Mac...thunderbolt or firewire?

spark240

Is there one better than the other to connect my presonus interface?

monquixote

Thunderbolt is much higher bandwidth.

Firewire is on the way out, but I always found it very reliable kit.

Drew_TNBD

Thunderbolt. Firewire is as good as dead.

ecc83

spark240 said:

Is there one better than the other to connect my presonus interface?

No, both protocols have more than enough capability (in the case of TB it could run more mic channels than most people could afford mics for!). In fact even the lowly USB 1.1 could run 2 mics, SPDIF and MIDI!

Firewire ports are certainly all but gone on new machines but there is an adaptor (albeit a pricey one!) for TBolt so legacy FW kit should be catered for (not sure how the TI chipset sensitivity is resolved tho?).

There is to my mind, some double think going on re USB 3.0 interfaces (well the lack of them!) When asked "why no 3.0 AIs? The answer given is that there is no need for the increased bandwidth over USB 2.0. Why then do TB interfaces exist when TB is TWICE the speed of even USB 3.0? Why was there ever a Firewire 800 interface?

Dave. 

Deijavoo

My Apogee Duet uses firewire and I'm pretty happy with it. I would like to connect loads of shit to my TB port but haven't had the need yet.

digitalscream

ecc83 said:

There is to my mind, some double think going on re USB 3.0 interfaces (well the lack of them!) When asked "why no 3.0 AIs? The answer given is that there is no need for the increased bandwidth over USB 2.0. Why then do TB interfaces exist when TB is TWICE the speed of even USB 3.0? Why was there ever a Firewire 800 interface?

Dave. 

Because that bandwidth isn't exclusively for the audio interface. In fact, the topology for all those technologies involves sharing the bandwidth between all devices on a given port (and even the physical ports may be connected together internally - a lot of motherboards have several USB ports which are actually connected to a single hub internally).

Lightning/Thunderbolt, for example, can be used to run displays - that takes a shitload of bandwidth, far more than audio. An audio interface you put in the chain won't use that much bandwidth, but it'll still have to share it with a display (or two, or three etc). Of course, the smart thing to do is to put the interface on a chain of its own, but at least you have the option.

spark240

mmm...so seeing as a FW cable is cheap, I will try this route first.

Thanks for the info.

spark240

Well...the cheap cable doesn't work !  Not even a flicker.

Next step...better lead.

ecc83

digitalscream said:

ecc83 said:

There is to my mind, some double think going on re USB 3.0 interfaces (well the lack of them!) When asked "why no 3.0 AIs? The answer given is that there is no need for the increased bandwidth over USB 2.0. Why then do TB interfaces exist when TB is TWICE the speed of even USB 3.0? Why was there ever a Firewire 800 interface?

Dave. 

Because that bandwidth isn't exclusively for the audio interface. In fact, the topology for all those technologies involves sharing the bandwidth between all devices on a given port (and even the physical ports may be connected together internally - a lot of motherboards have several USB ports which are actually connected to a single hub internally).

Lightning/Thunderbolt, for example, can be used to run displays - that takes a shitload of bandwidth, far more than audio. An audio interface you put in the chain won't use that much bandwidth, but it'll still have to share it with a display (or two, or three etc). Of course, the smart thing to do is to put the interface on a chain of its own, but at least you have the option.

Sorry DS, not my point at all. It is said that we don't "need" USB 3,0 interfaces because they have TOO MUCH i.e. redundant bandwidth!  My question therefore is "why are they making TBolt AI and before that FW 800"?

I agree about the resource sharing, always better to give a USB 2.0 its own port and not use the other one of the pair. Even better (which I have done) is fit a dedicated PCI/PCIe USB card. I have also BTW used a USB 3.0 PCI e card for an NI KA6 and an 8i6 and all seems good.

Even if you take the vastly greater speed out of the equation, USB 3 AIs would still be better because of the extra 400mA of juice available. Might at last see bus powered AIs with decently pokey headphone amps!

Dave.

digitalscream

ecc83 said:

Sorry DS, not my point at all. It is said that we don't "need" USB 3,0 interfaces because they have TOO MUCH i.e. redundant bandwidth!  My question therefore is "why are they making TBolt AI and before that FW 800"?

I thought I answered that question...? USB 3.0 root hubs and Thunderbolt/Lightning endpoints (and Firewire before that) are expensive, so you won't get many of them on a motherboard. Therefore all devices are likely to be sharing bandwidth with something else (which itself may well be using a shitload of bandwidth). That's why these devices need to be compatible. It's the same as FW800 - Firewire bandwidth was always shared between everything in the chain.

ecc83

digitalscream said:

ecc83 said:

Sorry DS, not my point at all. It is said that we don't "need" USB 3,0 interfaces because they have TOO MUCH i.e. redundant bandwidth!  My question therefore is "why are they making TBolt AI and before that FW 800"?

I thought I answered that question...? USB 3.0 root hubs and Thunderbolt/Lightning endpoints (and Firewire before that) are expensive, so you won't get many of them on a motherboard. Therefore all devices are likely to be sharing bandwidth with something else (which itself may well be using a shitload of bandwidth). That's why these devices need to be compatible. It's the same as FW800 - Firewire bandwidth was always shared between everything in the chain.

Sorry mate! Maybe I am just thick! What I don't understand is the absence of any USB 3.0 interfaces?

Wherever I have asked I have been told it is because the extra bandwidth is not needed, overkill if you will.

IF that is so why then is it not the case for the even more powerful TBolt and legacy FW800?

Dave.

spark240

Anyhow....just getting back to the original Q.

I now have the original cheap FW cable but I forgot to install Universal Control for Mac, Now this all works !

I do however still have an issue, on playback, it stops now and again and the cpu meter goes red, even thought it only shows 15%.

I could understand this with my old laptop, but not with this spec Mac 2.3G, i7, 16G Ram.

any clues?

spark240

A little research has so far proven that it's almost certainly the FireWire cable causing my problem, I'm getting a new Lindy cable this week...to be continued.

spark240

New cable arrived !

And all comms seems to be good, ....lesson....buy good quality comms cables .

darcym

there are no real thunderbolt interfaces - all the interfaces require thunderbolt to firewire converters, in which case you may as well just buy firewire, as that is natively supported where as the ones with the down step converter in can have problems with daws

darcym

having said that - I've just now upgraded my Digidesign Rack 003 to a true thunderbolt interface, and wow what a jump

spark240

In what sense?

darcym

I upgraded to a good quality thunderbolt device, the latency is pretty much nothing, under 1ms, the preamps on this device are much better than the ones on the 003, it's 1u rather than 2, the settings are digital so you don't have to worry about knocking dials, it's just a huge jump forward on pretty much every level

ecc83

Presonus and Roland now have "conventional" USB 3.0 interfaces out. These are high track count/top end devices but maybe we shall now see the technology move down to us lesser mortals?

Dave.

ecc83

Ooops!

Tascam NOT Roland! Mind you we can always hope?

Dave.

Nerine

There's lots of Thunderbolt interfaces.
My PTHD rig runs on Thunderbolt.