You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX+ / UFX II, which Steadyclock version ?
Hi,
I couldn't find an information in the handbook, whether UFX+ / UFX II use SteadyClock v or 3.
Could you please tell, many thanks !
No answer to this ?
Hi,
I couldn't find an information in the handbook, whether UFX+ / UFX II use SteadyClock v or 3.
Could you please tell, many thanks !
We'd be interested to know the differences between each generation of SteadyClock too. Which products use which? Is the Micstasy 'only' generation 1?
And is there an appreciable audio improvement each time?
Thanks
It does seem a bit strange that RME does not answer.
I guess that this silence means that in all probability it is SteadyClock I, first generation.
Oh well!
Rodney 
And is there an appreciable audio improvement each time?
Thanks
Steadyclock is not meant to "improve" a unit's inherent audio quality. It is designed to remove jitter from incoming digital audio signals.
Improvements in the way Steadyclock works will e.g. make it possible to deal with even higher jitter on incoming signal, but otherwise, don't expect huge changes or added functionality. This version number is not comparable to version numbers on drivers, or software/OS versions...
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Improvements in the way Steadyclock works will e.g. make it possible to deal with even higher jitter on incoming signal Ah that makes perfect sense. See guy(s), no secrets, just not that interesting.....
mjfe87 wrote:And is there an appreciable audio improvement each time?
ThanksSteadyclock is not meant to "improve" a unit's inherent audio quality. It is designed to remove jitter from incoming digital audio signals.
Improvements in the way Steadyclock works will e.g. make it possible to deal with even higher jitter on incoming signal, but otherwise, don't expect huge changes or added functionality. This version number is not comparable to version numbers on drivers, or software/OS versions...
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Up to a certain point agreed, Daniel, but there is a dependency between clock jitter and accuracy
of AD / DA conversion quality. RME documents this in the ADI-2 Pro handbook in the following way.
"The further improved SteadyClock III technology of the ADI-2 Pro guarantees an excellent performance
in all clock modes. Thanks to a highly efficient jitter suppression, the AD- and DAconversion
always operates on highest sonic level, being completely independent from the
quality of the incoming clock signal."
Or here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/people/rme-designs
The ADI-2 Pro is _the_ No 1 reference AD DA converter. So one might think and argue, that Steadyclock III
is technically required to achive this quality of sound.
I wouldnt think that this is a requirement of the much higher DSD sample frequencies, as a device like the MADIface Pro got Steadyclock III as well, see here: http://www.synthax.de/media/files/rme/M … odukte.pdf
Up to a certain point agreed, Daniel, but there is a dependency between clock jitter and accuracy
of AD / DA conversion quality. RME documents this in the ADI-2 Pro handbook in the following way."The further improved SteadyClock III technology of the ADI-2 Pro guarantees an excellent performance
in all clock modes. Thanks to a highly efficient jitter suppression, the AD- and DAconversion
always operates on highest sonic level, being completely independent from the
quality of the incoming clock signal."
I marked the passage that matters. Steadyclock has nothing to do whatsoever with the quality of the ADI-2's (or any other RME device's) internal clock and thus AD/DA conversion. Steadyclock removes jitter from external clock sources. It only really matters when a device syncs to an external clock. Without that, it does nothing. There is obviously no need for jitter suppression with regard to the internal clock....
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Hey Ramses AFAWKS you can never surpass the audio quality of the internal clock. So ... I remember steady clock being really close or equal to internal. So what to gain. Yes being able to lock on a more jittery clock.
What should they say then? Distortion dropped another 2db. From inaudible to more inaudible. Some clock companies advertise with....a very musical clock!
I know we disagree slightly here, but the effect of the brain is very interesting too. How to awake it without buying new stuff?
Look, for me its of interest whether it makes sense to place the ADI-2 Pro between an ADAT connection
of UFX+ and a high end HiFi amplifier.
If UFX+ should have Steadyclock III, then I could save much time, as then it makes no sense to me
to test whether the one or other is better (if I shall hear a difference ...). But no matter whether I
could hear it, then its simply not required to spend any more efforts on this topic.
In regards to this I would appreciate more clarity on this topic. Its simply technical data.
Nobody could complain. Only if RME would have said III when it turns out later its II.
At the moment its completely open, it is Steadyclock, hurray, no reason to complain
whether its I, II or III.
I check from side of the product package of the UFX II and it says:
Includes the latest RME Audio Technology: SteadyClock 3
URL pls and screenshot. I can't see what you see.
I checked DE and EN webpage of UFX II and there is nothing.
Look, for me its of interest whether it makes sense to place the ADI-2 Pro between an ADAT connection of UFX+ and a high end HiFi amplifier.
No. None at all. Not even sure what exact signal path you have in mind here, but you can not somehow magically improve the jitter specs or "sound quality" of a UFX+ by way of running signal digitally through an ADI, just for Steadyclock. If that were possible, the UFX+ as such would be pretty shitty... In other words, this would only have any effect if the clock of the UFX+ suffered from heavy jitter - which of course it doesn't. And even then you'd have to use the ADI as DA converter, not the UFX+ (see below).
If UFX+ should have Steadyclock III, then I could save much time, as then it makes no sense to me to test whether the one or other is better (if I shall hear a difference ...). But no matter whether I could hear it, then its simply not required to spend any more efforts on this topic.
The only possible difference you would hear would be between the converters, but not between different versions of Steadyclock. That is an illusion, plain and simple. Which is why we don't create a huge marketing fuss about Steadyclock versions.
In regards to this I would appreciate more clarity on this topic. Its simply technical data. Nobody could complain. Only if RME would have said III when it turns out later its II.
At the moment its completely open, it is Steadyclock, hurray, no reason to complain
whether its I, II or III.
You seem to be thinking of differences along the lines of USB 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, expecting some kind of huge difference and improvement.
The only relevant specs are on the websites and in the manual:
UFX+
• Jitter suppression of external clocks: > 30 dB (2.4 kHz)
• Internal clock: 800 ps Jitter, Random Spread Spectrum
ADI-2 Pro
• Jitter suppression: > 50 dB (2.4 kHz)
• Internal clock: < 800 ps Jitter, Random Spread Spectrum
There you have your difference, more jitter suppression, as I suggested above. Now the internal clock on the ADI seems to be a minute touch better. Will that make any difference? Only if you use the ADI as DA converter, in which case the only difference you might hear would be between the converters (and not between minimally different jitter specs). Running a digital signal through the ADI into the UFX+ to "improve" the signal won't have any effect because Steadyclock and jitter reduction can't be better than a device's internal clock, since it's a clock regeneration - which of course depends on the internal clock.
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX+ / UFX II, which Steadyclock version ?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.