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 18th September 2016
  #2731
One question: why did they decide to put a bnc madi connection on the 112d, while almost all of the audio converters sport an optical connection? You need to re-convert your madi signal, and add an item to the chain!
Old 18th September 2016
  #2732
Gear Maniac
 

I am still a bit confused about the Thunderbolt options for PC. Right now, there are mainboards available with TB2 and TB3/USB-C.

Is USB-C going to replace TB2 in the PC-world?

Should I rather buy a board with TB2 for the Motu interface? Or does USB-C generally work just as well (with the appropriated adaptor)?

Is the technology fully developed yet or should I maybe wait for the next generation of PC mainboards?
Old 18th September 2016
  #2733
Lives for gear
 
rockreid's Avatar
 

I have a 1248.

I have an ASUS X99 Deluxe II MB that includes the EX3 Thunderbolt card. It has one USB-C port and I use it with a TB3 to TB2 adaptor and it works fine once the MOTU Beta drivers are properly installed in Win10.
Old 29th September 2016
  #2734
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Are there any known problems between AVB devices and Mac OS X 10.12 Sierra over Thunderbolt? I'm not upgrading unless I know there won't be any problems.

Last edited by wilkinsi; 29th September 2016 at 10:56 PM..
Old 29th September 2016
  #2735
Quote:
Originally Posted by bermudaben View Post
I am still a bit confused about the Thunderbolt options for PC. Right now, there are mainboards available with TB2 and TB3/USB-C.

Is USB-C going to replace TB2 in the PC-world?

Should I rather buy a board with TB2 for the Motu interface? Or does USB-C generally work just as well (with the appropriated adaptor)?

Is the technology fully developed yet or should I maybe wait for the next generation of PC mainboards?
USB-C is a type of connector. It's not the same as Thunderbolt.

I believe you're thinking of the upcoming support for sharing a physical motherboard connector for both USB and Thunderbolt 3, using a USB-C style connector. These are really Thunderbolt ports, with added support for USB. They are supposed to be fully backwards-compatible with TB1 and TB2 devices, using an adaptor cable.

It's also completely possible to have a dedicated USB port with a USB-C connector, which would *not* support Thunderbolt devices.

Confused yet? :-)

More info here: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/usb-type...nect-them-all/
Old 30th September 2016
  #2736
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockreid View Post
I have a 1248.

I have an ASUS X99 Deluxe II MB that includes the EX3 Thunderbolt card. It has one USB-C port and I use it with a TB3 to TB2 adaptor and it works fine once the MOTU Beta drivers are properly installed in Win10.
Is there a significant performance increase with this instead of USB 2.0? My 1248 seems to work ok over USB, but my mobo has a USB-C port that I could use if I bought the TB adapter and a TB cable. This would run me about $200 Canadian so I'd only do it if there's a big performance boost!

Also, if your mobo has USB-C then you don't need the EX3 TB card, right?
Old 30th September 2016
  #2737
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewwj View Post
Is there a significant performance increase with this instead of USB 2.0? My 1248 seems to work ok over USB, but my mobo has a USB-C port that I could use if I bought the TB adapter and a TB cable. This would run me about $200 Canadian so I'd only do it if there's a big performance boost!

Also, if your mobo has USB-C then you don't need the EX3 TB card, right?
USB Type C and Thunderbolt 3 have the same connectors but are different protocols. A thunderbolt 3 port can provide usb 3.1 or thunderbolt 3, but a usb 3.1 type c will not provide thunderbolt 3.

Your motherboard must be thunderbolt 3 to be able to use a thunderbolt 3 to 2/1 adapter.

So they can use the same connection (type-c) but can be two different things.
Old 30th September 2016
  #2738
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
I still view the MOTU AVB series as great products, but seeing everybody else jumping on the Dante bandwagon has given me pause. I hope MOTU doesn't have a Betamax on their hands here.
Old 30th September 2016
  #2739
Lives for gear
 
rockreid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewwj View Post
Is there a significant performance increase with this instead of USB 2.0? My 1248 seems to work ok over USB, but my mobo has a USB-C port that I could use if I bought the TB adapter and a TB cable. This would run me about $200 Canadian so I'd only do it if there's a big performance boost!

Also, if your mobo has USB-C then you don't need the EX3 TB card, right?
Yes, there is a significant performance boost. Using USB, at 64 sample buffer in Reaper reported 2.7ms latency. Using Thunderbolt it is 1.7ms. At 128 buffer USB is 3.4 and Thunderbolt 2.3
Old 30th September 2016
  #2740
Lives for gear
 
dandeurloo's Avatar
AVB is great! I have been using my 16A and 24IO for a while now with zero issues.
Old 30th September 2016
  #2741
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by javajunkie View Post
USB Type C and Thunderbolt 3 have the same connectors but are different protocols. A thunderbolt 3 port can provide usb 3.1 or thunderbolt 3, but a usb 3.1 type c will not provide thunderbolt 3.

Your motherboard must be thunderbolt 3 to be able to use a thunderbolt 3 to 2/1 adapter.

So they can use the same connection (type-c) but can be two different things.
Thanks! Glad you mentioned this before I went out and bought the wrong equipment. My mobo (ASUS Z170A) does have a TB header, so I could make it work if I buy the TB3 extension card. But since the card, the adapter, and a 15+ foot TB cable will run me into the hundreds of dollars, I will probably pass on this upgrade and wait for the next generation of interfaces.
Old 30th September 2016
  #2742
Gear Nut
 
Rafter Man's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
Are there any known problems between AVB devices and Mac OS X 10.12 Sierra over Thunderbolt? I'm not upgrading unless I know there won't be any problems.
So far, so good. I have a 16A over Thunderbolt feeding my MacBook Pro Retina on OSX 10.12 Sierra, and have experienced no issues. Just make sure you're using the latest drivers which you can find on the MOTU home site.
Old 30th September 2016
  #2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafter Man View Post
So far, so good. I have a 16A over Thunderbolt feeding my MacBook Pro Retina on OSX 10.12 Sierra, and have experienced no issues. Just make sure you're using the latest drivers which you can find on the MOTU home site.
What DAW are you running?

cheers

Wiz
Old 1st October 2016
  #2744
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
Are there any known problems between AVB devices and Mac OS X 10.12 Sierra over Thunderbolt? I'm not upgrading unless I know there won't be any problems.
If you use UAD, wait until they come out w/a an updated driver.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2745
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafter Man View Post
So far, so good. I have a 16A over Thunderbolt feeding my MacBook Pro Retina on OSX 10.12 Sierra, and have experienced no issues. Just make sure you're using the latest drivers which you can find on the MOTU home site.
That was quick, thanks! All I'm waiting on now is for Roland to come up with a new driver for the FA06 which I use as a controller. In case anyone's interested, I've been told a new driver should be available in about a month.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2746
Gear Nut
 
Rafter Man's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz_Oz View Post
What DAW are you running?

cheers

Wiz
Cubase Pro 8.5.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2747
Gear Maniac
 
not like this's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
Are there any known problems between AVB devices and Mac OS X 10.12 Sierra over Thunderbolt? I'm not upgrading unless I know there won't be any problems.
1248, Seirra, and Logic Pro X here. Thunderbolt connection

No issues. Logic reports the same latency as it did in 10.11 (2.2ms RTL at 64 buffer)
Old 1st October 2016
  #2748
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
1248, Seirra, and Logic Pro X here. Thunderbolt connection

No issues. Logic reports the same latency as it did in 10.11 (2.2ms RTL at 64 buffer)
I can't use a buffer setting lower than 512 without getting pops and clicks, though the fact I'm only using a Macbook Pro "13 Retina with 2.7GHZ Dual Core processor and 8GB RAM might have something to do with that. Its connected via Thunderbolt to my 112D. I use MOTU AudioDesk 4.0 as a soft DAW, with everything set to 44.1k. The 112D has plenty of digital gear connected to it.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2749
Gear Maniac
 
not like this's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
I can't use a buffer setting lower than 512 without getting pops and clicks, though the fact I'm only using a Macbook Pro "13 Retina with 2.7GHZ Dual Core processor and 8GB RAM might have something to do with that. Its connected via Thunderbolt to my 112D. I use MOTU AudioDesk 4.0 as a soft DAW, with everything set to 44.1k. The 112D has plenty of digital gear connected to it.
I would contact MOTU support. Those results aren't normal or acceptable. Something isn't working properly.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2750
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
I would contact MOTU support. Those results aren't normal or acceptable. Something isn't working properly.
I thought this was all a trial and error game. What buffer setting would you suggest be workable with the modest spec of my Macbook Pro?
Old 1st October 2016
  #2751
Gear Maniac
 
not like this's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
I thought this was all a trial and error game. What buffer setting would you suggest be workable with the modest spec of my Macbook Pro?
I can run 20+ audio tracks on the internal drive of my MacBook Air at buffer of 64 without even a blip on the CPU.

My system specs and audio settings attached.
Attached Thumbnails
MOTU 1248, 8M, 16A Thunderbolt interface-screen-shot-2016-10-01-9.28.16-am.png   MOTU 1248, 8M, 16A Thunderbolt interface-screen-shot-2016-10-01-9.28.06-am-1.png  
Old 1st October 2016
  #2752
Gear Maniac
 
not like this's Avatar
 

To be clear this isn't my DAW it's just a laptop for emails. I plugged in my 1248 to test it to give you some perspective.

Today's machines are beasts. We all forget that even a lowly spec'd machine can destroy some digital audio


Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
I can run 20+ audio tracks on the internal drive of my MacBook Air at buffer of 64 without even a blip on the CPU.

My system specs and audio settings attached.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2753
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
I can run 20+ audio tracks on the internal drive of my MacBook Air at buffer of 64 without even a blip on the CPU.

My system specs and audio settings attached.
My bad. I can't set the buffer in the 112D because its connected via Thunderbolt, not USB. I have set my soft synth UVI Falcon to 64 samples, and ir didn't last very long, so I had to set it back to at least 256. I can't seem to find any buffer setting in AudioDesk 4.0 at the moment. If its there, I'd be grateful to anyone who knows where it is.

Last edited by wilkinsi; 1st October 2016 at 06:30 PM..
Old 1st October 2016
  #2754
Gear Maniac
 
not like this's Avatar
 

I am also connected via Thunderbolt not USB

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
My bad. I can't set the buffer in the 112D because its connected via Thunderbolt, not USB. I have set my soft synth UVI Falcon to 64 samples, and currently, its working fine. I can't seem to find any buffer setting in AudioDesk 4.0 at the moment. If its there, I'd be grateful to anyone who knows where it is.
Old 1st October 2016
  #2755
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
I am also connected via Thunderbolt not USB
Currently running Falcon at 512 again. Some sounds on Falcon still pop and click. I find it odd that I am the only one, or one of the very few to have problems, especially since there are users out there with less powerful Macbooks running at 64 without problems. I must also mention that I am also using UVI Relayer and Sparkverb plugins in AudioDesk 4.0. Checking the CPU load in Activity Monitor doesn't appear to show anything remotely alarming.

Last edited by wilkinsi; 1st October 2016 at 11:36 PM..
Old 2nd October 2016
  #2756
Lives for gear
 
charlieclouser's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
Currently running Falcon at 512 again. Some sounds on Falcon still pop and click. I find it odd that I am the only one, or one of the very few to have problems, especially since there are users out there with less powerful Macbooks running at 64 without problems. I must also mention that I am also using UVI Relayer and Sparkverb plugins in AudioDesk 4.0. Checking the CPU load in Activity Monitor doesn't appear to show anything remotely alarming.
Just FYI - Falcon is an absolute PIG on the CPU. Just horrific. I've run it on my Mac Pro cylinder 12-core and it shuts down a whole core unless I have huge buffers like 512. On my buddy's silver Mac Pro 12-core tower (2.83gHz) it's about the same. It's just a hog, period. The IRCAM stuff in there will bring any Mac to its knees.

And I wouldn't think that AudioDesk is a very efficient host either.... it used to be just a freebie that they'd give out with their hardware so you'd have something to play with, or use for very non-demanding tasks like editing podcasts or whatever. So I wouldn't think it's at the top of the heap in terms of cutting-edge CPU optimization.
Old 2nd October 2016
  #2757
Gear Nut
 
wilkinsi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser View Post
Just FYI - Falcon is an absolute PIG on the CPU. Just horrific. I've run it on my Mac Pro cylinder 12-core and it shuts down a whole core unless I have huge buffers like 512. On my buddy's silver Mac Pro 12-core tower (2.83gHz) it's about the same. It's just a hog, period. The IRCAM stuff in there will bring any Mac to its knees.

And I wouldn't think that AudioDesk is a very efficient host either.... it used to be just a freebie that they'd give out with their hardware so you'd have something to play with, or use for very non-demanding tasks like editing podcasts or whatever. So I wouldn't think it's at the top of the heap in terms of cutting-edge CPU optimization.
That's odd. I've never been charged for AudioDesk 4.0. I checked Activity Monitor, and couldn't find anything wrong. AD4 and Falcon only up to 30% of the CPU each at the most. Before I lost my job, I was seriously considering a Mac Pro (the "trash can" lookalike) with 64GB RAM. Just as well that I didn't, from what you're saying. Am I to assume that there isn't any hope for anyone running this software, because they will always have these problems, no matter what spec their Mac is?
Old 2nd October 2016
  #2758
Lives for gear
 
charlieclouser's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilkinsi View Post
That's odd. I've never been charged for AudioDesk 4.0. I checked Activity Monitor, and couldn't find anything wrong. AD4 and Falcon only up to 30% of the CPU each at the most. Before I lost my job, I was seriously considering a Mac Pro (the "trash can" lookalike) with 64GB RAM. Just as well that I didn't, from what you're saying. Am I to assume that there isn't any hope for anyone running this software, because they will always have these problems, no matter what spec their Mac is?
Well, I gave up on using Falcon except in solo sound design missions - having a bunch of them up at once playing different patches on different tracks was hogging the CPU massively. It sure is full-featured and innovative, and some of the IRCAM stuff sounds incredible... maybe some guys on high-spec Windows machines are having better luck than me and my buddy did. My buddy still uses it on his silver 12-core but agrees that it is a pig. Perhaps it does better on i7 type machines, or is optimized for Windows? Who knows....

I'm not trying to bash AudioDesk, but I just remember it's always been around as a freebie and would therefore suspect that it may not get the attention from MOTU that Performer does in terms of optimizing its performance.

I've also noticed lately that even some Kontakt instruments with massively scripted fancy user interfaces can choke a whole core on my Mac Pro cylinder, whereas a more basic instrument that still plays a ton of voices but doesn't have such elaborate scripting will use less than 25% of Logic's notorious "last core". So that indicates that it's possible for the contents of an instrument to really affect the CPU more than the sheer number of voices being used would indicate. I don't know if that's because of poorly written, unnecessarily bloated scripting in the user interface, or what - but some of my homemade Kontakt instruments with no scripting at all can play hundreds of voices with negligible CPU hit while other commercial libraries with insane user interfaces choke out many fewer voices. Some Kontakt developers lately like to create instruments that play many layers of samples all the time, and let you use mod wheel or whatever to select and crossfade between them, and sometimes have individual convolution reverbs and every single other effect set up individually for each sample group - which can certainly get clog-worthy. So in the right (wrong) circumstances even a poorly implemented Kontakt instrument can choke a Mac Pro cylinder - at least that notorious "last core" in Logic.

(The problem is usually alleviated by hosting the instrument inside Vienna Ensemble Pro, even on the same computer, which has much better core balancing, but I only do this as a last resort.)

Not that any of this relates to your issues with Falcon, other than the fact that my and my buddy noticed that it is definitely easy to bring most Macs to their knees.

But it might be worth trying to host Falcon in VEPro and see if that lets you go to a lower buffer size without clicks and pops.
Old 3rd October 2016
  #2759
Gear Maniac
 
barbaroja's Avatar
 

Would like to know the jitter figures in picoseconds for the on the 16A and 1248. Not published tho.
Old 3rd October 2016
  #2760
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbaroja View Post
Would like to know the jitter figures in picoseconds for the on the 16A and 1248. Not published tho.
Maybe picosecond is too rough for judging of audio quality by specs... femtosecond figure might be bit better though

I don't think, you'll find some real-world phase noise plots published by many vendors. Maybe some publishes one figure from their 3rd party crystal vendor, but it's more or less misleading and marketing gimmick to me.. Because it always depends on particular design, surrounding circuitry, powering, distribution to converter chips and converter chips itself.
With regards to clocking from external sources, it depends on lot of other factors at clock extraction method (PLL or ASRC implementation, corner frequency).

Excuse me for saying that so simplistically, but grab one unit and compare it to what you currently have at your place.. and decide if audio quality is worth of it.

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