Topic: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

The distributor told me that RME has withdrawn the Fireface UFX +. Is it true?

2

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

The UFX+ can no longer be manufactured because Intel ended the production of the required TB chips long ago. We used our stock to continue building UFX+, but stock is gone now.

To answer an expected next question: We were ready to change to a newer chip with TB 3 support (fully developed new digital board), but Intel delayed its shipment (chip crisis) for a long time. Then when the chip was expected to be shipped Intel declared it EOL (end of life). Beginning a production using this chip made no sense anymore.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

3 (edited by mst 2022-10-02 13:57:35)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Are there any new plans? I'm looking for an optical MADI + maybe Thunderbolt + maybe USB3 + maybe Dante + TotalMix FX with plugs. I would like to upgrade my SSL MX4 with the option to upgrade to a laptop. UFX + was perfect. In MADIFace USB i miss effects (reverbs for listening). Of course, you can give the FX external, but it's nice to have it all together.
I hope this is understandable because Google translates ...

4

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

I don't think there will be a new TB audio interface from RME...or anyone else...

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

MC wrote:

I don't think there will be a new TB audio interface from RME...or anyone else...


Then what is the plan for a high channel count flagship interface since that seems to be the major reason to use TB?

6 (edited by ramses 2022-10-31 07:43:59)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

johndnj wrote:
MC wrote:

I don't think there will be a new TB audio interface from RME...or anyone else...


Then what is the plan for a high channel count flagship interface since that seems to be the major reason to use TB?

Much likely USB3 which is a proven solution.

With USB2 68/68 channel in/out are possible (-> MADIface Pro).
With USB3, even 196/198 channel in/out (-> MADIface XT).

So USB3 is fully sufficient for 94ch in/out (UFX+).

Additionally, you benefit from higher maximum cable length of 3 m (vs 2 m Thunderbolt) and cabling is cheaper compared to TB.

BR Ramses
UFX+, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub12Pro

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

MC wrote:

I don't think there will be a new TB audio interface from RME...or anyone else...

Maybe there's a future USB4 interface which is TB3/TB4 compatible or a future TB4 interface?

8 (edited by kd 2022-11-08 00:45:06)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

MC wrote:

The UFX+ can no longer be manufactured because Intel ended the production of the required TB chips long ago. We used our stock to continue building UFX+, but stock is gone now.

To answer an expected next question: We were ready to change to a newer chip with TB 3 support (fully developed new digital board), but Intel delayed its shipment (chip crisis) for a long time. Then when the chip was expected to be shipped Intel declared it EOL (end of life). Beginning a production using this chip made no sense anymore.

Just had to read today ...

"Urgently seeking UFX+ to buy ".     o)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Well RME had better inform the U.S dealers then regarding the UFXII +....all of them are stating due to be back in stock in January ....and some are even taking orders for it.  Grrr...so the only up to date RME solution is UFX II with USB 2.0 to interface with Mac M1?  Makes me want to keep my Fireface 400 working even more ...but am I going to have nightmares with the new Mac processors?

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

And the UFX+ is still up on RME's list of interfaces    https://www.rme-audio.de/external-cards.html

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Hi Guys ,

I am thinking of getting new sound card and was thinking about  the UFX+ or UAD Apollo
Need all those inputs and ADAT SPDIF and now i understand there's no no UFX+ anytime soon ?

I had the old Apollo and old FF 800 and really loved both , FF preferred because of the usb
If there's no UFX+ maybe i will consider going with the Prism Titan ( i am aware to the luck of inputs there ) but really love the Total Mix and the RMe stability

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

I would wait a little, if you can.
The UFX+ could not be built anymore because Intel couldn't deliver those TB chips anymore.
Reading MCs comments there will be no other TB based interface anymore.
I could think of that an UFX+ successor might be on the way, most likely with USB3 but without TB.

@MC: any plans / roadmap that you could share at this point regarding an UFX+ successor with MADI support?

BR Ramses
UFX+, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub12Pro

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

This is disappointing. I literally have been waiting for months for the UFX+, hounding every dealer that carried them with no luck. And now I find out that it's discontinued.

While I understand it's out of RME's hands, it really limits me because of the feature set that the UFX+ had.

14 (edited by Muffin 2022-11-27 18:50:29)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

ramses wrote:

I would wait a little, if you can.
The UFX+ could not be built anymore because Intel couldn't deliver those TB chips anymore.
Reading MCs comments there will be no other TB based interface anymore.
I could think of that an UFX+ successor might be on the way, most likely with USB3 but without TB.

@MC: any plans / roadmap that you could share at this point regarding an UFX+ successor with MADI support?

It's my understanding that Intel wouldn't manufacture those chips anymore, not that they couldn't.

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Add me to the list of people who can't wait to see a new version of the UFX+ smile

I mainly need the possibility to connect a mastering converter over AES3 or S/PDIF and at the same time stay connected to a summing mixer over MADI (with additional converter) or 16-ch analog via D-SUB like on my Antelope Orion Studio.

Steadyclock FS and a general update of converter chips are obvious. However, it would be awesome to see dedicated monitor outputs with even higher spec conversion.

I'd actually be happy enough with a USB 3 only version of the old one otherwise. Any chance that could be arranged?

16 (edited by sinolonis 2022-12-06 21:05:57)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Hi everyone!
I’m new on this forum and super interested in this interface too. I may have chance to buy ufx+ but judging from this thread  I’m not sure this information is credible. I also have information that successor of the ufx+ may launch in March 2023. Can anyone confirm this?

17 (edited by waedi 2022-12-07 08:42:28)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

sinolonis wrote:

Hi everyone!
I’m new on this forum and super interested in this interface too. I may have chance to buy ufx+ but judging from this thread  I’m not sure this information is credible. I also have information that successor of the ufx+ may launch in March 2023. Can anyone confirm this?

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 64#p192364

this information is 100% credible !

Wondering where you got your insider RME informations from as you are new to this forum... ?
A warm welcome !

M1-Ventura, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

There's a few UFX+ in stock around in some Australian & Canadian stores, but you'd be ofcourse paying import tax & shipping etc.

Not sure why this one at bhphotovideo store says March 16, 2023 for "Expected Availability" though .

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ … annel.html

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

waedi wrote:

this information is 100% credible !

Wondering where you got your insider RME informations from as you are new to this forum... ?
A warm welcome !

I just came across this information:) Im fighting with myself with buying ufx II now or wait a bit. If I knew that ufx+ successor launch at the end of first quarter of 2023 I would wait. That futureproof madi is something I cant ignore. I wonder if price of new „ufx+” will be much different too. Aahhh…. We’ll see:)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Ash Rothschild wrote:

There's a few UFX+ in stock around in some Australian & Canadian stores, but you'd be ofcourse paying import tax & shipping etc.

Not sure why this one at bhphotovideo store says March 16, 2023 for "Expected Availability" though .

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ … annel.html

It's showing as discontinued now. I was on the list since October of last year but never got one. Too late now.

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

Wouldn’t be great if RME added a hdmi port with Atmos decoding.
Like I asked for on these forums years ago!

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

TheDuke wrote:

Wouldn’t be great if RME added a hdmi port with Atmos decoding.
Like I asked for on these forums years ago!

That would be game changing.

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

It's really unfortunate. While RME's USB drivers are better than most, I do notice a higher demand on system resources than with my previous Thunderbolt interface.

24

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

And did that one also have 188 channels of I/O?

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

@zephonic: and please notice, that usually all channels are instantly being transferred, no matter whether in use or not.

With only a few exceptions:
- Firewire driver: (I think only) for some devices, possibility to deactivate digital channels if not needed (if I remember right)
- HDSPe MADI FX driver: optimized, allocates only resources for groups of 8ch if at least 1 channel is in use.
   (Possibly the same for MADIface XT, but I am not 100% sure).

For the UFX+ definitively, all channels are being transferred instantly.

BR Ramses
UFX+, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub12Pro

26 (edited by zephonic 2023-02-02 21:17:44)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

MC wrote:

And did that one also have 188 channels of I/O?


Unlikely, I never checked as I don’t need that.

Don’t get me wrong, so far I’m very impressed with my UCXII, I can reliably run it at 128 samples all day long and that is amazing for a USB device. In fact, I like it so much I have an ARC incoming, to take full advantage of TotalMix.

I just notice that similar workloads over Thunderbolt tax the system less. That’s not a dig at RME, you have done a fantastic job addressing the inherent limitations of USB.

And if I were a manufacturer, I would not allocate resources to Thunderbolt either, with the way Intel and Apple throw up roadblocks at every turn. I just lament the fact that a protocol as great as Thunderbolt is effectively neutered by its two biggest advocates.

Sorry if you took my post as criticism, it certainly wasn’t intended as such. So far the UCXII has been great for me. But if the UFX+ was still available, I would think hard about upgrading to that.

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

ramses wrote:

@zephonic: and please notice, that usually all channels are instantly being transferred, no matter whether in use or not.

With only a few exceptions:
- Firewire driver: (I think only) for some devices, possibility to deactivate digital channels if not needed (if I remember right)
- HDSPe MADI FX driver: optimized, allocates only resources for groups of 8ch if at least 1 channel is in use.
   (Possibly the same for MADIface XT, but I am not 100% sure).

For the UFX+ definitively, all channels are being transferred instantly.

Last time I read up on USB vs. FW was many, many years ago, and my memory is clouded. But the way I understood it at the time was that USB sends information in packets or bursts, whereas Firewire is a continuous stream of data and as such better suited for real-time audio transfer. The latter also applies to PCIe/Thunderbolt, so I assumed.

But that was a long time ago, in the early days of USB 2.0 and I'm sure things have improved since.

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

I was using
- UFX with FW, USB2
- RayDAT (PCIe)
- tested HDSPe MADI FX
- UFX+ via USB3
another gent from forum gave me his RTL values for UFX+ via thunderbolt.

Check this table and tell me whether you see any _significant_ differences in terms of RTL
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … es-v2-jpg/

And now check this information about my "artificial" big Cubase project which I use for benchmarking (not real work).
I am checking whether playback is still possible without audio loss.
400 tracks with 2 VST in each track and in the sum, so a little bit more than 800 VST in total.
Useful to check different products or whether the system setup has issues (windows updates and what not).
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … cks-de-en/

No audio drops no matter whether I use
- UFX+ (USB3) or
- RayDAT (PCIe)
and the smallest ASIO buffersize at single speed (44.1 kHz, 32 samples) or double speed (96 kHz, 64 samples).

I also didn't notice any significant difference in CPU consumption.
Machine was under load (of course) but no matter what RME solution I used they all behaved accordingly.

I assume you won't work with 400 tracks as well (same as me).
So .. after digesting this information.
Do you still think that it makes a big difference that is worth scratching the head for it?

Initially, I also wanted to switch to a thunderbolt-based system, but now I am fully satisfied using USB.

On my older PC system it was even so wired that USB2 worked better compared to FW400. There were some combinations of sample rate and ASIO buffersize that didn't work well. With the USB driver, no problem.

Pick the solution which works best and supports you best. RME driver seem to be coded according to specs.
If the FW or USB chip(set) is well-designed, if you have a good BIOS and well-designed mainboard, then you should have zero problems, regardless of which driver you choose.

Some people claim that PCIe based solutions should have better RTL or would work better on higher system load.
But when looking at the RTL of different solutions and how well 400 tracks with 800+ VST work with any solution,
well I do not think there is a significant difference. Simply get a reasonable system. And if you need single thread performance get a CPU that delivers also single thread performance. We are in 2023 and CPUs are fast.

BR Ramses
UFX+, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub12Pro

29 (edited by zephonic 2023-02-03 10:14:59)

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

I'm afraid we're going a little off-topic here, so mods feel free to delete if this is not pertinent to the subject at hand.

@Ramses: I'm glad you have a system that works well for you! And I am not challenging your tests and results.

However, plugins on audio tracks is not the same as virtual instruments. Load up an instance of Keyscape, select a grand piano patch, set polyphony to 64 and play some intense piano, with lots of pedal and glissandi. THAT is where the rubber meets the road. Host application also matters: for example, Gig Performer is more efficient than Cubase on my system.

Additionally, the word is Windows machines are actually more efficient at low buffers than Macs, if DAWbench results are anything to go by (FWIW, I'm on a 2021 MacBookPro, M1Max, 64GB RAM). Honestly, my system can handle it at 128, but I can tell it's working to keep up.

So again, not to invalidate or question your findings, but it I'm not sitting here doing tests, I'm just doing music. I honestly don't care much about how many ms of RTL I have, or that I can run 700 tracks of audio.

But playing in real-time with virtual instruments is a different thing, and I notice what a difference an interface can make.


edit:

Guess I'm not the only one who feels this way. Right now, used UFX+ are going for $4500 on Reverb!

https://reverb.com/p/rme-fireface-ufx-p … -interface

Re: Purchase of Fireface UFX +

I see no need to remove our postings.

It's still useful for the thread, as some people seemed to be disappointed that the UFX+ successor will most likely be based on USB3 only (without TB).

I think that this is no big deal, and I also wanted to answer your assumptions in your post #27 that the transport nowadays doesn't make a big difference. At least for RME based systems with FPGA based design, no 3rd party communication chips and efficient drivers.

Regarding VST vs VSTi. I think VSTi are at the end very similar to VST, VSTi usually only need more performance.
This enhanced performance demand I simulated by using 800 VST in total.
This also creates a decent system load which is IMHO comparable to the use of CPU hungry VSTi.

Finally, under such high system-load the same performance demands are there like always for processing audio with near real-time demands, you need:
- an efficiently working PC with good drivers and low DPC latency
- low RTL

The values that I presented to you, to compare the RTL between different RME solutions, makes IMHO sense in this context.

BR Ramses
UFX+, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub12Pro