USB interface

P

Paul Radics

New member
Just getting into home recording, looking for a usb interface to computer. Two have been suggested; Line6 Toneworks USB and the Tascam US122.
Any feedback on which one or others would suit my needs? I primarily play guitar and have access to MIDI keyboard. Thanks in advance.
 
I have usee mAudio, Tascam and Presonus and my personal vote is for the Tascam us122. It eats the mAudios for breakfast and still has room for toast and coffee.

And this is a more subjective opinion, but I'll take the Tascam pres over the Presonus ones myself, thy're not as grainy sounding on the high end to my ears.

YMMetc.

G.
 
Paul Radics said:
Looking hard at the Presonus and Tascam now. Should I get the Firewire or the USB interface?
Click to expand...
On smaller boxes with limited numbers of channels, it's really irrelevant; both USB and FW have plenty of capacity for 2-4 channels. Also the type of interface has no effect on the quality of sound.

If your PC doesn't yet have a FW port on it but has a spare USB port, then stick with USB and save yourself some money. If you already have both USB and FW available on your PC, then just go with the box which gives you the best satisfaction for the best price.

G.
 
Firewire and USB

A salesman told me that Firewire has a faster transfer especially for audio and video because it is bi-directional when transferring data unlike USB. I think I am going to get the Presonus Firebox this weekend. Thanks for all the input thus far.
 
Paul Radics said:
A salesman told me that Firewire has a faster transfer especially for audio and video because it is bi-directional when transferring data unlike USB.
Click to expand...
First, never EVER listen to a salesperson.

Second, that is why FW is necessary for a large number of simultaneous audio channels and preferable for digital video. For two channels there is no advantage either way.

Third, the reason he wants to sell you the Firebox is because Presonus has a higher profit margin than Tascam does.

Fourth, never EVER listen to a salesperson.

Fifth, points 1-4 notwithstanding, the Presonus should work just great for you. :)

Sixth, never EVER listen to a salesperson.

Seventh, re-read point #5.

G.
 
Never?

Agreed, I did not listen to the first salesperson, but did managae to find a knowledgeable one to help answer most of my questions. Makes sense to me that FW is bi-directional and should therefore meet my needs at this time. Thanks again for the help. :)
 
The Presonus Inspire 1394 can record up to 4 simultaneous 24bit/96Khz The US122 can do 4 simultaneous 24bit/48Khz IMHO, that's really the difference between Firewire and USB. Also, the 1394 can be chained together to increase I/O. The US122 cannot be chained. The US122 does have peak indicators on the inputs. The 1394 does not. The US122 has knobs for control. All control for the 1394 is software. No real knobs. You can find dozens of US122 on Ebay. Not so many 1394 available. I'm just putting my thoughts down. Sorry if I'm going on too much.
 
All I want to do is bust the myth that sales bots keep spewing that the speed difference between USB and FireWire makes one lick of differece when one is talking about a handful of audio channels. In fact the USB 2.0 specification has a maximum theoretical data rate higher than that of standard 6-pin FireWire.

Here's the raw bandwidth numbers. For both USB and FW the real world numbers ae a few percentage points lower then these theoretical maximums:

USB 2.0: 480Mb/sec
IEEE 1394 (FireWire): 400Mb/sec

You can see that USB 2.0 is actually speced out as 20% faster than FireWire.

Now, take these numbers and compare them to the badwidth requirements for a mono channel of digital audio at varying densities:

44.1kHz/16 bit: 706kb/sec
48kHz/24 bit: 1.16Mb/sec
96kHz/32 bit: 3.08Mb/sec

At these rates, the theoretical maximum for the number of audio channels that USB and FW can simultaneously carry comes out like this:

44.1/16: USB = 679 channels / FW = 566 channels
48/24: USB = 413 channels / FW = 344 channels
96/32: USB = 155 channels / FW = 129 channels

Not only could USB handle over 150 channels of sumultaneous audio at data depths much higher than most pros even work, it could handle at least 20 more channels than 1394 FW could.

The myth that FW is faster than USB is based upon the old USB 1.1 standard (not used by any current gear) that only operated at 12mb/sec. Since USB 2.0 came out several years ago, though, that is simply no longer true.

The realy bullsh*t part is that 90% of these sales people KNOW the truth (they have sales reps from the companies who train them and give them all the sales materials), but they pull that old myth out of the bag when it suits them because they need or want to sell the FW product instead.

There are other differences betwwen USB and FW as far as chaining devices together and such, but when someone is looking to handle only a couple (or even a couple dozen) audio channels, who cares? Those differences simply don't matter. The time has come to take a look at the other factors like features, quality, price, etc. But the method of data transport is irrelevant at these levels of bandwidth need.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
In fact the USB 2.0 specification...
Click to expand...

Hey, G.

All the popular USB audio interfaces like the US122 and M-Audio products are using USB 1.1.
 
apl said:
Hey, G.

All the popular USB audio interfaces like the US122 and M-Audio products are using USB 1.1.
Click to expand...
OK, it turns out that that is indeed true. Thanks for the clarification there. It's still irrelevant to this case, though:

There's still enough room on USB 1.1 for 10 channels of 48k/24 bit audio (though you wouldn't want to go above 8 simultaneous at the most.)

The arguement that because FW is faster that it's better for this stuff is still a load of hooey; audio just plain doesn't require that much bandwidth.

If you're going above 8 channels, then USB 2.0 or FW would be needed. But for a 2 channel interface like the Mobile Pre or the us122, it just plain donesn't matter as far as bandwidth requirements go. And when they additionally say something like they told Paul, "FW is better because it's bi-directional and USB isn't", that's just plain baloney.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other in general. I'm just saying that FW is NOT faster than USB 2.0 and that USB 1.1 is *still* fast enough for any boxes that offer just a handful of channels, and FW offers no advantages in those cases.

Paul got lied to on at least two counts by his "knowledgable" sales bot. In this case perhaps it didn't hurt Paul, he'll be totally happy with his purchase most likely. But that doesn't make that jerk behind the badge any more trustworthy the next time Paul walks into the store.

G.
 
Is there any difference in noise between USB or FW? I have a MobilePre and was considering switching to the Firebox. My computer has USB 1.1 and I have a pop or click that I cannot eliminate from my recordings. It seems that someone told me that USB is noisier than FW. Any truth to that?

Thanks,
AppEnt
 
FW also has some reliability issues that need to be considered. A lot is working great, a lot isn't, and everyone points the blame at someone else

Case in Point: RME's FF800 which should be an AWESOME unit, along with the rest of their products, yet the FF800 is causing nothing but trouble
 
apl said:
I've got a US122 and am happy with it.

M-Audio has their Fast Track Pro, which is comparable.

Also consider Firewire. Presonus has some nice choices.
Click to expand...


i should be getting the fast track pro pretty soon...im new at this too man, but if you want i could post what i think of it (im hoping to get it tomorrow)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top