You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Any advice appreciated for new audio interface
Hi
Here is my PC specs
CPU: AMD 1950x
M.B: ASUS ROG STRIX X399-E GAMING
RAM: CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3333MHz C16
SSD for Os: SAMSUNG 980 PRO 1TB PCIe NVMe Gen4 Internal Gaming SSD M.2
P.S : RMi Series™ RM1000i — 1000 Watt 80 PLUS® Gold Certified Fully Modular PSU
+
Steinberg UR-22 audio interface
Where is my Full post ?
RME offers a wide range of products, price range from €357 - €2700.
What is your budget ?
And you need to be more specific what type of interface you need.
Which connection to PC is preferred. Still USB ?
How many analog, digital ports and what type of ports do you need ?
What devices do you want to connect.
RME offers a wide range of products, price range from €357 - €2700.
What is your budget ?And you need to be more specific what type of interface you need.
Which connection to PC is preferred. Still USB ?
How many analog, digital ports and what type of ports do you need ?
What devices do you want to connect.
Thank you ramses
I wrote everything in my post, but only the first few lines appeared i don't know why! tried to edit my post but again the first few lines appeared
Then post it here as a reply
Hi
Here is my PC specs
CPU: AMD 1950x
M.B: ASUS ROG STRIX X399-E GAMING
RAM: CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3333MHz C16
SSD for Os: SAMSUNG 980 PRO 1TB PCIe NVMe Gen4 Internal Gaming SSD M.2
P.S : RMi Series™ RM1000i — 1000 Watt 80 PLUS® Gold Certified Fully Modular PSU
+
Steinberg UR-22 audio interface
Nothing again
why this forum keeps cut my post/ reply and keeps appear first several lines
Strange, maybe cause you are new. Could be spam protection. Just thel us what you need in short
ok
I look forward to buying a new audio interface to fix the latency issues
i just looking to use a lot of VSTi tracks and need 4 input for my keyboards "Pa4x + Triton"
my budget's about 1000$
Best you can get is IMHO currently UCX II, but this is a little over budget, but IMHO worth it.
Check this blog article and the excel that I provide in the article.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … B-MADIfac/
Direct link to Excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … -04b-xlsx/
Here a posting about the features: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=33222
My problem with my current audio interface UR-22 is: if i set the buffer size to 32 i got about 4.5 ms in+out latency its works good for 2 or 3 instrument tracks , now if i increase the buffer size to 128 i got about 13 ms of latency and that is not perfect to playing / recording, i can't use a lot of instrument track without increase the buffer size = latency time to a value that's not suitable for playing at all.
Best you can get is IMHO currently UCX II, but this is a little over budget, but IMHO worth it.
Check this blog article and the excel that I provide in the article.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … B-MADIfac/Direct link to Excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … -04b-xlsx/
Here a posting about the features: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=33222
Thank you so much ramses
Do you think I really have a problem with the audio interface? I'm afraid to pay $1, 500, and don't get a performance like I was hoping for.
My cpu usage always is very low, That's what made me think my audio interface is the issue.
There could be other problems with the pc even though it is powerful. Is it optimised for audio? I think you are expecting too much to get buffers at 32 samples and have lots of vst instruments playing. I have a fast pc and run my Babyface pro fs at 64 which I find is great for low latency ( I play my Roland td30 edrums to trigger SD3 ) I can run lower but I find I can have large projects at 64 without having to change.
There could be other problems with the pc even though it is powerful. Is it optimised for audio? I think you are expecting too much to get buffers at 32 samples and have lots of vst instruments playing. I have a fast pc and run my Babyface pro fs at 64 which I find is great for low latency ( I play my Roland td30 edrums to trigger SD3 ) I can run lower but I find I can have large projects at 64 without having to change.
Hi mkok and thank you for your response : )
No i just reduce the buffer size to 32 or 64 to to fix latency issue, even the smallest buffer size it is still not so good to playing compared to the size of a small project like this. and that makes me unable to add more instruments, so there are no ways to have +10 instruments track without increase the buffer size = more latency = not suitable for playing at all
I watched many videos of musicians using tons of instruments + audio tracks + FX without problems even though they use similar or less PC specifications! 
RME drivers are efficient but as mkok says the question is, how good the pc hw/drivers are.
If they block cpu cores for too long then they can block audio to be processed in time (-> high dpc latencies).
No ASIO driver can be so good and compensate badly written driver blocking CPU cores.
For this to understand you need to know how a computer works and that Windows / Apple are no realtime OS.
There are many threads in this forum where I explained that.
Use extended search and search for my name and LatencyMon.
RME drivers are efficient but as mkok says the question is, how good the pc hw/drivers are.
If they block cpu cores for too long then they can block audio to be processed in time (-> high dpc latencies).
No ASIO driver can be so good and compensate badly written driver blocking CPU cores.
For this to understand you need to know how a computer works and that Windows / Apple are no realtime OS.
There are many threads in this forum where I explained that.
Use extended search and search for my name and LatencyMon.
Thank you so much ramses
i will take a look into yout post about LatencyMon
By the way, I didn't have any problems testing LatencyMon.
I only wanted to mention that RME drivers are superb, but can't solve every deficite of PC/mainboard/HW/drivers.
I’m reporting about 2ms latency at 44.1 with buffers are 64. The RME drivers are really good. Even 128 gives good latency. Are you sure you are not running plugins on your DAW master buss as the numbers you quote should not be noticeable latency. I can play drums or keyboard and there is no noticeable latency at all. The drums especially show up latency problems as they feel sort of spongy when getting above 10ms. Below that the feel is immediate.
ok
I look forward to buying a new audio interface to fix the latency issues
i just looking to use a lot of VSTi tracks and need 4 input for my keyboards "Pa4x + Triton"
my budget's about 1000$
4 Analog inputs? How did you connect your devices to the UR22 you now have?
The Babyface has 4 inputs, 2 XLR, 2TSR - if that works it would be a good alternative. Super low latency and has MIDI if that matters.
Thank you ramses & mkok ❤
I’m reporting about 2ms latency at 44.1 with buffers are 64. The RME drivers are really good. Even 128 gives good latency. Are you sure you are not running plugins on your DAW master buss as the numbers you quote should not be noticeable latency. I can play drums or keyboard and there is no noticeable latency at all. The drums especially show up latency problems as they feel sort of spongy when getting above 10ms. Below that the feel is immediate.
Yes i work with 44.1 too, but as i said i get about 4.5ms using 32 buffer size , about 7.5ms / 64 ..... but with 128 and more i get incurable latency result that makes me unable to play / record with a medium-sized project. I used to use "Render in place" option for each instrument track, and then disable the instrument track but that's totally unprofessional,
Note: I don't have drop problems if I increase the buffer size at all, my problem is just with the latency, as I mentioned, so I'm thinking that buying RME audio interface will solve all my issues.
ANAFREE wrote:ok
I look forward to buying a new audio interface to fix the latency issues
i just looking to use a lot of VSTi tracks and need 4 input for my keyboards "Pa4x + Triton"
my budget's about 1000$4 Analog inputs? How did you connect your devices to the UR22 you now have?
The Babyface has 4 inputs, 2 XLR, 2TSR - if that works it would be a good alternative. Super low latency and has MIDI if that matters.
Hi NoisyNarrowBandDevice
ANAFREE wrote:ok
I look forward to buying a new audio interface to fix the latency issues
i just looking to use a lot of VSTi tracks and need 4 input for my keyboards "Pa4x + Triton"
my budget's about 1000$4 Analog inputs? How did you connect your devices to the UR22 you now have?
The Babyface has 4 inputs, 2 XLR, 2TSR - if that works it would be a good alternative. Super low latency and has MIDI if that matters.
Hi and thanks for your response
i don't use my hardware sounds too much, + for live performance i connect Triton to pa4x mic/line input,
Is Babyface has a good latency as UCX II ?
Yes it has. I have one and also a PCI rme interface (which has the best latency in theory), but they are equally good. RME interfaces are realy playable up to a 256 buffer. 512 starts to feel sluggish.
My problem with my current audio interface UR-22 is: if i set the buffer size to 32 i got about 4.5 ms in+out latency its works good for 2 or 3 instrument tracks , now if i increase the buffer size to 128 i got about 13 ms of latency and that is not perfect to playing / recording, i can't use a lot of instrument track without increase the buffer size = latency time to a value that's not suitable for playing at all.
EDIT: see #27+28 below, full RTL is only applicable in my case with a guitar/analog instrument which also needs A/D conversion. If you play VSTi through a digital keyboard you might even be able to work with 256 samples ASIO buffersize at single speed as vinark told.
This is better with RME recording interfaces in general. You can expect, that you will stay below 10ms RTL with ASIO buffer sizes <= 128 samples at 44.1 kHz. With an UFX+ you get 13,2ms at 256 samples.
DPC latencies have nothing to do with audible latencies, it's simply about how well near-realtime audio processing is possible without getting audio drops at lower ASIO buffersizes when working e.g. with one or more VSTi, where you need a small RTL (ASIO buffersizes <= 128) or when the system/ASIO load is higher.
Here an overview of the input/output latencies of products that I am using:
Choose the recording interface not too small, it's always beneficial to have some spare ports for connecting additional devices, a second pair of monitor or to have digital ports to connect external preamps or AD/DA converter and for loopback.
Also practical to use PC as audio player and to connect it to your HiFi through either SPDIF or to e.g. an ADI-2 DAC/Pro in front of it. Then you could also record or digitize something from the HiFi if it's already connected. ADAT cables can be up to 16m long (according to specs 10m), AES cables even longer.
If you work with MIDI it could also be an advantage to get a RME interface with MIDI port, the timing might be better compared to a separate USB based solution.
Yes it has. I have one and also a PCI rme interface (which has the best latency in theory), but they are equally good. RME interfaces are realy playable up to a 256 buffer. 512 starts to feel sluggish.
Really? Do you really talk about playing a VSTi and listening back the sound while playing, which needs full RTL ?
That makes me wonder.
Why ? I tried it with Kuassa virtual guitar amps.
With 256 buffer I get 13.2 ms RTL, that feels sluggish already.
With 512 (24.8ms) you slow down immediately while playing, not possible.
From my experience you need to stay below 10ms and then you need to use 128 samples (see table above).
vinark wrote:Yes it has. I have one and also a PCI rme interface (which has the best latency in theory), but they are equally good. RME interfaces are realy playable up to a 256 buffer. 512 starts to feel sluggish.
Really? Do you really talk about playing a VSTi and listening back the sound while playing, which needs full RTL ?
Playing a VSTi typically is NOT full RTL. Even Anafree mentioned that he typically uses software instruments, so does not use the analog record path. Then 256 might be tolerable.
Good point. In my case I have definitively the full RTL as I have A/D conversion of guitar on top through INSTR input.
Hi and thanks for your response
i don't use my hardware sounds too much, + for live performance i connect Triton to pa4x mic/line input,
Is Babyface has a good latency as UCX II ?
Latency is same between the two devices.
Can you pls explain your setup in more detail? What instruments do you use, how do you connect them to your interface and computer, what software and DAW do you use?
Thx!
Good point. In my case I have definitively the full RTL as I have A/D conversion of guitar on top through INSTR input.
So for you 128 would be ok playing guitar if we have the same perception of latency.(if the moddeling you use is latency free that is)
ANAFREE wrote:Hi and thanks for your response
i don't use my hardware sounds too much, + for live performance i connect Triton to pa4x mic/line input,
Is Babyface has a good latency as UCX II ?Latency is same between the two devices.
Can you pls explain your setup in more detail? What instruments do you use, how do you connect them to your interface and computer, what software and DAW do you use?
Thx!
I have an older computer but reasonably fast Core2quad O.C.@4ghz, win10 21H2, 8gb ram, older radeon gfx. Babyface pro fs and/or hdsp9652.
Daw is Cubase 11 pro
Kontakt 6
U-he synths
Omnisphere
88 keys midi controller keyboard usb connected, can also work equally well via midi in of RME, I tried.
Hope this helps!
Anafree, one of the benefits of the RME recording interfaces is the perceived zero latency recording.
Its one reason among many that drew me to RME as opposed many other lesser, more poorly supported manufacturers products.
The quality of assistance and guidance you have already received from the great people here, is a direct mirror reflection of the quality of support provided by this excellent manufacturer.
If my experience is anything to go by, provided you read the manuals, watch the video tutorials and ask for help if you get stuck, as we all do at times, you should do well with RME. It is a step up to a complete higher level. Altogether beyond what you are presently accustomed to.
If I may say so. There is a lot to be said for purchasing the best possible RME product from their range that you can afford, even if at this moment it might feel like a stretch. The thing is, doing so often saves money in the long run, because over time, our requirements inevitably grow along with our interest and then, extra features which we suddenly find needful, are already there.
That is just my opinion, but any of the superb RME interfaces will serve you well.
Despite the excellence of the RME systems with TotalMixFX.
It may be, that any difficulties, such as you experienced in regard to VST instruments lays with the configuration and implementation of your computing system.
Whilst such matters are not strictly the remit of a forum dedicated to RME equipment, I am continually astonished at the heart-warming generosity of the excellent people here, who regularly hand hold other RME users, through their non RME problems.
One thing you can do to help yourself right now despite the difficulties, is to record and print your VST instruments, immediately after you have tracked them. In other words, commit to the sound you want recorded, provided you are hearing that sound in the live room.
Years ago, professional recording engineers with a strictly limited number of channels and tracks to record to, HAD to commit themselves as the recording developed, and as they bounced tracks around to get more over dubs on to the limited resource’s they had available.
Despite that limitation, perhaps even because of it as they HAD to get creative, they were able to record some of the most acclaimed albums created throughout the entire history of recording. For instance, The Beatles Sgt. Peppers album was recorded on a J-37 Studer four track tape machine.
Often when the four tracks were full, they were transferred to another four-track but just using one or two tracks, using a process called "reduction". Then more tracks were added and so on. Heck, I can remember when all the tracks were used, one time overdubbing a lead guitar part, straight from the mixing console, while the reduction was taking place to a two track Studer mastering machine, for a particular album.
Later Studer multi-tracks could be rewired internally from standard as supplied to allow bouncing tracks within the machine, avoiding "reductions", typically allowing sixteen tracks with a single eight track, like an A-80.
Funnily enough, a producer that had been working with the Beach Boys in California, recording here showed how to do this in the early seventies, and it worked well, better than reduction.
The point is, people then didn’t have the luxuries and limitless tracks that people incorrectly seem to regard as being necessary today.
But possessed the confidence to commit what they had recorded and print it.
Quote: “I used to use "Render in place" option for each instrument track, and then disable the instrument track but that's totally unprofessional”
With respect, I trust the above comments will assist you to view the above statement in an altogether different light.
An RME interface will permit you to put your best foot forward regarding the issues that concern you.
A logical step towards enabling implementation of your desired work methodology.
Playing drums 128 is just about ok for me. 256 just doesn’t feel right. I’m much happier with buffers at 64
Playing drums 128 is just about ok for me. 256 just doesn’t feel right. I’m much happier with buffers at 64
Keyboard or drumpads or kit? On a keyboard layering drums is doable at 256. Playing a full kit at once with feel impossible, I would guess. But I don't have the skills for that. Maybe first BD and snare in one go and the the hats. Or layering complex polyrythmic percussion, but also layer for layer.
I also prefer 128, but honestly don't feel better at 64. And I don't feel really handycapped at 256 (with zero latency from plugins).
For the original poster, with RME buffer sizes are true. With other manufacturers there is often double or even triple buffers and large hidden safety buffers which can even make 64 feel sluggish and 256 unplayable..
Your guidance is so helpful. Thank you Guys ❤
1 Q: Does that mean that the VST latency time = Output latency? not RTL? useful information!
I am from Jordan / Middle east, there are no RME Store, so I'll buy UCX II from Ebay or Sweetwater and ship it to my sister's address to bring it with her when she comes to visit us in March to avoid customs costs.
ANAFREE wrote:Hi and thanks for your response
i don't use my hardware sounds too much, + for live performance i connect Triton to pa4x mic/line input,
Is Babyface has a good latency as UCX II ?Latency is same between the two devices.
Can you pls explain your setup in more detail? What instruments do you use, how do you connect them to your interface and computer, what software and DAW do you use?
Thx!
Hardware: Korg pa4x + Korg triton, I connect them using usb cable for Midi & Pa4x audio output L+R for audio
Software: Cubase pro 11 /Swam collection /Pianoteq /Kontakt /Ezbass
mkok wrote:Playing drums 128 is just about ok for me. 256 just doesn’t feel right. I’m much happier with buffers at 64
Keyboard or drumpads or kit? On a keyboard layering drums is doable at 256. Playing a full kit at once with feel impossible, I would guess. But I don't have the skills for that. Maybe first BD and snare in one go and the the hats. Or layering complex polyrythmic percussion, but also layer for layer.
I also prefer 128, but honestly don't feel better at 64. And I don't feel really handycapped at 256 (with zero latency from plugins).
For the original poster, with RME buffer sizes are true. With other manufacturers there is often double or even triple buffers and large hidden safety buffers which can even make 64 feel sluggish and 256 unplayable..
Yes
That's exactly what I feel.
mkok wrote:Playing drums 128 is just about ok for me. 256 just doesn’t feel right. I’m much happier with buffers at 64
Keyboard or drumpads or kit? On a keyboard layering drums is doable at 256. Playing a full kit at once with feel impossible, I would guess. But I don't have the skills for that. Maybe first BD and snare in one go and the the hats. Or layering complex polyrythmic percussion, but also layer for layer.
I also prefer 128, but honestly don't feel better at 64. And I don't feel really handycapped at 256 (with zero latency from plugins).
For the original poster, with RME buffer sizes are true. With other manufacturers there is often double or even triple buffers and large hidden safety buffers which can even make 64 feel sluggish and 256 unplayable..
Yes I play in using my Roland td30.
Yes I play in using my Roland td30.
Well those are not latency free either before they trigger a sound through midi to your PC, so the less the better from your computer/audio interface.
In these circumstances adding dsp in a monitor speaker could be problematic.
It all adds up!
Cheers!
NoisyNarrowBandDevice wrote:ANAFREE wrote:Hi and thanks for your response
i don't use my hardware sounds too much, + for live performance i connect Triton to pa4x mic/line input,
Is Babyface has a good latency as UCX II ?Latency is same between the two devices.
Can you pls explain your setup in more detail? What instruments do you use, how do you connect them to your interface and computer, what software and DAW do you use?
Thx!
Hardware: Korg pa4x + Korg triton, I connect them using usb cable for Midi & Pa4x audio output L+R for audio
Software: Cubase pro 11 /Swam collection /Pianoteq /Kontakt /Ezbass
So it seems like you only need 2 audio inputs and MIDI?
A Babyface Pro FS should suffice here. It has 4 audio inputs and MIDI. Can be expanded with 8 more audio inputs via ADAT. It's portable and super sturdy construction.
Thank you Noisy for you advise
i searched and found people who have UCX II with manufacturing fault ,
I think there is something wrong with the first version of this device and as I said I am from a country that does not have RME Stores /warranty
I don't know much about RME PCIE cards,does it useful for my requirements? I don't know much about ADAT/MADI ports +
I don't have pre-amp or AD / DA Converters, & don't have any devices with those ports
Is there RME PCIE card doesn't require DA / AD converter? like you said i just need about 4 line input + 2 output , i read a little bit about HDSPe AIO but still not sure if can i use it directly by using Analog Breakout Cable
I've been using the computer since 1997, and I trust the cards more than USB for every PC parts.
Without extras the AIO is 2 in 2 out.
But as I said before the babyface works just as good here as my PCI cards.
But these 2 together have 6 in 2 out plus headphones.
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai … amp;adurl=
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai … amp;adurl=
But the AIO might be dificult to find. And AIO is just as suitable is AIO pro.
Still my bet would be the Babyface pro FS.
I wouldn't buy too small. Your friend could pre-check the UCX II.
And you need to consider how many units have been manufactured / delivered so far and only very few people on forum reported an issue.
Thank you Vinark , ramses
I found a Babyface pro fs "Open Box" on Facebook MarketPlace / 650$ and UCX II New/ 1500$ on Ebay + SweetWater
I only have two question to make a decision, Do all the RME audio interface "USB / Thunderbolt / Firewire / PCI / PCIE have the same latency time? can i buy a small digital mixer and link it through ADAT? if that possible i think I'm going to go about buying one of RME PCIE for some reasons.....
1: I can buy one now and ship it to my country without paying high customs because they won't know what it is and how much it costs
2: The Digital mixer will give me good capabilities to control better than Babyface + UCX II controllers
Please correct me If I am wrong.
> Do all the RME audio interface "USB / Thunderbolt / Firewire / PCI / PCIE have the same latency time?
Very similar
> can i buy a small digital mixer and link it through ADAT?
Then AD/DA is on the small digital mixer.
With higher sample rates you loose ADAT channels due to multiplexing.
I think the quality of AD/DA conversion with a recording interface is higher.
So I regard it as a good strategy to have close to the required analog I/O at the interface.
Then the amount of ports/channels doesn'st shrink with higher sample rates (double, quad speed).
> The Digital mixer will give me good capabilities to control better than Babyface + UCX II controllers
TotalMix FX offers more flexibility, submix on a per HW output.
> Do all the RME audio interface "USB / Thunderbolt / Firewire / PCI / PCIE have the same latency time?
Very similar> can i buy a small digital mixer and link it through ADAT?
Then AD/DA is on the small digital mixer.
With higher sample rates you loose ADAT channels due to multiplexing.
I think the quality of AD/DA conversion with a recording interface is higher.
So I regard it as a good strategy to have close to the required analog I/O at the interface.
Then the amount of ports/channels doesn'st shrink with higher sample rates (double, quad speed).> The Digital mixer will give me good capabilities to control better than Babyface + UCX II controllers
TotalMix FX offers more flexibility, submix on a per HW output.
ramses
I'm grateful to you and everyone who responded to my questions . I'll start shopping now to get UCX II at the best possible price.
a little off topic...
@Ramses
thanks for sharing that table with the input/output latencies!
I have a Fireface UFX running on a USB 3.0 PCI card
On 44.1kHz 128 buffer I get:
In: 3.424ms
Out: 4.444ms
Which makes me think, that my RME doesnt run on USB3.0 (seeing the values that you got).
Any advice how to check this?
USB and RME drivers are updated.
UFX is a 30ch USB2 interface and uses a different driver, the older USB driver.
UFX+ is a 94ch USB3/Thunderbolt interface using MADIface USB driver.
Your UFX (USB2 interface) runs in USB2 mode, as every USB3 port is also backward compatible to USB2.
The UFX and UFX+ differ not only in terms of USB but also in terms of converter latency:
UFX 12 / 28 samples @44.1kHz AD/DA
UFX+ 12 / 7 "
So your values for ASIO input latency of UFX with 128 samples ASIO buffersize @44.1 kHz differs a little to my values that I took years ago. Maybe RME adjusted something in the driver, either a small correction or fewer safety buffers, I can't tell exactly. I will keep my old values, as the table has also references to a certain driver and manual version and this is a legacy product anyway.
But thanks for notifying 
oh I overlooked that the USB3 was only with the UFX+
and I prolly forgot about the UFX running as an USB2 interface.
thanks for the infos!
I usually had no issue recording on buffer 128.
but recently I bought the new Shure SRH840A and at the same time I installed the EqualizerAPO (systemwide EQ to try some headphone correction)
I had the feel that 128 setting was to delayed now (for guitar tracking ).
I assumed that the EQAPO added some delay so I deinstalled it.
But still there was this - "its not like before feeling" and that brought me here.
Seeing your latency table shows me, that my setup is okay.
So im guessing that I just hear things more clearly on the new headphone...they are better sealed than my old AKG K271
Will just go with 64 buffer size now...which is working fine.
thanks again!
I am so happy to enjoy to RME family.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Any advice appreciated for new audio interface
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.