You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX iii vs 802fs
Hi guys,I am coming from a metric halo interface which is now dead and I am ready to jump in the RME world due to the superb interfaces excellent support and great forum...
I am between UFX iii and 802 fs so....
Are these two the same regarding ADDA and preamps?
Don't care about MADI or front display or usb 3 or second midi ports.....just the sound
Hi
Not exactly the same, UFX III is superior. Of course not that much, 802fs is a fantastic interface as well. UFX III has digital controlled preamps with more gain than the 802fs with its analog rotation knobs. There are detailed specs on the RME website, and you also can download the manuals.
Can't talk about converters, in my personal (amateur!) view this is often a bit overrated. Of course using the units in a professional environment is completely different.
Thanks for the reply!!
Have you compared these two side by side or has someone else?
I can see that UFX iii has 75dB mic gain and 802FS 60dB (54dB but starting at +6dB) not a big deal even with ribbons but anyway I have more preamps in my studio.
I can also see that there is no physical knob for the volume so I have to adjust it in Total mix.The fader for volume is pre or post DA?
If you want to compare, pls see my Excel:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156
Thank you I will but I would like to have also the opinion of someone that has used them both.
Numbers doesn't always reflect how it sounds
I am coming from a metric halo interface and a crane song Hedd so my standards are hi enough.
Both units are excellent, but I can tell you that IF you look for the better quality, even if the difference is tiny, then it will be definitively the UFX III.
a) because it is the flagship product
b) it has the converter of the reference converter ADI-2 Pro FS
c) it has all the bells and whistles including Autoset, DURec, MADI, and some other detail differences
d) all mic inputs are digitally controlled, settings can be stored in TM FX snapshots
e) it has a dedicated USB input in the Back for the ARC USB in case you want to use it in stand-alone mode
f) its operateable via the display
...
EDIT:
g) EDIT: is has the mic pres of the 12Mic with higher gain
I read somewhere here that Fireface 802 FS, UFX II, and UFX III all use the same converters.
Not true?
I truly don't need anything of the above just excellent ADDA and good preamps
If I remember right:
UFX+: dont't remember exactly, but it was not ESS, possible AKM but not the converter of the ADI-2 Pro FS, little lower
UFX II: initially same as UFX+, but moved later to ESS due to chip crisis
UFX III: got the converter of the ADI-2 Pro Series
802 FS: got a new analog section, but if I remember right not the same as UFX III
If you look for the best, I would say UFX III is an excellent choice.
If you want to check with your own ears, then you need to setup a blind or double blind test for yourself
with your ears, gear in your environment.
At least the technical data will tell you a story on what quality level the converter is in the series of converters of a manufacturer. Even if you can't hear differences or distinguish the products by your ears.
Test the 802 if you want, if it is sufficient for your ears, voila.
Thanks ramses for the detailed answers!!
This forum is excellent as I was told!!
Btw I found the thread about the converters
It's answer #6 by halloweemman
Thanks ramses for the detailed answers!!
This forum is excellent as I was told!!Btw I found the thread about the converters
It's answer #6 by halloweemman
URL pls, thank you.
Forgot it sorry.....I edited my post above
I have borrowed a UCX II from a friend for listening tests in my studio......how close is UCX to UFX III or 802 fs?
I have borrowed a UCX II from a friend for listening tests in my studio......how close is UCX to UFX III or 802 fs?
5 cm? Just kidding, sorry, could not resist. ;-)
There are many such questions that cannot be put into words so clearly.
You probably already know that RME is known for its transparent conversion (no additional "mojo" / modification of audio the audio signal).
Better technical data gives you a better feeling, but not everything that is measurable is audible (FS vs non-FS, higher SNR, ...).
Whether this has any relevance for you and your applications, or whether you could hear any differences at all, is another matter.
Reasons why you can't hear it: hearing ability, room acoustic, quality of all components in the audio chain, generally certain limitations or peculiarities of human hearing.
If you want to be on the safe side, get the latest UFX II with the revised analog section of the UFX III. Meanwhile, these interfaces have the proven converters of the ADI-2 Pro FS (the little older model), but without different D/A filter settings because for recording and mixing you want a linear frequency response also at single speed.
Or alternatively, invest in a reference converter from RME, which you can integrate easily into every setup by using AES or SPDIF, see my blog article: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/
The reference converters offer nice features like e.g., an excellent and powerful headphone preamp, auto ref level, 4-5 analog stages which keep the dynamic up over a wider volume range, validation of lossless transmission and much more. You can also set different D/A filters, where the D/A filters only deliver subtle differences in sound.
Some model differences and features and interesting YouTube videos you can see in this blog article: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … ses-EN-DE/
Also watch this excellent RME video how to linearize your headphones using the PEQ of the ADI-2 DAC/PRO, ADI 2/4 Pro FS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nq9ZGAYTwU
For monitoring, different D/A filter might be interesting, but this is far from any night and day differences. Forum member KaiS (who runs a professional studio) tested different D/A Filter on ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2/4 Pro FS and commented on the subtle differences here: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 33#p198633. Maybe you can also hear such differences in your own blind tests, or possibly not.
I would say that basically you can work well with all RME products, they all use quality converters and perform a transparent conversion.
If you have use cases where a lower latency is necessary or appealing, then get the latest models with faster converters, e.g. (from memory) UCX II, 802 FS, UFX II, UFX III. Details see my Excel or even more details in the RME manuals.
Otherwise, look at the features, what is important to you or what you might need. If you are interested in technical data, then compare the technical data of the devices, my Excel could save you some time: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156
Hint: maybe you want to wait for information which interfaces (besides UFX III) will finally get the new Room EQ and Crossfeed feature in TotalMix FX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-qxkIqbWY
Recommendation: if you are not too much limited by budget and other expenses…
Some of my applications, photos, sound demos, diagram of my setup including "link" to the HiFi corner you can see here:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/
What remains to be said is that with a UFX III you would always be on the "safe side" in many respects. Even if you later want to expand the studio or record at double speed or integrate additional external hardware or expand the preamp capacity. Everything is possible. And as you can see, this interface is also the first to be equipped with these new features. In my opinion, an investment like this is the most sustainable because you buy it once, and it feels like you won't need anything else for the next 20 years. You save a lot of time and money if you don't have to buy a new one or set up all new routings. You also have enough port reserves for the use of loopback and have all options open from the outset.
5 cm? Just kidding, sorry, could not resist. ;-)
I cant blame you I asked for it.....;-))))
Well I ve test the ucx II against my Hedd 192 ...not quite fair but there are a lot of I d say differences.
Less LF ,harsh HMF and narrow image.
Of course you must have heard Hedd to tell if these differences are still in ufx iii or 802 fs but I can tell that my uln was remarkable close sound wise to Hedd.
I really want to join rge rme world but driver stability alone doesn't persuade me to jumb
in.
Do you know this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHG32aXBDY
Pls. download the A/D converted audio files from his Manley "backbone" in wav format. URL see Video description.
Does it sound well enough for your ears?
EDIT: the new UFX III uses those AKM converters of ADI-2 Pro FS (older model).
Maybe also the new 802 FS and the new upcoming UFX II, as they should get the same analog section.
Not 100% sure, whether this also means the same converter or only "technical specs".
Well I ve test the ucx II against my Hedd 192 ...not quite fair but there are a lot of I d say differences.
Less LF ,harsh HMF and narrow image.
Of course you must have heard Hedd to tell
…
Narrow image: I remember a similar statement in another audio forum some time ago. It was about the RME Fireface 400 which would have a poor stereo image, almost mono (that was the opinion from an user).
Can you explain what’s behind that? How should the DA converter in an audio interface create a 'poor' or 'narrow' image?
I do not say, it is case of RME, but it could be caused by filter on D/A part, or different, subtle jitter on L and R channel. Simply, L and R path differ each other a bit....
But..... The same applies (and way more) to headphones or loudspeakers and room treatement!
To say the truth, I do not have such a problems, I do not hear even less subtle differences.... I do not have "bat's ears".
I do not say, it is case of RME, but it could be caused by filter on D/A part, or different, subtle jitter on L and R channel. Simply, L and R path differ each other a bit....
But..... The same applies (and way more) to headphones or loudspeakers and room treatement!
To say the truth, I do not have such a problems, I do not hear even less subtle differences.... I do not have "bat's ears".
But you can hear a wider stereo panorama (as I understood the point), no bat ears are required and there are enough tools with which you can create such effects, make the stereo image narrower or even widen it afterwards.
But these are all guesses. Best is to make an A/B with the final devices, maybe best with the flagship devices, like e.g. UFX III.
Maybe it is even sufficient to choose a combination of recording interface and reference converter for the monitoring.
The transparent conversion of all RME devices should be "fair enough" to catch the sound of a single device.
Maybe it is only the monitoring part, where the subtle differences pay out for you if you listen to the final Mix/Master where all the FX (EQ, compressor, reverb/FX) reach their maximum effect in the sum of all.
yiannis wrote:Well I ve test the ucx II against my Hedd 192 ...not quite fair but there are a lot of I d say differences.
Less LF ,harsh HMF and narrow image.
Of course you must have heard Hedd to tell
…Narrow image: I remember a similar statement in another audio forum some time ago. It was about the RME Fireface 400 which would have a poor stereo image, almost mono (that was the opinion from an user).
Can you explain what’s behind that? How should the DA converter in an audio interface create a 'poor' or 'narrow' image?
I can't explain it but as my ears are after 10+ years tuned to uln 2 and hedd sound I can tell all the differences I could hear.
But you can hear a wider stereo panorama (as I understood the point), no bat ears are required and there are enough tools with which you can create such effects, make the stereo image narrower or even widen it afterwards.
Yes, we do not know what he meant exactly by saying "worse stereo". It might also be "closer-further" axis of stereo sound image...
Anyway, I do not hear, if I use silver cables or 10 times more expensive headphones than Sen. H600, or not. So for me, "only" RME is just great, as well as Genelec monitors are. Anything better would be waste of money. Most probably, even what I have is. :-(
AFAIR, the new UFX III uses those AKM converters.
Maybe also the new 802 FS and the new upcoming UFX II, as they should get the same analog section.
Is "the new upcoming UFX II" mentioned here referring to the "silent" upgrades that UFX II has already received (DC-coupled outputs, SteadyClock FS, the same analog board as the UFX III)? Or is there some thought that there might be a newly branded device coming soon, something like a "UFX II FS"? The UFX II is currently 15% off (at least here in the US), so I've been wondering if they are getting cleared out for a replacement.
Not sure there is a lot more to add, though? Maybe it could still adopt USB 3 and faster conversion? Ability to name DURec files?
ramses wrote:AFAIR, the new UFX III uses those AKM converters.
Maybe also the new 802 FS and the new upcoming UFX II, as they should get the same analog section.Is "the new upcoming UFX II" mentioned here referring to the "silent" upgrades that UFX II has already received (DC-coupled outputs, SteadyClock FS, the same analog board as the UFX III)? Or is there some thought that there might be a newly branded device coming soon, something like a "UFX II FS"? The UFX II is currently 15% off (at least here in the US), so I've been wondering if they are getting cleared out for a replacement.
Not sure there is a lot more to add, though? Maybe it could still adopt USB 3 and faster conversion? Ability to name DURec files?
USB3 doesn't bring you a speed advantage and for the number of channels USB3 is simply not needed.
Named tracks, sry, don't know.
I rephrased my statement a bit that you quoted, during editing something went wrong.
I would check UFX II manual version 2.0 as MC told.
The differences that I noticed in manual 2.0 I updated in my comparison excel as good as I could.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156
There is no other 'UFX II' coming.
There is no other 'UFX II' coming.
Thanks.
Hi. I wrote to RME to find out about the converters in Fireface 802 fs, ufx 2 and 3 and this is what they replied:
“Hello,
the Fireface 802 FS , UFX II and UFX III use the same converters and analog boards.
UFX II was updated to new converters in March 2023.
The Fireface 802 FS has different preamps and headphone outputs.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Markus Raß
RME Product Specialist”
Hope it helps
Yup, this is the latest status on this topic.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX iii vs 802fs
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.