The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
MOTU 1248, 8M, 16A Thunderbolt interface Audio Interfaces
Old 8th February 2017
  #3001
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Correct.
Aside from the pins/connection, it is a different controller.
I think Apple has really screwed over MOTU here by not offering Thunderbolt on truly professional desktop hardware. When the three original AVB interfaces were introduced, the value seemed to be in Thunderbolt. USB 2.0 seems like a stopgap, to make these interfaces immediately usable to those who will one day upgrade to TB.

Now, because Apple's current Mac Pro is not a good buy for studios (unnecessarily expensive video hardware, no good solution for mass internal storage, no legacy connectivity, 3+ year old CPUs), I recently purchased a 2010 Mac Pro 12-core tower as an upgrade from my previous Mac Pro. I have installed a fast M.2 SSD on a PCI card, and I expect to add a USB 3.0 or 3.1 card for connectivity to my next-gen audio interface. In the meantime this machine services my FireWire audio and 30" dual-link DVI monitor without clumsy, expensive adapters. To get this level of performance from a current Mac Pro I would literally need to spend 4 times what this machine cost me. The only thing I have sacrificed is thunderbolt, which can't be added to a computer that doesn't have it on the motherboard.

In other words, thanks to Apple not offering a current computer that suits my needs, Thunderbolt is no longer on my radar. And I know I'm not alone here. If I want to get into MOTU's AVB line, it's going to be by ethernet (which AFAIK is dogged by latency), USB 2 (with limited channel counts) or USB 3 (only currently available on the baby interfaces).

I hope MOTU considers upgrading the current AVB line to USB 3 across the board. Maybe a "C" connector that can do TB or USB3. Colour displays might be nice too. So now I'm reluctant to buy the 16A I've lusted after for the past couple years because it lacks USB3, but I'd be first in line for a 16A Mk2.
Old 8th February 2017
  #3002
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by infindebula View Post
(unnecessarily expensive video hardware, no good solution for mass internal storage, no legacy connectivity, 3+ year old CPUs)...

I hope MOTU considers upgrading the current AVB line to USB 3 across the board. Maybe a "C" connector that can do TB or USB3. Colour displays might be nice too. So now I'm reluctant to buy the 16A I've lusted after for the past couple years because it lacks USB3, but I'd be first in line for a 16A Mk2...
Mac's have lagged behind PC's since the late 90's tell me something new? I bailed on the Mac platform when they moved from the Motorola processors over to the Intel architecture. My thoughts were "why would I pay way more for something when I could build one better for less?

As far as USB2 vs USB3? You should have rolled up on the 16a a couple years ago when you wanted to. USB2 can handle a full multi-track audio bandwidth with ease. Do some searches Google is your friend.
Old 8th February 2017
  #3003
Gear Maniac
 

I believe usb2 is not ready for large composing templates, the bandwidth is there, but the processor suffers.

I am having an issue with my motu 24ao....it seems that after a couple of hours using it with cubase, some tiny "crackles", noises and dropouts start apearing.
So far if I reset they go away. As minutes go by, the situation gets worse.

Anybody with that problem?
Old 8th February 2017
  #3004
Lives for gear
 

I don't really see much reasons for release of updated versions of their interfaces with USB 3.0..
As I've said many times there, whole dancing about that is just derail to me. USB 2.0 is most compatible external connection bus (and probably still will be for future), which handles most of task in small studio.
If someone needs improved efficiency, latency and of course bandwidth, then only reasonable ways are either PCIe or Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt is already present at those interfaces for years.. and if I had to pick between repurchase of another facelifted interface (like suggested 16A with USB 3) and stuffing some 3rd party adapter to the computer with 8y old architecture or moving to some current computer.. then the second option will be definitely much more future proof to me.

From my point of view, if they would like to introduce something for workstation without Thunderbolt.. the best option will be internal PCIe AVB interface by MOTU. No local I/Os and just Ethernet connector for connection of their boxes and other interfaces, internal mixer. Good latency and reliability of internal cards.
However I'm afraid, this will never happen and TB is the way to go.. (eg. save for iMacs, Cylinders and PC new motherboards with TB).

Michal
Old 11th February 2017
  #3005
Lives for gear
 
Monkey Man's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by magoostus View Post
USB3 has more physical pins than a USB 2 port, thus there is *NO WAY* for software to enable 3.0 on a 2.0 port. Besides, thunderbolt is better than usb3 anyways :P
Ah, thank you, magoostus.

TB isn't an option for me and others on older Macs, which is why I asked.

So, I'm back to hoping a PCI card could be offered. This thing has dragged on for years for me; I just want the stability I've enjoyed for over 15 years using CueMix and AudioWire with my 24I/Os but with the newer, much-better convertors.

Started to sell come of my hardware-MIDI gear to downgrade channel count in order to shoehorn my system into a USB2-powered AVB equivalent setup, but got cold feet as the more I invest in this "upgrade" (DB-25 connectors too, totalling $600 AU), the more I fear I'll be shooting myself in the foot if it proves glitchy / unstable. Remember, I'm accustomed to 100%-flawless performance from the PCI setup.

Very tempting to just stick with what I've got right now, which is a flawless CueMix system with Direct Hardware Playthrough in DP, albeit without those fantastic new convertors. Not 100% committed either way anymore; in two minds still...

Thank you again for clarifying that, magoostus.
Old 12th February 2017
  #3006
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo1980 View Post
I believe usb2 is not ready for large composing templates, the bandwidth is there, but the processor suffers.

I am having an issue with my motu 24ao....it seems that after a couple of hours using it with cubase, some tiny "crackles", noises and dropouts start apearing.
So far if I reset they go away. As minutes go by, the situation gets worse.

Anybody with that problem?
I sometimes use Windows Remote Desktop while recording alone. Saturday I was recording piano and used remote desktop to connect to the recording pc, so that I could control the main screen from the piano.

After hours of recording there were some crackles and drop outs, but they were not on the avb network as my headphone monitoring was clear. The problem was the buffer size, I had choosen. Remote desktop and a small buffer size will work sometimes, but not for a long time while adding more and more tracks. I had to increase buffer size to 7 ms or somethig like that to get a troublefree recording.

Did you try to increase the buffer size? Sometimes lots of background process (remote desktop, anti-virus, internet-browser for controlling the avb interface...) and adding tracks need a larger buffer size after a while, at least on my system.

It works better, if I control the avb mixer with a dedicated device, not with the browser from the main recording pc.
Old 13th February 2017
  #3007
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Bojahr View Post
I sometimes use Windows Remote Desktop while recording alone. Saturday I was recording piano and used remote desktop to connect to the recording pc, so that I could control the main screen from the piano.

After hours of recording there were some crackles and drop outs, but they were not on the avb network as my headphone monitoring was clear. The problem was the buffer size, I had choosen. Remote desktop and a small buffer size will work sometimes, but not for a long time while adding more and more tracks. I had to increase buffer size to 7 ms or somethig like that to get a troublefree recording.

Did you try to increase the buffer size? Sometimes lots of background process (remote desktop, anti-virus, internet-browser for controlling the avb interface...) and adding tracks need a larger buffer size after a while, at least on my system.

It works better, if I control the avb mixer with a dedicated device, not with the browser from the main recording pc.
thought i just throw in an experience with my 112d over usb2 into macbook pro with win8(bootcamp) at this occasion.
keeping the browser open (chrome in my case) to control the interface-mixer over longer periods of time (several hours) can lead to dropouts in the recording sometimes. even when using large asio-buffersizes and high safety-buffers. now i resort to control the mixer via an ipad and close the browser while recording.

maybe it would be a great thing to have a special little browser-program made by motu, that uses minimum system resources, just for controling the web-app.
there were so many browser related problems talked about in this thread alone, it could probably wipe out a big field of potential problems. just thinking ...
Old 14th February 2017
  #3008
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by infindebula View Post
I think Apple has really screwed over MOTU here by not offering Thunderbolt on truly professional desktop hardware. When the three original AVB interfaces were introduced, the value seemed to be in Thunderbolt. USB 2.0 seems like a stopgap, to make these interfaces immediately usable to those who will one day upgrade to TB.

Now, because Apple's current Mac Pro is not a good buy for studios (unnecessarily expensive video hardware, no good solution for mass internal storage, no legacy connectivity, 3+ year old CPUs), I recently purchased a 2010 Mac Pro 12-core tower as an upgrade from my previous Mac Pro. I have installed a fast M.2 SSD on a PCI card, and I expect to add a USB 3.0 or 3.1 card for connectivity to my next-gen audio interface. In the meantime this machine services my FireWire audio and 30" dual-link DVI monitor without clumsy, expensive adapters. To get this level of performance from a current Mac Pro I would literally need to spend 4 times what this machine cost me. The only thing I have sacrificed is thunderbolt, which can't be added to a computer that doesn't have it on the motherboard.

In other words, thanks to Apple not offering a current computer that suits my needs, Thunderbolt is no longer on my radar. And I know I'm not alone here. If I want to get into MOTU's AVB line, it's going to be by ethernet (which AFAIK is dogged by latency), USB 2 (with limited channel counts) or USB 3 (only currently available on the baby interfaces).

I hope MOTU considers upgrading the current AVB line to USB 3 across the board. Maybe a "C" connector that can do TB or USB3. Colour displays might be nice too. So now I'm reluctant to buy the 16A I've lusted after for the past couple years because it lacks USB3, but I'd be first in line for a 16A Mk2.
Can you not get a PC with thunderbolt?
Old 15th February 2017
  #3009
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by infindebula View Post
In other words, thanks to Apple not offering a current computer that suits my needs, Thunderbolt is no longer on my radar.
Hackintosh ftw.
Old 16th February 2017
  #3010
Gear Addict
Thunderbolt 3 USB-C USB 3.1

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Correct.
Aside from the pins/connection, it is a different controller.
What is the possibility of having an interface that the USB-C port can either function as a USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt 3 port?

Also why are we not seeing bus powered USB-C interfaces? USB-PD 3.0 can deliver more than enough power for most Thunderbolt devices.
Old 16th February 2017
  #3011
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KimGitz View Post
What is the possibility of having an interface that the USB-C port can either function as a USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt 3 port?

Also why are we not seeing bus powered USB-C interfaces? USB-PD 3.0 can deliver more than enough power for most Thunderbolt devices.
It's certainly possible, but no sane vendor will probably do that, because of current USB-C market penetration.. plus USB 3.1 (again) doesn't bring anything important to the table with regards to audio interfaces, except of bandwidth.

With regards to bus powered devices, well it's not just matter of convenience, I think bus powered devices makes sense just for small portable devices. For anything larger (for example more mic pres, higher end conversion at multiple channels, class-a analog stages), it's probably not worth of hassle to rely on power from computer and local purpose built power supply makes much more technical sense.

Michal
Old 16th February 2017
  #3012
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
It's certainly possible, but no sane vendor will probably do that, because of current USB-C market penetration.. plus USB 3.1 (again) doesn't bring anything important to the table with regards to audio interfaces, except of bandwidth.

With regards to bus powered devices, well it's not just matter of convenience, I think bus powered devices makes sense just for small portable devices. For anything larger (for example more mic pres, higher end conversion at multiple channels, class-a analog stages), it's probably not worth of hassle to rely on power from computer and local purpose built power supply makes much more technical sense.

Michal
I think my dell XPS has a USB-C that is also Thunderbolt
Old 17th February 2017
  #3013
Here for the gear
 

Thunderbolt vs USB question - processor related

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellofishy View Post
I think my dell XPS has a USB-C that is also Thunderbolt
I believe your Dell XPS has a USB-C Thunderbolt 3 port.

To anyone else - here's my problem:

I have no Thunderbolt and since I am planning to get a Toft 16 mixer I figured I'd get a UA Apollo 16 interface to go with my Apollo Twin Duo USB but nope - I can't because I don't have Thunderbolt so I started looking into MOTU and now my only concern is going through USB2 I wonder if my processor will get bogged down and cause issues while I am making beats...mixing them once I'm done and or when I record artists.

Here are my specs:
Lenovo T450S Laptop - i7-5600U processor up to 3.2ghz quad-core with 20gb DDR3 (PC3-12800) ram and 2TB Samsung SSD 850 EVO

I have been thinking either getting MOTU24AI +MOTU24AO or I get another Windows laptop that has thunderbolt capabilities and get an Apolo 16 interface. I currently don't have issues with my laptop (even running four 24" screens on it - two going through a USB display adapter with its own video card in it) - I still feel by plugging too many things in via USB I might cause my computer utilization to go up to the point it slows my workflow, thoughts anyone?

Sometimes my computer will be fully utilized if I have around 15-20 tracks inside of Ableton but this is specifically with running my mixing chains - iZotope Ozone 7 to be exact (Dynamics going through Exciter then Imager on my music mix, then I have a drum mix and a pre-master mix). Anyone else notice this? I could deactivate some of the iZotope stuff and won't have a problem but I feel like it shouldn't be that way when I am seeing people on YouTube loading like 40-60 tracks in a project. I'm not a noob either I've adjusted buffering, and sometimes have to freeze tracks too so I'm avoiding VSTs from causing my processor from getting full. Do I need to be making sure I am completely freezing every track if I want to run my mixing chains? .
Old 17th February 2017
  #3014
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Any word on when an updated driver might be released for the Ultralite AVB? Latest one is from November 1, 2016. I have some decisions to make and was wondering.
TIA.
Old 17th February 2017
  #3015
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edifice View Post
I believe your Dell XPS has a USB-C Thunderbolt 3 port.

To anyone else - here's my problem:

I have no Thunderbolt and since I am planning to get a Toft 16 mixer I figured I'd get a UA interface to go with my Apollo Twin Duo USB but nope - I can't because I don't have Thunderbolt so I started looking into MOTU and now my only concern is going through USB2 I wonder if my processor will get bogged down and cause issues while I am making beats...mixing them once I'm done and or when I record artists.

Here are my specs:
Lenovo T450S Laptop - i7-5600U processor up to 3.2ghz quad-core with 20gb DDR3 (PC3-12800) ram and 2TB Samsung SSD 850 EVO

I have been thinking either getting MOTU24AI +MOTU24AO or I get another Windows laptop that has thunderbolt capabilities and get an Apolo 16 interface. I currently don't have issues with my laptop (even running four 24" screens on it - two going through a USB display adapter with its own video card in it) - I still feel by plugging too many things in via USB I might cause my computer utilization to go up to the point it slows my workflow, thoughts anyone?

Sometimes my computer will be fully utilized if I have around 15-20 tracks inside of Ableton but this is specifically with running my mixing chains - iZotope Ozone 7 to be exact (Dynamics going through Exciter then Imager on my music mix, then I have a drum mix and a pre-master mix). Anyone else notice this? I could deactivate some of the iZotope stuff and won't have a problem but I feel like it shouldn't be that way when I am seeing people on YouTube loading like 40-60 tracks in a project. I'm not a noob either I've adjusted buffering, and sometimes have to freeze tracks too so I'm avoiding VSTs from causing my processor from getting full. Do I need to be making sure I am completely freezing every track if I want to run my mixing chains? .
I used USB2 for the first month of owning a PC after switching from mac. I used it with the 1248 and 24ao and although there is noticeably more (still minimal) latency, the computer seemed to handle it just fine. You have an SSD and fast Processor - should be fine.

If I was you I would go for the 16a (16 i/o) and spend the extra money on a good stereo AD converter to print the mix from the TOFT instead - in my opinion the DA on the 1248 is amazing (same as the 24ao and 16a) but the A/D conversion lacks some low-end and clarity that you might miss for printing your mix back.
Old 18th February 2017
  #3016
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr View Post
It's certainly possible, but no sane vendor will probably do that, because of current USB-C market penetration.. plus USB 3.1 (again) doesn't bring anything important to the table with regards to audio interfaces, except of bandwidth.

With regards to bus powered devices, well it's not just matter of convenience, I think bus powered devices makes sense just for small portable devices. For anything larger (for example more mic pres, higher end conversion at multiple channels, class-a analog stages), it's probably not worth of hassle to rely on power from computer and local purpose built power supply makes much more technical sense.

Michal
Hi Michal,

A company like Motu has already so many audio devices that can cater to people who have not upgraded to Thunderbolt or USB3.1 Gen2. The pro audio market is far much smaller in comparison to the entire computer market. Audio interfaces offering upgraded tech act as incentives for the pro audio community to upgrade to whatever computer that will support the feature. This is one of the reason why MacBooks and MacBooks Pro became so popular for production. Studios had to have a Mac Pro to remain competitive.
Anyway the story will change by next year when Thunderbolt and USB-C becomes extremely popular.

For Motu's AVB lineup USB3.1 will offer a lot of benefit because of the networking aspect. If future expandability is a key selling point, then having away to interface large amounts of channels to the DAW is paramount. It can be backwards compatible with previous versions of USB and Thunderbolt.

With regards to power I was actually thinking about it the other way round. Why can't the audio interface provide power to the laptop via Thunderbolt? That way you only use a single power source.

Enoch
Old 18th February 2017
  #3017
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loopy View Post
Any word on when an updated driver might be released for the Ultralite AVB? Latest one is from November 1, 2016. I have some decisions to make and was wondering.
TIA.
Selfish bump... Anyone running a beta driver later than the 11/1 release greater than this one?

v4.0+71418 | November 1, 2016

Don't wish to get anyone in trouble for NDA, just asking... PM fine..
Old 18th February 2017
  #3018
Gear Nut
 
Rafter Man's Avatar
Does anybody have any new information about the issues in adding one of the newer models (like the 8A) as a 2nd unit to go along with a 16A or 1248, etc? I’m interested in adding the 8A to pair with my 16A, but haven’t found some of the user experiences on the past couple pages to be very encouraging.
Old 19th February 2017
  #3019
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafter Man View Post
Does anybody have any new information about the issues in adding one of the newer models (like the 8A) as a 2nd unit to go along with a 16A or 1248, etc? I’m interested in adding the 8A to pair with my 16A, but haven’t found some of the user experiences on the past couple pages to be very encouraging.
those "experiences" are really misleading, as they point out a behaviour and make it look like a defect, that is inherent when using different digital converters in parallel (of any brand!).
there is no problem adding an 8a to your setup, just keep in mind, that one converter is slightly delayed to the other (in the 0.5 ms range!!!). you won't ever hear that or have any problems with it, unless you send an identical inputsignal through both converters at the same time and then sum it together in the end. this would theoretically result in combfiltering, but who would ever do that in any realistic scenario??

so in short, there is no issue with integrating an 8a. those comments are only valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical.

my two cents ...

if you want to be really sure, describe your envisioned usage in your system and the answer will be specific to your situation.
Old 19th February 2017
  #3020
Gear Nut
 
Rafter Man's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tft View Post
those "experiences" are really misleading, as they point out a behaviour and make it look like a defect, that is inherent when using different digital converters in parallel (of any brand!).
there is no problem adding an 8a to your setup, just keep in mind, that one converter is slightly delayed to the other (in the 0.5 ms range!!!). you won't ever hear that or have any problems with it, unless you send an identical inputsignal through both converters at the same time and then sum it together in the end. this would theoretically result in combfiltering, but who would ever do that in any realistic scenario??

so in short, there is no issue with integrating an 8a. those comments are only valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical.

my two cents ...

if you want to be really sure, describe your envisioned usage in your system and the answer will be specific to your situation.
Hi, thank you. I currently have a 16A connected to a MBP via thunderbolt. On the analog outs, I have my main monitors coming out of analog outs 1-2, and into a passive monitor selector, the Switch Witch, where I can toggle the alt. speakers (Avatones) to work alone or alongside the JBL main monitors , a sub, plus an older set of HS8's as part of testing on different speakers. Since the 16A doesn't have a headphone output, I've been using analog out 3, whose signal is aux to monitor directly analog while tracking.

Since I hope to accomplish adding this year a few more compressors and eq that I envision being able to use most of the time, i'll need to at least add an 8A to accomodate that.

However, I was considering that I should first get a Dangerous Source to monitor my headphones and main outs since I know a way to use every connection. I want to connect the first two 16A (or 8A) ADAT banks as a spdif connection, going into a Hosa odl 312 converting the spdif into AES, and into the Source's D/A. In that proposed spot, i currently have an SPX2000 effects box through it's digital connection, and would just switch the connection, and then move the SPX back to a pair of analog outs.

So i'm struggling to figure out if my first move should be to grab an 8A, which would need to use a pair of outs, anyway, like I would with the Source, but without the added versatility of the Dangerous converters, flexible monitoring setups, and quick volume control. Is the 8A sufficient enough to do this task, or am I making a compromise that doesn't justify what I lose in value in the long run?

At the moment, I'm leaning toward just adding another 16A, regardless of whether I pick up a monitor controller like the Source or not. Besides a safe number of analog ins/outs for my growing outboard collection, I also was contemplating adding 16 channels of summing once i'm able to properly accomodate sending to 16 ins on the summing mixer, and then having an outboard decide hooked up to the summing mixers Inserts. I would have 16 outs of the first 16A go into the 5059 Satellite. Then I could either place the hardware inbetween the insert direct outs and the returns, or, what i believe makes most sense to me, have the outboard connected as external instruments and patched as inserts through the analog ins/outs of the 2nd 16A unit, into the signal as it passes back around, and then out of the summing mixer again.

So in that scenario, would it be reasonable to add another 16A, or to spend more time educating myself on getting a patch bay system set up instead? It looks like it could not only be cheaper, but even more versatile, but i admittedly still have a bit to learn here before i'm confident I know what im doing.
Old 20th February 2017
  #3021
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tft View Post
those "experiences" are really misleading, as they point out a behaviour and make it look like a defect, that is inherent when using different digital converters in parallel (of any brand!).
there is no problem adding an 8a to your setup, just keep in mind, that one converter is slightly delayed to the other (in the 0.5 ms range!!!). you won't ever hear that or have any problems with it, unless you send an identical inputsignal through both converters at the same time and then sum it together in the end. this would theoretically result in combfiltering, but who would ever do that in any realistic scenario??

so in short, there is no issue with integrating an 8a. those comments are only valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical.

my two cents ...
hmmm, i fail to see how my "experiences" are misleading, nor "valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical."

1st, the 8A is not supposed to be a "different digital converters in parallel (of any brand!)." while still not confirmed to me 100% from MOTU, the 8A is alleged to be exactly 1/2 of a 16A. i.e. same circuit/converters. regardless, even if it isn't, there are issues when even using multiple 16As.

2nd, re: "those comments are only valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical. "
anyone ever use outboard gear to mix? i don't think that doing so is a "special context", nor "theorectical." it as been my experience and others' too, that setting RTL offsets for the 16A are not stable/reliable after reboot/recalls. i.e. setting an offset of "x" today, requires redoing the whole process (and setting a value of "y") if you recall a mix tomorrow. otherwise, and parallel compression you use will be a phasey mess. (fwiw, on my last interface, my offset never changed in years)

i'm not ragging, as the 16A is a spectacular sounding unit, but imo has some issues which i wish could be better addressed.
Old 21st February 2017
  #3022
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post
...
1st, the 8A is not supposed to be a "different digital converters in parallel (of any brand!)." while still not confirmed to me 100% from MOTU, the 8A is alleged to be exactly 1/2 of a 16A. i.e. same circuit/converters. regardless, even if it isn't, there are issues when even using multiple 16As.
...
these are devices planned and built years from each other. i would never expect or trust, that two of these will be in absolut sync, taking into account how the converters may have been built.
UNLESS motu would say so, which is not the case (at least to my knowledge and what i have been reading).
isn't this just your personal expectation, in this case coming from the name only?

don't get me wrong, it would sure be a great thing if they were all perfectly syncing, but it is not to be expected in this case of "different devices".

that's what i personally think about that part.
Old 21st February 2017
  #3023
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post

2nd, re: "those comments are only valid in very special contexts and are overall theoretical. "
anyone ever use outboard gear to mix? i don't think that doing so is a "special context", nor "theorectical." it as been my experience and others' too, that setting RTL offsets for the 16A are not stable/reliable after reboot/recalls. i.e. setting an offset of "x" today, requires redoing the whole process (and setting a value of "y") if you recall a mix tomorrow. otherwise, and parallel compression you use will be a phasey mess. (fwiw, on my last interface, my offset never changed in years)
if two 16A used in parallel are not able to have a constant latency that can be compensated for and stays this way, this is indeed a bad thing.
i was not aware of this before, i may have overlooked the comment in here.

has motu support any answer for that? or are they looking into it?
or do they recommend not to use several 16A in parallel?
is it the avb network that changes latencies?
is it safe to use the adat connections to bring them together in parallel?
any influence if they are clocked together via wordclock, instead of avb or adat directly?
Old 21st February 2017
  #3024
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafter Man View Post
Hi, thank you. I currently have a 16A connected to a MBP via thunderbolt. On the analog outs, I have my main monitors coming out of analog outs 1-2, and into a passive monitor selector, the Switch Witch, where I can toggle the alt. speakers (Avatones) to work alone or alongside the JBL main monitors , a sub, plus an older set of HS8's as part of testing on different speakers. Since the 16A doesn't have a headphone output, I've been using analog out 3, whose signal is aux to monitor directly analog while tracking.

Since I hope to accomplish adding this year a few more compressors and eq that I envision being able to use most of the time, i'll need to at least add an 8A to accomodate that.

However, I was considering that I should first get a Dangerous Source to monitor my headphones and main outs since I know a way to use every connection. I want to connect the first two 16A (or 8A) ADAT banks as a spdif connection, going into a Hosa odl 312 converting the spdif into AES, and into the Source's D/A. In that proposed spot, i currently have an SPX2000 effects box through it's digital connection, and would just switch the connection, and then move the SPX back to a pair of analog outs.

So i'm struggling to figure out if my first move should be to grab an 8A, which would need to use a pair of outs, anyway, like I would with the Source, but without the added versatility of the Dangerous converters, flexible monitoring setups, and quick volume control. Is the 8A sufficient enough to do this task, or am I making a compromise that doesn't justify what I lose in value in the long run?

At the moment, I'm leaning toward just adding another 16A, regardless of whether I pick up a monitor controller like the Source or not. Besides a safe number of analog ins/outs for my growing outboard collection, I also was contemplating adding 16 channels of summing once i'm able to properly accomodate sending to 16 ins on the summing mixer, and then having an outboard decide hooked up to the summing mixers Inserts. I would have 16 outs of the first 16A go into the 5059 Satellite. Then I could either place the hardware inbetween the insert direct outs and the returns, or, what i believe makes most sense to me, have the outboard connected as external instruments and patched as inserts through the analog ins/outs of the 2nd 16A unit, into the signal as it passes back around, and then out of the summing mixer again.

So in that scenario, would it be reasonable to add another 16A, or to spend more time educating myself on getting a patch bay system set up instead? It looks like it could not only be cheaper, but even more versatile, but i admittedly still have a bit to learn here before i'm confident I know what im doing.
this turns out to be a much bigger question than anticipated.
in the end you have to choose for yourself, what suits you most, but here a few thoughts from my side:

1) i would seperate the two main needs you are describing: monitor controler and summing box/outboard integration (including suitable converters).
that said, you may find a solution where you can integrate your monitoring with a summing device

2) what you can see from the discussion above, is the importance of having all converterchannels, that are used in parallel for outboard mixing, in perfect sync. at best they all go through one device at the same time. or if different devices are used, they should have a constant latency all the time, which can be compensated for (ask motu support, to be sure how their devices act in that regard).

3) when using the satellite summing box you were mentioning, you'd have the option of patching in your outboard via the inserts on every channel, some sort of "patch bay". not as flexible and convenient as a real patchbay, but still practical.

4) while thinking about "melding" your needs of monitoring and summing, take a look at the ams neve 8816. it incorporates some neat and flexible things that may be what you are looking for (two monitor pairs to switch between, headphone output with cue for all channels and some more. inserts only on the masterbus, but with a second "mixable" insert).

now regarding your question about what motu avb-device may be a good addon solution:
presuming that 16 channels in/out in parallel for your outboard/summing-needs are enough for now, you already have that with your 16A.
when you add a motu 8A, i would connect that to your macbook and route all channels for outboard through it via avb to the 16A. from there you patch to your hardware or connect the summing box. you can also add some more converters to the 16A via adat to expand your channels to outboard later when needed.
this should be constant in latency and thus manageable.
if the monitoring will not be done with the summing hardware, you can use outputs of the 8A for that and connect to your switch witch. headphone output is already there on the 8A.

when recording you have 8 channels more inputs from your 8A in addition to your 16A. any latency between those two can be compensated for after the recording.
you may ask motu support, in which way the latency between those two is constant and stays constant. but when used for recording different sources through the different devices, it should be uncritical.

on the dangerous box: as a monitoring solution alone it seems pretty pricey. if the other options it can give you are worth it ... you may decide.

so, i hope you find what you need and get a troublefree system that works for you!
Old 21st February 2017
  #3025
Gear Nut
 
Rafter Man's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tft View Post
this turns out to be a much bigger question than anticipated.
in the end you have to choose for yourself, what suits you most, but here a few thoughts from my side:

1) i would seperate the two main needs you are describing: monitor controler and summing box/outboard integration (including suitable converters).
that said, you may find a solution where you can integrate your monitoring with a summing device

2) what you can see from the discussion above, is the importance of having all converterchannels, that are used in parallel for outboard mixing, in perfect sync. at best they all go through one device at the same time. or if different devices are used, they should have a constant latency all the time, which can be compensated for (ask motu support, to be sure how their devices act in that regard).

3) when using the satellite summing box you were mentioning, you'd have the option of patching in your outboard via the inserts on every channel, some sort of "patch bay". not as flexible and convenient as a real patchbay, but still practical.

4) while thinking about "melding" your needs of monitoring and summing, take a look at the ams neve 8816. it incorporates some neat and flexible things that may be what you are looking for (two monitor pairs to switch between, headphone output with cue for all channels and some more. inserts only on the masterbus, but with a second "mixable" insert).

now regarding your question about what motu avb-device may be a good addon solution:
presuming that 16 channels in/out in parallel for your outboard/summing-needs are enough for now, you already have that with your 16A.
when you add a motu 8A, i would connect that to your macbook and route all channels for outboard through it via avb to the 16A. from there you patch to your hardware or connect the summing box. you can also add some more converters to the 16A via adat to expand your channels to outboard later when needed.
this should be constant in latency and thus manageable.
if the monitoring will not be done with the summing hardware, you can use outputs of the 8A for that and connect to your switch witch. headphone output is already there on the 8A.

when recording you have 8 channels more inputs from your 8A in addition to your 16A. any latency between those two can be compensated for after the recording.
you may ask motu support, in which way the latency between those two is constant and stays constant. but when used for recording different sources through the different devices, it should be uncritical.

on the dangerous box: as a monitoring solution alone it seems pretty pricey. if the other options it can give you are worth it ... you may decide.

so, i hope you find what you need and get a troublefree system that works for you!
Awesome, thanks. I think i’ll take up the advice to approach these needs with an individual amount of diligence so that I don’t inadvertently end up right back where I was in the form of only gaining a weak link in my chain by overemphasizing any one option far beyond the law of diminishing returns. My biggest question now is what kind of differences, compromises, deal breakers, etc., people have when it comes to using their interface (and these, specifically, of course) as a workhorse piece of gear because they had determined that the savings in doing so allows the ability to invest within other more pressing needs? I’ve only been doing this a few years and just haven’t been tuned to all the subtle differences learned from experience.
Old 22nd February 2017
  #3026
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellofishy View Post
I used USB2 for the first month of owning a PC after switching from mac. I used it with the 1248 and 24ao and although there is noticeably more (still minimal) latency, the computer seemed to handle it just fine. You have an SSD and fast Processor - should be fine.

If I was you I would go for the 16a (16 i/o) and spend the extra money on a good stereo AD converter to print the mix from the TOFT instead - in my opinion the DA on the 1248 is amazing (same as the 24ao and 16a) but the A/D conversion lacks some low-end and clarity that you might miss for printing your mix back.

hellofishy - Appreciate your response! I didn't know that about the low-end & clarity.

I've decided to run the TOFT through an Antelope Orion 32. I will be set with my external hardware + software VSTs etc and all tracking going through TOFT/Orion.

Only thing that will change now is my UAD Apollo Twin will only be used for plugins and not really for inputs/outputs. Then I have a UAD Octo as well so I've got to figure out if I should sell my UAD Apollo twin or just keep it for portability lol but now I'm getting off topic. Thanks again!
Old 2nd March 2017
  #3027
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

MOTU has a new driver released:

v4.0+72091 | March 1, 2017

I have been using this driver as sent to me by MOTU for the past couple of days and at least for me, the driver fixed my highly intermittent click/pop problem with VSTi and also fixed the problem where the sample rate could not be changed using Presonus Studio One V3.x.

I'm a happy camper
Old 2nd March 2017
  #3028
Here for the gear
 

Few days ago, after intense tests I decided to buy MOTU 624.

I have Audient ID22, which I love...but....MOTU is in a different league of audio quality. Dynamic, detailed, punchy sound with focused low end and bright but not tiring highs. Now I have impression, that my Event Opals play like they should play!

AD converters quality is also very good. Recorded vocals and guitars are clean, dynamic and detailed.

CONS:
- poor monitor controlling (compared to Audient) - must buy some external monitor contoller;
- no thunderbolt daisy chain output;
- sometimes web app has small lags;

I recommend new line of MOTU interfaces (despite that I wasn't fan of that company before)
Old 3rd March 2017
  #3029
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomgorn View Post
Few days ago, after intense tests I decided to buy MOTU 624.

I have Audient ID22, which I love...but....MOTU is in a different league of audio quality. Dynamic, detailed, punchy sound with focused low end and bright but not tiring highs. Now I have impression, that my Event Opals play like they should play!

AD converters quality is also very good. Recorded vocals and guitars are clean, dynamic and detailed.

CONS:
- poor monitor controlling (compared to Audient) - must buy some external monitor contoller;
- no thunderbolt daisy chain output;
- sometimes web app has small lags;

I recommend new line of MOTU interfaces (despite that I wasn't fan of that company before)
You can't use the webapp for monitoring? the web-app mixer has near 0 latency
Old 3rd March 2017
  #3030
I just released 4 tunes this week...

These 4 songs as well as my last two albums, were cut with the MOTU 16A

I write play sing and mix everything, do the videos etc....I have my wife help out on backing vocals....

Each song has at least 3 AD/DA conversions as there is the original capture, then a stage where I "reamp" each track out through my console with hardware inserted over the channels, and that is captured back as seperate tracks. Then the two buss goes out through two channels of the console with a STAM SA4000 bus compressor over them.

I dont even really give that a second thought, more than one AD DA.... I used to...but the 16A is transparent enough for it not to matter...

I write play sing and mix everything....I have my wife help out of backing
vocals....

The MOTU 16A has been stable, easy to use and I think it sounds great.

I monitor off the web app when tracking, and leave the buffers set to 256 in Logic from start to finish.


The Blue Green Ball



Cloud Nine




Circle Of Light



Laura




Cheers

Wiz
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