Firewire, USB, lift the veil of uncertainty

[snarf]

So I need to be able to record at least 4-6 tracks at the same time, onto a computer with 1 gig ram and a 2 ghz cpu. I'm looking at Alesis' Multimix series. I want to know, will the USB's much lower mbit/s crap out? Or do I really need firewire?

I did a search, and found a thread where someone said the USB mixers only send a single stereo channel, whereas the firewires can send multiple channels. There was another reply that said that the firewire ones can't send multiple channels either. I know for a fact this is wrong since a friend of mine uses a multimix 12, so now I don't know what to think about the USBs.

[Monkey Allen]

I'm not pro, but my mail is that Firewire is able to traffic more data...so it's better than USB

[GOODLAND]

Originally Posted by snarf

So I need to be able to record at least 4-6 tracks at the same time, onto a computer with 1 gig ram and a 2 ghz cpu. I'm looking at Alesis' Multimix series. I want to know, will the USB's much lower mbit/s crap out? Or do I really need firewire?

I did a search, and found a thread where someone said the USB mixers only send a single stereo channel, whereas the firewires can send multiple channels. There was another reply that said that the firewire ones can't send multiple channels either. I know for a fact this is wrong since a friend of mine uses a multimix 12, so now I don't know what to think about the USBs.

I've recorded 16 tracks at once with my digi002 when doing a live recording so I know that firewire can defiantly pump out a lot of data. It's hard to find a good multichannel interface using USB so I'm guessing that USB just doesn't cut it when it comes to multi-channel recording (and when I say multi-channel I mean at least 4 tracks recording at once.) I could be wrong though.

[TragikRemix]

usb does not cut it.

they say its 480 mbps and firewire is 400, but with usb, its something wierd, like it can only travel one direction at that speed, and firewire is both directions at optimal speed.
somebody here explained it better at some point...

usb is ok for like 2 channels at a time.

[GOODLAND]

Originally Posted by TragikRemix

usb is ok for like 2 channels at a time.

Yeah, I agree, that's probably why the M-Box2 and other like it use USB, cause they only got two channels.

[Kiauma]

In the beginning USB was about 1.5 Mbs, topping out at 12 Mbs before USB 2.0.

Manufacturers had to choose the interface based on data rate, so any serious audio application (greater than a couple of channels) came to be firewire which had a much greater data rate.

Do the math. USB 2.0 is 40 times faster than USB 1.1. If USB 1.1 could carry two channels, then why can't USB 2.0 carry 80 channels?

Even though USB has been much improved, now firewire is sort of an unofficial outboard audio interface standard - once companies learn to use it, and it works (and sells!) they tend to stick with it...

[bigwillz24]

Firewire has more bandwidth than USB.

I also remember reading that firewire does not share that bandwidth with other devices.

You know how you hook up a whole bunch of USB stuff to the same port on a computer and devices just start crapping out? That doesn't happen with firewire.

[Kiauma]

Well, that depends on how the I/O device is hooked into the system. Most onboard devices have their own internal PCI device, so bandwidth shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if the USB or firewire device is a PCI card, then it is sharing the bus, and subject to the bandwidth limit of the collective devices on the bus.

[cortexx]

here is a comparsion between firewire and USB :-

In sustained throughput FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.
Differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the sustained throughput.


FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture
FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer


Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

Hope that clears up a few misconceptions

[TragikRemix]

Originally Posted by bigwillz24

You know how you hook up a whole bunch of USB stuff to the same port on a computer and devices just start crapping out? That doesn't happen with firewire.

actually, it can happen. I had this problem using a Digi002r and an external hard drive into the same firewire port, through daisy chaining. the ultimate problem was that the drive wasn't supported to operate with the Digi002, but i was getting a pro tools error and it said to disconnect firewire devices from the link.