All I can say is I really like my Babyface and it's formfactor. The choice is yours.

UCX II vs Babyface (I have both atm):

UCX II
+ more track count
+ onboard compression in the DSP
+ can standalone

Babyface
+ more portable
- needs to be plugged into the computer

Those are the big differences for me.  If you're recording vocals and you don't have offboard compressor, it's pretty nice, and being able to unplug my computer and still have signal coming through the UCX II is pretty nice.  FWIW.

Just a small note, Babyface may be used standalone.

UCX II offers way more functionality in whatever mode and whatever aspect (port types, features).

Only to mention a few things that you might consider / which are very useful:
- Display for better operational feedback and standalone operation
- Mic preamps with 75 dB Gain like the flagship products
- Full implementation of FX chipset without any load/latency of calculation in the driver
- Support for Word clock which you need in some scenarios
- Very useful / advanced features like DURec (Direct USB recording) and Autoset
- USB port that can be used for either connecting ARC USB or USB memory stick
- AES port which can greatly be used to connect reference converter to have still one ADAT port free for other expansions.
- More analogue ports to make it possible to connect analogue devices like FX or whatever

As a side note, it's great that DURec and the nice display came into this product, which was previously a unique feature of the flagship products…

BBF Pro is out of question, a nice compact product if you require mobility, bus powered device with the option to connect a PSU which is great. But you should be certain that it fits perfect for you, or whether you want the more complete feature set of an UCX II.

As I mentioned already, I wouldn't buy too small if price is no real hindering point. Eventually, you have more fun with a richer feature set, and you save money if you do not have to sell and buy something different when it turns out later, that you need this and that additionally.

And the Babyface Pro offers a better headphone amp, 2 headphone outs, no need for an available power outlet (if connected to your computer) and a better / more direct interface for the basic and most common used features.
If I'm not mistaken, there's even a difference in conversion quality, in favour of the babyface Pro.

UCX II is great, but if you only need a monitoring solution with few inputs, the Babyface seems a much better package.

No doubts, the Babyface pro (FS) is a high quality product and for some applications just right (I have one since seven years). Why do you think it has better headphone amp and better conversion quality than the UCX II? And yes, it has two headphone outputs, but they share the same channels. These are not separate outputs as on UFX models.

> Why in the world would I want anything else than the BBF Pro for all this stuff?

If you know what you need, then all is well.

I usually just write a bit more on the same topics because I have often seen situations where people only plan for the current need or don't even know exactly how many details RME recording interfaces differ in. If you do not know them or the purpose of them, well then you can't draw a good decision.

Take me as an example. Although as a guitarist, I might have a rather modest need. But I have been able to fully exploit the features of the RME flagship interfaces for my needs, and I would not dream of doing without even one of the features. I am glad that the platform supports any of my demands. It's good if your environment does not limit you in any way.

But there have always been people who are extremely diverse in their plans and strategies, who want or have to approach everything possible minimalist. Another approach is to work with reserves and save in the medium to long term.

You can expand a BBF Pro, but as soon as you go beyond single speed, you also lose ports through port multiplexing.
It is always better to have a few free analogue ports directly on the device so that sample rate changes don't change the port count.

Furthermore, with one ADAT port, you won't get far either, you'll have to go for either a quite cheap ADA8200; otherwise most devices are either only preamp or AD/DA converter but mostly not both. It's just a question of your demands, whether you prefer the quality of RME for analogue ports or think a Behringer ADA8200 would be sufficient.

get both. I did

seriously though, both fantastic interfaces and you should get the one that fits your needs. neither will disappoint however, DuREC is an awesome feature on the UCXII. RME did a great job designing and marketing these units so that you would probably WANT both.

I really like using the ARC with the BBF Pro Fs because I'm right handed and I don't want all the cabling routed to that side of my desk. I primarily use the BBF at home and the UCXII for field work.

Just thought I'd weigh in Good luck whichever way you go!

-Steve