RME UFX III Audio Interface review

[gabo4au]

Unbelievable work! Awesome review and so much information. Thanks a ton for verifying what I've already known for many years.

I'm a long time user of RME interfaces. I Have an original UFX in my studio, two Babyface Pro's, and one Babyface Pro FS for location recording and various other bits of things I do.

I'll just add to this incredible work a few other points.

- RME's drivers are the best in the industry. Rock solid drivers that never cause any problems and always just seem to work. Low latency and very low resource usage. Frequently updated and maintained.

- They also provide a free package called digicheck, that is incredible for metering and setting up levels on a big recordings with lots of inputs and mics.

- And all the interfaces come with TotalMix, which once you get your head wrapped around how it works is absolutely brilliant. Superb routing and options that allow you to do virtually anything.

- And world class support that is 2nd to none. They provide driver and firmware updates for their products even long after they are no longer sold.

I have never dealt with a better company on any level. I cannot give any higher recommendation, they are the best. As I said, I currently own 4 RME interfaces and when it comes time to buy another one I won't even shop around. I'll just go find the latest RME that fits my needs.

gabo

 

[Rja4000]

Unbelievable work! Awesome review and so much information. Thanks a ton for verifying what I've already known for many years.

Thanks for the kind words

I currently own 4 RME interfaces and when it comes time to buy another one I won't even shop around. I'll just go find the latest RME that fits my neneeds.

I have a few myself.
it all started with Amir using the ADI-2 Pro for measurements...
Trying it myself, I came to realize how advanced and cleverly made it is. And to appreciate the mindset.

Now, I replaced most of my aging hardware with a 12Mic-D and the UFX III.
If need be, I'll add another 12Mic.

- And all the interfaces come with TotalMix, which once you get your head wrapped around how it works is absolutely brilliant. Superb routing and options that allow you to do virtually anything.

Well, almost.
I miss a few things.

Here is my wishlist :
First, it would need to be multitouch to be able to really replace a physical mixer. (Maybe it is now ? I should try with an iPad.)
Ergonomically, the graphical interface could be more flexible, allow moving "widgets", like the dynamics or EQ, and allow zoom on a part (the room EQ is too small for my old eyes and doesn't zoom with the window, as an example).
Then I miss some functionalities, like the compressor trigger from another channel (Ducking), and (less important) a delay on inputs and a multiband compressor.
Finally, I'd like RME to now integrate them more together :
It should be possible to control the 12Mic gains from Totalmix, as an example.
Or, better even, to use Totalmix from the network through Dante or AVB and Madi ?

OK, I agree. I'm nit picking.
It's pretty awesone and usable as it is.

 

[gabo4au]

Thanks for the kind words


I have a few myself.
it all started with Amir using the ADI-2 Pro for measurements...
Trying it myself, I came to realize how advanced and cleverly made it is. And to appreciate the mindset.

Now, I replaced most of my aging hardware with a 12Mic-D and the UFX III.
If need be, I'll add another 12Mic.


Well, almost.
I miss a few things.

First, it would need to be multitouch to be able to really replace a physical mixer. (Maybe it is now ? I should try with an iPad.)
Ergonomically, the graphical interface could be more flexible, allow moving "widgets", like the dynamics or EQ, and allow zoom on a part (the room EQ is too small for my old eyes and doesn't zoom with the window, as an example).
Then I miss some functionalities, like the compressor trigger from another channel (Ducking), and (less important) a delay on inputs and a multiband compressor.
Finally, I think RME now have to integrate more everything together:
It should be possible to control the 12Mic gains from Totalmix, as an example.
Or, better even, to use Totalmix from the network through Dante or AVB and Madi ?

OK, I agree. I'm nit picking.
It's pretty awesone and usable as it is.

Ah yes, fairly pointed out. I rarely use these types of functions because I'm mostly using the interface with a DAW. So I rarely use the EQ for much and certainly not for compressor ducking or integration as that's all done in the DAW.

I only use the onboard FX in the RME for tracking, to give a singer a bit of reverb or something on a monitor mix. Generally not critical so the controls are ok for that.

And of course for physical mixer I also mostly use the DAW as well and there are many controllers that work with that including touchscreen. But it would be nice if TotalMix worked with the touch screen, so good point there.

 

[Rja4000]

Can you show a system loopback of the RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE on the AP's bench mode screen at the measurement levels you picked?

As it stands, we have no idea how much is contributed from the A/D-D/A (instrument) and how much is contributed by the A/D-D/A (DUT).

Here is what I'm able to measure.

• The ADI-2/4 Mono is automatic. Just the RME ADI-2/4 alone.
• The "manual" plot requires adjustment for each step (as the name implies), and uses various optimization methods.
  Absolute best is at 5V rms.

All those figures are actual loopback measurements.

I guess that could be considered "enough" ?

 

[Rja4000]

Added EQ measurements

I also reversed order of the output ranges.
I've been told -and I agree- that it is more natural to see low levels on the left and high level on the right.
(Of course, for inputs, lower level means higher gain, so it makes more sense)

Tell me what you prefer.

 

[Xyrium]

Bringing this one to the top because not only does RJA provide an astoundingly good review, but I just noticed that most of the right side of the unit is literally the ADI-2 DAC controls and display layout. If they moved the headphone jacks over to the right, they could begin using a modular approach to their products, as most will contain either a DAC or ADC.

Love me some RME goodness though...

 

[markstein]

Bringing this one to the top because not only does RJA provide an astoundingly good review, but I just noticed that most of the right side of the unit is literally the ADI-2 DAC controls and display layout. If they moved the headphone jacks over to the right, they could begin using a modular approach to their products, as most will contain either a DAC or ADC.

Love me some RME goodness though...

Well, even if the rotary buttons are the same, the user interface is very different:
- LCD screen in UFX is inferior to ADI-2 Pro (smaller and less contrast)
- buttons and rotary encoders are not back-lit on UFX
- menu is completely different and with less options to customize the device.

I have both units and love both. But the user interface of ADI-2 Pro simply is another level...

 

[gabo4au]

Well, even if the rotary buttons are the same, the user interface is very different:
- LCD screen in UFX is inferior to ADI-2 Pro (smaller and less contrast)
- buttons and rotary encoders are not back-lit on UFX
- menu is completely different and with less options to customize the device.

I have both units and love both. But the user interface of ADI-2 Pro simply is another level...

Yea well, totally different devices. Let's see you record 28 simultaneous drum tracks on your ADI-2!! As a pro drummer who does all sorts of sessions including sometimes very large kits for certain types of music, the UFX is incredible. I wouldn't use anything else. And certainly not anything I could use an ADI-2 for. Great DAC, not a pro DAW interface.

 

[sos_b0ss]

This review is Amazing! Such a powerful pro audio device. I do have a question about the durec capabilities however, what are the limits for the amount of channels that can simultaneously be armed and recorded to the USB drive on the front in total mix. I know there's 188 channels total and it says on RME's site that all 188 are able to be recorded using durec, but does that mean that all of them can be recording at the same time? I know it seems insane but I genuinely may need to record 128 channels I/O at some point and I'd love peace and mind of recording a backup of my sessions with durec. Cheers!

 

[unpluggged]

This review is Amazing! Such a powerful pro audio device. I do have a question about the durec capabilities however, what are the limits for the amount of channels that can simultaneously be armed and recorded to the USB drive on the front in total mix. I know there's 188 channels total and it says on RME's site that all 188 are able to be recorded using durec, but does that mean that all of them can be recording at the same time? I know it seems insane but I genuinely may need to record 128 channels I/O at some point and I'd love peace and mind of recording a backup of my sessions with durec. Cheers!

In the manual it says up to 80 channels can be recorded simultaneously (chapter 38). And DURec puts some strict requirements on USB media performance, as explained here:

 

[Rja4000]

amount of channels that can simultaneously be armed and recorded to the USB drive

I tested with up to 64 channels without any error on a Sandidk Extreme USB stick.
I don't see myself needing more.

I had some errors at 80 channels.

 

[GearNostalgia]

I see that RME still upholds their stubborn ways to place mic inputs on chan 9-12 which does not work with Apple standard that allocate system mic input to chan 1 and 2. So in order to answer a zoom call you have to use loopback to chan 1-2 and waste 2 channels. That is an unnecessary design decision I fail to grasp. How does it work with the updates for speaker calibration?

 

[gabo4au]

Apple standard

Apple standard??? It's not really a "standard," it's just the way Apple does it. RME"s way of doing it is to put mic inputs on Channels 9-12, at least it is on the UFX series. The BabyFace series has Mic inputs on Channels 1-2. Other models may differ as well, I haven't looked at all of them.

Apple should allow you to use any input available for zoom calls or anything else. So it's really an "Apple" problem, or maybe it's a "Zoom App Problem."

The UFX is a professional recording studio product, zoom is not really it's intended audience. Every professional DAW can assign any input to anything, so it's not a problem.

That being said, isn't it wonderful that TotalMix allows you to loopback any channel to any other channel? An immediate solution! And it's not wasting any channels as you don't need more than two channels for zoom, and it's just one click of a button to undo it.

 

[GearNostalgia]

Apple standard??? It's not really a "standard," it's just the way Apple does it. RME"s way of doing it is to put mic inputs on Channels 9-12, at least it is on the UFX series. The BabyFace series has Mic inputs on Channels 1-2. Other models may differ as well, I haven't looked at all of them.

Apple should allow you to use any input available for zoom calls or anything else. So it's really an "Apple" problem, or maybe it's a "Zoom App Problem."

The UFX is a professional recording studio product, zoom is not really it's intended audience. Every professional DAW can assign any input to anything, so it's not a problem.

In what way is it professional to not use your main studio soundcard and your standard mic to answer zoom calls from clients?

Is it more professional to have to click around to rewire or waste ports for loopback when using a product for different programs rather than working per default?

I what alternative universe does a small company making a utility add on products tilt the policy of one of the biggest companies on the planet and a company that has since its first days of existence decided to set their own standards and make a brand of it? Apples standard is that first device is for system mic. It is pretty silly that you are not allowed to change it for sure, but they are known for ignoring requests from niche users.

In what way does it improve a product to hardwire inputs ports randomly across their product range? Is there some creative artistic value here of using port 9-12? Please tell me cause I can not see it.

Acting professional for me is to produce good sound for clients as efficiently as possible and be accessible on Zoom, Teams, mail or phone when they want to reach me.

 

[gabo4au]

In what way is it professional to not use your main studio soundcard and your standard mic to answer zoom calls from clients?

Is it more professional to have to click around to rewire or waste ports for loopback when using a product for different programs rather than working per default?

I what alternative universe does a small company making a utility add on products tilt the policy of one of the biggest companies on the planet and a company that has since its first days of existence decided to set their own standards and make a brand of it? Apples standard is that first device is for system mic. It is pretty silly that you are not allowed to change it for sure, but they are known for ignoring requests from niche users.

In what way does it improve a product to hardwire inputs ports randomly across their product range? Is there some creative artistic value here of using port 9-12? Please tell me cause I can not see it.

Acting professional for me is to produce good sound for clients as efficiently as possible and be accessible on Zoom, Teams, mail or phone when they want to reach me.

I'm sorry my opinion upset you, it's just an opinion. Me, nor anyone else on this forum can change the product.

Peace Man

 

[rcstevensonaz]

In what way is it professional to not use your main studio soundcard and your standard mic to answer zoom calls from clients?

I wonder if you missed the words "recording studio" after the word professional?

Unless, of course, the main studio you are using for your Zoom calls looks something like this... in which case, please do carry on.

 

[GearNostalgia]

I wonder if you missed the words "recording studio" after the word professional?

Unless, of course, the main studio you are using for your Zoom calls looks something like this... in which case, please do carry on.
View attachment 428789

Nope. In my area it is pretty normal that the same computers are used for recording, making calls to bring in more talents to sessions, editing, paying bills, sending out invoices and answering calls from zoom, teams or the phone from clients, journalists, lawyers to discuss contracts and even to contact family in between sessions asking somebody else to pickup children when sessions run over. Have not seen a single person rearranging connections to do it. Can not recall every setup that was used. I recall some using Apogee, Rednet and UAD. Some where on PC and some where on Mac. They did not appear very unprofessional to me.

 

[ozonepaul]

In what way is it professional to not use your main studio

Nope. In my area it is pretty normal that the same computers are used for recording, making calls to bring in more talents to sessions, editing, paying bills, sending out invoices and answering calls from zoom, teams or the phone from clients, journalists, lawyers to discuss contracts and even to contact family in between sessions asking somebody else to pickup children when sessions run over. Have not seen a single person rearranging connections to do it. Can not recall every setup that was used. I recall some using Apogee, Rednet and UAD. Some where on PC and some where on Mac. They did not appear very unprofessional to me.

From London to Istanbul, from Paris to Barcelona, from Berlin to Moscow, from Budapest to Bucharest etc. etc. I've not worked in a single studio/recording facility where the main studio computer rig was also used for "making calls to bring in more talents to sessions, editing, paying bills, sending out invoices and answering calls from zoom, teams or the phone from clients, journalists, lawyers to discuss contracts and even to contact family in between sessions...". So I can accept that in your "area it is pretty normal" but in my area this is totally unheard of.
By the way the cheapest used laptop available can handle all those "secondary studio tasks" without risking any complications/malware etc. on the main rig.
So to me (and as far as I know to all the studio owners/producers/musical directors/composers I work with) zoom-call handling capability of a converter/soundcard plays 0% role in purchasing decisions. So perhaps that's why RME doesn't take the mic inputs on chan 9-12 vs system mic input chan 1 and 2 problem too seriously, perhaps for most of their customers this problem just does not exist. (Or if it does they sort it out with some routing inside TotalMix).
Anyway, if you're seriously concerned about this, than consider that perhaps RME doesn't even know that this is a problem for some of their potential customers and by addressing this issue they could have a few more potential buyers. Perhaps you could ask RME directly about it, their support team is usually very helpful and responsive. (But to be totally honest I don't really understand why a loopback in TotalMix is not a good enough solution for you.)

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Nope. In my area it is pretty normal that the same computers are used for recording, making calls to bring in more talents to sessions, editing, paying bills, sending out invoices and answering calls from zoom, teams or the phone from clients, journalists, lawyers to discuss contracts and even to contact family in between sessions asking somebody else to pickup children when sessions run over. Have not seen a single person rearranging connections to do it. Can not recall every setup that was used. I recall some using Apogee, Rednet and UAD. Some where on PC and some where on Mac. They did not appear very unprofessional to me.

You have become a troll thread. You are obviously more than smart enough to know the distinction. But you want to pretend a high-end server should operate the same as the PC on your desk (to use another analogy), and keep this baiting conversation going by "naively" comparing a $3,000+ UFX III [designed for use in a professional recording studio] to something you know is completely different.

 

[Rja4000]

Hi guys.
Could we please stop this controversy here ?

@GearNostalgia made his point.
So let's stop this here.

As suggested, this might be a suggestion for improvement on RME forum.
I doubt you'll see a lot of buy-in (It's not a problem under Windows, to begin with. I know because I personally used an RME interface for Zoom calls on Windows).
But you're free to try.