> I did not see my 802 via USB 2.0 on your chart
I created this excel sheet only for a few solutions that I own or to which I had access.
The UFX+ Thunderbolt values I got from a forum member to make UFX+ complete.
> I forgot to mention, I'm also using the ARC USB.
With the ARC USB you can control every device which have TM FX. But only those devices which are connected to the computer and if you have several connected to the PC, then you need to deactivate TM FX on all but one.
> I don't know if/when I'm ever changing settings on the 802 itself. I do everything in Totalmix, or Logic.
Thats the point, if you want to change something on the 802, then you need TotalMix FX.
And then you need either USB or Firewire connection to your PC also for the 802 (not only for the RayDAT).
> I guess I don't understand why the RayDAT latency is 6,664ms, but the UFX is only 0,9ms?
> I guess I don't understand how the RayDAT would be so much slower?
The transfer time over USB/Firewire/PCI/PCIe/Thunderbolt takes more time compared to the pure
AD / DA conversion process of an AD/DA converter circuit.
RTL means round trip time. The time for the whole signal chain:
- AD conversion from a Mic at the UFX (time for AD conversion at the circuit 0,27ms)
- transfer from UFX to RayDAT via ADAT (you can neglect this time)
- transfer from RayDAT to DAW/Application via PCIe (input latency of ASIO driver 2,948ms)
- tansfer from DAW/Application to RayDAT via PCIe (output latency of ASIO driver 3,696ms)
- tansfer from RayDAT to UFX via ADAT (you can neglect this time)
- DA conversion of the signal to monitors or phones (time for DA conversion at the circuit 0,63ms)
0,27 + 2,948 + 3,696 + 0,63 = 7,544
> Trust me, I don't want to spend the money on the RayDAT + PCI-e chassis if it's not going to
> make a big difference, but it seems I'm just not getting the speed/performance out of my current set up.
So if you say PCIe chassis .. do you have Thunderbolt ?
You could try migrate to an UFX+ setup, the units price dropped significantly and is only around €180 over an UFX II.
With thunderbolt you have external PCIe which is very fast.
By this you would have the following additional advantages:
- Thunderbolt is equal PCIe (external PCIe)
- no fewer amount of audio channel with higher sample rates at double/quad speed
compared to connect a 802 via ADAT to a RayDAT, at 88.2/96 kHz you loose already
50% of channels when using 2 ADAT ports (16->8)
- little lower RTL times (see excel)
- The UFX+ converter have a little smaller AD/DA conversion time
- Overall a better overhauled analog section (SNR, etc ...)
- DURec (direct USB recording)
- AUTOSET
- Digital Gain control, the gain settings of Mic Preamps can be saved digitally in snapshots,
makes it easier to switch between use cases / Mics / environments
- MADI (64 more channels for expansions, where distance between devices in the MADI chain may be up to 2km,
this is ideal for distribution of devices in a studio (in different rooms), no length limitation of ADAT and more channels.
At higher sample rates you have still more channels left (64 @48, 32 @96, 16 @192 kHz).
- USB3 and Thunderbolt
- Device is fully operatable via display (perfect for standalone operation)
- 6 standalone profiles which are recallable on the device
- ARC USB can be connected at the back of the unit and is also useable for stand-alone operation
The 802 you can keep and connect via ADAT if you want for more Mic inputs and Line In/Outputs or sell to finance this.
I think it will be easy for you to get an UFX+ for evaluation.
Then you can see, whether this brings you benefits.
But there can be many reasons for "performance issues"
Logic might also be a limiting factor. In a recording forum I read that Logic can not scale all tasks across all CPUs of your system. Certain things always run on 1 CPU core. There is a certain trick how to overcome this in projects.
Maybe test also another DAW like Cubase to simply use a different DAW to cross check, whether there is something in the DAW which limits you.
Also many CPU intensive VSTi can be a reason for "bad performance" and a requirement for higher ASIO buffer sizes.
It all depends, you should align with people having similar equipment / projects and compare.
Could also be the case that you need to pick a more performant Apple HW ..
All is possible but difficult to tell from the distance.
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13