PreSonus USB-C interface, upgrade yet?

What a great time we're in we should count our blessings. Such easy access to so many great tools and so easy on the $$ end.
 
As far as I know USB-C is the physical connection type and the protocol is most likely USB3.1 here.
The latest iteration of Thunderbolt also uses the USB-C connector.

Firewire is/can still be carried over Thunderbolt but I don't think direct thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) to firewire adapters are made.
That would mean two physical adapters so it's still possible to support it but not convenient.
 
There was a thread a while back that pointed out that USB-C doesn't do anything for bandwidth/latency (if I'm remembering things right) because it's still USB, and that stack didn't improve because of the connector.

Thunderbolt is a different thing even if it does share a connector type. Unfortunately, it seems like Intel is still the tail wagging the dog in the PC world and so Thunderbolt is not likely to gain traction there. (Because, honestly, how many consumers need anything faster than USB-C?)
 
keith.rogers said:
There was a thread a while back that pointed out that USB-C doesn't do anything for bandwidth/latency (if I'm remembering things right) because it's still USB, and that stack didn't improve because of the connector.

Thunderbolt is a different thing even if it does share a connector type. Unfortunately, it seems like Intel is still the tail wagging the dog in the PC world and so Thunderbolt is not likely to gain traction there. (Because, honestly, how many consumers need anything faster than USB-C?)
Click to expand...

A couple of years or so ago I was trying to extract from some learned peeps why, when USB 3.0 had been around for so long (this 7 yr old HP i3 lappy has it) there so few 3.0 interfaces and nothing, at the time in the "proggy" price range, say $150-$300? Surely I said, the massively improved speed would mean lower latencies and more tracks?

The replies were similar to some of those I have read on HR. The increased "bandwidth" does nothing to make USB 3.0 (or 3.1) capable of lower latency than 2.0. Now, I know amps but am a computer numpty but this did not seem right to me. Computers are to a degree sequential but BECAUSE they can do Many Things Very Quickly they "appear" to do them instantaneously. Then, I know a smidgeon of "Information Theory" and that states that the speed of an information channel is proportional to its bandwidth...Doooor?

But, the Experts stuck to their guns. USB 3.0 was never going to be a lot better than 2.0 but, like the Bumble Bee that no one told it should not fly by rights, RME brought out a TB / USB 3.0 interface and LO! The 3.0 speed was IDENTICAL to the TB speed. Latency around 3mS for both protocols.

The experts immediately regrouped "Ah! That is because RME develop their own FPGA converters and write their own drivers". So, it CAN be done and there is obviously nothing in the basic properties of USB 3.0 + that limits track counts and latency. Yes, I understand that TB is ultimately faster than USB 3.1 but that is just a fact of the systems.

What was also always skirted around was the extra, near double current available from a 3.0 port. Bus powered USB 2.0 AIs are limited in their track count and signal levels by the 500mA limit. My NI KA 6 does just about as good a job as can be done but phantom power is limited and the headphone amp will never blow your socks off, an extra 400mA would make a lot of difference. So, we COULD have a 4 mic input AI with 2 more line ins 4 line outs, MIDI, S/PDIF, top spec spook juice and a HP amp with decent heft all powered from the lappy for field work. Does anyone make that?

Dave.
 
Hey! I just read it on the 'net, you know?

I do know that 3.0 is miles faster for external drives, so I was assuming that translated into better performance for an audio interface. I mean, why wouldn't it? So, good to hear it's possible and maybe likely to perform better. Hoping you don't have to buy RME to get it....

As for going into the field, I think dedicated field recorder equipment is just so much better than schlepping a notebook, interface, maybe an external drive, etc., and then, how long will the notebook run on its battery? My Zoom F8s take a 12v external supply and can power 8 channels of phantom and run for hours and hours continuously, and I can pack a pair of them to run sync'd for 16 channels if needed. I don't have the notebook screen to look at, but I don't have to worry about breaking one either :).
 
keith.rogers said:
Hey! I just read it on the 'net, you know?

I do know that 3.0 is miles faster for external drives, so I was assuming that translated into better performance for an audio interface. I mean, why wouldn't it? So, good to hear it's possible and maybe likely to perform better. Hoping you don't have to buy RME to get it....

As for going into the field, I think dedicated field recorder equipment is just so much better than schlepping a notebook, interface, maybe an external drive, etc., and then, how long will the notebook run on its battery? My Zoom F8s take a 12v external supply and can power 8 channels of phantom and run for hours and hours continuously, and I can pack a pair of them to run sync'd for 16 channels if needed. I don't have the notebook screen to look at, but I don't have to worry about breaking one either :).
Click to expand...

Not having a pop at you Keith! The "USB 3 is no better for audio" saw has been trotted out as received wisdom by many sources. I always had my doubts but am nowhere near qualified enough to argue but it seem I was right, although it took a top firm and some clever engineering to do it. RME kit is expensive yes but not stupidly so and you probably would never need to replace it!

Thinking about it, RME did the same stunt with USB V Fussywire? The latter was the dog's for audio and USB really only fit for a couple of channels in and out and latency would NEVER compete with FW. Then RME brought out the UCX!

When I said "field" K' I did not mean recording Bonobos up the Congo! I meant you would just need to rock up with a notebook and AI. No extra power required. I would think anyone serious about recording on "location" would have a spare lapbatt or two if they suspected there was no mains supply around. But yes, those that are REALLY serious would go for a proper field recorder.

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top