Topic: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Hi!

I was wondering if anyone could describe the difference in sound quality produced by the two different units.

Regards

Rodney Ferguson

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

No RME device is designed for a specific "sound quality" - they will sound as good (or bad) as you can make them sound with your  recording setups or your music.

Decide between them because of their features, not because of "sound quality".


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

3 (edited by Rodney_Ferguson_75 2015-03-23 01:08:45)

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Thanks but I was hoping for something a little more insightful. There are plenty of sound samples out there comparing the UFX to the Apollo.

I was asking for people's experiences between the UCX and UFX's preamps and converters if that makes it more specific.

I found your answer a little bit on the naive side. I'm fully aware of the variables in recording.

However, thank you or your contribution but if a consumer wants to buy an interface based on sound quality then so be it.

I think you will find a very large number of consumers will buy interfaces based on sound quality rather than number of inputs etc.

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

If you wish "to buy an interface based on sound quality", do so by all means, but compare them yourself with your setups.

What "insight" would you expect on this forum, other than highly subjective individual opinions? One listener's "(over)bright" is another's "clear" or "open", the same would apply to "warm" or "dull"... The scientific value of "comparisons" as conducted e.g. on Gearslutz is dubious at best, and so is most of the ensuing discussion (and in the end, such threads often end up being closed or deleted due to excessive arguing...). You will not likely find one such test that could provide an objective result, and that is for devices from different manufacturers with possibly slightly different technical approaches.

Refraining from personal comments such as "naive" would be considered desirable, though, should this discussion be continued here. I would tend to use the adjective for the frequent expectation that differences between preamps and converters (other than those that deliberately alter the signal in one way or another) would really be a deciding factor in the achievable "sound quality" of any acoustic recording.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

5 (edited by Rodney_Ferguson_75 2015-03-23 05:12:42)

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

May be you should have just answered the initial question rather than telling someone what they should be looking for instead. Perhaps this would have avoided taking things to a personal level.

I think you'll find that some people are happy listening to different subjective opinions on how an interface may sound.

You appear extremely guarded towards a topic that many people are now taking an interest in.

RME have many favourable reviews for the neutral sound of the interfaces. Many people prefer RME to the likes of Apollo and Apogee. I am surprised by your reaction.

I have also noticed that people tend to upgrade from the UCX to the UFX which is why I asked for a comparison. If I wanted to compare the features then the spec sheets tell me all I need to know.

Perhaps this is an area that you are not comfortable discussing. May be you should leave it for other people.

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Rodney_Ferguson_75 wrote:

May be you should have just answered the initial question rather than telling someone what they should be looking for instead. Perhaps this would have avoided taking things to a personal level.

Perhaps this is an area that you are not comfortable discussing. May be you should leave it for other people.

I very clearly did answer your initial question, quote: "No RME device is designed for a specific "sound quality"". That's really all there is to it and it's not about what am personally  "comfortable" with... There is no way we'd engage in trying to (subjectively) describe "differences" that are in no way intended or known to exist. If one of these devices were to sound very noticeably different from the other and the source material, we'd consider that a technical issue, not a difference in "character" or so. We design different devices for their features, not their "sound quality".

As this thread is not really going anywhere, I will close it in due course.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

7 (edited by busterfriendly 2015-03-23 15:23:47)

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

That dry German efficiency gets me every time.

Poor Rodney basically only asked if there was a difference in A/D D/A conversion and MIC inputs on the UCX and UFX. Admin replied as if he'd personally insulted his entire family.

We love you RME. Seriously, please don't change wink

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Dear Daniel Fuchs,

May I suggest that the company put you on a customer relations course. However, as you weild the power over this digital communication exchange I assume this will all be wiped under the table very shortly.

As the penny drops, I guess the UCX probably has the edge over the UFX. As the UCX is the cheaper of the two units, I imagine from a business point of view RME would want to avoid making this known.
Anyway...perhaps Apogee deserve a second look sad

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Just because something was designed to be a particular way does not mean that that, will be the result.

Feel free to delete the thread now Daniel.

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Rodney_Ferguson_75 wrote:

As the penny drops, I guess the UCX probably has the edge over the UFX. As the UCX is the cheaper of the two units, I imagine from a business point of view RME would want to avoid making this known.

Compare the tech specs, and you will find that on paper, the UFX is slightly "better". However, you specifically asked us to "describe the difference in sound quality", which is totally subjective. All I did was point out that no such criteria went into the devices' design. You could take that at as a straightforward honest statement. Would you have considered it better "customer relations" if we had responded with all kinds of flowery marketing language about how one sounded "warm" and "round" while the other had a tendency for a "clear" and "open" sound? I am beginning to suspect you would have happily accepted such a statement and based your decision upon it - even if were complete baloney, just to please you and to cater to your expectations that there must be some discernible "difference" that would actually affect your recordings in a significant way. I have made it clear that from our point of view, there is no such difference. If that in turn leads you to suspect that we are willfully hiding sometihing ("I guess the UCX probably has the edge over the UFX"), then that is your personal assumption.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Rodney_Ferguson_75 wrote:

As the penny drops, I guess the UCX probably has the edge over the UFX. As the UCX is the cheaper of the two units, I imagine from a business point of view RME would want to avoid making this known.

I am not sure if I understand but you are aware that the UFX has double the mic inputs, two HP out and the awesome direct record feature? It's a completely different animal feature-wise.
Sound wise all I can say is: I have used both side by side and there was no moment of distinguishable sound impressions. You can have a "better" sound by paying way more for a soundcard - even RME has different "sound quality product lines".

Regarding the mentality of the communication a joke to relax the mood in here:
How many Germans do you need to change a light-bulb?






One. We are efficient and don't have humour.

With best regards
El Duderino

12 (edited by Rodney_Ferguson_75 2015-03-23 23:12:03)

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Sound wise all I can say is: I have used both side by side and there was no moment of distinguishable sound impressions. You can have a "better" sound by paying way more for a soundcard - even RME has different "sound quality product lines".

Thanks Duderino for your reply. I have heard sound samples of the UFX which I really liked compared with the Apollo. These were produced by someone who owned both units and made the recordings using each unit.

I tried to find samples of the UCX, but unfortunately could not find any. This is what led me to asking for a comparison between the UCX and the UFX. Hoping that the UCX was just as good.

Got a little bit side tracked on the way, but at last I found someone who has used both. Less that 24hrs after the thread was started.

Cheers smile

Rodney

RME UCX + RME ADI-2 DAC
You can listen to a machine, but you won’t hear the music.

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Hi,

I'm new on the forum although read it regularly. I'm a UFX user for about 2 3 or 4 months now and getting to grips with the many fantastic features and it's great sound quality.

By sound quality I mean there are no dropouts, crackles or buzzes. It is also very faithful in reproduction as far as I can hear and the preamps seem excellent without imposing any obvious colouration.

I quite like the no prisoners approach taken on this forum in that it sort of tells people they need to know their stuff if they want to use and talk about RME products or sound creation/manipulation in detail. But I also appreciate we all have to start somewhere. i remember buying my first large cardioid condenser and signing into it the wrong side and wondering why it didn't sound any good. I'm much more experienced and knowledgeable now but always ready to learn off of others or pas son my knowledge where possible to others.

Quality has many meanings. Robert Pirsig even wrote a book on it and described the Metaphysics of Quality. Quality can just mean very good. I don't think the OP was meaning anything about warmth or other subjective notions of sound quality. He was probably wondering if the preamps and signal path of the two units were the same or of similar specification. I myself wondered that about these two units a few times. For instance, I might be wrong but I believe the preamps in the UFX are not the same as those in the Micstacy range which are possibly superior?

Anyway, keep up the good work on the forum, I discovered a few things. I was stupid to assume I could run spdif and AES/EBU inputs at the same time but if I had carefully counted the 30 inputs of the UFX I would have realised this is not possible. I worked it out using the forum.

But along with the good work it would be good to be nice to people as it doesn't take much. I understand that a load of stupid people buying RME products, not understanding them and then slagging them off is not good for the brand but at the same time we all have to start somewhere.

So that is my two pennyworth as we say in the UK. I'll be back with some of my own questions soon.

14

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

> I might be wrong but I believe the preamps in the UFX are not the same as those in the Micstacy range which are possibly superior?

You have to define 'preamp' first. The heart of it is a digitally controlled gain stage. It is responsible for the basic data like EIN and THD. This one is the same in UFX and Micstasy. Still the whole 'preamp', from mic input socket to the ADC, is quite different. The Micstasy has analog low pass filters, an analog 0.5 dB gainstage and relais-controlled PAD added, driving the most advanced ADC of its time. The UFX has none of that, but excels with its special conversion stage, where the preamp drives its signal into two ADCs at the same time.

You see, simple answers don't exist...

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UCX vs UFX - Sound quality

Good post Mathias, well defined and much more information than most manufacturers would give you. I have noticed more and more now that manufacturers are leaving details out of specifications for products, especially consumer/prosumer stuff. I recently bought an old 1980s Musicman guitar combo and it's product sheet even told you what the cabinet and chassis was made of and how. Old Roland and Boss specs gave you far more info than they do now.

The UFX sounds great to me.