1 Topic by Sciss (edited by Sciss 2024-12-17 12:54:17)

  • Sciss
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 28

Topic: UCX II vs UFX III

Hi there,

in January we'll be equipping a new research space with a multi-channel interface, it should have a flawless Linux experience. I had been eyeing the UCX II for this, but of course the question is now whether we should go for the UFX III. As a public body (university), we are keen on rational and economic arguments, so the price difference is important. We also have a good A&H analogue mixer, so number of Mic Pres is not too important. We need to be able to run 8 analogue in / 8 analogue out for the time being, and one ADAT is sufficient. Here is my pro/cons for UCX vs UFX:

pro UCX
- smaller form factor, makes it easy as a mobile device as well (this will be one scenario, carrying it around to field work)
- in the same scenario, being able to use it as a battery powered field recorder
- half the price, no waste on MADI that won't be used in this studio in the next decade
- a little longer on the market, potentially less issues, oscmix compatibility on Linux

pro UFX
- not a horrible Y-splitting-cable solution to get eight analogue outputs; leaving HP usable separately
- DURec port on the front panel instead of back panel
- built-in power supply, not the horrible extra DC adapter
- no need to buy additional rack mount

Any thoughts (*with respect to Linux scenario*)?

2 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2024-12-26 17:48:50)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Online
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,560

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Pro UFX III
- AD/DA converter of reference converter ADI-2 Pro
- USB III CC mode (-> Linux)
- more future-proof by MADI, avoids
   - to sell and buy new if the port capacity should be not sufficient anymore
   - the efforts having to do all the routing again from scratch as you can't simply import the old configuration from UCX II
- the MADI spare channels you can use for creating additional submixes and for loopback recording without having to
    "sacrifice" the usual channels that might be in use already on a smaller interface
- if double / quad speed might be needed in the future you have more channel reserves using MADI compared to ADAT.
  double and quad speed both halfen the amount of channels for ADAT (and MADI) by channel multiplexing, which is needed
  to achieve the needed higher bandwidth demands of higher sample rates

All in all the more future-proof investment and to avoid any double work in terms of the setup.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, M-1620 Pro D, RayDAT, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10
  • From: Valencia, Spain
  • Registered: 2024-04-18
  • Posts: 72

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

There are many reasons to buy and trust RME but Linux is not one of them, now I quote verbatim the UCX II user manual on page 96 about Class Compliant Mode, chapter 31:

The main reason for implementing Class Compliant mode was to allow connecting the UCX II to an Apple iPad®!

... so the CC Mode it is not for Linux support, it's just a fluke and IMHO the word 'Linux' has been included in the RME website and its user manual for marketing reasons.

As an UCX II User I can't recommend it for use under Linux, too expensive to lose the Driver/TotalMix/Computer support.

UCX II FW106/34/104 v1.270 TM1.98 - PC Win11 24H2 / Fedora WS 41 - Reaper 7.31

4 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2024-12-29 23:46:28)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Online
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,560

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

But there are enough people who use RME equipment in this way. Even under Windows and Apple there are users who use DAW mode and prefer to route in the DAW.

In this respect, it doesn't really matter to you whether Linux is mentioned somewhere in a manual or not and whether you have TM FX Full mode or not.

At the end of the day, CC mode doesn't make the hardware any worse. Just be happy that you can do additional different things with CC mode. I would see this more as an opportunity.

And should somebody need to upgrade or sell, then he has still the big benefit of RME HW, that you get good prices on the used market.

For all these reasons I really don't see any reason to complain.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, M-1620 Pro D, RayDAT, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10
  • Sciss
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 28

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Has anyone used UFX III in CC Mode on Linux and can comment on the experience?

  • cupakm
  • AES/EBU artist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-04-03
  • Posts: 107

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

ramses wrote:

But there are enough people who use RME equipment in this way.

Yes.

Sciss wrote:

Has anyone used UFX III in CC Mode on Linux and can comment on the experience?

I can comment on UCX II in CC mode on a low-latency kernel.

Sciss wrote:

no waste on MADI that won't be used

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

Sciss wrote:

oscmix compatibility on Linux

oscmix project would welcome you even with an UFX, no matter II or III ;-)

Sciss wrote:

use it as a battery powered field recorder

Please PM me if you get that one to work (for a few hours at least)...

cupakm's Website

7 Reply by Sciss (edited by Sciss 2025-01-19 20:28:05)

  • Sciss
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 28

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

cupakm wrote:

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

But I don't think you get 24 ins/outs in USB-2 (UFX II). Or do you? Then this would be a great alternative. I think I need USB-3 to get 8 (12) analog and 16 ADAT.

We have a project upcoming in autumn which requires 24 inputs/outputs, that's why I'm eager to verify that the UFX III would be an option (as opposed to UCX II which I would otherwise favour).

  • Registered: 2023-06-30
  • Posts: 245

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Sciss wrote:
cupakm wrote:

There is UFX II too, still a recent product, no MADI.

But I don't think you get 24 ins/outs in USB-2 (UFX II).

UFX II is 30 in/30 out (at single-speed rates) interface.

UFX III adds to that 64 MADI inputs and 64 MADI outputs (at single-speed rates), hence it uses USB 3.0.

Fireface UCX II + ARC USB > ADI-2 Pro FS R BE > Neumann KH 750 DSP + MA 1 > KH 120 A

9 Reply by vinark (edited by vinark 2025-01-19 20:45:40)

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,882

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Total in and out 60 https://rme-audio.de/fireface-ufx-ii.html

Oops posted at the same time lol

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • Sciss
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 28

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

@vinark do you get access to 60 I/O in CC mode on Linux, including the 16 ADAT in single-speed? This would be my question. If the confirmed answer is yes, then the UFX II might be the interface for us smile

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,882

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Ah ok you do need confirmation of someone in the know, so not me. But it would be highly expected if the UFX3 has it.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • From: Germany, Tuvalu, Poland, Chile
  • Registered: 2021-07-27
  • Posts: 599

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Can confirm: UFX III supports all 94 I/Os in CC-Mode (via USB3) Connection.

As stated in manual, chapter 31.

“Do It For Her”
My Gear: Bontempi Magic light Keyboard
  • Sciss
  • ADAT user
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-12-21
  • Posts: 28

Re: UCX II vs UFX III

Excellent, thank you!