1 (edited by Wallace 2023-03-14 15:09:52)

Topic: UFX lll

Now this looks interesting
https://www.rme-audio.de/fireface-ufx-3.html

Wondering if my UFX ll is about to be part exchanged….

Re: UFX lll

It would be good to see a very in-depth comparison between the UFX 3 and the UFX+ as on the surface it appears the UFX 3 is just the UFX+ minus Thunderbolt. The UFX+ already had USB3 just like this device.

Also the UFX+ launched at a price of $2799 in 2016 while this launches at $3,199. I know we're dealing with some inflation in the last 7 years but a 14.3% increase for what is potentially a lesser device with no modern port types (USB3 released in 2008) seems a bit off.

I get all the arguments about USB3 having enough bandwidth, etc, but show me how to plug this device directly in to a modern Apple Silicon machine without a bunch of annoying dongles in-between. It's hard for the end user to quantify the impact (if there is much of any) you get when having to have all of this conversion, drivers the OS has to invoke, etc, with dongles between the device and system.
There are endless debates regarding CPU usage, latency, etc of using USB vs Thunderbolt. Opinions about USB having a higher demand on system resources vs Thunderbolt depending on the drivers Apple invoke in the OS (PCIe vs USB drivers, etc), very slight latency advantages over TB, etc, etc.

There's threads and threads regarding these technical arguments but mine is more focused on the fact RME are selling an even more expensive device in 2023 with an connection type which is 15 years old and is a pain to interface with any modern machine. (Show me where to plug this directly into a modern MacBook Pro).
Is there any good argument for not using a USBC type connector (TB3/4, USB4, USB3.2 at the bare minimum), I can't see any solid argument against providing the end users with a more modern and convenient connection type even if it's not required where bandwidth is concerned? The only reason I can figure out is cost but that seems nullified due to the 14.3% markup in price I mentioned.

Re: UFX lll

show me how to plug this device directly in to a modern Apple Silicon machine without a bunch of annoying dongles in-between

USB3 to USBC and USB2 to USBC are in the box, as well as a standard USB3 cable. So any Thunderbolt3/4 or USB3 connection on the Mac would support the unit.

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

Re: UFX lll

Jeff wrote:

show me how to plug this device directly in to a modern Apple Silicon machine without a bunch of annoying dongles in-between

USB3 to USBC and USB2 to USBC are in the box, as well as a standard USB3 cable. So any Thunderbolt3/4 or USB3 connection on the Mac would support the unit.

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

It's a 15 year old connector on a device newly released in 2023, it would seem weird for cost to be the reason again due to the 14.3% markup. The bandwidth argument I already know from multiple other threads but this isn't a good enough reason on it's own for a modern, new device with a greater markup and potentially less offerings than it's discontinued predecessor.

Speaking of this point and the predecessor, my second question is still to see a nice, very in-depth comparison between the UFXIII vs the UFX+.

None the less, I'm still happy to see new devices coming from RME

5 (edited by bsfreq 2023-03-14 23:58:25)

Re: UFX lll

rfpm wrote:

What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

It's a 15 year old connector on a device newly released in 2023, it would seem weird for cost to be the reason again due to the 14.3% markup. The bandwidth argument I already know from multiple other threads but this isn't a good enough reason on it's own for a modern, new device with a greater markup and potentially less offerings than it's discontinued predecessor.

Speaking of this point and the predecessor, my second question is still to see a nice, very in-depth comparison between the UFXIII vs the UFX+.

None the less, I'm still happy to see new devices coming from RME

What would be the reason going for USB-C when it's not needed?

Sorry, but I don't get this whining over a connector when a fully sufficient and working standard is used. There's plenty of bandwidth on USB 3, It's compatible with all modern USB connectors, and I'd actually much rather have the sturdy and reliable USB 3 type B connector on the unit, compared to a smaller USB-C connector that I've seen turning into loose ones in frequent use.
Also, having a standard that would support higher bandwidths will not magically change the unit's internals or its bandwidth requirements, so I see more value in using a reliable connector with wider (backwards) compatibility than upgrading a connector just for the sake of having the latest of connector types.

What comes to differences between UFX III and UFX+, at least:

-New analog board with better SNR, up to 7dB THD+N, better converters.
-SteadyClock FS vs. Steadyclock on the UFX+,
-USB 3 Class compliant mode with full 94 I/O channel support (Linux, Mac or iPadOS)
-AES Multi-Mode (up to 3 AES/SPDIF I/O's)
-Lack of thunderbolt due to chip shortage and chips no longer being manufactured

Fireface UFX+ | Fireface UFX | Babyface Pro | 12Mic

Re: UFX lll

rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

I'll let others speak to the data-transmission attributes of one bus standard vs. another, but in my experience, USB 2.0 Type B connectors (on the interface end) are substantially more secure mechanically than USB-C connectors.

Re: UFX lll

bsfreq wrote:
rfpm wrote:

What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

It's a 15 year old connector on a device newly released in 2023, it would seem weird for cost to be the reason again due to the 14.3% markup. The bandwidth argument I already know from multiple other threads but this isn't a good enough reason on it's own for a modern, new device with a greater markup and potentially less offerings than it's discontinued predecessor.

Speaking of this point and the predecessor, my second question is still to see a nice, very in-depth comparison between the UFXIII vs the UFX+.

None the less, I'm still happy to see new devices coming from RME

What would be the reason going for USB-C when it's not needed?

Sorry, but I don't get this whining over a connector when a fully sufficient and working standard is used. There's plenty of bandwidth on USB 3, It's compatible with all modern USB connectors, and I'd actually much rather have the sturdy and reliable USB 3 type B connector on the unit, compared to a smaller USB-C connector that I've seen turning into loose ones in frequent use.
Also, having a standard that would support higher bandwidths will not magically change the unit's internals or its bandwidth requirements, so I see more value in (backwards) compatibility than upgrading a connector just for the sake of having the latest of connector types.

What comes to differences between UFX III and UFX+, at least:

-New analog board with better SNR, up to 7dB THD+N, better converters.
-SteadyClock FS vs. Steadyclock on the UFX+,
-USB 3 Class compliant mode with full 94 I/O channel support (Linux, Mac or iPadOS)
-AES Multi-Mode (up to 3 AES/SPDIF I/O's)
-Lack of thunderbolt due to chip shortage and chips no longer being manufactured

"-New analog board with better SNR, up to 7dB THD+N, better converters. " - This sounds interesting, I'd love some elaborated details on this.

Regarding your response to the port, they should move at least to the USB-C connector as it's the standard at this point and a much better built connector vs this 15 year old port which is of objectively worse quality, the older port is much less durable.

On the point of providing PCIe (USB4 / TB3+4), there is no arguing RME are wizards when it comes to squeezing all they can out of USB.

However, USB drivers are less efficient in general due to the way USB indirectly interfaces with the CPU, USB itself involves a fixed bus latency. TB has the lowest impact possible on processing power, USB does use more CPU power over Thunderbolt, PCIe NICs generally offload much of the compute task from the CPU onto the on-board controller, giving your system some headroom during bandwidth intensive tasks. Compare this to USB, much of the compute task is still on the CPU side. USB is pretty CPU intensive at high throughputs. Thunderbolt should allow for lower CPU overhead to move data, even without DMA. Thunderbolt has DMA (Direct memory access) which bypasses the CPU for more functions. Thunderbolt has less latency, since it "talks" to the CPU directly using PCIe lanes, instead of going through the chipset (USB). TB can support Pitch (for those few who need it).

The fact that RME have the best drivers in the market for USB, that produce latency numbers which are close with Thunderbolt PCIe interfaces doesn't mean that they should stick with legacy USB and stop innovating. RME USB drivers are close in latency (but still not beating) Thunderbolt interfaces. They have already reached the limit of USB in terms of latency. If they managed to combine Thunderbolt's ability to use PCIe lanes with whatever clever techniques they are using on their USB drivers to achieve that low latency, the results would be amazing. Thunderbolt due to PCIe is a superior connection protocol, RME are complacent in having the best USB drivers in the present. Competing Thunderbolt solutions already have lower latency than RME and will keep getting lower with time, while I am sure RME have reached the limit with USB 3.0 by now. Thunderbolt  will always have the ability to go lower, since it talks directly to the CPU, bypassing the platform's chipset. It's not about bandwidth like you will see repeated over and over. It's about how fast the interface can "talk" to the CPU. RME will HAVE to switch to Thunderbolt (or whatever standard of like) one day, if they want to stay competitive/relevant.

At the end of the day we all know why they have released the UFXIII and discontinued the UFX+ and haven't even made a minimal change to use a USB type C port vs a 15 year old. Cost, profit, expense and work required. There's a reason they've made a marketing push both internally (their own YouTube channel and posts) and sponsored content (look to RME sponsored YouTube videos from different channels, Audio University, etc), explaining to people why USB is fine vs Thunderbolt. It's because they aren't willing to make the investment both in time and finance to innovate further which we should all expect from them.

Re: UFX lll

AdamBier wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

I'll let others speak to the data-transmission attributes of one bus standard vs. another, but in my experience, USB 2.0 Type B connectors (on the interface end) are substantially more secure mechanically than USB-C connectors.

Interesting to hear your experience with the port type but I've found the opposite to be true. Regardless, it's becoming tech industry standard for a reason.

Re: UFX lll

USB-C connector is IMHO more tiny/fragile, I am glad that RME sticks to the current connector.
Higher bandwidth is not needed, doesn't bring any advantage latency wise.
Be glad that you can connect it to every plain USB3 port and, if needed, take an adapter cable.

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

Re: UFX lll

rfpm wrote:
AdamBier wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

I'll let others speak to the data-transmission attributes of one bus standard vs. another, but in my experience, USB 2.0 Type B connectors (on the interface end) are substantially more secure mechanically than USB-C connectors.

Interesting to hear your experience with the port type but I've found the opposite to be true. Regardless, it's becoming tech industry standard for a reason.

For a reason, lol .. Come one, same like all the silly names for USB3, it's simply a mess.
Not everything what hits the market is a godsend …

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

Re: UFX lll

Seems to be very close to my UFX+...

Frequently in use:
Fireface UFX+, Fireface 800 (as a AD/DA-Converter) and an old RME Sweater... ;-)

Re: UFX lll

I am real excited about the UFX III, as I missed the boat on the UFX+. And personally, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would care one iota about the connector on the interface? I mean, there is a cable that you get with the unit, that has a USB C-type connector in the computer end, so combined with the old A to B that means you can plug the UFX III in to any computer.
And while I understand that TB4 might have a slight teorethical advantage, I think that going full USB is the best way, as it will work with any computer old or brand new and deliver rock solid performance, which is the main reason I choose RME.

Babyface Pro FS, MSI GS66, Studio One

Re: UFX lll

rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

USB-C connector does not use pcie when used as USB. Thunderbolt share the same connector and it uses "pcie".
One big advantage with the USBC connector in this case it is power capability. Would have been possible to have made this
"bus-powered" with usbc. (Im not sure it would be a good idea though, since it uses more power that a Macbooc pro)

14 (edited by mattrixx 2023-03-16 12:38:27)

Re: UFX lll

bace wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

USB-C connector does not use pcie when used as USB. Thunderbolt share the same connector and it uses "pcie".
One big advantage with the USBC connector in this case it is power capability. Would have been possible to have made this
"bus-powered" with usbc. (Im not sure it would be a good idea though, since it uses more power that a Macbooc pro)

Yup and imagine people complaining that it doesn't work properly bus powered.
The team at RME, would have been thinking this through on both engineering and marketing levels, more than most.
Have no doubt, this is going to be a big winner.
I still have an original Babyface, UFX and UFXII..  They all work amazingly well. If I had a machine with PCI slots, I could still use the Multiface II I sold many many years back.... You don't get that kind of support from other companies, that are bought and sold by "major" corporates that just buy others. 
RME is thorough.

----------------
Matt McKenzie-Smith (UFXII, UFX, Babyface) MacStudioUltra OS13.2.1
----------------

Re: UFX lll

bace wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

USB-C connector does not use pcie when used as USB. Thunderbolt share the same connector and it uses "pcie".
One big advantage with the USBC connector in this case it is power capability. Would have been possible to have made this
"bus-powered" with usbc. (Im not sure it would be a good idea though, since it uses more power that a Macbooc pro)

Sorry, but also this makes no sense to me.

#1 There are enough computers in use without USB-C and can't deliver power this way because they do not have USB-C.

#2 An interface in that quality range should get a dedicated PSU to be able to exclude any potential problems with power delivery from the PC side.

#3 The plugs are just too tiny. If you also send power through there, I would be afraid that with a lot of bad luck you might even destroy the electronics (*).

(*)Something like that happened with FW400 when you used power or FW. It was actually designed for hot-swap, but if you canted the plug when plugging something, then you grilled the electronics of the recording interface. Therefore, I would really not consider such a tiny plug and power over it for a device in that price range.

I trust in RME, that they made some good thoughts on what is the best solution for such a unit.

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

Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:
bace wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

USB-C connector does not use pcie when used as USB. Thunderbolt share the same connector and it uses "pcie".
One big advantage with the USBC connector in this case it is power capability. Would have been possible to have made this
"bus-powered" with usbc. (Im not sure it would be a good idea though, since it uses more power that a Macbooc pro)

Sorry, but also this makes no sense to me.

#1 There are enough computers in use without USB-C and can't deliver power this way because they do not have USB-C.

#2 An interface in that quality range should get a dedicated PSU to be able to exclude any potential problems with power delivery from the PC side.

#3 The plugs are just too tiny. If you also send power through there, I would be afraid that with a lot of bad luck you might even destroy the electronics (*).

(*)Something like that happened with FW400 when you used power or FW. It was actually designed for hot-swap, but if you canted the plug when plugging something, then you grilled the electronics of the recording interface. Therefore, I would really not consider such a tiny plug and power over it for a device in that price range.

I trust in RME, that they made some good thoughts on what is the best solution for such a unit.

Yes. Totally summed up Ramses

----------------
Matt McKenzie-Smith (UFXII, UFX, Babyface) MacStudioUltra OS13.2.1
----------------

Re: UFX lll

I completely agree that the old USB 3 connector is the best option here, paired with adapter cables, for the mentioned reasons:
- backward compatibility, especially the USB 2 mode works really well for long (and cheap) cable runs when MADI is not needed
- mechanical stability (USB-C bend and unplugs much more quickly)
And including thunderbolt (and maintaining the drivers) would probably raise the price even more.

The few technical improvements I don't find interesting at all and they certainly won't justify an upgrade from UFX+ for us.
I would rather have wished for more DSP features for room correction. Especially a delay and FIR based eq (or at least more than the 3 bands) on the outputs.
Maybe the DSP chip has enough power, so they could be added through a software update...?

18 (edited by drifter7508 2023-03-16 17:29:10)

Re: UFX lll

" including thunderbolt (and maintaining the drivers) would probably raise the price even more."

I don't get or understand this. There are many thunderbolt interfaces around under 1000 EUR.
What would make RME's so much more "expensive" than the ones they produced before?

Whatever anyone says, Thunderbolt is better. That's a fact. There is no good reason for not using it.

Chip shortages?

Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:
bace wrote:
rfpm wrote:

Well that at least eliminates the dongle but my main questions still stand:
What's the reason for not going for at least the bare minimum USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 1×2), or better yet a USB-C standard which uses PCIe instead as it would be even nicer where native OS drivers are concerned (USB4, TB3/4), I'm sure for the iPad in this regard too.

USB-C connector does not use pcie when used as USB. Thunderbolt share the same connector and it uses "pcie".
One big advantage with the USBC connector in this case it is power capability. Would have been possible to have made this
"bus-powered" with usbc. (Im not sure it would be a good idea though, since it uses more power that a Macbooc pro)

Sorry, but also this makes no sense to me.

#1 There are enough computers in use without USB-C and can't deliver power this way because they do not have USB-C.

#2 An interface in that quality range should get a dedicated PSU to be able to exclude any potential problems with power delivery from the PC side.

#3 The plugs are just too tiny. If you also send power through there, I would be afraid that with a lot of bad luck you might even destroy the electronics (*).

(*)Something like that happened with FW400 when you used power or FW. It was actually designed for hot-swap, but if you canted the plug when plugging something, then you grilled the electronics of the recording interface. Therefore, I would really not consider such a tiny plug and power over it for a device in that price range.

I trust in RME, that they made some good thoughts on what is the best solution for such a unit.

#1 USBC will be mandatory for charging laptops in europe from 2026.
#2 A quality device clean up the power from what ever source it get it.
#3 USBC connector handle 240 Watts.

20 (edited by bace 2023-03-16 18:33:08)

Re: UFX lll

drifter7508 wrote:

" including thunderbolt (and maintaining the drivers) would probably raise the price even more."

I don't get or understand this. There are many thunderbolt interfaces around under 1000 EUR.
What would make RME's so much more "expensive" than the ones they produced before?

Whatever anyone says, Thunderbolt is better. That's a fact. There is no good reason for not using it.

Chip shortages?

The chip they used is not longer produced. They need to work to get a other chip to work.
So the reason is lazinesses. A manager will argue about costs. It is silly, they still need to have
support for their current TB devices for a other 20 year not to lose their reputation.
UAD, Apogee, Lynx, Antelope are probably very happy with this direction of RME.

Re: UFX lll

Congratulations on the new UFX III !!

Ramses wrote:

Sorry, but also this makes no sense to me.

#1 There are enough computers in use without USB-C and can't deliver power this way because they do not have USB-C.

#2 An interface in that quality range should get a dedicated PSU to be able to exclude any potential problems with power delivery from the PC side.

#3 The plugs are just too tiny. If you also send power through there, I would be afraid that with a lot of bad luck you might even destroy the electronics (*).

+1 !

RME Gear: Digiface USB, HDSP 9632

Re: UFX lll

Im a bit confused in these usb c, usb 3, thunderbolt connection types and their compliances. To simply connect ufx lll to m1 mac studio via thunderbolt port do I need an adapter or any usb 3 device will work in thunderbolt port with no issue?
Second. Can I link my 2018 ipad pro with usb c connection with ufx lll and operate/record only with ipad alone?

Re: UFX lll

sinolonis wrote:

To simply connect ufx lll to m1 mac studio via thunderbolt port do I need an adapter or any usb 3 device will work in thunderbolt port with no issue?
Second. Can I link my 2018 ipad pro with usb c connection with ufx lll and operate/record only with ipad alone?

UFX III comes with USB 3 type B to USB-C cable, so no adapters required. Works directly with ipad too when set to class compliant mode.

Fireface UFX+ | Fireface UFX | Babyface Pro | 12Mic

24

Re: UFX lll

bace wrote:
drifter7508 wrote:

" including thunderbolt (and maintaining the drivers) would probably raise the price even more."

I don't get or understand this. There are many thunderbolt interfaces around under 1000 EUR.
What would make RME's so much more "expensive" than the ones they produced before?

Whatever anyone says, Thunderbolt is better. That's a fact. There is no good reason for not using it.

Chip shortages?

The chip they used is not longer produced. They need to work to get a other chip to work.
So the reason is lazinesses. A manager will argue about costs. It is silly, they still need to have
support for their current TB devices for a other 20 year not to lose their reputation.
UAD, Apogee, Lynx, Antelope are probably very happy with this direction of RME.

[Edit: the below included wrong/unclear information about TB chips available. This has been fixed]

Let me give you some facts:

- Intel never wanted audio interfaces with Thunderbolt. They put up numerous hoops to go through for this not to happen, but several companies (including us) managed to do it.

- Intel and Microsoft decided in 2019 to no longer support Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2. Therefore using a new laptop with TB4 and Windows 11, a UFX+ (as any other TB1 or TB2 interface) will no longer work via TB(4). Also not when using the known adapters!

- Intel declared the TB3 chip that we wanted to use in an updated UFX+ EOL (End Of Life) last year. All AlpineRidge chips are EOL, the only available one now is the latest TitanRidge 2-port chip, which is no option for us (unclear lifetime, higher current demand, higher costs, higher development effort, see below in my next post). Many TB devices stilll available are made from stock of the AlpineRidge chips, so sooner or later many TB audio interfaces will be gone.

- TB4 as in USB4 is much too complicated to add it to an audio interface.  Specialized chips that would allow so also don't exist. And what would it be good for when 99% of the existing audio interfaces don't even need USB3?

- The Wintel decision to cease support, as dumb as it is, makes clear that Intel sees their interface as a typical computer mass product. After a few years please move on and buy something new...that's not what we (and many others) like or support.

- The current situation is also quite unique as macOS still fully supports TB1, in the latest OS and hardware (M2). The reason is that Apple does not use Intel chips anymore, even TB is now made by Apple, so whatever Intel and MS dream of, Apple can do differently. And so far they do. So the UFX+ (and others) still work on that platform via Thunderbolt (TB4 ports with the usual adapters).

With TB gone as option there only remain PCIe and USB 2/3. And it doesn't look like that will change in the forseeable future.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UFX lll

MC could you post this explanation on TB in the RME FAQ maybe?

The topic comes up all the time in fora and it seems the facts are little known.

26 (edited by zephonic 2023-03-17 21:03:48)

Re: UFX lll

Mine is not a rational argument, but I'd have trouble forking over $3199 for a USB-only interface.
Not rational in the sense that my UCXII is doing mostly fine on USB, and I am not optimistic about Thunderbolt's future.
Still, at gut level it just doesn't feel right to pay that kind of $$$ for a USB device. I can only hope they'll eventually street lower.


Also, while it's technically perfectly okay to use the type B connector, I do think it's not the best look from a marketing perspective. Every other new USB device comes with USB-C, so it makes UFX3 look like a step behind.
Again, that is not a rational argument, but people are never 100% rational in their gear purchases anyway...


My take is this will appeal to existing RME users looking to update, but not sure it will entice new customers.

UCXII | ARC | MBP M1Max | MacOS 12.7

Re: UFX lll

I’m always rational in gear purchases. I really don’t see what the problem is.

Babyface Pro Fs, Behringer ADA8200, win 10/11 PCs, Cubase/Wavelab, Adam A7X monitors.

28 (edited by ramses 2023-03-17 21:49:24)

Re: UFX lll

zephonic wrote:

Mine is not a rational argument, but I'd have trouble forking over $3199 for a USB-only interface.
Not rational in the sense that my UCXII is doing mostly fine on USB, and I am not optimistic about Thunderbolt's future.
Still, at gut level it just doesn't feel right to pay that kind of $$$ for a USB device. I can only hope they'll eventually street lower.


Also, while it's technically perfectly okay to use the type B connector, I do think it's not the best look from a marketing perspective. Every other new USB device comes with USB-C, so it makes UFX3 look like a step behind.
Again, that is not a rational argument, but people are never 100% rational in their gear purchases anyway...


My take is this will appeal to existing RME users looking to update, but not sure it will entice new customers.

No one is forcing you...

BTW ..  I already had better experiences with USB than with Firewire on the UFX many years ago when many people still through Firewire is superior.

With the UFX+ I never had anything else than USB and the difference to a PCIe based interface like RayDAT is not noticeable (and Thunderbolt is virtually nothing else than "external PCIe", so no difference).

What else are you asking or expecting when USB3 and PCIe are so close? https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … cks-de-en/

I really don't know what problems you experience. Sorry, but this appears only as just whining at the highest level.
If you can't or don't want to pay for it, then get something else. But also other companies have raising production costs.
This is absolutely nothing which is only applicable to RME.

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

Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:

I really don't know what problems you experience. Sorry, but this appears only as just whining at the highest level.

Wow...good luck, buddy.

UCXII | ARC | MBP M1Max | MacOS 12.7

Re: UFX lll

Anyway, I feel that there is a gap in the lineup between the UCXII and UFXIII. It's a $1500 jump.

I feel like that gap could be filled by something like a next-gen 802? But I guess that is too close to the UFXIII in terms of functionality and connectivity.

UCXII | ARC | MBP M1Max | MacOS 12.7

Re: UFX lll

There is still the UFX II between UCX II and UFX III.

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

32 (edited by ramses 2023-03-18 11:04:53)

Re: UFX lll

zephonic wrote:
ramses wrote:

I really don't know what problems you experience. Sorry, but this appears only as just whining at the highest level.

Wow...good luck, buddy.

You know how the hare runs nowadays. Everyone likes to criticize, but woe betide you when it hits you ;-)

Sorry, I was already nerfed by bace's posting, then your complaints where I also saw no real reason to complain.
Well, "shit happens", didn't want to anger you.

Incidentally … Prices of March 2023 (DE) and updated technical information here:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

Differences between UFX+ and UFX III, marked in yellow.
For me, it is a good product update, I like e.g., the very fast converters.

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

Re: UFX lll

Hope RME understands the amount of UFX interfaces it has.

We have the standard UFX 2, then the UFX+, and now the UFX3, and lets not forget the UFX, i think RME is a little bit UFX crazy.

So we understand that the UFX+ is no more development but that unit is going to be around for many many years just like the UFX is still going strong.

and in production RME has the UFX2 and the UFX3, one good thing is about this is RME no longer needs to rely on 3rd party intel

So independence is confidence, i guess lessen learned, hope it goes well from hear any one can see that this is a master hardware

Congrats

34 (edited by ramses 2023-03-18 16:12:24)

Re: UFX lll

> Hope RME understands the amount of UFX interfaces it has

We talk about product developement of around 20y:

2004: FF800 was introduced, FW800/400
2010: 6y later / 13y ago the new flagship UFX was introduced (FW400/USB2)
2016: 6y later / 7y ago the new flagship interface UFX+ was introduced with MADI (USB3/2 / TB) and many enhancements
2017: 1y later UFX II, more affordable 30ch variant of the UFX+ same but without MADI/USB3/TB (USB2 based)
2023: 6y later UFX III, successor of UFX+, USB3/2 only for the known reasons, with SteadyClock FS and other enhancements

And in the end, it's completely simple for you ...
In the current product offering, RME has exactly TWO flagship interfaces "UFX style" (the rest is "legacy")
- UFX II (USB2)
- UFX III with MADI (USB3). With USB2, it's like a 30ch interface. You can route MADI locally, but no MADI to/from PC.

For details, see my Excel comparison table: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

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

35 (edited by Psychlist1972 2023-03-18 21:19:30)

Re: UFX lll

MC wrote:

You obviously have no clue what you talk about. Let me give you some facts:

- Intel never wanted audio interfaces with Thunderbolt. They put up numerous hoops to go through for this not to happen, but several companies (including us) managed to do it.

- Intel and Microsoft decided in 2019 to no longer support Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2. Therefore using a new laptop with TB4 and Windows 11, a UFX+ (as any other TB1 or TB2 interface) will no longer work via TB(4). Also not when using the known adapters!

- Intel declared the TB3 chips EOL last year. All TB interfaces that one can still buy are made from stock of these chips. One can not buy these chips anymore, so sooner or later all existing TB audio interfaces will be gone.

- TB4 as in USB4 is much too complicated to add it to an audio interface.  Specialized chips that would allow so also don't exist. And what would it be good for when 99% of the existing audio interfaces don't even need USB3?

- The Wintel decision to cease support, as dumb as it is, makes clear that Intel sees their interface as a typical computer mass product. After a few years please move on and buy something new...that's not what we (and many others) like or support.

- The current situation is also quite unique as macOS still fully supports TB1, in the latest OS and hardware (M2). The reason is that Apple does not use Intel chips anymore, even TB is now made by Apple, so whatever Intel and MS dream of, Apple can do differently. And so far they do. So the UFX+ (and others) still work on that platform via Thunderbolt (TB4 ports with the usual adapters).

With TB gone as option there only remain PCIe and USB 2/3. And it doesn't look like that will change in the forseeable future.

Hi

This post was quoted over on GS and is being discussed there. I wanted to add and/or correct a few details that I think are important for folks stumbling upon this post.

1. Intel has EOL'd their TB2 chips and one earlier set of Titan Ridge, from what I understand, but you can still get the other 7000 series Titan Ridge TB3 device controllers today. They aren't EOL'd on the Intel site, and Mouser has 700+ of each in stock, also not marked as EOL.

I assume you're talking about the computer-side controllers. Mouser shows that as EOL, but interestingly, the Intel site does not.

The 7440 is for peripherals. 7340 and 7540 are for computers.

https://www.mouser.com/c/?marcom=100578564

Intel doesn't show the 7340 or 7540 as EOL, but Mouser does, so that's a bit confusing. This one is the computer-side controller IC.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en … llers.html

But in any case, TB4 is backwards compatible with TB3 and TB3 peripheral controller chips are still supported and available. I wouldn't see that as a blocker for device manufacturers for TB3. It doesn't kill Thunderbolt peripherals, but it does make TB2 devices potentially obsolete. You don't need to adopt TB4 in your device to stay in the game.

So:

  • Creating a TB3 device today: everything is available. TB3 works on TB3 and TB4 ports

  • Creating a TB2 device today: nothing is really available to help

But maybe when you wrote "- Intel declared the TB3 chips EOL last year. All TB interfaces that one can still buy are made from stock of these chips. One can not buy these chips anymore, so sooner or later all existing TB audio interfaces will be gone." You actually meant TB2? Many audio interfaces out there today are still TB2. Nothing blocking companies from TB3 devices.

--

2. Microsoft never officially supported TB1 or TB2, even through adapters. So we never were in a position to "cease support" or "no longer support" Thunderbolt 1 and 2 protocols. We started Thunderbolt support with TB3 in Windows 10 around 2015, including support for Thunderbolt 3 audio devices. TB3 gave us the ability to have protections against exploits enabled by DMA over TB. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that Microsoft dropped support for something we previously supported, but it read that way. Backwards compatibility is very important to us.

That said, the Windows PC is an open ecosystem, so many folks have been able to get Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2 devices working on Thunderbolt 3 ports, but it's really up to the device in use and the adapter used. It's finicky at best. Others have also gotten Thunderbolt 2 devices working with Thunderbolt 4 ports also using adapters the same way. TB2 backwards compatibility is not a requirement in TB4, but seems some had done so.

If your device is true Thunderbolt 3, then it would be supported on Windows, and would also work with TB4 without any weird adapters. If the device is Thunderbolt 2, regardless of connector or adapter, it is not officially supported by by Microsoft or the TB4 specification according to Intel, and may or may not work at all. https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/tech/faq (note that there is wildly conflicting information about TB4 -> TB2 backwards compatibility, which is annoying to try to sort through)

TB4 users are in about the same situation as they were with TB3. Some adapters work, some don't. None are officially supported on Windows. The difference is the TB4 FAQ calls out TB2 compatibility is not supported, vs just Windows not officially supporting TB2. But, like I said, people are able to make it work like they could before.

So:

  • If you create a device with TB4: all good. I get the complexity argument, however. Controllers are available.

  • If you create a device with TB3: You're good. Peripheral controllers are available and not EOL. All the major OS companies support it. On the computer side, the TB4 controllers support this and all the major OS companies have TB4 support as well.

  • If you are creating a device with TB2: On Windows this was never officially supported, but would often work. On macOS, this is officially supported with the Apple adapter.

For peripheral developers on Windows, the approach for TB3 audio is almost identical to creating a PCIe driver, but with an additional interface to support hot plug/unplug and rebalancing. There's no TB Audio Class, so all drivers across the operating systems are completely custom (or variations of one of the driver company drivers).

--

3. This is more my opinion than correction or clarification. In my experience, most protocol and connector designers don't really consider pro audio use cases, unfortunately. Firewire was designed for video transfer as I recall, USB for other peripherals with audio classes added later. What some may see as roadblocks or obstacles are often just things the original designers (in the case of TB, that would be Intel and Apple) never really considered. It's the ingenuity of peripheral designers at companies like RME who bend these protocols into shape for pro audio work and enable pro-audio gear to be used. This is not at all unusual given the niche (in terms of numbers, not influence) of pro-audio. So saying that Intel "never wanted audio" seems like an odd statement. My take is they just didn't really consider it a separate priority in the spec, similar to all the other protocols.

--

Microsoft still relies on Intel for Thunderbolt support, so our first-party devices have USB 4 and Thunderbolt 4 on the Intel-based Surface Pro 9, but have USB-C 3.2 on the SQ3 Arm64-based Surface Pro 9. Apple supports Thunderbolt 4 on their Pro and Studio, but it's Thunderbolt 3 on the non-pro Macs, last I checked. As co-inventor of the original TB spec, they may have an agreement in place to allow them to implement Thunderbolt 4 independently from Intel as part of the M2 Pro. That's speculation on my part, though, not fact. But TB3 is part of the USB-IF body of standards, despite still requiring Intel certification. TB4 has some Intel tech in it that maybe they license. I'm not at all involved in that, so again, speculation.

Aside: Apple sells a TB3 to TB2 adapter, but they haven't updated that to say TB4. They're usually really intentional about stuff like that. But they do list compatibility with their M2 pro, so maybe it makes the port run in TB3 mode? I'm not sure what to make of that.

Hope that helps.

Pete Brown
Microsoft

Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:

> Hope RME understands the amount of UFX interfaces it has

We talk about product developement of around 20y:

2004: FF800 was introduced, FW800/400
2010: 6y later / 13y ago the new flagship UFX was introduced (FW400/USB2)
2016: 6y later / 7y ago the new flagship interface UFX+ was introduced with MADI (USB3/2 / TB) and many enhancements
2017: 1y later UFX II, more affordable 30ch variant of the UFX+ same but without MADI/USB3/TB (USB2 based)
2023: 6y later UFX III, successor of UFX+, USB3/2 only for the known reasons, with SteadyClock FS and other enhancements

And in the end, it's completely simple for you ...
In the current product offering, RME has exactly TWO flagship interfaces "UFX style" (the rest is "legacy")
- UFX II (USB2)
- UFX III with MADI (USB3). With USB2, it's like a 30ch interface. You can route MADI locally, but no MADI to/from PC.

For details, see my Excel comparison table: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

Not sure if i would call the UFX 2 flagship, but would say the UFX + is a discontinued flagship hardware, being replace with the UFX 3 new flagship

the only thing the UFX 2 has over its predecessor is USB 2, i think if it had a MADI option to add at a later date that would bring it into the flagship interface but as it stands it is standard compared to the development of its kind

Given an option to upgrade your hardware to a premium standard is what is needed today

Re: UFX lll

Just confirming we can still use ADAT 1 and 2 output on UFX III? The website has different info for II and III.

UFX II ADAT output spec has:
2 x TOSLINK
Standard: 2 x 8 channels

UFX III ADAT output spec has:
1 x TOSLINK, format according to Alesis specification
Standard: 8 channels 24 bit, up to 48 kHz

38

Re: UFX lll

Thanks for the note. For whatever reason the ADAT specs are wrong, but only on the English site. The manual is correct. This will be fixed.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

39 (edited by ramses 2023-03-19 09:34:54)

Re: UFX lll

novabusrst wrote:
ramses wrote:

> Hope RME understands the amount of UFX interfaces it has

We talk about product developement of around 20y:

2004: FF800 was introduced, FW800/400
2010: 6y later / 13y ago the new flagship UFX was introduced (FW400/USB2)
2016: 6y later / 7y ago the new flagship interface UFX+ was introduced with MADI (USB3/2 / TB) and many enhancements
2017: 1y later UFX II, more affordable 30ch variant of the UFX+ same but without MADI/USB3/TB (USB2 based)
2023: 6y later UFX III, successor of UFX+, USB3/2 only for the known reasons, with SteadyClock FS and other enhancements

And in the end, it's completely simple for you ...
In the current product offering, RME has exactly TWO flagship interfaces "UFX style" (the rest is "legacy")
- UFX II (USB2)
- UFX III with MADI (USB3). With USB2, it's like a 30ch interface. You can route MADI locally, but no MADI to/from PC.

For details, see my Excel comparison table: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

Not sure if i would call the UFX 2 flagship, but would say the UFX + is a discontinued flagship hardware, being replace with the UFX 3 new flagship

the only thing the UFX 2 has over its predecessor is USB 2, i think if it had a MADI option to add at a later date that would bring it into the flagship interface but as it stands it is standard compared to the development of its kind

Given an option to upgrade your hardware to a premium standard is what is needed today

Of course, the UFX II is a flagship interface. It is the UFX+, the same revised analog section with the same technical data, but without MADI.

A modular interface would have made both interfaces only pricier and ultimately not given customers the price advantage of the current UFX II with USB2 / without MADI.

That's why I have always pointed out in my product consultations here in the forum that one should carefully consider whether it is not better to invest in a UFX+. Besides, for a while (before Corona, fire at AKM, delivery chain issues) the price difference was small.

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

40

Re: UFX lll

Hi Pete, welcome in our forum.

Psychlist1972 wrote:

Intel has EOL'd their TB2 chips and one earlier set of Titan Ridge, from what I understand, but you can still get the other 7000 series Titan Ridge TB3 device controllers today.

That is correct. I was either told otherwise or didn't listen correctly. When working on the updated UFX+ with TB3 we went for the single port AlpineRidge-LP. Meanwhile all versions of AlpineRidge are EOL (End Of Life). The only chip now available is a  2-port TitanRidge. This one draws more current, costs more, and requires a lot more development work. Additionally Intel might declare this one EOL as well, any time and without further warning. We try to build units that last (are available and work for many years), so that TitanRidge chip was no option for us. I will correct my statement above, sorry for the confusion.

For my other points I don't see anything in your post that makes them invalid. For reference here is information that I found about dropping support:

https://support.hp.com/nz-en/document/c … technology

Quote: In 2019, Intel and Microsoft announced end of life plans for the Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2 technology.

They also link to the TB FAQ on Intel's website, which IMHO has a very clear wording. While TB3 is supposed to work with TB2 and TB1 via adapters (and other than you state they always work for us - and they have to, they are certified by Intel and Apple!), TB4 is not.

I just got me a new laptop with Windows 11 Pro. People reading here might not know about current changes, so: Windows 11 supports Thunderbold natively - it is now part of the installation/OS. That means no Intel TB drivers need to be installed, the infamous TB Control Center no longer exists. You connect a TB3 expansion chassis with an HDSPe AIO Pro (example) to the laptop's TB4 port, install the RME driver, and immediately have the AIO available as if it was connected to an internal PCIe port. In fact Thunderbolt does not show up anywhere, you don't even know that the card is connected externally.

That sounds better than it is in practice. Because if the card does not show up you have no clue why. There is no way to debug this or check anything. Thunderbolt is also hidden in the Device Manager, only to find via 'View Device after connection', deeply buried at the end of multiple hubs.

It was this laptop that made me aware that TB1 (the UFX+) was completely blocked from the combination of hardware and OS. Before I had never heard of TB1/2 no longer supported with TB4. And I bet I am not the only one.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UFX lll

Great thread.
My only take so far is that the new unit should have been called the UFX+II and not the UFX III.

Re: UFX lll

MC wrote:

Hi Pete, welcome in our forum.

Psychlist1972 wrote:

Intel has EOL'd their TB2 chips and one earlier set of Titan Ridge, from what I understand, but you can still get the other 7000 series Titan Ridge TB3 device controllers today.

That is correct. I was either told otherwise or didn't listen correctly. When working on the updated UFX+ with TB3 we went for the single port AlpineRidge-LP. Meanwhile all versions of AlpineRidge are EOL (End Of Life). The only chip now available is a  2-port TitanRidge. This one draws more current, costs more, and requires a lot more development work. Additionally Intel might declare this one EOL as well, any time and without further warning. We try to build units that last (are available and work for many years), so that TitanRidge chip was no option for us. I will correct my statement above, sorry for the confusion.

For my other points I don't see anything in your post that makes them invalid. For reference here is information that I found about dropping support:

https://support.hp.com/nz-en/document/c … technology

Quote: In 2019, Intel and Microsoft announced end of life plans for the Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2 technology.

They also link to the TB FAQ on Intel's website, which IMHO has a very clear wording. While TB3 is supposed to work with TB2 and TB1 via adapters (and other than you state they always work for us - and they have to, they are certified by Intel and Apple!), TB4 is not.

I just got me a new laptop with Windows 11 Pro. People reading here might not know about current changes, so: Windows 11 supports Thunderbold natively - it is now part of the installation/OS. That means no Intel TB drivers need to be installed, the infamous TB Control Center no longer exists. You connect a TB3 expansion chassis with an HDSPe AIO Pro (example) to the laptop's TB4 port, install the RME driver, and immediately have the AIO available as if it was connected to an internal PCIe port. In fact Thunderbolt does not show up anywhere, you don't even know that the card is connected externally.

That sounds better than it is in practice. Because if the card does not show up you have no clue why. There is no way to debug this or check anything. Thunderbolt is also hidden in the Device Manager, only to find via 'View Device after connection', deeply buried at the end of multiple hubs.

It was this laptop that made me aware that TB1 (the UFX+) was completely blocked from the combination of hardware and OS. Before I had never heard of TB1/2 no longer supported with TB4. And I bet I am not the only one.

Thanks.

I see where you are getting the 2019 info from, but that source also got it wrong. I suspect HP took the "Microsoft is not going to implement a [kernel, PCIe, security, or some other] fix [for something we never actually supported in the first place]" and construed that to be an announcement of EOL from us. Effectively, for the end user, it is. But the difference is important. It wouldn't be the first time a support article was incorrect about something. Unfortunately, I see that all the time. HP is the only place I'm seeing this mentioned in this case.

Debugging: if your dev team is running into any problems trying to debug the PCIe/TB3 scenario, have them email me. pete dot brown at microsoft dot com. The intent was, IIRC, that you would see it like any other PCIe card and follow your same approaches for working with those. But the PCIe team may have some suggestions, or at least, they can take the feedback and try to make it easier/better.

Pete

Re: UFX lll

ramses wrote:
novabusrst wrote:
ramses wrote:

> Hope RME understands the amount of UFX interfaces it has

We talk about product developement of around 20y:

2004: FF800 was introduced, FW800/400
2010: 6y later / 13y ago the new flagship UFX was introduced (FW400/USB2)
2016: 6y later / 7y ago the new flagship interface UFX+ was introduced with MADI (USB3/2 / TB) and many enhancements
2017: 1y later UFX II, more affordable 30ch variant of the UFX+ same but without MADI/USB3/TB (USB2 based)
2023: 6y later UFX III, successor of UFX+, USB3/2 only for the known reasons, with SteadyClock FS and other enhancements

And in the end, it's completely simple for you ...
In the current product offering, RME has exactly TWO flagship interfaces "UFX style" (the rest is "legacy")
- UFX II (USB2)
- UFX III with MADI (USB3). With USB2, it's like a 30ch interface. You can route MADI locally, but no MADI to/from PC.

For details, see my Excel comparison table: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

Not sure if i would call the UFX 2 flagship, but would say the UFX + is a discontinued flagship hardware, being replace with the UFX 3 new flagship

the only thing the UFX 2 has over its predecessor is USB 2, i think if it had a MADI option to add at a later date that would bring it into the flagship interface but as it stands it is standard compared to the development of its kind

Given an option to upgrade your hardware to a premium standard is what is needed today

Of course, the UFX II is a flagship interface. It is the UFX+, the same revised analog section with the same technical data, but without MADI.

A modular interface would have made both interfaces only pricier and ultimately not given customers the price advantage of the current UFX II with USB2 / without MADI.

That's why I have always pointed out in my product consultations here in the forum that one should carefully consider whether it is not better to invest in a UFX+. Besides, for a while (before Corona, fire at AKM, delivery chain issues) the price difference was small.

I see your point, never the less all this steady clock, jitter free enhancement are now becoming standard all be it RME seems to be the where it all was birthed and a lot of developers have been taking notes,

but like Brainworks from Plugin Alliance rising up again from a flood out, i do admire RME for bouncing back from that fire,

the Fireface UFX 3 has a lot to admire because it allows the user to do very advanced applications with that unit, because of its connections, i guess just like the FF UFX 2 +

44 (edited by Quadron 2023-03-20 01:02:10)

Re: UFX lll

Will the UFX+ also get the full USB-3 class compliant mode of the UFX III?

45 (edited by b4rth 2023-03-20 11:40:15)

Re: UFX lll

Quadron wrote:

Will the UFX+ also get the full USB-3 class compliant mode of the UFX III?

Good question! Hope for this too. Was looking for a TB4 laptop (Intel only) but if I understand it all correctly, a Ryzen with USB-only will do for our UFX+ since TB functionality seems to be EOL as well hmm. So in the future (new laptops don't have tb3) we can't (correct me if I am wrong) use the full 188 channels via USB. Major bummer for us.

The studio machine has TB3 with a startech adapter to TB2 (ryzen) and it works super fast. USB on the other hand seems to have more load on my machine. So did this improve as well with the UFXIII?

And lastly will we be able to use the UFX+ with USB3 with full channel count in the future as the UFXIII seems capable...

Re: UFX lll

Is it correct that only the ADAT outputs can become SPDIF, and not the inputs as well?

Re: UFX lll

Everyone is talking about the TB/USB connections, but I am asking: why not AVB or Dante? THIS would've made it a UFX Gen 3 in my opinion.
Right now it's just a quick fix for the discontinued UFX+.
I thought about buying, but what I really need is a future proof unit to work in modular environments.

If a UFX AVB/Dante (with MADI) drops, I'll buy it the day it comes out and add another 12micD on top. But with the current UFX III I feel like I would regret the purchase in the near future.

48 (edited by ramses 2023-03-20 23:05:37)

Re: UFX lll

klafkid wrote:

Everyone is talking about the TB/USB connections, but I am asking: why not AVB or Dante? THIS would've made it a UFX Gen 3 in my opinion.
Right now, it's just a quick fix for the discontinued UFX+.
I thought about buying, but what I really need is a future-proof unit to work in modular environments.

If a UFX AVB/Dante (with MADI) drops, I'll buy it the day it comes out and add another 12micD on top. But with the current UFX III, I feel like I would regret the purchase in the near future.

The price difference between 12Mic-D and 12Mic is €880 (3479-2599), so I would guess that an UFX III with Dante would cost €3800-€4000.

MADI is a proven technology at a still affordable price, many people still rely on it and have MADI devices.
Dedicated fiber links, no add-on complexity of a LAN. From operational standpoints, much better.

AVB … Nice, but you require AVB capable switches and devices and if you work with material with different sample rates, then I read in the forum, that you have more work. You have to change the sample rate manually on each of the devices.

Dante … Add-on costs for the Dante chip, and you have the add-on complexity of a LAN, QoS configuration required.

Don't get me wrong, AVB and Dante surely have their use cases. But for a standard setup, I think that a MADI-based setup is still the best choice if there are no strong reasons to choose AVB or Dante.

I would regard a 2nd MADI bus as more useful, best as two SFP slots (so that you can easily switch to single mode fiber if needed) for two use cases:

a) when recording at double speed, one MADI bus is already full utilized by M-32 Pro AD and DA. But maybe you need to add also other MADI devices, like, e.g., two 12Mic.
b) if you have a Mix of MADI devices, some might require different remote control protocols. For example: ADI-8 QS (MIDI Remote) and Octamic XTC (Auxdevice) disturb each other when being connected to the same MADI bus.

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

Re: UFX lll

klafkid wrote:

Everyone is talking about the TB/USB connections, but I am asking: why not AVB or Dante?

I tend to agree. I would really love to see a one-box-wonder that I could use for all different needs and applications. Something that would compete e.g. with Avid's MTRX Studio, because as of right now, that one seems to be the closest option.

UFX III plus Dante connectivity would be a real deal, and like you, I would also be shopping for 12micD or two on top of that.

50 (edited by ramses 2023-03-21 12:46:10)

Re: UFX lll

samppa wrote:
klafkid wrote:

Everyone is talking about the TB/USB connections, but I am asking: why not AVB or Dante?

I tend to agree. I would really love to see a one-box-wonder that I could use for all different needs and applications. Something that would compete e.g. with Avid's MTRX Studio, because as of right now, that one seems to be the closest option.

UFX III plus Dante connectivity would be a real deal, and like you, I would also be shopping for 12micD or two on top of that.

Thinking about this further.

As a consequence of this, your 12 Mics could only be operated via LAN if this is ok for you. So,
- even if Auxdevice support would be delivered in the future, I would guess this would only work with for MADI
- even the nice management tool MIDI Remote AVB might not work, AFAIR it needs "MIDI over MADI"
  or you would need to deploy MIDI cables, but only possible if the devices are quite close to each other
  or you need to spend money on MIDI expanders.

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