New Product: MOTU Track 16

by **KarlSutton** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:57 pm

mikehalloran wrote:>It is somehow funny they only included FW400 interface (although using a FW800 connector), not a FW800 interface.<

I don't understand your concern.

No MOTU devices are FW800. Since FW400 is forwards compatible and the bandwidth of FW800 isn't needed, it makes no sense to cripple the functionality and backwards compatibility.

I personally wish they made a true fw800 device so that my firewire chain wouldn't be slowed down to 400 (hard drives) This would be handy when editing HD video & using a good audio interface for monitoring.

by **jamesdunlopmusic** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:09 pm

And it's now on motu.com!

by **steff3** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:39 pm

>> I personally wish they made a true fw800 device so that my firewire chain wouldn't be slowed down to 400 (hard drives) This would be handy when editing HD video & using a good audio interface for monitoring. >>

hmmm, in theory the chain should not be slowed down as long as the FW400 are connected to the end of the chain (which is the only possibility with the track16 anyways I think).

This is what UAudio states for the UAD2 Sat and here:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... -loss.html

http://www.mhsecure.com/technotes/TechN ... N_0010.php

[ I think FW was co-developed by Apple, not by Microsoft .... that might be why it behaves more pro ...

]

so, this should not be a concern.

hope that helps

best

by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:03 am

I was under the impression if the FW devices were on the same buss, they would all default to the slower speed. Is that incorrect?

by **rhythm_kitchen** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:16 am

Firewire like SCSI, the turtle sets the pace.

Interesting timing on this release?

Conference attendees may get a good whiff of AT&T Park.

Enjoy.

by **rhythm_kitchen** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:22 am

USB-3 (hopefully) solves this conundrum:
http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/usb_3_explained.html

With this:
http://www.siig.com/it-products/usb/bay ... t-hub.html

p.s. Maybe I answered my own question. Compatibility. WWDCees - not the pre-game whiff either. Ha.

by **James Steele** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:07 am

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I was under the impression if the FW devices were on the same buss, they would all default to the slower speed. Is that incorrect?

Good question. I should try and look this up because I thought that too, but vaguely remember a discussion in which someone said that was actually urban myth? Hmmmm

by **bayswater** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:27 am

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I was under the impression if the FW devices were on the same buss, they would all default to the slower speed. Is that incorrect?

Hard to say. I read up on this and found a lot of contradictory views. So I tried running a disk speed test. Set up is FW 800 on the iMac over a FW 800 cable to a FW 800 Lacie disk, then a FW 800/400 adaptor cable from the Lacie to the FW 400 port on the MOTU 828 Mk 3.

WIth that setup, I ran the test with no audio playing, and then again with iTunes playing through the 828. Disk speed was slower with the audio playback running. Then I switched the audio out to a USB interface (Lexicon Alpha), and left everything else connected as before. The original disk speed was restored.

The speed with no audio over the bus was a little over 70 MBytes/sec. Accounting for overhead bits this must be nearly 600 Mbits/sec, which I think is close to the real world sustained throughput on a FW800 bus (??). But the lower speed was around 56 MBytes/sec which is faster than 400 Mbits/sec.

So, using the FW400 link slowed things down, but merely having it there didn't. And the slow down didn't take the entire bus down to 400 Mbits as you might expect if the slowest link rules.

by **kgdrum** » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:44 am

It depends on how you route the FireWire devices.

Read this: http://www.mhsecure.com/technotes/TechN ... N_0010.php

by **rhythm_kitchen** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:35 am

There must be some glitch in Firewire 800 for audio. Hopefully SIIG will release a TB expansion box with this chipset, unlike Belkin's revamped unit.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/belk ... ress-dock/

What about a Firewire 800 drive mid stream in this workaround from Avid? Full bandwidth or reduced?
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/FAQ/en207933

Could LaCie be using an older Oxford chipset?

by **steff3** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:00 am

bayswater wrote:Hard to say. I read up on this and found a lot of contradictory views. So I tried running a disk speed test. Set up is FW 800 on the iMac over a FW 800 cable to a FW 800 Lacie disk, then a FW 800/400 adaptor cable from the Lacie to the FW 400 port on the MOTU 828 Mk 3.

WIth that setup, I ran the test with no audio playing, and then again with iTunes playing through the 828. Disk speed was slower with the audio playback running. Then I switched the audio out to a USB interface (Lexicon Alpha), and left everything else connected as before. The original disk speed was restored.

The speed with no audio over the bus was a little over 70 MBytes/sec. Accounting for overhead bits this must be nearly 600 Mbits/sec, which I think is close to the real world sustained throughput on a FW800 bus (??). But the lower speed was around 56 MBytes/sec which is faster than 400 Mbits/sec.

So, using the FW400 link slowed things down, but merely having it there didn't. And the slow down didn't take the entire bus down to 400 Mbits as you might expect if the slowest link rules.

Well, it is not that easy to say with this example, as it is not unlikely that the FW-audio interface reserves some resources - e.g. 8 audio in/out tracks - although you only just need one. For the RME Fireface you can allocate different firewire resources/bandwidth - just analog channels, just digital channels, 8 analog and 8 digital, all, etc. Also the UAD Sat lets you reserve bandwidth - I guess MOTU is doing something along that line.

UAudio and MH Labs say that it is not necessarily the case that the whole bus gets slowed down, if the order is correct. I guess both would not say so and seem to be reliable sources. Of course, there are a multitude of FW chips, so this might influence the results.

best

by **bayswater** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:34 am

Steff3, thanks for that observation. Makes sense. My conclusion was that putting a 400mb device in the chain does not slow down the whole chain despite having read a lot of seemingly authoritative sources saying it does.

The other thing about 400 versus 800 as already mentioned is whether it even matters. Driving every channel in and out on the 828 Mk 3 at 24/48 would in theory use less than half the bandwidth of a FW400 bus, leaving enough to read and write the same channels.

by **wonder** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:52 pm

http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/track16

by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:08 pm

Equally important... $$$$$$$$$$

by **toodamnhip** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:20 pm

Not to spoil the party, but I am not sure what all the fuss is about. When I 1st saw this thread, I thought MOTU finally made an automatable control surface. But this is just a fancier audio in/out system up a step or so from the MK III right?

It is cool, but for those of us who have a MOTU audio interface we are happy with, does this product add anything?
What am I missing?