1 (edited by Sciss 2024-12-17 12:54:17)

Topic: UCX II vs UFX III

Hi there,

in January we'll be equipping a new research space with a multi-channel interface, it should have a flawless Linux experience. I had been eyeing the UCX II for this, but of course the question is now whether we should go for the UFX III. As a public body (university), we are keen on rational and economic arguments, so the price difference is important. We also have a good A&H analogue mixer, so number of Mic Pres is not too important. We need to be able to run 8 analogue in / 8 analogue out for the time being, and one ADAT is sufficient. Here is my pro/cons for UCX vs UFX:

pro UCX
- smaller form factor, makes it easy as a mobile device as well (this will be one scenario, carrying it around to field work)
- in the same scenario, being able to use it as a battery powered field recorder
- half the price, no waste on MADI that won't be used in this studio in the next decade
- a little longer on the market, potentially less issues, oscmix compatibility on Linux

pro UFX
- not a horrible Y-splitting-cable solution to get eight analogue outputs; leaving HP usable separately
- DURec port on the front panel instead of back panel
- built-in power supply, not the horrible extra DC adapter
- no need to buy additional rack mount

Any thoughts (*with respect to Linux scenario*)?

2 (edited by ramses 2024-12-26 17:48:50)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Pro UFX III
- AD/DA converter of reference converter ADI-2 Pro
- USB III CC mode (-> Linux)
- more future-proof by MADI, avoids
   - to sell and buy new if the port capacity should be not sufficient anymore
   - the efforts having to do all the routing again from scratch as you can't simply import the old configuration from UCX II
- the MADI spare channels you can use for creating additional submixes and for loopback recording without having to
    "sacrifice" the usual channels that might be in use already on a smaller interface
- if double / quad speed might be needed in the future you have more channel reserves using MADI compared to ADAT.
  double and quad speed both halfen the amount of channels for ADAT (and MADI) by channel multiplexing, which is needed
  to achieve the needed higher bandwidth demands of higher sample rates

All in all the more future-proof investment and to avoid any double work in terms of the setup.

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

There are many reasons to buy and trust RME but Linux is not one of them, now I quote verbatim the UCX II user manual on page 96 about Class Compliant Mode, chapter 31:

The main reason for implementing Class Compliant mode was to allow connecting the UCX II to an Apple iPad®!

... so the CC Mode it is not for Linux support, it's just a fluke and IMHO the word 'Linux' has been included in the RME website and its user manual for marketing reasons.

As an UCX II User I can't recommend it for use under Linux, too expensive to lose the Driver/TotalMix/Computer support.

UCX II FW106/36/104 v1.276 TM2.01 - PC Win11 25H2

4 (edited by ramses 2024-12-29 23:46:28)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

But there are enough people who use RME equipment in this way. Even under Windows and Apple there are users who use DAW mode and prefer to route in the DAW.

In this respect, it doesn't really matter to you whether Linux is mentioned somewhere in a manual or not and whether you have TM FX Full mode or not.

At the end of the day, CC mode doesn't make the hardware any worse. Just be happy that you can do additional different things with CC mode. I would see this more as an opportunity.

And should somebody need to upgrade or sell, then he has still the big benefit of RME HW, that you get good prices on the used market.

For all these reasons I really don't see any reason to complain.

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Has anyone used UFX III in CC Mode on Linux and can comment on the experience?

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

ramses wrote:

But there are enough people who use RME equipment in this way.

Yes.

Sciss wrote:

Has anyone used UFX III in CC Mode on Linux and can comment on the experience?

I can comment on UCX II in CC mode on a low-latency kernel.

Sciss wrote:

no waste on MADI that won't be used

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

Sciss wrote:

oscmix compatibility on Linux

oscmix project would welcome you even with an UFX, no matter II or III ;-)

Sciss wrote:

use it as a battery powered field recorder

Please PM me if you get that one to work (for a few hours at least)...

7 (edited by Sciss 2025-01-19 20:28:05)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

cupakm wrote:

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

But I don't think you get 24 ins/outs in USB-2 (UFX II). Or do you? Then this would be a great alternative. I think I need USB-3 to get 8 (12) analog and 16 ADAT.

We have a project upcoming in autumn which requires 24 inputs/outputs, that's why I'm eager to verify that the UFX III would be an option (as opposed to UCX II which I would otherwise favour).

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Sciss wrote:
cupakm wrote:

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

But I don't think you get 24 ins/outs in USB-2 (UFX II).

UFX II is 30 in/30 out (at single-speed rates) interface.

UFX III adds to that 64 MADI inputs and 64 MADI outputs (at single-speed rates), hence it uses USB 3.0.

Fireface UCX II + ARC USB > ADI-2 Pro FS R BE > Neumann KH 750 DSP + MA 1 > KH 120 A

9 (edited by vinark 2025-01-19 20:45:40)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Total in and out 60 https://rme-audio.de/fireface-ufx-ii.html

Oops posted at the same time lol

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

@vinark do you get access to 60 I/O in CC mode on Linux, including the 16 ADAT in single-speed? This would be my question. If the confirmed answer is yes, then the UFX II might be the interface for us smile

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Ah ok you do need confirmation of someone in the know, so not me. But it would be highly expected if the UFX3 has it.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Can confirm: UFX III supports all 94 I/Os in CC-Mode (via USB3) Connection.

As stated in manual, chapter 31.

“Do It For Her”
My Gear: Bontempi Magic light Keyboard

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Excellent, thank you!

14 (edited by Sciss 2025-03-27 19:43:44)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

I can confirm now, too, that 94 ins and 94 outs appear on my Linux laptop (HP Zbook G8 with 'SuperSpeed' 5 Gbps USB, Debian stable).

15 (edited by rashidwinter 2025-10-28 12:44:14)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Using Tumbleweed and the UFXIII

With USB3 you hit the 64 channel limit imposed by Pulse which is carried into pipewire-pulse.  I had a quick look at the pipewire code but simply changing the channel count wasn't enough, it needs a proper review by the pipewire team, I notice someone else has requested an increase to this limit on the pipewire site.

Removing pipewire-pulse, you  hit the same limit in wireplumber.  It's suggested (by perplexity.ai) that this is configurable but nothing I've changed has worked. Maybe someone knows the truth of configuration...

Removing pipewire and going back to ALSA,  all 94 channels are present but I could not get the settings right, I had constant distortion at 44.1, 48 and 96.  I tried various combinations of jack (using qjackctl) but I could not resolve the issue, which I believe might be something to do with the format.  Has anyone else got this working? I would be happy going back to ALSA/jack until pipewire catches up.

Using usb2 (which removes MADI and thus reduces the channel count) works fine with pipewire and I have had much success with Mixbus10, and Mixxx. However I am unable to work beyond 48k, I get lots of errors if I try to use 96k, no matter what quantum is used.  This is odd as my babyface pro works fine at 96k. I wonder if this is something to do with usb2/3 ?

I'd be most interested to hear what others have manage to get working.

# System Details Report
---

## Report details
- **Date generated:**                              2025-04-04 09:59:44

## Hardware Information:
- **Hardware Model:**                              Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX
- **Memory:**                                      64.0 GiB
- **Processor:**                                   AMD Ryzen™ 9 7900 × 24
- **Graphics:**                                    AMD Radeon™ Graphics
- **Disk Capacity:**                               17.0 TB

## Software Information:
- **Firmware Version:**                            FB3f
- **OS Name:**                                     openSUSE Tumbleweed
- **OS Build:**                                    (null)
- **OS Type:**                                     64-bit
- **GNOME Version:**                               48
- **Windowing System:**                            Wayland
- **Kernel Version:**                              Linux 6.14.0-1-default


Further notes: 28/10/25

Pipewire has now increased the limit to 128, you will still get warnings about the 64 channel pulse limit but if you are not using pulse then it can be ignored.

Unfortunately the problem is beyond the pipewire remit, it seems to be something within alsa. By setting up an alsa node with 34,54, or 94 channels you can get the appropriate altmode (on usb3) However only 34 channels is distortion free. What's also unfortunate is that pipewire is card centric, not node centric, so setting up alsa nodes makes no difference, pipewire always sees 94 channels and can make use of user defined nodes.

So an appeal to alsa developers, why the distortion with high channel counts? Is this beyond alsa, is it more to do with xhci?

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

I started testing thoroughly now, and sadly I run into the same issue as rashidwinter. That is, I only hear distorted sound, also recording results in a highly sped up file, so something with the buffer sizes must be seriously misaligned. I am using Debian stable and Jack. I didn't notice before, since pulse audio seems to work fine by default (e.g. playing back from Nautilus or VLC). Once I have Jack started and the distorted sound, returning the driver to pulse keeps the playback in the distorted mode, until I switch forth and back a few times, at one point pulse plays again in a clean manner.

This is a major bummer and I don't know if I have the time and energy to debug this, or we return the interface and get something simpler without hassle on Linux.

I'm trying to find a USB hub or something that forces downgrade to USB-2, as the laptop only has USB-3 connections with the high channel count. It sounded from rashidwinter's description that under USB-2, playback might be unproblematic, despite the lower channel count. Any help is appreciated.

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

My quick USB-2 downgrade was to try on an old Raspberry Pi 3B I had lying around – here the interface comes up, as expected, with 30 channels, and playback via Jack is clean. The channels seem to be 12 analog + 2 aes/ebu + 16 ADAT, at least according to the onboard meter view. For my current project this would be ok, so I will have to understand how to downgrade the laptop from USB3 to USB2, perhaps just with a dumb USB-hub inbetween?

Another interesting bit is that jack by default uses 32-bit mode, or you have (in QJackCtl) the option to use 16-bit. On my colleague's Mac laptop however, the audio midi setup shows different configurations that are all 24-bit. Might this be the issue, and there is a way to force Jack to run in 24-bit integer?

By the way, on the USB3 machine, when stopping Jack and yielding back to pulse, the way to get the sound "undistorted", is to switch from "Configuration: Multichannel" to "Configuration: Pro Audio" and back to "Multichannel". No idea what those are, but that suggests that there is some change in the driver configuration that puts the machine back into the right state.

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

AFAIK you can force the UFXIII to USB2 from the device, but it has to be disconnected from usb when doing that, the options are auto, usb3 and usb 2.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

19 (edited by Sciss 2025-04-15 18:11:52)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

On the device, that's only for driver operation, but for CC mode, you have to stay in CC mode. But a quick solution is actually to grab a USB 2 cable instead, LOL, that works immediately at 30 channel mode, no distortion in Jack/ALSA. So at least for now, I have a working solution, ultimately would be great to know what the Jack/ALSA issue is in USB-3 mode, in order to leverage the MADI.

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Ah yes forgot about cc mode. But very elegant solution.
Cheers!

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

21

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Apart from the embarassing channel count limitations: I wouldn't rule out the laptop's USB subsystem to cause the USB-3 issues. Even Intel had issues to support isochronous data streams with more than a handful channels at one point in time. You should try all three USB-A ports, and also the Thunderbolt port (includes USB 3 with 10 GB/s, so different path/chip).

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Thanks. I tried all four different ports. Since with pulse-pipewire (desktop audio), I do get a clean signal (at least on the main stereo), I believe the issue is not hardware related, but a problem with the ALSA/Jack implementation.

23 (edited by Sciss 2025-07-15 08:30:03)

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Who is first testing the new firmware? Since the news (https://rme-audio.de/macos-usb-3-driver-options.html) blog mentions fixing some potential distortion issues for USB 3 CC, this could also mean the issue we are seeing here on Linux is alleviated? I'll nudge our lab assistant to update the firmware and conduct further tests.