long the paint will stay on with usual wear and tear use.

Setup took about 15 min or so and I was up and running, first time hearing the Babyface against my TC Interface I noticed that the TC coloring the sound in comparison with the Babyface TC had more low's, the Babyface sounded more transparent and clear, haven't played around with the preamps yet but will get to it. I was also able to get down to 96 samples which Reaper showed a 2.1 ms round trip latency and that put a big smile on my face, at first playback Reaper hesitated to see a Baby handle this much but then gave in and ran without a single pop,click through out the whole track. 32 tracks with a total of 4 guitar rig instances and about 6 32 bit bridged plugins and about 12 other fx running at 24/88 with 2.1ms latency
Makes me very happy

I bought the Babyface because of several key factors, stability first, quality second, features third,if you think that a 0404 is on par with RME I would say your Reaper sounds better than mine.

I think i spent my money well!!

This topic is actually a very interesting one for me and one that I have some experience with. Particularly, the psychological effect of owning a product percieved to be superior than what it actually is due to the presentation of the product. i.e. the price, the word-of-mouth in the forums, the manual, the product packaging, the build-quality - all of this makes an impact that MAY lead you think that the sound quality is infact higher. In other words -FANCINESS affecting PERCEIVED performance.

The age-old DAW mixing wars is an example. Common consumer brands - like Apple - another example. No doubt they make a good product, but a good product is all it is. When i hold my iPhone, I feel great knowing that this is a sought-after product with a high reputation, it is made of the best hardware/software (even though it may not be) and it is totally worth the high cost (which it might not be). It is a fascinating observation - a testament to the power of marketing combined with GOOD engineering.

I recently noticed a certain company took microphones from a cheap chinese brand and marketed it like a high end product, comparing it to neumanns, high-end AKGs, etc. Heck, I WANT to buy those phones simply knowing that they CAN be compared to the high-end mics.

I won't argue about the Babyface's latency. That's a fact-based number and not much to argue about, so I'll give RME that. This is arguably related to them writing top-notch drivers, which sadly some of the other companies seem to have missed.

The performance, now I'm a bit curious.

What I'm doubtful is about the few threads going around on the net about the super-high sound quality when infact the converters that RME use are the same ones found in many other products. i.e. RME doesn't make their own converters - they buy them from companies (there are only a handful of such companies). Any manufacturer can buy the same components that RME can, and put together the same interface, audio-quality wise.

[keyman_sam]

Engineering post ahead.. The others may skim to the end.
Also, don't worry too much about the signs - its common.

This is interesting:

RME:
Dynamic range DA: 112 dB RMS unweighted, 115 dBA
THD DA: < -104 dB (< 0.00063%)
THD+N DA: < -100 dB (< 0.001%)
Crosstalk DA: > 110 dB
Dynamic range AD: 108 dB RMS unweighted, 111 dBA
THD AD: < -100 dB (< 0.001 %)
THD+N AD: < -98 dB (< 0.0012 %)
Crosstalk AD: > 110 dB

EMU:
DA:
Dynamic Range (1kHz, A-weighted): 117dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted): 117dB
THD+N (1kHz at -1dBFS): -100dB (.001%)
AD:
Dynamic Range (A-weighted, 1kHz, min gain): 113dB
- Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted, min gain): 113dB
- THD+N (1kHz at -1dBFS, min gain): -101dB (.0009%)


Look at page 10 of the following data sheet (0404's converters):
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...k4396_f00e.pdf

THDN at 0dBFS -> -100 dB typ
THDN at -60dBFS -> -57 + -60 = -117dB

Those two are the same numbers as the specs given in EMU's. The measurement devices used by AK and other companies are the same industry standard devices. The numbers imply that the companies don't measure the performance themselves. They simply post the part manufacturer's numbers (fair enough).

Which means, if you snoop around enough you'll find RME's secret converters, which are parts that you can buy as samples from the actual company.

I'll get to the A-weighted vs. unweighted in another post, if you're about to say 'WAITAMINUTE!'.

Summary: Nothing special about RME's converters. Their analog circuitry might be different and I don't have much say in that, but from CODECs p.o.v. they're no different. "Cubase sounds 40% better than Sonar" case, here.

[keyman_sam]

A note on THDN and Dynamic Range:

THDN measured at -1 dBFS input signal so that makes the distortion and noise come up as well. Dynamic range - same measurement with the input signal at -60dbFS so the harmonics are less apparent - they get lost below the noise floor. You add 60dB to the resulting number to get the high Dynamic Range number, which means Dynamic range will always be higher than THDN.

Another note - I posted prev. post with little review, so feel free to cross check what I wrote. I only commented on the DA, not the AD. Will do another post.

The final point was that the converters are no magic in RME vs. EMU. EMU boasts better converters than RME.

[Jim Roseberry]

Originally Posted by keyman_sam

A note on THDN and Dynamic Range:

THDN measured at -1 dBFS input signal so that makes the distortion and noise come up as well. Dynamic range - same measurement with the input signal at -60dbFS so the harmonics are less apparent - they get lost below the noise floor. You add 60dB to the resulting number to get the high Dynamic Range number, which means Dynamic range will always be higher than THDN.

Another note - I posted prev. post with little review, so feel free to cross check what I wrote. I only commented on the DA, not the AD. Will do another post.

The final point was that the converters are no magic in RME vs. EMU. EMU boasts better converters than RME.

It's quick/easy to measure the average noise-floor of any audio interface Use a plugin that has RMS metering (with input monitoring enabled).
The Babyface's A/D average noise floor is -108dB.
That's a smidge better than typical units... which are usually somewhere around -107dB to -103dB. Audio interface's that have the converters on the card itself (inside the PC case) rarely achieve noise-floor better than
-104dB. Measure the A/D average noise floor on the 0404. I seriously doubt it bests -108dB.

The 1820m did provide incredible fidelity for the cost.
Its average noise-floor was -117dB. Keep in mind the converters were in the breakout box.

The Emu interfaces with external converters offer great fidelity for the buck... but ultra low latency performance (and low RTL) is not their forte'.

BTW, A 6dB difference in noise-floor might be hard to hear on a single track of audio. But... multiply that noise-floor by 24-48 tracks... and the difference is dramatic.

Although not cheap, Babyface is exactly what it claims to be.
Good sounding, rock-solid USB 2.0 audio interface that delivers top-notch ultra low latency performance (4.9ms RTL at a 48-sample ASIO buffer size/44.1k). With a fast machine, you can sustain very substantial loads (completely glitch-free) at that 48-sample ASIO buffer size.
There aren't too many USB audio interfaces that offer this level of performance. The FastTrack Ultra/8R is close at 5.5ms RTL at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size/44.1k (prior to the idiotic removal of High-Performance Mode from the latest driver release). Otherwise, you have the Fireface UC.

The average noise-floor on the A/D of the FastTrack Ultra 8R is ~-105dB. Pretty decent given the cost...

[keyman_sam]

Multiplication doesn't apply here. If you chain up 30 EMU units back-to-front, sure, but not if you're mixing 30 tracks.

The noise floor is a single common unit - it is the measurement in dB when no signal is passing through - i.e. with no input, measure output - what's the spectrum look like? It tells you how 'noisy' the converter is when 'nothing' is going through.

There are # of channels A/D converters and probably a few D/As for seperate outs in certain soundcards.

You mix 30 tracks, the FINAL output goes to the D/A. One single noise floor unit applies. Not 30x.

[EDIT]

Ah - I see what you're saying about noise accumulating. Recording 30 tracks of NOTHING - the noise adds, not multiplies. For A/D yes, it will make a difference BUT consider that the noise floor (for AD) is also function of whatever's BEFORE the converters - specifically the analog circuitry - preamps, or in the 0404's case if you increase the gain knobs the noise floor will ofcourse be raised. We would need to set the gain to a common level to compare the two units. I'd bet we'd find a similar situation - the EMU being on par with the RME.

[/EDIT]

[keyman_sam]

Also, with due respect, I wouldn't agree with your testing method Jim.

The test should be as follows:
A signal generator feeds to the inputs of the 0404 and the Babyface. Look at the software peak meter - Set the gain of both the 0404 and the Babyface such that the levels are the EXACT same under 16-bit/44Khz.

Now, remove the tone generator. Record 10 seconds with nothing connected to either devices. What do the level meters indicate? That's the real-world result.

I don't want to mess my input gain settings on my 0202 otherwise I'd do it. They're REALLY sensitive.