MacInTouch Amazon link...

USB, FireWire & Thunderbolt

Channels
Troubleshooting, Products


It's a lack of sufficient power. I don't recommend connecting bus-powered hard drives to a hub, even if it's a powered hub. I always connect them directly to the Mac.
Actually, both drives were powered, and I even tried it with only one drive hub-attached. My conclusion is that unpowered hubs are only useful for keyboards, mice, printers, etc. I didn't think that the power requirements for an unpowered hub to do its hub-stuff would be overrun when using powered devices. Lesson learned. (I have a powered hub on order, report to follow.) By the way, the hub was attached via USB C thru a Thunderbolt 3 port.
 


I wish I had my notes from November 2018 when I migrated one additional account from an older MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt 2 using the Apple adapter to Thunderbolt 3 for a brand new 2016 MacBook Pro. It was one of the slowest migrations that I have recently done. So the performance numbers you obtained using Thunderbolt between Apple machines are not a surprise.
This began as an issue [for us] as soon as the T2 chip laptops came out. We had been migrating users to new machines via Thunderbolt Target Disk Mode for ages. It went at reasonable speed, and we generally had a migration done in an hour (with SSD drives on both sides).

Once the new T2 machines came out, that Target Disk Mode speed dropped [drastically]... coming from a Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 machine. Migrations that used to take an hour went to 12 hours (!).

We finally abandoned that workflow and now simply clone the old machine to an external SSD, and then migrate to the new machine from that. Back to 1 hour.... but with the added initial clone time.

If anyone has any insight into what happened or otherwise how to resolve without that work-around, I'd love to hear.
 


This began as an issue [for us] as soon as the T2 chip laptops came out. We had been migrating users to new machines via Thunderbolt Target Disk Mode for ages. It went at reasonable speed, and we generally had a migration done in an hour (with SSD drives on both sides). Once the new T2 machines came out, that Target Disk Mode speed dropped [drastically]... coming from a Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 machine. Migrations that used to take an hour went to 12 hours (!). We finally abandoned that workflow and now simply clone the old machine to an external SSD, and then migrate to the new machine from that. Back to 1 hour.... but with the added initial clone time. If anyone has any insight into what happened or otherwise how to resolve without that work-around, I'd love to hear.
I don't have any technical explanation for the T2 Target Disk Mode slowdown. (I can speculate that performance was not considered an essential goal.)

Since I insist that everyone I assist must implement Time Machine backups and perform regular Carbon Copy Cloner full bootable backups, it has since been easy to forgo Target Disk mode and just use Migration Assistant from either type of backup. Since Carbon Copy Cloner only copies changed files, the pre-migration cloning is not particularly costly in time. Users capable of following a checklist procedure can initiate the required backup.

For a complex upgrade — for example, replacing an old Mac Mini with a Mojave-capable version and upgrading multiple applications in the same process — it is well worthwhile to verify that the Time Machine backup is current (using TheTimeMachineMechanic) and to repeat the Carbon Copy Cloner clone backup.

The waiting period is useful to review the list of planned changes with the user. Some changes are not part of macOS or application upgrades. Where fixed IPv4 addresses are used, the DHCP reservations have to be upgraded in the 'router'. This review and external changes can easily cover the backup interval.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
In case anyone wondered about this, Thunderbolt 3 cables apparently work for USB, too. I just plugged in a Samsung T5 to the USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 port of a 2017 iMac, using a Thunderbolt 3 cable, and it all worked, even though the Samsung T5 is a USB device, not a Thunderbolt device.
 


In case anyone wondered about this, Thunderbolt 3 cables apparently work for USB, too.
Sometimes the obvious hides in plain sight?

For a lengthy exegesis:
The Broadcast Bridge said:
Confusion Still Reigns Over USB-C/Thunderbolt Cables
It is hard to believe the vast amount of confusion that continues over cables with USB-C/Thunderbolt connectors. These cables may be the future of computing, but right now they are a big, sloppy confusing mess. The problem is cables that handle USB-C, Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1 all have the same connector and look alike but do different things.
Less is sometimes more, and this does seem in agreement.
Paul Grimshaw on Quora said:
What is the difference between a Thunderbolt 3 vs USB-C cable?
USB-C is a connector, not a protocol in its own right ... Passive Thunderbolt 3 cables support USB 3.1 Gen 2 over USB-C, but a USB-C cable does not necessarily support Thunderbolt 3, even if it supports USB 3.1 Gen 2. To get the full 40Gb/sec you either need a copper cable 0.5m long or less, or an active or optical longer cable....
 


I have a question involving FireWire. A few years back (~2011?) there was a spirited discussion about transferring LP's to digital format here on MacInTouch. At that time, FireWire devices were the dominant hardware for prosumer audio: Echo Audofire 2 or 4, Focusrite Saffire (various models), Behringer FCA202, etc.

These devices are still available used on eBay for prices ranging from $30 to $90, and my question is, are they still supported in Mojave? I know that Echo is out of the audio production business, so their last update was for Yosemite. On the other hand, I've always heard that FireWire devices from the past somehow magically still work without custom drivers. Still true?

I contacted Sweetwater, and their recommendation was to go with a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd-gen USB unit; has anyone used one of these under recent macOS releases? My main requirement is to get 24-bit input, so that I can scale my waveforms properly before converting to 16-bit CD audio. In the past I've had a lot of fiddling on each and every LP to adjust the gain so that signal is maximized yet not clipping.
 



What computer are you planning to use?
My main computer is a Mac Pro 5,1 running Mojave 10.14.6 (with the usual complement of natively-supplied FireWire 800 ports front and back). It also has the usual native USB 2.0 ports front and back, as well as a Sonnet USB 3 PCIe card.

I also have a 2011 17" MacBook Pro running High Sierra, with its single FireWire 800 port and three USB 2.0 ports.
 


My main computer is a Mac Pro 5,1 running Mojave 10.14.6 (with the usual complement of natively-supplied FireWire 800 ports front and back). It also has the usual native USB 2.0 ports front and back, as well as a Sonnet USB 3 PCIe card. I also have a 2011 17" MacBook Pro running High Sierra, with its single FireWire 800 port and three USB 2.0 ports.
I have a FireWire 400 scanner, a FireWire 800 card reader, and several external FireWire drives, both FireWire 800 and FireWire 400, all working through both Apple's Thunderbolt2-FireWire adapter and a Sonnet Echo 15 dock with FireWire 800 port (from a late 2013 Mac Pro), so I would think it should work just fine with actual FireWire ports?

But I don't think I have anything with an actual FireWire port that will run macOS 10.14.6, so...?
 



I have a FireWire 400 scanner, a FireWire 800 card reader, and several external FireWire drives, both FireWire 800 and FireWire 400, all working through both Apple's Thunderbolt2-FireWire adapter and a Sonnet Echo 15 dock with FireWire 800 port (from a late 2013 Mac Pro), so I would think it should work just fine with actual FireWire ports? But I don't think I have anything with an actual FireWire port that will run macOS 10.14.6, so...?
I have a 2013 Mac Pro running macOS 10.14.6, with no FireWire, connected to an Apple Thunderbolt monitor that has a FireWire 800 port. I have several external hard drives daisy-chained off that port and have had no problems.
 


I have a question involving FireWire. A few years back (~2011?) there was a spirited discussion about transferring LP's to digital format here on MacInTouch. At that time, FireWire devices were the dominant hardware for prosumer audio: Echo Audofire 2 or 4, Focusrite Saffire (various models), Behringer FCA202, etc. These devices are still available used on eBay for prices ranging from $30 to $90, and my question is, are they still supported in Mojave? I know that Echo is out of the audio production business, so their last update was for Yosemite. On the other hand, I've always heard that FireWire devices from the past somehow magically still work without custom drivers. Still true?
I believe the magic you are referring to is 'Core Audio class-compliance', a.k.a. plug-and-play with just the OS drivers, as opposed to a driver written by the manufacturer for a given device and installed separately into the OS.

In my experience, USB devices are more likely to use class-compliant drivers, and FireWire devices more often use discrete drivers that need installing (and updating, as the OS changes).

As I don't mind installing drivers, for me the question is more whether the manufacturer of a given device has provided Mojave-compatible device drivers. I would go to the respective web sites and review their compatibility listings. I'd expect current product lines to have drivers to match current OSes, but your milage may vary.

(Disclosure: I work for Sweetwater but not in a sales or support capacity. I'm a pro-audio and recording hobbyist.)
 


I have a question involving FireWire. A few years back (~2011?) there was a spirited discussion about transferring LP's to digital format here on MacInTouch. At that time, FireWire devices were the dominant hardware for prosumer audio: Echo Audofire 2 or 4, Focusrite Saffire (various models), Behringer FCA202, etc. These devices are still available used on eBay for prices ranging from $30 to $90, and my question is, are they still supported in Mojave?
I can vouch for the fact that an Edirol FA-66 "sound card" with a FireWire 400 interface works fine on a 2019 iMac 5K running Mojave 10.14.6. Connection is made via a chain of adapters: Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2, Thunderbolt 2 to FireWire, FireWire 800 to 400. Sound quality is very good.

FWIW, I'm also successfully running an Apogee Duet FireWire off a 2012 MacBook Pro 13" with SSD, 16GB RAM, and High Sierra. There is a bit of dancing around required to coordinate the Duet, Amarra SQ+, and Rogue Amoeba SoundSource.

Conclusion: FireWire did not die. At least for current and older OS versions, these devices are not beneath consideration at the second-hand prices they command. If you're budgeting for new gear, though, USB is obviously the safer long-term bet.

Do listen when you shop around, though. I've heard the two mentioned above, and a FocusRite Scarlett, and they don't sound the same to me.
 


I've used this very inexpensive device acquired from Amazon to successfully convert analog audio to digital through the Audacity application on a Mac:
The Behringer U- devices are very good low-cost audio interfaces. If you want to digitize your record collection, however, you may want to consider the U-Phono UFO202. This model adds a phono pre-amp and grounding terminal (but gets rid of the optical output and monitor switch).

I've been very happy with my UFO202. It appears in macOS as a generic USB audio interface, so it works with everything (including Audacity, which I also use with it).

The only potential problem (depending on what you want to do) is that it tops out at 16-bit samples at 48 kHz. This isn't a problem for me (I record at 44.1 kHz, do my edits in 24-bit, save the result as 16-bit AIFF, and use iTunes to convert to AAC for loading into my iPod), but some people will require better and will therefore need something else.
 


I'm still using an Apogee Duet FireWire 400 on my 2008 Mac Pro (patched with Mojave 10.14.6) and on my MacBook Pro 2012 (with Mojave 10.14.6) using FireWire 800 through a FireWire 400 to 800 adaptor.

I've also got an Apollo Audio Converter from UA that has digital i/o with 8 in and 8 out running on my Mac Pro 2012. I can do 120 tracks of digital audio using a FireWire 800 connection into Logic Pro. So, you should be able to use FireWire with your Mac Pro. If I can run it, you can run FireWire on your 5,1 Mac Pro.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I have a question involving FireWire....
This looks somewhat relevant:
Don Spacht said:
New Apogee Duet vs Apogee Ensemble (FW400) Converters
If you don't mind answering (and am sure it is system dependent), how much worse is the latency on the Ensemble FW800... and does it have to do with the drivers? thanks!
Both are Apple Core Audio interfaces, and by the time we got to designing the Symphony I/O and Duet 2 (released in 2010-2011), FireWire Core Audio and USB Core Audio had already flip-flopped in efficiency in favor of USB. Here's an old comparison chart between Duet-FireWire and Duet-USB, but the numbers should be about equivalent with the Ensemble-FireWire.

Duet (FireWire) vs. Duet 2 (USB)

Roundtrip Latency performance
Duet-FireWire
32 buffer @ 96kHz = 4.6 ms
64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 7.23 ms

Duet-USB
32 buffer @ 96kHz = 3.6 ms
64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 5.8 ms

As of last year Apple has fully removed FireWire from their computers in favor of Thunderbolt, and they're not really continuing to develop FireWire Core Audio - which is why everything we've released has been USB or Thunderbolt for the last five years.

-Edit-

And just for another point of reference, Ensemble Thunderbolt gets:
32 buffer @ 96kHz = 1.1 ms
64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 4.31ms
(which is pretty awesome)
 


This looks somewhat relevant:
Don Spacht said:
New Apogee Duet vs Apogee Ensemble (FW400) Converters
...
Duet (FireWire) vs. Duet 2 (USB)

Roundtrip Latency performance
Duet-FireWire
32 buffer @ 96kHz = 4.6 ms
64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 7.23 ms

Duet-USB
32 buffer @ 96kHz = 3.6 ms
64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 5.8 ms
You only really notice latency when it's 10ms or more. I've never had any latency issues with the Duet FireWire 400 when recording music through headphones into the MacBook Pro or the 2008 Mac Pro at 44.1kHz or 96kHz. The software is no longer updated, but the older software still works for macOS Sierra to Mojave.

The UA Apollo allows me to update to Thunderbolt; however, I'm still using the 2012 Mac Pro, and FireWire 800 is working fine. Who knows, maybe in a few years I will get a Thunderbolt 3 Mac Pro.
 


You only really notice latency when it's 10ms or more. I've never had any latency issues with the Duet FireWire 400 when recording music through headphones into the MacBook Pro or the 2008 Mac Pro at 44.1kHz or 96kHz.
Latency really only matters when you are tracking live and you monitor the signal after it passes through the DAW software. Most audio interfaces have some kind of hardware monitoring mode, which is non-latent, but in this mode, the signal you hear at the output does not pass through your recording software, so you won't hear plugins or previously recorded tracks play back.

For digitizing prerecorded albums, instead of live musicians who need to hear themselves play, latency shouldn't be a concern at all. Either approach, input/hardware monitoring or playthrough software monitoring, should work just fine.
 


Looking for a Thunderbolt 1 => USB3 or Thunderbolt 2 => USB3 dongle. All I can find are Thunderbolt 3 => USB3 dongles, but the MacBook Pro is Late-2011 17'' with a single Thunderbolt 1 port. Any hints? Thanks.
 



And the rest of the story...
Thunderbolt 1 and 2 use the Mini DisplayPort connector, which is shared with video. There is no USB protocol available. Thunderbolt 3 uses the USB-C connector and shares it with USB protocols, as well. A USB-C to USB-3 dongle uses only USB protocols, no matter if Thunderbolt 3 is available or not. There are many variations of active docks that can connect various USB or Thunderbolt ports to a multitude of other connections, including HDMI, audio, and USB-3. Picking the right one for your application is challenging at best.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
And the rest of the story... Thunderbolt 1 and 2 use the Mini DisplayPort connector, which is shared with video. There is no USB protocol available.
But, wait, there's still more... The Thunder2 Dock has its own built-in USB 3 controller, which is how it can offer USB 3 to older Macs that have only USB 2, but... for performance-critical tasks, this may not be as fast as USB 3 ports built into a Mac — you'd have to test performance to see.

Meanwhile, devices such as the Thunder2 Dock can also provide both FireWire (400/800) and eSATA connections, which may be very useful.
 



One item that I have yet to come across is a simple USB-C hub that you can plug into the USB-C port of a computer and that gives you a bunch of USB-C ports to use multiple USB-C devices. Why do you suppose this is?

Is it because there are so few peripherals that use a USB-C connector at this point in time? That will soon change. Even now, the new iPhones come with a lightning-to-USB-C connector. And the iPad Pro also comes with a USB-C cable. That means you can't plug an iPhone 11 and an iPad Pro into a MacBook Air and charge the computer at the same time.

You see scads of Thunderbolt-3 hubs that give you HDMI, USB 3.1, Displayport etc, but suppose I just need to plug in a few USB-C devices? I am paying for a bunch of ports I'll never use, and those hubs often only have one USB-C port on them anyway, thereby making them useless for this application.
 



One item that I have yet to come across is a simple USB-C hub that you can plug into the USB-C port of a computer and that gives you a bunch of USB-C ports to use multiple USB-C devices.
I don't know, but I wonder if USB-C's powerful, but confusing, alternate modes, or perhaps Power Delivery, might be problems in trying to design a hub like that.
If you have a reliable, powered, USB 3.0 hub, there are USB Type-A male to USB-C female adapters [available] on Amazon, [but be sure you're getting USB 3 adapters, because] one brand I checked restricts speeds to USB 2.0.

This approach may allow connecting devices that have USB-C plugs, but I wouldn't expect "USB-C features" different than what we expect from USB 3.0 Type A.
 


One item that I have yet to come across is a simple USB-C hub that you can plug into the USB-C port of a computer and that gives you a bunch of USB-C ports to use multiple USB-C devices. Why do you suppose this is?
Intel has not released the chip required for making USB-C hubs. This is expected in 2020. With that said, USB 4 is looming and will make that moot.
 



If you have a reliable, powered, USB 3.0 hub, there are USB Type-A male to USB-C female adapters [available] on Amazon, [but be sure you're getting USB 3 adapters, because] one brand I checked restricts speeds to USB 2.0.
Most (all?) of the time, it's not so much about restricting speeds as it is about missing the wires that are required to physically carry superspeed (5+Gbps) data.

A Type-A connector (see Wikipedia diagram) has two sets of pins. Pins 1-4 should exist on all cables, but they only carry USB 1.x/2.x data. Pins 5-9 only exist on USB 3.x cables and they are the only pins that carry superspeed data.

A USB C-Type A adapter that only wires pins 1-4 (and, sadly, there are many such adapters sold) is physically incapable of speeds faster than USB 2.0, because it doesn't have the pins that carry higher speed data. A USB-C-Type A adapter that wires all 9 pins should support any speed.
 


One item that I have yet to come across is a simple USB-C hub that you can plug into the USB-C port of a computer and that gives you a bunch of USB-C ports to use multiple USB-C devices. Why do you suppose this is? Is it because there are so few peripherals that use a USB-C connector at this point in time?
It is more the case that there are several billion USB Type A devices out there at this point in time? It isn't that there are few USB-C devices out there, but even if they number in the 100's of millions, that is still an order of magnitude down from billions.

Throw on top of that, there are USB-A to lightning and USB-A to USB-C cables out there, also. That is probably in the 100 million range too (as large as the USB-C device class). Those type-A charging cables probably still dominate in the iOS device ecosystem in terms of numbers deployed with users.

So a hub with Type-C power "Pass Through" can send power to a MacBook Air, while a Type-A port on the hub can send the power back out to a charging phone - perhaps not at max charging speed, but it will charge.
That will soon change. Even now, the new iPhones come with a lightning-to-USB-C connector. And the iPad Pro also comes with a USB-C cable. That means you can't plug an iPhone 11 and an iPad Pro into a MacBook Air and charge the computer at the same time.
Not with Apple's new "out of the box" cables, but those who have owned a couple generations of Apple tech probably already have a USB-A cable for the phone. This will change over time, but it probably will not be 'soon'. That shift in numbers will probably take a couple more years. Also, a substantive part of the issue above is the MacBook Air's two-port limit; it is not really [a problem of] what the USB cables shipped with the iPhone/iPad devices are.
You see scads of Thunderbolt 3 hubs that give you HDMI, USB 3.1, DisplayPort etc, but suppose I just need to plug in a few USB-C devices?
Even most USB-C hubs are covering other sockets that several Type-C only devices lack (HDMI, SD-Card , etc.) Type C is primarily just a form factor. The only mandatory (by the standard) data speed for Type-C is USB 2.0. If I recall correctly, the mandatory port power is capped at USB 3.0 limits (maybe 2.0, also). There are optional higher-standard options, but the minimums are all close to what Type-A did. That significantly keeps Type-A in the game. Some folks try to label Type C to A cables as "adaptors", but it is really just as simple a cable as Type A to one of the Mini/Micro connectors.

P.S. in the context of power to recharge the iPhone and iPad Pro Type-C from wall plug chargers or battery power banks, we are pretty much past the point where we "had to" plug iPads or iPhones into a Mac to get full utility.
 


Intel has not released the chip required for making USB-C hubs. This is expected in 2020. With that said, USB 4 is looming and will make that moot.
How is Intel responsible for USB in general? If trying to keep up with the higher-end optional power draws for Type C, Intel isn't the limitation. They generally don't implement that aspect of the standard.

USB 4 isn't going to make it moot, either, because most of the higher-end stuff (i.e., the higher power, Thunderbolt, etc.) is all still optional. It brings a mandate for Type-C connectors, so there will be incrementally more of them. However, it won't make the older stuff "disappear'. More likely, will see more systems transition their Thunderbolt socket(s) over to USB 4 and many systems still keep their Type A's. That, in turn, will keep the Type-A prominent on the hubs, as well.
 


How is Intel responsible for USB in general? If trying to keep up with the higher-end optional power draws for Type C, Intel isn't the limitation. They generally don't implement that aspect of the standard. USB 4 isn't going to make it moot, either, because most of the higher-end stuff (i.e., the higher power, Thunderbolt, etc.) is all still optional. It brings a mandate for Type-C connectors, so there will be incrementally more of them. However, it won't make the older stuff "disappear'. More likely, will see more systems transition their Thunderbolt socket(s) over to USB 4 and many systems still keep their Type A's. That, in turn, will keep the Type-A prominent on the hubs, as well.
[See:]
CNet said:
Want lots of USB-C ports on your next hub? USB 4 will make it happen
... The flexibility of those alt modes means it's hard to know exactly what type of data is flowing across USB-C wires, though, and that in turn hampered USB-C hubs, Hacker said.

Thunderbolt works differently. Controller chips at each end of the connection handle a variety of data types, stuff them onto the wires at an even faster 40Gbps transfer rate, then detangle all the data at the other end of the connection. USB 4 is being rebuilt with that technology, which Intel released royalty-free after years of largely unsuccessful efforts to push Thunderbolt as mainstream technology.

"It's very fast relative to current USB," Hacker said. "It's designed to traverse hubs or daisy chains," where data hops from device to device along a chain of cables.

Thunderbolt will get a boost as new chips from Intel build the technology in directly so an extra chip isn't required. But USB's incorporation of Thunderbolt leaves the technology's future uncertain. Asked what value it offers, Hacker said Thunderbolt lets people use USB-C without fear of possible problems like cables that are slow or can't handle enough charging power.

"It's to signal a best-in-class USB-C implementation," he said of the Thunderbolt name.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
One item that I have yet to come across is a simple USB-C hub that you can plug into the USB-C port of a computer and that gives you a bunch of USB-C ports to use multiple USB-C devices. Why do you suppose this is?
This just dawned on me (duh)... A USB-C port is limited to 10Gbps maximum for USB, and any downstream ports would have to share that total bandwidth. Thus, having USB-C downstream ports makes little sense; USB 3.0 Type A ports at 5Gbps are more reasonable (and you can still saturate the upstream link with just two of those).

For anything else, such as hosting multiple USB-C downstream ports, the upstream port would have to be Thunderbolt 3 for any sensible bandwidth delivery. (Obviously, having a single downstream USB-C port on a hub makes zero sense — just plug into the host port.)
 


This just dawned on me (duh)... A USB-C port is limited to 10Gbps maximum for USB, and any downstream ports would have to share that total bandwidth. Thus, having USB-C downstream ports makes little sense; USB 3.0 Type A ports at 5Gbps are more reasonable (and you can still saturate the upstream link with just two of those).

For anything else, such as hosting multiple USB-C downstream ports, the upstream port would have to be Thunderbolt 3 for any sensible bandwidth delivery. (Obviously, having a single downstream USB-C port on a hub makes zero sense — just plug into the host port.)
But what if you've been buying devices with USB-C connections, to plug in to your laptop that only has USB-C ports, and now you need to attach more devices than there are ports? Are we supposed to add reverse USB-C to A adapters to our ever increasing dongle collection?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
But what if you've been buying devices with USB-C connections, to plug in to your laptop that only has USB-C ports, and now you need to attach more devices than there are ports? Are we supposed to add reverse USB-C to A adapters to our ever increasing dongle collection?
Well, yes, like George said... and they don't look like they're too bulky or expensive. Here's an example:

 


Well, yes, like George said... and they don't look like they're too bulky or expensive. Here's an example:
I bought dozens of a similar item by a different vendor for our faculty - I'm calling them 'Chiclets' for obvious reasons - and was disappointed to find that they were only just barely a bit too wide to be able to use two in adjacent ports on a MacBook Pro or Mac Mini. These appear a bit slimmer, and I'll be ordering some to find out.
 



A USB-C port is limited to 10Gbps maximum for USB, and any downstream ports would have to share that total bandwidth.
For USB 3.1, yes. USB 3.2 (a.k.a. "USB 3.2 gen 2x2") has a top speed of 20 Gbps, delivered as two 10Gbps buses.

It might make sense to break out a 20Gbps stream into two to four USB-C connectors in order to share that bandwidth among several devices. USB 3.2 is so new that there probably isn't much demand at this time, but that may change in the future.

And, of course, it may make sense to attach a few 10Gbps devices to a single 10Gbps port if your normal usage pattern is to only use one at a time.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
If you have a reliable, powered, USB 3.0 hub, there are USB Type-A male to USB-C female adapters [available] on Amazon, [but be sure you're getting USB 3 adapters, because] one brand I checked restricts speeds to USB 2.0.
I found some notable details when reviewing adapter descriptions:
Amazon said:
Onvian USB C to USB 3.0 Adapter, 2-Pack USB 3.1 Type C Female to USB 3.0 A Male
...
Please Note:
  1. This adapter can charge phones and tablets but cannot charge a laptop. (Special case: It CAN NOT work with 2018 iPad Pro )
  2. This adapter can charge google pixel only by charger with 2.4A output, otherwise, it just stop charging
  3. USB functionality only. The adapter CANNOT send HDMI or other audio & video signal.
  4. This adapter cannot improve your device USB Ports' transmission speed. The transmission speed you get is up to your device's USB A Female Port. E.g. If your device is usb 3.0 A female port,then you get the same MAX 5Gbps speed.
  5. This adapter's type-c Female port has two sides on transmission speed when you use it on a device with usb 3.0 A female port, one side is usb 2.0 speed,and another is usb 3.0 speed.You could flip your type-c male plug to get the usb 3.0 speed.
  6. It can NOT support PD charging, such as PD 3.0 fast charing
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts