So you'd think Apples were the only fruit in town.  Anyone else pissed off about the lack of USB3 or PC friendly highest quality ADDA offerings?  I'm still using a Lynx L22, which I can not praise enough about.  Worked all these years through many, many MS upgrades.  But now what?  I can purchase and install a thunderbolt card but really?  Really?  Why aren't we worthy? 
 

Uhh... the new Intel processors and boards support thunderbolt.
 
Older ones will not because it's a hardware limitation.

Drivers have to be approved by both Apple and Intel. I talked with two prominent interface manufacturers, who said Apple drags their feet. They've been waiting/wanting to do Windows Thunderbolt for a loooooong time. 
 
Meanwhile, there are excellent USB 3.0 options. The TASCAM US-20x20 gives exceptional bang for the buck (I reviewed it in the Manchester release eZine), and I'm currently doing a Harmony Central Pro Review on the high-end, Windows-only Apollo Twin USB 3.0 from Universal Audio. I think you'll find post #8 particularly interesting (of course, I'm testing with SONAR).

xxrich
So you'd think Apples were the only fruit in town.  Anyone else pissed off about the lack of USB3 or PC friendly highest quality ADDA offerings?  I'm still using a Lynx L22, which I can not praise enough about.  Worked all these years through many, many MS upgrades.  But now what?  I can purchase and install a thunderbolt card but really?  Really?  Why aren't we worthy? 

Several things:
Thunderbolt provides access to the PCIe bus (nothing more... nothing less).
On PC, we still have PCIe slots.
 
Thunderbolt peripherals are extremely expensive.
ie: A 1TB external HD is $200.  A 3-bay empty external Thunderbolt-1 enclosure is ~$300.
 
The reason Apple is pushing Thunderbolt so hard; there's no other way to access the PCIe bus on *any* current generation Mac (MacBook/Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro).
 
We now have "PCIe via Thunderbolt" support from Microsoft:
Microsoft jumped ahead to support Thunderbolt-3 (Mac uses Thunderbolt-2).
You have to be running one of the latest Z170x or X99p motherboards that support Thunderbolt-3 via USB-C port... and you have to be running Win10.
 
Audio Interfaces:
All current Thunderbolt audio interfaces are Thunderbolt-2.
The only audio interface that currently has "PCIe via Thunderbolt" drivers (and they're early public beta) is the MOTU AVB series.
If you have one of the latest Z170x or X99p motherboards (TB-3 support via USB-C port), you'll need a USB-C to Thunderbolt-2 adapter (about $80).  These just hit the streets May 16th... and they're out of stock pretty much everywhere.
 
Microsoft claims that Thunderbolt-3 support should be backward compatible with Thunderbolt-2 and Thunderbolt-1... but they don't guarantee it.
 
Thunderbolt-2 AIC:
Some Z97 and X99 motherboard have Thunderbolt-2 Add-In-Cards (AIC).
These use an older Thunderbolt-2 controller... which does not have "PCIe via Thunderbolt" support from Microsoft.
IOW, These AIC cards won't provide "PCIe via Thunderbolt".
They can be used with the older UA Apollo series (which runs "Firewire protocol over Thunderbolt").
"Firewire protocol over Thunderbolt" does not provide the bandwidth advantage of "PCIe via Thunderbolt".
 
 
Thus far, I've not seen any USB-3 audio interface that offers lower round-trip latency than the best USB-2 units (RME).
Someone on the forum claimed that the new Zoom USB-3 units do... but they're one of the few series of audio interfaces I've not used (can't confirm).
 
I believe MOTU's new public-beta driver for the AVB series also allows setting the ASIO buffer size down to 16-samples when connected via USB.  I don't know if this ability will be left in the release version of the driver.
The MOTU AVB series of audio interfaces are great performers (fidelity and low round-trip latency).
 
 

As technology marches on, I go from tech rich at the time I upgrade my little studio PC, to tech poor over the course of three or four years. I chose a Z170 TH approved board that also supports AVB and USB3 this time. That said, it's going to be a while before TSN might be adopted. AND I am one of those waiting for a TH3 to TH2 adaptor so that I can use my thunderbolt ready Motu audio converter.

I understand your frustration, we are in a world driven by commerce along with multiple providers supporting that commerce with a finite set of resources. I suspect if they all had the perfect view of the future, time to market for technology shifts like ThunderBolt 3 would collapse.

Jim Roseberry
...Thus far, I've not seen any USB-3 audio interface that offers lower round-trip latency than the best USB-2 units (RME).
Someone on the forum claimed that the new Zoom USB-3 units do... but they're one of the few series of audio interfaces I've not used (can't confirm).

I believe that someone is me :)
 
If anyone wants proof that the Zoom UAC-2 can achieve even lower* latency than RME on USB3, no need to take my word for it; fortunately a few people/websites have tested it with tools such as Centrance and/or Oblique RTL utilities. Below I've included links to a Russian website testing in-depth the UAC-2 (and talking about the UAC-8 and other Zoom interfaces) as well as a link to my own tests of my UAC-2 units. On the Russian website, you'll see the UAC-2 being tested with 24 buffer samples @ 44.1khz (3.6ms RTL) and 32 samples @ 96Khz (2.2ms). Note that they also talk about the TAC-2, the ThunderBolt version of the UAC-2, but the actual Centrance tests were all done on the UAC-2.
 
Russian test (translated by google)
https://translate.google....ces%2Fzoom-uac-2.shtml
 
My test (including other interfaces I tested at the same time)
http://forum.cockos.com/s...44672&postcount=39
 
*As for the Zoom having lower RTL than RME's, I've just learned that the new BabyFace Pro at 48 samples @ 44.1Khz also achieves ~ 3.6ms RTL (something AFAICT no other RME can currently achieve on USB 2), so it's the same RTL as the UAC-2, but only at 44.1Khz. Because as soon as you raise sample rate, while the Zoom can still use relatively very low buffer size (32spl even at 192Khz), the BFP must use proportionally higher buffer size, therefore allowing the UAC-2 to achieve lower latency than the BFP. For example, at 32spl/96Khz the UAC-2 achieves 2.2ms RTL while the BFP with its minimum buffer size of 96 samples can "only" achieve ~ 3.2 ms. At 192Khz, the difference between the two gets even wider. Personally, on my 2nd gen  i7 notebook, I'm able to achieve usable (click free) RTL of 1.5ms at 64 samples @ 192Khz with 2 VSTs (Kontakt an TH3). If I had a more powerful PC with an Intell USB3 controller, I most likely could use 32 samples @ 192Khz for an amazingly low 1.1ms RTL (some other users already achieve that). That is getting very close to PCI-E/TB performance.
 
Another important factor is that the UAC-2 is ~3 times less expensive than the BFP (250$ vs 750$) However, having said that, if money was no object, I would also get the BFP because according to those people who have tried both units, the BFP can play more VSTs before "crapping" out, which is always a good thing when working on complex projects with tons of VSTs. But for the money and with a low to mid-range load, the UAC-2 is currently the RTL champ.
 
Chuck

I agree, USB 3 was out first and ignored.....and almost still is. Not many PCs offer Thunderbolt, unless it is a gaming PC. I'm not about to buy another PC, I just built one with USB3 ports

chuckywalk
However, having said that, if money was no object, I would also get the BFP because according to those people who have tried both units, the BFP can play more VSTs before "crapping" out, which is always a good thing when working on complex projects with tons of VSTs. But for the money and with a low to mid-range load, the UAC-2 is currently the RTL champ.
 

Hi Chuck,
 
Thanks for chiming in (sorry I couldn't remember your name).  
 
FWIW, The Behringer X32 USB audio drivers will let you set absurdly low buffer sizes.
If memory serves, it could go down as low as 1.2ms total round-trip latency at 44.1k
BUT... it couldn't play audio cleanly/reliably (under substantial loads) until you were at ~10ms.
Behringer can claim ridiculously low round-trip latency... but under real-world conditions (substantial loads) it was nowhere close to RME performance.
 
RME is expensive, but they're the pinnacle of low-latency performance. 
 

Jim Roseberry
...FWIW, The Behringer X32 USB audio drivers will let you set absurdly low buffer sizes.
If memory serves, it could go down as low as 1.2ms total round-trip latency at 44.1k
BUT... it couldn't play audio cleanly/reliably (under substantial loads) until you were at ~10ms.
Behringer can claim ridiculously low round-trip latency... but under real-world conditions (substantial loads) it was nowhere close to RME performance.
 
RME is expensive, but they're the pinnacle of low-latency performance.

Hi Jim
 
Totally agree about the need for audio interfaces to actually be "usable" at the latency they claim to achieve, which the Zoom does, just not with a VST load as substantial as with the RMEs. That's why in my post above I said "I'm able to achieve usable (click free) RTL of 1.5ms at 64 samples @ 192Khz with 2 VSTs (Kontakt an TH3)". Like you said, often manufacturers will claim "very low latency" when it's actually not usable, even with light loads (i.e. Behringer X32 at minimum settings). One thing I would love to see is the UAC-2 being tested by TAFKAT on GearSlutz and see what kind of Low Latency Performance the Zoom can achieve. At 44.1/48Khz I believe it would be high, but not quite as high as RME. At higher sampling rates however, the RME simply can't match because RME "scale up" their buffer settings, unlike the ZOOM.
 
The only caveat regarding the Zoom is that it is relatively sensitive to the USB controller it's being connected to (like in the past with FireWire controller chipsets) My PC has a Renesa USB3 controller and works reliably with the Zoom but not at 192Khz /32 samples, I must use 64 samples at 192Khz. Zoom only guaranties performance with Intel USB3 controllers, so definitely YMMV.
 
So if a user is in a situation where he doesn't need his interface to work with very heavy loads, such as a guitarist playing live and using his interface to host his favorite AmpSims, or a piano player playing live with his favorite Piano library (i.o.w. any live setup where only a few instruments are being played by the interface), nothing on USB beats the Zoom (yet) because it can use such low (usable) buffer setting at high sample rates. I can tell you that being able to play my guitar with my favorite AmpSims (S-Gear, TH3, AT3) at 2.2ms RTL (96Khz/32buffer) is just pure joy . BTW, with AmpSims, AFAICT only Overloud TH2/TH3 can work reliably at 192Khz (1.1~1.5ms RTL) because other AmpSims don't include the IR Cab samples for anything higher than 96Khz and if you try to use them at 192Khz, they turn off their Cab simulation so they sound like total s**t!. However Piano VST usually can works at 192K and if your PC is powerful enough and has an Intel USB3 controller, at 192K/32spl the Zoom can achieve as low as 1.1ms RTL totally reliably (according to users on GearSlutz). That is some crazy low RTL!
 
So my current advice for the best "usable" USB audio interface (irrespective of price) would depend on what you intend to do with it:
- All around work with large orchestral libraries with tons of channel and EFX at relatively very low latency (i.e. ~ 5ms): RME
- Musician playing live guitar/keyboard/e-drummer wanting the absolute lowest latency possible (1.1ms ~ 2.2ms depending on their PC specs): ZOOM UAC series
 
Jim, I know you play live so depending on your setup needs, the Zoom could be very useful to you. If you ever have the chance to test it, please report back your results.
 
Sorry for the big OT post Oh and on that subject (TB), my next PC build will use the latest motherboard (Z170x or X99p) with ThunderBolt 3 through USB-C. I'm just waiting a bit more to see what kind of performance we will actually get on Windows and I really hope it's better than the Zoom. I'm also very excited by MOTU Windows TB3 driver for their AVB series. Finally we should get back the audio performance we used to have on the PCI bus 10 years ago!
 
Chuck

xxrich
So you'd think Apples were the only fruit in town.  Anyone else pissed off about the lack of USB3 or PC friendly highest quality ADDA offerings?  I'm still using a Lynx L22, which I can not praise enough about.  Worked all these years through many, many MS upgrades.  But now what?  I can purchase and install a thunderbolt card but really?  Really?  Why aren't we worthy? 
 

In addition to those mentioned above by Anderton, RME now has the UFX+, which is USB 3.0 (and Thunderbolt).