RME Fireface UFX III - Any users here?

Well, that's a possible solution I hadn't thought of.   But not cheaper.  The Symphony chassis is $2700 and the UFXIII is $2500 on Thomann.  If I bought the RME and used my Symphony as my primary 8 ins and outs that would give me a lot more options.  But if you think that the RME is a noticeable step down in audio quality there's that.  RME states that the The UFX III has upgraded converters.  But it's hard to find any true comparisons or shootouts of it online.  
Another thing...Apogee Maestro is super old and glitchy now--I don't even know if it would work.  

i am no expert but here in europe RME has a really good sound quality reputation too. not just for stable drivers.
you find RME in A LOT of recording studios, even ones recording classical music.
so there can be a somewhat lower sound quality compared to really high end stuff, but i cannot immagine its THAT big to be a real downgrade. maybe i and all the others are wrong.

I'll be curious to hear! 

The interface measured really well on the Audio Science Review forum too, for what it's worth. Although, of course, ears matter most.

Yep, real world actual experience is the key here.

I’ve got excellent monitoring here in a very well treated room (unlike some on forums who make their opinions known based on spec sheets) I’ve also got very good ears!

I can tell you, the Pulse 16 holds its head high against my Crane song converters - on single mono tracks the difference between the Pulse 16 and the HEDD 192 is tiny.
On tracks with stereo information switching between listening to the Pulse 16 and the Avocet converters - there is a small amount more stereo field information and small amount more
resolution - no phase smearing (honestly the stuff I read on forums!) no stereo image shift - no significant loss of depth of field.

I’m certain the RME converters will be similar in performance.

Yes, Lynx converters and other very high end converters will offer a greater degree of resolution which will make itself known on very dynamic recordings with a lot of stereo information.
That resolution will cost you.

My solution is to have a high end converter (HEDD 192 - could be a Lynx Hilo) for tracking vocals and bass (though as they’re mono the Pulse 16 performance is within a hair of the HEDD 192 anyway) and for the stereo mix bus the HEDD 192 does have a better sonic performance than the Pulse 16 as pointed out.

I think it's about spending money effectively.

In my case the Lynx didn't suit as I wanted ADAT natively built in as I use an RME RayDAT card and so the Pulse had the features I wanted over the Lynx unit and further the Pulse has individual TRS outputs not DB25. I need to send signals to a 8x8 TT desktop patchbay and to a analogue monitor mixer and a re-amp unit - so TRS allows me to splash my signal round my rig to all different areas making cabling super easy.

The RME unit you're looking at has TRS and for a project studio set-up that very useful in the real world
Eventually, connect a high end stereo ADA (HEDD192, Lynx Hilo, RME ADI 2-4 etc) to it's AES port and "boom" you'll have an amazing system perfect for tracking, hybrid mixing and mastering.

+1

Exactly, my conclusion too - I'm thrilled with my Pulse 16 - it's been great so far.

I guess I just assumed that II wasn't as good as III  so I'll have to do more reading on that.  I don't use Madi currently but it does sound like it has many benefits over ADAT.

The equivalent Lynx N (16 channel) with the added ADAT module to my Pulse 16 costs $6,500 in the UK!

The Pulse 16 cost me $1000 and it’s made in Germany (like RME)

I also am a full time working professional so I have to be sensible about where I spend my money and what level of performance to cost ratio I get in return.

Spending $10,000 on two Thermionic units is justifiable as the impact on my productions is massive!

Here in 2024 I think converter technology has reached a point for hybrid mixing duties there’s not much to be gained above a certain level.

For the stereo mix bus I still turn to something higher end and I think there are justifications for that in terms of stereo information and detailed resolution on complex programme material of a full mix.

Let us know what you buy

It’s not the converter chips; it’s the clocking, filters, current to voltage converters, and amplifiers. Do not confuse the chip with the entire device. These interfaces are cheaped out. The ones you are attacking as overpriced are generally not. But you do you. You advocate for distorting everything anyway in a very expensive way but then blanket everything in the cheapest possible distortion. lol.

Exactly agreed - it’s about sonics and units like the Lynx N, Hilo and my HEDD 192 are no compromise designs and sound fantastic.

My HEDD 192 (iirc) cost me $3000 and my Avocet a further $3000 - the Avocet has a fantastic headphone amp and the HEDD 192 has those amazing saturation FX.

So the fact that the Pulse 16 holds its own so incredibly well makes the Ferrofish somewhat of a bargain - and I guess I could of afforded a Lynx N (if I’d really seen the value in one for my genres of production) but it would of taken away from other needs.

The difference went on a BLA Bluey, Audioscape Opto Comp, BOSS Waza TAE and Schoeps CMC6 MK4 SDC. All making a huge very obvious difference to my productions …. budget sensibly spent in my world of audio

As ever we all have different production goals and budget priorities.


Like I said, I’m using the HEDD 192 for tracking vocals and bass and the stereo master bus but hey …. that Pulse unit sounds really great for my application of some hybrid mixing.

After 43 years of recording I think I can trust my ears …. I’ve been careful and looked after them