1u computer chassis to run SAC/SAW via USB3 interface.

[Mattseymour]

That would run sac, but you might be a bit limited on channel count.

[Dale B]

Any idea what the channel count would be and way lower? CPU power? USB connection? Would it run 8, 16, or 24 channels?

[Cary B. Cornett]

Any idea what the channel count would be and way lower? CPU power? USB connection? Would it run 8, 16, or 24 channels?

For sure the USB connection sets limits. My efforts to make my remote recording process easier and more efficient have kind of rubbed my nose in this difference.

For my studio rig, I use the MOTU 2408 mk3 with the 424 PCI card. The 2408, converters, and headphone amp core live in a 6U portable rack. Origiinally, for remote recordings I would take out the studio computer and this rack, plus a case that carried my display screen, keyboard, trackball etc. Ripping out and putting back was a pain.

So, I got a dedicated tower machine for remote use so the studio computer could stay home. Still needed all the other stuff, still a pain at the venue, but less hassle with the studio computer.

A remote session in someone's house basement to record drums persuaded me that I needed to lighten the load more, which meant switching to a laptop. Fewer setup and teardown steps, less weight, but now I had to switch to a USB interface. I got a 4U portable rack, and ended up with a limit of 12 microphone inputs. For the kind of field recording I have been doing, this is enough, but I am not at all sure that I could run SAC job the way I could with the former rig (which I still have if I need it).

The internal PCI card setup could crank up to 96 channels if a went for more of the rack equipment, and has the low latency I like. BTW, the small computer you pictured probably won't take that PCI card (most of the "compact" designs can't). By comparison, the architecture of USB was not optimized for this kind of use, and probably never will be. To use USB, we must accept certain tradeoffs.

[Dale B]

I was wondering if the USB would be the bottle neck. The unit has USB3 ports that are faster but I guess you would need an interface that was UBS3 compliant to take advantage of the speed. There is another post on here about a new RME USB2 interface that had three sets of ADAT inputs and outputs. There was a lot of discussion about that being able to support the full 24 channels in ADAT at a low enough latency to run SAC.

I'm also trying to lighten my load and make a 24 channel system I can carry in in one trip.

Thanks for all the help.

[cgrafx]

I was wondering if the USB would be the bottle neck. The unit has USB3 ports that are faster but I guess you would need an interface that was UBS3 compliant to take advantage of the speed. There is another post on here about a new RME USB2 interface that had three sets of ADAT inputs and outputs. There was a lot of discussion about that being able to support the full 24 channels in ADAT at a low enough latency to run SAC.

I'm also trying to lighten my load and make a 24 channel system I can carry in in one trip.

Thanks for all the help.

The challenge with USB is two-fold.

1. Its CPU bound (meaning it can easily be interrupted by anything using the CPU)
2. On windows, its driver bound and potentially not repeatable.

• What this means is windows core USB drivers are not something I would want to rely on for stable real-time work.

So your either looking at dedicated interface cards like the MOTU or RME offerings, or as we move forward Thunderbolt or AVB/Dante.

The small NUC boxes are cute, but are almost exclusively going to be limited to USB. If windows ever gets built-in AVB support like the Mac OS does then that opens up a lot of potential options, but as it stands currently your really looking at the Dante protocol and that requires a separate interface card.

I'm not saying you can't make USB work, but there really isn't any way in advance to know what sort of limitations and pit-falls will show up short of just buying the stuff and trying it out.

[Mattseymour]

Some of the really cheap little atom boxes have USB issues, I've seen this where the physical layer just stops working and needs a reboot. I wouldn't go for something super cheap, maybe one of the gigabyte brix things. You can get a reasonable number of channels over usb2. Usb3 doesn't have any realistic bandwidth limits. The issues of USB having higher latency and cpu load than other interfaces applies. FireWire is a better interface for realtime audio but has now died out. Don't hold your breath for avb, I personally think avb is dead... others will disagree. Dante is a great way forward but for live mixing really needs a dedicated pcie card. The Dante virtual soundcard is perfect for recording.

[cgrafx]

Some of the really cheap little atom boxes have USB issues, I've seen this where the physical layer just stops working and needs a reboot. I wouldn't go for something super cheap, maybe one of the gigabyte brix things. You can get a reasonable number of channels over usb2. Usb3 doesn't have any realistic bandwidth limits. The issues of USB having higher latency and cpu load than other interfaces applies. FireWire is a better interface for realtime audio but has now died out. Don't hold your breath for avb, I personally think avb is dead... others will disagree. Dante is a great way forward but for live mixing really needs a dedicated pcie card. The Dante virtual soundcard is perfect for recording.

AVB certainly has some hurdles to overcome, but its built into every Mac and MOTU has embraced it fully.

Dante has the larger market, but still requires a separate interface to get low latency connections into the computer.

[Mattseymour]

AVB certainly has some hurdles to overcome, but its built into every Mac and MOTU has embraced it fully.

Dante has the larger market, but still requires a separate interface to get low latency connections into the computer.

I'd be really interested to know how many people are using it. It's free from licensing issues, so a manufacturer is able to roll it into their product in innovative ways to do a job, much like Presonus did with the AI series consoles... but their implementation can't talk to a Mac, or motu device.


Biamp make use of AVB, as do Meyer sound and Harman, but they also make dante versions of everything now and I do wonder what sells more. The installed AV world doesn't seem to be all that interested in AVB any more.


I'm happy to be proved wrong, but to me it's not going to go much further. Until Windows natively supports it for starters. AVB has many problems, such as the switch requirement. It's only layer2 which limits applications in many areas.


The real nail in the coffin is Audinate's Dante domain server thing, which means large scale AV installations can route Dante traffic across subnets. Unless someone builds an AVB equivalent all the big players will just phase it out. It might stick around for compatibility with existing products but nobody will actually use it.


Please don't hear me saying AVB is terrible. We could have a VHS/Betamax thing here. There's just no getting away from the fact that in this particular world Motu have decided to use AVB and that's about it. More significantly the network switch manufacturers are not onboard with it. That kills it in corporate.

[cgrafx]

I'd be really interested to know how many people are using it. It's free from licensing issues, so a manufacturer is able to roll it into their product in innovative ways to do a job, much like Presonus did with the AI series consoles... but their implementation can't talk to a Mac, or motu device.


Biamp make use of AVB, as do Meyer sound and Harman, but they also make dante versions of everything now and I do wonder what sells more. The installed AV world doesn't seem to be all that interested in AVB any more.


I'm happy to be proved wrong, but to me it's not going to go much further. Until Windows natively supports it for starters. AVB has many problems, such as the switch requirement. It's only layer2 which limits applications in many areas.


The real nail in the coffin is Audinate's Dante domain server thing, which means large scale AV installations can route Dante traffic across subnets. Unless someone builds an AVB equivalent all the big players will just phase it out. It might stick around for compatibility with existing products but nobody will actually use it.


Please don't hear me saying AVB is terrible. We could have a VHS/Betamax thing here. There's just no getting away from the fact that in this particular world Motu have decided to use AVB and that's about it. More significantly the network switch manufacturers are not onboard with it. That kills it in corporate.

I'm not extolling the virtues of AVB over Dante, more just looking at the state of things.

AVB may never reach the installed base/market share needed to survive, or may be relegated to a more niche market.

Its just unfortunate that Dante can't fully utilize the existing ethernet hardware built into just about every modern PC. Yes, they have a virtual interface but as yet the latency is too high for most real-time applications.

Dante: works with pretty much all your existing network infrastructure but has to have a card to connect to PC
AVB: works without a card to connect to your PC but requires special network infrastructure.

We're so close and yet... just not quite there...

[Mattseymour]

We're so close and yet... just not quite there...

Exactly my feelings.