Yes, most pedantic people believe in their abilities.
Advice On Audio Interface Purchase
- Thread starter norminal
- Start date
I'm told mental midgets aren't endowed.
Something far too big for The Gear Page to handle. The Farce is within some of our own however.
TheTrueZoltan!
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,800
They've gone downhill so much. The politically correct Simpsons just aren't funny, as predicted by Seinfeld.
- Messages
- 1,540
I'm not most people. And you missed the entire point of my post (recommending UA interfaces based on my own personal experience).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,540
- Messages
- 16
C'mon guys. Play nice.
And don't be leaving fingerprints on expensive space hardware in clean room environments.
And don't be leaving fingerprints on expensive space hardware in clean room environments.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,380
It was never just a connector. It's an interface developed by Intel and Apple, which was originally used with its own connector until moving to use the USB-C connector. USB4 is based on Thunderbolt 3. TB4 and TB5 converge with USB4's newer iterations but are not the same.
Most audio interfaces using USB-C are nothing but USB 2.0 because that's enough bandwidth until you start to have a ton of inputs/outputs. The connector just changed from USB-B to C, which is a nice improvement as it allows the connector to take less space and no need to hunt for those damn "printer cables."
But for connecting more mic pres, another audio interface or modeler to a single audio interface, SPDIF/AES/EBU and optical ADAT are still the defacto ways to do it. Adding USB host functionality to chain multiple audio interfaces together seems like it might be ripe for problems like sync and latency issues.
So I don't see those older connections going away, other than makers of audio interfaces not adding them to anything, but their larger, more expensive "pro" models, rather than the "prosumer" market.
I think most here don't use SPDIF for anything but hooking up their favorite modeler digitally to an audio interface. Most modelers on the market are kinda crap at being audio interfaces themselves, with poor support for multiple sample rates, lacking in physical input/output level controls, I/O routing capabilities etc that are fairly standard on even cheaper audio interfaces. I could never perceive a difference hooking up my modelers via analog outs vs SPDIF, but keeping it digital is still technically better.
- Messages
- 1,540
I dunno. Seems more like solo sockpuppet compensation more than anything else.
Personally, I fucking hate the (physical) USB-C connector (whether passing Thunderbolt or USB 3.0+ signals).
Too fucking small & wimpy. Or should I use the douchebag corporate term, "not robust enough".
Last edited:
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,380
I liked Apple's Lightning a bit better honestly but of course that never went anywhere because of their proprietary bollocks.
Anything is better than USB-A/B/Mini/Micro tho.
- Messages
- 1,540
I would think, from a "dingeneer's" point of view, the connector should be, ahem... "robust" enough weight-wise to handle the roughly 1/4" (or whatever it is) thick cable. Either that, or shrink the cable or make it more "rubbery" so that it doesn't "overpower" the connector. Considering "cable torque" or whatever you would call it...
(And yes, I suppose this is another fine example of "that's what she said" - I mean, there's a lot of opportunity here)
- Messages
- 4,432
The $20 behringer u-phoria I grabbed off marketplace seems to work just fine 
Got ya.
I'm not most people. And you missed the entire point of my post (recommending UA interfaces based on my own personal experience).
- Messages
- 2,020
The $20 behringer u-phoria I grabbed off marketplace seems to work just fine
"It was never just a connector. It's an interface developed by Intel and Apple"
Actually, if you want to be technical, it's a protocol.
I think you sell USB-C short there. It can transmit current enough to actually power devices like my MOTU M4. USB-C is not limited to USB 2 speeds, 40 GB(its)PS more like it. Perhaps some cheapo devices internally use it as USB2 data rates.
I'll gladly hook up my Fractal devices to my Mac via USB btw. No need for S/PDIF.
- Messages
- 2,020
Why are Focusrite interfaces USB 2.0 not USB 3.0?
Applies to: Scarlett Range, Clarett USB Range, Clarett+ Range, Vocaster Many customers ask us the question: Why do many manufacturers not produce interfaces that use the USB 3.0 protocol? Bandwidth...
From the link....
Useful Analogy
A good analogy is to think of it as a drainpipe and a tennis ball. The tennis ball is the data, and the width of the pipe signifies available bandwidth. With the drainpipe set at the same angle, letting go of the ball at the top of the drainpipe will see it arrive at the bottom in a given amount of time. That's your latency, the time it takes to go from end to end.
In terms of our analogy, USB 3.0 offers a much wider pipe. This means that it could allow a greater number of tennis balls (more data) to travel down the pipe, but the balls would not travel down the pipe any faster– there is no latency improvement. This is the same when comparing USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 in terms of the way they transfer audio data.
This doesn't mean the higher bandwidth offered by USB 3.0 does not benefit some situations, e.g., for hard drive transfer times it makes a huge difference. However, for our largest channel count USB audio interface, the Scarlett 18i20/Clarett+ 8Pre, USB 2.0 provides more than enough bandwidth to deliver 18 channels of audio inputs and 20 channels of audio outputs simultaneously.
Class 10000 = no gloves
Similar threads
