PreSonus Quantum HD 8 - FULL Overview | USB-C Audio Interface
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video - I take a detailed "deep dive" with the recently released PreSonus Quantum HD 8 USB-C Audio interface.
More information available here: www.presonus.com/quantum
00:00 - Intro
00:16 - Build Quality and User Experience
01:21 - MAX HD Preamps with 75db Gain
02:08 - Enabling Phantom Power
02:18 - Enabling HPF and 20db Pad
03:00 - AUTO GAIN in action
04:13 - Main Encoder Functions
05:05 - Headphone Volume Control
06:25 - Mute and Dim Button
06:57 - Main Display View Options
07:17 - PreSonus HD 8 Global Menu
08:36 - Standalone Mode (ADAT)
09:38 - Reamp Outs Explained
11:40 - Customizing Console View Options in UC
12:05 - ADAT Control (Supported PreSonus Hardware)
12:39 - USB Returns via UC
13:06 - Fader Flip in UC
13:29 - Using Loopback w Supported Applications
15:23 - Custom Low Latency Driver
19:27 - Studio One integration / Restore Device Settings
20:18 - Creating Pipeline Presets for Reamping
21:29 - Final Thoughts
#presonus #quantum #interface - เพลง
Great review. I had the Quantum 2626 pretty much since it came out and have had the new HD8 for a few weeks, so for anyone considering getting the new HD8 one thing worth considering is the fact that the new interface does not have send/returns on any of the inputs. If you have outboard preamps, it's no big deal, but having send/returns on Channels 1 and 2 on the Quantum 2626 was a great feature, allowing you to use outboard gear while tracking through the built-in preamps. The reamp feature on the new interface is really useful though. It's made using guitar pedals and outboard gear during production/mixing a breeze. Overall, I'm really happy with the upgrade.
Thanks for the review. I like what I'm seeing with this new interface. Yours is the first I've come across so far. Appreciate your channel.
Thanks for the comment - there are quite a few shorter video reviews published by a lot of different channels - but I wanted to really show this interface in detail. I’m super happy with it, this far.
Cheers, M
Great review!! Thank you!! The round trip latency results are encouraging as I was concerned about the fact that these were USB 2.0 protocol interfaces.
In all honesty i know that I've heard of some people talking about RME interfaces and the custom low latency driver over USB.
I've never used RME before - But this was my first experience with seeing these types of RTL numbers over USB.
I think on a newer computer system (even on my 2019 Intel Macbook Pro) that these results are really good, and would allow people to work with really acceptable latency.
But also we have UC for ~ZERO latency monitoring, as well..
Cheers, M
Great job on this! Thank you!
Got one on order to replace my Thunderbolt 2 OG Quantum, largely for the new preamps and 32-bit converters. Thanks for the overview.
I'm going to add one to my main stereo studio setup, as well - The 2 units that I reviewed in this video are for my Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Mix Room.. I will still keep my Thunderbolt Quantum's connected in my main setup - but i love the idea of incorporating the new interface into my setup.
There's also i few things i didn't get to cover in this video because it was already long enough.. I hope to do some more content on the interface in the short term future.
Cheers, M
Great video!
Thanks for this Marcus.
No problem!
Cheers, M
Excellent review-Marcus- a couple quick questions on Dolby Atmos- 1. can you utilize the 2nd Heaphone output as Channels 11 and 12 for a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos mix ono a single interface, or are you required to use the 2nd interface for that? 2. Are you using Sonarworks SoundID Reference for Multichannel with Measurement Microphone for your room calibration/Speaker EQ 3. What would be the Maximum sample rate and anticipated latency figures with 7.1.4 setup
Great review Marcus- real world insights. I’m wondering do the line inputs bypass the mic pres and go to the converters? Cheers.
Yes - 100% they do, and they also have a trim in place of the preamp gain when a TRS cable is connected (which is super useful)
Cheers, M
This review is very informative, thank you for taking the time. My question is, In a hybrid setup can you use the 10 TRS outputs on the back of the quantum to feed the first 10 line inputs on an external analog mixer. Would you assign outputs in StudioLive (vs6) 1-10 mono. I have a 24 channel mixer and two of these in this scenario would be adequate.
Great review and detailed as well. Love my Quantum 2626, but this might be worth a look in the future as there are some good added features in this. Might miss the speed of the thunderbolt connection though.
The new Quantum’s are a massive step up in terms of the quality of conversion, preamps, dynamic range, and headphone amps. But I hear what you are saying about Thunderbolt speeds.
I’m currently looking into what the best approach would be for incorporating the HD 8 into my Thunderbolt setup.
Right now, I think it’s a toss up between using an HD 8 in ADAT stand-alone mode - or testing out using different interfaces for the input vs output. (I’ve never tried that before)
Either way - I hope to do some more content covering this interface.
Cheers, M
Thanks for the video, very detailed as always. Will you do a ATMOS setup with those ?
Thank you for such a great video. I'd like to able to use the HD8 as a standalone mixer and was wondering if in doing this you can utilise all of its outputs ... the manual says that Outputs 1&2 are used but doesn't say anything about Outputs 3‐8.
Many thanks in anticipation of your help.
Marcus, what a great run through. Thank you so much! I have a question regarding the Loopback function. I am a vocal coach. Until now I used the Presonus Revelator io24 for live streaming my vocal coaching sessions with clients. That worked great, since the Revelator had the integrated DSP Fat Channel. Comparable to a digital mixer workflow. Now I am wondering if I am able to achieve the same thing with the new Quantum HD 8? Is it possible to stream the DAW Output incl. software monitoring to OBS, Zoom etc.? If someone reads this, I would very much appreciate any suggestions. Thanks a lot again.
Thanks for the review Marcus! When going line in on one of the 8 ins, if using another amp pre, does it bypass the built in preamps as some interfaces do?
The mic / line combo jacks on ES and HD bypass the pre if you plug into the 1/4-inch part of the combo jack. There is a digital trim available when it auto-senses line level but the pre is bypassed.
@@OscarDanielGarza perfect thanks!
Yep - just as Oscar mentioned - the cool thing about the trim is you can hit analogue gear super hard then pull back the level to taste..
Thanks for watching!
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic
Over on Gearspace they are saying the pres CANNOT be bypassed. The manual for the Quantum Thunderbolt series indicates the pres can be bypassed. One commenter said the word "bypass" is not even in the HD 8 manual.
Also, two different people on different sites have stated completely contrary information. Both have said they spoke to Presonus support with one rep saying the pres CAN be bypassed; the second rep said they CANNOT.
We're not talking about keeping a pre's gain to "0" for the bypass. That is not a true bypass.
Your comment on the issue?
How does it do w/ iZotope plugins active while in record?
I wish they made a new Quantum 4848 HD and the HD8 with thunderbolt. I would love both of those. A talkback button would've been great on the HD8 as well.
what is RTL at 128 samples 48khz? I usually work at 128 samples or 64 samples lowest.
Marcus I pick up the HD8 I watch your other video on XT Pipeline and was trying to get it to work with the HD 8. Will this work for EX; routing out CH 5 and back in to input CH 5. I have a few pcs of hardware gear I want to use. I am bypassing my compressor ( using just the 1/4 TRS cable) It shows a send signal in PL but nothing in the return. Doesn’t. Seem I have a actual send coming out of the jack. Is there a step I am missing?
I finally figured this out! For anyone else it appears the mixer has to be in bypass mode to work properly.
I have the Quantum 26x32 Thunderbolt, is it really worth the upgrade since it's USB-C?
how does this compare to uad apollo is it in the same ball park ?
Can you do a review using hardware and pipeline?. Thanks, and as always, appreciate your videos.
I’d love to do a video on pipeline - because this unit has awesome dynamic range (which is useful when sending hotter levels to analogue gear.. also I’d love to try out using pedals. It’s been years since I did that…
Cheers, M
What converters are used for AD/DA, DA/AD?
Excellent tutorial of the new hardware. I'm in a quandary. Had decided, after massive information paralyzation concerning comparisons of interfaces, on the latest MOTU 828. The 828 has about everything, including very good converters and specs.
Now the HD 8 comes out and suddenly there's another heavyweight interface contender (for me, anyway). Since Studio One Pro is my DAW and I have Faderport8, I can see the advantage of the tight integration with the HD 8. Also, it's 8 pres to 2. Advantage Presonus. The 828 won't let me go though. The HD 8 is the latest siren calling out to me as I'm tied to the ship's mast, unable temporarily to regain my sanity with these two alluring songs competing for my attention.
I would like to see a total spec comparison for the HD 8 as is available for the 828. Haven't been able to find much of anything.
You only have 2 mic pres on MOTU while HD8 has 8 so it's not a comparable product. Motu has DSP, quantum doesn't have it. Motu is high end interface with only 2 preamps and HD8 is entry/mid tier interface with a lot of preamps built in. 2 completely different products
@@huberttorzewski
All that is true but fairly obvious differences. I'm talking about real "specs." Can't find this and similar information for the HD8.
I have Rme babyface pro fs..would this be better option with more dynamic range? What is your opinion if you ever heard or used rme babyface pro fs?
I’ve actually never used an RME interface.. I almost bought one a couple years ago when my original studio 192 went out for repair but ended up going with a new studio 192 instead.
I’m also not familiar with the dynamic range specs on the babyface.
But I can tell you that the Quantum HD 8 sounds incredible. In terms of preamps, converters, dynamic range, and headphone amps, It’s a significant step up from my original quantum Thunderbolt units (the original quantum, and the 4848)
I’m sure someone will compare them and lost their findings.
Hope this helps..
cheers, M
I dont think this is better than RME brother
I can't figure out how to use Universal Control while using Studio One.
Only having 2x USB audio pairs in Universal control makes it impossible to use the other 6 outputs? Or am i missing something?
So far it seems to me that this is a downgrade even from something as simple as a Focusrite 18i20 which has 10 virtual output pairs. So you can use all the outputs in the back. Here i can only use 4 outputs out of the 10 available without bypassing universal control. But when i bypass universal control i can't use loopback and i can't use my mic for talkback etc etc.
Do you have any insights on this?
can i mix 5.1 with it?
A great review, Marcus.
Did you have any chance to make a statement about the sound quality of the interface itself - compared to the Quantum 2626 for instance? Or the sound quality of the Preamps?
Since Latency never was an issue with my Firewire interfaces it would not be either with this one - and 75 dB preamp gain and 124 dB converter dynamics are good numbers. So I'm tempted by this one.
Yeah - I did, but I tried to cover so much info in this video, that i didn't even get into specific's like 32 bit, and the dynamic range on the converters.
The preamps are probably the best I've heard as built-in preamps that ship with an interface. the 75db of gain is really nice for Ribbon Mics and dynamic mics. I also didnt fine that they sounded overly sterile. Just nice clean preamp gain - that doesnt sound dull or lifeless..
I think you'd be happy with the purchase, or even one of the smaller units..
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic thank you. Since I need up to 14 microphones to pick up the entire drumset (if I use all 7 Toms and the sidesnare) the smaller units are not for me.
@@MarkusH1966wow - that’s a lot of mics!
Hiw is it managing phase with so many mics?
Cheers M
@@marcushuyskensmusic that is not a real big problem. The 3:1-rule of close mikes against main mikes can easily be fulfilled. The problems are rather two mikes on the snare (top-bottom) or bassdrum (in-out). If a phase-flip doesn’t help, plugins like Waves in-Phase or SSL native X-Phase can help.
I am on windows 11 universal control loses connection to quantum hd8 during firmware update. studio one sees the quantum, but I cannot control it from studio one. anyone else had this issue?
The ES4 is what I got my eye set on
I’m thinking of selling my apogee boom and replacing it with an ES model.. even if it’s just to get the 2 loopback streams vs the apogee boom which only has 1 stream with limited routing options…
Because when I’m using the boom - the whole reason I bought it was to get some type of loopback working.
But I quickly realized that it’s useless when you’re monitoring on the same interface and trying to send someone the main outs (it creates a feedback loop)
Cheers, M
Out of curiosity. How does it sound compared to a Prism Titan, Lynx Aurora, Apogee Symphony MKIi, and Apollo X16.
I’ve haven’t heard the Prism gear in ages (years) I’d say that it’s 100% on par or better then any decent professional audio interface that’s out there right now.
Also worth pointing out - this unit sounds better then my original Thunderbolt quantum and my 4848. (It’s just not as fast with RTL) but I’m honestly thinking of keeping the 4848 for tracking connected to all my external preamps and hardware - then switching to the HD 8 for my mixing..
All my analog gear is connected to a patch bay anyways - so I may tests it out in the coming weeks..
Cheers, M
Please answer this my friend, I am currently using the IK Axe I/O for it’s incredible Hi-Z inputs with active/passive pickup adaptation, and variable impedance with jfet and pure settings as well. In addition, the Neural DSP quad quartex gives precision control over the instrument input as well through its interface. So far, I am considering the Quantum HD to replace my TB3 quantum 2626. I cannot find any information as to a juxtaposition of specifications between my Quantum 2626 and this new HD. Nor do I believe that it’s Presonus level of standards to have failed to make the Hi-Z inputs as flexible as products like the Axe I/O. I like that you “worked with Fender” on them. But this means little to me from a technical standpoint. What are the capabilities to vary the inputs to adjust to my different guitar tones and pickups, and if they do not currently exist have you planned for a software update that will enable that feature? Please juxtapose the Axe I/O with this HD 2 for guitar players, pros & cons. Thank you!
There's nothing in the manual that talks of variable impedance on the HD2 hi-z inputs. As far as I know, the IK Axe range are the only straight up audio interfaces that have these functions. The Quad Cortex, Helix, and Fractal FM9 and Axe FX 3 have variable impedance but I don't class these as out and out audio interfaces. I own the Axe Solo and the IK Buffer Boost. Both are excellent pieces of kit.
if you have the interface I am thinking of.. your lowest latency smokes this new junk Im sure. my motu interface was slightly too slow for me (when it worked) 1.67ms roundtrip.. Bet the preamps for new stuff is nice.. but I wouldnt bother with software monitoring
Can you set gain levels remotely. For example if your drums are in the live room and the computer/ interface is in the control room. Can you set recording levels with a tablet or even a bluetooth mouse and monitor?
Yes, absolutely. The auto gain feature is available in UC (per channel) you can see it in UC in this video.
UC can be loaded on iOS devices and tablets.
So you could engage that feature when you’re away from your computer in the live room.
Cheers, M
Are you able to test the latency with a physical loopback using RTL Utility? Some interfaces, like my Audient ID14 MK1, the driver do not report the real numbers.
Hi does this interface work Standalone ? ... As in if I connect my keyboards/Guitar to the interface, can I hear the audio, without switching the computer ON (like Craneborne 500R8) ?
Yes, when the computer is off all the inputs are sent to the main outs like a simple mixer.
I’m curious about plugins on the inputs in studio one. I know the plugins add latency, but would it be feasible to track through plugins on the inputs?
I didn’t test this - but I don’t see any reason why not. As long as you’re software monitoring and preferably with plugins that are zero latency - it should work.. I can check on my end..
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic Thanks for the reply. Great work on the review and information. 👍
Marcus, aren’t you getting even lower latencies if you DISABLE dropout protection (just set it to Off)?
I only disable dropout protection if the artist wants to monitor their performance whilst hearing their live mix during punch ins. Most of the time I use tape style (auto-Input) monitoring which means I only have to record enable a track
Also I’m not 100-% sure how the system would perform with dropout protection disabled and running at 16 samples (which is what I’ve been doing since I got the HD 8..
Cheers,
M
With my unit I can’t see any of the phones in Studio One and forced to go out to UC. It is like they didn’t finish building the integration with S1. In fact it has less features than my Studio 192 connected with S1. I may return it because my work flow is worse now. Plus no talkback mic. I think the Fender flex with the outputs is not needed.
If you don't need to use UC for cue mixes, use Bypass Mixer in UC. It's a little different way to work than the 192, but instead of using dedicated outs for headphones you can use any output pair (analog or ADAT digital) as an output destination for a mix. Even if you don't have anything connected to ADAT, the path is still there and you can mirror your headphones from that path. For example, you can use ADAT Out 15 / 16 to make a headphone cue mix. Just make sure that ADAT Out 15 / 16 is chosen for headphones in Studio One 6.6.1 or later.
Marcus I felt I had to comment because I've been following you for years and have learnt huge amount from your videos about the more advanced features (and quirks) of Studio One. I see you as one of the wise sages of studio one and audio production in general.
But I am a bit surprised at your take on these interfaces. Full disclaimer, I haven't watched the whole video, just the parts about latency and your final thoughts but I've been massively disappointed by the HD-8. As a pretty happy Quantum 2626 user I was keen to know how Presonus were going to update the Quantum line for the next generation.
And they haven't.
These are not "Quantum" interfaces because the whole point of Quantum interfaces, for most people, was the incredible low latency performance. No DSP, no software mixer required, just great integration with Studio One and blisteringly fast latency to the point where you don't even think about it.
Now, some people will argue that latency doesn't matter once you get below, say, 5ms but those RTL numbers you quoted are about double my quantum 2626. So as a replacement for the Studio 1824 (which I had once but sent back for the 2626) then this is arguable an update. But this is not, in any way, an update to the Quantum line because the whole point of the Quantum (like it or not) was the incredible RTL.
I'm also not very happy about the lack of any combo jacks on the front but that is kind of by the by because this is Quantum in name only.
Luckily I don't need to upgrade, just hope my 2626 doesn't break!
I hear what you are saying - But also I think that the "Quantum" name is kinda like the "Apollo" name.. It seems like it refers to the "lineup" of interfaces..Then certain models are running USB-C or previous generation's with Thunderbolt.
For me, these 2 units are being used for my Dolby Atmos Mix Room. I previously was using my Studio 192 connected to a DP-88.. The conversion and headroom on these new units is really, really, good. A massive step up from the previous generation of converters..
Also the preamps are probably the best I've ever heard on a built in preamp that ships with an interface. I don't see it as a step backwards. It's just that it's a USB-C interface..
And I get what you are saying about the RTL on the Quantum Thunderbolt interfaces.. (I use a Quantum and a Quantum 4848 in my main stereo setup that stays locked to 32 buffer size in Studio One).
But to be honest, the RTL figures that this interface can hit with the custom driver are pretty decent. Also it's pretty easy to use UC or hardware direct monitoring if someone wanted to have ~ZERO latency..
At the end of the day, I think this interface sounds incredible - it's build quality and general look is really nice, and the loopback feature was VERY much needed for content creator's and people who need to create mixes for streaming.
But like you said, if the 2626 is working for you, then that's perfect.. Stay with that unit!
Cheers, M
Thanks for the review. A bit fast for a Belgian but just what I expected.
Yeah I was trying to pack in a lot of information and I drink too much coffee 😂
Either way - I hope you enjoyed the video, and I hope to make more videos on the HD 8!
Cheers, M
You know you can slow down or increase the speed of the presentation by clicking in the upper right hand corner of the screen (setting?) to bring up options, including the speed of the presentation.
@@rjb7569 great suggestion 👍🏻
Cheers, M
Excellent review. I just bought the 2626 still in the box. Days later the hd8 was announced. Lots of nice upgrades on the hd8. Tempted to return the 2626 and go for the Hd8. Hesitant though in that latency might not be as good as the 2626. Nothing worse than pulling up a full mix with lots of plug-ins and not be able to redo let’s say a vocal track or what not. Concerned about the HD8 being USB and not as fast as the thunderbolt 2626. Can anyone advise me with this
Hi, I've got a 2626 and the latency is about half the HD-8 (approx). On a block size of16 samples the 2626 is showing 1.63ms of RTL (round trip latency) and on 32 sample blocksize it's showing 2.72ms. I don't want to keep repeating myself but imho the new Quantum interfaces aren't Quantum interfaces because the whole point of the Quantum line was very low RTL. They've ditched Thunderbolt and gone to USB and you can't get the speeds of the original Quantums over USB.
Personally I'd stick with the 2626 if latency matters to you (and also combo jacks on the front of the unit).
I have the 2626 also, and as the previous comment, RTL is much better, and I noticed that in order to get low latency on the HD you need to push the green Z, which bipasses the plugins to get low latency. I've had the 2626 since it dropped, and love it..just IMHO.
Stick with the 2626.
If the 2626 is working for you, then roll with it..
And I understand what you are saying because my OG Quantum stays locked at 32 samples in green Z with medium dropout protection and gets rock solid 2.5ms RTL.
That being said - the new HD 8 sounds better to me. Preamps, converters, dynamic rage and headphone amp are ALL A STEP UP..
Cheees, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic out of interest (because I just wondered) I had a look at the RME interfaces latency because they have a reputation as good low latency USB. In terms of price then then the Fireface UCX II is closest (although it's half rack format) and that has considerably better latency figures than the HD 8. At 32 samples it has a RTL of 3ms whereas the HD 8 seems to be about 4.7ms. So unless I'm mis-understanding something I think your "incredulity" at the HD8 latency figures is probably misplaced. Presonus have done a decent job but they are nowhere near the best in the industry.
I'm not saying this isn't a decent product, and having read a bit more about the difficulties of Thunderbolt development I understand why Presonus may have ditched it, but whereas the original Quantum and the 2626 were easy choices for tracking in Studio One because they simply removed any worries about latency and any complications of DSP mixing, the HD 8 is "just another audio interface" now.
What if I wanted to use two of these units at the same time to get both the max amount of inputs? so basically just like linking them together to get 48 inputs?
ADAT is the only way. Up to 24 analog ins through ADAT at up to 48 khz or up to 16 analog ins at 96 kHz (no ADAT at 192 kHz).
dope but what happing about use FX WITH THE MIXER WINDOW ?
I don’t use any fx in UC when I’m software monitoring at lower process block sizes. Which this unit is capable of achieving..
I actually bypass UC and I route them in studio one..
Also if I’m monitoring with hardware direct monitoring in UC for near ZERO latency - I also don’t use fx in UC. I use fx sends in studio one and think of any delay of fx returns as acceptable pre delay…
I honestly just feel like I’d rather use any fx I want vs being limited to the included fx in UC.
Cheers, M
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic okay thanks actually I just wanted to know if using effects while you record could be done YOU KNOW LIKE THE UAD onboard processing and still keeping your buffer size low
Seems like a miss to not have any DSP effects (besides low cut) and worse latency than previous quantum interfaces from presonus. Price wise for the HD ones I think Motu mk5 and 828 are more compelling as they have DSP for eq, comp, reverb and really low latency.
I love how the main complaint is that it doesn't have all the toys rather than like...the sound quality and reliability. But oh yeah, this isn't about making music. It's about having all the cool buttons and shining things
@@buckycore tracking vocals without having compression and reverb in realtime is awful for the vocalist. He/She win't be able to sing loud because it will be too loud in the headphones and the quieter sections will be too quiet so he/she will sing not on pitch a lot of the times. Either you need to invest a lot into hardware and use DAW reverb with some latency or buy something with DSP if you want to have good vocal recordings. That's why lack of DSP is worse than having a bit worse audio quality on the interface itself
All these years, I never knew that DJ Vlad was doing these tutorials as well!
Time to check out google… 👀
As others are saying, isn't going back to a mixer a step in the wrong direction? It was pushed as "the" way to go for low latency, and then it appears again? I use a Quantum 26x32 for exactly that reason - low latency. I was using the 1824C, and needed better. Thoughts?
totally agree.. to go backwards from thunderbolt 3 interface (that I still might need to buy sometime) to a slower connection.. Cant possibly use software like a pedalbord and a piano sim will probably do noting but annoy me.Also I have tuned a guitar thru software with latency.. then take off headphones.. guitar is not in tune! Wish I had direct monitoring outborard gear and amp/cab sims.
Why is no one addressing the use of multiple units as you could with the previous Quantums? Will they 'cascade' or do you just aggregate them on a Mac like before?
No automatic aggregation from USB currently but you can use Audio MIDI Setup on macOS to aggregate. But you can get up to 24 analog ins through ADAT at up to 48 khz or up to 16 analog ins at 96 kHz (no ADAT at 192 kHz).
I’m currently running my 2nd unit in ADAT stand-alone mode, clocked via BNC to the main interface.
I would love to see automatic aggregation in UC eventually. But it’s been pretty stable for me having access to an additional 8 channels of inputs via ADAT standalone mode..
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic, I get it. That helps.
Thank you for doing what you do, so well! You are a first choice for me when looking up topics for S1. You're frickin logical, methodical and thorough!
@@cptesting 🙏🏻🍻
presonus custom low-latency drivers vs rme drivers any thoughts pls
I dont see how these new drivers are actually any different. I have nearly 98% identical latency numbers with my old Audiobox iTwo as this quantum HD8 has. I was hoping that the latency difference would be massive between a 10 year old interface and a absolute newly created one. i would be interested to see the latency numbers with more samples in the device blocksize. If you are a person who works with alot of VST's and plugins the latency always become huge due to the block size. if those latencies can be pushed down with higher blocksizes i would be impressed.
What numbers are you seeing for the AudioBox? Assuming you're on Windows as macOS Core Audio has always had much more latency than Windows ASIO. That's where the custom driver becomes important.
@@OscarDanielGarza I have excactly the same settings as Marcus shows in his videos under the processing tab. The numbers are 35ms respectively in the Standard latency and 3.71ms roundtrip and 4.44 ms instrument under low latency fields. I run windows 10 Pro .
@@Luke-ib1ki makes sense. Windows ASIO has been better than macOS Core Audio for a while. The driver on macOS cuts Core Audio latency to about half of what it was.
@@OscarDanielGarza Makes sense, i never used studio one with a mac system, so cant really express any experience with it. But i wish Presonus would not be so vague in their phrasing regarding " Custom made low latency drivers ". Feels more like a marketing gimmick to me. And i want to see more benchmarks around these audio interfaces tbh. RME are still king of drivers/low latency with their interfaces. They Reek of high quality the hardware itself too. were to upgrade to a new interface today my money would go toward an RME interface atm.
The move to USB-C from Thunderbolt is likely motivated by a number of things: 1. To increase the size of market for these interfaces, by additionally addressing the needs of those without Thunderbolt-capable computers. 2. Similarly, to simplify the device, as well as make more easily portable, given that USB-C supports 100w of power delivery--eliminating the need for a separate power cable. IMO, the rack-mounted HD 8 should *not* be marketed as a portable device. Rather, a dedicated studio fixture. 3. Save costs on substantial Thunderbolt licensing fees from Apple (more profit).
Why no DSP simple comp, eq and reverb? It's a deal-breaker for me unfortunately, I was ready to sell my Apollo (I'm on Windows) to buy it but not even the simplest DSP is a big no
I’m not sure, as to why. I think that if you’re used to UA Apollo style of working then anything you look at won’t measure up because of the UA plugins and DSP.
For me - I have an Apollo as well but I still prefer to track through my preamps and outboard and record line inputs that have a finished polished sound straight to “tape”. So I don’t miss the DSP. Also I just use whichever reverb and delays I want during tracking…
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic Ok but most people don't use external preamps compressors and eqs for each channel but want to tweak something just for having nice headphone mix to perform better
Without separate headphone mixes i can’t use it. I don’t want to monitor microphones when the monitors are on
There are separate headphone mixes. This can be done in Universal Control or in Studio One (if you use Studio One). You can also mute the main outs and it doesn't affect the headphones.
I agree with Oscar. You can literally monitor every single stereo output pair (analog and digital) and switch to any source for HP1 or HP2 in seconds in either UC or Studio One. The headphone routing is very easy to use.
Cheers, M
studio ones monitoring , UC is still clunky, trying to sort out how to use multi outs for headphone monitoring is almost useless
I wouldn’t say it’s useless at all. When using UC you have 2 stereo paths which are super easy to set up. The main outs (1/2) can be easily assigned to both headphones directly from studio one (enable audio device controls in the console option) and then you can enable 3/4 as a cue mix and assign to HP2. The whole process takes 10-20 seconds.
But if you’re software monitoring - then just disable UC.
With UC disabled you could literally have as many cue mixes as there are available outputs. Every single stereo output available on the quantum - Analog or digital..
And you could route either set of headphones to any one of those cue mixes in seconds.
Perhaps I’m not understanding what you’re saying, but I think this version of UC is very clean compared to how UC works with other PreSonus interfaces.
Cheers, M
@@marcushuyskensmusic try setting up 4 separate headphone mixes using UC Joe gilder made a video on how he had to try and figure out a way to do it , he couldnt really make it happen although he came up with a work around and even he said its a major issue with studio one, it would be useless in. a real studio , pro tools monitoring works how its supposed to i have been a studio one user since version 1
is this for direct monitoring only?? whats the round trip latency?? if they go from thunderbolt 3.. that I never got to use yet.. to usb-c.. sounds kinda dumb.. it dont work as a stomp box and un noticeable latency.. dont need it.. and thats gonna be < 1ms... my motu that didnt work long or never worked right.. was 1.67 I thnk... just noticable.. and not good enough.. ok he says 3.69 like its good.. its junk.. try to tune a guitar thru that latency, then take off headphones and see how in tune you are... how about at 96k? looking more like and ad, than a review..near thunderbolt? motu TB2 1.67ms.. that was barely acceptable... well not for me tho.. would never recomend motu TB2 anything
Ugh... I just bought an 1824c and the ONE THING I dislike is the universal phantom power so now I'm in a pickle 🙃
When you say “just bought” are talking like - within the last month, or 3-4 months ago? 😂😂
Cheers, M
The unit looks great... but... I don't think it's a substitute for my Studio 192. Why? No DSP , No Talkback, Only 2 speaker switching... If not using these features then the new model should be sonically superior.
I understand what you’re saying. I’ve had a studio 192 since since I was hardware beta testing the interface.
Then I got another new one a couple years ago. But let me ask you - do you have speaker switching set up for 3 sets of speakers?
And are you using the “C” as a subwoofer?
Because I found that there were certain features which were on the S192 that I never used.
Also - I understand the DSP with the fat channel, it was useful. But it was limited to the old fat channel (none of the new fat channel EQ’s and Compressors).
To be clear though - the HD 8 IS 100% sonically superior to the Studio 192.
I have my Studio 192 running with a DP88 for my ATMOS mix room - and when I tested the HD 8 in the same room with the same speakers, the HD 8 completely blows the Studio 192 out of the water in terms of quality. Not saying that the S192 is bad - it’s just that it’s almost 10 years old now and the technology has come so far since then.
And as for talkback - I would just route a talkback mic in UC… I understand that it’s not built into the unit with a button like the S192 - but I always found that the built in talkback mics on the S192 and the Quantum were very noisy - and not a good choice when you’re far away from the interface…
And yeah - you can assign an external talk back mic with the S192 - but the overall improvements in dynamic range, converters, preamps and headphone amp on the HD 8 - is enough to retire the Studio 192, for me personally. Even it it doesn’t have some of the features..
But to be clear - it’s a massive step up from the S192..
Cheers, M
I agree. I think they missed the mark on this unit.
Oh my GOD. People. Just brcause it doesnt match your expectations doesnt mean it wont work for others. Just don't buy the damn thing if you dont like it. I think so called musicians spend more time bitching and complaining about gear rather than actually using any of it.
It would be a perfect interface but DSP is missing. That way it doesn't compete on today's market for people who doesn't have outboard racks of hardware to monitor properly. And for guys who want to record drums cheap Audient Evo 16 is way cheaper and does the same thing.
@@huberttorzewskiI second that! For my workflow as a vocal coach, where real-time fx is required, this is a huge step back from the Revelator series. Put the DSP Fat channel back into this unit, include a decent DSP Reverb + The Mix Stream options, Then this would be something great to work with.
@diepoldvoicestudios9814
Studio one has show page with all effects.
The Show Page is designed for live performance, and combines the roles of virtual instrument host, mixer and backing‑track player.
No thunderbolt....no thanks. This is a downgrade from the real Quantum
Thunderbolt is just wasted money on an audio interface. The most pedestrian version of USB-3 handles a thousand paths at 24/48 with headroom to spare. Thunderbolt is an expensive license for which we music people have no need. USB-3 on a C connector is much more widely compatible, cables are cheaper, etc. What could you possibly need TB for?
@@artysanmobile Your information is just wrong. You have no idea of what thunderbolt is
This is a downgrade from the 26/32….Line inputs cannot be bypassed…not mentioned in the video…I was excited for a new Quantum…the interface with no mixer…this is not a Quantum…it’s Fender interfering…and an interface costing $999 and I can’t bypass and I can’t hit the ADC direct? Come on!
There are mic / line combo jacks on all Quantum. Plug into the 1/4-inch part of it and the preamp is bypassed. There is a trim that shows up when a line level is detected, but that is a digital trim.
Where did you get this information? Because it’s wrong. Line inputs fully bypass the preamps - and also have a trim. But they’re routed straight to the converter.
And yes, you’re correct that I didn’t mention that in the video - but I was trying to cover as much as possible. But other videos from other creators do mention this.
Cheers, M
@@OscarDanielGarza Nope, the 2626 does not bypass the pres. Only on the insert returns.
@@marcushuyskensmusic Are you 100% sure?
Presonus support say different.