My new RME UCX ....a few questions

I'm listening to the DA side of this UCX....some tunes I previously cut in X1 with my Delta 66....ran line 1 and 2 out from the UCX into my monitors....I honestly don't hear any more clarity on the songs from the UCX compared to the line outs on the Delta......I'm going to cut a tune tonight using the UCX from the get go, but..........I'm a little disturbed because I expected a dramatic difference in the converters......can anyone help advise me on this? Thanks

Thanks.......anyone have a UCX or even a UFX that can clue me in on this? I have alot of quality mikes and preamps and thought the weak link was the Delta 66....I would think a $1300 interface would blow the doors off of a $200 Delta 66, but right now I'm not hearing it

So far, it seems you're only dealing with 50% of the equation. I don't know if the other 50% will bring satisfaction, but, let us know.

this kind of underscores my belief, about modern decent convertors versus 'low-midrange' convertors...and the audio quality.

i use a Maudio Audiophile 192 card, and honestly, it's convertors sound as good to me, as the local studio's $2000 range convertors that i've used, and a whole sundry of other offerings i've used (alesis hd24, maudio project mix I/O, apogee rosetta, etc)

From what I have read over there at the other forum, it is not so much the convertors, that define everything you may hear, it is the rest of it. Cheaper convertors in cheaper soundcards, use the program (programmers) that come with the chip, and you get what you get and they (the audio/interface manufacturers) do not change that. Thus you get drop-outs, jitters, other things that do not help the sound at all. With RME, you get their program which they put into the chip and thus the USB, and jitters, and anything else, is the lowest you can get plus they can upgrade their chips they use with their programming anytime they want to make the firmware and drivers even better and even add things that other manufacturers can not do, since the program they are using came with the chip they are using. That is why it all works better in the end with RME. But it is there on the forum and with reviews and anything else over there including explanations of it all.

Thanks for your comments....I did call Jeff @ RME in Ft. Laud. and he was very helpful with the install....I read the manual cover to cover and totalmix is obviously a wonderful feature.......but I really don't hear a difference at this point.....I was thinking last night, I'd probably be happier with the Roland Octacapture as it has more mike inputs for my preamps and I don't really need totalmix anyway.....I'm going to run some things through the AD side today.....I was looking for more clarity for my mixes, I even ordered Dynauadio monitors which are $400 a piece (a step up from my JBL LSR's).......

Well, first, you are missing half the equation w/ AD.  But even with that there is not going to be a dramatic difference in tone - it is a matter of degrees not kind.  And a lot of the tone will get lost if you don't have montiors that show very sublte differences and a room that can handle it.  Once you get everything else in the chain top notch you might hear a difference, if your ears are up to it (and yes, virginia, it takes time to develop those to hear the subleties).

So no, I don't think anyone is going to buy a new convertor and be magically blown away.  I could hear a little difference between my TC Konnekt unit and my old FirePod when I replaced it, but it wasn't like night and day.  After a while I appreciated it, and I can hear the difference between old recordings and newer ones.  Some of it is just my ear, some of it is the equipment.  So just because it doesn't hit you over the head doesn't mean it is worthwhile to upgrade, esp. if you have other reasons than just the convertors.

@

I know RME is king when it comes to drivers and I'm certainly not questioning their engineering........there were features that I liked about the UCX, but the main reason was to upgrade to better converters...

AT, I agree with you on the monitors, which is why I'm getting Dynaudios and ditching my JBL LSR's (although I've had a pair of NS10's for 25 years and I still use them).........these are the same monitors used in a Nashville studio that I'm a part of.....I guess it's trial and error...thanks

I am not a fanboy of any manufacturer, each has their own way of building electronics and even synths. I use Roland Synths because they are available and I am not in a place where I can listen in big store and go back and forth except now there is a GC in town, but.....................there are many manufacturers so it all turns out about the same.

A post you may have missed over there, just copied so perhaps it will be allowed:

As for "misleading", let me quote what you could have read in the manual of the UCX:

"The term Zero Latency Monitoring has been introduced by RME in 1998 for the DIGI96 series
of audio cards. It stands for the ability to pass-through the computer's input signal at the inter-
face directly to the output. Since then, the idea behind has become one of the most important
features of modern hard disk recording. In the year 2000, RME published two ground-breaking
Tech Infos on the topics Low Latency Background, which are still up-to-date: Monitoring, ZLM
and ASIO, and Buffer and Latency Jitter, both found on the RME website.

How much Zero is Zero?
From a technical view there is no zero. Even the analog pass-through is subject to phase er-
rors,  equalling  a  delay  between  input  and  output.  However,  delays  below  certain  values  can
subjectively be claimed to be a zero-latency. This applies to analog routing and mixing, and in
our opinion also to RME's Zero Latency Monitoring. The term describes the digital path of the
audio data from the input of the interface to its output. The digital receiver of the Fireface UCX
can't  operate  un-buffered,  and  together  with  TotalMix  and  the  output  via  the  transmitter,  it
causes a typical delay of 3 samples. At 44.1 kHz this equals about 68 µs (0.000068 s), at 192
kHz only 15 µs. The delay is valid for ADAT and SPDIF in the same way.


Oversampling
While the delays of digital interfaces can be disregarded altogether, the analog inputs and out-
puts do cause a significant delay. Modern converter chips operate with 64 or 128 times over-
sampling plus digital filtering, in order to move the error-prone analog filters away from the au-
dible frequency range as far as possible. This typically generates a delay of one millisecond. A
playback and re-record of the same signal via DA and AD (loopback) then causes an offset of
the newly recorded track of about 2 ms.

Low Latency!
The Fireface UCX uses the latest AD converters having an innovative digital filter with a delay of
only 14 samples in Single and Double Speed, and 11 samples in Quad Speed. The DA con-
verter  even  exceeds  these  astonishing  values  with  only  7  samples  delay  in  all  modes.  (...)

Note that the total roundtrip delay of the unit from A to A will be a few samples higher. TotalMix
FX causes an additional delay of typically 3 samples as it stays always within the audio path. "


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

So each manufacturer is going to have their sells pitch and you usually get what you pay for. Pay more, you get more, and that is the usual way it is. There may not be all that much difference in the end that can be heard, but if you can hear it, it may be more pleasing to work with the equipment for longer periods of time. If I had more money, I am sure I have more audio/interfaces to use or even try and I am sure some studios go through and change equipment off and on and try different equipment out. I am not in a position to do that.

Compared to what I had before, there is much difference in the Babyface compared to what I had before, quite a bit of difference. Whether any of it is needed is then decided by what was out at the time (Octacapture I am sure came out afterwards) and when it is bought.

There usually are some musicians you like and then there are others you will just put up with, and then some musicians you can not fathom why they recorded anything in the first place.

In the end though to me, I am usually just a comedian playing music.

Ok Jim and spacealf: I appreciate your comments, thanks

Thanks for the reply........I haven't gotten the Dynaudios yet (they are the BM5A MkII model) ....will post my thoughts on those....should be a no brainer as I've already heard these during pro mixing sessions.....

I'm going to stick with the UCX and in hindsight, I shouldn't have jumped the gun on this piece.......I'll cut something with acoustic guitars, bass, Superior Drummer, vocals, etc. and let everyone know my thoughts...I'm sure I'll be happy

BTW: Your Lynx is a nice card

You won't notice anything by running a stereo mix through the D/A of the RME. You're still listening to material recorded with your Delta converters. You may not notice anything different with a $5000 converter either by doing this.

You will notice a difference on a new project with multiple tracks recorded through the RME. Good converters/bad converters make themselves apparent with multiple tracks. Once you have, say - 20 tracks to mix that were all fed throught the A/D converters, that's when the difference of using better converters will show up. It still may be a subtle difference...but it could be dramatic. It'll depend on how good/bad the Delta A/D is you're comparing to.

Again, thanks guys........

I have the same CPU setup as GaffPro and was also thinking about upgrading to RME UCX. Don't know if it's worth it though? On my part I'm partly after the converters when recording with different musicians at home, but mostly the "significant" lower latency which RME are known to be kings of (as I record drums on a DTX900 via samplebanks for clients). Do you reach <3ms with your UCX there GaffPro? Still - it comes down to more than the interface in that regard...

I have a Roland Quad-Capture card which I upgraded from a Creative Elite-Pro and I could hear a difference in quality. I'm considering the UCX currently but I'm now thinking based on what's being said here that I'm not going to hear a great deal of difference, unless it get down to having heaps of sounds in the mix. It seems that some of guys are saying that's where an interface like UCX comes into its own.
 
I also don't have studio monitors at this point...I have pretty good quality Polkaudio speakers but I still have no idea what to buy that will give me the clarity I guess I'm chasing. So many studio monitors, so costly and no way to really try before you buy...I guess it's trial and error.
 
Gaffpro, I'd be interested to see how you go with the UCX and those Dynaudios yet (they are the BM5A MkII model) monitors you were getting.