(Unofficial) RME UCX II Interface Review and Measurements

[Rja4000]

i powered the fireface with a 12V talentcell

I use this one with the RME ADI-2 Pro fs

YB12011000-USB

TALENTCELL provide the latest in premium quality consumer electronic products and accessories. Innovation and quality mean everything. Every single TALENTCELL product is brand new and precision manufactured to meticulous standards in our state of the art production facilities. We offer a 1 year...

www.talentcell.com

 

[spamilton]

I've been looking for something like the ADI-2 Pro but with mic preamps. I have the Pro now, but I'm considering selling it for this. I'm guessing the UCX II is currently the best option. I can't imagine there's any real audible difference with the converters. I recently compared the Babyface Pro to the ADI-2 Pro and couldn't hear a difference using various good headphones. Some people claim to, but, as we know, people will always make that claim.

 

[Trell]

I've been looking for something like the ADI-2 Pro but with mic preamps. I have the Pro now, but I'm considering selling it for this. I'm guessing the UCX II is currently the best option. I can't imagine there's any real audible difference with the converters. I recently compared the Babyface Pro to the ADI-2 Pro and couldn't hear a difference using various good headphones. Some people claim to, but, as we know, people will always make that claim.

You can use the UCX II along with the Pro for monitoring, for instance, by connecting it to the Pro using ADAT/AES/SPDIF.

This is what I do but with the ADI-2 DAC FS, and then for monitoring purposes. For normal playback I use ADI-2 DAC as I use features that the UCX II lacks, like dynamic loudness.

 

[spamilton]

You can use the UCX II along with the Pro for monitoring, for instance, by connecting it to the Pro using ADAT/AES/SPDIF.

This is what I do but with the ADI-2 DAC FS, and then for monitoring purposes. For normal playback I use ADI-2 DAC as I use features that the UCX II lacks, like dynamic loudness.

I am currently using the Babyface this way, but I honestly don't hear a difference between the two, so I feel like it's redundant. Can you hear a difference? Are there any other benefits to this setup that I may missing?

I'm going to be moving the Babyface to a different room, so I'm thinking for simplicity I just use the UCX II alone.

I've gone back and forth with Loudness a lot but always end up turning it off. I guess I like my mids. I like it on my AVR for HT purposes, but it seems to bother me nearfield.

 

[Trell]

I am currently using the Babyface this way, but I honestly don't hear a difference between the two, so I feel like it's redundant. Can you hear a difference? Are there any other benefits to this setup that I may missing?

I'm going to be moving the Babyface to a different room, so I'm thinking for simplicity I just use the UCX II alone.

I've gone back and forth with Loudness a lot but always end up turning it off. I guess I like my mids. I like it on my AVR for HT purposes, but it seems to bother me nearfield.

I don’t hear any differences with my 250 Ohm headphones compared to the ADI-2 DAC when DSP is off for the times I tested, not that I expected any. The headphone amp on the UCX II is quite powerful as well for high impedance headphones, and it does have a three PEQ if you want to EQ your headphones.

If you don’t use the other DSP features that the Pro offers (like dynamic loudness, crossfeed, tone controls, more PEQ bands), or the remote, the UCX II will be more than fine.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

... For normal playback I use ADI-2 DAC as I use features that the UCX II lacks, like dynamic loudness.

I've gone back and forth with Loudness a lot but always end up turning it ([loudness]) off

I'm not sure that "loudness" reference from Trell's post is what you think it is. I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong), I believe Trell is referring to the mechanism that the ADI-2 DAC/PRO uses to automatically switch between the multiple amplification gain settings for very smooth and continuous increase in amplification (i.e., volume) from the lowest to the highest level.

The RME ADI-2 DAC / PRO is not doing anything to psycho-acoustically tweak the "perceived" volume by modifying the amount of bass vs. treble. Rather, it is seamlessly switching between the various amplifier gain settings as you increase or decrease the volume knob. By contrast, on my Monolith TXH 887 headphone amp, I need to manually (discretely) switch between gain level settings (1, 2, or 3) since the volume knob only changes the amplification level (i.e., volume) within each specific gain setting.

That continuous volume increase from the softest to the loudest settings is an amazing feature, and well worth the price of admission into the RME ADI-2 line.

 

[unpluggged]

I believe Trell is referring to the mechanism that the ADI-2 DAC/PRO uses to automatically switch between the multiple amplification gain settings for very smooth and continuous increase in amplification (i.e., volume) from the lowest to the highest level.

Umm, what does that mean? The volume control of the ADI-2 Pro/DAC is digital and discrete, so it cannot be continuous by definition, even with autoref. The dynamic loudness feature of the ADI-2 series is well-defined and thoroughly described in the RME documentation, so there's no need to make speculative and wrong statements such as this:

The RME ADI-2 DAC / PRO is not doing anything to psycho-acoustically tweak the "perceived" volume by modifying the amount of bass vs. treble.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Umm, what does that mean? The volume control of the ADI-2 Pro/DAC is digital and discrete, so it cannot be continuous by definition, even with autoref. The dynamic loudness feature of the ADI-2 series is well-defined and thoroughly described in the RME documentation, so there's no need to make speculative and wrong statements such as this:

As I requested, please correct me if my understanding is wrong... So I thank you for doing so.

 

[Trell]

I'm not sure that "loudness" reference from Trell's post is what you think it is. I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong), I believe Trell is referring to the mechanism that the ADI-2 DAC/PRO uses to automatically switch between the multiple amplification gain settings for very smooth and continuous increase in amplification (i.e., volume) from the lowest to the highest level.

The RME ADI-2 DAC / PRO is not doing anything to psycho-acoustically tweak the "perceived" volume by modifying the amount of bass vs. treble. Rather, it is seamlessly switching between the various amplifier gain settings as you increase or decrease the volume knob. By contrast, on my Monolith TXH 887 headphone amp, I need to manually (discretely) switch between gain level settings (1, 2, or 3) since the volume knob only changes the amplification level (i.e., volume) within each specific gain setting.

That continuous volume increase from the softest to the loudest settings is an amazing feature, and well worth the price of admission into the RME ADI-2 line.

You’re misunderstanding here as the ADI-2 DAC/Pro has a DSP feature Dynamic Loudness that indeed modifies bass and treble depending on volume level. This feature is quite customizable as well.

 

[spamilton]

As I requested, please correct me if my understanding is wrong... So I thank you for doing so.

Yes, I believe you are thinking of Auto Ref Level. Here is a good visual reference for Loudness:

 

[Itachi1701]

Hello. I want to buy KH 120 ii DSP monitors for the RME UCX ii. I understand how to connect these speakers via xlr analog but they have a digital spdif connection as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I connect them through the spdif then I will be able to bypass the additional conversion, right? The UCX ii has a breakout cable in the box. But looks like this is a AES/EBU to spdif female cable. KH 120 ii have a female spdif input as well. I'm confused. Sorry if I sound funny but my 2 questions are:
1) which cable should I use to connect UCX ii to KH 120 ii digitally? Explain me thoroughly as I am a newbie.
2) will I have an improvement by doing this when it comes to the sound quality comparing to analog connection?
PS: I also found on Thomann in the description (KH 150: digital input "Yes"), (KH 120 ii: digital input "No"). What? They look identical from the back. It is probably a mistake I believe. Thanks a lot!

 

[spamilton]

Hello. I want to buy KH 120 ii DSP monitors for the RME UCX ii. I understand how to connect these speakers via xlr analog but they have a digital spdif connection as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I connect them through the spdif then I will be able to bypass the additional conversion, right? The UCX ii has a breakout cable in the box. But looks like this is a AES/EBU to spdif female cable. KH 120 ii have a female spdif input as well. I'm confused. Sorry if I sound funny but my 2 questions are:
1) which cable should I use to connect UCX ii to KH 120 ii digitally? Explain me thoroughly as I am a newbie.
2) will I have an improvement by doing this when it comes to the sound quality comparing to analog connection?
PS: I also found on Thomann in the description (KH 150: digital input "Yes"), (KH 120 ii: digital input "No"). What? They look identical from the back. It is probably a mistake I believe. Thanks a lot!

The breakout cable has a coax in/out and AES in/out. You would use a coax cable to connect the UCX to one speaker, then another coax from that speaker to the other speaker. I would always go with digital if it's an option. One less AD conversion happening. It will pass the signal directly to the Neumanns.

 

[Rja4000]

Hello. I want to buy KH 120 ii DSP monitors for the RME UCX ii. I understand how to connect these speakers via xlr analog but they have a digital spdif connection as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I connect them through the spdif then I will be able to bypass the additional conversion, right? The UCX ii has a breakout cable in the box. But looks like this is a AES/EBU to spdif female cable. KH 120 ii have a female spdif input as well. I'm confused. Sorry if I sound funny but my 2 questions are:
1) which cable should I use to connect UCX ii to KH 120 ii digitally? Explain me thoroughly as I am a newbie.
2) will I have an improvement by doing this when it comes to the sound quality comparing to analog connection?
PS: I also found on Thomann in the description (KH 150: digital input "Yes"), (KH 120 ii: digital input "No"). What? They look identical from the back. It is probably a mistake I believe. Thanks a lot!

The Neumann KH120 II seems to have a digital input and output, on top of an XLR Analog input.
Which input type is dependent on the exact model:
KH 120 II / KH 120 II W: RCA (75 Ω): S/PDIF
KH 120 II AES67 / KH 120 II W AES67: RCA (75 Ω): S/PDIF, Ethernet

The basic model has SPDIF in and out.

You then have to connect the RME through its provided breakout cable, a 75 ohm coax cable of max 10m from the RME SPDIF output to one speaker's SPDIF input, and another 75 ohm coax cable to chain the 2 speaker's (SPDIF output of the speaker connected to the RME to the SPDIF input of the other.)

You should use the proper switch on each speaker to define left and right channel (SPDIF is transmitting both stereo channels).

75 ohm coax cables are quite common, either with BNC or directly RCA. (With the BNC, you'll need a cheap adapter plug at each end).

Even if the gain is minimal, it still makes little sense to go through an additional DA and AD conversion if you can avoid it.
So I'd go digital unless I really needed to use the analog input.

Note that the speaker will most likely re-clock the received digital signal to the sampling frequency its DSP is using, but that doesn't matter.

 

[Itachi1701]

Even if the gain is minimal, it still makes little sense to go through an additional DA and AD conversion if you can avoid it.
So I'd go digital unless I really needed to use the analog input.

Thank you. That was nice and understandable, roger that. But the question still remains - is avoiding of an additional ad/da conversion brings you any sonic benefits or this is not obvious at all?

 

[Rja4000]

s avoiding of an additional ad/da conversion brings you any sonic benefits or this is not obvious at all?

There is a high chance it won't make much (or any) audible difference IF you match levels of source and destination correctly and if you're not too low on output level.

Note that the main risk is to introduce some noise, reducing dynamic range, so nothing dramatic anyway.

 

[skeptastic]

Perhaps @amirm could be enticed to do similar measurements for audio interfaces for the mic input?

This would be amazing!

 

[skeptastic]

Hello. I want to buy KH 120 ii DSP monitors for the RME UCX ii. I understand how to connect these speakers via xlr analog but they have a digital spdif connection as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I connect them through the spdif then I will be able to bypass the additional conversion, right? The UCX ii has a breakout cable in the box. But looks like this is a AES/EBU to spdif female cable. KH 120 ii have a female spdif input as well. I'm confused. Sorry if I sound funny but my 2 questions are:
1) which cable should I use to connect UCX ii to KH 120 ii digitally? Explain me thoroughly as I am a newbie.
2) will I have an improvement by doing this when it comes to the sound quality comparing to analog connection?
PS: I also found on Thomann in the description (KH 150: digital input "Yes"), (KH 120 ii: digital input "No"). What? They look identical from the back. It is probably a mistake I believe. Thanks a lot!

Did you ever try the spdif vs analog input connections and get a sense for how they sounded?

 

[skeptastic]

As some time has elapsed since the last few posts in this thread, I'm wondering if anyone using the UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS can speak to any perceived sonic differences. I understand the extra features in the ADI-2 Pro FS (dynamic loudness, auto ref level, B/T adjustment, PEQ, etc), as well as the advantages of the UCX II (TotalMix FX access, higher number of I/O connections, onboard mic preamps, etc).

I use outboard mic preamps, so don't need the UCX II preamps. I also only need outputs for two pair of monitors, and could potentially use a completely passive monitor switch like the Nobsound 1-in-3-out switch to have both sets of monitors connected to the one pair of analog outputs of the ADI-2. It's only $65, so not a big deal at all. ADI-2 comes with two headphone outputs, which is exactly what I need. AD/DA is obviously superior with the ADI-2 Pro FS, but I'm unsure it would matter in real world use (tracking vocals and mixing in the box). The UCX II eliminates the need for the monitor switch, but I'd need to buy an external headphone amp, and am not too sold on the reliability of the outstanding units reviewed on this board (Topping, primarily).

In the end, it comes down to TotalMix FX access, needing an additional headphone amp, and slightly poorer AD/DA, versus end-game AD/DA, useful features like dynamic loudness and so forth, and needing a monitor switch. I feel like losing TotalMix FX has become a slightly bigger deal in my mind than it was a few weeks ago when weighing these two options, and if the ADI-2 Pro FS had TM FX integration, I would't even be making this post. I could grab a Digiface USB for about $400 from Thomann and get access to TotalMix, but am just throwing this all out there to see if I can gain perspective from some of you amazing folks.

For someone tracking vocals with outboard preamps and mixing ITB, which option seems like the best bang for the buck for my use case?

1. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + DAW recording + Nobsound 1-in-3-out XLR Audio Switch ($1345 total)
2. UCX II + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording + Topping A30 Pro ($1737 total)
3. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + Digiface USB + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording ($1791 total)
4. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + UCX II end-game, long-term package ($2782 total)

Thanks for any help or thoughts!

EDIT: Initially had the Nobsound and A30 Pro associated with the wrong interface

 

[jhenderson0107]

As some time has elapsed since the last few posts in this thread, I'm wondering if anyone using the UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS can speak to any perceived sonic differences. I understand the extra features in the ADI-2 Pro FS (dynamic loudness, auto ref level, B/T adjustment, PEQ, etc), as well as the advantages of the UCX II (TotalMix FX access, higher number of I/O connections, onboard mic preamps, etc).

I use outboard mic preamps, so don't need the UCX II preamps. I also only need outputs for two pair of monitors, and could potentially use a completely passive monitor switch like the Nobsound 1-in-3-out switch to have both sets of monitors connected to the one pair of analog outputs of the ADI-2. It's only $65, so not a big deal at all. ADI-2 comes with two headphone outputs, which is exactly what I need. AD/DA is obviously superior with the ADI-2 Pro FS, but I'm unsure it would matter in real world use (tracking vocals and mixing in the box). The UCX II eliminates the need for the monitor switch, but I'd need to buy an external headphone amp, and am not too sold on the reliability of the outstanding units reviewed on this board (Topping, primarily).

In the end, it comes down to TotalMix FX access, needing an additional headphone amp, and slightly poorer AD/DA, versus end-game AD/DA, useful features like dynamic loudness and so forth, and needing a monitor switch. I feel like losing TotalMix FX has become a slightly bigger deal in my mind than it was a few weeks ago when weighing these two options, and if the ADI-2 Pro FS had TM FX integration, I would't even be making this post. I could grab a Digiface USB for about $400 from Thomann and get access to TotalMix, but am just throwing this all out there to see if I can gain perspective from some of you amazing folks.

For someone tracking vocals with outboard preamps and mixing ITB, which option seems like the best bang for the buck for my use case?

1. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + DAW recording + Nobsound 1-in-3-out XLR Audio Switch ($1345 total)
2. UCX II + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording + Topping A30 Pro ($1737 total)
3. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + Digiface USB + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording ($1791 total)
4. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + UCX II end-game, long-term package ($2782 total)

Thanks for any help or thoughts!

EDIT: Initially had the Nobsound and A30 Pro associated with the wrong interface

I have all of the RME equipment mentioned above. I use the UCX II to record classical guitar and I've monitored/compared those recordings (as well as a bunch of commercial recordings) on both the UCX II and ADI-2 FS driving a variety of headphones (Senn 800S&650, Beyerdynamic 880) as well as speakers. IMO, there's no audible difference due to the electronics chain. Of course, the headphones have their individual sonic signatures which are easily discernable, but there's no detectable signature to the electronics chain to my ears. Both headphones and the speakers+rooms impart their signature which mask the miniscule differences in the electronics chain.

Totalmix is fantastic, solid and full-featured and works perfectly in conjunction with nearly any DAW (I use Reaper). I would select the UCX II for the requirements you've outlined over the ADI-2 Pro. It's less expensive and has more I/O. While the ADI-2 would suffice, it excels within a dedicated playback environment with a single stereo analog input source.

Just my viewpoint, but it's representative of one seven-billionth of the world population!

 

[Rja4000]

I'm wondering if anyone using the UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS can speak to any perceived sonic differences.

Well, I've been using both to listen to music, record music, and day to day use.
In terms of sonic differences, really, I didn't perceive any, as long as you remain within capabilities of both devices.

I understand the extra features in the ADI-2 Pro FS (dynamic loudness, auto ref level, B/T adjustment, PEQ, etc), as well as the advantages of the UCX II (TotalMix FX access, higher number of I/O connections, onboard mic preamps, etc).

For my use, number of EQ bands and, to a lower extent, headphones amp power, are making a difference.

I use outboard mic preamps, so don't need the UCX II preamps.

If you were needing them, that would make the choice obvious.
I would also add Durec as an added value functionality for the UCX II.
I like the possibility to record to DAW on PC and to use the UCX II and Durec as a parallel backup/second recording.

AD/DA is obviously superior with the ADI-2 Pro FS, but I'm unsure it would matter in real world use (tracking vocals and mixing in the box).

This difference in performance may make a difference if you chain multiple DA/AD conversions, to insert analog processors in your production process.

You'd still need a lot of loops to actually notice an audible difference, probably (and your analog gear limitations would most likely mask it, if any, anyway), but for peace of mind, I'd rather use the ADI-2 Pro for that purpose.

The UCX II eliminates the need for the monitor switch, but I'd need to buy an external headphone amp, and am not too sold on the reliability of the outstanding units reviewed on this board (Topping, primarily).

That all depends on the power you need for headphones.
I measured power above, and the UCX II is quite capable with most headphones. But it may still be a bit short with the most power-hungry ones.

For someone tracking vocals with outboard preamps and mixing ITB, which option seems like the best bang for the buck for my use case?

1. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + DAW recording + Nobsound 1-in-3-out XLR Audio Switch ($1345 total)
2. UCX II + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording + Topping A30 Pro ($1737 total)
3. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + Digiface USB + TotalMix FX near-zero latency recording ($1791 total)
4. ADI-2 Pro FS Silver + UCX II end-game, long-term package ($2782 total)

Thanks for any help or thoughts!

When I don't need the extra I/Os, I prefer the ADI-2. Mainly because it's more meant as a standalone-operation device than the UCX II.

When I do need those I/Os, the UCX II does the job perfectly.

My advice:
Look at your use and keep it simple.