• Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Topic: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Hi, i'm intending to purchase a RME system that allows me  record 48 channels (at least) in a MacBook using FireWire or USB. it must be portable, so using PCI it's out of question by now. Buying a 17" MacBook pro for using it's express card it's also out of question here. My doubt is: Can I use 2 UFX, at same time in a MacBook to record these 48 channels while using it's respectives duRecs to backup the audio being recorded in the computer? How to daisy-chain them without using Mac aggregate devices function? And what about if i need to record the audio going to the computer in a external Fw or USB hard disk? Where it goes in this daisy chain setup?
Another question: In this case, would be easier to daisy- chain a 1 UFX and 1 FF800 than 2 UFX because of the lack of two FireWire ports on the UFX model?

Thanks!

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

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Can I use 2 UFX, at same time in a MacBook to record these 48 channels while using it's respectives duRecs to backup the audio being recorded in the computer?

You can try to connect two UFX to two USB ports and build an aggregate device but this setup is not officially supported from RME. Otherwise it's not possible.

And what about if i need to record the audio going to the computer in a external Fw or USB hard disk?

The FireWire HD could connect to the free FW 800 port of the Macbook.

best regards
Knut

3 Reply by Masaaki (edited by Masaaki 2011-07-24 15:46:20)

  • Registered: 2011-05-04
  • Posts: 249

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

For such a large project (48 channels at least), I really do not understand why it must be portable. Maybe that's the part you would re-evaluate, because the total amount of gears for 48 channel recording are usually enormous, and lugging desktop machine versus laptop does not have a big overall impact (it actually invites troubles, because of the small screen size, low throughput to the recording hard drive, etc). If I run this project (assuming remote/field/live recording), I will need to hire some crews to take care all the mics/stands/cables, and some of those crews will be responsible to set up DAW station with desktop machine and rack. If this is a stable rig, then question goes back, why it has to be laptop. Sorry, I can't be more helpful than this.

  • Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

I'd like to thank both of you, Admin and Masaaki for your answers. Masaaki, I understand your opinion when you say that for recording 48 channels it cannot be on a portable rig, but we see people recording 56 channels on a 17"macbook pro thru MADI and it's fine for them. MY trouble here is about recording 6 adat outputs from digital consoles. If could use a desktop computer or other alternatives I'd go Madi(via express card on a brand new 17" MacBook pro which I don't have..hehehe) or PCI using RayDats, but I really want to use UFXs or UFX + ff800 via firewire maybe. I have a friend that uses 3 FF800 via FW 400 (!!!) in a Mac pro recording in nuendo under bootcamp win xp using an external Fw hard disk accessed by MacDrive ( software adapter)!!!! so many plausible obstacles but runs flawlessly!!! Instead using FF800s I'd like to use UFXs because of duRecs as simultaneous backup.

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

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

A Macbook (Pro?) with limited FW and USB ports is your weak point. As I wrote above the only way I see is a connection via two USB ports (busses) on the Macbook Pro. It could work. Aggregate both UFX and sync via word clock.

Good luck
Knut

  • Registered: 2007-06-16
  • Posts: 214

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

For 48 channels I would forget a portable system. I would use I7 desktop machine for 600€ and go for it. With such setup I managed to record 48 channels using two FF800. Each on it's own FF400 port and synched via wordclock.

That should work with UFX also, but is unofficial...

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

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Nothing wrong with using a mobile PC to record 48 (or even 64) channels in principle, but I would use a Madiface... Why the need for USB/FW?


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

RME Support's Website

8 Reply by tairoarrabal (edited by tairoarrabal 2011-07-24 23:00:07)

  • Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

I'm just looking for an option to record 48 channels not using MADI or PCI cards. If could use MADI or Pci in my current computers ( a white MacBook with FW400 and a 2011 21'5 iMac) I would never have made this post!!! I was just wondering if i could record 8 adat outputs in a portable macbook because it's a reality record 64 channels using FW (using 3 ff800). It's not a bandwidth problem, but i don't know what is the problem on doing that. Once gain I explain: I'd like to use at least one UFX in a setup like this. But again I thank you for your opinion, knowledge and attention! Let the discussion continue!!

  • Registered: 2009-03-03
  • Posts: 35

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

I think an important point is that the Fireface 800 allowed you to daisy chain three of them off of one FW800 port... which worked fine with a laptop. I would hope that the UFX could do at least what the FF800 could. It would be interesting to find out. The thing to watch out for on a notebook is the fact that many times, two USB ports that are side by side share one USB bus, and so a pair of high-bandwidth device like UFXs would have trouble on those two ports. You need to make sure they are on independent busses.

  • From: New Milford , CT USA
  • Registered: 2007-05-01
  • Posts: 347

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

HI tairoarrabal,

RME does not officially support multiple UFX units on one system on PC or MAC. As Daniel mentioned in the earlier post.
You could use a 2nd unit setup in stand alone mode as a AD/DA into the first units ADAT and AES ports.
This will only give you 24 analog I/O.
If you are using a Mac Book and not a Mac Book Pro then there also potential for the setup being too slow for running 2 UFx's as an aggregate device.

If you are trying to get 48 analog I/O then you would need more gear than just the 2x UFX. Two units will only give you 24 analog I/O.
For 48 channels  of analog you would need  more AD/DA converters attached the ADAT I/O of the 2 units.
You could use 2 more UFX units in stand alone mode to do this in order to get the 48 analog or use stand alone 8 or 16 channel AD/DA converters with the 2 units.
Things will get pretty expensive and complicated at that point.
You might want to look at Picking up a Refurbed 17" Mac Book Pro. Anything from the past 2 or 3 years will be fast enough and have FW800 and an express slot.
You can then consider Fireface 800, MADIface or even something like this
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=11282

Thanks Chris

Chris Ludwig | ADK Pro Audio
www.adkproaudio.com
https://www.facebook.com/adkmg

ChrisADK's Website

11 Reply by tairoarrabal (edited by tairoarrabal 2011-07-26 03:48:51)

  • Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Thanks, Chris!
I really liked the link about the taiwanese expansion box for express card. It's a good alternative for the already know Magma EXpansion Box.

I am now looking for a testimonial of someone that got linked a UFX to FF800 via FW (400/800)and used all the available inputs. If someone already made that, please report to me!!!!

Thanks for your attention.

12 Reply by tairoarrabal (edited by tairoarrabal 2011-08-17 05:02:36)

  • Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Gentlemen, in the last days I've been contacting some hardware manufacturers (Sonnet Technologies, Magma and Village Instruments) to know about their coming releases: I'm talking about Thunderbolt to PCI Express Adapters ( or Expansion Chassis if you wish) that will allow us to have a 10gps port connection out of the new MacBook pros, Mac Minis and iMacs. That will allow us to use, for example, pci express cards in our portable computers and my eventual (I'm still intending to purchase two Rme UFX to record 56 channels with duRec backup)  problem in connecting two UFX's in one 13" MacBOok pro would be history ( I'll be able to connect one UFX thru FW and another thru thunderbolt using a FW adapter - which Sonnet is already developing). Rme ancients: Am I just tripping or my thought may be correct?
i'm still not satisfied with the fact that connecting two UFX's is something unstable and etc.. Can someone perform this test for me? Try to connect two UFX's (via USB or FW) and test if they can work as aggregated devices on a Mac and record 48-56 (24/48k) channels in any Daw while they record their respective 28 channels via DuRec? I know that RME maybe doesn't want to officially support this messed setup that I'm intending to purchase, but I really would like to know if this craziness is possible. RME gods, please help me! And please don't try to convince me to go to HDSPe systems or MADI( that will be so easy to go with these future thunderbolt products) lol... thanks in advance!!

  • Registered: 2011-01-20
  • Posts: 31

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

why not just go MADI and be done with it?

14 Reply by tairoarrabal (edited by tairoarrabal 2011-08-17 05:04:49)

  • Registered: 2011-07-02
  • Posts: 10

Re: Recording 48 Channels with 2 UFX. Is that Possible and Stable?

Oh, my God..

I don't have questions about MADI.. In fact I'll use MADI to get 56 ch out of an Allen-Heath iLive 144 system that we bought today (actually). This is other story...