Jeff M.
RME UCX would be a good choice.

I second that! I just recalibrated my monitors and like the fact that for every 0.1 increment change on the RME UCX level setting, I get a 1 dB change in the SPL.
 
Walt

Thank you so much for the great feedback. Nice thing I have time and could save up to the RME Fireface UFX II price range. There might also be some new products that pop up this year.

Just curious, what is wrong with the Studio 192? 

I'm guessing nothing is "wrong" per se... but perhaps the OP is looking to achieve lower round-trip latency.

One additional thing to consider is, if/when you need to change DAWs, which one(s) might you choose?
 
If the answer includes Studio One, Google the level of integration between Studio One 3 and the Quantum interface.
 
I use SO3 now, and the Quantum and a replacement PC (currently on an upgraded early 2012 Dell XPS 8500) are on my wish list. Very happy to hear Jim say the drivers are solid. My experience with their drivers for the AudioBox 44VSL wasn't pleasant (why I bought a Tascam and put the AudioBox in the closet).

patm300e
Just curious, what is wrong with the Studio 192? 

It started out rough with constant dropouts and crackling. After a few driver and firmware updates it started working better and have been able to mix for the last year (I've had the 192 since March of 2016). If curious I have tried the 192 on 3 different machines with different cables and multitudes of setting. All producing poor latency when I add the VIs. I primarily use the XLN addictive series for drums and pianos, Rapture Pro for synths, in conjunction with Waves and IK Multimedia products as my main effects. I was less than thrilled with the customer support (on the hardware side) as they kept asking me to use it with studio one. Ironically I have switched to Studio One 3 pro and yes I like Studio One 3 a lot however as soon as I add virtual instruments I still need to bump the buffers up. As stated from Jim I'm looking to be able to record within the next year and with the latency I get it would not work well.  
 

you know, i love my rme babyface,
and for that dough,
the RME Fireface UCX
 
other option would be UA apollo twin

So now I'm eyeing the Fireface UFX II. It's usb2 in comparison to the UFX + which is usb3. Price difference of $2,300 vs $2,800 from what i recal. Does anyone know if there is any difference with latency . Thanks

Well according to Focusrite:
Lots of people are asking the question as to why many manufacturers do not produce interfaces that specifically utilise the USB 3.0 protocol.

Firstly, although USB 3.0 offers greater bandwidth than USB 2.0, it will deliver no round trip latency benefits over USB 2.0. This is due to the architecture of the host computer driver stack and its handling of USB audio (isochronous) data. The stack schedules data transfers to and from audio drivers at millisecond frame intervals which means that, no matter how fast the data moves over the USB bus, this defines the limit on minimum latency achievable.

A good analogy is to think of it as a drainpipe and a tennis ball. The tennis ball is the data and the width of the pipe signifies available bandwidth. With the drainpipe set at the same gradient, letting go of the ball at the top of the drainpipe will see it arrive at the bottom in a given amount of time. That's your latency, the time it takes to go from end to end.
USB 3.0 offers a much wider pipe, which in terms of the analogy, means that it could allow a greater number tennis balls (more data) to travel down the pipe, but the balls would not travel down the pipe any faster. This is the same when comparing USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 in terms of the way they transfer audio data

With such a budget you could really find a great deal, you just have to choose wisely.