Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:

As a consequence of this, your 12 Mics could only be operated via LAN if this is ok for you. So,
- even if Auxdevice support would be delivered in the future, I would guess this would only work with for MADI
- even the nice management tool MIDI Remote AVB might not work, AFAIR it needs "MIDI over MADI"
  or you would need to deploy MIDI cables, but only possible if the devices are quite close to each other
  or you need to spend money on MIDI expanders.

All good points, thanks Ramses. Also, on the other hand, if I had "UFX III with Dante", and those 12micDs, I could take them to a variety of applications whether there is need for MADI, Dante or a combination of some sorts. This would in my case be, I think, more future-proof than committing to something with say MADI only. And, as mentioned, the other benefit would be that I could use the same hardware for multiple real-world applications.

Re: UFX lll

There are maybe two things to consider. Whether you talk about MADI or DANTE or MADI and DANTE in regards to:

1. space on the back of the unit
2. more channels require bigger FPGA

Consider, that RME perhaps wants to stay with 1 RU .. so space is tight.
MADI would perhaps need to be changed to SFP.
Dante would require (I assume) 2 LAN ports (like AVB: primary, secondary)

What I want to say is. Besides price aspects there is a lot of design work to be done.
As a "quick successor" for UFX+ needed to be made available, this surely could not be done now.

And when it should come, then it would IMHO need MADI as well, so that you can re-use your existing MADI devices.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

53 (edited by ramses 2023-03-23 14:39:30)

Re: UFX lll

I still would wish for something like an update to the current UFX III with two MADI buses instead of one. Maybe per SFP to get the space on the back.

Because only then you have the possibility to
- record in double speed and
- to expand analog and mic ports at the same time

For example:
- M32-Pro AD and DA (bus1) and
- two 12Mic and one XTC on (bus2)

Or two split devices to the two different buses if you want to split devices according to the remote management tool
Auxdevice and MIDI Remote.

Or you need to change the configuration / setup to use the one or other devices for higher sample rates.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

54 (edited by rmemius 2023-04-22 07:35:13)

Re: UFX lll

I have begun reading, with interest, the many comments in this thread.
Thank You. Sorry that it's all a problem with thunderbolt. Appreciate the guru comments!

Sorry to be posting my thoughts in fact - the UFX III is brilliant.

I hereby state:-)~>

1) there are no greater devotees than me to RME. I started back at the beginning and have never used other than RME.

2) I will be waiting for the lowest latency... AND an interface that can use nearly ALL of the CPU... UNLIKE USB which craps out the CPU way earlier than Thunderbolt.

Therefore, sadly,  I wait for a USB4/TB4 FLAGSHIP interface.

NOTE: surely the "small USB-C plug concern could be gotten around.

A specialty jack that fits USB-C in the middle and an RME special BIG plug around the the outside of it.   

Maybe like the Mic inputs that combine TRS and XLR

ALL I've thought is covered here in the thread i started.

Note that in the above link/thread I mention (and link to) another thread i started as my initial reaction to the RME video called "Why still usb?"

I believe many of us are fine waiting for what may be called the RME UFX+ II

it should have USB4 AND Thunderbolt 4 


(AVB etc. as add-on OPTION cards maybe good?)

I believe that makes perfect sense in 2024 ?

55 (edited by ramses Today 09:24:45)

Re: UFX lll

I've had really good experiences with USB over the years, so I disagree with your idea that USB3 alone would not be well enough for an interface like the UFX III.

Back in 2014, I started using a UFX with USB2 and FW400, but USB ended up working better than Firewire.

Then, in 2015, I got a RayDAT and tested whether a PCIe card would give me any advantages in terms of CPU load or latency. I used the UFX in standalone mode, connected through ADAT, and found that it gave me no visible benefit over USB2 in terms of CPU/system load or stability. So, in my experience, USB2 worked just as well as a PCIe-based RayDAT.

I upgraded to the UFX+ in 2016 and found that using it via USB3 worked great, even with its high channel count of 188. And for even more channels, the MADIface XTC has 394 channels and is also well-supported by USB3.

In 2017, I wrote a blog article comparing UFX+ via USB3 and RayDAT via PCIe under load. I used a big Cubase project with 400 audio tracks, 2 VSTs per track, and 3 in the sum, so 803 VSTs in total. Even at the lowest ASIO buffersize of 32 samples at 44.1 kHz (or 64 samples at 96 kHz), there were no audio drops during playback, and the CPU and ASIO load was handled very well by my system (meanwhile a 7-year-old CPU). The conclusion was that there was no visible difference between using UFX+ USB3 vs. RayDAT PCIe based. Thunderbolt is "external PCIe" so it is compareable.

BTW, I just uploaded a new screenshot where you can see this test project with 400 tracks and 803 VST running on my current system with last recent Cubase 12.0.60 Pro:

Latency-wise, the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt is tiny. I have a comparison chart of different solutions that I own(ed) that you might find helpful, see here: … es-v2-jpg/

If you're interested in getting some more information, like e.g. differences between UFX+ and UFX III and some recommendations, then please have a look at these two threads: … 62#p200962 … 02#p217002

I would encourage you to try USB2/3 with the UFX series for yourself instead of relying on hearsay or unproven expectations. I also recommend getting a USB3 PCIe card with a supported USB3 chip, like the Sonnet card with FL1100 USB3 controller, to isolate your recording interface from the rest of your USB infrastructure. This can proactively prevent the addition of other USB-based devices from negatively impacting your connected recording interface.

One proactive tip, like I recommended in the above-mentioned thread (again the URL: … 62#p200962). I would directly get a USB3 PCIe card with supported USB3 chip like the Sonnet card with FL1100 USB3 controller to fully isolate the recording interface from the rest of your USB infrastructure. It can proactively help, that adding more and more USB based devices (headsets, Bluetooth adapter, etc.) have no bad impact on the connected recording interface. For example, this product: … 4port.html

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

56 (edited by rmemius 2023-08-29 01:15:56)

Re: UFX lll

@ramses    !!!

that is a kind and very helpful post - many will find useful - THANKS for that, from me*-)

So many good info's! - and on the preferred USB3 chipset(s) --  superb to know stuff like that!

It is very sad about the thunderbolt chips availability and the other bits detailed through the above posts.

I should briefly mention I have had terrific results with USB2 and USB3 also!!!

For live performance, CPU maximizing, and, well, just to satisfy "most flexible" and, 'obsessing on what's best' to match with computer ~~>>

I find myself having to accept that:

1)  the CPU hit USB has -- compared to Thunderbolt -- is real

2) that MY being concerned about 'CPU cost and latency' means I'm not a professional who needs to get on with being a professional and that I'm laughably more concerned about my perceptions. (meant sincerely, not sarcastically*-)

3) Anyone who wants one of the greatest interfaces EVER,  from the greatest proven company, should absolutely get a UFX III

My babyface pro is a happy little interface!

Many thanks again for great info and more, including "MC" and of course others!!! ~>  on earlier posts here - best wishes to all.

57 (edited by ramses 2023-04-22 17:19:42)

Re: UFX lll

BTW, Win10 already includes the drivers for the Sonnet card with FL1100 USB3 chipset.
Also nice: the drivers use the more efficient MSIs (message signalled interrupts), see … 26#p145426

Maybe the problems that you have were based on "bad luck", incompatible HW with 3rd party USB3 chips.

Such incompatibilities in HW can sadly always occur and, if I remember right, even with thunderbolt there could be issues.

The best is to ask people upfront or to try something out or you get a turnkey system where all such tests already have been made.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: UFX lll

I have an ADI-2 pro FSR and absolutely love the balanced headphones mode.  I realize this is primarily an audiophile feature but would love to see it added to the UFX III I recently purchased.  Is this feasible in the future?

Re: UFX lll

b4rth wrote:
Quadron wrote:

Will the UFX+ also get the full USB-3 class compliant mode of the UFX III?

Good question! Hope for this too. Was looking for a TB4 laptop (Intel only) but if I understand it all correctly, a Ryzen with USB-only will do for our UFX+ since TB functionality seems to be EOL as well hmm. So in the future (new laptops don't have tb3) we can't (correct me if I am wrong) use the full 188 channels via USB. Major bummer for us.

The studio machine has TB3 with a startech adapter to TB2 (ryzen) and it works super fast. USB on the other hand seems to have more load on my machine. So did this improve as well with the UFXIII?

And lastly will we be able to use the UFX+ with USB3 with full channel count in the future as the UFXIII seems capable...

Sorry, my bad. The full channel count does already work via USB3. Is this working also like a dream on AMD CPU's? Ryzen 5000 to 7000 series?

60 (edited by idimata Today 04:30:00)

Re: UFX lll

This has been a very enlightening read.

I just want to say that someone said Windows is an open ecosystem. I strongly disagree and believe it's a closed ecosystem. It's super difficult to develop for Windows. I've done it and got paid for it, but it's certainly not as open an ecosystem as on Linux, for example. However, I'm thankful that this forum benefits from great direct accessibility to RME and to Microsoft, and I do greatly appreciate the discussion here.