RME Babyface Vs... others.

[zephonic]

Let me reiterate: Yes, I fully acknowledge the possibility that the DawBench guys just so happened to pick that singular OS/DAW/hardware combination, wherein MOTU performs poorly, and almost every other manufacturer does not.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Like I said:

 

I ran the original MOTU PCI324/2408 on a Windows 98SE system, and it was hell.

 

I am simply telling you that it is different on OSX, something you seemed to question:

 

 

Of course, these tests were on Windows, and it's *possible* that on OSX, the results would be dramatically reversed. I haven't seen any evidence to that effect, though.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Been up and running since last night with the Saffire. I haven't been able to put it through its paces extensively yet --- because I spent about 4 hours trying to get to the bottom of this super obnoxious issue:

 

Software instruments responding monophonically on MIDI Channels higher than 1

 

I thought it was the Saffire's MIDI. I then thought it was my long in the tooth MOTIF XS. After systematically and slowly eliminating all of these as possibilities I knew it HAD to be Mainstage itself. So some Googling got me to the above solution.

 

Thanks for the heads-up. I just realized I have never used Mainstage beyond channel 1...

[Ashville.Guru]

SOS indirectly references MOTU's Windows problems in this review of the track 16 interface.

Thanks. Now THIS is something I can get behind: real data, hard numbers, measured objectively.

 

And these numbers tell a different story from the 828MkII tested by DawBench. The MOTU Track 16 is certainly a contender. The key statistic is that the Track 16 can handle almost twice (90 vs 56) the number of plugins as the Presonus Audiobox @256. Crudely extrapolating from the Dawbench raw data would put the Track 16 in the same league as the RMEs (To any statisticians reading, I'm aware of paucity of data points for regression, linearity assumptions, etc. Still, it's all we have to go on!).

 

As a minor aside, I don't see where the SOS review "references MOTU's Windows problems", indirectly or otherwise. If you're referring to the hidden buffer issue, as they point out, it's "not an uncommon state of affairs". If you've been following the SOS forum thread, even the very good performers have hidden buffers. It's not that big a deal: it translates to an overhead of a mere 2.5ms (10.9-8.4) over the RME Babyface. So still no evidence of OS affecting performance dramatically (I never said it can't happen, though...).

 

But that's a minor quibble, really. This SOS review is good enough for me to reverse my position: The newer generation MOTUs might actually be solid contenders. And I'm happy to be proved wrong in this case! It's always good news for all of us, when good products hit the market.

 

Thanks again for posting it. It also adds to what I've said earlier: brand name means nothing. The MOTU 828MkII performs poorly, while the Track 16 seems to do rather well. And it adds to what you've said earlier: it's important to collate information from different sources.

 

- Guru

[JeffLearman]

As you can see, interfaces differ widely in that ability.

 

- Guru

Actually, that's not quite accurate.

In general, a lower-latency audio interface won't allow you to run much more softsynths.

The hard data suggests otherwise. A bit of background about the source of the Dawbench test Busch and I are referencing:

• Developed by Vin Curigliano (AAVIM, Australia)
  
• Independent testing by Pete Kain (ScanProAudio, UK)
  
• Used as reference standard on SoS interface reviews with testing by Sam Inglis and Martin Walker
  
• Most manufacturers (notably RME) are aware of this emerging standard, and are in touch with people doing the DawBench testing

Those interested can go through the extensive discussion on the SoS thread (warning - 10 pages and counting!). This is the most objective, transparent, reliable info on interfaces available ATM.

 

Take a look at the raw numbers for the RME Fireface:

 

http://s22.postimg.org/lugwq0rkx/RMEbabyface.png

 

Now compare the same with the Focusrite Saffire USB:

 

http://s27.postimg.org/tz3ofmber/Focusrite_USB.png

 

Bottomline:

 

The RME can run 3 times as many Kontakt plugins as the Focusrite at 64 samples (180 vs 160). Twice as many effect plugins (123 vcs 68). All else being equal. And it does it with almost half the latency (5.6ms Vs 9.9ms).

 

Klonk for data on other interfaces.

 

- Guru

Thanks for correcting me on that! Measurements trump theory every day. I'll have to look into that and ponder a bit. I can see that when you're running at the lowest possible latency on an otherwise ideal system (where you don't have to increase latency due to extraneous stuff like some nasty PCI device) that the per-buffer processing in the driver could indeed make a big difference. As you increase the buffering (and therefore the latency) the difference between fast drivers and slow ones should diminish (in terms of how much CPU power remains available for running softsynths).

 

In any case, the CPU power required for softsynths isn't a function of latency, but the CPU power remaining available for them is, especially at the lowest latencies. I'll have to study the data to see if it bears out my assertion about higher buffering. If that doesn't hold up, then something is rotten in Denmark.

[Ashville.Guru]

I imagine that if Apogee went cross-platform, their Windows performance might be inferior to their OS X performance also.

They already have. Apogee Protools edition has just come out for Windoze.

 

@LearJeff: You might also want to check out ADK Pro Audio's benchmarks for audio performance. Tells the story from the CPU side of things.

 

- Guru

[Tusker]

I imagine that if Apogee went cross-platform, their Windows performance might be inferior to their OS X performance also.

They already have. Apogee Protools edition has just come out for Windoze.

 

I get to test my hypothesis. Cool.

 

On the MOTU question, I'd suggest you take a look at the MOTU forums. Just compare the windows subforum to the mac subforum for the types of messages being posted. All will become very clear very quickly.

[JeffLearman]

As a long-time MOTU owner using it on Windows, I can attest that Windows is a second thought to MOTU. I never had any serious issues and got good use of my 828, but it's clear that they focus on the Apple market.

[jimkost2002]

To Bob, the OP

If your MBP has a thunderbolt port, you may want check out the Zoom TAC

Upside

4-5 ms latency

Downside

Possible build issues-its plastic on the bottom