Well, this is a statement! Congrats and enjoy your new UFX II. :-)

Hi everyone,

First post for me here, allow me to step in as this thread seems quite relevant to my situation. I want to upgrade my Saffire Pro 40 (dropped support on recent OS), but I'm hesitating between a Digiface USB to give a new life to my SP40 (and benefit from RME drivers), and a UFX II (with the ability to use the SP40 via ADAT for extra preamps when needed).

The UFX II is about 4 times more expensive than the DF USB, and I'm happy to pay that premium if I'm convinced it will be a significant step-up from my current setup, but I'm just a hobbyist occasionnaly recording some personal projects (mostly guitars and vocals) and while I want to get the best I can afford, I'm just wondering if it really makes sense to ditch a perfectly working SP40 in favour of a UFX II when a DF USB could easily give it a new life.

I understand it's a very personnal decision at the end of the day, but any real-world inputs/opinions on that topic would be very welcome. Thanks a lot!

Easy answer from another guitarist and Ex-Focusrite user (Liquid Saffire 56 and OctoPre): get the UFX II!

If you have enough I/O ports, sell the SP40 on used market to get a few bucks back, as long as there is still somebody to pay for a FireWire device. Alternatively: use it in stand-alone mode, connected via ADAT.

After getting my 1st RME product, UFX, approx 10y ago, I recognized, what all I was missing from my former Focusrite setup.

Regarding Kubraks comment on satisfaction...
So if you think that you are satisfied now, sorry, but this doesn't mean anything ;-)
Why? Because you only know your Focusrite ;-)

It was the same for me, 1st I liked my old Focusrite setup, because it was new...

[ But then I stumbled into some driver issues, lost recordings and always felt being limited by Focusrite's Mixcontrol.
Another point was the weak documentation, it is really nice to have a good technical manual.
Then I read in a forum post that the metering is not accurate. I couldn't re-measure, but this sounded not good.
My overall satisfaction level decreased over time, so I decided to sell Focusrite completely and to give RME a try. ]

You will recognize later, like I did, how much better RME is in every aspect.
Looking back, there is absolutely nothing which I miss from my former Focusrite setup.

Ok, RME is more expensive, but it is not overpriced. You get a real value for the money for a reasonal, justified price.
And if you should need to seel, you get easily around 75% of street price on averade for the used gear.
This is because of internal design (FPGA based, no USB/FW 3rd party chips) and extremely long firmware and driver support.
TotalMix FX, the digital Mixer, is very flexible, kind of state of the art and very mature since over 20y of development.
Every recording interface uses this one mature and very flexible mixer.

With the current UFX II you get an excellent product.
The analog section of UFX II became an overhaul from the UFX III.
So you have now the same excellent converter like in the ADI-2 Pro FS reference converter and like in the UFX III.

My current setup, if you are interested. Was prepared for mobile use.
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/
The Octamic XTC I could sell, but I keep it because of its flexibility (4x AES, format converter, audio over USB).

Please read more closely, he mentioned already, that he is decisioning between DF and UFX II.
So the UFX II is already set, he is only unsure if or if not.

If he wouldn't have the money he wouldn't consider it at all, right?

This resonates with me, having recently switched from my UA Apollo to the UFX II. I didn't realize what I was missing until now. In fact, TotalMix FX alone would have been enough reason to make the switch much sooner.

An interesting point: I was initially torn between the UCX II and the UFX II. Ultimately, ergonomic factors like the internal power supply and the rack mount capability of the UFX II swayed my decision. I didn't think I needed 60 channels of I/O (as in the UFX II), so the 188 channels of the UFX III seemed excessive. However, after seeing how TotalMix FX handles submixes, Loopback, and DigiCheck NG, I almost wish I had chosen the UFX III!

Thanks so much to the 3 of you for taking the time to answer my question and share your experiences.

There is a lot of this. While I'm ready to spend more, I don't want to "over spend" if it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, a studio upgrade is long overdue, so I guess it's life giving me a nudge in this direction.

Thanks a lot Ramses for your very detailed answer, I really appreciate you going into so much detail. I have already spent a lot of time on your blog articles (interfaces spreadsheet, latency chart...), that's an amazing job and so much very helpful information. I agree with you, I'm happy with my SP40 but I've never been able to compare with another interface, so I have no real idea of what I'm missing out on.

Honestly that's where I'm at. I have no use for MADI right now, but I would hate to regret not having it in a few years time.

Well overall it's pretty much the answers I wanted to hear, in the sense that deep down I knew that a UFX would certainly be a great upgrade to my studio and that it would be a real step-up that I would not regret. I just needed some real world experiences from experienced users to confirm that. Thanks a lot, and hopefully I can come back to this forum soon as a new RME user and tell you how I feel about it!

Yep. And you are lucky now, that UFX II and III are since some time really the same devices.
The only difference is USB3 and MADI.

Yes, I can imagine the challenge.
UFX III vs. UFX II is another €590 more.

MADI can be useful if you intend to work with double speed in the future.
Because when using double speed, you can only add one more external 8-port device.
Even when working with single speed, one 12 Mic with 12 Mic inputs would use those two ports.
If you think of it as a long term investment then MADI might give you an additional value in the future.
But consider, also the external MADI devices are a little bit more expensive.
MADI can also be useful if you want to work with different submixes and want to record them using loopback.
Imaging, your inputs are all in use, then there are no ports free for loopback recording.
In this case, MADI gives you many extra ports which make it again possible.
MADI has also an advantage to place mic amps and stuff to other recording rooms.
You can chain devices and the optical MADI cable between each of the devices in the chain may be up to even 2km long.
Maybe you get a house in the future and you have one room for monitoring and one drummer booth and what not.
MADI is excellent to distribute the recording across rooms/locations.
ADAT is restricted to ~10m, but usually 15+m also work with RME.

For exactly this reason I would spend the €590 more and then peace in mind for the next 10 or 20+ years.
You also save the upgrade work if you should migrate to an UFX III at a later point in time.
You can't import UFX II config into UFX IIII. So this saves time and efforts having to recreate all the routings and use cases that pile up over the years.

Definitively!

Additionally, the tip to get a passive monitor controller or to use attenuators to fix any potential level mismatches.
See this thread: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=25399
In TM FX it can happen rather quick to reach 0dB on an HW output (like with any other digital mixer).
Which can be very loud if the active monitors are powerful (usually they are).
With switchable attenuators, you can reduce the volume between -10 and -30 dB without any quality loss.

An option is to additionally use an ADI-2 Pro FS for the monitoring section.
The included SRC (sample rate converter) can be of additional use if you have device with fix sample rate.
Then you can use the SRC and do not need to make this device to the clock master.

I would use attenuators so that you do not have to reduce the volume too much in the digital domain on your HW output faders of TotalMix FX towards your monitors. At 0dB you have the full SNR/dynamic. Up to -20 or -30 is ok, but then I would think about using attenuators.
If you doubleclick such a fader by accident or load a snapshot where the output volume in TM FX is at 0 dB, then it could be very loud. This and to reduce the volume in the digital domain too much you should prevent.

I bought those just for a test, but I do not need them.
It is also not possible to use them for me, as you need to plug them on the active monitors input.
With those attenuators plus the XLR cables plugged there is not enough distance to the wall.
The monitors would move too much towards the front of the desk.

https://www.thomann.de/de/jts_ma_123.htm

My Geithain monitors (RL906) have an analog poti on the inputs which allows to reduce the volume.
After that I am able to use the monitors with levels from -15 down to -35 and if I work concentrated down to -45 dB.
Dynamic Loudness of ADI-2 Pro FS R BE is very useful to retain a full sound even at lower listening volumes starting at -35 dB.
Maximum Loudness is reached with my settings at -55 dB.

Nah .. headphone preamps are really very different in terms of output power.
And you are right, setting low is in most cases fully sufficient if the headphones are not of high impedance.

When it comes to line level outputs, then you have different studio reference levels.
Simply choose the one with the lowest output level.
But still the monitors will be loud.
Also at the monitors you need to look whether there is a volume poti or a dip switch to lower the input sensitivity.
But still it might be too loud.
Therefore you need to lower the output fader in TM FX as well ... save -40 dB  for a start.
Save this in all snapshots.
Then you need to look whether an attenuator is additionally needed.
Or monitoring controller or alternatively ADI-2 Pro FS R BE.

Yes, and it's my understanding that the UFX II also has those converters now.

Yes sure, its more about the special features...

There was a posting of KaiS or MC on this forum about the placement in front of the speaker at the "end of the cable".
I do not remember the technical reason.
I only remember that it is better to not place it directly at the output.
Maybe somebody can kindly explain again the technical background, thanks.

I shall continue to gush...

I've been really enjoying the dynamics section of TotalMix FX. At first, I didn't recognize its brilliance—thought it was handy but nothing special.

However, after using it in production for live streaming over the past few days, it's become my new favourite dynamics processor. It's incredibly simple to use and easy to dial in the perfect settings. The "ballistic" graphical display is excellent, and having both the compressor and expander in one unit is pure genius!

I've also been loving the Room EQ and Crossfeed functions. I really enjoy the sound of my Beyerdynamic DT880 headphones and know their sound well. But EQing the "Beyer peak" away has been a revelation. A big thanks to RME for their useful YouTube video on how to use Room EQ with DT880s.