USB 3.0 audio Interfaces

[M300SEL]

any thing out yet?

[KarmaPolice]

How is increased bandwidth interesting for future audio interfaces? Firewire is superior to USB2 because of lower latency I think. So if they don´t

improve latency on usb3, firewire will still be better. I mean, how much I/O does FW800 give us today? 32 channels at 24/96? Who needs more?

And if you need more you can still use a second firewire bus.

[mfx]

I agree and think it's a shame that firewire isn't more widely supported. I know it's been around for 10+years but it does work for it's needs. But technology moves on and paychecks have to be made...cynical me.

Im sure there will be many benefits with USB3 but i have to question is it needed and why not make the most of FW400/800 as it's a tried and tested technology.

[Rylan]

there is also Light Peak to consider. as of yet the only usb3 stuff I see that captures audio seems to be pointless as the devices are so simple they would probably work fine on usb1

[rksguit]

aaa.........hhhhh.......ggg.......hh help please not again

[Sinocelt]

Originally Posted by mfx

Im sure there will be many benefits with USB3 but i have to question is it needed and why not make the most of FW400/800 as it's a tried and tested technology.

1) It comes with a $0.25 licencing fee, which is nothing for a computer but a lot more for a cheap hub. Whatever the amount, though, the very fact that it isn't a free standard is what killed FW. When Apple tried to have other manufacturers pay $1 per machine for FW, it made those manufacturers wary of ever investing in a standard that belongs to their competitors (currently a conglomerate, composed of Apple, Sony, and others). It is also the event that drove Intel to support USB 2.0 instead of FW, and Intel has a lot of clout (which is one of the reasons why TB has a better surviving chance than FW).

2) USB 3.0 ports are backward compatible with the many thousands of USB 2.0 and even USB 1.0 gadgets today on the market.

[rksguit]

I find the whole USB/FW/ thing so Fu%6ing irritating,its obvious FW still has legs.UAD recently replied to me saying they will never make the "sattelite" available for USB.RME and "maybe" Roland have made the only USB interfaces that do multi channels successfully and even then certain models of PC laptops[The Dell XPS L501]dont work at all!Really Pi%^5ed OFF!

[razorboy]

Originally Posted by Lester

though, i'm still waiting for music to come along that's any better than what was recorded on 4 track tape

Since the level of technology has nothing to do with the overall quality of the finished product, you may have a wait.

[shanabit]

Sooooooo, will we ever see USB 3.0 boxes? 3.0 has been out awhile now
Id love to see it

[Bob Olhsson]

USB 3 has only been announced for a while. I wouldn't expect to see audio interfaces until is is more widely adopted by computer manufacturers. Audio interface manufacturers already got burned by firewire chips not being universally compatible so I'm sure they are not about to make that mistake all over again.

[lhorwinkle]

Originally Posted by Sinocelt

1) It comes with a $0.25 licencing fee, which is nothing for a computer but a lot more for a cheap hub. Whatever the amount, though, the very fact that it isn't a free standard is what killed FW. When Apple tried to have other manufacturers pay $1 per machine for FW, it made those manufacturers wary of ever investing in a standard that belongs to their competitors (currently a conglomerate, composed of Apple, Sony, and others). It is also the event that drove Intel to support USB 2.0 instead of FW, and Intel has a lot of clout (which is one of the reasons why TB has a better surviving chance than FW).

2) USB 3.0 ports are backward compatible with the many thousands of USB 2.0 and even USB 1.0 gadgets today on the market.

Apple's problem is that they want to keep things proprietary, hence expensive and more profitable. That, more than anything else, is why most computers run Windows, not Mac.

[StrykeBack]

This is a usb 3.0 thread not a mac verse pc thread. Though i built 3 recording rigs that were rock solid except for constant fixes in software with windows and device conflicts. In 2006 i bought a dual 2.3 g5 powermac and never had a problem and iy just worked. Its finally seeing a replacement in a mbpro this year though i do wish they werent so expensive.

Sent from my MB860 using Gearslutz.com App

[muziekschuur]

what USB3 units are currently available?
Apogee announced the development of a thunderbolt audio interface.

Digital Audio Blog: Apogee Electronics announces Thunderbolt audio interface development

I wonder what Motu is up to.

[jarlywarly]

Still a lack of USB3 audio devices!

I've had a USB3 port on my Laptop for over a year now, but I still see none of the anticipated 'zero' latency USB3 soundcards with 18 in and 10 outs.

Surely such a thing would be revolutionary, no? Where's the buzz?

I don't think it's going to happen. It has been ignored for 3 years by audio manufacturers and Thunderbolt is taking over.

I'm sure that anti-thunderbolt, anti-apple guy will come swooping in soon

[peaksofvalleys]

RME's UCX is USB3 compatible. Not sure if it just means it will work over USB3 or if there are any advantages, but it states this right on their site.

[.ACiD]

Originally Posted by peaksofvalleys

RME's UCX is USB3 compatible. Not sure if it just means it will work over USB3 or if there are any advantages, but it states this right on their site.

its just a USB 2.0 device thats USB 3.0 compatible, that means it will work over USB 3.0 like it works on USB 2.0

[manysounds]

Really not much point to go beyond ieee1394b and USB2.
I mean, sort of...

1394b could handle how many channels? 80x80? more?

Question being: how many users are actually going to use the full bandwidth of USB2 even?

So as it is, only the really high end users will even NEED the bandwidth of USB3 or even 1394b/FW800. So how many manufacturers do you think would spend the time and money developing a unit that utilizes USB3 when it is apparent that the "next level" is already going to be Thunderbolt/LightPeak.

Also, let's keep in mind that Thunderbolt is Intel IP, not Apple. And now we already know that other computer manufacturers will be releasing new motherboards with Thunderbolt this year.

So, as intended (I think), USB will continue to be consumer level products and FW/Thunderbolt will be for Pro-level gear.

FYI, the idea that with TBolt I could have a laptop based rig with PCIx cards outboard makes me happy.

[Bunjji]

Originally Posted by muziekschuur

I wonder what Motu is up to.

MOTU actually released a VIDEO interface that used TB, so I think their audio line will adopt it soon.

[Scoox]

Very interesting discussion. Greater bandwidth is always welcome, but practicality and cost will eventually place a limit on how far we push the boundaries.

Assume computer technology is so advanced that it is possible to copy 1TB in 1 second. If you were to copy the same amount of data in half a secon d you'd need twice the bandwidth. The engineering effort required to double the bandwidth would be huge, however is it worth it for just half a second? There comes a point when it just does not make sense.

In addition, how often do you copy 1TB of data? Most people use their computers to browse the web, check email, play mp3s and watch movies. There are some freaks out there who like hoarding ultra high definition movies and boast about it, I have a friend who does this. I am sure the ladies are very impressed Most of us are happy with DVD quality, and so the need for super fast data rates does not really exist. Once something like Light Peak is implemented a lot of people are going to retire.

I think using light instead of electrical signals to interconnect things is a great idea. Possibly light circuits instead of electrical circuits? It may be possible to convert sound to light directly.

In summary, I think very soon bandwidth will not be the issue, but rather power consumption and physical dimensions. Once these are solved computer hardware manufacturers will be out of business. OSs will be already pretty good and people won't need to upgrade because if it ain't broke don't fix it. Efficient open-source OSs will take over and it'll be happy days.

[phas3d]

I think the point is being missed here. Bandwidth nowadays is not so much about how many channels you can push in or out of a system. It's more important for latency. The higher the bandwidth and CPU clock speed the lower the round trip latency. And that my friends is crucial. People think mostly about tracking but it's so much more than that. Imagine shifting an EQ band frequency and hearing it 2s later. Now imagine the same at 0.1ms. It would be pretty much the same as using analog EQ. No noticeable lag. Technology is evolving pretty fast. And we all benefit from it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Latency has always been the Achilles heel of digital.

[gdoubleyou]

Originally Posted by TeraBrite

As most of you probably know, SuperSpeed USB 3.0 is well on its way in the near future and should be 10 times faster than USB 2.0, but at the same time will be backwards compatible with USB 2.0. I also hear things about Intel working together with Sony to make fiber optics standard in these cables.

Now for me, the question is... With this new SuperSpeed USB, will it bring along more awesome high end audio gear?

Anyone hear about plans regarding something along those lines?

Do you think interfaces will benefit at all from this new SuperSpeed?

It's not like USB2, or Firewire interfaces are flying off the shelves in this economy.

USB3 and Thunderbolt will extend the life of USB2 and Firewire devices.

[ivansc]

Originally Posted by Dysanfel

To generalize is to be an idiot. To particularize is the alone distinction of merit. General knowledge are those knowledge that idiots possess - William Blake

Yeah but what does he know? I never did like Blake's Seven.

[scorpix74]

I think my interface gots the USB 3.0 but my laptop not ahah.
(I'm around 13 ms of latency)

[Dspiderman]

personally, I could care less who makes what... if it works good and i don't have to mess with it while I am trying to record ... then it is a worthwhile product.
and as far as the earlier quote asking why all the Mac hate... I use both Mac and PC equally ... most people who use Mac want to believe the only good choice is a Mac... really? It's not Mac hate.. it's condescending lofty hate... please learn to broaden the horizon and realize a machine is a piece of metal and plastic and not a personal statement

[lance135]

I'm very interested to see if any company is going to support USB 3.0, since computers seem to have them standard now (in mid 2012).

I just bought a new laptop and wouldn't mind having a nice low latency audio interface. It doesn't even have Firewire 400.

[muziekschuur]

The RME UCX was usb3 compatible if I remember correctly...

[DAW PLUS]

Originally Posted by muziekschuur

The RME UCX was usb3 compatible if I remember correctly...

I think most are USB3 compatible, however Balance did not really like it. Probably dependend on the driver or USB chip. Haven't looked into it too much.

[phas3d]

UCX and UFX are USB3 compatible.