• Registered: 2023-11-11
  • Posts: 4

Topic: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

Appoljies if i this has already been posted easily available. 
There is a sale right now on the UFX II.
I'm looking for more I/O  and besides i/o  (coming from babyface pro).

I was wondering if the UFX II would farther reduce my latency (run a lot of vsti)

My other thought of which would be less expencive upfront is to purchase a Digiface usb and a piece of adat outboard gear though I don't understand fully how everthing works so im not sure if this secondary piece of outboard gear would induce more latency.

Thanks.

2 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2023-11-11 10:12:09)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,847

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

I would go for the UFX II because then you get an RME flagship device with a very well analog section and an excellent mix of I/O ports and features.

If you buy a Digiface USB and "a piece of ADAT outboard gear" then it will most likely end up, that you buy something less expensive and won't get the quality of RME transparent and high-quality AD/DA conversion.

The Digiface USB will at the end of the day does not have the features of the UFX II flagship interface, e.g.:

- 4x mic/instr inputs with 75 dB gain in the quality comparable to 12Mic
- 8x analog I/O with a few reference levels up to 4 at the main outputs
- Note: unlike with ADAT (or MADI) you won't loose any of these analog channels at higher sample rates (44.1-192 kHz).
- 2 very nice and powerful headphone outputs
- 2x ADAT I/O, one port switchable to optical SPDIF
- 1x AES I/O which can be well-used connecting, e.g., an ADI-2 Pro in the future
- 2x MIDI I/O
- 6 config slots for storing your configuration for stand-alone operation
- fully operable in stand-alone mode due to display
- DURec and Autoset are very useful features
- …

You might also be interested in this new feature, "Room EQ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-qxkIqbWY

Then I would wait a little until it is clear, which other interfaces will get this feature as well.

If you like, you can use my Excel to compare RME USB (FW, TB) recording interfaces:
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
  • Kubrak
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Online
  • Registered: 2023-08-03
  • Posts: 504

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

Also, if latency is the most important, Digiface USB probably adds few samples lag to connected interface.

Or am I wrong? How many samples does it take to transport ADAT signal from input to output (including all the matrix computation). It must be at least one sample, if things go very fast. It cannot be, IMHO, less than one sample.

4 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2023-11-11 10:30:46)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,847

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

Kubrak wrote:

Also, if latency is the most important, Digiface USB probably adds few samples lag to connected interface.

Or am I wrong? How many samples does it take to transport ADAT signal from input to output (including all the matrix computation). It must be at least one sample, if things go very fast. It cannot be, IMHO, less than one sample.

I remember from an old thread where MC answered that you can ignore that. Yes maybe 1 sample, who cares.

Assumed: with the UFX II he might save up to ~1+ ms converter latency depending on what other external AD and DA converter the unit uses and how old AD and DA converter are.
But this might stay unclear because other vendors are not that detailed like RME to document converter latencies in the manual.

Compare e.g. converter latency of if different units over time (AD/DA at single speed, 44.1 kHz, in samples)
- UC (from 2009) 43/28 samples
- UCX (from 2012) 14 / 7 samples
- UFX II (1st HW from 2017, seems to get an update now) 12 / 7 samples
- UCX II (from 2021)  5 / 6 samples
- UFX III (from 2023) 5 / 6 samples
In my Excel line 33 "Converter latency in samples @44.1kHz AD/DA"
For gettin the value in ms, then check the RME manuals, search for chapter "Latency and Monitoring"

But finally, in terms of RTL (round trip latency, A/D, transport to/from PC, D/A conversion) you are getting more latency anyway by the transport over USB/FW, depending on
- Windows: ASIO buffer size
- Apple: the buffer settings in the application
The converter latency only adds a little bit.

For me converter latency is interesting, and I want to keep it as low as possible, as I am using my unit as a parallel effect loop for the guitar amps. So I do not want to lose time between hitting the strings on the guitar and getting the signal finally to the power amp section of the guitar amp.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
  • Registered: 2023-11-11
  • Posts: 4

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

ramses wrote:

I would go for the UFX II because then you get an RME flagship device with a very well analog section and an excellent mix of I/O ports and features.

If you buy a Digiface USB and "a piece of ADAT outboard gear" then it will most likely end up, that you buy something less expensive and won't get the quality of RME transparent and high-quality AD/DA conversion.

The Digiface USB will at the end of the day does not have the features of the UFX II flagship interface, e.g.:
...

You might also be interested in this new feature, "Room EQ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-qxkIqbWY

Then I would wait a little until it is clear, which other interfaces will get this feature as well.

If you like, you can use my Excel to compare RME USB (FW, TB) recording interfaces:

Thanks, I appreciate all your contributions, I read your spreadsheet earlier but i was confused by what the figures representing in terms of latency, now that i see its samples, I still need to do some cross referancing but I think I get it now Thank you.

If i but a ufx II what am i missing if i get the older or newer version, as from what i understand there were two seperate boards? Or is it all upgradable with firmware updates?

ramses wrote:

For me converter latency is interesting, and I want to keep it as low as possible, as I am using my unit as a parallel effect loop for the guitar amps. So I do not want to lose time between hitting the strings on the guitar and getting the signal finally to the power amp section of the guitar amp.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156


Regarding latency; as a guitar player, this is exactly where i'm at.

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,847

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

kisses wrote:
ramses wrote:

For me converter latency is interesting, and I want to keep it as low as possible, as I am using my unit as a parallel effect loop for the guitar amps. So I do not want to lose time between hitting the strings on the guitar and getting the signal finally to the power amp section of the guitar amp.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156

Regarding latency; as a guitar player, this is exactly where i'm at.

BTW, S-Gear is a nice VSTi .. check the two sound samples.

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/

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

7 Reply by Kubrak (edited by Kubrak 2023-11-12 11:21:39)

  • Kubrak
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Online
  • Registered: 2023-08-03
  • Posts: 504

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

kisses wrote:

If i but a ufx II what am i missing if i get the older or newer version, as from what i understand there were two seperate boards? Or is it all upgradable with firmware updates?

No, they differ in HW. Newer HW revision has FS (which is handy), but it is not advertised or mentioned anywhere in official RME materials/manuals, except for this forum.

Also in UFX II x Digiface USB x Babyface Pro decision might play role for you, that new version of TotalMix introduces Controll Room FX ability to certain models. (So far, I do not know which ones...)

8 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2023-11-12 12:35:40)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,847

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

Some additions.

Initially, there was the UFX+, released in 2016.
UFX II was derived from UFX+, same except no MADI and thus only USB2, released early 2017.
Due to chip crisis and delivery chain problems, the AD/DA converter of UFX II had to be changed to ESS.
Due to availability and other issues around TB, the UFX+ could not be manufactured anymore.
In 2023, RME releases the UFX III with USB3 without thunderbolt, but it got many interesting features, see my blog article: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/

Based on the information from the UFX manual v2.0, the following functions have not been ported from UFX III to the newer UFX II:
- DURec track names (that your custom track names from TM FX are being used for DURec track names)
- lock and map keys (if I remember right, first introduced by ADI-2 DAC/Pro and UCX II)
- both ADAT ports can be switched to optical SPDIF // AES and ADAT are now independent of each other

But I could be wrong, sometimes not every detail is in the manual, or I may have missed it.
Sorry, but it can happen ;-)

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

9 Reply by Sky (edited by Sky 2023-11-13 00:29:48)

  • Sky
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2022-06-30
  • Posts: 22

Re: Latency Comparison of, UFX II, Digiface usb, and babyface pro (non FS)

MC, If you're monitoring this thread, can you please confirm or clarify what Ramses said here?

Due to chip crisis and delivery chain problems, the AD/DA converter of UFX II had to be changed to ESS.

[...]

Based on the information from the UFX manual v2.0, the following functions have not been ported from UFX III to the newer UFX II:
- DURec track names (that your custom track names from TM FX are being used for DURec track names)
- lock and map keys (if I remember right, first introduced by ADI-2 DAC/Pro and UCX II)
- both ADAT ports can be switched to optical SPDIF // AES and ADAT are now independent of each other

I've just ordered a new UFX II but want to make sure there's feature parity with UFX III, or otherwise I'll change my order. I am needing the three features that Ramses could not find in the new UFX II v2.0 Manual. I'm also curious about ESS versus AKM in the newest UFXII.

Thank you!