• Hardware
  • My new RME UCX ....a few questions (p.2)
2012/03/28 15:17:22
Gaffpro
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).......
2012/03/28 15:24:35
Lanceindastudio
Looks like you're weeding out the snake oil ;)

That being said, drivers to engineering, the RME stuff is indeed top notch.

Lance

2012/03/28 15:33:32
AT
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.

@
2012/03/28 15:56:51
Lanceindastudio
doesn't mean it is worthwhile to upgrade, esp. if you have other reasons than just the convertors. 


Do you mean "doesn't mean it ISNT worthwhile to upgrade, esp. if you have other reasons than just the convertors"?


Lance
2012/03/28 16:31:00
Gaffpro
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
2012/03/28 16:36:35
Jim Roseberry
Well, first, you are missing half the equation w/ AD.

 
Yeah, This was the first thing that came to my mind.
The A/D (and especially the noise-floor) on the UCX is definitely better.
The A/D by itself won't be a night vs. day difference... but it is better.
The noise-floor is significantly lower with the UCX.  Multiply that over 24-48 simultaneous tracks of audio... and that's where you'll hear a much more "dramatic" difference.
It'll be like lifting a veil off your mix...
 
Playing existing recordings thru the UCX's D/A... it isn't surprising that you're not hearing a major difference.
You're playing audio captured with the older A/D (including higher noise-floor) thru the newer/better D/A.
The new D/A won't impart what's not captured in the the original audio. 
FWIW, This is a scenario where you'd hear the least amount of difference.
 
As a test, record 48 solid tracks of audio (just the noise-floor) of both the Delta and the UCX.
Sum the result of each... and measure the average level of the (48-track) noise-floor.
There will be a difference.  That is what you're paying for...  
2012/03/28 16:56:15
spacealf
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.
2012/03/28 17:49:31
spacealf
Oh, the short version. I guess I never have just plugged in a mic to my Babyface directly, except once to do a test that just proved that the other mic a person was using was not working correctly since the gain was so high up on it. I always end up going through other equipment first with the mic and then into the Analog 1 and 2 inputs.
2012/03/29 14:04:13
Gaffpro
Ok Jim and spacealf: I appreciate your comments, thanks
2012/03/29 14:54:00
Houndawg
Report back when you get your Dynaudio monitors and what you think of them. I have the BM5A models myself, and absolutely love them (after having listened to, owned, and used quite a few different monitors in the past). As to whether or not they are "better" than your current monitors is for you to decide, but they will certainly be "different" and hopefully in a positive way. [Monitoring environment and its treatment or lack thereof is of course a major consideration as well]

I also agree with the others who have posted that the real difference in audio quality with the new RME interface will reveal itself in new recordings, taking advantage of RME's excellent converters and stable digital clock.

I don't use an RME interface myself (would like to), but so far I haven't had a good reason to replace my LynxTWO-B. However, I've personally experienced several of my clients from years past upgrade to the RME Fireface 800 from whatever interface and claim a significant improvement in audio quality. Now is that because they just spent a good amount of money and REALLY want to hear an improvement? Hard to know for certain. But I have NEVER encountered anyone who thought their RME interface didn't sound great or perform reliably, and I still recommend RME or Lynx as the best of the best. [Although I'm very curious to see how well the new Universal Audio Apollo compares]
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account