Audio Interface - USB / Thunderbolt

slinky005

slinky005

Power User
Been sitting on the fence about getting a Mac Studio.
For the amount of composing I do these days it's hard tp justify 3k with peripherals right now.
What I want at the moment is the ability to record with virtual zero latency using plugins on the input.
I have looked at al the available options in my price range ($700-$1k CDN).

With a 2018 Intel Mac mini 16gb of ram, how will a USB interface stack up against a thunderbolt one when it comes to recording with plugins?
Using my Axe Fx III, latency with plugins is not useable. Given this I may have answered my own question - being my Mac is not fast enough.
I've not heard any mention of issues with a new USB interface but my understanding is that thunderbolt is much faster.
 
Much? Thunderbolt will have lower latency than usb, but I wouldn't call it "much". Your cpu will generally have more effect on the latency you can achieve than the audio interface. Thunderbolt is generally chosen over usb for an audio interface because of bandwidth, not latency.
 
GlennO said:
Much? Thunderbolt will have lower latency than usb, but I wouldn't call it "much". Your cpu will generally have more effect on the latency you can achieve than the audio interface. Thunderbolt is generally chosen over usb for an audio interface because of bandwidth, not latency.
Click to expand...
Did not know that.
So I need a faster machine to do what I want to do?
 
With a faster cpu you'll probably be able to lower your buffer size. Only you can answer if it can be lowered enough that you'll be satisified with the latency :). What buffer size are you currently using?
 
slinky005 said:
Did not know that.
So I need a faster machine to do what I want to do?
Click to expand...
I only record TB. USB is ok, but it can have a significant impact on recording performance and can actually slow your machine down as well depending on what you have connected.

Now having said that, if the machine you are looking at has a "speed" ceiling then you will also get an associated latency performance threshold as well.

It also depends on the chip and clock speed in the mac. 16Gb is still on the lower side especially if you have lots of tracks inside your DAW.

That is actually the problem currently with Apple. Lots of the current machines are locked in on expansion and so you actually can achieve higher speeds with older machines as to why I have stuck with my 2014 MBP which essentially a faster machine than the current Intel loaded macs.

The new M2 chip could possibly change things, but as you add peripherals you also start to degrade performance. And unless you go super duper mac world pro, you cannot expand.

Things that have worked good for me it to keep my resident hard drive as clean as possible and only record tracks I am currently working on.

I also have a dedicated "recording" mac vs a Kitchen sink mac. This can get costly, however, I don't a MB air when recording and have almost gone the route of just using an iPad for recreational purposed and a mac just but only for creative tasks - Protools, Final Cut, etc with external SD hard drives for storage - and speaking of storage a SD drive will help as well vs an ATA drive.
 
In earlier times, solutions in the form of DSP sound cards or interfaces were bought to shift the computer load. the DSP card then ran the available plug-ins.
Since the plug-ins run on the DSPs, the latency was minimal or non-existent.
The disadvantage was the significantly higher cost for HW and SW.
And how well the HW was/will be supported with SW.
 
Brucegregori said:
That is actually the problem currently with Apple. Lots of the current machines are locked in on expansion and so you actually can achieve higher speeds with older machines as to why I have stuck with my 2014 MBP which essentially a faster machine than the current Intel loaded macs.

The new M2 chip could possibly change things,
Click to expand...
Yes, things have changed enormously in the past couple of years. Any Apple Silicon mac will run rings around almost any Intel mac, even when using Rosetta.
 
Was at 256 - brought down to 32 so I will see how much mileage I can get out of it.
This will probably push me in the new PC direction.
 
slinky005 said:
Was at 256 - brought down to 32 so I will see how much mileage I can get out of it.
This will probably push me in the new PC direction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that change in your buffer size will have a far larger impact on your latency than any audio interface. Whether your cpu can run the desired plugins at that buffer size is the question. What plugins are you typically using that you must monitor through them?
 
GlennO said:
Yeah, that change in your buffer size will have a far larger impact on your latency than any audio interface. Whether your cpu can run the desired plugins at that buffer size is the question. What plugins are you typically using that you must monitor through them?
Click to expand...
SSL channel strip
Bx Room M/S
Soundtoys rack
Bx Compressors
etc.

This list is fluid and a work in progress.
I've done very little experimenting with tracking using plugs so this is all new territory for me.
The reason I need it is because I get very inspired by the onboard fx in the Axe and then when I track it needs to be dry as I don't print the fx from the Axe.
 
Last edited:
slinky005 said:
This list is fluid and a work in progress.
I've done very little experimenting with tracking using plugs so this is all new territory for me.
The reason I need it is because I get very inspired by the onboard fx in the Axe and then when I track it needs to be dry as I don't print the fx from the Axe.
Click to expand...
You can, of course, monitor using the inspiring effects on the Axe-FX while, at the same time, record dry.
 
GlennO said:
You can, of course, monitor using the inspiring effects on the Axe-FX while, at the same time, record dry.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. Doesn't work for me.
You record with an inspiring sound and then playback with a different sound.
I want to record and playback with the same sound.
 
In that case, try the lower buffer size. If your cpu can't keep up, invest in a newer computer. If you're using Logic, you can try running at a 96KHz sample rate with your Axe-FX to lower the latency further, but again, at the cost of more cpu usage. Note that some plugins introduce latency, so keep an eye on that. If, after all that, you still need the latency to be a little lower, then you should look at an audio interface that will squeeze a bit more of the latency out of your system (and probably ditch the Axe-FX if you do that).
 
GlennO said:
In that case, try the lower buffer size. If your cpu can't keep up, invest in a newer computer. If you're using Logic, you can try running at a 96KHz sample rate with your Axe-FX to lower the latency further, but again, at the cost of more cpu usage. Note that some plugins introduce latency, so keep an eye on that. If, after all that, you still need the latency to be a little lower, then you should look at an audio interface that will squeeze a bit more of the latency out of your system (and probably ditch the Axe-FX if you do that).
Click to expand...
Thx Glenn. Very helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom