https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 19#p203719

> I would lose the screen with the FS, which is a weird omission by RME in my opinion

I guess it makes the unit less expensive so that it could be placed easier between "UCX"- and "UFX"- style of devices.

Oh also with the 802 FS you lose the digitally controlled mic pre-amps, if that matters to you.

The current UFX II has SteadyClock FS, for some time alreday. It's just not (yet) mentioned anywhere. Can be identified by the firmware version, Hw Rev 7 (currently USB 203 DSP 14 CC 205).

Is there any advantage with USB 3 on the UFX iii vs. USB 2 on the UFX ii?

I'm also curious like @PLK about the benefit of USB3 vs USB2, especially for someone like me who has a low track count going in and out of the UFX III. My needs are a max of 12 analog in at once (but rarely more than only 1 or 2), 8 analog out at once (but usually only 2), and always AES out.

For me personally, I will never need to use the MADI section.

As far as the better analog section, from your Excel sheet (great work, by the way!) it looks like the differences are minimal, but I could be wrong. Can you elaborate on why the analog section is noticeably better on the UFX III? I'm not being short, I'm genuinely curious!

Thank you for the detailed response Ramses. I highly doubt I would personally hear the difference between the A/D of the two devices since they both have excellent converters. I'm going AES out directly into my mains, so the D/A doesn't matter there (I'm using analog for my subs, but I feel there would be no audible difference there at all). In my head it's nice to have the best converters, but in real life I'm not so sure. The I/O expandability of UFX III is cool, though it's 95% will never use it.

Hmmmmm. Not sure whether I'll keep the new UFX III or exchange it for a UFX II. I do know that they should advertise that the UFX II has SteadyClock FS so that we can make a fully educated choice when buying.

RME products have no special sound or house sound. Differences between converters are minimal, a bigger influence has possibly the analog stage behind it, which brings the whole thing to line level.

The measured values of all newer RME products are on a very high level, and RME is also one of the few companies that communicates such measured values to the customer. If there are any subtle differences in sound, then this may be a very subjective matter.

If you attach such importance to it, then you should, in my opinion, also test with your ears in your environment, considering best practices, to be able to exclude psychoacoustic phenomena.

You now say (if I understood correctly) that you do not have the requirements and premises of a professional mastering studio, then I think that you would have no disadvantage with any of the mentioned RME products. No matter if UFX II or UFX III.

All the discussions about whether FS-clock makes an audible difference already happened years ago regarding ADI-2 Pro vs ADI-2 Pro FS. The consensus in the forum was that there would be measurable, but not audible differences.

So, it is unclear to me, why you have any fears getting possibly the wrong product for your demands. I would get either UFX III or UFX II in terms of current or future interface / port needs.

If you think that you require the latest converters with best specs and richest options for any kind of fine-tuning,
then I propose the integration of an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE or even ADI 2/4 Pro SE via ADAT or AES into your setup.
These units give you the possibility to select D/A filters according to your taste or demand and on top of that
give you a lot of additional and useful options.
Some examples:
- 4 different reference levels, auto ref level keeps dynamics and SNR high over a wider volume range
- with the "bit test" you can check whether your audio chain works lossless

The ADI-2 * series of reference converters are designed in a way that they remove any jitter from audio arriving at any digital input. Then it refreshes the clock signal and uses its FS clock for the final D/A conversion.

So maybe the solution for you is to integrate an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE or ADI-2/4 Pro SE into your environment, no matter whether this is an UFX II or UFX III.

The following of my blog articles might be of interest to you:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … ses-EN-DE/

Just wanted to let you know, a new blog article about the differences between UFX+ and UFX III:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/

Hi vinark.

Not 100% sure, but don't we elaborate on clock distribution (not about SteadyClock)?

I might be wrong, but my understanding is, that the FS in "SteadyClock FS" indicates that this unit has a Femto Second quartz / clock. So if the UFX II or UFX III have FS clock and are clock master, I would assume that they send out clock information with the accuracy of the FS clock. Or do I have a wrong understanding here?

In NL's setup, he uses the recording interface as clock master and his monitors are clock slave.

I think such monitors do not have something comparable to RME's SteadyClock tech and fully depend on the quality of the clock of the clock master in such a setup.

Or did I understand you or told something wrong?

You can't, and that's why we don't advertise it (nor any other change).

Ramses I greatly appreciate your detailed information about these two interfaces. Reviving an old thread, I'm in a similar position as NL440. My interest in FS has been that my Yamaha Montage can be only a clock master and I want to connect digitally via its USB audio interface. I've been assuming that the FS clock will compensate better for this unsync'd keyboard. If I decide on UFX II I'll check firmware to ensure FS is in there.

Another interest is using MADI for loopback, to bridge between two DAWS plus standalone apps used for live streaming. It would be nice to run the UFX III as a USB2 device and have all the extra paths available for loopback, but I can probably achieve similar with UFX II as my I/O needs are fairly small.

Probably the biggest question for me is having absolutely lowest latency for performing virtual instruments. Your table shows UFX II convertor latency as 12/7, and all the others I've considered (UFX III, UCX II, 802FS) as 5/6. Is this still accurate? Why is UFX II uniquely different from the others? I recall reading that RME briefly switched to non-AKM convertors after the factory fire but returned to AKM in the new UFX III. Do you know if the newest UFX II is using AKM, and if so, the same model numbers as UFX III?

While I like the thought of buying shiny new 2023 vs 2017 technology, it's becoming clear to me that under the hood UFX II should not be considered a 2017 device.

Thanks again for your insights,
Sky