• Registered: 2020-02-15
  • Posts: 43

Topic: Product Timeline Question

What is the timeline of the UCX and UFX 2? Are they in sync or did one come later?

What I am getting at is wondering if the UFX 2 has any sonic improvements over the existing UCX..

thanks!

  • Registered: 2020-02-15
  • Posts: 43

Re: Product Timeline Question

Oh great, because I'm thinking of upgrading my UCX and was hoping I get better sound in addition to the ports.

Can you describe any sonic improvements? I was hoping for a reduction in sense of graininess and less noise.

3 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-02-05 06:49:26)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,869

Re: Product Timeline Question

What computer do you have in use may I ask ? CPU / Mainboard ?

UFX II/+ is very nice.

The UFX was always the RME flagship interface. UCX and UFX coexisted many years ago, then UFX has been upraded to UFX+ around RME's 20th anniversary. Here in this article I put together the differences between UFX and UFX+.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … 8-RME-UFX/

One year later the UFX II had been introduced at NAMM for those people who do not need MADI.
Remember, the entry price for the UFX+ was around €2700 ! Now you get it for €2198, thats €500 less.

Around 2y ago when UFX+ and UFX II only differed around €183 in price my strong recommendation was to get the UFX+ because it gives you so many more possibilities: a) by MADI and b) because you can use it with USB3 and Thunderbolt. Even USB2 works (without the MADI channels as 30 channel interface like the UFX II).
Now also the price for the UFX II dropped to €1879 so the difference is a little bit higher. But if you consider that years ago the MADI module alone for a Mic Preamp was around €500.

I still think that the little price difference betwen an UFXII and UFX+ justifies the investment into an UFX+ so that you can make use of MADI in the future, IF there should be a demand for it. The additional MADI channels can still be useful for loopback recording if your ADAT channels should be in use for other things or to keep them free and not to spoil/waste them for loopback recording. Additionally: if USB3 shoud "suck" on your computer you have the alternative to use thunderbolt and vice versa. Another aspect: if you want to use the pitch function of the driver thats only possible with the special thunderbolt. The USB transfer modes of the new USB driver (MADface driver) do not allow for a pitch function.

ARC USB is not expensive and is a nice add-on and brings more comfort into the control room section.

If budget allows and if you want the special features of the ADI-2 Pro FS E BE .. then integrate it into your setup.
I documented my settings here: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

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

4 Reply by superbaka (edited by superbaka 2021-02-05 08:53:54)

  • Registered: 2020-02-15
  • Posts: 43

Re: Product Timeline Question

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Your review said "revised version of analog circuits and DSP", so this sounds like real hardware improvement over the UCX? Is this right?



I am on MacOS. Recently I auditioned the Weiss 501 against my UCX. The impression was extreme grain-free sound (perhaps too smooth) and fuller/larger representation of elements, as well notably lower noise, such as in very quiet recordings of percussion in large halls, the RME was grainy and a bit blurred in noise, the Weiss was as clear as if the instrument was recorded close to the mic. However, overall rendition of music was not notably different, which was impressive considering the cost differences. Both brands have very respectable measurements on a technical level. The Weiss also uses audiophile grade components that I do not think RME believes in, but they can account for pretty substantial sonic differences, and Daniel himself has said this is why he uses them. Anyway, I'm hoping that a move to the UFX II gives me at least some better sonics than my UCX. I've used RME for many years, and I really enjoy it. I also use the ADI-2 on my hi-fi, but I actually find the sonics sub-par to my UCX slightly, when comparing them side by side. (a feeling of less transparency to the music). If the ADI features the same core hardware as the UFX, I would need to do another closer comparison.

5 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2021-02-05 09:00:14)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,869

Re: Product Timeline Question

> Your review said "revised version of analog circuits and DSP", so this sounds like real
> hardware improvement over the UCX? Is this right?

UCX and UFX are two different product lines.
In my UFX+ blog article I compared old flagship iface UFX with UFX+ (not with UCX).

UCX is also nice, but somehow a different story... not the flagship series of USB/FW/TB interfaces of RME.
For this do me a favour and compare the technical data section in the handbook on your own.
This gives you an impression in what regards the interfaces differ when it comes to AD and DA.

Or use my excel where you can compare a lot of things / data from manual, forum, reviews.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … B-MADIfac/
Quick link to the Excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … 0-08-xlsx/

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