Thank you for replying, i have been through forum and know differences and features of both cards. When, I say performance, I mean
1. does the newer AIO PRO have lower latency?
2. Is it more stable at reduced buffer sizes?
3. I also think i read the RAYDAT does NOT have effects, even though it has the TotalMix FX software ( i guess it can only be used for routing purposes)
Technically since all I need is small amount of ADAT channels, either card will work, just trying to see if any advantage going with the newer technology
Thanks

I have RayDAT, UFX, UFX+, tested HDSPe MADI FX.
RME driver have all very similar very good performance in terms of RTL (Round Trip Latency).
See tabular of one of my blog articles:

> 1. does the newer AIO PRO have lower latency?
Depends on what latency you mean ..
- the RTL will be the same over PCIe as they use the same driver
- in terms of converter speed, well as I said, the RayDAT has no converters, its a full digital cards

> 2. Is it more stable at reduced buffer sizes?
They use the same driver. RME drivers are very robust with excellent performance. There are of course always a few systems which might have issues, but this lies in the nature of PC/OS design (BIOS, drivers, mainboard design, ..) and  is not a flaw of the RME card.

> 3. I also think i read the RAYDAT does NOT have effects, even though it has the TotalMix FX software ( i guess it can only be used for routing purposes)

"TotalMix FX" is simply the successor of the older "TotalMix" Software.
The "FX" in the name is not related to FX effects on the card or recording interface.
Some cards have a FX chip, some not, it does not depend on TotalMix FX, it depends whether a FX chip is present on a RME recording interface. Some USB based recording interface have such a chip, some not. In the area of PCI/PCIe cards only the HDSPe MADI FX card has such a FX chip, all other PCI/PCIe cards not.
AIO and RayDAT do not have FX chip on board.

> Technically since all I need is small amount of ADAT channels, either card will work, just trying to see
> if any advantage going with the newer technology

This doesn't matter for the RayDAT as this is a fully digital card without any AD/DA converter.
The advantage of the RayDAT is, that you have other ports, that might be useful for you
and it has the possibility to add an optional Word Clock module.
As I said, look at the I/O ports to get a feeling, what gives you the best advantages.

I personally think that the RayDAT has many advantages and can be expanded very well.
BUT ... you need to add analog I/O first for your monitors and phones.
A very nice combination is: RayDAT, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB.

The new AIO is surely a very nice card, but it is missing a few features that the RayDAT has, i.e. Word Clock and maybe some other I/O ports, you should compare on your own please ! The information is there in manuals and on the webpage, you only need to read and "digest" it.

The RayDAT offers different digital I/O so that you can use it very flexible even for such a setup:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ort-DE-EN/

When the ADI-2 Pro came out, some people were missing TotalMix FX.
The RayDAT in combination with the ADI-2 Pro is a good combination to get TM FX into a setup with the ADI-2 Pro.
And even more.
As the RayDAT has also AES I/O you could connect it to the ADI-2 Pro with ADAT and AES, together with a suitable routing mode on the ADI-2 Pro it is possible to send audio to either phones or monitors by routing audio either to the AES or ADAT OUT port of the RayDAT. If you add now an ARC USB, then you can very nicely change between two TM FX shapshots (routings). At the end you can switch between listening through monitors or phones also with TM FX or the ARC USB.
In addition to the possibility to switch this on the ADI-2 Pro by remapping the keys:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

By the amount and type of digital I/O ports the RayDAT is a very nice card to perform such setups and you can further expand it by using the other 3 / 4 ADAT ports.

And you have two MIDI ports and a Word Clock module, shall you require WC in your setup (when connecting devices which have no ADAT IN ports to learn clock from there).

My personal opinion is, if you can get the UFX II, get the UFX+.

If you don’t need much more Analogue In/Outs in the future where Madi might come in useful, the UFX II will be just fine (and even if you will need some more, the UFX II can also be expanded via ADAT...).

Thank you, for your response sir . Now I will let my mind "digest" this info as well, lol, lol. Cheers!!

** Updated, pls read again **

Old thread, but here we go ...
But still they are two separate audio interfaces in terms of TM FX routing.
You can't route audio channels across both cards.

Therefore my recommendation is still

a) to get a recording interface with sufficient amount of ports  and/or possibilities to expand through AES, ADAT, MADI.
    Only this way it's possible to route any Input/Sw playback to every HW output.

b) if you consider UFX II, then to get an UFX+ instead
    For a few bucks more you get much more options so you have even more flexibility and longer investment protection
    - more possibilites in terms of computer interface: USB3, TB and even USB2 (30ch interface without MADI)
    - if you need pitch function then you have it in the TB driver (new USB transfer modes of new USB driver do not support this)
    - the new USB driver supports very low ASIO buffersizes down to 32 samples - if needed - like the PCI/PCIe cards do
      the older USB driver supports 48 as a minimum. Well enough, but you might have situations where you prefer 32 samples.