RME Babyface vs. UFX+

Discussion in 'GEAR Talk Forum' started by merlinhimself, Apr 18, 2019.

  1. merlinhimself

    merlinhimself Active Member

    253
    86
    Aug 19, 2015
    Hey Everyone,

    Obviously the UFX+ is a better unit, costs a lot more though.

    How big of a difference in performance/ buffer/ amount of channels+tracks do you think I would get inside cubase using the UFX+ vs the babyface?

    I really dont care too much for extra mic/line ins as all I've ever really needed to record is 1 mic/line, occasionally stereo.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Rob Elliott

    Rob Elliott Senior Member

    I am interested on opinions of owners of these as well. As well as whether to go USB or PCIe. I am hearing that nowadays USB is probably more 'future proof' (mobo changes and such).
     
  3. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    I can only speak about Babyface Pro. I'm currently working with 48k sessions at 128 samples buffer size and my machine can handle quite a lot of tracks though it really depends on what I'm adding to Cubase. At 64 samples though - it's a whole different story. Clicks and pops occur after 25ish tracks or so, but then again, it varies. I can't even imagine running sessions at 32 samples. 128 samples buffer size on W10 gives me a roundtrip latency of about 8ms, so I'm pretty comfortable with it. The drivers are practically the same, so I don't know how it would make any difference choosing one over the other except for the amount of extra I/O.

    Not sure how helpful I was.
     
    dzilizzi likes this.
  4. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    I think PCI-e is future proof no? I've considered to purchase RME's PCI-e ADAT card in the past because I think I can substantially lower the RTL but I'm not so sure about those breakout cables. lol.
     
  5. sostenuto

    sostenuto Big NKS Fan !

    4,084
    2,035
    Mar 10, 2017
    St George, UT USA
    Focusrite Clarett 2-4-8 Pre USB are solid choice for me with serious home studio, multi-PC DAW system. Using (2) Saffire Pro14 for years and no reasons to change.
     
  6. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    I had focusrites before and found their drivers inferior to RME. Latency is higher, and clicks and pops appeared sooner than I thought on particular settings.
     
  7. sostenuto

    sostenuto Big NKS Fan !

    4,084
    2,035
    Mar 10, 2017
    St George, UT USA
    :thumbsup: Why I posted ! RME has seemed solid choice going forward __ Win10 Pro, Desktop PC hardware Updates soon. No more Firewire :notworthy:
     
  8. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    I like focusrite preamps, but I just think they are subpar when it comes to writing drivers for Windows machines. They work better on Macs. But then once again, I stopped using them 2 years ago. I'm not sure whether they have gotten better or not.
     
  9. Rob Elliott

    Rob Elliott Senior Member

    Been on RME multiface 2 for nearly 10 years. Lost my headphone output this year BUT the unit continues to perform well (drivers). A great unit AND company!!!! Just keeping my options open if I don't make it to year 11. :)
     
  10. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    That's the beauty of a company that only does one thing...but one thing well.
     
    Rob Elliott and sostenuto like this.
  11. clisma

    clisma Active Member

    406
    169
    Apr 13, 2015
    I just purchased a UFX+ and am still getting acquainted with it.

    It’s definitely a beast of a unit and overkill if you don’t need the high numbers of inputs and MADI. Because it has such elevated I/O, it can saturate the buss it is on, causing dropouts during playback/recording. So if you’re using USB as your connection, make sure it’s the only device on that buss. The problem should disappear via the Thunderbolt connection. RTL is about 12ms at a buffer of 256, on an upgraded 5,1 classic MacPro.

    HTH
     
  12. kgdrum

    kgdrum Senior Member

    962
    385
    Apr 11, 2005

    This might be something obvious I'm not understanding clearly.
    How do you differentiate one USB buss from another USB buss on a 5,1 MacPro?

    Thanks
     
  13. clisma

    clisma Active Member

    406
    169
    Apr 13, 2015
    Without checking the schematics of the MacPro, I’d reckon the back 3 USB ports use one buss, while the front 2 use another (someone feel free to correct me), so a device plugged into the front wouldn’t eat bandwidth away from one plugged into the back.

    The UFX+ has thunderbolt and USB3/2. I have a PCIe card with 2 USB 3.0 ports and 2 SATA ports on it, each connection type relying on one separate buss. Using the UFX+ on the USB3 port I get audio dropouts, probably due to a hub with several MIDI devices occupying the same buss. So far, this is not happening when using the RME over USB2 (no hub present).
     
  14. OP
    OP
    merlinhimself

    merlinhimself Active Member

    253
    86
    Aug 19, 2015
    How worse is using audio devices connected with usb vs usb3? I think I won't go for the UFX+ for the price and need right now, but unfortunately that's the only usb3 device rme makes.
     
  15. clisma

    clisma Active Member

    406
    169
    Apr 13, 2015
    USB2 vs USB3? Really depends on how many instruments you’re recording. USB2, especially with RME drivers, gets you quite a bit. As far as performance with VIs, I’m not sure it’s all that different.

    I purchased the UFX+ specifically for compatibility in the future, as my days on a cMac Pro are obviously numbered. Having both USB3 and Thunderbolt, with USB2 as fallback, hits the spot. (Though I do make reasonable use of the inputs as well...)

    Time permitting, I will hunt down which device might be interfering with the RME’s bandwidth over USB3, but for now I can confirm USB2 works just fine. 12.6ms @ 256, 7.3ms @ 128 RTL.

    Another bit: if you’re using a USB3 add-on card, be sure to check the UFX+ manual for chipset compatibility; not all are supported.
     
  16. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon KSP Wizard

    6,120
    3,984
    May 25, 2010
    Croatia
    I'm really happy with my UFX+. Hooked up via TB2 to my W10 desktop, works like a charm. And also expanded inputs via Ferrofish A32 over MADI... keeps all my rack synths happy, and there's plenty of room to grow :)
     
  17. Phil81

    Phil81 Active Member

    178
    70
    Jan 29, 2019
    G
    I believe, for your needs, the Babyface Pro will get you very far. I own one and it’s simply beautiful. I also only record one stereo track at a time too, and the drivers are exactly the ones used for the UFX+. The difference between USB2 x 3 x TB won’t matter much.
     
  18. Tim_Wells

    Tim_Wells Tim Wells

    46
    39
    Oct 22, 2018
    If you don't need the extra ins and outs, I would definitely go for the Babyface Pro. I'm very happy with my older-regular Babyface.
     
  19. Ben

    Ben Active Member

    351
    238
    Dec 22, 2017
    I have the UFX II and I am super happy with it. Not as expensive as the UFX+ and I have no use for the MADI connection anyway.
    The usb firmware and driver on the UFX II and UFX+ are the same, but UFX II has just a USB2 connection instead of USB3 or thunderbolt. Still, I achieve very low latency with it with low CPU load. Just make sure to connect it directly to your computer without any hub and disable USB energy savings.
     
  20. OP
    OP
    merlinhimself

    merlinhimself Active Member

    253
    86
    Aug 19, 2015
    Do you run pretty heavy sequences? The UFX+ is definitely out of my budget, but I've been trying to decide what would work better for me between the UFX II and the Babyface pro as far as latency and performance
     

Share This Page