• 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!

Thoughts on the new Quantum ES & HD Interfaces?

I

ianaeillo

Active 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.
 
SwitchBack said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Just to add to the conversation, I'm pretty happy overall with the latency of the new quantums. I'm getting 3.3ms on MacOS with 32 samples.

1748103000249.png
 
Yes, with a powerful computer that's possible. Still, having the choice between green Z or blue Z:

Take the green Z and you’ll be mixing your cue mixes as you’ve always done, inside your computer, accepting that round trip latency can only be as short as interfacing and processing allow. There will be some delay, a little or annoyingly much, but that is to be expected.

Or take the blue Z and it will show you how perfectly transparent cue mixes can be with Studio One in combination with a (PreSonus) interface with DSP mixer.

P.S. Follow the white rabbit;)
 
Last edited:
The new Quantum series is designed exclusively for guitar players, and this is especially true for the HD2.
32-bit int vs. 24-bit is more of a gimmick. If you don't play guitar, for a single stereo input on the HD2 you have to pay €500! There's even no WC-Out on the HD2. The HD8 also has no dedicated line inputs and no mic/line inputs on the front panel. S1 support is also relative, as most people usually work with more than one DAW. I love my old Studio 192.
 
"Quantum" brand always meant a Thunderbolt interface originally. That's what it was.

They then brought in these new USB interfaces, the marketing department branded them as "Quantum", and then they attempted to pretend that they were somehow the same or similar to a Thunderbolt device, or basically said nothing to indicate otherwise. They just marketed it as "USB-C" as though it's that is what makes it faster. Even though USB 3.2 (or whatever) using a USB C socket is a completely different protocol to Thunderbolt with a USB-C socket.

Obfuscation in my book. I noticed many people got sucked into this con. Shame on Presonus marketing for mudding this brand. They should have created a completely new marketing label if they somehow wanted to add go faster stripes.

That's not to say the new Quantum USB interfaces are perfectly good (or bad) USB interfaces, they are however, USB interfaces, and not Thunderbolt, so we should not expect Thunderbolt performance/latency. USB has it's own spec's (depending on the type) and Thunderbolt has it's own spec's too,
 
Last edited:
This is not a helpful post for the simple reason it basically opines that Thunderbolt interfaces are inherently superior to USB interfaces ... but while a car that goes 160 MPH (miles per hour) is technically "superior" to one which goes 159 MPH, in actual use, the difference is undetectable. Then we get into the rabbit hole that is the five different flavors of TB, which are not compatible in most cases, vs flavors of USB, which are a lot more forgiving when mixing and matching. That is exactly why RME sticks to USB devices and avoids TB. And it fails to account for the quality of recent Quantum interface drivers, which is fine for hobbyists, but leave seasoned pros wanting more in the latency department.

The pro resource for PC configuration and interface discussion is gearspace.com: https://gearspace.com/board/music-c...erface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html. Information is a lot more valuable there than it is here. This is the place for Studio One questions. This forum is way better at figuring out S1 vexing issues than the Studio One subforum on gearspace. But when it comes to authoritative configuration and latency discusssions, it's gearpace all the way.
 
If you are referring to my post no it doesn't, please don't twist my words, and I didn't imply anything at all.
At no stage did I say "all Thunderbolt devices are superior to USB devices".

I also wrote and I quote:

"That's not to say the new Quantum USB interfaces are perfectly good (or bad) USB interfaces".

Of course a big factor is how good the driver and the design/hardware of the interface itself. A USB interface with good hardware and a good driver is of course going to be better than a thunderbolt interface with poor hardware and a poor driver.

"they are however, USB interfaces, and not Thunderbolt, so we should not expect Thunderbolt performance/latency."

There is nothing wrong with this statement too. A thunderbolt 3 device with good hardware will a good driver will always be better and faster than a USB device with the same hardware and a good driver. The big advantage is that that audio interface in most scenarios will be driven off a dedicated I/O port too. Thunderbolt 3 etc has faster bus speeds, latency, and a better protocol than USB and that's an absolute fact that shouldn't be ignored. But it appears Presonus wants us to ignore it when we look at their devices hardware specs (or did).

REGARDLESS THIS WAS MY ACTUAL POINT.

I'm clearly stating that "Quantum" always referred to Thunderbolt interfaces, that's how they were marketed. Now it doesn't, and the marketing department used "USB-C" (avoiding the fact that they are just connectors) rather than stating the actual USB protocol (or USB at all) to obfuscate the difference. Nowhere was it listed in the spec's of these new USB interfaces when they came out. May still be the case now. I think that's a solid point. Please don't say my point is anything else other than this.

Thankyou.
 
Last edited:
Number6 said:
If you are referring to my post no it doesn't, please don't twist my words, and I didn't imply anything at all.
At no stage did I say "all Thunderbolt devices are superior to USB devices".

I also wrote and I quote:

"That's not to say the new Quantum USB interfaces are perfectly good (or bad) USB interfaces".

Of course a big factor is how good the driver and the design/hardware of the interface itself. A USB interface with good hardware and a good driver is of course going to be better than a thunderbolt interface with poor hardware and a poor driver.

"they are however, USB interfaces, and not Thunderbolt, so we should not expect Thunderbolt performance/latency."

There is nothing wrong with this statement too. A thunderbolt 3 device with good hardware will a good driver will always be better and faster than a USB device with the same hardware and a good driver. The big advantage is that that audio interface in most scenarios will be driven off a dedicated I/O port too. Thunderbolt 3 etc has faster bus speeds, latency, and a better protocol than USB and that's an absolute fact that shouldn't be ignored. But it appears Presonus wants us to ignore it when we look at their devices hardware specs (or did).

REGARDLESS THIS WAS MY ACTUAL POINT.

I'm clearly stating that "Quantum" always referred to Thunderbolt interfaces, that's how they were marketed. Now it doesn't, and the marketing department used "USB-C" (avoiding the fact that they are just connectors) rather than stating the actual USB protocol (or USB at all) to obfuscate the difference. Nowhere was it listed in the spec's of these new USB interfaces when they came out. May still be the case now. I think that's a solid point. Please don't say my point is anything else other than this.

Thankyou.
Click to expand...
And you keep harping on the supposed superiority of Thunderbolt interfaces to USB interfaces despite your denial of doing it. Let me see, do I want to believe you or RME on the supposed superiority of Thunderbolt to USB? Let me think really hard. Give me a second. I'll pick RME.

Your other argument isn't any better -- that Presonus should have chosen another name for the new Quantums because they're not Thunderbolt. Well, Honda didn't change the name of the Accord when they introduced a hybrid, and Toyota didn't change the name of the Camry when they introduced a hybrid, but you're offended because Presonus didn't change the name of the Quantum.

You're coming in here expecting to be thought a greater authority on pro audio interfaces than Presonus or RME who have sold millions of interfaces to happy customers. I call BS. I'm not a fan of the new HD Quantums either, but I can at least acknowledge they serve a useful purpose for many recordists who don't have the time or inclination to research audio interfaces to the nth degree that I do. And that there are advantages to using them with S1.
 
You've still totally bypassed my main point, the fact they advertised them as USB-C interfaces and failed to mention the bus protocol they were running under, no mention of Thunderbolt or USB protocol, and that was misleading for a brand known for Thunderbolt devices. I've mentioned that three times now. But you are right, I do believe the marketing dept knew exactly what they were doing. Corrected now hopefully but please don't tell me it was a mistake. You still have to scroll a long ways to see the words "USB". The type of interface used to be right up top, now you have to hunt around for it on the blurb

As for the rest, I'm simply not going to repeat again what I said earlier. You carry on with conjecture of what I apparently really mean rather than what I actually wrote, putting words into my mouth about points I didn't actually make, and telling me what I'm expecting to be thought of. Do you always keep rewriting people's posts for them? Next time I post I'll let you write it for me, how about that?
 
Last edited:
Number6 said:
You've still totally bypassed the fact they advertised them as USB-C interfaces and failed to mention the bus protocol they were running under, no mention of Thunderbolt or USB protocol, and that was misleading for a brand known for Thunderbolt devices. I've mentioned that three times now. But you are right, I do believe the marketing dept knew exactly what they were doing. Corrected now hopefully but please don't tell me it was a mistake. You still have to scroll a long ways to see the words "USB". The type of interface used to be right up top, now you have to hunt around for it on the blurb

As for the rest, I'm simply not going to repeat again what I said earlier. You carry on with conjecture of what I apparently really mean rather than what I actually wrote, putting words into my mouth about points I didn't actually make, and telling me what I'm expecting to be thought of. Do you always keep rewriting people's posts for them? Next time I post I'll let you write it for me, how about that?
Click to expand...
The more you write, the more you give others who've done far more research than you the opportunity to savage you. The fact remains the Quantum HD series does use USB-C connectors. The mere fact you prefer Presonus chose TB connectors doesn't make their claim untrue ... or have much to do with whether the interface serves a useful purpose for at least some segment of the market. And it doesn't take a mind-reader looking for cryptic meaning to see what you implied about the superiority of TB to USB even if you didn't use those exact words. It's an obvious theme. And what you wrote indicates someone under the illusion that using Thunderbolt interfaces increases the odds of making better music, and that this is some kind of accepted fact, when in fact there is no proof of it in the real world. You're welcome to the last word, as I don't care what you think or what you use, and I'm out of this discussion after I hit Post Reply, but you are on an island in 2025 regarding your unfounded love for TB which is particularly problematical in the non-Mac PC world as many pros who do this for a living all day long weigh in on in the forum I linked to a few posts above.
 
MisterE said:
The more you write, the more you give others who've done far more research than you the opportunity to savage you. The fact remains the Quantum HD series does use USB-C connectors. The mere fact you prefer Presonus chose TB connectors doesn't make their claim untrue ...
Click to expand...

OK Mr "Do Your Research":

You do realise (well clearly you don't) that Thunderbolt, at least from Thunderbolt 3, uses USB-C connectors too (My Thunderbolt Quantum 2626 happily running on WINDOWS (not Mac) without issue uses exactly these).

So why the heck (more untrue conjecture I never wrote) would I think this?
"The mere fact you prefer Presonus chose TB connectors".

Absolute nonsense. Again manifested from your head, not mine.

Whilst you are at it look up the word "obfuscation", and now you understand that they both use USB-C, perhaps then try to understand and reread my posts, rather than attempt to rewrite them.

I guess it's my bad for making the assumption that you already knew this. Silly me, or maybe next time I'll write:
"The more you write, the more you give others who've done far more research than you the opportunity to savage you"

Well next time "do your research".
 
Last edited:
Well, welcome to the world of Sales. Sorry to break this to you but if you really want to know what you're buying then read the specs. If you didn't, then shame on you.
 
SwitchBack said:
Well, welcome to the world of Sales. Sorry to break this to you but if you really want to know what you're buying then read the specs. If you didn't, then shame on you.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree.

But my point was when they originally released their new USB Quantum line, they didn't write in the specs area of the website whether it used USB or Thunderbolt protocol. USB wasn't mentioned at all! Or Thunderbolt.

They just stated "USB-C" which of course are only a type of socket used by both. Now they've corrected it but they will make you hunt around for it.

Now considering at the time "Quantum" was known for Thunderbolt interfaces, you can hopefully see they crossed the line here. People were literally writing in the forums at the time that "USB-C" was some kind of new go faster magic protocol, when it fact it's just a socket type that serves a variety of purposes.
 
Actually I take it back, they STILL don't mention it.

uk.presonus.com

Quantum HD

PreSonus Quantum HD
uk.presonus.com uk.presonus.com

They still only mention "USB-C connectivity".
No mention of the bus whatsoever.

When it was "Thunderbolt" that was advertised all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top