• Registered: 2011-07-13
  • Posts: 6

Topic: RME ufx

hi RME !

im a musicproducer based in stockholm sweden.
my production credits include artists such as - robyn, the wanted, the saturdays, the teddybears and ive scored movies and numerous commercials broadcast worldwide.
ive been a faithful logic user for a long time- strugglin  with TDM/pro tools HD to keep my work up to prostandard..
A few months ago i decided to give up logic and finally switch to protools, the problems and the constant  crashes with logic TDM seriously started to effect my workflow and even deadlines..

about a month ago i was workin on a project at realworld studios in baath england and met engineer ali stanton who told me that i should stick to logic
but go fully native- he said that the new macs released in july with thunderbolt would give me almost no latency with a native interface such as apogee symphony.
apogee stated that they would make thunderbolt an essential part of their next generation of interfaces..

came back to stockholm and mentioned the idea to my computer/music sales guy who recommended me to try the RME UFX instead.
i really like the unit but would like to get a few answers before i buy the product :

is USB 2.0 fast enough for a 96 channel pro audio mix ? 
if not- will u upgrade your interface to i.e usb 3.0 or thunderbolt ?
if so- why is apogee building thunderbolt into symphony ? is it way overkill ?
will i be able to record vocals or live instruments in realtime without any latency problems ?

is the RME UFX in any way taking CPU power away from plugins and software instruments ?
will RME UFX + state of the art new MAC be sufficient for any situations, equal that ive had with my old TDM -pro tools HD/ 3 digidesign 192´s/mac quad core intel xeon 6 gig ram?

thank you for your time !

  • From: Germany
  • Registered: 2007-04-10
  • Posts: 9,778

Re: RME ufx

Replied by mail.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

RME Support's Website

  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: RME ufx

To clear up some myths:

is USB 2.0 fast enough for a 96 channel pro audio mix ?

Yes. From the specs USB can transfer 100+ channels at the same time. So no problem with the 60 channels of the UFX. Besides that the UFX provides also a FireWire port to choose the best for the individual system. As long as you mix in the box you can mix several hundred channels. If you need to play them out simultaneously on a mixing desk you should have a look on RME's MADI systems.

if not- will u upgrade your interface to i.e usb 3.0 or thunderbolt ?

In the moment there are no benefits in using them. RME provides cross platform interfaces. They work on both operating systems with the same features, low latency and stability. USB3 is not available on Mac hardware, Thunderbolt not on PC hardware. There is no USB3 driver from Microsoft now - only drivers from hardware manufacturers. Besides that there is no benefit for an USB3 interface - the latency stays the same. The available channels can be transfered easily and the interface works on nearly every Mac and PC.

The same with Thunderbolt. High licencing costs, a rather small market and users are limited to a single 2 m cable (49 USD) in the moment.

if so- why is apogee building thunderbolt into symphony ? is it way overkill ?

Maybe they want Apple to sell more of the one-and-only Thunderbolt cable for 50 bucks? 

will i be able to record vocals or live instruments in realtime without any latency problems ?

Sure. Latency is never a problem for recording but only for monitoring. Thats the reason why RME developed a built in hardware mixer long time ago to mix input and playback signals with zero latency. The UFX integrates a new version of this mixer - with internal effects and tons of new features. It works like the DSP cards you used before. The UFX effects will be calculated in the unit. If you mix it with a native workflow (e. g. plugins in Logic) in the monitoring path this will introduce latency.

will RME UFX + state of the art new Mac be sufficient for any situations, equal that ive had with my old TDM -pro tools HD/ 3 digidesign 192´s/mac quad core intel xeon 6 gig ram?

The question is not the UFX but your host Mac. You want to change your workflow from the old DSP effects to native effects (calculated on the Mac CPUs). The UFX is not the limited factor. If the new Mac can calculate all your plugins and software instruments the UFX is the perfect parter. RME's USB/FireWire technology and the drivers are optimized for the best possible performance and stability.

is the RME UFX in any way taking CPU power away from plugins and software instruments ?

No. USB needs a little bit more CPU power than FireWire but I doubt you will recognize a difference on your powerful system.

best regards
Knut

P.S: UFX user experiences can be find here: http://synthax.com/~synthax/index.php/fireface-ufx.html.

  • Registered: 2011-07-13
  • Posts: 6

Re: RME ufx

Hi daniel,

thanks a lot for ur quick answer !

came back to stockholm and mentioned the idea to my computer/music sales guy who recommended me to try the RME UFX instead.
i really like the unit but would like to get a few answers before i buy the product :

is USB 2.0 fast enough for a 96 channel pro audio mix?   

If you are mixing to stereo or even surround, the 96 channels will not be going through USB at all.. The UFX does not even have as many channels.

question :
dont really understand.. am i  limited to 60 channels intrernally in LOGIC when usin the UFX ?

will RME UFX + state of the art new MAC be sufficient for any situations, equal that ive had with my old TDM -pro tools HD/ 3 digidesign 192´s/mac quad core intel xeon 6 gig ram?

Not sure how many physical audio channels you require...

qurrently comin out of   3 8200 API  summoners 8 channels per unit  - 24 channels mix down to stereo L-R.  in reality it means that i have  12 pairs of L -R  that i use as buses
to stereo out LR.. on these buses i can insert outboards .. however im movin towards  lesser use of outboards .. i think that with the increasing plugin quality and overall soundquality of todays interfaces ill be fine with 8 physical outs - one summoning unit -to stereo L-R.

(obviously your biased) but would u please rate, in your book,  the best audio interfaces for pro use ?
im still on the old 192s - please compare them to whatever u feel is the best .

again thanks so much for your time,

best,

phat fabe

P.S thanks you knut for the enlightment

  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: RME ufx

dont really understand.. am i  limited to 60 channels intrernally in LOGIC when usin the UFX ?

No. You can use as many channels in Logic as you want and your Mac provides. 100, 200, ... no problem. The UFX limits you only to 15 stereo busses to play them out at the same time. But 15 are enough for your current 12 L/R workflow. But you need an ADAT converter if you want to go analog from the two ADAT ports of the UFX.

(obviously your biased) but would u please rate, in your book,  the best audio interfaces for pro use ?

The UFX (of course). Says the pro audio world press (m.i.p. award 2011) and several thousand users who owns one ...

best regards
Knut

  • Registered: 2011-07-11
  • Posts: 2

Re: RME ufx

Hello

I Came from a Protools HD 3 system, sold it and set up a RME UFX with Protools 9 Native, Logic 9 and Ableton 8 and very happy i did, now waiting on new mac pro, then ill be all set.

Best money i ever spent, my only regrets are i didn't do it sooner :-)

  • Registered: 2011-07-13
  • Posts: 6

Re: RME ufx

excellent !

ill do same !
thanks for the feedback
//
fabe

  • Buzz
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2011-07-24
  • Posts: 4

Re: RME ufx

Hallo,

ich setzte das UFX live bei jedem Konzert ein mit Waves Multirack und einem 2010er Macbook Pro und bin absolut begeistert. Sehe ich das richtig das es keinen grossen Unterschied macht ob ich das UFX per Firewire oder USB anschliesse? Oder was sind die Unterschiede, was ist besser für mich?

Rock on and so long, Buzz

  • From: Germany
  • Registered: 2007-04-10
  • Posts: 9,778

Re: RME ufx

Grundsätzlich gibt's kein "besser". Kommt auf den jew. Rechner an...


mfg
D. Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

RME Support's Website