Thunderbolt Interfaces

[bayswater]

I'm sure everyone has seen the blurbs about the new Apollo 2X6 with a Thunderbolt only interface.

Zoom has one too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... audio.html

I was skeptical about thunderbolt becoming widespread because it's basically unnecessary, and because USB 3 is available. But it looks like it's happening.

[mikehalloran]

I notice that there is very little noise about TB at NAMM.

Crickets...

[Shooshie]

I notice that there is very little noise about TB at NAMM.

Crickets...

My guess is that the hardware community is not too happy about it. Anyone whose products are compromised by Thunderbolt has reason to be miffed. If it's Apple-specific hardware, then they're holding "lame-duck" boxes. They are already obsolete! They can continue to sell them to owners of older Macs, but not the new ones. As the market inevitably switches to the new Macs, those old devices become wasted inventory.

Some just need to write new drivers, but Mavericks seems to be a moving target, unfinished and unreliable, so it's kind of hard to write a fail-proof driver when the OS itself is not right.

It's a bad time to sell hardware for the Mac. Or a good time, if you're ready like MOTU.

Shoosh

[mhschmieder]

Surprised to read this interpretation, as there are at least eight new high-profile Thunderbolt interfaces at all price points, and I get several emails a day reminding me of all the new ones.

[Shooshie]

Surprised to read this interpretation, as there are at least eight new high-profile Thunderbolt interfaces at all price points, and I get several emails a day reminding me of all the new ones.

Ah, no reason to be surprised. It's just indicative of my ignorance on the matter. I had not seen them, and I was under the impression that there is a lot of hardware out there which has not been updated for use with Thunderbolt. Anything that previously plugged into Firewire or PCI now must be revised. If those 8 interfaces represent a groundswell of updates and revisions, then I stand corrected. Developers have had plenty of warning that Thunderbolt was coming, but the spec did change at least once or twice. First, it was an optical protocol, then electrical. The original Thunderbolt was too slow, so they delayed including it in the Mac Pro until it was doubled (or more) in speed. Hardware manufacturers have at best had a moving target. Now that it's here, I suppose they are getting on board as quickly as possible, but I've read in threads in this forum about devices that won't be upgraded to work with Thunderbolt. That led me to speculate that there are probably a lot of manufacturers out there who wish this would just go away, or else they wish it had been a smoother and more direct change without the delays and protocol changes. But I'm the first to admit that it's just idle speculation based on glimpses of posts in threads that I skimmed, because they didn't seem to concern me. Seemed logical, but if there are lots of hardware devices available, then maybe the facts say otherwise.

Shoosh

[mhschmieder]

No, I just saw it as a repeat of a topic from a year or so ago where I kept getting pressured to reveal insider information to prove that Thunderbolt is viable. I have no horse in this race as I have no need for Thunderbolt; I'm just reporting what I see in the industry both from public announcements and what I'm privy to for up to a year from formal release.

I think the whole nature of the game has changed in the intervening time, as the push now is on hardware, controllers, hooking up to mobile devices, phones, pads, and the like. Again, I have no horse in that race as I do not plan to ever own a mobile device; I treasure the rare moments that I get away from a backlit screen and am not about to adopt the 24/7 on-line lifestyle. On the train, I catch up with reviewing notes, reading articles, books, etc., or just watching the scenery. But I am quite aware that the future of interfaces is tied more into how things connect to tablets than to desktop computers, whatever that ends up meaning.

[Babz]

Kinda puts a nice twist on my 828mk3 and UAD-2 Satellite that I bought less than 6 months ago, because I couldn't afford Apollo.

Seems like all of these new devices are single-port thunderbolt. What the world needs now is an affordableThunderbolt hub!

And how ironic that all these new TB-1 devices are just now making it to the market as TB-2 is being rolled out. One of the predictions of Moore's Law is that the exponential growth in the pace of technological advancement will eventually reach the point where new technology is obsolete the moment it is invented.

All part of the March of Folly of technology. Resistance is futile. Welcome, my son. Welcome to the Singularity.

[daniel.sneed]

Could be Uli Behringer pointing to the right direction ?
X-32 comes with a removable interface card. Mine is actually usb2. I heard about another which is usb2/FW.
I'll just have to change the card to keep with future standards.
Maybe Thunderbolt, if any comes up.

[mikehalloran]

What does the Zoom, Behringer, 828x, AVID, Apogee or any of the others offer that cannot be done over USB 2 (or FW if that was a choice on an old version)?

Not a damned thing.

Are any of them faster?

No.

Higher bandwidth?

Still no.

What, if any, are the advantages?

If you have a lot of them hooked up via TB, there is the potential for less latency than a lot hooked up by usb. For those that were FW before, no TB-FW adapter (actually, that's pretty good by itself).

Anything else?

Nope.

Why dd MOTU make the 828x with only one TB port so that it can't be daisy-chained like the 828mkIII (via FW)?

To hit a price point. That additional TB port would have added $200 or more.

How do you know this?

I asked everybody when I was at NAMM.

[mikehalloran]

If it's Apple-specific hardware, then they're holding "lame-duck" boxes.

TB is not Apple specific. True, only Dell and a couple of others are using the Intel chip set. It will be interesting to see if this changes.

[bayswater]

That additional TB port would have added $200 or more.

I was wondering about this. The new UAD 2 channel TB interface cost $699. IIRC the TB card add-on for the larger UAD TB interface was around $499. The Zoom with one TB port is $399. If these interfaces are dragging $200 along for each TB port, maybe a longer wait is in order, although it makes the new UAD looks like a very good deal.

[mikehalloran]

If one goes into the WayBack Machine (many old posts here), you may remember that the world was waiting for Intel to release affordable TB chip sets. At $200/port street, you can make your own mind on that one.