• Registered: 2023-03-23
  • Posts: 4

Topic: UFX III vs M32 Pro vs M1610

Hey friends,

I'm looking for information if the quality of the converters of the UFX III that might be in line with the M1610 and M32. I'm on the hunt for a new interface and I was looking at the M1610 but that is only o converter and it needs an interface and lacks of preamps. So when the new UFX was announced I started to wonder.

Appreciate any information.

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,197

Re: UFX III vs M32 Pro vs M1610

See manuals, they have technical information and even information about converter latency.

As you need a recording interface (as you discovered already yourself), the UFX III is an excellent choice, as it gives you
TotalMix FX, excellent analog section, very fast converter, quality preamps with 75 dB gain range, comparable to those from 12Mic) and an excellent feature set (SteadyClock FS, FX, DURec, Autoset, …) and at the end it's expandable through MADI and thus can be your companion for a very long time.

802/UFX II is no alternative (MADI missing) two ADAT ports are not enough for double speed and/or further expansions.
UCX II is definitively no alternative, only one ADAT port (8ch @single speed) definitively too few channels even at single speed (44.1/48).

You could only think of getting perhaps
- HDSPe MADI FX (PCIe based with 3 MADI buses)
- MADIface USB (no preamps … More or less "MADI only", a little bit too minimalistic / "to the point")

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14
  • Registered: 2023-08-05
  • Posts: 3

Re: UFX III vs M32 Pro vs M1610

ramses wrote:

See manuals, they have technical information and even information about converter latency.

You could only think of getting perhaps
- HDSPe MADI FX (PCIe based with 3 MADI buses)
- MADIface USB (no preamps … More or less "MADI only", a little bit too minimalistic / "to the point")

I have the same question as the OP.
I have been using the Babyface Pro for years and now I need more line in/outputs (10 or so would be great) and the ability to set the reference level.
I understand the practicality of the UFX3, but I kind of prefer to have separate elements (soundcard, converter, preamps) just like in the HiFi world. Thus, I can change one element at a time if I want to. Plus, I don't need Durec and the display of the UFX3.
Do you know the differences between the M- 1610 Pro and the UFX3 in terms of latency and conversion quality? I try to educate myself but these passages in the manual are still too technical for me.
I was thinking of the 1610 Pro with various external preamps and gear, going into an HDSPe RayDat or Madi. Would this be a good solution?

  • Registered: 2019-03-17
  • Posts: 1

Re: UFX III vs M32 Pro vs M1610

ramses wrote:

802/UFX II is no alternative (MADI missing) two ADAT ports are not enough for double speed and/or further expansions.

I have the UFX II at this point and am looking to get more line ins. I only record in 44 or 48. Wouldn’t the M-1610 Pro work with adat at these sample rates?

And in the future I would upgrade to UFX III, to get the full MADI experience.

5 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2024-05-10 06:11:49)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,197

Re: UFX III vs M32 Pro vs M1610

Johan @ Buenavista Xpress wrote:
ramses wrote:

802/UFX II is no alternative (MADI missing) two ADAT ports are not enough for double speed and/or further expansions.

I have the UFX II at this point and am looking to get more line ins. I only record in 44 or 48. Wouldn’t the M-1610 Pro work with adat at these sample rates?

And in the future I would upgrade to UFX III, to get the full MADI experience.

Sure.

At single speed ADAT offers 8 ch.
2x ADAT = 16 channels (the amount of input channels of M-1610 Pro)

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14