Topic: UFX remote?

I am hearing the UFX remote upgrade is not free? This is totally unacceptable if true. Can anybody conform this please?

thanks

Re: UFX remote?

From the Advanced Remote Control website:

The Advanced Remote Control (ARC) can be used with all Fireface UCX. It can also be used with all Fireface UFX with a serial number 23241707 (built after June 2011) or higher. Users that own a Fireface UFX with a serial number below 23241707 have to send their UFX to their distributor as it requires a hardware modification to be fully compatible to the Advanced Remote Control. This modification is not free of charge.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

how much is it?

Re: UFX remote?

Please contact the local distributor. As for "unacceptable", please note that as everywhere else, our products' technical specifications are subject to change without notice.

The positive aspect is that the modification is possible in the first place - this might have been different.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

yes Daniel, so you said in your email! Perhaps i can get 2 bcfs working with it instead! maybe

Re: UFX remote?

What about new users who just bought the new UFX but old revision?

(bought few days ago)

Re: UFX remote?

You will need to discuss this with your retailer... Not much we can do from here, sorry. All that counts is the serial number.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

I would also suggest that you check applicable Consumer Protection laws where you bought the unit.  If you bought the unit well after the announcement of the revised product and you expected the unit to be 'recent stock' which supported the new remote, then your laws may have a 'fitness for purpose" provision that may cover an exchange or modification without charge.

Publishing a change in design six months ago (when presaging the Advanced Remote) saying 'check the serial number' but only publishing the relevant serial number last week is, in my view, something that RME could have been handled better.  Putting the risk on consumers for RME distributors' stock management practice is what I would consider "totally unacceptable".

In my case, I purchased an new UFX at the end of September, specifically seeking assurance that it was a 'new' unit that would support the Advanced Remote announced 3 months earlier.  At that stage I could obtain no advice from RME as to whether the serial number was greater than that required to support the new remote.  Subsequent checking serial numbers of other RME devices suggested that the unit had in fact been built around February, had sat on the distributors shelves for six months, and thus would not support the new remote.  I am pleased to say that the situation was satisfactorily resolved in this case.

I think RME needs to consider a position that for units purchased new one month (average time in the distribution chain?) after the change in production but before the applicable serial number was officially advised (subject to proof of purchase), customers would have reasonable expectation that any unit purchased at this time was 'recent production'.  In this case, the customer should expect to have any modification done free of charge (maybe shipping charges only) when the user purchases an Advanced Remote for the UFX.  There is probably a reasonable case for UFXs purchased before July last year (when the new remote and UFX change was publicised) that owners should be required to meet the cost of the upgrade.

But in the end, only RME is responsible for its relationship with its customers.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

yes "relationship" being the appropriate word!!:censored

Re: UFX remote?

panatrope wrote:

Putting the risk on consumers for RME distributors' stock management practice is what I would consider "totally unacceptable".
(...)
Subsequent checking serial numbers of other RME devices suggested that the unit had in fact been built around February, had sat on the distributors shelves for six months, and thus would not support the new remote. 
(...)
I think RME needs to consider a position that for units purchased new one month (average time in the distribution chain?) after the change in production but before the applicable serial number was officially advised (subject to proof of purchase), customers would have reasonable expectation that any unit purchased at this time was 'recent production'.

While I can't speak for each individual distributor's stock management, it would appear much more likely that the place where units would sit for an extended period is the retailers' shelves, esp. in the case of smaller shops that don't sell these things on a regular basis. Whichever way, we have little to no influence on either, particularly the shops and their sales. I'm afraid I am in no position to state anything beyond the official position, and I don't even know the price of the modification yet.

However, I guess that those who find an unmodified unit with the retailer of their choice are likely to be in a good position to haggle a bit... cool



Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

Just for clarification, my UFX was not bought from retailer's stock - I placed an order and it was delivered to the retailer from distributor's stock a day or two later. 

But I agree that if it is in retailer's stock you have the opportunity (but only since last week!) to check the serial number and reject the unit - or accept it if a satisfactory reduced price can be negotiated.   But if the price of the modification is not known, isn't it a bit hard to know what sort of price reduction for haggle for?   

If you are buying mail order/internet (same in the past six months), it is a "pig in a poke" (traditional English expression) - you don't/didn't have the opportunity to check the serial number before delivery.  Based on RME's stated position to date, it is like a lottery ... it is up to chance (and has been over the past six months) whether you get a current unit as one would expect, or an older unit that you then have to spend more money if you want an ARC. 

I would regard this as RME (or as has been pointed out, its distributors) badly managing this change.  From the response above, it appears RME has not even finalised the specification for the change, and when it does, it will be up to individual distributors to decide what to charge for it.   This whole situation does not seem very well controlled.

Again, I would not presume to tell RME what it should do.   But I would feel a lot better about the situation if RME took the opportunity at this late stage to review the approach (possibly as suggested in my previous post), and arrange with its distributors to implement it in a uniform manner, as a respected customer-focussed international company might be expected to do.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

Maybe this thread should be moved to the more-appropriate USB series Forum??

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

panatrope wrote:

I would regard this as RME (or as has been pointed out, its distributors) badly managing this change.  From the response above, it appears RME has not even finalised the specification for the change, and when it does, it will be up to individual distributors to decide what to charge for it.   This whole situation does not seem very well controlled.

I agree fully with this.  Those of us (like myself) who bought a UFX many months ago and prior to the ARC announcement can't complain.  But RME's handling of the situation since the ARC was announced has not been good.  RME should have informed customers sooner which serial numbers were compatible with the ARC, and better yet updated the packaging (even a sticker would work) to reflect the new hardware so there was no question what version a customer was buying.  In addition, I find it hard to believe RME still does not have a cost estimate for the upgrade.

I applaud RME's effort to improve the UFX by adding capabilities such as the ARC, but this transition could have been handled much better.

14 (edited by neirbod 2012-01-25 14:39:03)

Re: UFX remote?

RME Support wrote:

However, I guess that those who find an unmodified unit with the retailer of their choice are likely to be in a good position to haggle a bit... cool

I know I am repeating Panatrope, but it is worth repeating - how can a customer haggle when we have no idea of what the upgrade will cost?  Even a rough estimate would be helpful.  $20?  $100? $500?

Re: UFX remote?

neirbod wrote:

how can a customer haggle when we have no idea of what the upgrade will cost?  Even a rough estimate would be helpful.  $20?  $100? $500?

+1

How can we solve the problem localy with our distributor if RME didn't provide them with any information???

Re: UFX remote?

In addition, I find it hard to believe RME still does not have a cost estimate for the upgrade.

The sales people are still working on a cost effective model. It will probably differ from country to country and the local distributors. Some distributors can make the changes locally and some have to send the unit to a central service point.
There is no official estimation of the costs and everybody who gives a statement now will be probably wrong later. Its better not to spread wrong numbers before a good solution is found.

We officially announced the ARC as soon as possible to give you the serial number (which makes only sense with the official ARC announcement) and don't waited for the modification details. This is exactly what you want: ARC announcement + serial number as soon as possible. Why not earlier? It makes no sense to announce a serial number without letting the ARC out of the bag, what we don't want to do until we knew the estimated shipping date.

best regards
Knut

17

Re: UFX remote?

Well, honestly the UFX has been sold out all the time and we could not produce enough to satisfy the requests. We therefore had no reason to think that today you can still buy a new, originally packed and sealed unit that was produced more than half a year ago. That said we ourselves are more than astonished that one or the other distributor seems to sell only the units standing in front of the shelf, never grabbing into the back...seems to be the only explanation...

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

18 (edited by drainaudio 2012-01-25 23:38:06)

Re: UFX remote?

Indeed MC - stock rotation in all sales not just perishable goods should be a priority as specifications do change - sounds like lazy distributors..

Considering many retailers than have the distributor "drop ship" (certainly in the case of the 2 UFX's I purchased from Chuck Levin's - best Mom & Pop store in USA bar none) & as you say there being a higher demand than supply says the problem shouldn't crop up too many times.

I do hope however that RME is going to look after the customers who purchased earlier UFX's as it's hardly an old product (has it been in production for 12 months yet?), the investment is not unsubstantial & I'm pretty sure you guys had it in mind to release the remote at some point down the line before you released the first UFX's.

I don't see why it would come as a surprise that the early adopters might consider they are getting a bit of a raw deal in all of this.

Cheers, Geoff.

19

Re: UFX remote?

drainaudio wrote:

& I'm pretty sure you guys had it in mind to release the remote at some point down the line before you released the first UFX's.

Then the unit would have had the new remote PCB from the start. Simple as that.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UFX remote?

MC wrote:
drainaudio wrote:

& I'm pretty sure you guys had it in mind to release the remote at some point down the line before you released the first UFX's.

Then the unit would have had the new remote PCB from the start. Simple as that.

And there's that attitude that keeps many potential (professional) customers far away from RME.....

I don't believe you guys weren't thinking of the remote when you released the UFX, the time-frame is way too small.

However, if you weren't thinking of the remote & indeed it was a sudden "lightbulb moment" in the first few months of UFX manufacturing then you should be getting off your high-horse & doing something special for the customers who invested early in your flagship FireWire product, rather than penalising them for your rush in getting an (incomplete) product to market.

I'm not particularly fussed, I don't need the PCB upgrade but frankly in a time of ever tighter budgets for music professionals & more & more high-quality competing products being released to market (UA Apollo as a recent example) I can't believe some of the attitude towards customers that comes across from RME - particularly you MC, if I was on the board of directors you'd be banned from posting on these forums.

Cheers, Geoff.

Re: UFX remote?

I don't believe you guys weren't thinking of the remote when you released the UFX, the time-frame is way too small.

I can assure you that a Remote with LED-equipped buttons, which needs a powered connection from the interface, was not planned before or soon after the release of the UFX. The Basic Remote or to this date the existing ADI-8 QS remote was planned from the start and works without any modification.

The planning and conception of the ARC and especially the partnership with TotalMix was based on customer feedback and new developments over a long time. It needs massive new developments in TotalMix, with long discussions of customer feedback and later including much more remote controllable features. I remember that we one year ago still discussed the number of buttons (4 or more?) and the new design of the BRC and the main concept for the ARC.

We even presented the Basic Remote Control in late march in Frankfurt. A finished plan or a final decision for a release of the very ambitious ARC was not done. Later developments improved the concept and a final decision for the production and a small change of the UFX was made. Luckily a modification of the early UFX models is possible.

in the first few months of UFX manufacturing then you should be getting off your high-horse & doing something special for the customers who invested early in your flagship FireWire product, rather than penalising them for your rush in getting an (incomplete) product to market.

I think this not only insults the team, which tries to constantly improve an already great product, like RME did with nearly every product before, to keep it up-to-date over a long life time. It shows also no respect for the UFX, which won the best Recording hardware award of the international press without the Advanced Remote and even without the Direct USB Recording feature, which also was still in testing to this moment.
As I explained above, there is no base for your imputes. We don't kept the ARC concept for new products, but tried to include it in the already existing UFX. This needs a lot of dedication and work from the developers and I see no reason not to respond in plain language to your twisted theory about our intentions.

I can't believe some of the attitude towards customers that comes across from RME - particularly you MC, if I was on the board of directors you'd be banned from posting on these forums.

I agree, his attitude don't mirrors the concept of product makers have to sit up and beg before the customer. But this is not a sales forum, it is a discussion board, where customers get a direct connection to the developers. It's based on partnership, where ideas and feedback were shared. This is not the rule in the world of modern customer treatment, with a sophisticated marketing fog and the illusion that customers are master of the dog. It's maybe a surprise in our streamlined advertising world, but there are still people in companies, which not only live for the work but like to discuss it directly with the users without a mask.

Btw. MC is the director of the board and co-founder of RME - and I don't know a lot other companies, where the director and master of the show is kindly enough to service the companies products by himself and presents his "attitude" directly to customers. Maybe I'am wrong, but sometimes such an attitude is more important than one hundred subservient words form the marketing department, because it gives you the guarantee the company is not lying to you.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

What MC stated was a simple technical fact, which you are free to believe or not... Even if there was a vague idea for a remote at the time of release, the technical details, and hence the need for a hardware modification was not clear. You are suggesting that we purposefully created the need for this modification as a means to generate turnover. This is not the case.
Also, the UFX is by no means an incomplete product, even without the remote, which some users may simply not need. It was also not "rushed to the market" as you imply.

I've said it before, technical specifications are subject to change. This is an addition to the product's features. As you will realize, the ARC hardware does not come for free. Considering your position on the "incomplete" product, I am wondering whether you find that inappropriate as well.... HeadScratch

Your position would be more understandable if the situation was such that older units could not be modified for use with the ARC at all - but this is not the case.

Regards,
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

While I do not resile from my criticism of RME's management of the UFX change, I am disappointed that the discussion is transformed into a criticism of people.  The old saying of "Play the ball, not the man" is worth remembering.

It is useful to hear directly from RME about the development process.  I understand that the final form of the ARC was still being discussed around Christmas time, but obviously the UFX manufacturing change was put in place last June.

I have some sympathy with the position of a company that introduces an improvement in a product and then has to decide whether to announce it immediately (with effective serial number) and then experience a sales hold-off while those who want the benefit of the improvement keep their hands in their pockets until the improved model makes its way through the distribution chain.  And what about all the units of the previous model sitting in stock?  The alternative of not providing such information means the cost and risk is passed on to a small group of customers, rather than being borne by the company as a whole.

Many other companies have faced this situation, and I think some of them have handled it much better than RME in this particular case.   But it doesn't diminish significantly my respect for RME as a company overall and what it produces.  And as this forum gives an opportunity for direct feedback to the company, it also gives it an opportunity to consider how it might improve its performance in this particular instance.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

panatrope wrote:

And what about all the units of the previous model sitting in stock?  .

As MC stated above, we really were not expecting a large number of unsold stock sitting on shelves.  Some of this may be due to individual distributors not adhering to the FIFO principle..

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

Hello,

I am going to purchase Fireface UFX within the next few weeks. I think the whole situation is a bit confusing. Am I supposed to ask an online shop to check UFX serial number for me before the purchase? Is it printed on the box or only on the unit itself? Or should I order the UFX and return and order again and return until I got the "new" model?

I actually do not have the need for Advanced Remote. But I would like to purchase Basic Remote. Now, will this BRC work with "new" UFX units compatible with ARC? How to buy one? On RME website, it says that BRC is not available as separate product, but only as service part. Which means exactly what? That it will not be available at retailers / shops? Should I order one via my local distributor (I guess it is Synthax UK) or how?

That's why I said "confusing"...

I do not want to end up with brand new UFX which is incompatible with ARC and without the possibility to purchase BRC. I've checked the online shops and there is not a single shop offering BRC (Thomann had it in its inventory but removed it yesterday).

Kind Regards,

Mac

Re: UFX remote?

I'd be very surprised to see an older UFX on the Thomann shelves...
The BRC will work with any UFX. But, as the website states, it is not sold as an independent product.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

It is useful to hear directly from RME about the development process.  I understand that the final form of the ARC was still being discussed around Christmas time, but obviously the UFX manufacturing change was put in place last June.

As written above, the final decision about the ARC for the UFX needed some time and we got no final shipping date until shortly. Its not only the Remote Control, but also the countless changes in TotalMix. It was just work-in-progress until now.

and then experience a sales hold-off while those who want the benefit of the improvement keep their hands in their pockets until the improved model makes its way through the distribution chain

With the high demand of the UFX the way through the distribution chain should be finished eight months before the ARC shipment! The UFX was sold as it was produced. Only one customer complained that he bought an unmodificated model in the last time. We even announced the ARC in september last year (with many forum posts about the features) and stopped (!) the announced BRC to avoid people buying it and we come up with a better model later. This was a half year before the ARC ships! A half year!
This was the earliest time we got some info about the estimated shipping date.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

Admin Knut wrote:

Only one customer complained that he bought an unmodificated model in the last time.

I think it was me.
Yep, I'm going to return this card to seller and will wait for the new delivery in few months or so.. As they still have some cards with old rev in stock.
Have to loose my time.. sad

29 (edited by drainaudio 2012-01-27 02:14:37)

Re: UFX remote?

RME Support wrote:

I've said it before, technical specifications are subject to change. This is an addition to the product's features. As you will realize, the ARC hardware does not come for free. Considering your position on the "incomplete" product, I am wondering whether you find that inappropriate as well.... HeadScratch

Regards,
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Ok, thanks for clearing that up - so basically what you're saying is the hardware modification required by the early (& somewhat unlucky) adopters will be provided at cost with proof of purchase of the ARC?

I think that's pretty fair :-)

30 (edited by panatrope 2012-01-27 10:59:12)

Re: UFX remote?

RME Support wrote:
panatrope wrote:

And what about all the units of the previous model sitting in stock?  .

As MC stated above, we really were not expecting a large number of unsold stock sitting on shelves.  Some of this may be due to individual distributors not adhering to the FIFO principle..

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

When any manufacturer makes a the decision to implement such a change, there will always be already manufactured units in the pipeline.  Your warehouses (Hong Kong in my case) probably work at holding a month's inventory (I don't think RME is really running a Just-In-Time operation).  That's the stage at which the decision needs to be made to rework existing stock and ship only new designs to retailers.

From my point of view, the real shortcoming here is the time between when the change was made and the ARC capability was publicised (middle of last year) and when the public was fully informed as to the serial number at which the change was implemented (last week).  Similarly, when the ARC was publicised last year, the statement was that earlier UFXs would need modification. but the public was only informed last week that the modification was not going to be free.

I know the announcement was made in this forum - I haven't searched, but I know when I first began considering the UFX about the end of July* (co-inciding with our SMPTE show in Sydney) I was aware that the ARC would require a change in the UFX hardware.  No applicable serial had been announced by the time I purchased in late September, but I do know that I sought assurances that it was 'recent production'.   Only after it was delivered could I compare serial numbers with a product bought earlier that year, and it suggested my original  'recent stock' unit was manufactured around February, clearly before the manufacturing change was implemented. Despite my due diligence in trying to check that the unit was current production.  As I said earlier, the situation was resolved favourably.  If it hadn't been, there would have been much more intense correspondence of this nature from me.

I am under the impression that RME is somewhat slow to understand (or at least acknowledge) why customers such as myself consider this situation is not satisfactory.  Perhaps others need to offer their perspective as well.

Edit: Admin Knut " We even announced the ARC in september last year (with many forum posts about the features)".

OK, not late July, early September.  But the announcement said that UFXs before a certain (unannounced) serial number would need to be modified.  In September, being aware of this, and despite asking to check the serial number to ensure ARC compatibility, I still could not get advice as to what that serial number was, and only after receiving the unit, and doing some detective work on other RME products, could I confirm that the product was apparently manufactured at least THREE MONTHS prior to the manufacturing change.  Don't know where it was sitting at the bottom of the pile for so long (it wasn't my retailer), but I don't care.   RME leaves its customers at the mercy of its distribution chain, and from September up until now it is the customers risk if they have to pay for an upgrade if they want to later use the ARC. Good for RME, not so good for their customers.  And it is not a good look disowning your distributors ...

Perhaps I should say precisely what I think.  If a customer bought a UFX after knowing that a change was required (September), but before RME announced the relevant serial number (last week), then if those customers purchase an ARC when it becomes available, then the UFX upgrade is free, or at the absolute maximum, shipping costs only.  I reckon I could have argued that in front of our local Trade Practices Commission if I had needed to.  (And I assume RME wants to sell as many ARCs as it can.)

I'm really not happy playing Jiminy Cricket to the RME Pinnochio ... RME should be able to work this out for itself.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

Perhaps others need to offer their perspective as well.

I don´t agree with you at all. Trust goes both ways. Yes it all inconvenient but the only way to avoid this would be not offering the UFX remote option at all, to make it look better.
Doing the upgrade for free would for certain dig a very deep hole in the margin of this machine. Would you like them to raise the price on the ARC so it can cover a "free" upgrade? And a bankrupt RME is no solution either.
Last week there was someone who was upset that his UC would not get FX while the cheaper babyface had it. He was upset in the same manner as you.

The UFX being a pro machine, I am sure RME customers can decide if the upgrade costs, plus the downtime, if it is their main machine, are worth it to get a remote. The downtime would be much more of a problem then the added costs to me.
Just my HHO

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

Re: UFX remote?

vinark wrote:

Perhaps others need to offer their perspective as well.

I don´t agree with you at all. Trust goes both ways. Yes it all inconvenient but the only way to avoid this would be not offering the UFX remote option at all, to make it look better.
Doing the upgrade for free would for certain dig a very deep hole in the margin of this machine. Would you like them to raise the price on the ARC so it can cover a "free" upgrade? And a bankrupt RME is no solution either.
Last week there was someone who was upset that his UC would not get FX while the cheaper babyface had it. He was upset in the same manner as you.

The UFX being a pro machine, I am sure RME customers can decide if the upgrade costs, plus the downtime, if it is their main machine, are worth it to get a remote. The downtime would be much more of a problem then the added costs to me.
Just my HHO

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I disagree that the only option is to avoid offering the ARC at all.  The option is about keeping consumers informed, as my later (edited post) tries to emphasise, so that they actually have a proper choice.

IIRC, when TMFX was announced to co-incide with the release of the BabyFace, there was a clear statement that the UC would not support TMFX, same as my FF400, due to an inadequate FPGA.  I bought a BabyFace to explore TMFX, and I didn't complain when the more powerful UFX came out with added support for dynamics and reverb in the box (and I bought one as my story explains).   But I couldn't make a properly informed choice about when to buy the UFX, because RME didn't tell the customers when the change was made until last week.

Please consider my proposal as set out in my overlapping post, and how fair you think that is.  Maybe the price of the ARC should include an allowance for the cost to RME to upgrade the UFX only for those defined customers who need it - it should be in my view an RME problem, not the customer's problem.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

drainaudio wrote:

Ok, thanks for clearing that up - so basically what you're saying is the hardware modification required by the early (& somewhat unlucky) adopters will be provided at cost with proof of purchase of the ARC?

No, sorry, that is not what I said... The local price of the modification will be the same regardless of the date of purchase, unless of course local distributors offer rebates for currently unsold unmodified stock (pure speculation on my part, nothing official here).

What I said was that for those who have been using their unmodified UFX for some time now, and are willing to pay the price of the ARC unit itself, the modest extra expense for a modification that will add functionality to existing hardware is not likely to be a dealbreaker. I was thinking of comparing this to e.g new CPUs in old mainboards, but forum member neirbod summed it up nicely in this Gearslutz post.

I am sure you will find many examples where new functionality simply can not be added to previous hardware versions of a product. As an example from our own history, only ADI-2 units upwards of a certain hardware revision allow volume control of the rear line outputs with the front volume knob.

Some old cars can be retrofitted with catalytic converters, some can't. My old Toyota couldn't, so eventually I sold it... The UFX is different... :-)

Vinark made a good point about the cost of downtime (in the absence of a backup solution) vs. the actual cost of the mod.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

OK, not late July, early September. But the announcement said that UFXs before a certain (unannounced) serial number would need to be modified.  In September, being aware of this, and despite asking to check the serial number to ensure ARC compatibility, I still could not get advice as to what that serial number was, and only after receiving the unit, and doing some detective work on other RME products, could I confirm that the product was apparently manufactured at least THREE MONTHS prior to the manufacturing change.

Again: The product was never advertised with this feature and it is working great without it. RME adds now a new and previously not announced feature to increase its value. Everybody will agree that this is a very good decision.

RME don't produce an UFX2 with ARC support - which would devalue the former model for customers even when its only a small change - but offers a modification for previously produced UFX. These customers bought an unmodificated model, but they could used it several months - which is also a strong value. And they bought and used it without a promised ARC and have now the choice to use update their units for a small cost.

If a car manufacturer offers a new air condition system for an already produced model, a more powerful motor or a new type of wheels, it's clear that this addition is not for free and sometimes not even possible for the previously produced model. And it's not the rule to announce such an addition a half year before it finally ships. The product is advertised as it is and customers buy it based on the known facts.

We announced the ARC and the modification serial officially last week - two or three months before it will be in the stores, which is more than other companies offers to their customers. And we even carefully pointed here a half year before, that a new ARC is in preparation. Not to forget the stop of the BRC to give customers the chance to wait for the better remote, which was not an easy step as many of them were already produced. Despite the fact, that we don't know when it will ship and if we can produce it in the necessary quantity. If we came later to the conclusion it's not possible in time and have to delay the ARC for some months, it would have created a lot of confusion for customers, dealers and distributors more than a half year before the ARC will even ship. Of course its not a perfect situation, but it was all in the flow at this time. It's understandable that we don't released a serial number in such a situation and waited until all problems were sorted out.

I still can't believe that such a clear topic is discussed with such petty arguments and with haggling about potential shipping costs.

I agree to vinark that the necessary downtime is much more of a concern for those customers and we were well aware of that problem, but wanted to introduce the ARC to the UFX to make it an even better product.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

Admin Knut wrote:

best regards
Knut

I absolutely agree with you, but when will it be possible to provide your distributors with the upgrade information?
As a new user of an old revision card I can demand the exchange only, and, in my case, the new delivery in several months.
If they told me the price and the possibility of the upgrade locally, I would probably stay with an old revision now with an upgrade in future. Or even better, they could promise me the free upgrade and take care of all expanses themselves.
But now they cannot promise me anything because of lack of info.

Re: UFX remote?

In the works...


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

37 (edited by drainaudio 2012-01-27 21:15:02)

Re: UFX remote?

Admin Knut wrote:

If a car manufacturer offers a new air condition system for an already produced model, a more powerful motor or a new type of wheels, it's clear that this addition is not for free and sometimes not even possible for the previously produced model. And it's not the rule to announce such an addition a half year before it finally ships. The product is advertised as it is and customers buy it based on the known facts.
best regards
Knut

That's factually a really poor comparison - a revision in the motoring industry of that level is called a "facelift", this happens in the premium brands (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, MINI etc) at around the 5 year mark of an existing model & generally the greater public are aware the facelift is coming a year or more before it happens. As for the cost of swapping processors on a Windoze machine (which I'm told isn't an inexpensive exercise) - I've never seen an RME interface attached to a PC nor have I seen a PC being used on a stage or in a studio in the last 10 years (other than PA system control) so I'm pretty sure that "comparison" is fairly irrelevant for a large percentage of users.

The UFX is what a year into it's life-cycle?
You guys could have simply come up with a plan of "here's the ARC, it costs £x.00 (or TBA) & a PCB upgrade for the early, incompatible models will be provided at cost + shipping charges once the ARC purchase is made".

Instead you're arguing with your customers (who are the reason you exist as a company let's not forget) about the reasons why they should just be happy to pay more money & make their UFX "better" & more "valuable"...

Oh & re "downtime" - again who are you talking to?
Anyone that relies on this equipment to make a (decent) living is not going to be working in a "single unit" environment unless they fancy career suicide ----- "ohhhh sorry everyone, my 1 x audio interface just broke......session over, please come back in 10 days when it's fixed" ---- yeah.....ok..

Re: UFX remote?

That's factually a really poor comparison - a revision in the motoring industry of that level is called a "facelift", this happens in the premium brands (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, MINI etc) at around the 5 year mark of an existing model & generally the greater public are aware the facelift is coming a year or more before it happens.

You think the introduction of an ARC-compatible UFX with a change of the little remote board to provide 6 LED-equipped buttons with a small amount of power, which is done in minutes, is a complete "facelift" of the UFX, like a new model of a BMW or Audi? It's easy to understand, that its not.

You guys could have simply come up with a plan of "here's the ARC, it costs £x.00 (or TBA) & a PCB upgrade for the early, incompatible models will be provided at cost + shipping charges once the ARC purchase is made".

This is exactly what we do.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

Admin Knut wrote:

You think the introduction of an ARC-compatible UFX with a change of the little remote board to provide 6 LED-equipped buttons with a small amount of power, which is done in minutes, is a complete "facelift" of the UFX, like a new model of a BMW or Audi? It's easy to understand, that its not.

best regards
Knut

Ok, so you've now gone from comparing the ARC as akin to a car manufacturer changing major components (which is what you did - although I doubt you understand your own statement) to now deciding it's nothing like that but is in fact a little PCB modification done in a couple of minutes??

Great!! - it's small & it takes "minutes" - so provide customers of older UFX's with this "little" remote board, changed in "minutes" (so surely able to be fitted by an end-user) free of charge if an ARC is purchased!! - that would be a great idea & good customer service from RME, who decided to make a fairly substantial change to the UFX literally months into production..

Everyone wins.. :-)

Re: UFX remote?

Admin Knut wrote:

I still can't believe that such a clear topic is discussed with such petty arguments and with haggling about potential shipping costs.

I don't believe the arguments are petty, because they are about a principle.  But I am finding the discussion futile, because the responses address everything but that principle.

But thanks for the responses and I've had my say.  Let's see what happens.  And I've already ordered my ARC ...

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum

Re: UFX remote?

drainaudio wrote:

That's factually a really poor comarison -

No - if you compare the principle, not the timespans involved. Things move faster in computer related fields.

As for the cost of swapping processors on a Windoze machine (which I'm told isn't an inexpensive exercise) - I've never seen an RME interface attached to a PC nor have I seen a PC being used on a stage or in a studio in the last 10 years (other than PA system control) so I'm pretty sure that "comparison" is fairly irrelevant for a large percentage of users.

Obviously, and with all due respect, this is complete balderdash... No need to even go into detail, ye aulde urban myth saying only Macs can and must be used for professional audio purposes is so nineties... :roll In fact it's beginning to smell rather odd by now.
Apple's upgrade policy is no different these days. Your iPad is a year old, and they give you the iPad 2. Any chance of upgrading the old one to a new CPU?
Remember, Apple invented the iPod with the non-exchangeable battery... :-O

The UFX is what a year into it's life-cycle?
You guys could have simply come up with a plan of "here's the ARC, it costs £x.00 (or TBA) & a PCB upgrade for the early, incompatible models will be provided at cost + shipping charges once the ARC purchase is made".

But this is more or less what is happening. The modification is not meant as a means to generate turnover, as I've said here before. You seem to assume the price of the mod will run into hundreds of Euros or whatever... This is not the case.

Instead you're arguing with your customers (who are the reason you exist as a company let's not forget) about the reasons why they should just be happy to pay more money & make their UFX "better" & more "valuable"...

Well, no one has to do so. The UFX is an amazing product even without the ARC. Not everybody will want or need one. Many users may be happy without, or with existing third-party MIDI controllers. And yes, of course the ARC is an additional feature, and it does make the UFX better. Additional features sometimes cost money, and so does the actual ARC hardware. It's entirely a matter of choice, though.

Oh & re "downtime" - again who are you talking to?
Anyone that relies on this equipment to make a (decent) living is not going to be working in a "single unit" environment unless they fancy career suicide ----- "ohhhh sorry everyone, my 1 x audio interface just broke......session over, please come back in 10 days when it's fixed" ---- yeah.....ok..

You know, you'd be surprised how many "professional" studio owners do work exactly like that. "No I can't send in my Waterface 650, otherwise I'd have to close my studio... What, a backup solution? No, why?". And probably, the audio device won't be the only SPOF in some of these studios.
As if to prove my point, here's a quote from a mail I received literally minutes ago: "I can't be out of an interface for the time it takes to ship and return."


drainaudio wrote:

Ok, so you've now gone from comparing the ARC as akin to a car manufacturer changing major components (which is what you did - although I doubt you understand your own statement) to now deciding it's nothing like that but is in fact a little PCB modification done in a couple of minutes??

Again, I'm afraid you are looking at the wrong aspects of the analogy.

Great!! - it's small & it takes "minutes" - so provide customers of older UFX's with this "little" remote board, changed in "minutes" (so surely able to be fitted by an end-user) free of charge if an ARC is purchased!! - that would be a great idea & good customer service from RME, who decided to make a fairly substantial change to the UFX literally months into production.. Everyone wins.. :-)

Not possible for warranty reasons. And to conclude from the fact that the exchange does not take an hour that it can be easily carried out by the end user is premature.

There is no change to the UFX as such, if you will. No UFX will stop working without the modification.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

42 (edited by drainaudio 2012-01-28 07:38:05)

Re: UFX remote?

RME Support wrote:

Obviously, and with all due respect, this is complete balderdash... No need to even go into detail, ye aulde urban myth saying only Macs can and must be used for professional audio purposes is so nineties... :roll In fact it's beginning to smell rather odd by now.
Apple's upgrade policy is no different these days. Your iPad is a year old, and they give you the iPad 2. Any chance of upgrading the old one to a new CPU?
Remember, Apple invented the iPod with the non-exchangeable battery... :-O

Daniel Fuchs
RME

I never said can't Daniel - I said aren't, it is a simple fact, I've yet to meet a "professional" that has time to tinker with building &/or maintaining PC's.......I guess that also entirely depends on your personal definition of the word "professional" which I think just like "musician" is a term applied far too loosely these days.....:roll
----- & please I'm not saying Mac is better, just more widely used & for obvious reasons.

FYI, many iPod batteries can easily be replaced by the end-user.

Anyways - good luck to older UFX users, I really hope you don't get a raw deal & I'm bowing out of this discussion now before arguing about what RME should/shouldn't do either begins to impact on my actual work or PC tinkering time cool

Re: UFX remote?

Just to state the obvious - a well-built PC does not require any more "tinkering" or "maintaining" than a Mac... And as just one example from our list of users, Kraftwerk do their stage shows on PC laptops. Are they up to your exclusive definition of "professional"...? cool


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

ok i started this thread, can you lock it, i didn't mean it to turn into an argument, i was simply stating as one of the early adopters, i feel unfairly treated and the fact is my unit is devalued vy about 100-150 euro now(estimate)

anyway lock it!

Re: UFX remote?

Before that happens, I just want to mention that in the US our current warehouse and dealer stock of UFX is all up to date (unless the dealer sits on old stock). We also have an increase in price for these units now compared to the initial price for UFX. As Daniel mentioned, the new internal hardware does not come for free.

We don't have final pricing yet, but have had discussions about offering a special bundle price to users who need the modification, where the total cost will be less than getting the modification and then buying the ARC through retail channels. Of course, we don't plan to charge more for the mod than it costs us for parts and labor.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

Re: UFX remote?

So far, I see no reason to close the thread. Let's see what the reactions are when the pricing of the modification is published.

empirix, devaluation starts the moment you begin using a new device.... cool
Fortunately, it is much less of a factor for good audio interfaces than e.g. for computers, which you can hardly carry home before the turn obsolete.
And unless you actually intend to sell the UFX, any devaluation is entirely academic and theoretical IMHO.


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX remote?

I've just received the modification details from Synthax Inc., the US RME distributor, to post them here. As Jeff already wrote above there will be something like a bundle price for the ARC + modification:

Customers with an unmodificated UFX buy the ARC and the modification directly from the distributor. They pay for the modification (parts and labor) and the costs for sending the package back. The transmittal costs of the unmodificated UFX to Synthax USA are free.

Costs: suggested retail price for the ARC (249,-) + modification/return = 299 USD

Synthax US will try to get the modification and the return done in 48 hours.

This could be also the blueprint for all other RME distributors, but they have to respect their local conditions (esp. shipping costs and time), so these numbers can be different. I think this is a very agreeable offer for all customers with an unmodificated UFX.

best regards
Knut

Re: UFX remote?

$50 seems quite reasonable.  Thanks for the update.

Re: UFX remote?

Thanks for info!

Re: UFX remote?

So thats usually 50 euro then, not too bad smile however i left an fireface 400 unit in to get fixed once and was told it would take 4 days as it had to go to germany, it took a month!!