new 828x with Thunderbolt...

[williemyers]

no mention of it yet (that I could find) on MOTU's *website, but this month's issue of EM has a full-page (back cover) MOTU ad for the 828x with both Thunderbolt & USB2/3 interfaces. It looks to be pretty much a carbon copy of the 828III Hybrid, except that the Firewire's gone and the Thunderbolt's in it's place...

*=there's a link on the printed ad ("Learn more at motu.com/828x"), but that link is (as of today) dead...

[mdee]

I love my MOTU 828 mk3 Hybrid! BUT... wOw! Awesome!

[NazRat]

http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/828x

[Prime Mover]

I hate to say it... but almost completely useless. I did some calculations a while back and found that the transfer rates of USB3 and Thunderbolt are almost completely ridiculous for audio. In fact, many smaller audio interfaces technically still use USB1.2 protocol, because that's all they need. Most of the FW800 devices actually just run at 400, but have 800 ports for convenience. Audio interfaces tend to only use a fraction of even USB2 or FW800 bandwidth, so USB3 and TB are insane, that's why there's never been a "true" USB3 audio device. The only advantage of some protocols over others is with transmission latency of USB1/2, depending upon the drivers. But USB3, FW, and TB handle this at the bus level, and so are much more efficient anyway. Basically the difference between FW and TB is absolutely NOTHING for audio.

Hate to be a meanie, but that's all this is: convenience. Apple dropped firewire a few years back, so it becomes slightly more convenient to run Thunderbolt for computers newer than 2011. I say only "slightly" because Thunderbolt to Firewire adaptors are really cheap and 100% effective as thunderbolt can run FW800 protocol natively. Likely, that's all this is: a builtin Firewire to Thunderbolt adaptor with the old firewire card still on board.

Sorry to be a negy nelly, but just pointing out the realities here.

On the up side, maybe the prices of used 828mk3s will come down and I'll nab one. My MBP 2011 is Thunderbolt compatible, but my old Mac Pro is not, so I'll stick with Firewire.

[xgman]

Thunderbolt to Firewire adaptors are really cheap and 100% effective as thunderbolt can run FW800 protocol natively. Likely, that's all this is: a builtin Firewire to Thunderbolt adaptor with the old firewire card still on board.

You are probably right.

[FutureLegends]

Yes, although it's nice to see MOTU being early offering a Thunderbolt interface, it's also a bit sad that there doesn't seem to be any other improvements, it's pretty much the same as the original 828mk3 FW. Not that it's a bad interface by any means. But it would have been nice to see more improvements such as more DSP and better onboard effects, ways to monitor with the onboard EQ/Dynamics while recording dry etc.. Maybe also include an HDMI out for connecting dedicated video screen.

Beside, the thunderbolt connector doesn't feel very 'secure' and I tend to gaffer tape it to the MacBook Pro during live shows

[Babz]

Where Thunderbolt offers an advantage, is when you start daisy-chaining devices. For example, my 828mk3 and UAD-2 Satellite alone eat up about 80% of my FireWire bandwidth. It would be nice to be able to add a couple of large hard drives streaming orchestra samples and 4K video, for example. Unfortunately, the 828x has only one Thunderbolt port, so no daisy-chaining, unless you put it at the end of the chain. The single Thunderbolt port is a disappointment for me, esp. since Thunderbolt hubs are so expensive. Still, it could be a great device for the new Mac Pro's, which ship with copious Thunderbolt ports.

Babz

[mikehalloran]

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

Including MOTU

Audio interfaces tend to only use a fraction of even USB2 or FW800 bandwidth, so USB3 and TB are insane, that's why there's never been a "true" USB3

Again true - including this one.

Apple dropped firewire a few years back,

Apple dropped the PPC. Intel never supported FW.

thunderbolt can run FW800 protocol natively

No. Lots more to the FW spec than the small bit of it that passes through the FW-TB adapter. Back to Intel never supporting FW.

The single Thunderbolt port is a disappointment for me, esp. since Thunderbolt hubs are so expensive. Still, it could be a great device for the new Mac Pro's, which ship with copious Thunderbolt ports.

Yea - I am with you on that. It has to be the last device and you can't daisy-chain? What's with that?

Yes, although it's nice to see MOTU being early offering a Thunderbolt interface, it's also a bit sad that there doesn't seem to be any other improvements,

They've joined the club, that's all. UAD, Apogee and Avid have done the same thing - grafted a TB interface onto an existing product.

This doesn't mean that some of us won't want it. The 10 channels of 192Hz analog may be a feature of the current 828mkIIIHybrid but those of us with the 828mkII see it as an upgrade.

a builtin Firewire to Thunderbolt adaptor with the old firewire card still on board.

Interesting thought but it doesn't work that way. MOTU could probably have made TB parallel to FW but FW to TB wouldn't work at all. TB to FW only works because the data is a small part of the spec.

On the up side, maybe the prices of used 828mk3s will come down and I'll nab one. My MBP 2011 is Thunderbolt compatible, but my old Mac Pro is not, so I'll stick with Firewire.

Some places have already dropped the price. 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.

I hate to say it... but almost completely useless. I did some calculations a while back and found that the transfer rates of USB3 and Thunderbolt are almost completely ridiculous for audio.

I will agree that this isn't the TB device that takes advantage of the potential of either TB or USB 3. Neither are any of the others.

I disagree that there is no potential at all. I was hoping that, by sitting on this for three years, MOTU would be announcing some nifty multi-channel AV box with lots of ins and outs, audio and video. I'd even be good with ad-on breakout boxes so that you could tweak it to your needs all over a TB cable. Or a series of modules that you could daisy-chain depending on your needs... whatever... but this ain't it.

[bayswater]

Aside from the possibility of setting up multiple devices and disk on one bus, barely workable on FW and not feasible on USB, there is also the new user to consider. A FW device is just a non starter for new users with new computers. And with all due respect to present company, that's where MOTU's future growth lies. Not with this crowd.

[mikehalloran]

Aside from the possibility of setting up multiple devices and disk on one bus, barely workable on FW and not feasible on USB, there is also the new user to consider. A FW device is just a non starter for new users with new computers. And with all due respect to present company, that's where MOTU's future growth lies. Not with this crowd.

I agree. FW has gone the way of the floppy disk. Yes, you can still get readers for them but Apple moved on long ago. Same with FW.

Only one TB port, though. Still trying to understand that one. Being able to daisy chain the 828x might have made it more attractive a replacement for my 7 year old 828mkIi than the Hybrid. Since whatever I get will have USB plus TB and there's no performance gain, the new price drops on the Hybrid make it the better buy - get 'em while you can.

[EMRR]

TB would mean something on a product with the in/out capacity of the 24I/0.

[bayswater]

48 channels at 96K is still well under the capacity of FW400 and USB 2.

[mikehalloran]

48 channels at 96K is still well under the capacity of FW400 and USB 2.

I'm pretty certain that's correct.

It will be interesting to see if anyone announces hardware that takes advantage of TB or usb 3. Not the whole bandwidth - that would be ridiculous - but 48 channels of 192K analog plus a few banks of optical and some AV I/Os. Perhaps a small master box with available breakout boxes so that you could customize it to your needs.

Maybe 2015? Could happen, right?

[bayswater]

48 channels at 96K is still well under the capacity of FW400 and USB 2.

I'm pretty certain that's correct.

Here are the numbers:

Channels 48
Bit Rate 24
Sample Rate 96000
Duplex 1

Bandwidth 110.6 MHz

FW 800 Limit 550 20.11%
FW 400 Limit 350 31.60%
USB Limit 250 44.24%

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. With the same % overhead as USB 2.0, US 3.0 would do about 2,000 tracks at 24/96. If we get cheap ports and hubs like we have with USB 2.0, it's hard to see the need for TB.

Also consider that USB 3.1 is already being tested. It is backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and is designed for 10G. That would do 3,000 tracks at 24/96. With the bandwidth of two USB 3 ports spread across audio interfaces, VIs, and disk operations, it's apparent that the bottleneck for audio applications is not I/O bus bandwidth, but CPU.

[HCMarkus]

I'v always enjoyed your straight and to the point approach Bays. The above post is a great example... thanks for coming through again!