It offers 4 independent channels recognized by Pianoteq and working (tested with headphones). As I only have two speakers connected right now, I tested playability in a two channel setup. Very impressive, to my ears no discernible latency at 256 samples. I test latency by having the Casio's internal system playing in parallel to the MIDI-Pianoteq sound. This is not a numerical measurement, but if I can't distinguish two different sounds on a keystroke I figure it will not affect my playing at all. I can hear a slight latency at 512 samples.

So: sleek package not larger than an mobile phone, easy setup, great sound, minimal latency, 4 channels, for €100 -> this is a very clear recommendation.
The only downside is that it is just out of production, I've picked it up on eBay.

Best wishes
Andreas

Currently I use a Behringer UMC202, and I do not recommend it to my friend. I recommended Mobile UA because I think you deserve good equipment.

...Currently, there are zero TB3 consumer audio interfaces.

That depends on your definition of consumer, I suppose. The Universal Audio Arrow is a $499 Thunderbolt 3 bus powered interface which might be considered for casual use by some professionals. I’m thinking Zoom or Focusrite May come out with a sub-$300 TB3 interface this summer.

You're not relating any personal experience or knowledge, just (in effect) advertising.

USB Audio Interface

EXPERIENCE THE BEST SOUND POSSIBLE, NO MATTER WHERE LIFE TAKES YOU

Music production used to mean being tied to a studio. Today, you can create high-quality music almost anywhere. You might come up with an idea in one place, edit tracks on the go, and mix the whole thing in yet another place. The studio is wherever you are and wherever inspiration strikes. But sound quality is always an issue. You need to know that your audio interface is performing to professional standards, while not weighing you down when you’re on the move. With the Mobile UA, you don’t have to compromise audio fidelity to be creative outside the studio.

- High-quality PCM and DSD playback with support for a variety of formats

- Roland's proprietary S1LKi DSP technology makes everything sound its best

- Powerful headphone amp provides plenty of volume in noisy environments

- Supports up to four outputs; configurable as two stereo channels for main and monitor

- VS Streaming technology for extremely stable low-latency performance

- About the size of a deck of cards, it goes anywhere

Thunderbolt is still a bit immature but can get closer to PCIe speeds in theory (good engineering still required - see TAFKAT's database for his preliminary thoughts). Currently, there are zero TB3 consumer audio interfaces. And I believe that there are zero 2018 computers sold with TB2 ports. So you might need to buy a TB3-TB2 adapter cable. I see some TB interfaces work well on Mac but some are still beta on Windows so do your research to avoid any "problem children". At the computer level, all TB computers require an external controller; rumours indicate TB will be incorporated into the CPU c.2019; ideally, that could improve performance and reduce issues.

PCIe is for professionals.

Firewire support is disappearing.

What I was referring to above was the conceptual design question wether USB-3, Firewire or Thunderbolt  are "faster" for audio than USB-2.

I just wanted to share what is not my insight but taken from the website of a highly regarded audio interface company (I've read so many in the last days that I forgot which one it was) that "speed of transfer" is not to be confused with bandwidth, that bandwidth feels like speed when you are transferring a high bandwidth video, but that even high definition video signals use rather narrow bandwidth. They use the analogy that passengers in a private business jet with 20 seats arrive at the same time as passengers in an Airbus 380.

In your example, I am not surprised that upstream, between the processor and audio chip, the PCI bus is wired in faster than the USB bus (and has higher bandwidth, too ;-). Doesn't the PCI bus have the most immediate access to the core machinery of all buses?

This would be a strong argument to use a PCI or PCI-E soundcard, as you are saving time at a level where other buses are not even in the game yet.

[...] for latency it does not matter at all which bus is used to connect an audio interface.

Proof? For example I measured 5 ms longer latency from USB-Audio compared to PCI-Onboard-Audio here:

https://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopi...14#p939514

Cheers

While shopping around on various websites in search of the perfect gear set, I came across the simple answer for the USB-2 vs "faster" buses question:

In my question, I have inadvertently been mixing up the speed of signal transmission with bandwidth. The bandwidth of the USB-2 bus is well large enough for several channels of high definition audio signals. So, the audio signal is not getting to the target any faster on a bus system with higher bandwidth. USB-3 "feels" faster when transferring very large video files, because more bits are travelling in parallel. But the individual bit, audio or video, is not any faster than on USB-2.

So, as bandwidth of USB-2 is sufficient,for latency it does not matter at all which bus is used to connect an audio interface. And that's why so many high quality audio interfaces are "still" running on USB-2.

So, one issue sorted but tons of new questions, which will be adressed in other posts.
Cheers, Andreas

music_guy wrote:

[...]sound of finger hitting key with mic on one channel and note from of headphone jack on interface.

That is prone to errors as you compare two different input channels (line vs. mic) with unknown latencies itself (as long as not specified and verified).

Some older posts around these topics:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...63#p937263
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...44#p937144

Also tried same mics next to key and next to headphone driver with essentially same results. Nothing here is scientific but it was good enough for my purposes. Hopefully this responds to the original poster's query. Thanks

[...]sound of finger hitting key with mic on one channel and note from of headphone jack on interface.

That is prone to errors as you compare two different input channels (line vs. mic) with unknown latencies itself (as long as not specified and verified).

Some older posts around these topics:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...63#p937263
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...44#p937144

I measured about 6 ms between key contact and headphone

Please define "key contact". -- Is anything about your measurement documented?

... you wrote: "RME interfaces, for example, market jitter reduction as a key feature."

As I said, jitter of the cheapest Audiointerfaces/DACs is much lower than microseconds (often measured in nanoseconds/picoseconds ranges). It cannot be heard as latency.

One of PianoTeq's secret weapons is the very "consistent" response timing across the keyboard and throughout the dynamic range. Today's sampled VIs don't come close. I think the on-board sounds of some digital pianos can be relatively consistent, albeit lousy sounding.

Computer system jitter is a bit different. It should be vanishingly small. But in complex, real-time computer music systems how would you know? I "speculate" the mind could adapt to longer-latency whilst it might go bonkers with randomly changing response times from every keystroke.

Since this is all very tough to measure and not a centre of scientific study, I just tried to optimize my computer. And picked up a interface which seemed to offer good jitter performance and good drivers.