(Unofficial) RME UCX II Interface Review and Measurements

[skeptastic]

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!

This is great info. Thank you! It's so hard for me to weight TotalMix vs all the features of the ADI-2 since I will only need to use analog outputs 1/2 on the ADI-2. I don't think I'll need a lot of routing capabilities at all. The near-zero latency sounds cool though. And to reiterate, I am only tracking vocals, so I don't even need stereo inputs. And in my case, the ADI-2 Pro is actually quite a bit less expensive, as I can get it for $1275 out the door, versus the UCX II for $1500 out the door. In addition, I need a second headphone output with the UCX II since it only comes with one, and only need a monitor switch control to pair with the ADI-2. Lastly, if I want access to TotalMix I could grab a digiface at any time and pay the same in total for the digiface and ADI-2 as for the UCX II and the extra headphones amp.

The more I think about it, I really should just grab the ADI-2, try it out in my DAW, and see if the latency even bugs me at all during recording. If it does, add the Digiface and have the best possible conversion with all the headphone outputs, analog inputs, and analog outs I need.

Thanks for your input! Feel free to comment on this reply to your post, or my reply to Rja4000's post!

 

[skeptastic]

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.

This certainly seems to be the consensus among reasonable folks. I believe it.

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

The outstanding power of the headphone outputs, and the fact that there are two of them on board is a major consideration for me. In addition, the dynamic loudness working for connected monitors is also a huge deal. I initially thought it was just for headphone outputs, but poured through the manual and discovered loudness is a feature for the analog outputs as well. Also, much as I initially thought the ADI-2 EQ and other added features were unnecessary for my usage, reading the manual made me appreciate those features more.

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.

Agreed about the mic preamps. One thing that bothers me with buying the UCX II is it feels like I'd be paying more for features I won't use, while ending to pay extra for the ones I do (second headphone amp).

I do like the idea of Durec providing a backup of the recording in the event something goes wrong, but it isn't a major draw if I'm being honest. And I don't do any location recording or live recording, so it doesn't serve me there either.

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.

Great point. I recently decided not to mix using outboard gear, so I won't be doing any loops in and out. And as you said, even if I were, it would need to be multiple trips before any noticeable difference would rear its head.

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.

Oh yeah, I am certain the UCX II headphone output will be outstanding. I just meant that I need a second headphone output, and while the ADI-2 provides this, the UCX II doesn't.

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.

Do you mind explaining why you prefer the ADI-2 when not needing extra I/O? With no noticeable differences in sound quality, is there some other reason you prefer the ADI-2 when you could use either unit in those cases where fewer I/O are needed? You mentioned it being a more standalone device, but what does this mean to you or how does it apply in your real world usage?

That's the thing with the UCX II... it would be the way to go if I ever needed more I/O, but it really is just me tracking vocals. If the ADI-2 were the standard $2000, I'd still be weighing things, but I'd have a much stronger case for the UCX II since the cost would be lower for similar sonics and immediate TotalMix access. But the ADI-2 is less expensive in this case, and adding the Digiface for TotalMix access brings the units to the same cost.

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

I think, for my use case, the ADI-2 makes more sense. I guess I just feel weird using a mastering device for tracking, when the UCX II was made to be an interface for audio recording, and the ADI-2 was made to be a mastering tool. Am I overthinking this? I also don't like the idea of adding a non-RME unit (second headphone amp) if I don't need to.

I hear myself saying get the ADI-2, but I'm just trying to be thorough and sure before making it happen. Thank you for your advice and input! It means a lot.

 

[Rja4000]

Do you mind explaining why you prefer the ADI-2 when not needing extra I/O? With no noticeable differences in sound quality, is there some other reason you prefer the ADI-2 when you could use either unit in those cases where fewer I/O are needed? You mentioned it being a more standalone device, but what does this mean to you or how does it apply in your real world usage?

It has more functionalities for this kind of use, and (after some practice) it's easy to configure quickly to the exact settings you need with the buttons.
The display is also very informative on a lot of things.

With the UCX, there are so many parameters that the PC and Totalmix is almost mandatory, while I just need a few things done.

That's what I meant by "standalone".

I think, for my use case, the ADI-2 makes more sense. I guess I just feel weird using a mastering device for tracking, when the UCX II was made to be an interface for audio recording, and the ADI-2 was made to be a mastering tool. Am I overthinking this? I also don't like the idea of adding a non-RME unit (second headphone amp) if I don't need to..

The ADI-2 is meant as a multi-use converter, with powerful headphones amp.

One capability we didn't speak about is the multiple input and output ranges (with auto range). This is also very handy when you need to plug different speakers or gear. You're always sure to use the best performance settings.
Peace of mind, as I said: get the conversion process out of your way.

I hear myself saying get the ADI-2, but I'm just trying to be thorough and sure before making it happen.

If you want to be thorough, you may consider an UFX II as well.
It is similar in performance to the UCX II, but has 2 headphones outputs.

I'd have no issue for the use case you describe to go for the ADI-2.
In fact, I think it's meant exactly for that.

Thank you for your advice and input! It means a lot.

Welcome

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Is there any effective option that uses ADI PRO's multi-channel USB In/Out capability, where the TotalMix and DIRAC functionality is done in the digital realm via the Pro's USB input/output? That might be a more economical option where there is only a small number of sources to be mixed (compared to cost of adding a UFX II or UCX II).

Signal flow: Various sources ==> [inputs> ADI PRO > USB out] ==> TotalMix/DIRAC device ==> [USB in> ADI PRO >outputs]

Obviously, a PC, Mac, or Raspberry Pi could be the device in the middle. But, is there anything from RME that effectively allows using the RME ADI PRO as primary input/output device, and still incorporates TotalMix via the USB channel? Or perhaps a reduced cost on TotalMix software when the ADI PRO's USB is the input/output device?

Also a product request to RME: please add a second USB port to the ADI PRO so that one USB can be used for input or output, while the other port can be used for the USB multi-channel/multi-source loopback path to an offboard processor.

 

[unpluggged]

ADI PRO

There is no such product. And what does it have to do with this topic?

You seem to somehow having missed the fact that RME's ADI series are not recording interfaces but standalone converters and have no TotalMix functionality. If you need that, look at their interfaces (Fireface/Babyface/Madiface/Digiface series). One of the options to add some TotalMix features to ADI-2 series is to use the latter as a front-end for the Digiface USB. But it won't expand the number of channels available in the ADI-2 converter itself, of course.

 

[Rja4000]

Signal flow: Various sources ==> [inputs> ADI PRO > USB out] ==> TotalMix/DIRAC device ==> [USB in> ADI PRO >outputs]

Obviously, a PC, Mac, or Raspberry Pi could be the device in the middle. But, is there anything from RME that effectively allows using the RME ADI PRO as primary input/output device, and still incorporates TotalMix via the USB channel? Or perhaps a reduced cost on TotalMix software when the ADI PRO's USB is the input/output device?

Totalmix is not available for ADI-2 or ADI-2/4.
It's a software running inside an UCX II or UFX II/III/+ interface.

You may use a PC to control TotalMix, or you may control it with the interface buttons and display, and it will still run without a PC.

As such, as far as I know, you may not integrate third party software, like Dirac or any other VST.

If that's what you want to do, you need a PC with a DAW software or another software like Dirac for PC (I'm not sure if the later accepts orher inputs than the PC itself, though.)

If you use a DAW, you may, indeed, use any interface for inputs and outputs simultaneously and insert plugins -VST and similar- in the loop.
It's meant for that, actually.

That would work with the RME interfaces (UCX, UFX series) as well as with the ADI-2 series.
But the formers, with their multiple I/Os, are, more flexible and, IMO, more adapted for that purpose.

Note that there will be an unknown latency, added by the DAW and VST or plugins.
That would be the same for any interface.
For HiFi use, it's in general not a problem.
To watch video, it may cause a loss of synchronisation between the sound and image (although most high end TVs allow to compensate for a delay)

 

[PopDV]

Need new audio interface for DAW with TotalMix FX + 2 mic inputs and high quality of sound (mic preamps, line out, headphones output), so UCX II satisfied but how comparing to UFX III or UFX II new 2024 rev(will be fine as I don't need Madi) as they have updated analog digital boards.
I also like just listening music as audiophile
ADI 2 pro not in the list by the way as it will increase budget twice (maybe in the future).
So did someone here compared sound quality UCX II vs UFX III (UFX II new Rev)?
For 300om headphones I have balanced Monolith liquid platinum but for Sony MDR7520, Audisy LCD X I think headphones output of UCX UFX will be enough

 

[Rja4000]

Need new audio interface for DAW with TotalMix FX + 2 mic inputs and high quality of sound (mic preamps, line out, headphones output), so UCX II satisfied but how comparing to UFX III or UFX II new 2024 rev(will be fine as I don't need Madi) as they have updated analog digital boards.
I also like just listening music as audiophile
ADI 2 pro not in the list by the way as it will increase budget twice (maybe in the future).
So did someone here compared sound quality UCX II vs UFX III (UFX II new Rev)?
For 300om headphones I have balanced Monolith liquid platinum but for Sony MDR7520, Audisy LCD X I think headphones output of UCX UFX will be enough

I have the UCX II, 12Mic-D and now the UFX III.
The updated UFX II is supposed to have the same mic preamps than the UFX III.

I'm in the process of measuring the UFX III.
I can say the mic preamps are excellent.
They are a bit better than the UCX II's, as the specs suggest. (In my experience, one may always trust RME specs. They are always spot on - just a bit on the conservative side)

I don't hear any difference though.

By the way, the new Room EQ Parametric EQ is fantastic. I listen to music with the UCX II and a Zero:Red Crinacle with it, and it's really an incredible combo.

 

[PopDV]

I have the UCX II, 12Mic-D and now the UFX III.
The updated UFX II is supposed to have the same mic preamps than the UFX III.

I'm in the process of measuring the UFX III.
I can say the mic preamps are excellent.
They are a bit better than the UCX II's, as the specs suggest. (In my experience, one may always trust RME specs. They are always spot on - just a bit on the conservative side)

I don't hear any difference though.

By the way, the new Room EQ Parametric EQ is fantastic. I listen to music with the UCX II and a Zero:Red Crinacle with it, and it's really an incredible combo.

Cool that you have both UCX II + UFX III and congratulation with UFX III
Yes UFX II latest Rev (from the end of 2023) and UFX III have the same boards except MADI (ramzes from RME forum confirm it)
What difference do you hear UCX II vs UFX III line outputs, headphones outputs and mic inputs?
(I'm not too carry about numbers, it's more interesting your subjective hearing experience)

 

[Rja4000]

Well, talking about "hearing" an ADC is a dangerous topic.
I use those to record live music.
Per definition, it's never twice exactly the same source. So how could I compare - if ever our hearing memory was reliable over more than a few seconds delay ?
I'd need to feed both with the same source and to do a proper ABX test on recorded material.

 

[MisterKent]

Reviving an old thread to ask a use case question. I have a complex setup, two PCs and a blue node, a set of speakers, headphones, and a Shure sm7db (pre amp built in, requires phantom).

My goal is to use the UCX II in order to achieve the following:
- both PCs and blue node always "live", all mixed ideally bit-perfectly. I'd like to not have to manually switch sources for day-to-day music and zoom. Will use USB to optical for second PC, standard USB for first PC.

- Microphone output to both PCs, again all the time. Will need to maybe get an optical input or something to get output into the PC not connected via USB.

- Ability to switch between speakers and headphones with a button press.

- Ability to have mic feedback on headphones mix during calls, but separate mic-free mix to speakers.

Sorry, I know there's a lot going on here. I'm hoping that for 1.6K, this thing can be setup and simplify all the cables and switching I have to do on my desk.

Thank you in advance!

 

[MisterKent]

In case anyone comes across this thread in the future looking for an answer, reading through the manual and a few hours of videos has confirmed my setup is possible.

Unclear if bit-perfect, but it should still be very high quality.

With the remote, you can also easily configure one button swap between speaker and headphones and more.

All of that can also work while only applying room eq to one output, and without any computer connected (running in true standalone mode). Computer is still needed to run initial configuration of course.

I'll be picking one up in a few months and will report back here on how I like it.

 

[Music1969]

Dashboard @4V in Loopback mode
(DAC + ADC = RME UCX II)

Hi @Rja4000 do you have the loopback multitones measuremennt? And loopback jitter? please

And have you recorded .wav file with the gearpsace .wav file and tested null difference with @pkane 's DeltaWave?

 

[pkane]

Hi @Rja4000 do you have the loopback multitones measuremennt? And loopback jitter? please

And have you recorded .wav file with the gearpsace .wav file and tested null difference with @pkane 's DeltaWave?

When the DAC and the ADC are clocked with the same internal clock, the loopback will not contain any jitter nor clock drift.

 

[Music1969]

When the DAC and the ADC are clocked with the same internal clock, the loopback will not contain any jitter nor clock drift.

Noted. Would love to see multitone though.

Also loopback CCIF IMD vs level (using Multitone Analyzer)

 

[Rja4000]

Hi @Rja4000 do you have the loopback multitones measuremennt? And loopback jitter? please

And have you recorded .wav file with the gearpsace .wav file and tested null difference with @pkane 's DeltaWave?

No, I don't and I didn't.
That's not something I'm doing.

A multitone signal result is VERY dependent on the exact signal definition.

Good multitone test signals are using complex frequencies and phase combinations to minimize the crest factor.
Two multitone source signals may have dramatically different SNR if they have very different crest factor.

So I'm only using the APx500's 48/96/192kHz 32 tones signal, for coherency reason. The very same Amir is using, I think.

For the null test, it's been discussed over and over again how misleading that may be. I know @pkane's clever compensation improves this.
But then you have no comparison base, anyway.

I may retest the UCX II one of those days.
Mine is one of the early versions, so I don't know how representative of the current version that would be (I don't expect much difference).
But it would be good as a reference anyway.

But time availability is always a challenge...

 

[pkane]

No, I don't and I didn't.
That's not something I'm doing.

A multitone signal result is VERY dependent on the exact signal definition.

Good multitone test signals are using complex frequencies and phase combinations to minimize the crest factor.
Two multitone source signals may have dramatically different SNR if they have very different crest factor.

So I'm only using the APx500's 48/96/192kHz 32 tones signal, for coherence reason. The very same Amir is using, I think.

For the null test, it's been discussed over and over again how misleading that may be. I know @pkane's clever compensation improves this.
But then you have no comparison base, anyway.

I may retest the UCX II one of those days.
Mine is one of thecearly versions, so I don't know how representative of the current version that would be (I don't expect much difference).
But it would be good as a reference anyway.

But time availability is always a challenge...

Here's a loopback recording from Gearspace thread on null testing:

RME Fireface UCX II (SteveDanger)
1.3 dB (L), 1.3 db (R), -43.7 dBFS (L), -44.8 dBFS (R)

 

[Music1969]

So I'm only using the APx500's 48/96/192kHz 32 tones signal, for coherency reason. The very same Amir is using, I think.

thx if you have time can you quickly do a loopback multitone?

 

[morillon]

thx if you have time can you quickly do a loopback multitone?

seems so urgent to you...what will change for you this observation ?
(perhaps ask on the rme forum for feedback if it is so important for you)

 

[Music1969]

seems so urgent to you...what will change for you this observation ?
(perhaps ask on the rme forum for feedback if it is so important for you)

"if you have time" is actually the opposite of urgent

It wasn't even a question to you, so why are you bothered by a question to somebody else?

People on the internet can be strange