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 12th August 2017
  #1531
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
I'm sure there are a lot of people using the Apollo's and are happy with them , horses for courses.

I simply test and report the numbers comparatively to the rest of the database , and within context of LLP on Windows.

The rest is up to the individual to gauge the value and relevance from that information.

Any chance you'd get to test the Thunderbolt model? It'd be interesting to see how the protocol affects performance compared to USB.
Old 12th August 2017
  #1532
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
Any chance you'd get to test the Thunderbolt model? It'd be interesting to see how the protocol affects performance compared to USB.
I'll test what ever lands on the desk Zep.

UA are quite welcome to send me one at any time :-)

Old 24th August 2017
  #1533
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quick heads up , I know quite a few of you are interested in the emerging landscape of thunderbolt interfaces , and I will be testing more over the coming months.



Sneak peak at the results of the Quantum vs the RME UFX + , both deliver impressive results and have established themselves right near the top of the comparative performance table , only bettered by the 2 reference PCIe cards from RME and Lynx.

I am preparing an updated list with numerous additions apart from those listed, with an overall summary on all the new additions.

I'll post that up over the next few days.

Some additional information on the Quantum has been posted on the dedicated thread Here


Last edited by TAFKAT; 24th August 2017 at 08:10 AM..
Old 24th August 2017
  #1534
Gear Addict
 

Thanks for these new results. Impressive stuff. Perhaps most impressive still are RME's USB results. Quantum seems to be a little bit faster and a litte bit less efficient, so I guess it kind of depends on how you weigh those parameters + price and brand loyalty or whatever. Good job, TAFKAT. And Presonus and RME.
Old 24th August 2017
  #1535
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap View Post
Thanks for these new results. Impressive stuff. Perhaps most impressive still are RME's USB results. Quantum seems to be a little bit faster and a litte bit less efficient, so I guess it kind of depends on how you weigh those parameters + price and brand loyalty or whatever. Good job, TAFKAT. And Presonus and RME.
Pretty much in a nutshell, Presonus have come full circle with this release , latency is very impressive and driver efficiency and stability is on the level of the class leader. RME's consistency across protocols is unmatched , their USB3 results raise the bar again for performance across USB , you are pretty much splitting hairs across any of the protocols in practicality. RME's USB3 actually delivers performance benefits over USB2 regards LLP over and above the higher bandwidth that benefits I/O numbers/capability.

Its worth noting the 2 TB interfaces are in significantly different markets price wise , also the Presonus is sans any hardware direct/ASIO monitoring , so horses for courses.

Old 25th August 2017
  #1536
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

LLP Database Update: August 2017:

Some additions, updates and amendments.




Added:

RME Fireface UFX+ : This is RME's flagship in the Fireface line, offering Thunderbolt 2 and USB3, FW has been retired. As has come to be expected from RME, low latency performance and efficiency is class leading across the 2 available protocols. There has been a fair amount of discussion re Thunderbolt potentially having PCIe level performance and RME deliver performance that is very close to par to the reference HDSPe PCIE solutions, at an even slightly lower overall I/O and RTL. USB3 is equally impressive , shadowing the TB2 results , and also offering a 032 buffer setting over their USB2 offerings. As I had noted in an earlier post , we are essentially splitting hairs over the 3 protocols in regards to delivered performance from the RME units. Very impressive.

Presonus Quantum : This is a unit that has generated a lot of interest at launch with the claims of its ultra low latency , lack of any DSP/hardware based monitoring , with all the dependency being on the drivers efficiency. So have they delivered, well in regards to low latency performance they certainly have come full circle. Performance at the latencies within the testing parameters were well within range of the best available at even lower I/O and RTL latencies , very impressive to say the least, especially after the curves navigated with their previous top line 192 USB3 unit.

The unit does have buffer settings available down to 08 samples , I did test at both 08 and 16 samples , and was able to play the reference session for DSP and add some plugins , but neither were really practical for VI's. Thats not to say you could not experiment with the settings for input monitoring in lower resource sessions to get those super tight RTL's , but IMO they are really only there to compensate the fact that the unit is devoid of any hardware direct monitoring facilities. YMMV.

I/O and RTL listed below for reference.

*08 Samples : Reported I/O - In 0.363 / Out 0.544 : Measured RTL - 0.995*

16 Samples : Reported I/O - In 0.544 / Out 0.726 : Measured RTL - 1.361

* 08 Buffer has been removed on UC version 2.2.44119 released on 22/08/17*

I am very happy to see that someone at Presonus has been listening, taking notes and have delivered!

UAD Apollo Twin USB3 : I'll repeat the previous summary Here. A few curves navigated installing the software on Windows 7, further curves getting the unit to work on a 3rd party USB3 card on the reference system, but all sorted without too much blood loss.

I tested the units RTL - Round Trip Latency with Input Delay Compensation Off, to minimize input latency , default is Medium. The Input Delay Compensation settings introduce additional latency on the Input to smooth out the DSP processing when used on the input to either monitor or commit/print, so really needs to be switched off unless using UAD on input.

Input Delay Compensation Values below.

Short : + 100 Additional Samples on Input.

Medium : +200 Additional Samples on Input.

Long : + 1000 Additional Samples on Input.

Output latency remains unchanged.

Obviously these substantially increase RTL when monitoring via software if left enabled.

Low latency Performance is pretty much as I expected, below average , ( I had already been warned by some colleagues who will remain nameless ) so for anything above basic tracking it falls over pretty quickly when adding Plugins, Virtual Instruments. I didn't go into testing the DSP side of the unit, as that wasn't my focus.

I know those requiring LLP are not the target market for the unit, and the results will pretty much be dismissed by most who will gravitate to the unit.

All good, horses for courses.

Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 G2 : Longer explanation and summary Here The Gen 2 units stepped up and delivered significantly improved performance over their previous Gen1 offerings. Again this is a case of the manufacturers listening and delivering.

Performance is quite respectable but I did have to navigate the odd buffer setting labeling which essentially is one step out. I have explained that in detail on the previous summary. I have chosen to post the results with what I termed the corrected values with actual panel settings listed in brackets, as it made more sense to the comparative performance against the other interfaces tested.

I have been in communication with the team at Focusrite re possibly amending the labeling to indicate the correct values, but to be honest I never followed it up past the inital discussions and Focusrite have not followed up or through in the amendments, so just take note of the panel settings and the true delivered I/O and RTL

Audient iD4 : All the Audient interface units use a unified driver package , which one would assume would deliver identical performance across the range, but one would be wrong unfortunately. The iD4 under testing experienced very different levels of performance using the same driver package when tested against the iD22 which I have here as another reference unit.

All units are using the standard OEM Thesycon driver package , however on the iD4 , Minimum safety buffer resulted in a total collapse of the driver regards playback of even the base templates of the test sessions , so no results were achieved. I raised the safety buffer up one step which also disabled the lowest available buffer of 064 , raised I/O and RTL and tested only at 128 on. Same driver package was used successfully on the iD22 at Minimum safety and I have updated the results.

Updated results:

Audient iD22 : As noted in the notes for the iD4, I ran the sessions on the new updated unified driver , results were actually a little down from the previous driver. I was not overly surprised as Thesycons latest offerings have been going in the wrong direction regards performance for a while.

Presonus 192 : This is a unit I have spent way too much time and energy on as anyone who has been following the soap opera surrounding the driver performance would be aware. You will note that the driver version I have stopped testing at is quite a few revisions back and it is the first one that introduced the reported lower latency from the DSP, but also threw out the baby with the bath water by locking the safety and playback buffers into matched pairs , which raised I/O and RTL , as well as neutering delivered performance on both the DSP and VI test sessions.

Yes, the performance anomalies of locking the buffer settings to matched pairs was forwarded to the Presonus team very early on , was noted and obviously dismissed or not regarded as an issue. The locked pairings have continued right up to the current version of UC.

The performance will be consistent across all Presonus USB2 devices using UC.

Thats it for now, I'll stick my head up again after I have tested some new hardware, or if anything significantly changes with any previously tested.


Last edited by TAFKAT; 7th September 2017 at 11:24 PM.. Reason: *Additional Information Re Quantum*
Old 25th August 2017
  #1537
Gear Addict
 

Thanks, Vin. Really appreciated.

RME's new USB3 results are very welcomed in a world where available protocols and connections vary greatly from computer to computer. You no longer need PCIe or TB(1/2/3/...) for low latency and great efficiency, and this is reassuring to us musicians who often are left with whatever computers and computer components are available, often intended for gamers, visual artists or web browsing. I'd say the future is a little bit brighter now that RME has shown that it can be done.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1538
Thanks TAFKAT good work.

I was hoping for the Zoom UAC2/8 to be included. I thought you were testing one. Didn't it make the running?
Old 25th August 2017
  #1539
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap View Post
RME's new USB3 results are very welcomed in a world where available protocols and connections vary greatly from computer to computer. You no longer need PCIe or TB(1/2/3/...) for low latency and great efficiency, and this is reassuring to us musicians who often are left with whatever computers and computer components are available, often intended for gamers, visual artists or web browsing. I'd say the future is a little bit brighter now that RME has shown that it can be done.
I'm pretty sure it benches the same on USB 2... USB 3 interfaces normally do.

@ TAFKAT don't suppose you did?
Old 25th August 2017
  #1540
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap View Post
Thanks, Vin. Really appreciated.

RME's new USB3 results are very welcomed in a world where available protocols and connections vary greatly from computer to computer. You no longer need PCIe or TB(1/2/3/...) for low latency and great efficiency, and this is reassuring to us musicians who often are left with whatever computers and computer components are available, often intended for gamers, visual artists or web browsing. I'd say the future is a little bit brighter now that RME has shown that it can be done.
Agreed, hope there will be a USB3 Babyface released at some point for those of us who don't need tons of ins/outs or daisychaining.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1541
thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
LLP Database Update: August 2017:

Some additions, updates and amendments.




Added:

RME Fireface UFX+ : This is RME's flagship in the Fireface line, offering Thunderbolt 2 and USB3, FW has been retired. As has come to be expected from RME, low latency performance and efficiency is class leading across the 2 available protocols. There has been a fair amount of discussion re Thunderbolt potentially having PCIe level performance and RME deliver performance that is very close to par to the reference HDSPe PCIE solutions, at an even slightly lower overall I/O and RTL. USB3 is equally impressive , shadowing the TB2 results , and also offering a 032 buffer setting over their USB2 offerings. As I had noted in an earlier post , we are essentially splitting hairs over the 3 protocols in regards to delivered performance from the RME units. Very impressive.

Presonus Quantum : This is a unit that has generated a lot of interest at launch with the claims of its ultra low latency , lack of any DSP/hardware based monitoring , with all the dependency being on the drivers efficiency. So have they delivered, well in regards to low latency performance they certainly have come full circle. Performance at the latencies within the testing parameters were well within range of the best available at even lower I/O and RTL latencies , very impressive to say the least, especially after the curves navigated with their previous top line 192 USB3 unit.

The unit does have buffer settings available down to 08 samples , I did test at both 08 and 16 samples , and was able to play the reference session for DSP and add some plugins , but neither were really practical for VI's. Thats not to say you could not experiment with the settings for input monitoring in lower resource sessions to get those super tight RTL's , but IMO they are really only there to compensate the fact that the unit is devoid of any hardware direct monitoring facilities. YMMV.

I/O and RTL listed below for reference.

08 Samples : Reported I/O - In 0.363 / Out 0.544 : Measured RTL - 0.995

16 Samples : Reported I/O - In 0.544 / Out 0.726 : Measured RTL - 1.361

I am very happy to see that someone at Presonus has been listening, taking notes and have delivered!

UAD Apollo Twin USB3 : I'll repeat the previous summary Here. A few curves navigated installing the software on Windows 7, further curves getting the unit to work on a 3rd party USB3 card on the reference system, but all sorted without too much blood loss.

I tested the units RTL - Round Trip Latency with Input Delay Compensation Off, to minimize input latency , default is Medium. The Input Delay Compensation settings introduce additional latency on the Input to smooth out the DSP processing when used on the input to either monitor or commit/print, so really needs to be switched off unless using UAD on input.

Input Delay Compensation Values below.

Short : + 100 Additional Samples on Input.

Medium : +200 Additional Samples on Input.

Long : + 1000 Additional Samples on Input.

Output latency remains unchanged.

Obviously these substantially increase RTL when monitoring via software if left enabled.

Low latency Performance is pretty much as I expected, below average , ( I had already been warned by some colleagues who will remain nameless ) so for anything above basic tracking it falls over pretty quickly when adding Plugins, Virtual Instruments. I didn't go into testing the DSP side of the unit, as that wasn't my focus.

I know those requiring LLP are not the target market for the unit, and the results will pretty much be dismissed by most who will gravitate to the unit.

All good, horses for courses.

Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 G2 : Longer explanation and summary Here The Gen 2 units stepped up and delivered significantly improved performance over their previous Gen1 offerings. Again this is a case of the manufacturers listening and delivering.

Performance is quite respectable but I did have to navigate the odd buffer setting labeling which essentially is one step out. I have explained that in detail on the previous summary. I have chosen to post the results with what I termed the corrected values with actual panel settings listed in brackets, as it made more sense to the comparative performance against the other interfaces tested.

I have been in communication with the team at Focusrite re possibly amending the labeling to indicate the correct values, but to be honest I never followed it up past the inital discussions and Focusrite have not followed up or through in the amendments, so just take note of the panel settings and the true delivered I/O and RTL

Audient iD4 : All the Audient interface units use a unified driver package , which one would assume would deliver identical performance across the range, but one would be wrong unfortunately. The iD4 under testing experienced very different levels of performance using the same driver package when tested against the iD22 which I have here as another reference unit.

All units are using the standard OEM Thesycon driver package , however on the iD4 , Minimum safety buffer resulted in a total collapse of the driver regards playback of even the base templates of the test sessions , so no results were achieved. I raised the safety buffer up one step which also disabled the lowest available buffer of 064 , raised I/O and RTL and tested only at 128 on. Same driver package was used successfully on the iD22 at Minimum safety and I have updated the results.

Updated results:

Audient iD22 : As noted in the notes for the iD4, I ran the sessions on the new updated unified driver , results were actually a little down from the previous driver. I was not overly surprised as Thesycons latest offerings have been going in the wrong direction regards performance for a while.

Presonus 192 : This is a unit I have spent way too much time and energy on as anyone who has been following the soap opera surrounding the driver performance would be aware. You will note that the driver version I have stopped testing at is quite a few revisions back and it is the first one that introduced the reported lower latency from the DSP, but also threw out the baby with the bath water by locking the safety and playback buffers into matched pairs , which raised I/O and RTL , as well as neutering delivered performance on both the DSP and VI test sessions.

Yes, the performance anomalies of locking the buffer settings to matched pairs was forwarded to the Presonus team very early on , was noted and obviously dismissed or not regarded as an issue. The locked pairings have continued right up to the current version of UC.

The performance will be consistent across all Presonus USB2 devices using UC.

Thats it for now, I'll stick my head up again after I have tested some new hardware, or if anything significantly changes with any previously tested.

Old 25th August 2017
  #1542
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcslaam View Post

I was hoping for the Zoom UAC2/8 to be included. I thought you were testing one. Didn't it make the running?
I did explain why I hadn't tested the Zoom a little while back, long story short, Zoom reps have absolutely no idea or interest in the units locally, were not interested in talking to me at a dealer level, and there is only so much time and energy available. I will not be chasing manufacturers for interface testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine View Post
I'm pretty sure it benches the same on USB 2... USB 3 interfaces normally do.

@ TAFKAT don't suppose you did?
I did test on USB2 and it did not bench the same actually. This is a different gen of the USB driver to the previously tested , and seems to be dialed in specifically for USB3 on the UFX+ at least. The behavior under extreme loading felt more like the TB driver than the first gen USB2. I'll grab a new UFX II USB2 unit and do some head to head when I get a chance.


Old 25th August 2017
  #1543
Lives for gear
 

I have to say, I'm also very impressed by the performance of USB 3.0 at UFX+ from Vin's report. Especially with regards to loads of FXs or VIs it can handle at respective latency.
My guess is, it's not primarily related to USB 2.0 vs 3.0, as data interface itself has very similar characteristics in terms of efficiency with the same transfer type, but rather to one interesting aspect of how RME implemented it compared to other vendors.

Generally the most used USB transfer type for audio streaming is called isochronous, which is well suited for the task and also all standardized audio class methods are based on that. It doesn't have a re-transmission mechanism, but it should have guaranteed bandwidth allocation between endpoints.
Other USB transfer type is called bulk and it's generally most common for storage devices or use cases, where transfer data integrity is very important, it has built-in re-transmission, which is an advantage.. albeit it doesn't have that bandwidth allocation priority over other types of transfers, which can be especially problematic, when used at common USB root hub with other peripherals.

When RME launched their first USB 3.0 device - MADIFace XT, they had to fight with several related technical issues there - namely inconsistent vendor implementations of isochronous transfers at host controller chipsets for USB 3.0 and also with data errors on the bus due to electrical parameters demands by such fast 5GBit data interface (it's much more demanding for vendors to do proper layouts, all connectors, cable construction, impedance termination than at Hi-Speed USB). So they've developed own special audio streaming protocol using bulk transfers (which are more consistently implemented across vendors) and also use extensive error checking for easy debug of interface related troubles with garbled data. If an audio interface is sole peripheral device at the bus and likely also given the big bandwidth headroom there, there shouldn't be any issues with bandwidth allocation compared to isochronous transfers with its inherent advantages.
When used at USB 2.0, RME interfaces fallback to standard isochronous transfers.

This IMO exactly the difference between RME and some other vendors, which didn't really solve their USB compatibility woes with isoch. transfers and reliable streaming synchronization up until today and pairing of such USB 3.0 device with some previously untested computer is sometimes like a draw in roulette.

Bulk transfers has IME has also another and initially not so obvious benefit, which is likely related to what we can see in Vin's UFX+ benchmark.. It can be more efficient. Years ago, I've done some project, where I've tested bunch of USB interfaces and development kits. And noticed very apparent difference at CPU consumption (of driver and USB stack) between some interface with custom implemented bulk transfer mode at Cypress chip and others with some standard UAC isochronous transfers. This was pretty consistent across different UAC drivers (OEM usual suspects) and USB audio chips (XMOS MCUs, Tenor). With my vintage Core2Duo development box then, it was like 3 times more CPU cycles with comparable payloads and buffer lengths. All with USB 2.0.
It was quite interesting revelation, which can be maybe addressed also to better optimization and steamlined interrupt handling of bulk transfers at Windows OS level, as all USB devices, which pushes a lot of data, uses those transfers.
This better efficiency can translate to some apparent advantage, when you push the DAW system to its limits.

Michal
Old 26th August 2017
  #1544
Gear Addict
 

Thanks for some very interesting info, Michal.

Gotta love RME's enduring quest for delivering the best possible performance and compatibility. Much respect.
Old 26th August 2017
  #1545
Lives for gear
You still don't have the Babyface 2 on your table.
Old 27th August 2017
  #1546
Here for the gear
 

Really appreciate the work Vin.
Old 27th August 2017
  #1547
Gear Maniac
 
Rtroost's Avatar
I really wish RME would put out a device with the line density of the antelope units.
Old 28th August 2017
  #1548
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rtroost View Post
I really wish RME would put out a device with the line density of the antelope units.
I don't want to derail this thread with off-topic, but you can easily combine their high quality PCIe interfaces with other gear. For example Orion 32 by Antelope (we use that via MADI) or say Lynx Aurora or Aurora (n) to gain benefits of both. RME's superior multi-platform drivers and TotalMix and affordable high density converters.

Michal
Old 30th August 2017
  #1549
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quick heads up.

Presonus Quantum : I have been doing some further testing, more so to test the unit on TB3 via a USB2 adapter , which I am pleased to say works fine , but in the process of testing I noticed Presonus had snuck out a new driver firmware since my initial tests.

Only changes noted are the 08 Sample Buffer has been removed, ( which was essentially Window dressing anyway ) , and that measured RTL is consistently 6-7 samples less across the remaining latencies. None of the above will change the Database listing.

Old 30th August 2017
  #1550
Gear Head
 

TAFKAT, these reports are great and its definitely what I've been scanning the infoweb for, but I've noticed a key player missing and was curious as to why the Lynx E22 or E44 are not present in these test?

Background:

As it stands, I'm about to upgrade from Core i7 920 that I've been running for the last 8 years at 3.33 GHz with a Echo MiaMidi audio interface. I've been using Sonar since the days of X1, but moved over to S1 last year. Now that I'm ready to upgrade my hardware, I'm stuck at the interface choice. Being that I'm only using soft synths & plugins, I thought the RME HDSPe AIO or the Lynx E22\E44 were the way to go. But, then I read a S.O.S. review on the Presonus Quantum and it made me pause to consider this product.

The idea of tight integration with S1 is already a selling point, the connectivity out of the box is a lot more comprehensive versus buying a card + breakout cables, and as the magazine review pointed out, there's no built-in digital mixer so there's one less application to manage to get the results. Your testing shows that the Quantum performs like a beast and looks to perform better than even the RME PCIe AIO card.

So what am I missing? Why would I purchase the RME card if the Quantum is doing a better job and integrates with my chosen DAW software? The only draw back that I can think of is the fact that its a Thunderbolt device and therefore I might run into issues getting it to work with my motherboard. I'm almost certain that going to be upgrading to a Intel 7800X. Asus offers a motherboard with a Thunderbolt Add-in card, so that's the setup I'm going to run with. Sure Coffeelake will be out in a few month and may support Thunderbolt 3 natively, but are the mainstream chips going to be that much better than the X chips of the previous generation? My impatience keeps answering this question for me with a resounding, NO. I really don't want to wait 2 months, so Coffeelake is only an option if the Quantum doesn't play nice with the X299-Deluxe Asus board.

So with someone in my situation, a VI user only, looking for the lowest possible latency. Would there be a downside to getting the Quantum over the RME card? or over the Lynx card?, even though I can't find any comparisons of this card versus the competition.
Old 30th August 2017
  #1551
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Vin, As always, thank you for your hard work benchmarking these units. It's nice to see Presonus listened to the feedback from their customers and now has a product in the top tier of performers. Keep up the good work !
Old 30th August 2017
  #1552
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-phonic View Post
TAFKAT, these reports are great and its definitely what I've been scanning the infoweb for, but I've noticed a key player missing and was curious as to why the Lynx E22 or E44 are not present in these test?
I will test anything that I can get access to and/or comes across my desk, unfortunately the new Lynx cards are not available to me locally nor has anyone asked me to configure a system with one that they have previously purchased.

Lynx are more than welcome to send me a card directly , at their expense this time.

Quote:
So what am I missing? Why would I purchase the RME card if the Quantum is doing a better job and integrates with my chosen DAW software?
With StudioOne's direct implementation it makes Quantum a hard choice to go past if you have TB connectivity sorted. Also you need to remember that it isn't simply a TB3 card, its also a TB3 to TB2 adapter , so depending on which one works , could be anything from an additional $150-250 for TB3 card + adapter on top of the Quantum purchase, and then add a TB cable.

Performance wise its great, and if it ticks all the I/O requirement boxes , then you have your answer, but for those using Cubase for example , use ASIO Direct Monitoring and dont need the additional I/O , the the smaller RME PCIe still deliver , horses for courses.

One last note , the posted numbers are not achievable in StudioOne, which adds additional I/O and RTL buffers, even in the best case scenario using Green Z. Its not a large number, but it scales up as you move up the buffer settings. I posted some details Here

I don't want to shift the focus here to StudioOnes Hybrid buffering, to be honest I understand what they are doing to a point, but I can't get my head entirely around why its raising even the I/O monitoring buffers as well as spiking the playback buffer, which is the hybrid approach's main draw card. Steinberg's ASIO Guard makes waay more sense to me.

I Digress

Old 31st August 2017
  #1553
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post

I don't want to shift the focus here to StudioOnes Hybrid buffering, to be honest I understand what they are doing to a point, but I can't get my head entirely around why its raising even the I/O monitoring buffers as well as spiking the playback buffer, which is the hybrid approach's main draw card. Steinberg's ASIO Guard makes waay more sense to me.

I Digress

You don't. I prefer StudioOne over Cubase but just don't care about some of the "improvements".

k
Old 31st August 2017
  #1554
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by P99 View Post
As far as rtl, not great as I recall. They have the ability to run plugins within the device which, if you want to go that route, would give very low latency as it is direct monitoring.
So not great for VST instruments huh?

k
Old 31st August 2017
  #1555
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
I don't want to shift the focus here to StudioOnes Hybrid buffering, to be honest I understand what they are doing to a point, but I can't get my head entirely around why its raising even the I/O monitoring buffers as well as spiking the playback buffer, which is the hybrid approach's main draw card. Steinberg's ASIO Guard makes waay more sense to me.
I don't know, ASIO Guard is a mixed bag for me on existing projects. Anything created in 6.5 has a 50/50 chance of either benefiting from ASIO Guard or completely crumbling. I have no idea why, I understand how it is supposed to work, but that doesn't always happen as intended. It seems more consistent on C9 projects, but I haven't started enough new projects to qualify that.
Old 31st August 2017
  #1556
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
I don't know, ASIO Guard is a mixed bag for me on existing projects. Anything created in 6.5 has a 50/50 chance of either benefiting from ASIO Guard or completely crumbling. I have no idea why, I understand how it is supposed to work, but that doesn't always happen as intended. It seems more consistent on C9 projects, but I haven't started enough new projects to qualify that.
Hey Z,

I said it makes way more sense ( and easier for me to understand ) than StudioOnes cryptic approach. I didn't say anything about its performance.

Personally the Cubase 6* audio engine was by far the most consistent for me , sans hybrid buffering, but extremely efficient and stable at the lowest latency settings right up to the 95+% loadings. You knew exactly were the bodies were buried. Cubase 7/8/9 sans ASIO Guard which should behave exactly the same as 6.* in theory is not as efficient/consistent.

IMO ASIO Guard was primarily introduced to reduce the variable in performance between OSX/Core Audio and Windows/ASIO , as the prior could not match the later at lower latencies, hence the requirement of the hybrid playback buffer. I haven't experienced the issues you have described with 6.* sessions , but there could be any number of variables, plugins/VI's used or it could just simply be a quirk on OSX sessions.

FWIW , ASIO Guard cannot be used by many/most when VEP is in play, as the additional buffering already employed seems to throw a spanner in the works when navigating the extended playback buffers using ASIO Guard.

Again, I digress.


Old 31st August 2017
  #1557
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Personally the Cubase 6* audio engine was by far the most consistent for me , sans hybrid buffering, but extremely efficient and stable at the lowest latency settings right up to the 95+% loadings.
That's my experience as well. Not as good on MacOS, perhaps, but I do fine with it at 128 buffer; only when it's under really heavy load does it begin to crumble, but that doesn't happen much for me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Again, I digress.
Sorry for the off-topic.

That Presonus Quantum looks good. I'm just concerned about Thunderbolt's long-term viability. USB seems a much safer choice.
Old 1st September 2017
  #1558
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post

Sorry for the off-topic.

That Presonus Quantum looks good. I'm just concerned about Thunderbolt's long-term viability. USB seems a much safer choice.
Next year we will get PCIe performance on TB 3 since Intel will release CPUs with integrated TB3. Should in theory bring PCIe performance back to PCs without being dependant strictly to RMEs.
Old 2nd September 2017
  #1559
Deleted 46dc28f
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
Next year we will get PCIe performance on TB 3 since Intel will release CPUs with integrated TB3. Should in theory bring PCIe performance back to PCs without being dependant strictly to RMEs.
My 1 year old mobile Intel Xeon has integrated Thunderbolt 3. Did I miss something?
Old 2nd September 2017
  #1560
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 46dc28f View Post
My 1 year old mobile Intel Xeon has integrated Thunderbolt 3. Did I miss something?
Yes, because your TB controller is not part of CPU, but additional chip. A system vendor has to count with it at layout, pay the chips and pay royalties from every sold unit.

That created bit of chicken/egg situation with peripherals IMO, where adoption somewhat stalled and it's still a very niche thing among sold computers (compare the availability and price-level of TB equipped notebooks and desktops).
Another important thing is, the less space system vendors have to mess with layout, TB firmware and so on, hopefully less interoperability issues we will have.

Anyway currently there's nothing more than this press-prelease
https://newsroom.intel.com/editorial...-3-everywhere/
and it won't apply to forthcoming Coffee Lake, but to its successor Cannonlake.

Michal
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