Still waiting for someone to post the times difference of sample loading between T2 and T3. And I would still be surprised if it exceeds 1.5MB/sec.

It may indeed be faster from the T2 to the T3 at sample loading times. But there are a large variety of factors in what is REALLY making the difference. Data bus speeds... clock speeds of CPU's, larger RAM pipe specs, and finally, yes, the interface speed.

But, unless the T3 can load up samples at faster than 1.5MB/sec, the HD interface isn't the primary source of the improvement. What's the point of an interface that can deliver 60MB/sec, if the device can't take it any faster than 1.5MB/sec? (or more likely .75MB/sec - that would still be a three times improvement to the T2 )

Archiving to computer is an altogether different situation, because you are talking to a piece of gear that has no problem moving data around at those speeds. But the imbedded systems in hardware keyboards are NOT computers. No current sampler in a hardware keyboard (MotifXS, M3, FantomG, T3, PA2Xproetc.) can move samples around at anywhere NEAR the speed of USB2, and I still haven't seen any evidence that they have broke the 1.5MB/sec mark yet.

Personally, I can't WAIT for reliable imbedded arrangers to get computer data transfer speeds. Loading loops up for every song would be a practical thing, especially if the data transfer could be in the background (rather than grinding the machine to a halt as they currently do...

But for practical, song to song use, they are all to damn slow, right now. I'd rather use a laptop and Kontakt than put up with the slow load times of current hardware if I were using them live.

USB2 or not, it STILL not fast enough.

(And before the MS fanboys chime in, I'm talking about arrangers that sound great when you buy them, not after you've built, designed, installed, troubleshot, created styles, voiced all the keyboard sounds, and THEN got it to sound good!)