E
ESPplayer7
New member
I was wondering if i will notice any difference in software latency (reason) using firewire or usb. Do i only need 1 firewire port on my laptop?
E
ESPplayer7
New member
can anyone give me any info, i appreciate it
BushmasterM4
Well-known member
Firewire is suppose to give a quicker and larger through put. That said if you go with a firewire type connection, then make sure the firewire chipset is Texas Instruments.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
IIRC, FireWire typically is a couple of milliseconds better when it comes to the best of the best (driver-wise and hardware-wise). When it comes to the worst of the worst, I've seen USB devices with minimum latency that is the better part of a second, so really it doesn't make sense to compare anything but the best in either camp.
FireWire tends to be less susceptible to glitches, with the possible exception of the DICE II-based FireWire gear, which seems to be pretty bad in that area when used with certain machines. As long as you avoid the DICE II hardware (like the plague), though, FireWire is generally a better choice all around.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Firewire. There's no competition in real world use. That's been my experience anyway and I've worked with both USB and firewire interfaces and hard drives.
A
avieth
New member
Until USB 3.0, Firewire is the best.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
Even after USB 3.0. USB 3.0, AFAIK, is the same as USB 2.0 except that it is running at a higher speed and requires you to buy all new cables to get that higher speed. I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that it fixes any of the fundamental design flaws in USB that make it a poor choice for real-time audio or video capture.
For that matter, if most of the motherboard manufacturers treat it as a red headed stepchild like they currently do with USB and make it share an interrupt with eighty other legacy ports (when's the last time you used a serial port?), then it will suck even if they do fix all the design flaws.
carlosguardia
New member
Firewire 400 transfers data at 400 mbits/sec. USB 2.0 transfers data at 480 mbit/sec. Still I prefer Firewire over USB. Evidently speed is not the reason, but stability. Is there any other reason for choosing FW over USB?!
A
aitikin
New member
Firewire 400 runs at a constant 400 mbits/sec. USB 2.0 has a peak speed of 480 mbits/sec. Also, USB is a master/slave relationship whereas Firewire is a direct access system, meaning that, while USB takes a (small) chunk of system power, Firewire doesn't.
Supposedly the latter issues are to be fixed in USB 3, but I'm more looking forward to the next Firewire implementation to become standardized. 3.2 gbs constant flow is just ridiculous to think about...although, 400 mbs was insane back in '95...
Supposedly the latter issues are to be fixed in USB 3, but I'm more looking forward to the next Firewire implementation to become standardized. 3.2 gbs constant flow is just ridiculous to think about...although, 400 mbs was insane back in '95...
T
twelveight
New member
I've run both and on the same computer. I don't "multi-track", so I didn't see any benefit to FireWire. USB 2 is just as fast for what I'm doing; live instruments with 2 mics max, MIDI, soft synths, monitoring.
I think if you're multitracking or otherwise using 6+ channels simultaneously, FireWire will outperform because it carries data at a consistently higher rate.
As for chipsets, the first FW cardbus adapter I got was a TI chipset and it did not work with my interface. After tech-support time I got one with a VIA chipset and it worked perfectly.
What kills me is how few of USB interfaces are 2.0. M-Audio won't come off it until you drop at least $350. It's what, an extra $1.50 in parts?
I think if you're multitracking or otherwise using 6+ channels simultaneously, FireWire will outperform because it carries data at a consistently higher rate.
As for chipsets, the first FW cardbus adapter I got was a TI chipset and it did not work with my interface. After tech-support time I got one with a VIA chipset and it worked perfectly.
What kills me is how few of USB interfaces are 2.0. M-Audio won't come off it until you drop at least $350. It's what, an extra $1.50 in parts?
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
What kills me is how few of USB interfaces are 2.0. M-Audio won't come off it until you drop at least $350. It's what, an extra $1.50 in parts?
That's because if the device is only using USB 1.x throughput, USB 2.0 silicon doesn't buy you anything other than the ability to use cheaper converter chips that don't support separate clock rates for input and output without having to add a mechanical clock rate switch/button.
T
twelveight
New member
That's because if the device is only using USB 1.x throughput, USB 2.0 silicon doesn't buy you anything other than the ability to use cheaper converter chips that don't support separate clock rates for input and output without having to add a mechanical clock rate switch/button.
I think you missed my point....
zazz
hmmmm
....im recording 16 tracks simultaneously under usb2 ..i dont know much about firewire but it sure kicks the hell out of usb1.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
I guess I did. I thought your point was that M-Audio should gratuitously put USB 2.0 chipsets in there. My point was that it doesn't really buy you anything, so I don't see any reason why they'd bother with such an upgrade, given the additional cost of retooling, the extra risk of new bugs, etc.