new 828x with Thunderbolt...

[mikehalloran]

I don't take it for granted that TB is going to be widely supported. USB 3.0 will handle the mass market requirements for video, audio, disk, etc.

I quite agree. Really, Intel has more to say about that than Apple.

Also consider that USB 3.1 is already being tested. It is backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and is designed for 10G.

USB 3 is not backwards compatible per se. It's that currently, the spec requires usb 2 to be supported alongside usb 3 in the connector and cable. The connectors and pins for usb 3 are different and it's possible to have 3 without supporting 2. At some point in the future, I expect that to happen but it's not likely to be soon.

Something like 6G SATA drives in 1.5G SATA buses - some work but others won't. The spec is not backwards compatible but the drive maker can build the functionality in.

[bayswater]

USB 3 is not backwards compatible per se. It's that currently, the spec requires usb 2 to be supported alongside usb 3 in the connector and cable. The connectors and pins for usb 3 are different and it's possible to have 3 without supporting 2. At some point in the future, I expect that to happen but it's not likely to be soon.

Are you saying backwards compatibility is not there because it's possible to make a USB3 device is not backwards compatible?

I'll get quickly in over my head on this. I can't state what the critical condition for compatibility is, but everything I read about USB 3 says it is backwards compatible with USB 2. Here is a typical statement:

"In USB 3.0, dual-bus architecture is used to allow both USB 2.0 (Full Speed, Low Speed, or High Speed) and USB 3.0 (Super Speed) operations to take place simultaneously, thus providing backward compatibility. Connections are such that they also permit forward compatibility, that is, running USB 3.0 devices on USB 2.0 ports."

In other places, I read that all of the pins used in USB 2 are also present, along with others, in USB 3.

And the cases I've bought for USB 3 drives all work with USB 2. The USB 3 ports on my mini are happy with USB 2 devices, and my two USB 3 drives work on my MBP and iMac with USB 2, and on my old Airport Extreme.

Just where does incompatibility come in? What do you have to look out for?

[Mrted]

Hello guys,
-I really need a thunderbolt interface for my new macpro fast. The most important gain should be Latency, shouldn't it ? I have Apogee Ensemble and firewire gives a very bad latency with big orchestral sessions or amp simulation plugins.
Pcie based interfaces give way lower latency. Thunderbolt use PCIe express protocol, so it should be far better than firewire, don't you think ?
-I've never used Motu, do you know if converters will be as good as Apogee or Lynx Aurora ?
-Do you know 828x availability ?

thanks a lot

[TinenTech]

Most of the FW800 devices actually just run at 400, but have 800 ports for convenience.

Including MOTU

I was bummed out by that "little detail" when I was checking out an 896 MkIII Hybrid...when anything on the buss is running at 400, everything else on the bus (such as external FW drives) slows down too. Doesn't affect audio, but if you leave everything hooked up while doing a backup it takes longer than it would without the interface on line.

Apple dropped firewire a few years back,

Apple dropped the PPC. Intel never supported FW.

How come all MBPs with Intel chips (from Core Duo on) until the latest generation were able to have FW ports? Did Apple kluge something?

USB is the more robust protocol with Intel Macs however. If I had a Hybrid, I would not be running it on FW - especially as it only runs over FW400 anyway as it clearly states in the lit.

There's math elsewhere in this thread that shows FW faster than USB (from Bayswater), so I'm confused. What are the symptoms when a Hybrid is run on FW instead of USB? (Sorry for the off-topic curve...I'll look for a thread from when the Hybrids came out that talks about the differences.)

For myself, I probably will pull the trigger on an 896 mkIII now instead of waiting for an "896x" with TB, which I assume will come in a few months. I have two MBPs, an old one with FW400 and a new one with FW800 and TB; I like to have an extra Mac for backup. I specifically asked MOTU product support if a TB-to-FW adapter would work, since I was considering the MBP with Retina (that has only TB, no FW)...They said it would!

I thought, having seen so much Dante networking at AES last October, that the next round of MOTU interfaces might feature AVB (Ethernet audio) support, since Mavericks has native support for it. Oh, well, can't wait forever...and it doesn't look like Focusrite is burning up the world with their Ethernet interfaces. Or, maybe AVB isn't what it's cracked up to be?

[Prime Mover]

Hello guys,
-I really need a thunderbolt interface for my new macpro fast. The most important gain should be Latency, shouldn't it ? I have Apogee Ensemble and firewire gives a very bad latency with big orchestral sessions or amp simulation plugins.

I think you aren't quite understanding the situation. Latency is only a product of the protocol, bandwidth is another matter. FW400 has no more latency than FW800. And FW should be close to TB in terms of bussing. Couple that with the fact that even 96kHz 24 bit recording, FW400 should be able to handle over 64 tracks at a time. Both FW, TB, and USB3 have internal hardware on the cards that handles all the bussing. USB2 does not, which is why USB2 is an inferior protocol for audio recording. USB relies heavily on the computer's own CPU and the drivers for the device. Some drivers are really good (Apogee's are considered some of the best) and can approach FW/TB latency, and some USB drivers are terrible. Almost all interfaces with FW800 ports actually run FW400, because there is absolutely no chance of needing that bandwidth in the audio world. Decisions about what ports and new protocol to use are largely for comparability and convenience. Apple is dropping FW, which is why audio interface manufacturers are switching to TB. But I doubt TB will offer any performance enhancements.

The fact is, no protocol should exhibit bad enough latency to really be noticeable. More realistically, the software has some buffer settings set higher then they should. This accounts for about 100x the latency you'll experience compared to the protocol itself. In DP, go to the Hardware settings window, and turn your buffer down to 256 or below. Switching to TB will make little to no improvement.

[Mrted]

Hello guys,
-I really need a thunderbolt interface for my new macpro fast. The most important gain should be Latency, shouldn't it ? I have Apogee Ensemble and firewire gives a very bad latency with big orchestral sessions or amp simulation plugins.

I think you aren't quite understanding the situation. Latency is only a product of the protocol, bandwidth is another matter. FW400 has no more latency than FW800. And FW should be close to TB in terms of bussing. Couple that with the fact that even 96kHz 24 bit recording, FW400 should be able to handle over 64 tracks at a time. Both FW, TB, and USB3 have internal hardware on the cards that handles all the bussing. USB2 does not, which is why USB2 is an inferior protocol for audio recording. USB relies heavily on the computer's own CPU and the drivers for the device. Some drivers are really good (Apogee's are considered some of the best) and can approach FW/TB latency, and some USB drivers are terrible. Almost all interfaces with FW800 ports actually run FW400, because there is absolutely no chance of needing that bandwidth in the audio world. Decisions about what ports and new protocol to use are largely for comparability and convenience. Apple is dropping FW, which is why audio interface manufacturers are switching to TB. But I doubt TB will offer any performance enhancements.

The fact is, no protocol should exhibit bad enough latency to really be noticeable. More realistically, the software has some buffer settings set higher then they should. This accounts for about 100x the latency you'll experience compared to the protocol itself. In DP, go to the Hardware settings window, and turn your buffer down to 256 or below. Switching to TB will make little to no improvement.

Thanks for your answer. What you describe is pure theorie and should be true. But in practice latency get higher and higher when you work with large library, virtual instruments, plugins and audio tracks at the same time. I had less problem with RME Pcie card compare to Apogee ensemble and I'm not sure Apogee drivers (Maestro 1.9.15) are as good as you say. I think CPU, latency, drives always interact and we have to optimise all of these parameters to get best workflow. If one of the chain is weak, all the chain become weak. I've never liked firewire 400, it has never be as smooth as PCie protocol for audio. Have you ever worked on big session mixing for ex orchestral sections (VSL, Kontakt) + virtual instruments ? it's really easy to put a macpro on his knees and get bad latency quickly...
I might think TB will help in a good way.

[miketownsmotu]

Please check out the following links for more information about RedNet:

http://youtu.be/zq7ZB68X5NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hZtpa7htbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzRMG5aNOkQ

Hope this information helps,

Best Regards,

[mikehalloran]

Are you saying backwards compatibility is not there because it's possible to make a USB3 device is not backwards compatible?

Yes. I am saying that it's possible to wire a USB 3 host connector so that does not support USB 2 and have a chip set that supports USB 3 only.

They are two separate protocols. There is no compatibility. None whatsoever. The connectors and and cable have two sets of wire and terminate separately. If not wired to support both, it won't. It can be wired to support one or the other. Likewise the host chip set needs to support both protocols.

It's not like USB 2 which is backwards compatible with USB 1.1.

[bayswater]

That's confusing.

Yes, USB 3 at its most basic level is entirely different from USB 2 and the two are not mutually compatible. But my understanding is that in practise, a standard USB 3 connector has pins for USB 1 and 2, as well as separate pins for USB 3. That might not be backward (and forward) compatibility in the strictest sense of the words, but from the perspective of a user's experience, it's close enough.

No doubt there will be USB 3 stuff out there that will not work with USB 2 devices, but most of the products I've seen will work with USB 2. So, I can plug USB 2 or 3 drives into my Mini, and I can plug my external USB 3 drives into a USB 2 or 3 connection. I won't get USB 3 speed in either case, but it works.

[HCMarkus]

But in practice latency get higher and higher when you work with large library, virtual instruments, plugins and audio tracks at the same time. Have you ever worked on big session mixing for ex orchestral sections (VSL, Kontakt) + virtual instruments ? it's really easy to put a macpro on his knees and get bad latency quickly....

What you describe sounds more like CPU and Buffer Size issued than interface problems...

[mikehalloran]

What you describe is pure theorie and should be true.

Actually, that's the way it is.

That's confusing.

Yes, USB 3 at its most basic level is entirely different from USB 2 and the two are not mutually compatible. But my understanding is that in practise, a standard USB 3 connector has pins for USB 1 and 2, as well as separate pins for USB 3.

It's not at all confusing except for the fact that both protocols begin with the letters USB. If USB 3 began with different letters, it would be crystal clear.

That might not be backward (and forward) compatibility in the strictest sense of the words, but from the perspective of a user's experience, it's close enough.

And that is where you are making incorrect assumptions. If you believe that every USB 3 port is wired to accept USB 2, you are wrong. There are hubs on the market with USB 3 ports and USB 2 ports that are not compatible with each other. Plug the wrong device in the wrong ports and they don't work. The reason for this is that it's much cheaper to send both protocols down only one pipe (to the host) than to make every port on the hub compatible with both - so that's what they do. If you know that 3 and 2/1.1 are incompatible and terminate differently, then there should be no confusion - failure to pay attention will cause frustration.

[bayswater]

And that is where you are making incorrect assumptions. If you believe that every USB 3 port is wired to accept USB 2, you are wrong. There are hubs on the market with USB 3 ports and USB 2 ports that are not compatible with each other. Plug the wrong device in the wrong ports and they don't work. The reason for this is that it's much cheaper to send both protocols down only one pipe (to the host) than to make every port on the hub compatible with both - so that's what they do. If you know that 3 and 2/1.1 are incompatible and terminate differently, then there should be no confusion - failure to pay attention will cause frustration.

Sure, OK, Caveat Emptor and all that. I don't see how your warning varies from the usual diligence we should exercise. If you buy your stuff in unmarked bin in surplus stores, you'll stuff that won't work for you. If you buy it a places where they know what they're talking about, have products that are properly packaged and labelled, and understand customers' applications, you can get what you need.

[rockitcity]

Most of the FW800 devices actually just run at 400, but have 800 ports for convenience.

Including MOTU

I was bummed out by that "little detail" when I was checking out an 896 MkIII Hybrid...when anything on the buss is running at 400, everything else on the bus (such as external FW drives) slows down too. Doesn't affect audio, but if you leave everything hooked up while doing a backup it takes longer than it would without the interface on line....

This is not true! If your FW 400 device is last in the FW chain, everything up to that point will run at FW 800 speed. But with the 896/828 Mk3 hybrid, you can hook up the interface through USB and keep your FW chain clean at 800 speed throughout. Or, go FW for the interface and thunderbolt for the drives. That promises to be killer when prices come down a bit for TB.

[apanacci]

Thanks for the initial info Prime Mover. I just bought a 828mkIII FW. I was going to buy a TB unit but if there is no difference I will not get it. As long as in the future I by a new Mac I can go to Thunderbolt. MOTU say, s it can not go the other way, TB to FW , thanks again !