(Quoting you just to catch your attention) The loopback function is pre-fader in the UCX II, but post-fader in the UFX II and +. Are there any plans to make this user selectable? With the UCX II being the latest product of the three, does it mean future products will also implement this pre-fader? Having used both I definitely prefer pre-fader myself.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
New (2021) RME Fireface UCX II
- Thread starter Music1969
- Start date
Question about the loopback function...say I set my SPDIF output to loopback, I understand this will allow me to select SPDIF input in my DAW to record the SPDIF output. But, what about the actual SPDIF output port, is that also going to output what is being sent to it - allowing basically a duplicate actual output and one virtual output looped back into the input?
That's correct, and it's why pre-fader loopback makes sense and post-fader doesn't. MC himself said that on the RME forum before the UFX+ had yet been released, so I'm confused as to why they chose post-fader in the UFX+, and now it's pre-fader again in the UCX II—good news but I wish this could be toggled.
In my scenario (SPDIF loopback enabled), do you know what would happen to any actual SPDIF I have connected to the input. So there is a physical input to SPDIF and loopback is also enabled, which signal will get precedence?
When loopback is enabled, the hardware input is ignored, but you can still see it on the input meter. The looped back signal is not shown on the input meter.
I don't have my interface to test but IIRC the input signal can still be routed to other outputs in Totalmix.
Can I just say that I this device and totalmix in general is such a pleasure to work with. I have built a recording studio with 5 stations, each with a headphone amp, each getting their own mix, with their instruments and voices turned up. This is the first time I've had such a professional setup and it was easily done, thanks to totalmix. A very underrated utility and makes me not want to use other audio interfaces.
HerbertWest
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
- Messages
- 55
- Likes
- 56
Same appreciation here, and I am a very basic user compared to the professional crew that this device (and TM FX) are built for. The UCX II is the main interface of my 5.4.2 HTPC/audio system, with other two interfaces driven via AES (an ADI2 for L/R) and SPDIF optical (2x subs). TotalMix FX is fantastic; it also has a basic, but useful, parametric eq which is very handy to apply EQ to speakers and LPF to subs (mostly as safety measure, as I use a software crossover). The ARC usb “umbilical” is useful, and given its weight it can probably be used as improvised home defense weapon
Trell
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,752
- Likes
- 3,285
Yes, you can route the input to another unused output. If you enable loopback on that output you’ll have the original input available for recording. The UCX II has many input/output pairs so one should hopefully find an unused pair for this. The AES perhaps?
How are you handling delay compensation in that setup, or did it all just work? I wonder all the time about switching to a Topping or something to run my 310s while running my subwoofer off my existing UC...Same appreciation here, and I am a very basic user compared to the professional crew that this device (and TM FX) are built for. The UCX II is the main interface of my 5.4.2 HTPC/audio system, with other two interfaces driven via AES (an ADI2 for L/R) and SPDIF optical (2x subs). TotalMix FX is fantastic; it also has a basic, but useful, parametric eq which is very handy to apply EQ to speakers and LPF to subs (mostly as safety measure, as I use a software crossover). The ARC usb “umbilical” is useful, and given its weight it can probably be used as improvised home defense weapon
I suppose you already have the ARC remote but I did up autohotkey scripts with OSC integration to control volume on my setup, in case you wanted to move volume control to a bluetooth keyboard or something.
HerbertWest
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
- Messages
- 55
- Likes
- 56
I’m using software (audiolense) to handle delay compensation as part of its convolution/crossover duties. Still WIP - I moved recently and the room is not 100% ready; my previous setup was 2.2 and it worked fine. FWIW there might be a funny workaround to add monitor delay with TM FX, but I never tried myself - it’s beyond my limit for self-inflicted over engineering
Bluetooth keyboard is super comfy, will definitely try out the OSC integration!
Alright so you'll need OSC2AHK from here:I’m using software (audiolense) to handle delay compensation as part of its convolution/crossover duties. Still WIP - I moved recently and the room is not 100% ready; my previous setup was 2.2 and it worked fine. FWIW there might be a funny workaround to add monitor delay with TM FX, but I never tried myself - it’s beyond my limit for self-inflicted over engineering
Bluetooth keyboard is super comfy, will definitely try out the OSC integration!
Also download AutoHotKey: https://www.autohotkey.com/
I'm actually not sure about the best way to host a file on here? Maybe this will work.
This script is setup to have CTRL+F5 mute the output, CTRL+F6 to set it to "full volume" (which in this case means 85dB at my chair, so not quite full volume). CTRL+F7 decreases volume and CTRL+F8 increases.
These all corresponded to the media keys on my old keyboard, so you would remap them by changing the "^F5" sections, etc.
It is a little glitchy where the mute/unmute function is concerned, also, RME's OSC integration doesn't send the current volume at predictable intervals so even though I have a listener set up to catch the new volume, it doesn't work well. I wish there was some way to ping the RME and get the current volume when you needed it.
ALSO, a major limitation: you can only use OSC to change the Master Volume in Totalmix. I tried setting channel volumes and it never worked, so I just grouped the outputs for my speakers and subwoofer and then it worked fine. Like so:
There's some extra OSC integration in here (you'll see references to "GP") which I use to toggle through my various corrections, in a program called Gig Performer. You could expand on that or replace it with an OSC integration into whatever is appropriate for your setup.
Code:
#NoEnv
; #Warn
SendMode Input
SetWorkingDir %A_ScriptDir% ; Until here, this is the default script template
; Get handle to this running script instance
Gui +LastFound
hWnd := WinExist()
; just for convenience, you also could use the "magic numbers" directly
global oscTypeNone := 1
global oscTypeInt := 2
global oscTypeFloat := 4
global oscTypeString := 8
global oscTypeAll := 0xffffffff
; configuration
global GPListenPort := 51345
global RMEListenPort := 41345
global GPSendPort := 51000
global RMESendPort := 42000
global IP := "127.0.0.1"
global MasterVolume := 0.0
global TempVolume := 0.0
global Muted := 0
global ANA2Active := 0.0
; Load DLL and open listener port for RME
DllCall("LoadLibrary", "Str", "OSC2AHK.dll", "Ptr")
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\open", UInt, hWnd, UInt, RMEListenPort)
; Get new master volume value when it is dragged in TotalMix
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\addListener", AStr, "/1/mastervolume", UInt, 0x1001, UInt, oscTypeFloat)
OnMessage(0x1001,"updateVolume")
; Check to see if GP is running, and launch it if it isn't
Process, Exist, GigPerformer4.exe
if (!errorLevel)
{
; Loads GigPerformer
Run,%A_ProgramFiles%\Gig Performer 4\GigPerformer4.exe
}
else
{
MsgBox,"GP4 already running"
return
}
return
updateVolume(oscType, data, msgID, hwnd)
{
if(oscType = oscTypeFloat)
{
VarSetCapacity(buf, 4, 0)
NumPut(data, buf)
MasterVolume := NumGet(buf,"Float")
; TempVolume := MasterVolume
; Muted := 0
}
}
sendVolume()
{
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\sendOscMessageFloat", AStr, IP, UInt, RMESendPort, AStr, "/1/mastervolume", Float, MasterVolume)
}
toggleMute(p_Muted)
{
if (p_Muted = 0)
{
TempVolume := MasterVolume
MasterVolume := 0.0
sendVolume()
; MsgBox,Output muted
Muted = 1
return
} else
{
MasterVolume := TempVolume
sendVolume()
; MsgBox,Output unmuted
Muted = 0
return
}
}
^F1::
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\sendOscMessageInt", AStr, IP, UInt, GPSendPort, AStr, "/GigPerformer/SwitchToRack", UInt, 0)
TrayTip,Room Correction,IIR Correction enabled (0ms delay)
return
^F2::
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\sendOscMessageInt", AStr, IP, UInt, GPSendPort, AStr, "/GigPerformer/SwitchToRack", UInt, 1)
TrayTip,Room Correction,IIR Natural Phase enabled (7.3ms delay)
return
^F3::
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\sendOscMessageInt", AStr, IP, UInt, GPSendPort, AStr, "/GigPerformer/SwitchToRack", UInt, 2)
TrayTip,Room Correction,FIR Correction enabled (131ms delay)
return
; Mute function
^F5::
toggleMute(Muted)
return
; Full volume function
^F6::
MasterVolume := 0.765
sendVolume()
; Increase volume function
^F7::
if (MasterVolume < 1.0)
{
MasterVolume := MasterVolume+0.01
Muted = 0
sendVolume()
}
return
; Decrease volume function
^F8::
if (MasterVolume > 0.0)
{
MasterVolume := MasterVolume-0.01
Muted = 0
sendVolume()
}
return
; Shutdown the script with Shift+ESC
+Esc::
msgbox,OSC functions disabled.
DllCall("OSC2AHK.dll\close",UInt,1)
ExitAppHerbertWest
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
- Messages
- 55
- Likes
- 56
Fun off topic. These days, I’m teaching my 4-year-old son to combine letters into words. We usually think about a topic (‘an animal that barks’), a relevant word (‘dog’), and then we write it together with toy letters.
Yesterday my wife started the topic ‘music’, but he gave her a puzzling word for answer; he then actually put together the letters on his own, and insisted ‘we have it! Makes music’.
“Do you know anything about it?”
Yesterday my wife started the topic ‘music’, but he gave her a puzzling word for answer; he then actually put together the letters on his own, and insisted ‘we have it! Makes music’.
“Do you know anything about it?”
If the UCX II and the UFX II were the same price and the UCX II I/O was more than adequate for your needs, which one would you get in 2022? Despite the similarity in the names, the UCX II has updated features which would be useful. In reality the UFX II is more expensive, the problem is right now the UCX II is out of stock everywhere, while I can buy the UFX II today from a local dealer that has one unit in stock. If I grab a UFX II now I'm afraid soon there will be a UFX III that would include the new features of the UCX II plus the same I/O of the UFX II. I'm merely speculating, but the UFX II has been around for over 5 years. What would you do?
The UFX II has much more analog inputs and outputs so if you really need the extra in/outs, at the same price, the UFX II would be a no brainer for me. Also, if size is not a deal breaker, the UFX II again would be my pick. I don't need the extra in/outs and my desk space is limited so I went with the UCX II. I can always get a decent ADAT preamp in case I need more in/outs, though
I don't need the extra inputs/outputs at all. I wanted the UCX II but it's on backorder everywhere. The UFX II, on the other hand I could buy tomorrow, but it's more expensive. Space is not a deal breaker as it would be racked. I guess I should wait for UCX II or hte UFX III.
I'm pretty sure they will come up with the UFX III this year, to replace the ageing UFX II and upgrade it in the same fashion as the UCX II, so in your case I would wait a bit more.
It looks as if the UCX II will be out of order for quite some time (supply chain issues, components shortage, China/Ukraine/Covid you name it lol) like end of summer probably...
Well, under normal circumstances the release of a UFX III would probably be imminent, but things aren't looking good right now. I found a dealer that could do the UCX II for 1179 € inc. VAT and they asked me to pay 300 € in advance if I wanted to go ahead, which I did earlier today. They had a UFX II last week and I came within inches of buying it but decided not to, and somebody else bought it a day later. TBH I doubt the UFX III will be much of an improvement over the UCX II for me specifically as the UCX II already exceeds my I/O needs. Maybe it will have slightly better THD and SNR on the analog ins and outs, as does the UFX II (at least on paper) and I think that's only because the PCB is bigger which allows for the electronics to be spread out optimally in a way that reduces noise, etc. Other than that, going from a UFX II to a UFX III will be similar to going from a BabyFace PRO to a BabyFace PRO FS, essentially a product that looks identical but with some improvements under the hood.
Well put, my thoughts exactly. I don't absolutely need the extra outputs but I'd like to check out the specs of the UFX III just to compare, if it's slightly more powerful than the UXC II I might as well go for it since it would be longer-term investment with more outputs and juice anyway, but more pricey too so I need to sort of anticipate that
especially since I will also need to buy the upcoming ADI-2/4 as part of the upgrade package as well.Let's see how it goes by the end of the year we should see more clearly.
but more pricey too so I need to sort of anticipate that
Do you reckon the UFX III would be more expensive than the UFX II? If I remember correctly the original UFX price was similar to the UFX II. I contacted RME recently to ask if the UFX II had been discontinued and they said it hadn't but it was out of stock due to supply chain disrruptions so, who knows, it might still be a couple of years before its successor is announced, maybe longer if they do the UFX++ first.
Last edited:
You're right I'm absolutely not sure about that. I'm just worried of the ukraine conflict not really having finding its resolution until end of the year/continued forecasted inflation trend until next year apparently + there was already a pre-existing shortage of certain components and they will probably use more expensive components anyway?
@MC_RME input would be highly useful at this point
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
