• Registered: 2009-04-27
  • Posts: 2

Topic: Fireface UC - performance

Just wondering if there are any figures out there for the new device in terms of real world latency and CPU load. I've just purchased a FF400 but might switch for the UC if the performance is similar or better.

So....

Any measurements of loopback latency? Is there a safety buffer of 64 samples as with firewire devices?

What kind of CPU load is added with this device, is it comparable to the firewire version?

Can more than one UC be run simultaneously?

Can other devices share the USB bus or does that jeopardize performance of the UC?

Plans for a FF800 UC?

You guys make amazing products,

FinlayB

  • Registered: 2008-06-26
  • Posts: 152

Re: Fireface UC - performance

-The extra safety buffer with the current driver is 28 sample @single speed (= upto 50kHz under windows)
-the cpu load is comparable to firewire
-yes, at least 2 should work.
/uwe

FinlayB wrote:

Just wondering if there are any figures out there for the new device in terms of real world latency and CPU load. I've just purchased a FF400 but might switch for the UC if the performance is similar or better.

So....

Any measurements of loopback latency? Is there a safety buffer of 64 samples as with firewire devices?

What kind of CPU load is added with this device, is it comparable to the firewire version?

Can more than one UC be run simultaneously?

Can other devices share the USB bus or does that jeopardize performance of the UC?

Plans for a FF800 UC?

You guys make amazing products,

FinlayB

3 Reply by flavanoid (edited by flavanoid 2009-05-16 07:02:11)

  • Registered: 2009-05-15
  • Posts: 5

Re: Fireface UC - performance

FinlayB wrote:

Can other devices share the USB bus or does that jeopardize performance of the UC?

I'm very curious about this question which I don't think has been addressed.  Anyone have any thoughts to share?

4 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,599

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Usually the other device gets limited performance. At least this is what we saw when we connected a hard drive too. It got slowed down, the UC continued working.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2009-05-15
  • Posts: 5

Re: Fireface UC - performance

So before I found out about the forthcoming FFUC I sold my FF800 with the intention of buying a FF400 so I could make my recording rig portable, but now I have three questions since I am in audio interface limbo and need one ASAP...

When should we expect the UC to roll out to retailers(I know I read June, but are we talking any dates yet)?

What is required of a USB chipset for it play nice with the UC?

Does my Intel ICH9 chipset meet those requirements?

Additionally, I LOVED(I mean it! LOVED!! I would totally marry it :-)) my FF800 and I'm sure the FF400 would be just as great, but the way you're hyping the FFUC I'd like to know if I should hold out...

Thanks for your input!

6 Reply by panatrope (edited by panatrope 2009-05-18 05:48:47)

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: Fireface UC - performance

In considering any move to the USB version I would expect:

- the audio performance the same as the FF400, no better, no worse;
- it will be exactly compatible mechanically with the FF400 (mounting, etc.);
- it will arrive later than expected;
- it is extremely unlikely to exhibit the issues with TRS sockets that some FF400s have;
- there will be some initial teething problems such as host compatibility, but no worse than FW;
- likewise driver issues, because USB is new to RME, and USB depends more on CPU support than FW;
- it can still be used in portable mode because DC power requirements are the same as the FF400;
- it will eventually support USB3.0 (but nobody knows because there aren't too many host chipsets out there yet).

But it is nice to have a choice ....

ps.  I note that it is increasing abbreviated as FFUC.   I hope the reason for its choice of name is not similar to a local band here who named themselves the Panton Hill Umbrella Club, but were more familiarly known by the initials - PHUC!!  HeadScratch

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum
  • Registered: 2009-05-15
  • Posts: 5

Re: Fireface UC - performance

panatrope wrote:

In considering any move to the USB version I would expect:

- the audio performance the same as the FF400, no better, no worse;

Not according to the the hype, claims of near PCI latencies

panatrope wrote:

- it will arrive later than expected;

I expected it to arrive later than I expected, um... HeadScratch

panatrope wrote:

- it is extremely unlikely to exhibit the issues with TRS sockets that some FF400s have;

I was unaware of a TRS issue, but you just gave me another reason to hold out for the UC

panatrope wrote:

- it can still be used in portable mode because DC power requirements are the same as the FF400;

If by "portable mode" you mean bus powered, this is not true of the UC.  AC adapter is a must.

panatrope wrote:

I note that it is increasing abbreviated as FFUC.   I hope the reason for its choice of name is not similar to a local band here who named themselves the Panton Hill Umbrella Club, but were more familiarly known by the initials - PHUC!!  HeadScratch

HAHAHA! that's FFUCin' hilarious!  rotfl

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: Fireface UC - performance

- by audio performance I meant sensitivity, output level, noise, distortion.

- by portable, I mean it can be powered from the same external battery supply I use for the FF400 and the QuadMic in the field with my non-Mac laptop;

Otherwise - perhaps MC can tell us what the 'C' in 'UC' represents.  Or is engineering undergraduate humour also alive and well in Germany?

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

9 Reply by Bone (edited by Bone 2009-05-19 12:30:14)

  • Bone
  • AD/DA expert
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-06-26
  • Posts: 85

Re: Fireface UC - performance

UC = USB Compact

Biggest improvement imho is the reduced safety buffer of only 28 Samples...

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UC - performance

This could/should work as well if the DC plug fits in size:

http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-fw-6pwr.html

11 Reply by panatrope (edited by panatrope 2009-05-19 23:58:52)

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: Fireface UC - performance

I am assuming that the power consumption of the FFUC is of the same order (12W) as the FF400.

A single USB port can provide a maximum of 500mA at 5V, ie., 2.5W.  Some cables exist to aggregate power from 2 ports, but this only generates a 5W capability.  The same applies to USB hubs with "high-power" (1A) ports.  All solutions fall far short of the stated 12W requirement.   The suggested cable would have the same limitations in a USB environment.  The biggest issue is the lower voltage of the USB port (5V) compared to the FW port (12V).  The USB port connector would be required to support 2.5A, which the present design would find rather challenging. 

(BTW, my solution for "independent of mains power" operation is a "Laptop/Phone Recharger" pack I found as a 'special buy' at a local Aldi supermarket.  It has a 30 Watt/hour Li-Ion battery in it, and multiple output voltage settings from 3V to 16V including 12v, the nominal for the FF400 and QuadMic.   A fully charged unit lasts me about 2 hours on the FF400, more on the QuadMic.  And as a PC laptop user I'm don't expect to power the units from my laptop anyway.  Sealed Lead-acid units would be equally good, if larger and heavier.)

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum
  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UC - performance

The suggested cable is a Firewire-to-DC plug one, so power would be provided by the Firewire port of Macbooks. fryingpan

No solution for PC users though, since they usually only come with an unpowered 4-pin FW port. wink

But the Aldi battery sounds usable, too. Unfortunately they only offer these things as special offers for short periods of time.

  • Registered: 2009-05-20
  • Posts: 1

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Will a Firewire-to-DC plug cable actually give enough power for the fireface UC to work, if the firewire-power is coming from a macbook pro firewire port?

Like the one you mentioned?
http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-fw-6pwr.html

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: Fireface UC - performance

On the previously stated assumption that the power consumption of the FFUC is the same as the FF400(FW), then obviously if you could power a FF400 from a macbook pro firewire port, then you should be able to power an FFUC from the same port.

E&OE

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum
  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UC - performance

According to the photo published on RME product site the UC requires the same 12W as the FF400. wink

http://rme-audio.de/images/products/pro … _uc_1b.jpg

16 Reply by -Fluky- (edited by -Fluky- 2010-09-16 00:50:59)

  • Registered: 2010-09-16
  • Posts: 7

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Hi,

Can anyone confirm the FireWire-to-DC -cable working with FFUC?
I'd really like to get the newer FFUC instead of the older FF400, but I need it to be bus-powerable.

  • Registered: 2010-09-10
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Hello,

No, the FFUC does NOT support bus-power.

Onno

  • Ulrich
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2008-05-31
  • Posts: 316

Re: Fireface UC - performance

He intends to power the FFUC by the bus power of the FW bus of his host, not by the USB bus. Interesting approach... Following the statements above, it should work.

  • Registered: 2010-09-10
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UC - performance

I have not seen this cable but if the power consumption it the same as FF400, it should be possible.
Found a picture - I think you want to use a cable like this one:
Cable FW - DC

Onno

  • Registered: 2010-09-16
  • Posts: 7

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Exactly, it should be possible.

But I am looking for official or unofficial confirmation from someone that this setup works without problems, because I don't want to run into problems and incompatibilities with the hardware. Otherwise I'll just get FF400, which is officially supported to be powered from the busses.

  • Registered: 2010-09-16
  • Posts: 7

Re: Fireface UC - performance

So, will it work?

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UC - performance

Since nobody built this yet, nobody can tell. Judging from specs it should work.