Discuss Quantum Thunderbolt Interface Here
23 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2
Thunderbolt is designed to be downward compatible.

But does that also mean I could use the TB2-designed Quantum on an elder Mac (like e.g. my 2012 MacMini) with TB1-connection?

Presonus Firestudio Tube, Firestudio Project with Universal Control 1.7.3, Presonus Faderport, Bluetube DP, HP 4, Bluemax.....

Presonus Studio One Pro 3.5.1
Celemony Melodyne Studio 4.1.1
Softube Console1 MK II

- Mac Mini 6.2, (2014) with internal SSD+HD, 2,3 GHz Core i7 quad, 16 GB RAM, MacOS 10.12.6 Sierra
(- MacBookPro 4.1, 17" ( late 2008 ) with internal SSD, 2,5 GHz Core2Duo, 4 GB RAM, MacOS 10.11.6 El Capitan),
External harddisc (3.5" - 7200 rpm) (with eSATA connection through a Sonnet express-card on the notebook) or USB3 on the Mac Mini.
User avatar
by AlexTinsley on Fri May 19, 2017 3:21 pm
Yes. We tested Mac Mini 2012 machines as part of the Intel Thunderbolt Certification process.
User avatar
by MarkusHassold on Mon May 22, 2017 12:19 am
I am absolutely happy to hear this!

Presonus Firestudio Tube, Firestudio Project with Universal Control 1.7.3, Presonus Faderport, Bluetube DP, HP 4, Bluemax.....

Presonus Studio One Pro 3.5.1
Celemony Melodyne Studio 4.1.1
Softube Console1 MK II

- Mac Mini 6.2, (2014) with internal SSD+HD, 2,3 GHz Core i7 quad, 16 GB RAM, MacOS 10.12.6 Sierra
(- MacBookPro 4.1, 17" ( late 2008 ) with internal SSD, 2,5 GHz Core2Duo, 4 GB RAM, MacOS 10.11.6 El Capitan),
External harddisc (3.5" - 7200 rpm) (with eSATA connection through a Sonnet express-card on the notebook) or USB3 on the Mac Mini.
User avatar
by MY on Fri May 26, 2017 8:04 am
Hey guys,

So it means if i'm reading correctly I can have a PCIe Thunderbolt 3.0 AIC card and be able to use Quantum without any issue? Any confirmation from Users & Dev will be appreciated ;-) Happy friday :thumbup:

​Moilim Yacoub (MY)
​Music Producer / Mix Engineer / Entrepreneur

Win 7 Pro x64 -16 gigs Ram - Intel Core i7 2600 @3.40Ghz / Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti / Soundcard: 1st Generation RME Hammerfall DSP & Antelope Zen Studio (All up-to-date drivers)
Macbook Pro (13", Mid 2012) / 2.5 Ghz Intel Core i5 / 4GB 1600 Mhz DDR3 / Graphics: Intel HD 4000 1024MB
User avatar
by kdavies on Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:25 am
I have a motherboard with a TB 3 port and have TB3 to TB2 adapter currently hooked to it to use with another interface. I am very interested in switching over to the Quantum. Does it work with this configuration?

Thanks!
User avatar
by MY on Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:34 am
Hey guys!

Quick question here... can someone use Quantum but plug it from plug of the Sound cardThunderbolt to a USB 3 computer plug??? Or this just does not apply? Curious

​Moilim Yacoub (MY)
​Music Producer / Mix Engineer / Entrepreneur

Win 7 Pro x64 -16 gigs Ram - Intel Core i7 2600 @3.40Ghz / Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti / Soundcard: 1st Generation RME Hammerfall DSP & Antelope Zen Studio (All up-to-date drivers)
Macbook Pro (13", Mid 2012) / 2.5 Ghz Intel Core i5 / 4GB 1600 Mhz DDR3 / Graphics: Intel HD 4000 1024MB
User avatar
by jdurham on Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:51 am
Very interested in picking up a Quantum due to its supposedly very low latency for VSTi work (especially compared to the Studio 192), but my main desktop DAW (running Win 10) does not have a Thunderbolt port... it's a powerful, recent machine -- I'm 99% sure I could add a Thunderbolt card... is there a recommended Thunderbolt PCIe card I should look at?
User avatar
by jpettit on Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:39 am
You have to get to the motherboard level with us.
FInd out your motherboard maker.
Google for TB PCie cards for hat motherboard.

To add your specs to your signature, click HERE
How To Get Your Issue Fixed
Community Training
My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, Studio 192, Faderport 8, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Line 6 UX2, Studio One Pro 3.4, Reaper 5.4, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jdurham on Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:41 am
jpettit wroteYou have to get to the motherboard level with us.
FInd out your motherboard maker.
Google for TB PCie cards for hat motherboard.


Thanks, will do!
User avatar
by jpettit on Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:46 am
BTW do you own a 192?

The latency for VI in 3.5.1 is 5.6 ms at 64 buffers 48k sample rate. with DP on max.

To add your specs to your signature, click HERE
How To Get Your Issue Fixed
Community Training
My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, Studio 192, Faderport 8, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Line 6 UX2, Studio One Pro 3.4, Reaper 5.4, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jdurham on Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:55 am
jpettit wroteBTW do you own a 192?

The latency for VI in 3.5.1 is 5.6 ms at 64 buffers 48k sample rate. with DP on max.


I do NOT own a 192, I've just talked with a handful of people who are very unhappy with the 192 for VSTi purposes... and in general have been following the various threads in various forums about it, including after the update that made some improvements. The general consensus from what I have gathered is that they love the sound and they are impressed with the features in general -- but for heavy VSTi use, they have been very frustrated. I know one guy who sold his 192 and went back to RME. For tracking and mixing, the 192 is great, but for heavy VSTi, it appears I should avoid it.

Anyway, from what I have read, it looks like the Quantum is a real possibility. Since you guys removed the DSP section, and have tuned the thunderbolt drivers for latency, it looks like you might have a real VSTi champ on your hands. So that's why I'm looking into it. I'm normally leaning RME, but this is the first interface that is tempting me to look Presonus direction for an interface.
User avatar
by jpettit on Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:13 am
If 1ms vs 5ms ( BTW this is twice as fast as pre 3.5) makes a difference to the performer go for Quantum. It is a slam dunk for people on Macs. Windows systems however is not for the light hearted. ;)

To add your specs to your signature, click HERE
How To Get Your Issue Fixed
Community Training
My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, Studio 192, Faderport 8, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Line 6 UX2, Studio One Pro 3.4, Reaper 5.4, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jdurham on Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:27 am
jpettit wroteIf 1ms vs 5ms ( BTW this is twice as fast as pre 3.5) makes a difference to the performer go for Quantum. It is a slam dunk for people on Macs. Windows systems however is not for the light hearted. ;)


Real-world 5ms RTL would be fine for me, if it could sustain a heavy session without issues for large VSTi templates, which is what the problem is from everything I have gathered... under DAWBench and similar tests, the numbers I saw were not very encouraging for VSTi work for the 192, especially with the extra buffer used by the DSP, which is not needed in my book... However, the Quantum looks like it has massive potential and might excel at VSTi low latency performance.
User avatar
by jpettit on Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:31 am
jdurham wrote
jpettit wroteIf 1ms vs 5ms ( BTW this is twice as fast as pre 3.5) makes a difference to the performer go for Quantum. It is a slam dunk for people on Macs. Windows systems however is not for the light hearted. ;)


Real-world 5ms RTL would be fine for me, if it could sustain a heavy session without issues for large VSTi templates, which is what the problem is from everything I have gathered... under DAWBench and similar tests, the numbers I saw were not very encouraging for VSTi work for the 192, especially with the extra buffer used by the DSP, which is not needed in my book... However, the Quantum looks like it has massive potential and might excel at VSTi low latency performance.

Those tests are old data.
There is no doubt the Quantum is a fastest interface out at this point. But latency performance is subjective to the performers and instrument.

To add your specs to your signature, click HERE
How To Get Your Issue Fixed
Community Training
My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, Studio 192, Faderport 8, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Line 6 UX2, Studio One Pro 3.4, Reaper 5.4, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jdurham on Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:30 am
jpettit wroteThose tests are old data.
There is no doubt the Quantum is a fastest interface out at this point. But latency performance is subjective to the performers and instrument.


Thanks for the info and feedback, and definitely agree that it ultimately comes down to the subjective feel for the performers and the unique requirements for each situation. We are all living in an amazing time when we have so many options for realtime audio like this for such an incredible price. Some of the the recordings I love the most and consider among the best in the world, were done on equipment far inferior to anything Presonus makes today, for sure.
User avatar
by DominicB on Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:33 am
jpettit wroteIf 1ms vs 5ms ( BTW this is twice as fast as pre 3.5) makes a difference to the performer go for Quantum. It is a slam dunk for people on Macs. Windows systems however is not for the light hearted. ;)


Jeff, we know from in house testing that Windows computers must be configured properly. Mac's are typically ready out of the box.

Windows users should refer to this article. http://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/ar ... 0-machine-

Internally we have tested on several Windows PC's (Desktops and Laptops) which required minimal if ANY special configuration. Quantum works great on those.

Users should also refer to this article on compatible Thunderbolt adapters.
http://answers.presonus.com/17244/which ... hunderbolt

Any issues not covered in those articles can be taken up with support for resolution.

Best Regards

QA and Support
Presonus Audio

Mac Mini | Core i5 2.3 Ghz | 4GB Ram | OSX 10.10 and 10.9
Mac Mini | Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz | 4 GB Ram | OSX 10.8 and 10.9
PC Tower | Core i5 | 4GB Ram | Win 7, Win 8.1 64bit
Mac Pro 1,2 | 8 Core Xeon | 16GB Ram | OSX 10.9

Interfaces: Presonus, RME Fireface, UA Apollo,
Controllers: AKAI LPK25, Novation Impulse 49, MPD24, Maschine Mikro, Nektar P49, Keystation Pro 88, Digi003(Midi Mode), Mackie MCU
User avatar
by DominicB on Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:46 am
jdurham wrote
jpettit wroteBTW do you own a 192?

The latency for VI in 3.5.1 is 5.6 ms at 64 buffers 48k sample rate. with DP on max.


I do NOT own a 192, I've just talked with a handful of people who are very unhappy with the 192 for VSTi purposes... and in general have been following the various threads in various forums about it, including after the update that made some improvements. The general consensus from what I have gathered is that they love the sound and they are impressed with the features in general -- but for heavy VSTi use, they have been very frustrated. I know one guy who sold his 192 and went back to RME. For tracking and mixing, the 192 is great, but for heavy VSTi, it appears I should avoid it.

Anyway, from what I have read, it looks like the Quantum is a real possibility. Since you guys removed the DSP section, and have tuned the thunderbolt drivers for latency, it looks like you might have a real VSTi champ on your hands. So that's why I'm looking into it. I'm normally leaning RME, but this is the first interface that is tempting me to look Presonus direction for an interface.


Personally, I love my Studio 192! I've done big orchestral/trailer scores using it well before Studio One 3.5 and it's NLM. Which the native low latency is a huge plus and just makes everything better for me on my original Mac Pro 1,1. But everyone has their own use cases.

QA and Support
Presonus Audio

Mac Mini | Core i5 2.3 Ghz | 4GB Ram | OSX 10.10 and 10.9
Mac Mini | Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz | 4 GB Ram | OSX 10.8 and 10.9
PC Tower | Core i5 | 4GB Ram | Win 7, Win 8.1 64bit
Mac Pro 1,2 | 8 Core Xeon | 16GB Ram | OSX 10.9

Interfaces: Presonus, RME Fireface, UA Apollo,
Controllers: AKAI LPK25, Novation Impulse 49, MPD24, Maschine Mikro, Nektar P49, Keystation Pro 88, Digi003(Midi Mode), Mackie MCU
User avatar
by Greg P on Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:32 pm
Can anyone verify that the Quantum Will run on Windows 8.1 pro x64 or is it just made for (Windows 10).......from looking at the spec......it only name Windows 10.....
User avatar
by connorguiberteau on Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:51 pm
That is because Windows 10 is the only Windows operating system that supports Thunderbolt.

Therefore Quantum is not supported on Windows 7, Windows 8.1, and earlier versions.

Here are some of the knowledge base articles related to Windows:

http://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003181806-Will-Quantum-work-with-my-Windows-10-machine-

http://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003160623-Which-Thunderbolt-adapter-will-work-on-my-Windows-system-with-Thunderbolt-3-
User avatar
by rguitar78 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:53 am
My motherboard offered the Asus ThunderboltEX II as an add-on PCIe card (native Thunderbolt 2 port) with a cable that connects to headers on the mobo. Should this scenario work? See my signature for all the specs. Thanks in advance!

PC Specs:
Intel Core i7-4790K @4.8Ghz - Corsair 2400Mhz DDR3 32GB - Asus Z97-A/USB 3.1 - Asus ThunderboltEX II - EVGA 1080 FTW Hybrid - Samsung 950 Pro 512GB - Samsung 850 Evo 2TB - WD Black 6TB
Win10 Pro Version 1703 - HP BD-RE BT30N - Asus PG279Q

Quantum (FW1.1-4) - FaderPort - HP60 - Monitor Station V2 - Sceptre S6 - Temblor T10 - Ultrasone Pro 900
Studio One 3 Pro 3.5.2.44603 - Universal Control 2.3.0.44619
Melodyne Studio 4.1.1.011 - Notion 6.2.439
BIAS Studio Platinum 1.5.8 - OwnHammer complete IR set - RedWirez BigBox - GuitarRig Pro 5.2.2 (R8) - Rammfire - Reflektor

23 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest