Topic: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

Greetings.

I’ve purchased a Fireface UFX+ audio interface which does seem to crash my computer. I’ve contacted the retailer that sold me the computer and they even changed the motherboard and the PSU in case they were faulty but the problem insists. I hear pops and clicks and sometimes even the current is audible so I had to turn off the Fireface to protect it. Is there a compatibility issue between the specific motherboard and the interface, because I’ve done everything to optimize windows (high performance, usb not turning off, turned off overclocking, etc). Finally, if there is a compatibility issue, can I solve it without changing motherboard by using a pcie usb/thunderbolt ?

I've tried to find out if this MOBO is using Asmedia chipset but there is no information on its USB ports. I've tried plugging the interface to all different USB ports and it only gets worse.

Thank you in advance

Specs:
CPU: AMD RYZEN 2700x,     
MOTHERBOARD ASROCK X470 FATAL1TY K4
GPU: AMD RX590
ROM: SAMSUNG SSD EVO 860 1TB

2 (edited by ramses 2019-06-04 16:24:11)

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

It seems that their USB is not fully according to the specs.
I also could not see in the manual, that USB is coming from 3rd party chipset like ASMedia, so I assume it's all from chipset.
RME products are usually compatile with USB coming from Intel or AMD chipset.

You could contact ASrock and your dealer to look for an alignment whether you can get a fix (maybe BIOS upgrade) or to get another mainboard.

In contrast to that on my workstation I can operate 2 UFX+, 1 RayDAT and one ADI-2 Pro FS without issues. Little issues started when I connected too many things via USB as well like USB Bluetooth Adapters, bridges, skype phone, etc.

System see here, it changed a little bit over time and got cool additions, 2nd SSD for Win10 test installation, USB3.1, etc:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … mponenten/

What entirely solved the issue for me was to isolate the 2 UFX+ and ADI-2 Pro behind a separate USB 3.0 card !

Unfortunately the more powerful Sonnet card with 4xFL1100 USB3 controller is not available anymore, but it needed anyway a PCIe socket with 4 lanes (x4) where I do not remember whether your board has a good one free:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/legac … 3pcie.html

But there is a similar Sonnet 4-port card available with shared FL1100 USB3 controllers on it, fair enough to isolate one UFX+. Remember from UFX+ handbook, FL1100 is fully supported wink Try it. Needs only a PCIe x1 socket:
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/alle … 4port.html

The nice thing about this card is that it uses MSI (message signalled interrupts) which has advantages under a higher IRQ load. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_S … Interrupts

Wish you luck !

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

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

@ramses Thank you for the reply. I already ordered a PCIe USB3 card with NEC chip which seem to be compatible with the audio interface. I will try it out tomorrow and if nothing happens I will probably sell the motherboard and the CPU and replace them with Gigabyte MOBO (which clearly refers to the USB chips it uses) and Intel 8700k to be sure that there is no compatibility issue again.

4 (edited by ramses 2019-06-05 09:28:58)

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

I'd look at some shops that sell optimized systems for recording. Some (few) also list the built-in HW components.
I would orient myself on that in terms of mainboard, CPU, CPU cooler, memory, SSD. Maybe even a dedicated GPU.

Intel still seems to have the nose ahead when it comes to DPC latencies. At least with the Threadripper platform but maybe also on the mainstream platforms. Better inform yourself on that topic.

This is important for an agile system so that the probability of audio drops is as low as possible even with smaller ASIO buffer sizes. This is especially important if you're recording with VSTi's and need to record with low RTL under 10ms (ASIO buffer sizes between 64 and 128 samples) while the backing track is eventually also still using VSTi's and is not yet rendered to a wave file.

For consumer stuff I personally would prefer ASUS over Gigabyte, MSI and ASRock.
I think Asus still has better support and eventually also technology/design.

When people needed CPU microupgrades via BIOS against Spectre and Meltdown I read that ASUS reacted fastest and for a broader range of mainboards compared to the other competitors.

I got an extremely nice Xeon based server board from Supermicro, but I am not sure how good they perform in the mainboard market for plain desktop systems.

1-2 years ago I heard a real tragic report from a recording user who bought a Gigabyte board. It sounded like an Odysse for him and the simplest things like boot order and stuff like that was not running on this mainboard. So to say the simplest things where you wouldn't expect any problems. And also in other context I have Gigabyte boards not in good memory.

But I also know that vendors can also have bad luck with a certain board and the next follow-up model works better, I had that with MSI, but at the end still was not really happy to get a stable Firewire based platform.

At the end I would nowadays either follow the approach to look what other companies use to build an audio PC (all execpt AMD based) or I would concentrate on a Xeon Build with Supermicro or take an ASUS based system.

But like always .. no guarantees .. every system is a bit different.

If you want to be on the safe side then get a turnkey system for audio, this can safe you time and frustration.

My preference would be at the moment: Xeon based, server or workstation board with a simple BIOS that is not grafically bloated. No overclocking (-> stability + less wear) where you easily can use legacy-boot and turn off all the stuff like "secure boot" etc, which only makes administration harder or things like dual boot or deployment of other operating systems.

The downside is, then you still get no good board with Thunderbolt support if you would like to have it as an option.

Like always, its not so easy to get all wishes and requirements under one hat ;-)

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

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

@ramses For some peculiar reason the DPC latency starts off at maximum of 1000 μs but after a while it stabilizes above 15000(!!!) well above normal levels. I've disconnected every USB port and within windows I disabled all adapters etc but nothing seems to normalize the DPC latency. So I guess this means that some component attached to the motherboard seem to cause chaos. Do you have any idea who the culprit might be before I start taking components out and replacing them? Thank you for your replies and help.

6 (edited by ramses 2019-06-06 11:21:51)

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

No idea, something like this theoretically shall not happen.
I would regard the problems in the area of Driver / BIOS / mainboard design.
At the end this comes all back to the mainboard.

If the DPC are so high then all CPU cores are severely blocked by low level driver activity.
Then even a Sonnet card will not help, because it does not solve the root cause, that the systems CPU is so much blocked, that it can not really perform for anything on this system (drivers, applications).

This is how it should look on an IDLE system with no application running.
And you shall see kernel timer latency values of under 5-10 microsystems.
Windows 7 SP1, LatencyMon v6.7 configured to show Kernel Timer Latency:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zc8wghniggg5ecy/LatencyMon%20v6.70%20-%20Win7.jpg?dl=1

Drivers sorted for highest execution time:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvm0btbx079xiwh/LatencyMon%20v6.70%20-%20Win7%20-%20Drivers%20sorted%20for%20highest%20DPC.jpg?dl=1

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

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

@ramses Well... Asrock suggested I install fresh windows which I did on a whole different ROM and the problem was there and even more evident without even using the internet staying low to keep cpu usage at a bare minimum. It seems I'm going to sell the cpu and motherboard to a gamer and go for a i7-9700k and ASUS MOBO (I cannot afford XEON and Supermicro at this point). I hope this will solve the problem and I can produce music without constant clicks and pops and sudden playback cuts or drops. Thank you very much. Your answers led me to find out a whole lot more about the issue.

8 (edited by ramses 2019-06-06 21:24:53)

Re: Fireface UFX+ Compatibility (USB connection)

You're welcome, I would have given back the stuff as well.
If you get an ASUS board, then best one with the full and not a reduced chipset.
There are even boards available for under €200 which support an Add On Thunderbolt card, shall you want it at a later point.
Dont know how well these board work, but at least worth a try.

This is a modern socket 1151 v2 design allowing also for Thunderbolt expansion:
https://geizhals.de/asus-prime-z390-a-9 … ml?hloc=de

Eventually you should get a machting Thunderbolt adapter as long as they are available.
If I remember right one guy with another board had at some time problems to get parts later with a different brand.
Then you have always an option to use Thunderbolt, shall you need it in the future.

i7-9700k is a good CPU - it has per design no hyperthreads, so you have 8 Cores but no hyperthread cores
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp … mp;id=3335

The i9-9900K has 8 Cores / 16 Threas
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp … mp;id=3334

If I disable the hyptertext cores in my Xeon CPU, then my performance also for Cubase goes down.
Therefore I tend to say that the additional Hypertext cores make sense.

Therefore I would go the extra mile and eventually pay the few bucks more, to that the  i9-9900K with 8 Cores / 16 threads.
https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i7-9700k … 70100.html €378
https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i9-9900k … 70092.html €487

The price difference is not that much: €487 - 378 = €109 (+28%)

Ok not 28% more performance by this according to mixed passmark benchmark
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp … p;id=3335, Passmark 17180
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp … p;id=3334, Passmark 20206
20206 - 17180 = 3026 = +17%

But I think in some load situations it's good, if you have the additional cores, to make use of all CPU resources,
as hyperthreading means, to additionally use resources of a CPU core, that is not in being use by another running thread.

I think as nice as it is to have 8 CPU cores, it would be even nicer to have in total 16 CPU threads.
I have alone 12 CPU threads with my 6 Core CPU which all get nicely utulized under load.

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