Discuss Quantum Thunderbolt Interface Here
4 posts
Page 1 of 1
Hi guys.. im planning to upgrade my home studio audio interface, and i thinking about the studio 192 or the quantum..the thing is im confuse about what will work best for my setup..
im on a Mac, studio one 3 user, currently using an classic studio live 24.4.2,and it still works great, i bought it cause i use it for live sound and works great in the studio cause there is no latency thanks to de DSP on the console, i can track/monitor with a full channel strip, reverb and delay on every channel and there is no need to worry about my buffer size cause its all done in the console..

Now i have a newer and better digital console for my job, so i will sell the studiolive while it still worth something.. and i want an audio interface exclusive for the studio, the studio 192 is basically a studiolive like interface improve for the studio( with better dsp, with higher samplerate, digital in/out, etc) so it will be the the same at it was before with my studiolive. the thing i don't understand about the S192 is that is USB3.0, and i heard somewhere that the trasfert is the same as it was a USB2.0, and that USB3 interfaces don't even worth the extra money because of that, and any USB2 audio interface that feature dsp its basically the same(they are cheaper options).

Then there is the quantum, featuring near zero latency monitoring and thunderbolt connections, but i really don't know if the CPU power will the most important thing for the low latency monitoring, i record normally in the studio 16 track and use multiple monitor mixes with processing for musician at the same time and with the S192 it will not matter that much, cause is all handle by the interface dsp, like the studiolive.......the advantage that i think the quantum has over the S192, its that thunderbolt is, i think the connection of the near future, so i don't think that USB3.0 will still be use for audio interfaces anymore. But saying that, maybe a Focusrite clarett interface will be better cause is thunderbolt and cheaper than the quantum, if the low latency depends on my CPU.

Also the studio 192 its 1000 cheaper than the quantum so i really don't get it... maybe guys u can give me your opinions and advise about what to do, what do u think will work best for me , and what would u do on the same situation


thanks in advance guys!! Cheers!!
User avatar
by matthewgorman on Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:49 am
Answered your other thread. Depending on where we get activity for answers for you, I may wind up locking one of the 2 threads you have on the same subject.

Matt

Lenovo ThinkServer TS140 Win 10 64bit, 8GB RAM, Intel Xeon
Lenovo Thinkpad E520, Windows 7 64bit, 8 GB RAM, Intel i5 Processor
StarTech EC13942 34mm Expresscard
S1Pro V2 , Melodyne Studio 4, Nomad Factory Studio Bundle, Waves , RM16, Studio 192, DP88, Faderport, Central Station Plus, Yamaha HS50 Monitors, Sceptre 6-8 Monitors, Temblor 10.
User avatar
by boudie123 on Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:51 pm
matthewgorman wroteAnswered your other thread. Depending on where we get activity for answers for you, I may wind up locking one of the 2 threads you have on the same subject.

usb ,smoosb ,what ever . you can't go wrong and buy the best interface for the bucks. Quantum( Thunderbolt)

presonus 1642.. studio one pro 2.. presonus Sceptre 8.. les paul epiphone standard pro.. Ibanez g2000 bass.. Yamaha apx500ii.. apple imac intel core i5 processor. presonus hp4.. ez drummer2... melodyne essentials , mapex drums ,big baby taylor. persons sceptre 8, presonus monitor station,ozone isotope 7, peavey t-40, peavey falcon, yamaha ypg 535
User avatar
by natekmusic on Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:00 pm
I just got a Quantum 2. It does seem to want a healthy cpu to really get the most out of it. I mean I have a mac mini, just a duo-core i5, and it's only Thunderbolt 1 not thunderbolt 2 (so I'm not getting the full speed out of the Quantum. I have to run the Quantum at a higher sample block sizes than my usb interfaces, but it still get lower lantency.
For example, I also have a Mbox mini. When recording one guitar track with a fairly cpu hungry plug-in like Amplitube I can get as low as 64 samples in the settings before cpu dropout. This puts me to about 11ms roundtrip lantency. That's about as low as I can go before clicks and pops from my cpu maxing out.
With the Quantum 2 I can only get to 128 sample blocks, if I go to 64 samples my cpu maxes out. At 128 samples I'm running my cpu around 30%. If I go down to 64 samples it's 100%. But, my roundtrip latency at 128 samples is about 6ms. So that is almost twice as fast as the Mbox USB interface at 64 samples. If I run my Quantum at 256 Sample block sizes that puts me around 12 ms, same as the Mbox at 64 Samples. If I could run the Quantum at 64 Samples I would get about 3ms of latency, 32 Samples = 2ms and 16 Samples = a little over 1 ms on my computer. Even with all plugins off my cpu spikes when I bring the Quantum to 64 Samples and under. But on 128 Samples it is stable. (this is all in Sudio One 3.5) I hope that makes sense.

In conclusion I would say it really does seem to depend on the power of your computer to get the most out of the Quantum but even at higher sample block sizes it is still a lot faster than USB interfaces.
If you have a less powerful system like my 2 core i5 mac mini than it won't really work up to it's full potential and DSP might be really useful, but for future plans, I am planning to upgrade my machine to a newer multiple core cpu, i7 or above and thunderbolt 2 or 3, which will maximize the capabilities of the Quantum.

Hope that whatever interface to got or will get you really like it!
-Nate

4 posts
Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests