Rubix 22: USB3.0 or USB2.0?

[LengthUser]

Hi, I am trying to find out what is the best cheap audio interface at the moment, to run with a windows laptop. I read that the new Roland Rubix 22 has good specs, 24 bit and 196 Khz, it has phantom power, and Hi-Z input.Roland website says it has Hi-Speed USB, but I don't understand whether it is USB3.0 or USB2.0.
Is it true that USB 3.0 is better than USB 2.0? My understanding is that if you use Phantom power, it can be an important thing. What do you think?

[whyterabbyt]

'Hi-Speed' is basically USB2.0

USBS3.0 is faster, and provides more power, so yes it could be advantageous when phantom power is needed. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that some USB2 devices can be less stable on USB3 ports.

[LengthUser]

'Hi-Speed' is basically USB2.0

USBS3.0 is faster, and provides more power, so yes it could be advantageous when phantom power is needed. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that some USB2 devices can be less stable on USB3 ports.

Which means that if my laptop has USB 2 ports, it is better if the audio interfaces has USB 2.0 (and viceversa) ? But when I record just a single track with phantom power, does it really make any difference?

[BertKoor]

That's not how it works.

A usb device always needs power. For itself. Phantom power for a mic adds extra power requirements, but not significant. No mic runs warm from the power it consumes.

Anyway, the usb specs dictate a usb port needs to provide a certain minimum power (in amperes, volts is 5V always)
The device can ask for more and the port can deny that.

High Power usb2 ports allow more than bare minimum ports. My laptop has one for charging the phone.
Usb3 protocol also goes higher than usb2.

More details on wikipedia. In better english...

[whyterabbyt]

'Hi-Speed' is basically USB2.0

USBS3.0 is faster, and provides more power, so yes it could be advantageous when phantom power is needed. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that some USB2 devices can be less stable on USB3 ports.

Which means that if my laptop has USB 2 ports, it is better if the audio interfaces has USB 2.0 (and viceversa) ?

If your laptop is only USB2, then USB3 devices wont be useable anyway. If your laptop has USB3, then I've seen indications that there might be some issues with some USB2 devices, though that's certainly entirely dependent on the USB chipset in each.

But when I record just a single track with phantom power, does it really make any difference?

it shouldnt do. in the case of something with a lot of mic inputs with phantom power, plus onboard processing fancy preamp stages, etc etc, and multiple other USB devices hooked up to the same internal hub, the extra power might be worthwhile, just to ensure stability. A basic 2-in/2-out box, that's not going to be an issue. There'd be no point in making a device which didnt run with the power that's supposed to be available over USB, but IMO anything at the limits of the actual power available would be better off with more headroom.

[fedexnman]

I've seen those Roland Rubix ... They also have class compliant USB which means iPad and Linux compatibility ... Last I checked they were preorder ... The Focusrite 2i2 (2nd gen ) is another alternative ...

[LengthUser]

Thanks. My impression is that these new audio interfaces (Roland, Focusrite, Behringer, Steinberg, etc), they are all amazing, but they underestimate the power needed. If USB devices are so very sensitive to voltage fluctuations, why they don't address this problem? If you buy a new laptop today, it will have at least one USB 3.0 port. But none of these new audio interfaces will have it. The Tascam US2x2 seems to address this with its own wall power, but it lacks Hi-Z input. In my opinion they should address power need with batteries, because nowadays most of musicians like to be mobile, and record anywhere they want, without power supplies.

[whyterabbyt]

If USB devices are so very sensitive to voltage fluctuations, why they don't address this problem?

That's a far more extreme proposition than anything anyone here said, its turning an edge case into a sweeping generalisation.

If you buy a new laptop today, it will have at least one USB 3.0 port. But none of these new audio interfaces will have it.

Well, since USB3 is backwards-compatible with USB2, why would an audio interface that didnt need the extra bandwidth of USB3 not be USB2?

In my opinion they should address power need with batteries, because nowadays most of musicians like to be mobile, and record anywhere they want, without power supplies.

When I want to do that, I use a Zoom field recorder. Has batteries, works standalone, offers phantom power and Hi-Z inputs, also acts as a USB audio interface with ASIO drivers.

[LengthUser]

I forgot that there is a very good interface with USB 3.0, the Zoom UAC-2. I heard great reviews about it, great latency, great drivers, this is basically a perfect unit. And not expensive at all.

[Kaine]

Thanks. My impression is that these new audio interfaces (Roland, Focusrite, Behringer, Steinberg, etc), they are all amazing, but they underestimate the power needed.

To flip that around, the USB standard promises X amount of voltage and those interfaces are designed with that in mind, otherwise they ship it with a power adapter. If the USB port isn't delivering the voltage the spec promises (and a lot of older boards didn't), then the interface fails to work. Can't really blame the audio interface builder for the computer maker not meeting spec however!

You go on to mention the Zoom. It's a great unit, I'll note that it pulls the same latency results on both USB 2 and USB 3 (as do all USB 3 units), although in both cases it remains as one of the best value interfaces out there curently. It isn't great on none Intel usb3 chipsets so older X79 and Z87 / Z97 boards might be a bit picky, but then this is pretty much the rule for all the USB 3 interfaces out there currently. You can still run them on the Intel USB 2 sockets without problems through and the performance doesn't suffer.