You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX+ with HDSPe card together
Hi,
Is it possible to use UFX+ together with HDSPe card?
For example:
- UFX is stand-alone
- HDSPe is installed in PC
1) connect mic/instrument/line to UFX
2) connect UFX output to HDSPe input (ADAT/AES/MADI)
3) DAW
4) connect HDSPe output to UFX (again, same stuff ADAT/AES/MADI)
5) connect headphones/monitors to UFX
Would such setup ever work? Any disadvantages/inconveniences compare to UFX-only setup?
Thank you!
Which HDSPe card do you mean ? There are 5 different available.
Which interface do you mean for stand-alone operation ?
In the Subject you ask about the UFX+, but in the text you write about the UFX.
What do you want to achive ? Your description is a bit vague as the infos above are missing
and as you do not detail what you intend to achieve by this.
Do you want to deploy a HDSPe MADI FX in the PC for "lowest latencies" and
then connect the UFX+ via MADI and connect there your devices and route everything via MADI ?
IMHO .. too complicated for operation. Makes the setup more complicated for no real reason.
If you look into my blog article, then you see, that the latencies via USB3 or TB are both excellent.
You can even connect the UFX+ with a 5m long USB3 cable, the better ones with 3 shields.
Think about it, that you need to add the times for AD/DA conversion to the RTL (round trip latency) of the HDSPe MADI FX.
So the best latencies you get with the UFX+ alone connected via USB3 or TB.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … 8-RME-UFX/
RTL of UFX+ connected via TB: 2,612ms (@44.1kHz)
RTL of UFX+ connected via USB3: 3,061ms (@44.1kHz)
RTL of Octamic XTC connected to HDSPe MADI FX via MADI: 3,064ms (@44.1kHz)
The setup to connect UFX+ via MADI would be possible, but I do not see the merit in it tbh.
If you connect other device to the MADI bus then you need to fiddle around, with delay compensation, as UFX+ - unlike typical preamps and converters - does not support Auto-CA delay compensation, so it's more efforts to setup.
Therefore in my HDSPe MADI FX review I connected an UFX+ to a separate MADI bus and only for the purpose of being able to perform DURec recordings in parallel to Global Record recordings, see this review:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ct-Review/
Here the complete PDF: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … l-v1-1-pdf
Sorry, I omitted the '+' sign, I thought it doesn't matter much, i.e. the question is in general about connectivity between USB/TB RME interface and RME PCIe. The particular connections are secondary imho.
Do you want to deploy a HDSPe MADI FX in the PC for "lowest latencies" and
then connect the UFX+ via MADI and connect there your devices and route everything via MADI ?
Yes, you are correct. It can be AES or ADAT I guess for AES and RayDAT.
Perhaps you are right... might be an over complication 
Nevertheless - I assume the setup above would work? Is that right?
Think about it, that you need to add the times for AD/DA conversion to the RTL
That's correct.
I might be able to get PCIe RayDAT or AES quite cheap so I was thinking about my options
Can you pls be more specific what combination of devices you want to connect ?!
Now we have UFX, UFX+ and 5 different HDSPe's.
Without knowing your requirements, I can't make a good recommendation.
The question was about connectivity between USB/TB interface and PCIe interface. I provided an example of the schema. I wanted to know whether it would work or not. I would imagine a particular device is not THAT important b/c the answer remains the same for multiple devices.
For the reference I have UFX+. I might be able to get HDSPe AES or HDSPe RayDAT. My understanding is that I will be able to connect each - I mean physically, there are cables for that, please correct me if I am wrong. What's not obvious for me is whether such connection would work properly or not.
I would imagine a particular device is not THAT important b/c the answer remains the same for multiple devices.
For the reference I have UFX+. I might be able to get HDSPe AES or HDSPe RayDAT. My understanding is that I will be able to connect each - I mean physically, there are cables for that, please correct me if I am wrong. What's not obvious for me is whether such connection would work properly or not.
The UFX+ is a 94/94 channel interface.
- It makes absolutely no sense to connect it to an AIO (too few digital connections / channels)
- It also makes no sense to connect it to a RayDAT as the UFX+ has only 2 ADAT ports. You can map only a few channels. Therefore it's a waste of money to get the UFX+, then better an UFX.
But .. as I said, operational the mapping of channels is not fun on the long run. Did it, wrote about it, whatever you prefer.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ME-RayDAT/
- It makes absolutely no sense to connect the UFX or UFX+ to the HDSPE AES. The UFX and UFX+ have only 1 AES port (which is also shared with ADAT2 port (not really separated)). So what you want to achieve by this. This combination is a complete nonsense.
Do you get is slowly, that you should be more concrete what you require ?!
I.e. the amount of channels etc etc ...
Besides this you have not so much advantage by it as I said already.
To the RTL of any card (driver wise) you also need to add the times for AD/DA of the device connected digitally to it.
You can see this in my tabular above.
Best combination at the end
UFX II or UFX+ together with ADI-2 Pro FS and ARC USB
alternatively
RayDAT and 1..4 ADI-2 FS if you do not require a very good phones preamp (The ADI-2 FS / Pro FS have btw much lower RTL for AD/DA) compared to an XTC preamp or UFX*.
I see your points, thanks, makes sense!
Frankly, I do not use too many channels, in fact I use a few. My intention with UFX+ was to get a flagship interface - not in the connectivity options but in terms of performance/quality even though I knew I would never utilize all those hundreds of channels.
Please note that the topic question is mostly a test for me b/c I would go for it only if I get AES (not AIO!) or RayDAT at a cheap price (I might have such an option soon). What I was looking for was a removal of USB/TB and use the native PCIe instead, using UFX+ as preamp, AD/DA converter, and monitor controller. Yes, I know RME implement great USB drivers. Yes, I know TB2 interface is cool. Still I would like to test PCIe directly on my system and see if I can get better results.
you also need to add the times for AD/DA
You are correct. AD/DA times would present anyways and I would think they are neglectable in this case.
At this point I believe you have provided the answer and a lot of useful details on top of that so thank you again!
UFX+ together with ADI-2 Pro FS and ARC USB
Any example of such setup? Thank you!
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ME-RayDAT/
Looks like a good research! I will need time to read it in full.
EDITED:
Good recherche ? Well it was easy to find this article, because I wrote it 
> Please note that the topic question is mostly a test for me b/c
> I would go for it only if I get AES (not AIO!) or RayDAT at a cheap price (I might have such an option soon).
If you say that your budget is limited that you try to get a RayDAT to a better price (potentially even from used market), then it makes really no sense to talk about the more expensive HDSPe cards for MADI and AES which cost alone €999-€1545 and are giving you only more or less digital communication (see prices here: https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_pci_expre … l?oa=prd).
The HDSPe AES is also for another reason not feasible: most recording interfaces have only one AES port (2 channels). Then you could route only 2 channels between the HDSPe AES and an external interface like the UFX+. No good idea,
right ?!
This what you really wanna achieve (recording with Mic, etc) happens later at the UFX* or ADI-2* to connect Mics etc. So .. for this purpose to get only a PCIe based card with TM FX for better routing capabilities, the AIO and RayDAT are more then enough. Alone from these aspects we talk now only about 2 out of 5 feasible PCIe cards.
As I mentioned earlier .. by telling exactly what you want to achieve, it's better possible to give you good consultancy.
I personally think that the USB based cards like UFX II and UFX+ are already very good and offer excellent stability and RTL, otherwise this here would not be possible @44.1 up to 96 kHz: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … cks-de-en/
What I really like about the UFX+ and UFX II is, that you have a very good analog section and the mic preamps have a very good quality because they offer a gain range of 75dB, thats indeed very cool for a recording interface. And the RTL performance of both interfaces is also very nice.
IMHO ... take whatever you like most.
Should you also want to have lowerst possible RTL, like some people want to have nowadays, then maybe one additional information: AD/DA converter of a recording interface and also preamps have a little higher AD/DA RTL latency of ~0.9ms compared to ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2 FS which has only 0,23-0,25ms @44.1kHz.
Then the combination of AIO/RayDAT and with ADI-2 Pro FS/FS would be slightly better than to combine AIO/RayDAT with UFX*. It's only a very little difference, maybe not even relevant for most applications, but I wanted to mention it.
So cool I would regard the combination of RayDAT and ADI-2 Pro FS plus eventually additional ADI-2 FS if you need more analog channels. But then you are missing RME preamps.
I personally think best buy and most advantages you have on the long run with the combination UFX+ and ADI-2 Pro FS.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX+ with HDSPe card together
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.