The Future of HDX?

[Bob Olhsson]

USB-1 was/is a train wreck cheap solution intended for keyboards, mice and printers. USB-2 is completely different other than the connecter and lots more reliable than firewire. USB3 is lots faster than firewire. USB-C is lots faster yet, will soon be in every new PC and can even carry thunderbolt format signals depending on the computer.

[JFreak]

I beg to disagree.

FW400 was/is much more reliable in streaming multiple tracks of audio, compared to USB2. FW800 beats USB hands down.

USB3 however isn't that bad. I just don't trust it because of v1 and v2. The new ones we will just have to wait and see.

[Bob Olhsson]

The interface needs to be USB 2 in addition to the computer. Most are USB-1.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Dantesjuice

Dayuuuuuum Darrly, now thats a response!!! =)

So would you say future mac interfaces being usb c and future windows interfaces being usb 3.1?

My understanding is that tb, usb3.1 and usb c use the same controller, but use the usb c type connector, maybe im wrong though. But if that is true, wouldnt it make sense then for audio interface manufactures to use the common denominator, usb c, since both mac and pc will be support this, instead of offering 1 or the other...or both? I would think it would be cheaper to make an interface with only 1 type of connection, maybe not though if its all really the same controller?

Be careful, you are still confusing things, USB 3.1 is an serial bus protocol (maybe arguably more a network), Type C is a physical connector. You will see USB 3.1, Thunderbolt 3, and multiple different video standards run over Type C connectors. Saying something will use "Type C" really says nothing. I expect vendors do not want to deal with any different hardware for Mac and PC markets and I do not have a good feeling about Thunderbolt and a Windows... so that leaves USB, and AVB (which also has some windows issues).

Yes I believe that ultimately many audio interfaces will end up being USB 3.1 and that will increasingly be Type C connector (but with adapters/cables to go to a legacy Type A connector). That will take *many* years to happen as enough Macs and PCs get USB 3.1.

You seemed to be arguing that USB or Thunderbolt are more standard/stable than PCIe. I am pointing out the real world is not as simple as that, there are changes everywhere,

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I beg to disagree.

FW400 was/is much more reliable in streaming multiple tracks of audio, compared to USB2. FW800 beats USB hands down.

USB3 however isn't that bad. I just don't trust it because of v1 and v2. The new ones we will just have to wait and see.

Comparing USB 3.1 (esp. Gen 2) to either USB 1 or 2 is really irrelevant. And the long past history of Firewire vs USB is irrelevant as well. USB 3.1 is more than capable of being a great connection for an audio interface.

Again Type C is just a connector, it might connect USB 2, USB 3.0/3.1 (Gen 1) or USB 3.1 (Gen 2), Thunderbolt 3, or multiple different video standards, might be powered, might not, etc. saying something uses "Type C" is really not that useful just by itself.

[YYR123]

But then again it will be important to talk about the differences in Speed vs Connector types.

Also if I understand it correctly won't the OEM be responsible for writing a driver that adequately uses all of the bandwidth and speed available for the connector/protocol?

(I am talking about file transfers only here, because I don't have a regular interface that i use for playback that's USB2, I use a X32 mainly for tracking)

USB3 is faster than USB2 but it's no where near the speed advertised....and this is what I would fear if I purchased a USB3 interface.....A stated bandwidth but that doesn't live up to real world applications.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by YYR123

But then again it will be important to talk about the differences in Speed vs Connector types.



Also if I understand it correctly won't the OEM be responsible for writing a driver that adequately uses all of the bandwidth and speed available for the connector/protocol?



(I am talking about file transfers only here, because I don't have a regular interface that i use for playback that's USB2, I use a X32 mainly for tracking)



USB3 is faster than USB2 but it's no where near the speed advertised....and this is what I would fear if I purchased a USB3 interface.....A stated bandwidth but that doesn't live up to real world applications.

Nowhere near what speed advertised with what exactly? You talking disk drives? Most early available USB 3 disk drives are crippled because of the internal SATA drive interface, including SSD versions, nothing to do with USB itself, but suffering maybe from many USB 3 drives being aimed at the commodity/lower end/junk end of the market vs. say some higher end Thunderbolt drives (but lots of low-end Thunderbolt drives suck as well too).

Sandisk have announced their Extreme 900 USB 3.1 SSD and claim 850 MB/s IO performance. It will be interesting to see what is actually inside that box and what real performance it gets. So no argument from me that Thunderbolt is potentially better for disk IO, but the mass market will likely see lots of fast USB 3.1 SSD products... and real high performance SSD is likely to be in increasingly M.2 (in the box or over Thunderbolt for crippled Mac Pro trashcan users) or higher-end NVMe drives on PCIe cards or SFF cables for high-end workstations and servers.

USB 3.1 has gobs of bandwidth needed for audio interfaces. And better bidirectional and streaming and low latency capabilities than past USB versions.

Of course a vendor has to write a driver for their device, well beyond generic audio class devices. No different there than any other connection to any other interface. But it will take time for vendors to optimize/develop to a new interconnect standard.

And for scaling beyond USB there is Ethernet/AVB...

[Wall2Wall]

I vote for ethernet for audio but I'm not sure it can carry the bandwidth for 4k/8k video which is really the coveted end user. Thunderbolt can.

Times are a changing once again. Just saw this new Lenova Laptop Thinkpad P70:

Starting at $1999

Quad Xeon E3-1500M v5
64GB of DDR4 RAM
USB-C, Thunderbolt 3, true USB 3.1
PCIe-based M.2 SSD
up to 4 internal storage devices

Of the two, the giant 17-inch P70 stuffs in the most hardware. Besides the Skylake Xeon and Quadro chip, Lenovo also used Intel’s new Alpine Ridge controller. Alpine Ridge supports the fastest Thunderbolt 3 spec as well as full-speed USB 3.1 across its USB-C ports. By full speed, I mean up to 10Gbps transfer speeds using USB 3.1. The first laptop with USB-C, Apple’s 12-inch MacBook, is a bit of a sleight of hand. It has USB-C, but its ports run standard USB 3.0 speeds. Google’s updated Pixel Chromebook also is limited to USB 3.0 speeds on its USB-C ports. Running Thunderbolt 3 mode, Lenovo’s ports should crank it all way up to 40Gbps speeds.

Lenovo says the big P70 will also support up to four storage devices and up to 1TB of SSD storage. That means one M.2 slot and two SATA trays, along with the option to remove the optical drive and install a drive caddy for a fourth drive. Even better, the storage options now support booting to PCIe-based M.2 devices, which offers a huge improvement in performance. In fact, Lenovo claims up to five times the performance of an M.2 SATA or standard SATA-based device.

Most people know Intel’s new Skylake chip supports DDR4, but there’s also the capability to run DDR3L. Lenovo skips the older memory standard in favor of DDR4, which lets the P70 run up to 64GB in its four SO-DIMM slots.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/29607...kstations.html

[Dantesjuice]

You seemed to be arguing that USB or Thunderbolt are more standard/stable than PCIe. I am pointing out the real world is not as simple as that, there are changes everywhere.

Totally not arguing, and not suggesting that TB or USB is more stable than using a "physical" pcie connection. Im stating that it seems that most major audio vendors have moved away from the pcie slot a loooooooong time ago, (with the exception of UAD and AVID). The last time i had to install a card into my computer for an audio interface was my oo1, and my delta 1010 before that. And not that i mind installing cards into my computers, as iv built every one iv owned. But id much rather just like to plug in a cable be done with it

Im just saying that i personally think that an external type of connection might better suit most users, even high end users better. Going back to my original idea. What if the new HD system was in its own expansion chassis, (avid could still make their pcie cards that you install in that), and just connected the expansion chassis to the host via TB or USB, or ethernet as some have suggested.

Most new mac users already have to have an expansion chassis if they want to run HDX. And what if your PC mobo only has 1 pcie slot avail for an HDX card? Then they would have to go out and try and get a TB card and an external chassis as well if they want an HDX 2 or more system. Having to jump through these "hoops" to run HDX might put some off. But then again, as someone mentioned, if AVID's HDX share is mainly post houses, then it doesnt really matter since they can build whatever they want/need to in order to get HDX to work with their systems. I just think that if AVID made it alittle bit easier to run HDX, their market share would open up and ALOT more project studios would buy into it. Currently the price difference between a native system and an HDX system is only $2k. Id rather save up the money and go HDX. But either way, im still having to go out and get an external chassis and TB card and cross my fingers that i can get it to work on my PC.

The new HD system can still be elite and the best in the world, but that doesnt mean that AVID cant make it more accessible to everyone

Edit: from what iv also heard, if you use "active" cables for usb c, you can get double the bandwidth/speed?

[Darryl Ramm]

I guess my overarching feeling is I doubt Avid has resources to develop much new of anything at the moment. Folks like UAD, Waves and Focusrite with RedNet can take their time picking off the parts of the market they want. And if Avid did develop something new they better look after their existing HD/Digilink users with a great compatibility story or a whole boat load of them will defect to other hardware. Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't, the likely play out of the innovators dilemma... then they run out of cash and hopefully they find a benevolent acquirer that cares about the Pro Audio user.