Thoughts on the new Quantum ES & HD Interfaces?

[SwitchBack]

To recapture my thinking when the new Quantum line was announced:
"USB-C? Is that Thunderbolt? Let's check the specs... No, it's USB2. OK, then I hope these interfaces have built-in DSP mixers so I can still get low latency monitor mixes... Yes they do, so that's fine then."

And yes, I could see what they were doing marketing-wise. But it made me smile more than anything else ...

 

[Number6]

To recapture my thinking when the new Quantum line was announced:
"USB-C? Is that Thunderbolt? Let's check the specs... No, it's USB2. OK, then I hope these interfaces have built-in DSP mixers so I can still get low latency monitor mixes... Yes they do, so that's fine then."

And yes, I could see what they were doing marketing-wise. But it made me smile more than anything else ...

But they can't check the specs. This information is not there.

Again (I'm getting out of breath repeating this), they did not state in the spec's whether it is Thunderbolt or any type of USB bus at all! And they still don't, check my link.

Just USB-C, and many people do not realise that this is just a socket specification (and NOT a bus) that supports multiple protocols including USB and Thunderbolt.

Yes folks USB-C is just a socket design, and USB 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 etc is a bus/protocol, and they are entirely different things all designed to confuse the consumer. We've just seen here a classic example of this confusion earlier on in this thread.

USB-C sockets (yes it's JUST a socket) can deliver USB 3.1 or whatever version, AND Thunderbolt 3 and above depending on the spec (and Presonus conveniently forgets to mention what it is).

Now that's marketing!

 

[SwitchBack]

I have to say, on the old PreSonus product site (where I looked when the HDs were released) this type of info was easy to find. But I just spent 10 minutes trying to find it on the new product site and couldn't find it anywhere. That's strange to say the least.

 

[Number6]

I have to say, on the old PreSonus product site (where I looked when the HDs were released) this type of info was easy to find. But I just spent 10 minutes trying to find it on the new product site and couldn't find it anywhere. That's strange to say the least.

Thankyou for confirming!

And yet it was very clear when they sold the Thunderbolt Quantums. "Thunderbolt" was plastered all over the place.

You would think it was a mistake perhaps that they are missing the bus info, but they've excluded this info as soon as they abandoned Thunderbolt, all they mention is "USB-C" with much more prominence.....and still they don't mention the bus with the latest interfaces. Crazy!

The situation was mentioned in the old forums and they've had plenty of time to correct any mistake. They haven't. So it doesn't seem like a mistake to me that it's excluded in the spec's.

And that info was never available even on the old sites for any of these Quantum USB (not Thunderbolt) interfaces. I remember when they first came out and noticed it straight away.

Of course it could be that the marketing dept itself doesn't understand that USB-C is just a socket. That wouldn't surprise me at all, but then again why exclude the bus info.

 

[chuckwow]

so after looking at the personus web site for Quantum audio interfaces i cannot find any mention of thunderbolt connectivity. I presume that means that none of the new quantum interfaces support thunderbolt. Which, if true, is "disappointing".
I stand corrected. the quantum 2626 does state it supports thunderbolt but does not appear to specify whether it is 2 or 3.

 

[apessino]

so after looking at the personus web site for Quantum audio interfaces i cannot find any mention of thunderbolt connectivity. I presume that means that none of the new quantum interfaces support thunderbolt. Which, if true, is "dissapointing".
I stand corrected. the quantum 2626 does state it supports thunderbolt but does not appear to specify whether it is 2 or 3.

It's right there at the top of the 2626 product page:

Quantum 2626

With a barely measurable round-trip latency of less than 1 ms, it's no wonder Sound on Sound magazine dubbed Quantum-series Thunderbolt audio interfaces the "fastest audio interface on the planet." The Quantum 2626 uses the Thunderbolt 3 bus and PreSonus®' proprietary driver to achieve the...

www.presonus.com

 

[apessino]

I am guessing that the newer generation went back to USB for maximum compatibility - I would assume they are USB3.x, which is quite fine, but it is indeed disappointing that no spec is provided - transparency would be nice here.

I guess the fact that don't say things like "as low as <1ms rountrip" tells you all you need to know.

 

[Number6]

It's right there at the top of the 2626 product page:

View attachment 1385

Quantum 2626

With a barely measurable round-trip latency of less than 1 ms, it's no wonder Sound on Sound magazine dubbed Quantum-series Thunderbolt audio interfaces the "fastest audio interface on the planet." The Quantum 2626 uses the Thunderbolt 3 bus and PreSonus®' proprietary driver to achieve the...

www.presonus.com

Yup, now try and find that info for the non Thunderbolt Quantum interfaces.
Good luck - all you will see is that they use USB-C sockets, which is nothing new, the Studio Range does it too (as well as Thunderbolt 3 and above interfaces).

 

[Number6]

I would assume they are USB3.x,

I wouldn't make that assumption so fast, I think the USB Quantum range at least when they were first released were just USB 2. I'm happy to be corrected here however I'm not 100% certain. I'd love to point you to the specs...but as you know... I can't.

 

[apessino]

I wouldn't make that assumption so fast, I think the USB Quantum range at least when they were first released were just USB 2. I'm happy to be corrected here however I'm not 100% certain. I'd love to point you to the specs...but as you know... I can't.

According to tests by people on forums, it appears that you are right - the HD2 and 8 use USB2.

That is, indeed, disappointing, especially for the HD8.

 

[Number6]

But but but USB-C socket.

 

[SwitchBack]

So, to come back to the initial question: Is the new Quantum line disappointing? These are fast (3.3ms round-trip achievable) USB2 interfaces (not TB, never said, nor denied) with DSP mixers (for completely transparent monitor mixes without having to stress the computer/DAW).

I guess that if Thunderbolt is all you wanted then you'll have to look for a different interface. Otherwise these interfaces do what they do admirably. Worth their money? That's for everyone to decide for themselves, right? Maybe time to leave it at that.

 

[apessino]

Yeah, that's the thing... when actrually tested against competitors that *should* beat in squarely in I/O performance (Arturia, SSL), the HD8 seems to deliver more channels, better reliability and much lower latency (so far, at least). You really have to reach the RME price point to find alternatives that compete with what these Quantum interfaces can do.

At the end, as much as they clearly think that mentioning USB2 on their spec sheet would count as a negative for their potential customers, perhaps the bus speed is not as important as the software that drives the whole thing. When it comes to value, PreSonus hardware is very hard to beat.

 

[Number6]

Yeah, that's the thing... when actrually tested against competitors that *should* beat in squarely in I/O performance (Arturia, SSL), the HD8 seems to deliver more channels, better reliability and much lower latency (so far, at least). You really have to reach the RME price point to find alternatives that compete with what these Quantum interfaces can do.

At the end, as much as they clearly think that mentioning USB2 on their spec sheet would count as a negative for their potential customers, perhaps the bus speed is not as important as the software that drives the whole thing. When it comes to value, PreSonus hardware is very hard to beat.

Any link to these tests?

I'd be very interested to see a Thunderbolt Quantum 2626 be put against this USB2 HD8 when it comes to latency tests, (without using direct monitoring of course). I know which one I'd place my bets on.

Maybe the HD8 will beat it in terms of the other specs (I have no idea).

So if anybody owns both...

 

[apessino]

Any link to these tests?

I'd be very interested to see a Thunderbolt Quantum 2626 be put against this USB2 HD8 when it comes to latency tests, (without using direct monitoring of course). I know which one I'd place my bets on.

Maybe the HD8 will beat it in terms of the other specs (I have no idea).

So if anybody owns both...

The 2626 is still a Quantum. It would be the clear winner against almost anything in existence regardless of price, as far as latency is concerned. I was referring to comparisons with SSL, Arturia, etc. interfaces that are (roughly) in the price bracket as the HD8 (before PreSonus lowered the price, at least).

Regardless, if you are comparing the two, the HD8 is a lot more compatible, since it does not need TB, and it offers on board DSP per channel, auto-gain, re-amping, a screen for standalone control, and more. If you don't care about these features, you are OK with controlling the interface via UC, have TB and want the best possible latency, then the 2626 is clearly the best choice.

 

[Number6]

have TB and want the best possible latency, then the 2626 is clearly the best choice.

You need to read the rest of the thread, apparently that's not the case according some people because "experts" , it's just the know it all thunderbolt snobs who need to do their research apparently , hence I would like to see test results as I've explained which would perhaps put their theories to bed once and for all.

And the word "Quantum" of course implies lightning fast speeds (er....and not USB-C), so let's see the figures.

 

[SwitchBack]

You need to read the rest of the thread, apparently that's not the case according some people because "experts" , it's just the know it all thunderbolt snobs who need to do their research apparently , hence I would like to see test results as I've explained which would perhaps put their theories to bed once and for all.

And the word "Quantum" of course implies lightning fast speeds (er....and not USB-C), so let's see the figures.

You're sending all sorts of mixed signals here. What is it that you want to confirm? That TB is potentially faster than USB2? I'd say that's stating the obvious. Or that USB2 can be pretty fast too? To that effect dgsamper kindly provided some data from his HD2 already. Or that the old 'Quantum' interfaces are faster than the new 'Quantum' interfaces? That's academic as long as the new ones are fast enough for your purposes. Or that a new Quantum interface is indeed fast enough for your purposes? Then the proof of the pudding is in the eating I guess: Buy one, and send it back if it isn't. And please report back either way

 

[Number6]

I'm not the one needing convincing, like I say please read the full thread.

I know thunderbolt 3 is faster than USB2, the only thing that could make this interface faster in terms of latency is if the 2626 Thunderbolt driver is pants. But I don't see any evidence of this on my Quantum 2626.

But as I said, others aren't convinced (again see thread), so I would love to see latency benchmarks between these two interfaces which would clear up any confusion..it's as simple as that.

If that isn't possible never mind, I'm certainly not buying a new interface just to do a benchmark on it. Somebody here on the other hand may own both.

 

[SwitchBack]

..., like I say please read the full thread...

Well, back at ya. All you need to know is in the thread.

Anyway, this starts to become a "What's your name? My name is John. No, can't be because I know John and you're not him" conversation. I'm out.

 

[Number6]

Well, back at ya. All you need to know is in the thread.

I'll repeat again, what I would like to see is latency benchmarks for Quantum HD8 vs 2626. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. That info is NOT in this thread.

And I'm asking that maybe somebody who has both interfaces would like to have a go at it? I don't see any harm in asking. I'm certainly not asking you to do this.

And it's clearly obvious what I've been referring to in this thread, and if you can't be bothered to fully read it, well then fine. I've got no problem with that. But I'm not going to revisit what has already been discussed to death either.