You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX II upgrade
Hello everyone,In a few days I expecting my brand new UFX II from Thomann.
How do I know I am having the newest upgraded ufx ii........ufx iii without the Madi as I am reading everywhere?
Also I am reading that in future apple will abandon kernel extensions and Driverkit is not the best for RME..should I worried cause I bought RME due to its longevity.
I am posting some pictures of what I ve read.
Cheers !!!
What i can say: Both, Kext and DK Drivers work on current sequoia (macOs15) beta.
So, in general, same procedure as it was on Sonoma and older MacOses. Kexts will (99% sure) work the same way as they did.
99%, because nobody knows if something changes until the public release. Hey, its Apple…
Some more nagging, little more complicated to install, without any noticable security improvements - these were the only changes i noticed till now regarding kext and dk drivers.
Any ideas on how do I know that I am buying the new updated UFX II?
All UFX II got triple SPDIF (and Room EQ).
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 25#p211025
I think the question behind was whether he got one of the newer devices with the new analog section,
but this you can't check without opening the device.
[ deleted wrong info ]
I think the question behind was whether he got one of the newer devices with the new analog section,
but this you can't check without opening the device.
Exactly......I order it one week ago from Thomann if that counts...
Checking for the triple SPDIF makes no sense - this is a firmware update, so how can it help to check for old/new hardware? Even 'new' UFX II didn't have this when shipped.
A way to check is to set the unit to 44.1 kHz internal clock, open TM FX, set meters to RMS, then read the numbers of input channels 1 to 8 with nothing connected, input RefLev set to Lo Gain. Old unit 113 dB, new unit 115 dB. Yes, not so big difference, but should be visible when done correctly.
A way to check is to set the unit to 44.1 kHz internal clock, open TM FX, set meters to RMS, then read the numbers of input channels 1 to 8 with nothing connected, input RefLev set to Lo Gain. Old unit 113 dB, new unit 115 dB. Yes, not so big difference, but should be visible when done correctly.
I checked a friends UCX ii that I am using until my UFX ii arrives.It shows -113dB and the specs -112dB asuming you are talking about SNR(hopping that I did everything correctly)
Nothing was connected on the UCX during the test.
MC wrote:A way to check is to set the unit to 44.1 kHz internal clock, open TM FX, set meters to RMS, then read the numbers of input channels 1 to 8 with nothing connected, input RefLev set to Lo Gain. Old unit 113 dB, new unit 115 dB. Yes, not so big difference, but should be visible when done correctly.
I checked a friends UCX ii that I am using until my UFX ii arrives.It shows -113dB and the specs -112dB asuming you are talking about SNR(hopping that I did everything correctly)
Nothing was connected on the UCX during the test.
On my UCX II, I get 116 in TotalMix with the settings you use and nothing connected at the analog in. Using DigiCheck NG the values are (for channel 1) ca -113 RMS LB [dB] and ca -116 RMS A [dBA]. For DigiCheck the values fluctuates around +- 0.2
The discrepancy with respect to TotalMix could just be that I've not enabled the TotalMix preference "RMS +3dB" for "Level Meters". Enabling that one I get 113 like you.
This is on Windows 10.
I checked a friends UCX ii that I am using until my UFX ii arrives.It shows -113dB and the specs -112dB
And how exactly these data are relevant to UFX II's old vs. new converters?
asuming you are talking about SNR(hopping that I did everything correctly)
One cannot talk about SNR when there is no signal present.
I don't know.....please read Matthias post above
I don't know.....please read Matthias post above
+1
I did some comparison between UFX ii and UFX iii...almost the same(regarding numbers but that's not the whole story when it comes to judge sound quality) but I don't know if those UFX ii specs are AFTER the "secret" upgrade.
After all I dot get why RME keeps that as a secret?? I don't like playing lottery .....so if I am lucky I ll get the new UFX ii or else I bought a 7 years old interface?
Its very akward......
I did some comparison between UFX ii and UFX iii...almost the same(regarding numbers but that's not the whole story when it comes to judge sound quality) but I don't know if those UFX ii specs are AFTER the "secret" upgrade.
After all I dot get why RME keeps that as a secret?? I don't like l playing lottery .....so if I am lucky I ll get the new UFX ii or else I bought a 7 years old interface?
Its very akward......
You could email RME support and they can tell if it's the upgraded UFX II given the serial number.
I checked a friends UCX ii that I am using until my UFX ii arrives.It shows -113dB and the specs -112dB asuming you are talking about SNR(hopping that I did everything correctly)
Nothing was connected on the UCX during the test.
That was correct. But the other comment is important too. I am not sure if that is default, RMS should be set to +3dB in TM FX Preferences to get correct RMS values with sines. And then the number is automatically equivalent to SNR.
You could email RME support and they can tell if it's the upgraded UFX II given the serial number.
Shouldn't all new devices being considered as upgraded???
Muffin wrote:You could email RME support and they can tell if it's the upgraded UFX II given the serial number.
Shouldn't all new devices being considered as upgraded???
There may old stock left for sale.
I was told by Thomann support that rev7 released date was 2023 so the one that I am expecting to receive is at least rev 7
I was told by Thomann support that rev7 released date was 2023 so the one that I am expecting to receive is at least rev 7
Yes from the Readme in the fut tool you can see that HW Rev 7 is the latest...
Fireface UFX II (Hw. Rev. A): USB 26 DSP 27 CC 15
Fireface UFX II (Hw. Rev. E): USB 115 DSP 27 CC 112
Fireface UFX II (Hw. Rev. 7): USB 206 DSP 27 CC 208
...and that there was a fix for it in March 2023, so this version must have existed already around that time.
03/23/2023: Digiface AES MCU 17 and CC11: Bugfix CC mode did not work. MIDI Input might not work reliably.
Digiface USB (Hw. Rev. G) 35: Internal changes for production. Fireface UFX II (Hw. Rev. 7): USB 202 CC 204.
USB and Class Compliant mode improved. Fireface UFX III: USB 19 DSP 6 CC 42: Optimized USB 3 Class Compliant Mode.
Triple AES/SPDIF receiver/transmitter added. SteadyClock FS fully implemented.
So I ll have a UFX III without madi and usb 3.....thats the reason I chose UFX ii
Just arrived.....it has Steady clock and if I am not mistaken its one of the things that the upgraded UFX ii got
Just arrived.....it has Steady clock and if I am not mistaken its one of the things that the upgraded UFX ii got
Not exactly that. I think you have a little misunderstanding / knowledge gap here. Let me summarize for you.
Every RME recording device, also preamps and AD/DA converter have at least SteadyClock technology for over 20 years.
You possibly mean SteadyClock FS, which 1st has been introduced to the market with ADI-2 DAC FS (around 12/2017) and later UFX II.
UFX II and UFX III have all an "FS" clock/quartz and SteadyClock "FS".
If I remember right, you were concerned about getting the UFX II version with the same analog section with AKM converters like the UFX III. That is something different.
SteadyClock is an RME technology to eliminate clock jitter when the RME recording interface is a clock slave. It refreshes a clock signal when propagating it further out through digital outputs and WC.
SteadyClock FS is the latest version with FS clock and improvements which remove clock jitter to an even higher degree.
In contrast to that, AKM converters are simply the converter chips for AD and DA conversion.
Finally the quality of A/D and D/A conversion depends on both, jitter free clock and a good converter,
but also on a good analog stage in front of or behind the converter.
You possibly mean SteadyClock FS,...........
If I remember right, you were concerned about getting the UFX II version with the same analog section with AKM converters like the UFX III. That is something different.
Yes and yes you are right..I am sorry for my mistake....
You're welcome, enjoy your new interface 
You're welcome, enjoy your new interface
Thank you very much!!
I also got a lighting fast response from RME to to resolve this matter once and for all.
Everyt UFX II beyond March 2023 is rev 7 which means it has the UFX III preamps and ADDA.....
And here is my new RME..........cheers!!!!
Nice, and congrats on your setup.
I also spot a Lexicon there in the rack, nice! I also have two of them in my setup, PCM 81 and 91 :-)
Nice, and congrats on your setup.
I also spot a Lexicon there in the rack, nice! I also have two of them in my setup, PCM 81 and 91 :-)
Thank you very much!!
Yeap thats a PCM 90 mostly on tracking but now with all these inputs I might try it on mixing too....
BTW I ve noticed that UFX II is running pretty hot...is it normal??
ramses wrote:Nice, and congrats on your setup.
I also spot a Lexicon there in the rack, nice! I also have two of them in my setup, PCM 81 and 91 :-)Thank you very much!!
Yeap thats a PCM 90 mostly on tracking but now with all these inputs I might try it on mixing too....
BTW I ve noticed that UFX II is running pretty hot...is it normal??
The specs of the UFX II shows that idle power consumption is 19 Watts and "typical" use will draw 22-25 Watts so the device will at least get fairly warm. There might be some hot spots as well.
I don't own the UFX II but I always think about adequate cooling for all my electronic devices.
If you're using a passively cooled rack, ensure there's some space between the devices to allow for proper air circulation; otherwise, heat may accumulate between them. The UFX II might need a bit more space on the top and bottom, perhaps 1 cm more.
If you're using a passively cooled rack, ensure there's some space between the devices to allow for proper air circulation; otherwise, heat may accumulate between them. The UFX II might need a bit more space on the top and bottom, perhaps 1 cm more.
I m gonna fix the spacing as what you see is not its permanent placement.
A regular cooling noiseless fan on the back of the rack could help?
ramses wrote:If you're using a passively cooled rack, ensure there's some space between the devices to allow for proper air circulation; otherwise, heat may accumulate between them. The UFX II might need a bit more space on the top and bottom, perhaps 1 cm more.
I m gonna fix the spacing as what you see is not its permanent placement.
A regular cooling noiseless fan on the back of the rack could help?
Sure. Best a silent one depending on how close this is to you monitoring or recording.
There are fans available (single, double) which run from USB power … so if a USB port is near, delivering power, then you could use something like this.
I wouldn't add a fan in a studio unless really needed. We are using many RME devices in our studios and some don't even have space between other rack devices. Yes, they get warm, but so far this hasn't been a problem, some of our Fireface 800's are running fine for the last 15 years or so...
I finally got a small usb fan thats very silent and keeps my rack crazy cool...
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX II upgrade
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.