Jump to content
IGNORED

Thunderbolt interfaces - Purchase advice please - Worth it over USB?


Polytrix

Recommended Posts

Hello amazing people. 

So I'm investing in a new interface and a new desktop PC which I'm hoping to put a thunderbolt card into to so I can use the latest interfaces with thunderbolt. 

I've narrowed down thunderbolt choices to these. I'm still looking at USB2/USB3 options too but I thought I'd look at these first as the ideal options. I suppose I don't know if it's totally worth the investment.

1 - Focusrite Clarett 8 Pre - 8 ins/10 outs.  - £700

2 - Motu 828x thunderbolt and USB2 audio interface - 10ins/12 outs. - £688.80

3 - presonus quantum 2626 thunderbolt 3 audio interface.  - 8ins/14 outs.  - £462

Basically I'm intending to buy an interface with longevity and reliability/next to zero latency. I'm in the middle of choosing a new desktop pc too to match this. I intend to not need to upgrade for like the next 10 years or something. 

Current choice would be the presonus 262 just in terms of affordability but I've heard it's got a shitty digital mixer in comparison to the others. The motu is meant to be complex but obviously has more IO. 

I'd like to avoid focusrite this time round and it seems expensive in terms of what you get but I suppose it's all down to the internals etc. 

What ya reckon? Or just go for USB3 instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got the Clarett 4pre (so USB C rather than Thunderbolt) and if the 8pre is even a tiny upgrade I think you’d be happy.  If you need more IO then you need more IO, but I’m pretty impressed so far (coming from some relatively ancient Apogee gear).  

The other stuff is probably a better value but I don’t think the Clarett range is overpriced for the quality level, either.  I think it’s meant to be cross-shopped with the really pricey Apogee/UA/whatever gear. YMMV of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i only moved up from firewire to USB3 last year. using an RME fireface UFX+  USB3 is really fast. crazy amount of bandwidth. i have no idea how it compares to thunderbolt in bandwidth or latency but i have no complaints.  

the RME drivers are really good. I think i have it set at 64 samples in logic and my computer is from 2010. USB3 can handle a stupid amount of channels. as can USB2. If you're only using 10 or so channels you won't have any problems with bandwidth over USB3 or thunderbolt. the RME UFX+ also has a thunderbolt port on it but i have no thunderbolt port on my computer so it's not relevant. 

I had to add a USB3 card and I emailed RME before i did. they told me which chipset is best for RME hardware. I guess not all USB3 chipsets are created equal. so, make sure you look into the details of the thunderbolt stuff on your new computer.  

I'd read up on the latency specs of thunderbolt vs USB3 at relevant sites of the audio interfaces you're looking at. there may be some benefit one way or the other.  I read something a while back about UA Apollo thunderbolt interfaces being capable of low low latency.. and something about Antelope Orion 32 offering zero latency when connected via HDX (pro tools) or USB3.. it has 32 i/o so zero latency of 64 channels is pretty ridiculous.. but that's more about their drivers and the spec of the interface.

I've heard good things about the newer focusrite interfaces. MOTU is pretty reliable. the difference in AD conversion quality these days becomes smaller once you reach a certain price point. the same AD chips are in a lot of existing converters all over the price range. the differences come in the drivers, the analog front end, the Clocking which is super important, and of course build quality/features. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah basically just going for as low latency as possible and enough I/O so that's why I looked at thunderbolt in the first instance. The amount of IO available on those three options I've listed is pretty ideal. Basically means it's unlikely I'll need to buy a mixing desk as my harware acquistion increases. I don't buy much stuff I've got all I need. I suppose I should also look at USB3 options next as it sounds to me as though the latency although better with thunderbolt is comparably amazing via USB3. Suppose that opens up more options for me anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading about this a year or two ago while looking for a new interface, and my takeaways were:

  • Thunderbolt is an old standard
  • USB-C is referring to the physical shape of the plug, it can be both USB 2 or USB 3
  • There is not much difference between USB 2 and 3 in terms of bandwidth if you are not going to record 20+ tracks at the same time.
  • The branding and standards (Thunderbolt, USB-C, USB 2.0/3.0) are kind of used in a confusing way (to me).
  • There are not many interfaces on the market that are compatible with the new fast standards.

In the end frankly I got tired of trying to make sense of all the different standards and brandings and decided to go for a regular USB2.0 interface (MOTU Track16). I have a pretty good latency and I record/monitor 10-14 tracks simultaneously with roughtly 20-30ms delay. I am happy with that honestly, and probably for my next interface (who knows when) I will get a USB3.0 compatible when all the other brave pioneers have tested this technology for me and all the wrinkles and confusions are gone. ?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.