• Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!

    Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!

Is the new Quantum line disappointing?

ianaeillo

Member
I was the owner of four Quantum 2632s and two Quantum 2s. Switched from UA Apollo. Never played around with the 2626, but I got the impression that people like them. Blazingly fast, stackable, and rock solid. While I read reports of people having driver issues, I never experienced anything but quality and dependability. I took them on tours for work and used them for years reliably and never really had a complaint.

I needed to update interfaces for a specific job and so I did, but I gave my collection away to various bands and people in the area with the stipulation that I be able to use them if I'm in a bind. A friend who had one suffered a flood and so I was asked what he should get to replace the wet quantum 2632. I told him the new Quantum HD8. After getting the unit, I went down yesterday to check it out and help him set it up.

Am I wrong in feeling like it's a bit of a step backwards? Yeah the 32bit preamps are nice, I guess. But no longer being stackable and USB 2 (I think? We can't find documentation concerning this) make a noticeably longer roundtrip times. There's no more talkback, which meant we had to find a different solution. No dedicated AB signal path selector. No more front panel feature. But just the biggest is the lack of Thunderbolt, which was the actual draw of the Quantum line.

I understand that I'm probably overreacting and have a bias towards my old units. That said, unless I am missing something, what...is advantage of the new units over the old ones? Just the 32bit preamps? Have you had both and prefer one over the other? Just want to know what I'm not seeing here.
 
Can't comment on the units, but am curious whether the new interfaces do loopback?
 
Most of the criticism will be wrt. latency performance because the Quantum name suggests that it's really fast, as its predecessors. But Thunderbolt (and FireWire before it) is a highway to computer performance especially for real-time applications and USB is still the road with the traffic lights. So if really low latency is key for you then stay with Thunderbolt.
 
Most of the criticism will be wrt. latency performance because the Quantum name suggests that it's really fast, as its predecessors. But Thunderbolt (and FireWire before it) is a highway to computer performance especially for real-time applications and USB is still the road with the traffic lights. So if really low latency is key for you then stay with Thunderbolt.
Totally. I’m justmore academically interested. I have to use a certain interface for a freelance job so I won’t be switching, but just trying to gauge if the community likes them more or not so I can see what I’m missing in my assumptions.
 
Thanks! They've improved the implementation compared to the older interfaces.
 
Also note that real low interface latency for live recording/monitoring loses its importance if your interface has onboard DSP mixer capability, like the new Quantum mixers. Simply create the monitor mixes from the interface using the onboard DSP. That way the live channels will have next to nothing latency and the tracks to/from Studio One get compensated for the round-trip latency, so you can have your cake (safe buffering and all plugins active) and eat it too (with perfect zero latency monitoring).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top