Holy transfer rates!!  I just ran a Win partition image.  80G to write+verify in 21 mins.  1.2Gb read/1.0Gb write reported by Reflect.
 
I'm liking this dock/drive combo a lot.  A few more 3T Toshibas to set up a rotation and I'm set for backups.
 
 

batsbrew
so why aren't usb audio interfaces geared for usb3?

RME, Focusrite and Motu certainly work with USB3. As for audio use in general, USB2 has vastly more than ample bandwidth unless you need to simultaneously record a huge number of channels. Even Firewire 800 is more than adequate for most interfaces up to 16+ channels.

One USB3 issue with audio interfaces seems connected to the burst voltage/current available at a USB2 port being a little higher than a USB3. Some interfaces may have been using that burst capability even though the USB specs apparently say you shouldn't rely on it.

Another issue is that USB3 may need a different driver to USB2 depending on how the driver was coded.

One disadvantage with USB3 for connecting storage is that the TRIM command used by SSDs to organise themselves for minimal wear can't be (or just isn't) passed through a USB3 interface. Including lots of enclosures that call themselves Thunderbolt/USB but internally the Thunderbolt connection relies on the USB circuitry. "Pure" Thunderbolt connections can handle TRIM so long as the operating system or a third-party application supports it.

I do 16 channels on Firewire 400 all the time without issues.  I use the Mackie 1640 analog mixer with Firewire card installed.  I record to a dual core laptop with 4GB ram and it works just fine.  This is a straight capture only, no effects and no monitoring, but it works...

as far as recording bandwidth tlw is corrent.  it's doubtful anyone will ever need USB3 just because the bandwidth is too low for USB2.  
 
doing the math (assuming recording and output at 24 bit / 44.1kHz sampling rate - (also assuming true 24bit recording, so zero noise floor from the hardware)
24bits X 44100samples/sec = 1.0584Mbits/sec for 1 channel input only
you need an overhead of 2 channels of data stream for output (stereo output), so the output channels need 2.1168Mbits/sec for output.  unless you run more than 1 stereo pair of output simultaneously, this number won't change.
 
USB2 bandwidth = 480Mbits/sec
output = 2.1168Mbits/sec
total bandwidth - output = 477.88Mbit/sec
 
that's the number we are left with to calculate how many channels of input we can have.
477.88Mbit/sec divided by 1.0584Mbit/sec/channel = 451.5 simultaneous channels you can record.
 
this is theoretical, of course.  but even if you consider half of that saying your system (and by system I mean the complete path in and out of the soundcard and computer) is only 50% efficient, you'd still get over 200 channels you could record simultaneously on USB2.
 
I think most audio hardware companies consider the "safe limit" which they will not go above to be 127 channels on USB2 and 72 on Firewire 400.
 
THIS is the main reason we've not seen many USB3 soundcards.  yes, there are some available, but the bandwidth of USB3 is complete overkill for recording.  they're only offering the USB3 connections because of consumerism ("bigger is always better!") and/or convenience.
 
 

So, I suppose we'll be looking for better RTL via some new port that "compares with" Thunderbolt for PC.
Thanks for the explanation, Beagle. It is much clearer to me now.
Michael

IMO, the biggest reason for interfaces to support USB3 is the gradual disappearance of USB2 ports from machines.
 
 

BobF
IMO, the biggest reason for interfaces to support USB3 is the gradual disappearance of USB2 ports from machines.
 
 

yes, that will be a big one too!

TheMaartian
Now that Intel has added Thunderbolt 3 support at the chip level, and some devices are shipping with it (like an Alienware laptop I looked at recently), I'm looking forward to getting my audio i/f as far from the USB hub mess as possible (I have 6 USB2 ports and 4 USB3 ports, some front, some back; no Dell documentation on internal, physical connections (what's a real hub vs a virtual hub)).
 
But you're right about USB3. I installed NI K9U off of an external USB hard drive via USB3. I don't have numbers, but the install went much more quickly than I expected.

I feel the same way. If my usb ports are loaded up I would rather use firewire 400 simply because it takes it away from the muck. It seems almost everything else is USB. In a real world situation it might not matter, but I like having a dedicated way to record audio.
For data transfer 3.0 is great. When I needed to reload Komplete from their hard drive I was amazed at how much faster it is. Probably the only time I'll use it for awhile since my drives are onboard and I use firewire.

TheMaartian
Now that Intel has added Thunderbolt 3 support at the chip level, and some devices are shipping with it (like an Alienware laptop I looked at recently), I'm looking forward to getting my audio i/f as far from the USB hub mess as possible (I have 6 USB2 ports and 4 USB3 ports, some front, some back; no Dell documentation on internal, physical connections (what's a real hub vs a virtual hub)).
 
But you're right about USB3. I installed NI K9U off of an external USB hard drive via USB3. I don't have numbers, but the install went much more quickly than I expected.

Thunderbolt is dead. Deader than a doornail, just ask anyone at Apple.  USB-C /3.1 is the future.  Apple trolled the industry by creating a proprietary version of Intel's lightpeak, and now USB-C will support 10GBps speeds what TB2 supported, and the interface industry just in the last year started introducing their TB2 devices only to find out that Apple will be going the USB route.
 
My advice to anyone even thinking about buying a TB interface is DONT!  For the love of all, don't even think about getting one.  It's a total waste of money, and you'll regret it.
 
It's too bad the interface industry is so beholden to Apple that they get roped into these con jobs.  I knew from the get go that TB was a dead end road.  The interface industry is a niche, of a niche market.  The amount of R&D that was wasted by getting trolled by Apple is unimmagineable.
 
I knew the gig was up when PreSonus went and introduced their new USB 3.0 interface.  Sorry there's no getting away from the USB hub, but the good news is the driver support is better than even.  Even some of the RME USB 2.0 interfaces have extreme low latency and good reliability.
 
Hopefully now that Apple realizes that USB is the future, and they can't keep forcing proprietary standards on the industry, that everyone will get on the same page and we can have a great new generation of products for us consumers.

Beagle
as far as recording bandwidth tlw is corrent.  it's doubtful anyone will ever need USB3 just because the bandwidth is too low for USB2.  
 
doing the math (assuming recording and output at 24 bit / 44.1kHz sampling rate - (also assuming true 24bit recording, so zero noise floor from the hardware)
24bits X 44100samples/sec = 1.0584Mbits/sec for 1 channel input only
you need an overhead of 2 channels of data stream for output (stereo output), so the output channels need 2.1168Mbits/sec for output.  unless you run more than 1 stereo pair of output simultaneously, this number won't change.
 
USB2 bandwidth = 480Mbits/sec
output = 2.1168Mbits/sec
total bandwidth - output = 477.88Mbit/sec
 
that's the number we are left with to calculate how many channels of input we can have.
477.88Mbit/sec divided by 1.0584Mbit/sec/channel = 451.5 simultaneous channels you can record.
 
this is theoretical, of course.  but even if you consider half of that saying your system (and by system I mean the complete path in and out of the soundcard and computer) is only 50% efficient, you'd still get over 200 channels you could record simultaneously on USB2.
 
I think most audio hardware companies consider the "safe limit" which they will not go above to be 127 channels on USB2 and 72 on Firewire 400.
 
THIS is the main reason we've not seen many USB3 soundcards.  yes, there are some available, but the bandwidth of USB3 is complete overkill for recording.  they're only offering the USB3 connections because of consumerism ("bigger is always better!") and/or convenience.
 

 
The reason to create USB 3.0 compatible interfaces isn't bandwith.  It's mainly to deal with the fact that after Ivy Bridge, Intel stopped supporting some of the backward compatible specs of USB 2.0, and never fixed the problem.  This caused a lot of problems with people using USB 2.0 interfaces in USB 3.0 ports.  Especially interfaces like the Virtual Studio Live by PreSonus and the Roland Octacapture that supported real time DSP effects that borrow the computers CPU cycles to process.  I went to having a $500 paper weight on my 1818VSL when I had to buy a new computer that only had USB 3.0 ports.
 
When I say the industry needs to support USB 3 or USB-C/3.1, they need to support drivers for USB hardware, and making sure those devices work.  These companies have little resource and development money and a lot of it was wasted by being jerked around by Apple on TB.