You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Adding i/o to Fireface UFX II
Hey, what would be the most economical way for me to add a few extra i/o to my Fireface UFX II?
I only need about 3 or 4 more i/o
Thank you
Analog I/O ? What is your budget ?
2 x ADI-2 FS (has the AKM converter of the ADI-2 Pro FS/DAC, should be eqzual in quality)
2 analog channel Interface
http://www.rme-audio.de/products/adi_2_fs.php
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_adi_2_fs.htm
With this setup you need the 2 ADAT ports IN and OUT of your UFX II
You can record up to 192 kHz because you only need/have 2 channels of each ADAT port.
or
1 x ADI-8-DS MK3
8 analog channel Interface
http://www.rme-audio.de/products/adi_8_ds_mk3.php
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_adi8_ds.htm
With this setup you need
- only 1 ADAT port IN and OUT of your UFX II @44.1/48 kHz for all 8 channels
- 2 ADAT ports IN and OUT of your UFX II @88.2/96kHz for all 8 channels
Thanks. I've seen those units. I was hoping to get away with adding 3 or 4 analogue i/o...mainly outputs I need, not inputs, without spending so much. But it seems you have to pay quite a bit.
I always thought the 8 analogue outputs on the back of the UFX II would be plenty, but I recently bought 6 mono hardware units...compressors and eq's. Plus I already had a stereo comp. So Basically I need about 12 analogue outputs...which is another 4 I guess.
My budget is around 500 US dollars I suppose.
Sorry, in this price range there is no RME solution available for you.
When looking at Thomans catalogue then there is only one good alternative available for you if I didn't overlook something:
https://www.thomann.de/de/digitalwandle … -5456=true
This product: if you put a little on top, then you could get this fine product which gives you plenty of headroom for a fair price:
https://www.thomann.de/de/ferrofish_pulse16.htm
And additionally I think everything else does not make much sense in your setup,
as you surely want to have the I/O of the add-on device in a quality
which is more comparebale to the analog ports of the RME UFX II.
The Behringer's ADA8200 Ultragain is IMHO not a good solution as some people reported
that especially the analog outputs are a bit noisy.
The Behringer's ADA8200 Ultragain is IMHO not a good solution as some people reported
that especially the analog outputs are a bit noisy.
Sorry Ramses, this needs to be said too and both our views are valid!
IMHO (humble opinion) this will work fine. Noise is about -100db of the ADA8200. I have no analogue gear with noise less then -90db. So if you choose wisely which units to connect to the UFX and which to the behringer I can see no problems. And it is cheap to try,
How about this as an option....I use the Mackie Big Knob for monitor outputs (2x stereo monitors).
That way all 8 of the UFX II analogue outputs are free.
But I'm just not sure how the Mackie accepts the sound signal from the UFX II. Apparently the Big Knob plugs into your computer via usb. So I'm not too sure how they play together.
I should make it clear....all I'm really interested in is more analogue OUTPUT. I don't need any more preamp inputs or any more inputs.
Or guys what about something like this:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail … itch-witch
Using this means I'd only have to run a single stereo out from the UFX II into the Pro Co. This would mean I would save 2 analogue outs and they would be free for me to use with my external units.
There's also these very simple and cheap options that will free me up 2 analogue outputs:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail … e-selector
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail … sa-slw-333
Of course I would have to settle for setting volumes physically on the back of my monitors
The Behringer's ADA8200 Ultragain is IMHO not a good solution as some people reported
that especially the analog outputs are a bit noisy.Sorry Ramses, this needs to be said too and both our views are valid!
IMHO (humble opinion) this will work fine. Noise is about -100db of the ADA8200. I have no analogue gear with noise less then -90db. So if you choose wisely which units to connect to the UFX and which to the behringer I can see no problems. And it is cheap to try,
You don't have to apologize to me. I only cited things that I read at Thomann, below I quoted part of some reviews to which I referred to.
Sure, the SNR compared to other analog environment can be regarded as ok. On the other hand we can see in other areas, that sound quality is not only based on the pure chips, but also the design of the whole box.
Therefore it doesn't make sense to me to buy the cheapest 8-port AD/AD on the market for €150, when your main recording gear is the flagship interface of RME in the price range of €2000.
At least I would recommend to try both and then to draw the final decision.
"Die Wandler sind sehr gut, aber bei niedrigen Nutzsignalpegeln nicht die rauschärmsten. Die betrifft wirklich nur Mikrofoniertes von Mikrofonen mit wenig Ausgangspegel, die aus der Distanz Leises beisteuern."
"Bei mir höre ich auf allen Kanälen leise die Summe aller einzelnen Kanäle (hoffe das liegt nicht an meinen Einstellungen oder schlechten Adat-Kabeln?). "
"Aufgrund des einen mangelhaften Wandlers und des mir zu hohen Rauschens an den Ausgängen mussten sie dennoch wieder zurück."
I should make it clear....all I'm really interested in is more analogue OUTPUT.
I don't need any more preamp inputs or any more inputs.
I don't know such a product. Maybe search all the products at Thomann or call them.
You usually get both AD and DA converter in such a unit in this price range.
Or you get a preamp with only inputs that can be used for Mic and Line signals.
In higher price ranges it's more common to get 16 or 32 IN or OUT.
I think I'm going to opt for one of the simple passive splitters I linked above. Doing this will free up 2 analogue outputs. I really would like to free up 4 but I can live with 2.
That'll be the most cost effective and simple solution.
Thanks all.
By using passive splitters you loose one of the very nice TM FX capabilities to store your routing digitally in snapshots.
Then I would regard the solution with the Behringer as better.
My advice, try both and then decide, especially as the splitters also have their price.
Maybe in the future you want to work with outboard equipment, then more i/o would be more beneficial for you,
than spending the money now into splitters.
Very good points ramses. I recently bought 6 outboard units. And I think that itch is scratched for a while and I'll happy with what I have. So, highly likely I will not be adding further outboard gear. Since the routing to the splitter only accounts for Monitors I think any of the other 6 analogue output routing configs can still be preserved in TM FX snapshots.
The negative is that my Yamaha HS8's and Avantone Mixcubes are fed from one stereo output, so I lose independent control through TM, since they are now running off the same outputs. But I am happy to manually set volume levels on the Monitors themselves.
Just out of interest...how would I connect the Behringer unit to marry up with my Frieface UFX II to take advantage of the additional outputs the Behringer will have? ADAT? Will the i/o of the Behringer unit show up in Totalmix as i/o??
Also...I should be clear...I don't need inputs. So if the Behringer preamps are a little noisy or low quality or whatever...that's irrelevant for me because I simply will not use them whatsoever. I'd only ever be using the outputs on the Behringer.
Sure via ADAT.
In TM FX you see them as ADAT ports.
You need only 1 TOSLINK cable and configure the Behringer to receive clock from it's ADAT IN port.
And additionally .. with the Behringer you have balanced and unbalanced line inputs and outputs !
Ok ramses thanks a lot. Then I think I might try that option. Thanks for your help 
EDIT: One more thing...with the Behringer connected by ADAT, would I then be able to run my 2 stereo monitors exclusively from 2 sets of Behringer outputs, leaving the 8 analogue outputs on the Fireface UFX II free?
Yes sure.
Thanks ranses. Well I guess this option is the one I will go for, for now.
One final thing...what about the RME OctaMic II? Or the Fireface UCX?
Would either of them hook up to my Fireface UFX II, allowing me more i/o?
EDITED
Sorry no, the analog outputs on this device are there for cueing out the signal being recorded from the analog inputs. So to say "Cue Out" outputs.
You can see it quite easily i.e. by looking to the device, because this device has no digital inputs that would be required to get the digital signal to the device for D/A conversion to the outputs.
And you can see it on the web in the product description, that the digital ports are only output ports:
"
Connectivity
8 x Mic / Line Preamp Input (XLR/TRS Combo)
8 x Line Output (TRS balanced)
8 x AD-converter (up to 192 kHz)
2 x ADAT Output (S/MUX, up to 96 kHz)
4 x AES/EBU Output (D-sub, up to 192 kHz)
1 x AES/SPDIF Sync Input
"
And with this unit we are also in a different prince range of €1300
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_octamic_ii.htm €1299
Then it would be much better for you to go back to my initial proposal to get a Ferrofish Pulse16.
It costs only €899 and gives you besides higher quality (compared to Behringer) even 16 i/o ports.
Thats a lot of headroom for you shall you need to connect even more devices in the future.
And if you would want to use outboard equipment, then you need anyway 2 input and output ports (stereo),
either per device or device "chain".
https://www.thomann.de/de/ferrofish_pulse16.htm €899
Does that apply for the UCX too? I thought the UCX said 1x ADAT i/o
BTW .. I EDITED the last post #18 please re-read.
I/O means Input/Output.
So ADAT I/O means, there is an ADAT Input and Output.
For a recording interface this makes sense, because you might want to expand it with further with additional
- Mic Peamps or A/D converters (via ADAT IN)
- D/A converters (via ADAT OUT)
The Octamic II is a typical studio preamp which focuses on the A/D part, the Outputs are cue out ports.
Therefore the Product description tells "ADAT Output" not "ADAT I/O" and "AES Output" not "AES I/O".
What might confuse you is, that there are also Mic preamps on the market, like the Behringer ADA8200,
that also can act as A/D and D/A converter. So its not only a Mic Preamp, but also offers A/D and D/A conversion.
Therefore it needs ADAT inputs and Outputs.
Well now I am starting to consider the Ferrofish Pulse 16 DX.
And while we are at it, if you want to have an RME AD/DA converter, then it's not the Octamic II (€1299)
Then it is the ADI 8 DS MKIII (€1499) like I told you in post #2:
https://www.thomann.de/de/rme_adi8_ds.h … arch_prv_3
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/adi_8_ds_mk3.php
or two times the ADI-2 FS as alternative as it offers latest conversion quality to you, but is more expensive, has the highest per port costs and then you have 2 small devices. To have a 2nd device also 19" rack mountable I would regard as advantage.
Then you could get a 3 RU rack and rack the UFX II together with the AD/DA converter.
I recommend to take 3 RU because then you can leave more space between the devices so that they do not heat up.
At the end you can choose between these devices:
https://www.thomann.de/gb/digital_conve … 54105=true
Focusrite I personally do not like so much, because I made bad experience with their
- displays (inaccurate display of level)
- potentiometer (on the 1st 70% nothing happens and on the last 30% you are fiddeling around in fractions of a mm)
You need to try whether this changed.
You also need to take care, that best all I/O ports are pluggable at the device itself.
This is not the case for the Focusrite and the Presonus.
There you would require breakout cables (which are not so cool) or breakout boxes,
where both tends to be expensive and the boxes would also require additional rack space.
Therefore the Ferrofish Pulse 16 would be the only device which gives you the best advantages of all devices.
- all is pluggable at the device
- you have even 16 i/o (Inputs AND Outputs)
- more sustainability with the purchase
Or the Behringer or RME (if you want to stay with RME).
Ramses, I think I will choose the Pulse 16 DX. I may as well spend a little more money and be sure that everything is in good order. Thanks so much for your patient and solid help.
You're welcome. Oh, the DX model I didn't know yet. It's not available yet at Thomann.
Well when investigating further, the DX offers two additional interface standards, MADI and Dante, therefore it costs ~€1999.
MADI you do not require, otherwise you would have bought the UFX+ (with MADI) not the UFX II (without MADI).
Dante you also do not require, because UFX II does not support Dante.
BTW .. Dante is also a twofold sword, as the company who invented this standard wants royaltees for their chips. More preferrable is IMHO to get devices based on the free AVB standard, but as always, tastes are different and RME therefore offers AVB and Dante recording interfaces so that everybody can choose what he wants. But you see already that RME sets on AVB when developing their own devices (see M32 Pro devices).
To sum up, I think you only require the "Pulse 16", not the "Pulse 16 DX" which costs more than double.
Another advantage of the Ferrofish 16 is, that you can upgrade it to an 16 MX later at any time,
to even support MADI if this should become an option to you.
And only around €200 as upgrade price for MADI is fair.
https://www.synthax.co.uk/ferrofish/fer … rade-code/
https://www.synthax.co.uk/ferrofish/fer … ulse16-mx/
Also sexy if you want to sell it later, then also people with MADI equipment would have an interest.
Hey ramses...did you know that Ferrofish has a Pulse 16 "MX"? It is around $600 cheaper than the 'DX'. Do you know if it will be suitable for what I want to do?
Here it is:
https://ferrofish.com/en/products/pulse16-mx/
It seems to be basically the same but without some of the added digital conversion/ connectivity of the "DX".
What do you think?
Or for that matter there is the Pulse 16 too:
https://ferrofish.com/en/products/pulse16/
EDIT: Oh, I see you have already mentioned the Pulse 16. So....the Pulse 16 (not MX or DX) can suit my requirements?
I am talking the whole time about the Pulse 16 and are giving you URLs to exactly this device.
The other device models support interface standards that you do not need: MADI and DANTE.
And which cost even more than you want to spend.
Did you buy the UFX+ which would support MADI ? No you got the UFX II.
Do the UFXII/UFX+ support DANTE ? No.
So the Pulse 16 is exactly what you need and can even be upgraded to MADI which is generally an interesting thing.
But you would require another RME recording interface supporting MADI like the UFX+, so this is only a "theoretical"
advantage for you or when selling this device.
Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I went looking for the Pulse 16 on other sites the DX was always the one displayed. The ADAT only Pulse never showed up on my searches. But now I know exactly what you have been saying the whole time. This is a great option for me. Thanks again...again!
You're welcome ;-)
One more question...I just got the Pulse 16...solid looking unit. Fine work.
In connecting to my RME Fireface UFX II....how many ADAT cables will I need to be able to use all 16 channels?
The Pulse 16 has 4 pairs of ADAT i/o ports. But I think the Fireface UFX II only has 2 pairs.
I just don't understand what cabling I need. If I run at SMUX1 that means I can transfer 8 channels. So do I need an ADAT out from the RME and into the Pulse and then out from the Pulse and into the RME....for 8 channels and then the same again for the other 8 channels, making 4 ADAT cables in total that I will need?
Thanks
See also handbook 40.4 and 40.5
The 2 ADAT ports on the UFX II allow you to use all 16 ports at 44.1/48 kHz.
For higher sample rates the amount of channels will be reduced due to multiplexing S/MUX / S/MUX4.
ADAT = 8 channel @44.1/48 kHz
For 16 channels @44.1/48 kHz you need 2 ADAT ports.
For 16 channels @88.2/96 kHz you need 4 ADAT ports.
Most devices support multiplexing of channels:
2 channels à 44.1/48 kHz will be used to form a 88.2/96 kHz channel (S/MUX, DS, double speed)
4 channels à 44.1/48 kHz will be used to form a 176.4/192 kHz channel (S/MUX4, QS, quad speed)
So .. if you use
- 88.2/96 kHz, then you can only use 50% of ports = 8
- 176.4/192 kHz, then you can only use 25% of ports = 4
If you would like to use all 16 I/O ports at higher sample rates (double or quad speed),
then the only solution for you would be to upgrade to UFX+ with MADI
and to get the MADI version of the Ferrofish (Pulse 16 MX).
There is an option to upgrade the device as I told you already, it's about the same price.
If you want to have the logo PULSE 16 MX on the front, then you should get the Pulse 16 MX device.
MADI has 64 channels @44.1/48, 32 channels @88.2/96 and so on. Higher sample rates are not required.
It also allows you cable length between each device of a MADI ring up to 2km which is also very nice for studio cabling.
MADI would give you the flexibility of 32 channels @88.2 / 96. So you could even add 16 Mic preamps more at double speed without any channel loss by the required multiplexing at higher sample rates.
The other advantage, if you expand by MADI, then you still have the ADAT ports free to use them i.e. to connect to other devices or into the direction of your HiFi, shall you use it at home. Then you can use your HiFi as additional Monitor pair to check the sound etc or use the computer as player for FLAC files etc.
The 2 ADAT ports on the UFX II allow you to use all 16 ports at 44.1/48 kHz.
This is perfectly fine for me.
One more dumb question...how many Optical cables will that require?
One dumb answer: how many cables fit between 2 ADAT ports ? Just one.
Depends what you want. If you want only input or output channels: 2. Need both ? 4.
Mutec TOSLINK cable is good: https://www.thomann.de/de/mutec_optisches_kabel_1m.htm
Sommer cable is too thick, you get tension on the i/o port, this I can't recommend:
https://www.thomann.de/de/sommer_cable_ … l_075m.htm
With the Mutec I can easily achieve 15m up to 192 kHz between an UFX+ and ADI-2 DAC.
Thanks so much ramses. Yes I worked out, with your help I will need 4 optical cables.
Thanks again. I think I am ok now!
Can someone help?
I don't understand the configuration of the ADAT ports on the Pulse 16.
See here: https://ferrofish.com/en/products/pulse16/
The first 4 ports say ADAT 1 on top and ADAT 2 below. It is marked 'IN 1-8', 9-16 OUT and then below 1-4 and 5-8.
I have no idea what that refers to. The manual has 1/2 a page on this with little explanation.
The second set of 4 ports say IN OUT IN OUT above and below says 9-12 ADAT 2 13-16.
I don't know what to make of this layout.
I want to make all 16 channels work at 44.1. I want to connect to my RME Fireface UFX II...which has 4 ADAT ports total.
Do I just use the first 4 ports from the Pulse 16? The ones marked IN 1-8, 9-16 OUT and 1-4 5-8???
Thanks
What's on top is for operation at 44/48k, and what's written beneath the ports is the configuration for 88/96.
As the UFX only has two ADAT I/O, just connect the first two Ferro ins to UFX outs and outs to ins. This will provide 16 ADAT channels at 44/48k, and 8 at 88/96. You can't use more with the UFX.
Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME
Thanks a lot
Would be nice if the Ferrofish manual stated as such.
I probably should have understood that myself. It's clear once pointed out. So, thanks a lot.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Adding i/o to Fireface UFX II
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.