Audio Drivers: Fact vs Myth???

[JSmith1234567]

I have been looking at MOTU's new Thunderbolt audio interfaces.

I have also looked at the interfaces from RME and Apogee.

It seems to be some long-repeated internet fact/myth that RME and Apogee have "legendary low-latency drivers".

This seems to be one of those things that people keep repeating because they read it somewhere.

Can anyone weigh-in from actual real experience on the new round of Thunderbolt interfaces and their respective drivers concerning actual performance and latency?

Thanks very much!

[Shooshie]

I have been looking at MOTU's new Thunderbolt audio interfaces.

I have also looked at the interfaces from RME and Apogee.

It seems to be some long-repeated internet fact/myth that RME and Apogee have "legendary low-latency drivers".

This seems to be one of those things that people keep repeating because they read it somewhere.

Can anyone weigh-in from actual real experience on the new round of Thunderbolt interfaces and their respective drivers concerning actual performance and latency?

Thanks very much!

No experience with T-Bolt here. But latency is always relative. There's no such thing as zero-latency, yet MOTU has used that phrase to describe its interfaces for over 15 years. Even light has latency. For example, the light leaving my monitor travels about 4.5 inches during one cycle of my CPU.

With CueMix, you can achieve near-zero latency monitoring with MOTU boxes. As for the "legendary" low latency of Apogee, et-al, I really don't know anything about that. I guess the legend hasn't reached me.

But if you want to spend a day of very interesting reading, go to MOTU's site and look up their new AVB Networking boxes:

• 1248
  8M
  16A
  24Ai
  24Ao
  Monitor 8
  828x
  MOTU AVB Switch

I don't have to try them to be convinced that these comprise a VERY low-latency network. The features of these boxes and the network in which they operate are astounding. The biggest question that should affect anyone is which one(s) you need for your own operation, and how do you need to implement it?

I think it's for most of the industry to catch up to MOTU, now, though some small companies have been creating similar networks of audio gear for industrial applications, as in various Las Vegas venues like Cirque's "O" show, since before the year 2000. I think this whole AVB network thing probably is an evolutionary result of that kind of development. (just guessing; I haven't researched it)

So, its not a question of "does this work?" or "is it really low latency?" The answer to both questions is "yes." The question is "which of these boxes do I need?" It's all good.

Shooshie

[HCMarkus]

Here's an easy view comparison that people might find helpful for the 1248 against the highest performing alternative at the 3 most common sample rates.

EnsembleTB___________MOTU 1248

32 buffer

44.k:__2.86ms___________3ms
48k:__2.63ms___________2.8ms
96k:__1.10ms___________1.4ms

64 buffer

44.k:__4.31ms___________4.5ms
48k:__3.96ms___________4.2ms
96k:__1.77ms___________2.1ms

128 buffer

44.k:__7.21ms___________7.4ms
48k:__6.63ms___________6.8ms
96k:__3.10ms___________3.4ms


AFAIK these two devices are thunderbolt's top two in the latency department. And for me, the difference of 5-10% is not enough to cause any envy.
__________________
Trevor Masterson

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10622395-post835.html

Lots of great discussion at this tread at GS:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... t=motu+avb

[Shooshie]

That's a great chart! Thanks for posting it here. The results are very impressive. I'd like to know the comparative prices of those two boxes. Like the compiler of it, I'm impressed with the numbers on both sides of the chart and would never choose one box over the other based on such minute differences.

Shooshie