We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by mike connelly

1 GB is eight times faster than 10 Gb?

The way I wrote it initially was comparing that 1 gigabit = 0.125 Gigabytes so to get 1 GigaBytes you need to multiply 0.125 by 8, I mised the 0 after the 1 of the 10 Gigabits

My example is slightly off though now that I reread it back in how I wrote it. A PCIe 3 4x slot is roughly three times as fast as thunderbolt. Thunderbolt requires 4 pci lanes to work at it's full speed at the moment, strange as it is it's what is reported by Intel. But each lane of PCIe 3.0 is 1 GigaBytes each way, so a total of 2 Gigabytes. So basically 1 lane and a half of PCIe 3 is the same speed of thunderbolt that requires 4 lanes to work. Still doesn't sound right, but that's how it is.

To make it even worst lol I'm feeling like it. 1 lane of PCIe 3.0 is 1 Gigabytes per seconds or 8 gigabits per seconds each ways so a total of 2 GygaBytes (back and forth).. or 16 gigabits per seconds back and forth

[Electrox]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

First of, thunderbolt is not trying to replace PCI, it's a new interface that will enable smaller device (ie laptops, tablets) to daisy chain external devices. And secondly, it's much slower than pcie 3 which is already out now.

Thunderbolt 10 gigabit each way, so 20 gigabit total. Please note that it's gigabit. And it uses 4 lanes of a pcie buss to achieve that speed.

Pcie 3, is 1 GIGABYTE each way, so 2 GIGABYTE total per lane. So PCIE 3 is 8 times faster than Thunderbolt. And it only uses 1 lane to achieve that speed at 8x faster than thunderbolt
.

This is just wrong, and confusing. I will explain why.
I actually heard Steve Jobs say that he wanted to make Apple computers in a way that the user would not have to open them up. He wanted a replacement for the PCI bus to keep with his design methodology of what he wanted his machines to look like and be. This resulted directly in Apple inventing and developing what is now recognized as Intel's Thunderbolt. Apple wanted to turn the r&d over to Intel so that it would be recognized as a universal standard and not just an Apple port.
If you compare a G5 powerpc TDM system and the PCI bus that it ran on with the Thunderbolt port we have today, you would think that Thunderbolt was a huge success. However, if you confuse it with the details of audio in, to cards, out of interface and then compare it to the latest version of PCI, then you've miss the point. As with any new development there has to be new approaches to doing things that just makes things easier for us end users. Combining pre amps, interface, and DSP cards into one simple, portable, easy to use, one cable into your laptop, for me, is one of those no brainer designs. However things are moving slowly...
Thunderbolt will speed up when they lose the copper. Then it will speed up again. It will allow for your desktops to gather dust as we move off of them as a design. It will allow you to create your productions anywhere. I created many tracks on my older TDM system. I now create everything using a few new laptops. It's faster, lighter, easier, and I can take it everywhere.
All systems have latency. They all do. DSP systems have less than native systems. I have been purchasing Pro Tools since it was Sound Designer back in 1989. Beyond updating the software I do not see a product that Avid sells that I feel comfortable purchasing. This is a first for me in the 23 years I have been a customer. I simply refuse to leave my faster laptop lifestyle behind for using big steel boxes just to hold large DSP cards. Those cards need to be combined with an interface, maybe a few pre amps, and in a portable box that I can take with my laptop. If the interface and DSP are all on the same card you can simplify the design of the whole thing and use one cable over a super fast bus to tie that into your laptop. You may not be able to run 2 other monitors off of the same bus, but that could happen after Thunderbolt's first update!
Listen, other companies know this. I just want Avid to know that some of us users know this also.

[Firechild]

Electrox, well that is your style of working.
However most professional studios look for the ultimate computer power and then a Tower is the way to go and will always be.
Even if they make the CPU`s smaller and smaller there will be a need for cooling and here is where space come in. You need a tower to hold the fans and coolers. Maybe you have never looked inside a Tower,whether it is a Mac Pro or a HP PC ?
You can even put two ( or more ) CPU´s inside a tower.
I hate working on laptops, iPads even more. Why should I use a laptop when I work 99.99 percent in my studio where a tower is installed in my machine room?
Also all of use use at least two monitors, at least 4 HD´s with a couple of external Firewire backup hd´s, dual Ethernet ports, 10+ USB ports , 2 I/O interface , so adding a laptop here is just silly.
AVID, bring me more PCIe cards, thank you.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by Electrox

This is just wrong, and confusing. I will explain why.
I actually heard Steve Jobs say that he wanted to make Apple computers in a way that the user would not have to open them up. He wanted a replacement for the PCI bus to keep with his design methodology of what he wanted his machines to look like and be. This resulted directly in Apple inventing and developing what is now recognized as Intel's Thunderbolt. Apple wanted to turn the r&d over to Intel so that it would be recognized as a universal standard and not just an Apple port.
If you compare a G5 powerpc TDM system and the PCI bus that it ran on with the Thunderbolt port we have today, you would think that Thunderbolt was a huge success. However, if you confuse it with the details of audio in, to cards, out of interface and then compare it to the latest version of PCI, then you've miss the point. As with any new development there has to be new approaches to doing things that just makes things easier for us end users. Combining pre amps, interface, and DSP cards into one simple, portable, easy to use, one cable into your laptop, for me, is one of those no brainer designs. However things are moving slowly...
Thunderbolt will speed up when they lose the copper. Then it will speed up again. It will allow for your desktops to gather dust as we move off of them as a design. It will allow you to create your productions anywhere. I created many tracks on my older TDM system. I now create everything using a few new laptops. It's faster, lighter, easier, and I can take it everywhere.
All systems have latency. They all do. DSP systems have less than native systems. I have been purchasing Pro Tools since it was Sound Designer back in 1989. Beyond updating the software I do not see a product that Avid sells that I feel comfortable purchasing. This is a first for me in the 23 years I have been a customer. I simply refuse to leave my faster laptop lifestyle behind for using big steel boxes just to hold large DSP cards. Those cards need to be combined with an interface, maybe a few pre amps, and in a portable box that I can take with my laptop. If the interface and DSP are all on the same card you can simplify the design of the whole thing and use one cable over a super fast bus to tie that into your laptop. You may not be able to run 2 other monitors off of the same bus, but that could happen after Thunderbolt's first update!
Listen, other companies know this. I just want Avid to know that some of us users know this also.

Production anywhere.. sure if you're composing and not mixing. Neither me nor my clients pay me to mix anywhere other than a treated studio, with actual monitors to listen on as flat as possible. None of these are possible while your producing in the subway or the park, on headphones. At least not in any professional manners. We're not djing here or mixing live shows. We're producing albums or doing post production. And your 1 cable is not only one cable, it's a series of cables. In the end, you end up with more external cables than what you would have with a Tower. And frankly you keep coming up with Apple developed it. Well no it's intel and apple was the technical services that commercialized it. But let's not get into that discussion again it's pointless.

What's not pointless though is that at this time, there's no reason why Avid should purposefully developed a traveling box for HDX cards that would be worth more than the box itself, good luck if you lose it or get stolen because you're using it in an unsafe environment, the insurance wont pay you back, when the technology is in it's infant state unproven to be reliable for professional use and much slower than the current technology that is presently available and proven. Think of it, would you buy a box now for your HDX cards, or that included HDX cards in them if in a year.. or two.. or three the new lightpeak aka thunderbolt came on the market and was 5 times faster than what this version 1.0 is?

Now for the HDN cards, totally make sense as I have said in the past, cause well it's more in line for editing, than heavy dsp usage on the go, while you are neither in a quiet place or balanced place to do critical mixing. Costs less, so if it's stolen or lost it's a much lighter impact on your wallet. And guess what, Avid released a thunderbolt box with HDN combined, so I must not be wrong eh? It would have been easy for them to release an other versions, bigger with more I/O and with a HDX card in it, but they didn't. At least for now.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Electrox

...I actually heard Steve Jobs say that he wanted to make Apple computers in a way that the user would not have to open them up...

That was his vision of the personal computer from the very beginning.

Had John Scully not fired Steve Jobs, nobody would be using Macs for media production today.

I see a very different role for Thunderbolt than portable computing. It allows audio interfaces to be located in a control room connected to a tower in a machine room using a single optical cable. That could easily save many tens of thousands of dollars in constructing a studio facility.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I see a very different role for Thunderbolt than portable computing. It allows audio interfaces to be located in a control room connected to a tower in a machine room using a single optical cable. That could easily save many tens of thousands of dollars in constructing a studio facility.

See that's the thing. TBolt isn't optical yet, and it's looking like it won't be for at least a few years now, since the technology is apparently too expensive for commercial development (it's why we ended up with a copper TBolt in the first place). It's also the reason why I'm not entirely sold on it, yet. Yes, it's a good successor to FW, but it hasn't really surpassed anything we can already do with external peripherals, aside from extreme daisychaining which really isn't convenient to me, at all.

Hell, the reason why I put an ExpressCard34 eSATA card in my Macbook Pro was because I hated having to daisychain my 003, to my samples drive, to my record drive, to my Macbook.

In theory, the idea of everything coming down one cable is nice, but in practice, you end up with a chain of devices where if one fails, they all do.

[Bob Olhsson]

Apple has always taken cost saving shortcuts such as their horrendous SCSI implementation. Too expensive for Apple's cheap approach doesn't necessarily mean it's way off.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Apple has always taken cost saving shortcuts such as their horrendous SCSI implementation. Too expensive for Apple's cheap approach doesn't necessarily mean it's way off.

It was Intel who made that decision, actually, since they're the ones on the development end. I recall reading that the plan was for it to be optical all along, and that it would be directly interfacing with the CPU. It came down to its current incarnation because costs were apparently too high.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by Dism

It was Intel who made that decision, actually, since they're the ones on the development end. I recall reading that the plan was for it to be optical all along, and that it would be directly interfacing with the CPU. It came down to its current incarnation because costs were apparently too high.

Exactly, while the cost for producing anything optic has gone down in the recent years, anything that is truly based on optical only tech is horrendously expensive to produce. Just think of it, if the price was much lower than it is today, every country in the world would now benefit of web/phone/tv/andwhatnot-over optic from station to computer.

I agree with bob that in the future, when it is really optic, it will probably be a very good alternative to connectivity in the studio. But I wouldn't replace my tower even then. As I've intentioned earlier daisy chaining to many things will cause latency. Now with it being optic and going at the speed of light, should reduce that drastically, but today, we are not there yet.

[panosd]

Just in the interests of having the correct info out there, Intel invented Light Peak, not Apple. Apple only "made requests" as they kept developing it:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10363956-64.html

And interestingly enough, Sony went ahead and made their own optic version of Light Peak, as a hybrid with USB 3... which is what Intel originally intended. Though now they're stuck with a proprietary port when they were expecting that everyone else would be following suit. I guess they didn't see it as too expensive:
http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/14/2...ith-light-peak