The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3481
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Under W7 in Cubendo, the driver was reported as being unable to start, while working perfectly in other DAW's.

Thanks heaps, luckily I haven't faced this with my Clarett, but that would indeed be a showstopper if it did show up.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3482
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
I had a PM regarding USB performance of the 828es. I hope to find time this weekend to gather some measurements with the RTL utility and will post them here.

Hi,

Just wondering if you had a chance to do this yet?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3483
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Hi,

Just wondering if you had a chance to do this yet?
Yes. I finally had time tonight to make the measurements of the MOTU 828es using USB.

Here are the screenshots from the RTL utility for 44.1, 48, and 96.

So compared to TB from my previous post.

Thunderbolt
2.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

USB
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
3.604ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

Attached Thumbnails
Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-motu-828es-usb-44.jpg   Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-motu-828es-usb-48.jpg   Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base-motu-828es-usb-96.jpg  

Last edited by Gomjab; 4 weeks ago at 02:09 AM.. Reason: Clarified unit under test
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3484
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
Yes. I finally had time tonight to make the measurements of the MOTU 828es using USB.

Here are the screenshots from the RTL utility for 44.1, 48, and 96.

So compared to TB from my previous post.

Thunderbolt
2.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

USB
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
3.604ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

Fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to share this! According to your measurements the RTL of the 828ES via USB is lower than my firewire Saffire!?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3485
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to share this! According to your measurements the RTL of the 828ES via USB is lower than my firewire Saffire!?
These tests were done on an iMac Pro. I’m not sure how valid it is to compare RTL results measured across different platforms.

Perhaps the FireWire Safire would perform better on my system?!?

All I can be 100% confident on are the comparisons of the 828es TB vs Quantum TB vs 828es USB on my system as nothing on my setup changed between tests.

Maybe someone with more experience can speak to how much impact the underlying system has on the results using identical interfaces.

Old 4 weeks ago
  #3486
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
These tests were done on an iMac Pro. I’m not sure how valid it is to compare RTL results measured across different platforms.

Perhaps the FireWire Safire would perform better on my system?!?
My understanding is that the RTL doesn’t change between systems?? I thought that different CPU’s and RAM just changed how low you could set the buffer before overload or how many VST’s you can load at a lower buffer?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3487
Gear Addict
 

Thanks Gomjabbar! That's a very good result for something that sounds good. I wonder how the TB performance compares to UAD and Apogee now.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3488
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Just purchased an MOTU 828ES
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3489
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
My understanding is that the RTL doesn’t change between systems?? I thought that different CPU’s and RAM just changed how low you could set the buffer before overload or how many VST’s you can load at a lower buffer?
If using the same OS, that's correct. However, Gomjab's tests were on a Mac using OS X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Just purchased an MOTU 828ES
Cool! Please let us know how it works out... and some RTL numbers using Windows 10 would be nice too....
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3490
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Just purchased an MOTU 828ES
if I get bored enough I might sell Quantum and get that. Hard to say though, Quantum is incredible with my system.

I've got the old Gigabyte Thunderbolt 2 motherboard suggested for the MK I silver Apollos by UAD. i7490K CPU (max allowed)

system holds up extremely well and it's a few years old by now, with several upgrades and a recent reinstall of Win 10 new build

Almost was a Hackintosh but I got the wrong GPU. I'm actually kind of glad that didn't work out.

if I can quit being a lazy a$$ I will try to measure the latencies

hardware direct monitoring (vocal headphones, etc) is accomplished with a patch bay and Midas DM16 mixer.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3491
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass View Post
If using the same OS, that's correct. However, Gomjab's tests were on a Mac using OS X.


Cool! Please let us know how it works out... and some RTL numbers using Windows 10 would be nice too....
I’m interested in the Windows 10 results as well. I’ve moved from Logic to Cubase and Bitwig in case I ever need to jump to a new platform down the road.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3492
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass View Post
If using the same OS, that's correct. However, Gomjab's tests were on a Mac using OS X.
Ah I did wonder if it would vary depending on the OS. I did read someone measured the Motu AVB RTL on Windows 10 and had 7ms @48hz with buffer set to 128 which is in line with Gomjab’s measurements on Mac OS X. I’m not sure if the AVB uses the same drivers as the 828ES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass View Post
Please let us know how it works out... and some RTL numbers using Windows 10 would be nice too....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
I’m interested in the Windows 10 results as well.
Yes sure thing
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3493
Lives for gear
 
throbert's Avatar
 

Damn it took how long, for someone to mention
there is a difference between core and asio.
I don't think those are AVB numbers, shouldn't
be using enet to PC for audio, that's why there's
USB and TB on them.

Last edited by throbert; 4 weeks ago at 10:20 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3494
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Just been reading the ? review of the 828ES and it looks like the MOTU AVB uses the same drivers and the internals are pretty much the same apart from I/O configuration. This looks very promising for the RTL on Windows 10!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3495
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by throbert View Post
Damn it took how long, for someone to mention
there is a difference between core and asio.
I don't think those are AVB numbers, shouldn't
be using enet to PC for audio, that's why there's
USB and TB on them.
My numbers were indeed using Thunderbolt and USB however I did do one previous AVB test showing the extra latency going over the Ethernet between the 828ES and a MOTU 24ai interface. The additional latency was minimal (0.363 ms). Everything I’ve read about using AVB directly to a computer’s Ethernet port sounded problematic. I read it is broken on current OS X releases and even when it worked the performance isn’t as good as using TB or USB due to the computer’s networking stack being less than ideal. AVB between interfaces though is low latency and deterministic.


Previous post with AVB: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3496
Lives for gear
 
throbert's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
My numbers were indeed using Thunderbolt and USB however I did do one previous AVB test showing the extra latency going over the Ethernet between the 828ES and a MOTU 24ai interface. The additional latency was minimal (0.363 ms). Everything I’ve read about using AVB directly to a computer’s Ethernet port sounded problematic. I read it is broken on current OS X releases and even when it worked the performance isn’t as good as using TB or USB due to the computer’s networking stack being less than ideal. AVB between interfaces though is low latency and deterministic.


Previous post with AVB: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base
No argument there, I'd like to use an 8D in my rig for monitor networking, the problem
though, is there is no universal AVB protocol, so every body has to use MOTU or the
same companies gear. This is what makes Dante a better alternative, but Dante has a
sort of over regimented way of doing things, for lack of better words. I don't see Dante
gear out there that is near as pliable or flexible in operation as AVB gear is. For instance,
it seems for some reason Dante devices are limited by their physical I/O, if your
device has 4 ouutputs you can only use 4 Dante channels. I don't see dsp that can take
multiple Dante channels and mix them down to 2 channels or a stereo pair like I see in
AVB devices.
The thing that is unique and that I like about MOTU is you can I/O with the computer
with USB or TB, (for me that means VIs and/or Fx), you can hook your gear/instruments
mics etc., you can do your mix down and send through analog and/or AVB, USB, TB and
if you want to share with others you plug into the network, not like most others, where
you have to analog into a central unit and pull an enet line back to a personnel device.

Last edited by throbert; 4 weeks ago at 07:05 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3497
Gear Maniac
 

So I just updated my Audient iD4 to the latest firmware and got those results from RTL utility. I'm on macOS High Sierra on my 2017 5K iMac with a i5 7600K.

5.208ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
5.875ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
7.208ms @ 48kHz buffer 64
8.541ms @ 48kHz buffer 96
9.875ms @ 48kHz buffer 128

Of course it's not as good as the RME stuff... but I think it's more than fair for the price paid. I've been using it for about 2 years and never heard pops or crackles, although I'm not really pushing it with my small hobby projects.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3498
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to share this! According to your measurements the RTL of the 828ES via USB is lower than my firewire Saffire!?
USB on RME ihas lower RTL than on their FW units, so I see this as normal. Performance of FW typically is slitghly better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
My understanding is that the RTL doesn’t change between systems?? I thought that different CPU’s and RAM just changed how low you could set the buffer before overload or how many VST’s you can load at a lower buffer?
RTL doesn't change between systems but it does between different operating systems. The driver is different and CoreAudio uses an extra software buffer as opposed to ASIO, which is a direct communication between interface and DAW without any OS in between.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3499
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
RTL doesn't change between systems but it does between different operating systems. The driver is different and CoreAudio uses an extra software buffer as opposed to ASIO, which is a direct communication between interface and DAW without any OS in between.
Thanks. I spoke to Motu about this and they said that the Windows drivers deliver the same RTL as on MAC OSX.
My current audio PC is still on Windows 7 but I have a high end Windows 10 Audio PC arriving at the weekend and I will hopefully get around to measuring the RTL on both systems.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3500
Lives for gear
 
Jim Rosebrook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
if I get bored enough I might sell Quantum and get that. Hard to say though, Quantum is incredible with my system.
What I'm am hoping for to cure the boredom of current interfaces is a PreSonus Quantum Next Generation...

Hoping that it brings in AVB. It seems a natural next step given that PreSonus has AVB on their StudioLive products.

It would open up a bunch of possibilities with their cue systems too.

And might as well make the move to Thunderbolt 3 on this theoretical Quantum Next Generation... (and have whatever assurance that this could be made compliant with emerging USB4)

But the AVB would be even more enticing.... what an ecosystem PreSonus could offer.

Last edited by Jim Rosebrook; 3 weeks ago at 08:34 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3501
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Rosebrook View Post
What I'm am hoping for to cure the boredom of current interfaces is a PreSonus Quantum Next Generation...

Hoping that it brings in AVB. It seems a natural next step given that PreSonus has AVB on their StudioLive products.

It would open up a bunch of possibilities with their cue systems too.

And might as well make the move to Thunderbolt 3 on this theoretical Quantum Next Generation... (and have whatever assurance that this could be made compliant with emerging USB4)

But the AVB would be even more enticing.... what an ecosystem PreSonus could offer.
That would be pretty brilliant, yeah, networked audio. Might get expensive though.

To me the "Quantum" is this weird sweet spot interface that doesn't do too much or too little.

I would personally like to see USB4, if it's available, and hardware direct monitoring like the cheap Focusrite stuff, just a button or something. Keep it stripped down and sleek.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3502
Lives for gear
 
Jim Rosebrook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
That would be pretty brilliant, yeah, networked audio. Might get expensive though.
The PreSonus AVB products that already exist are priced very nicely.

With a theoretical "Quantum Next Generation" connected via TB3 (and future-proofed for USB4), you'd have the super-low latency that Quantum has been providing.

And the AVB would open up so many options that already exist in the StudioLive products.. and the personal AVB cue mixers that already exist from PreSonus.

In particular, I'd want the smaller Quantum 2 in its "Next Generation" evolution.

Nice and portable for most of my work... easily integrated into a larger system when needed.

Similar to the ecosystem that MOTU is offering, but PreSonus has even more AVB products already in the field.

Low Latency plus, plus, plus....
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3503
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomjab View Post
Yes. I finally had time tonight to make the measurements of the MOTU 828es using USB.

Here are the screenshots from the RTL utility for 44.1, 48, and 96.

So compared to TB from my previous post.

Thunderbolt
2.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.271ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

USB
2.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 16
3.604ms @ 48kHz buffer 32
4.938ms @ 48kHz buffer 64

Is it a reasonable interpretetion of this data that there is not a significant benefit from thunderbolt over usb--with my 828es? Sure a lot easier for me to use usb.

Last time I looked at avb, it could hook two motus together with a cat-5e cable and they become one giant device to some degree. More than two required avb enabled ethernet switches were quite expensive, and that windows pc could not talk avb. It would require an expensive network card, and windows didn't have any drivers to support it anyway. So, I guess best case is the motus can be assimilated into a borg or hive mind with avb, and one of them can talk to the outside world with usb or tbolt.

Great use case for a front of hall setup, running a couple of cat 5e cables from stage to control surface rather than audio snake.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3504
Gear Maniac
 
Dewdman42's Avatar
 

No i would not make that general assumption. First the results GomJab got from RTL with USB are very good considering its USB. Secondly, its not TB3, which would make a huge difference.. that needs to be clarified. Thirdly, just because RTL is able to complete the loopback test and report low latency over USB, does not mean that in actual practice in the DAW it would work out ok, because I would expect it to experience dropouts and other problems sooner then over TB. Its a theoretical RTL number only, and in practical use, I would still expect TB to outperform USB.... And TB3 especially would.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3505
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdman42 View Post
No i would not make that general assumption. First the results GomJab got from RTL with USB are very good considering its USB. Secondly, its not TB3, which would make a huge difference.. that needs to be clarified. Thirdly, just because RTL is able to complete the loopback test and report low latency over USB, does not mean that in actual practice in the DAW it would work out ok, because I would expect it to experience dropouts and other problems sooner then over TB. Its a theoretical RTL number only, and in practical use, I would still expect TB to outperform USB.... And TB3 especially would.
Hmm, I wonder what the rtl is actually exercising--the I/O stack but not the electrical connection?

Since the 828es is tbolt 1, the results attainable from tbolt 3 are not available to it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3506
Gear Maniac
 
Dewdman42's Avatar
 

RTL uses a physical loopback procedure, so I'm not sure what you're asking... but either way I would expect USB to underperform TB under a real world situation. RTL might achieve loopback and report low latency, but in your DAW you're get dropouts sooner. But hey...test it out and let us know!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3507
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdman42 View Post
RTL uses a physical loopback procedure, so I'm not sure what you're asking... but either way I would expect USB to underperform TB under a real world situation. RTL might achieve loopback and report low latency, but in your DAW you're get dropouts sooner. But hey...test it out and let us know!
So, its exercising the round trip outside the computer and back--excellent. I would be interested in learning of a technical explanation why real world situation would not match a round trip that includes the i/o stack and the electrical interface; I will keep an eye out for that if that information becomes available.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3508
Gear Maniac
 
Dewdman42's Avatar
 

Ponzi, if you perform the RTL test, the utility has no influence over how the audio is routed. The instructions are to connect a cable from the output to the input, and in the utility you specify which output and which input. Its up to the user to patch a cable so that yes it goes outside the computer...a true test of RTL, which is the whole point of it.

I'm not saying the reported latency would be any worse. What I am saying is that with a simple RTL test, it can measure such and such latency for the given buffer sizes..fine. But in a DAW, under load...at this latencies dropouts will happen sooner with USB then with TB, thus forcing you to raise the size of the buffer to stop the dropouts. So even though they might measure similar latency for the same buffer sizes in an RTL test...that is theoretical. In actual practice you'll be forced to use a larger buffer...and thus have longer latency.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3509
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzi View Post
Is it a reasonable interpretetion of this data that there is not a significant benefit from thunderbolt over usb--with my 828es? Sure a lot easier for me to use usb.

Last time I looked at avb, it could hook two motus together with a cat-5e cable and they become one giant device to some degree. More than two required avb enabled ethernet switches were quite expensive, and that windows pc could not talk avb. It would require an expensive network card, and windows didn't have any drivers to support it anyway. So, I guess best case is the motus can be assimilated into a borg or hive mind with avb, and one of them can talk to the outside world with usb or tbolt.

Great use case for a front of hall setup, running a couple of cat 5e cables from stage to control surface rather than audio snake.
I was surprised at the USB results. They were pretty good. I would still recommend Thunderbolt as it would not need to deal with other traffic contending for your USB bus.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3510
Lives for gear
 
Gomjab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdman42 View Post
No i would not make that general assumption. First the results GomJab got from RTL with USB are very good considering its USB. Secondly, its not TB3, which would make a huge difference.. that needs to be clarified. Thirdly, just because RTL is able to complete the loopback test and report low latency over USB, does not mean that in actual practice in the DAW it would work out ok, because I would expect it to experience dropouts and other problems sooner then over TB. Its a theoretical RTL number only, and in practical use, I would still expect TB to outperform USB.... And TB3 especially would.
I read that TB3 vs TB2 doesn’t really have an impact on latency. It would be nice though to not have to deal with the TB3 to TB2 dongle.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump