A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Better bandwidth than USB-2?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 27th 19, 01:01 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

I have a PreSonus Studio 1810. For $100 more, I
could have it's descendant, the 1810c, which, apart
from a couple of tweaks to the software, seems only
to sport the new USB type.

In this case, I assume that the underlying communication
with the computer is the same, only over a USB-C connection.
In other words, would it be safe to say that latency would
be the same on either unit, even though USB 3.0 or C is theoretically
capable of greater throughput which should result in less usable
latency? I mean, did they just put a different plug on the same unit?

And why the apparent lack of USB3.0 devices? Wouldn't it be
a dream to have the extra bandwidth? I look at the prices
once in a while, and it seems as though anything beyond USB2.0,
(Thunderbolt, PCI etc.) runs into the stratosphere pricewise.

So for the hobby user, should I be content with USB2.0 for now or
are there other budget avenues to choose regarding increased throughput?


Thanks,


Tobiah
Ads
  #2  
Old October 27th 19, 02:48 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,076
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

On 10/26/2019 8:01 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> I have a PreSonus Studio 1810.* For $100 more, I
> could have it's descendant, the 1810c, which, apart
> from a couple of tweaks to the software, seems only
> to sport the new USB type.
>
> In this case, I assume that the underlying communication
> with the computer is the same, only over a USB-C connection.
> In other words, would it be safe to say that latency would
> be the same on either unit, even though USB 3.0 or C is theoretically
> capable of greater throughput which should result in less usable
> latency?* I mean, did they just put a different plug on the same unit?


They probably have a different driver for it. Latency comes from a
number of places, and you really don't know what it is until you
actually test it with a signal. Just reading the numbers that the driver
reports is pretty meaningless.

Depending on what you're doing and how you do it, latency can be
important or not. The only thing that's really important is input
monitoring latency - the time it takes for a signal to get from the
microphone to your headphones. If it has a built-in DSP monitor mixer,
and you use it properly, latency through the computer isn't even
involved. If you have to monitor through the computer, these days
latency is mostly dependent on computer speed - the connection between
the interface and the computer is plenty fast enough unless you're
throwing a whole bunch of tracks back and forth.

> And why the apparent lack of USB3.0 devices?* Wouldn't it be
> a dream to have the extra bandwidth?


Not really, unless you really need it. And if you really need it, you'll
probably be using something more "professional" (you'll pardon the
expression) than a PreSonus interface anyway. The real attraction, for
devices like this anyway, is that newer mobile phones have a USB3 port
(sometimes in its USB-C configuration) so you can connect your audio
interface with your phone.

> I look at the prices
> once in a while, and it seems as though anything beyond USB2.0,
> (Thunderbolt, PCI etc.) runs into the stratosphere pricewise.


Thunderbolt has license fees, even for the cables, and that jacks up the
price. PCI is a whole chunk of hardware, and that jacks up the price.
USB is common because it's cheap and it works for most users in normal
circumstances.

> So for the hobby user, should I be content with USB2.0


Yup. I haven't had a new interface in here for test/review in a few
years, but using the built-in DSP mixer in a first generation Focusrite
Scarlett interface with USB 2, I was measuring input monitor latency
around a few tenths of a millisecond.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #3  
Old October 27th 19, 05:31 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,543
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

On 27/10/2019 1:01 pm, Tobiah wrote:
> I have a PreSonus Studio 1810.* For $100 more, I
> could have it's descendant, the 1810c, which, apart
> from a couple of tweaks to the software, seems only
> to sport the new USB type.
>
> In this case, I assume that the underlying communication
> with the computer is the same, only over a USB-C connection.
> In other words, would it be safe to say that latency would
> be the same on either unit, even though USB 3.0 or C is theoretically
> capable of greater throughput which should result in less usable
> latency?* I mean, did they just put a different plug on the same unit?
>
> And why the apparent lack of USB3.0 devices?* Wouldn't it be
> a dream to have the extra bandwidth?* I look at the prices
> once in a while, and it seems as though anything beyond USB2.0,
> (Thunderbolt, PCI etc.) runs into the stratosphere pricewise.
>
> So for the hobby user, should I be content with USB2.0 for now or
> are there other budget avenues to choose regarding increased throughput?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Tobiah



Isn't USB-C simply the connector ? Or does USB3 stipulate that is
carries USB3 signals ?

geoff
  #4  
Old October 27th 19, 12:48 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,076
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

On 10/27/2019 12:31 AM, geoff wrote:
> Isn't USB-C simply the connector ? Or does USB3 stipulate that is
> carries USB3 signals ?


USB-C is the connector, but it's used for several things - USB3, USB2,
and occasionally Thunderbolt. Maybe others. You can never be sure what
you're plugging in to unless you read the instructions.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #5  
Old October 27th 19, 01:59 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,649
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>I have a PreSonus Studio 1810. For $100 more, I
>could have it's descendant, the 1810c, which, apart
>from a couple of tweaks to the software, seems only
>to sport the new USB type.
>
>In this case, I assume that the underlying communication
>with the computer is the same, only over a USB-C connection.
>In other words, would it be safe to say that latency would
>be the same on either unit, even though USB 3.0 or C is theoretically
>capable of greater throughput which should result in less usable
>latency? I mean, did they just put a different plug on the same unit?


More bandwidth doesn't mean lower latency. Unless your buss is fully
loaded, you won't get any less latency. But what you will get is the
ability to put more devices on one hub, and the ability to not degrade
performance of high speed devices on the same hub.

>And why the apparent lack of USB3.0 devices? Wouldn't it be
>a dream to have the extra bandwidth? I look at the prices
>once in a while, and it seems as though anything beyond USB2.0,
>(Thunderbolt, PCI etc.) runs into the stratosphere pricewise.


Just about everything that uses a lot of bandwidth is available now with
a USB3 interface, and that basically means disks and video devices. Most
other things don't really need the extra capacity.

The newer followon to USB3 is going to have dedicated bandwidth devices
with guaranteed realtime performance the way firewire does, and that will
be a big deal for audio applications.

>So for the hobby user, should I be content with USB2.0 for now or
>are there other budget avenues to choose regarding increased throughput?


What do you want increased throughput for? For disks, USB3 is a considerable
performance win.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #6  
Old October 28th 19, 08:50 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?


> What do you want increased throughput for? For disks, USB3 is a considerable
> performance win.
> --scott


I use synths and samplers, and sometimes monitor a guitar through
a VST effect, etc. That's what the emphasis on latency is all about.
When I can, I use the hardware monitor on the interface.

I just thought that if the hose was pushing water a lot faster (USB3)
then the round trip would be faster. It sounds like you guys are saying
that USB2.0 is fine, and that the latency comes from the CPU.


Tobiah


  #7  
Old October 28th 19, 09:06 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,658
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

On 28/10/2019 19:50, Tobiah wrote:

> I use synths and samplers, and sometimes monitor a guitar through
> a VST effect, etc. That's what the emphasis on latency is all about.
> When I can, I use the hardware monitor on the interface.
>
> I just thought that if the hose was pushing water a lot faster (USB3)
> then the round trip would be faster. It sounds like you guys are saying
> that USB2.0 is fine, and that the latency comes from the CPU.
>

The latency comes from a lot of things, starting with the USB driver and
the handshaking protocol between the chip on the motherboard and the
device being connected when they start exchanging data.

Then there is the delay between the data being accepted and hitting the
memory, which depends on the quality of the software, the amount of RAM,
how busy the CPU and, on some systems, the Graphics Processing Unit are.

The main advantage of USB 3 is that it deals better than USB2 with large
files and streaming data.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #8  
Old October 28th 19, 09:15 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,649
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>> What do you want increased throughput for? For disks, USB3 is a considerable
>> performance win.
>> --scott

>
>I use synths and samplers, and sometimes monitor a guitar through
>a VST effect, etc. That's what the emphasis on latency is all about.
>When I can, I use the hardware monitor on the interface.
>
>I just thought that if the hose was pushing water a lot faster (USB3)
>then the round trip would be faster. It sounds like you guys are saying
>that USB2.0 is fine, and that the latency comes from the CPU.
>
>
>Tobiah
>
>



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9  
Old October 28th 19, 10:42 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,543
Default Better bandwidth than USB-2?

On 29/10/2019 8:50 am, Tobiah wrote:
>
>> What do you want increased throughput for?* For disks, USB3 is a
>> considerable
>> performance win.
>> --scott

>
> I use synths and samplers, and sometimes monitor a guitar through
> a VST effect, etc.* That's what the emphasis on latency is all about.
> When I can, I use the hardware monitor on the interface.
>
> I just thought that if the hose was pushing water a lot faster (USB3)
> then the round trip would be faster.* It sounds like you guys are saying
> that USB2.0 is fine, and that the latency comes from the CPU.


Not so much the CPU , unless severely lacking balls. More the OS,
driver, and application.

USB-whatever starts to get messy if you start loading more devices onto
a bus/controller though (but who does that anyway ?).

geoff
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Limited Bandwidth west Vacuum Tubes 61 April 11th 07 08:08 AM
Sound cards real bandwidth katzenjammer Tech 4 November 10th 06 09:18 PM
Bandwidth and Frequency response Chelvam High End Audio 7 June 15th 04 12:38 AM
Constant bandwidth TRF circuit John Byrns Vacuum Tubes 7 June 14th 04 02:00 AM
Who hogs bandwidth on RAT? Choky Vacuum Tubes 3 October 17th 03 12:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.