Topic: UFX, TotalMix FX, and Reaper
I am on the verge of acquiring a UFX to be used with Reaper.
Will the Reaper automatically see all 8 chanels from the UFX without the use of TotalMix FX?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I am on the verge of acquiring a UFX to be used with Reaper.
Will the Reaper automatically see all 8 chanels from the UFX without the use of TotalMix FX?
For what you want you need the new DAW mode which has been introduced since about a year.
But I would advice you to get acquainted with TotalMix FX.
Its logic, structured and offers a lot of functionality.
Some people say its not easy but this is not the truth.
They failed to train only a few basic concepts, after you know them its really smooth in operation.
See later the reference to my primer for TM FX.
If you do not want you can of course use DAW mode, its nothing wrong with it, if this is your preference.
A little bit longer explanation:
TM FX supports since about a year 2 operation modes.
The normal mode where you can make your zero latency submixes for monitors and phones.
And a new DAW mode where all the TotalMix Features in terms of routing/submixes are gone.
In normal operation mode TotalMix FX send everything from the Hardware inputs (Mics, line ins, ADAT IN, etc) to the DAW. No matter if you press Mute in TotalMix. Input is always sent to the DAW !
All that comes from Windows Applications including the DAW you see in TotalMix FX in the middle row as Software playback channels. So if you route in your DAW all to Analog 1/2 out, then you will see the the signal from DAW in TotalMix FX SW Playback channel (middle row) AN 1/2.
In TotalMix FX every hardware output is a submix of its own in the operation mode "submix mode".
So you click on an HW output channel (bottom row) and then you can create a submix by raising/adjusting faders of all HW inputs (top row in TM FX) and SW playback channels (middle row in TM FX).
The same you can make for any other output (Phones and what not .. external peripheral devices like HW compressors, channel strips, external reverb / delay units, etc).
So everything is very logic, has excellent design and handling and on top of it you can save all digital in 8 so called snapshots on the right which you can assign with descriptions of your own.
And these 8 routings / snapshots you can save in a so called workspace file (as many as you like).
But there is also a Workspace Quick select functionality where you can save these Snapshot/Workspaces to 30 different slots which you can easily recall.
So you have 30 x 8 routings directly at your fingertips.
Its awesome, the best in the industriy and yes it will also work for you !
If you need a primer or training video then please look here
- in my blog article: http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … rnal-equi/
- and what RME offers in terms of videos: http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … al-Videos/
Thank you ramses.
I am using an iMac, and I think that the ASIO Direct Monitoring you refer to applies only to Windows?
No TotalMix is afaik also available for Mac.
The underlying driver is simply core audio instead of using ASIO.
Thank you again. I am going ahead with this project--
This thread is confusing. The answer to the first question
> Will the Reaper automatically see all 8 chanels from the UFX without the use of TotalMix FX?
is: Reaper will see all (30!) channels of the UFX. I have no clue why you think TM FX would be necessary for that.
> I am using an iMac, and I think that the ASIO Direct Monitoring you refer to applies only to Windows?
Correct. There is no ADM in MacOS. TM FX can be used to provide Direct Monitoring without software (DAW) latency, but it can not be automated from the DAW like under Windows.
Thank you very much.
I did not understand that Reaper can see channels without TotalMix FX.
I am beginning to learn about recording. I plan to buy an RME interface and am deciding between UFX and UFX+.
My use is for live recording of small ensembles, and for adding tracks to projects.
Will I find an important reduction in latency with the UFX+ using USB 3 or Thunderbolt? My new 2017 iMac can interface through both of these.
TBH .. I would choose between UFX II and UFX+ depending on whether MADI could become interesting for you or not.
In this article you find
- a summary of reasons what differs between UFX and UFX II/UFX+
- an excel table showing the RTT times which the RME driver reports to the DAW
The combination of i.e. UFX+ and up to 8 Octamic XTC via optical cable is a very nice one.
Also in terms of handling, the XTC is the only preamp which can be integrated as so called AUX device into
the TM FX instance of the UFX+ and
- be remote controlled for the most important parameters and
- these parameters can be digitally saved in 8 snapshots and 30 quickly recallable workspaces (8 x 30)
Here you can compare latencies, RayDAT means the combination of RayDAT PCIe card and an UFX in front of it where you need to add the times for D/A converters of the UFX which I had at that time, until I upgraded to UFX+:
Also a nice combination could be this for you, depending on what your preferences and/or requirements are:
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … ort-DE-EN/
....ramses, thank you again. I will carefully consider your message and respond tomorrow.....
Thank you for the latency comparison.
It seems to me that UFX USB performance is very close to the UFX+ Thunderbolt performance.
I'm not experienced enough to know whether the difference is important, but it can't be a disadvantage.......unless Thunderbolt/iMac is not a reliable platform.
I'm trying to set up a very stable, trouble-free, very high performance, long-lived, system. My computer is the latest, fastest 2017 iMac, lots of RAM. It seemed to me that with the latest iMac paired with the UFX+ I'd have exactly that.
But when I delve into the various threads on the forum I read about some UFX+ problems, mostly with PCs, though sometimes with Macs.
Is the UFX+/Thunderbolt/iMac considered to be very reliable?
....more reliable than UFX+/iMac/USB3?
....or than the older UFX/iMac/USB2?
These are all very good and reliable products with excellent performant drivers.
Problems in the PC area are usually based on issues with mainboard design / layout / BIOS / chipset and combinations of HW.
Problems in the MAC area are usually based on i.e. Apple performing changes to the kernel / USB or what now.
This can always happen for us guys in the recording area, because neither Apple nor Microsoft nor HW vendors do specific product tests with recording interfaces when they release new hardware or do changes to the operating system.
Another point is that neither of these two operating systems (Windows / Mac OS) are a real time operating system. So all the programming is based on conventions. Some manufacturer follow standards for their drivers, some do not. Conventions for device drivers how long a driver may utilize the CPU etc ...
To make a long story short. RME devices are all very good and reliable devices, with excellent drivers (stability and low latency), but in a case of bad luck it can always happen that some updates might hurt (be it Windows or MacOS).
The best advice that I can give to you is to perform regular backups and not performing System upgrades without a proven procedure to come back quickly to the previous state.
In regards to your question, the few ms difference between USB / Fw / Thunderbolt are not very significant. The message is more, that i.e. USB can be as reliable as Firewire and Thunderbolt. I tested on my system, that USB on the same big project didnt "eat" significant / seeable more CPU time.
So you are free to take what you want.
The UFX is the previous flagship interface. If money is tight you have now the opportunity to get it to a very special "nice price" and then you have Durec and can connect it to USB or Fw. Its USB2 but usually also works on USB3 ports (which have supported USB controller / chipset).
If you want latest and greatest technology with improvements in regards to Audio quality, better headphone amp, improved Durec, Timestamps with Durec, etc etc, then you should get the UFX II which you can connect via USB2, also possible to connect to an USB3 port (which have supported USB controller / chipset).
If you want on top of that MADI and the choice of operating the UFX+ via USB3 or Thunderbolt, then get the UFX+. MADI offers 64 channels more, MIDI over MADI which is very practical and allows you expand your solution in the future. Read the information in the handbook in terms of USB compatibility. Very good is also the implementation of USB diagnostics in the driver settings dialog. If you need pitch function of the driver then you need to use thunderbolt driver. If you do not need it then you can also use USB3 (where pitch cant be implemented because of the USB transfer mode as far as I remember).
In terms of latency let me put this example. With an UFX I was able to record a guitar connected to UFX instrument input and playing via a virtual amp running inside of Cubase with an ASIO buffer size of 256. So this results in a Round Trip time of 14ms. More comfortably was to use an ASIO buffersize of 128 buffers which results into RTT of below 10ms.
Below 10ms for RTT is a rule of thumb when playing with virtual instruments on the PC. Be it drums or guitar.
As you can see from the tabular an ADIO buffersize of 256 is close to the edge whats possible (still playable)
for every of the interfaces. If the RTT becomes too high, then you start to play slower and slower and can not
hold the tempo.
No matter what you take (RayDAT with UFX as preamp, or UFX, or UFX+, USB, FW, Thunderbolt), with all RME products you can play virtual instruments with an ASIO buffersize of 128 or even 256.
So .. simply take what you require or where you see the most advantages for you.
Ramses, thank you very much. For my situation I think it comes down to whether I should spend more to obtain a thunderbolt interface capability, so as to invest in up-to-date technology. As my use is for smaller recording situations I don't foresee needing MADI. I'll figure it out shortly; thanks again for your patience.
......ramses, do you connect your UFX+ through Thunderbolt or USB3?
USB3, my supermicro board doesnt allow for thunderbolt and you cant upgrade a board for thunderbolt.
And BTW .. I did some measuremeant with a 400 track test project in cubase that I can playback with 32 ASIO buffers without audio loss same as with a RayDAT PCIe. About the same CPU utilization. I tested it because many people think that USB is worse than i.e. Firewire or new Thunderbolt. Ok Firewire and USB differ a little in terms of transfer mechanism and device intelligence. But with this 400 tracks test project with a few VSTs as inserts I could not see something dramatic like clicks, pops or that the CPU starts to become more load because of USB not being "efficient enough".
The only thing which you need to think about is - I dont know if you ever had to use the pitch function of the RME driver itself in the driver settings dialog. For some technical reason (USB transfer protocol being used) its not possible to use that with MADIface driver/USB3. This is only possible with the thunderbolt driver.
And of course, if you take the UFX+, you have a choice to take either thunderbolt or USB3. Even USB2 without MADI.
I regarded this always as a big plus to be able to have a plan be, as some mainboards may have issues with USB based on chipset/BIOS/design, then you have a 2nd chance to take smth different. Its no necessity, the question is whether this and MADI justifies for you around €600. You should check about the benefits of using MADI to come to a good conclusion for you.
Thanks again. You have greatly clarified the issues for me. I am leaning towards the UFX+; just trying to adjust to the expense.
I noticed in other posts of yours that you might be using a Kemper modeling amp. Did you go through with this, and what do you think of it? I know this is off topic but I am wondering what someone as discerning as you thinks of that equipment.
I sent mine back and am still using my old tube amp. Other people regard it as great. Try it out.
....thanks again....FYI I am using a Sarno V8 tube preamp, has a balanced direct out; very simple and I like....for pedal steel.
BTW, there are tricks to get an organic sound also at lower volumes. The way I record.
I can send you a link to a recording via PM.
I am very interested; please do.
I'm a little late to the thread, but wanted to throw a few random thoughts into the mix. I have both a UFX and a UFX+. The UFX I connect via USB (I get slightly better performance via USB than FW), the UFX+ I connect via TB. The TB connection is definitely faster (no comparison), however you're really not going to notice that speed increase unless you've got very high track counts and/or you're monitoring through your DAW versus through the UFX and Total Mix....Particularly if you're monitoring through the DAW *and* adding processing to your monitored sound within the DAW. For most of my projects, a USB connection is more than sufficient. I connect the UFX+ via TB primarily because the TB is on it's own bus and it also frees up an extra USB port on my computer. I do get into higher track count projects on a fairly regular basis, but I'm normally not recording tons of tracks simultaneously, and for mixing purposes, a simply buffer adjustment is typically sufficient. That being said, it's nice knowing you have the TB throughput if/when you need it!
As far as Total Mix goes, you'll find this out on your own, but you WILL want to use TM. TM is very easy to understand and get the hang of, and the flexibility is out of this world. You can literally route anything to anywhere. Using TM will allow you to monitor with zero latency. You can also add processing to your recorded tracks on the way in if that's your bag (think subtle compression, etc.). After about two hours working in TM, keep the manual handy for reference, and you'll have it down pat.
FYI...I'm on Win10 64, but I don't see any reason why anything I just said wouldn't be just as relevant on a Mac.
Gary, thanks, I've slowly been coming up to speed on this and everything you've said makes sense to me. As you sensed I originally wanted to avoid TM, in order to keep everything simple; but I'm beginning to sense its value. Your comments about the UFX+ with TB vs the UFX with USB are right on target and jibe with what I've come to understand. With the help of Ramses' latency chart and other insights he's offered I can see that USB would almost certainly be more than sufficient; my use at this point is just 1-4 inputs, live recording; and in-DAW-effects processing might apply to one or two of those inputs. However, in the interest of keeping open the option of even better throughput I'm inclined towards the UFX+ with TB; just have to rationalize the cost. Thank you.
Rob - The other thing is, if you're going to use the UFX's mic pre's, it'll be so much faster and easier to set the gain structure from Total Mix than from the front panel. In TM, it's point, click, go.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of recording with processing...I typically record raw tracks and add the processing later if/when needed simply because you can always add processing later, you can't undo what you've already recorded. That being said, if you do record with any processing, you have the basics (EQ, compression, etc.) already in TM, so you can add the processing there without using any system resources.
Thanks Gary, makes sense.
I'm looking at the UFX+, frankly, because I don't know what my needs will be; with the UFX+ I expect to be able to meet most any requirement, including directly recording a DAW-processed/effected track. Some pro's I know do that sometimes.
Based on what you've said thus far, the UFX+ would be completely overkill for what you're doing. However, if your budget allows, I won't be the one to try and talk you out of a UFX+. I was perfectly happy with the UFX. It was more than sufficient to serve my needs. But I had a hankering to use my TB connection and some daylight in the budget, and that's how I wound up with a UFX and a UFX+. Having both units has come in handy on a few of my higher track count projects. I can sync two machines up via timecode and away I go. I was using a Focusrite interface as my second option, but in my opinion, the RME stuff blows Focusrite out of the water...Especially Total Mix. The Focusrite is now the emergency back-up interface.
@Gary: LOL yes I agree. I used in the past Terratec EWS 88 MT (with a Tascam M30), then a combination of Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 plus an OctoPre MkII. I never really became friend with MixControl, Support was friendly but "so so" in terms of no deeper knowledge, knobs were a pain only in the last 30% you needed to adjust in felt "micrometers". But ok, I didnt know RME and thought, well lets make the best out of it.
After having switched to RME (UFX) I also got this WoW effect, that really everything was much better in terms of quality and features and a very well designed mixer.
TBH, all interfaces would fulfill rsgl's demand: UFX, UFX II and UFX+.
For the UFX speaks, that you get it currently to a ridicolous low price because we have this special situation that RME designed the new flagship interfaces. So this is a very special moment to get something for a very special low price.
On the other hand for UFX II and UFX+ speaks, that you get latest technology and really a lot has been changed, here a complete list which I put together from different sources:
- revised analogue circuits and DSPs
- the audio quality is better, so if you use very good monitors and phones, this is an advantage
- Mic inputs with +18dBU max (no PAD)
- Mic inputs with 75 dB Gain Range
- Phones outputs with only 2 Ohm impedance and +19 dBU max output level
- the 2 potis right beside the display control now the volume of phones 9/10 and 11/12
- better SNR and THD
- fully stand-alone (revised, more settings)
- Durec: real time clock enabling for timestamps in Durec recordings
- Durec: enhanced reliability when using slower or multi partitioned USB thumb devices
- ARC USB: you can choose whether you want to connect it to PC or UFX II / UFX+
- ARC USB: you can connect it only to UFX II and UFX+ in standalone mode which can be very handy if you want to use the UFX II or UFX+ as tape deck.
And the UFX+ additionally:
- Thunderbolt for Windows and Mac
- Thunderbolt hot-plugging allowed under Windows with RME driver, also when using Win7
- additional 64 channels by MADI
- In total 188 channels (94 IN, 94 OUT): 24 analogue, 32 ADAT, 4 AES, 128 MADI
- Wordclock BNC switchable to MADI koaxial
- MADI split Modus enables for 32 channels per MADI optical and per coaxial
- MADI I/O via TotalMix still useable even when using USB2, although USB2 is limited to 30 I/O (12 analoguee plus 16 ADAT plus AES)
- Direct USB Recording (DuRec): up to 76 channels out of 12 Analog and 64 MADI channels
The advantages of the UFX+ I see simply in
- you have more options to connect the UFX+ (USB2, USB3 and thunderbolt), so if USB has issues, you have alternatives
- with MADI you don't have a significant reduction of digital channels like with ADAT if you record with higher sample rates
- with MADI you have only a few cables which can become very long, in total up to 2km.
- this can support a studio with more rooms better, UFX+ in the control room, the other equipment in room 1, 2, 3 .. and with MADI you can create an optical ring through all devices and back to the UFX+
- when connecting more devices, then with optical links you do not have any issues with different ground potential / hum
- even IF you would record with 192 kHz you still can connect i.e. 2 Octamic XTC and dont loose any channel by multiplexing
- for 96kHz this would be even 4 Octamic XTC more
- MIDI over MADI enables you to get rid of MIDI cables for remote controlling preamps
- If you use the XTC as preamps, then you can add it as aux device, then all up to 8 Octamic XTC are fully integrated into one TM FX instance of your UFX+ and all settings can be stored digitally.
So .. for better quality and more features UFX II or UFX+.
But when spending €2000, then the difference to the UFX+ is not that far to have even more options
and especially in terms of connections to the computer.
I would go for UFX+. Therefore I have not UFX and UFX+ but instead of this 2 UFX+.
One for mobile applications together with the Octopre XTCs
One dedicated for the Guitar Rig for a very nice and special setup
Gary, I have your 'hankering' too; I just upgraded my iMac after 9 years, and the new one has 64 gigs of ram, max speed, and has TB--the good kind . I was perfectly happy with the older iMac, but this one is better, faster. It's that moment for me of upgrading, I've got the daylight in the budget, so I'm inclined towards the latest most advanced gear, so that they can leverage each other, and so I can forget about gear aquisition for a good while and just use the stuff! Thanks to both of you again and I'll report--
Further on this thread, I now have the UFX+ and totally love it. The recordings sound wonderful to me. Installation and operation has been faultless. Thanks again to all for the help--Rob
Very cool, have much fun with your new device :-)