P
Polaris20
Active member
With so many firewire devices out, mLan quickly becoming a standard, and FW800 on the horizon, I don't see a point to USB2.0 audio devices. It's great for scanners and printers, but for audio, FW is still better.
B
brzilian
New member
LAZI said:
Is this some kind of practical joke?
M
mgraffeo
New member
Firewire may be better, but it's also still a LOT more expensive. Give me the EZBus any day over an 896 or a Digi002, cuz I'll still have money left over for a great mic, and a few beers...
-mg
-mg
crosstudio
New member
with the Mac OS X out, i don't see the point in MS Windows.
sometimes the better architecture just doesn't catch fire.
Macs have been the better platform for music recording since it first became possible to do so, yet MS based operating systems are the most used.
the same may happen regarding USB because that architecture is owned by Intel.
sometimes the better architecture just doesn't catch fire.
Macs have been the better platform for music recording since it first became possible to do so, yet MS based operating systems are the most used.
the same may happen regarding USB because that architecture is owned by Intel.
LAZI
New member
Not saying I want a USB 2.0 soundcard or that i've been waiting on it... Just that it took long as hell for them to make one.
I already have the EDIROL UA-5 (USB 1 soundcard) and it gave me hell beyond hell. I finally got a USB 2.0 card for it and it's running smooth as hell now. I think that's it on the USB 2 crap for me though. Maybe a hardrive or burner or something but that's it... I've always wanted the 896 or something firewire...
J
Jim Y
New member
The joke in question was your link - It opens a reply page.
I assumed they were missing USB2 to got straight to Firewire - this will make it easier to move over to Yamahas M-lan which is based on Firewire but combines Midi with multitrack audio. I'm pleased to see USB2 happen though. A lot of traditionally Firewired stuff like Camcorders are also starting to appear with USB2. Probably, the size of the pc market has made USB2 chips cheaper than Firewire.
I assumed they were missing USB2 to got straight to Firewire - this will make it easier to move over to Yamahas M-lan which is based on Firewire but combines Midi with multitrack audio. I'm pleased to see USB2 happen though. A lot of traditionally Firewired stuff like Camcorders are also starting to appear with USB2. Probably, the size of the pc market has made USB2 chips cheaper than Firewire.
P
Polaris20
Active member
mgraffeo said:
Not anymore. M Audio just came out with the 410, and there's other companies that are following suit.
Not everything has to be a $2000 Digi 002.
L
laptoppop
Musical Technogeek
Over on Edirol.com, I found the interface being referenced. Looks interesting -- 10 in/10out, with 4 microphone preamps with phantom power, analog line in/out connections, and ADAT lightpipe in/out. I want more info - they don't give enough specs about the preamps, for example.
Speed of USB2 is comparable to firewire (480 for USB2, 400 for firewire) -- you get down into talking about packet efficiency and overhead utilization, etc. The bottom line is that they are both fast. USB2 is cheaper to implement because by definition Firewire devices have to be "smarter" -- able to control the transaction, not just respond.
But the most telling thing is that USB2 is much more common on PCs than firewire. For Macs, I don't even know if there IS a USB2 connector, but for PCs, basically all the new PCS have USB2 instead of the original USB connection.
-lee-
Speed of USB2 is comparable to firewire (480 for USB2, 400 for firewire) -- you get down into talking about packet efficiency and overhead utilization, etc. The bottom line is that they are both fast. USB2 is cheaper to implement because by definition Firewire devices have to be "smarter" -- able to control the transaction, not just respond.
But the most telling thing is that USB2 is much more common on PCs than firewire. For Macs, I don't even know if there IS a USB2 connector, but for PCs, basically all the new PCS have USB2 instead of the original USB connection.
-lee-
LAZI
New member
http://edirol.com/press/html/2003/030403_ua1000_pr.html
Ooopppsss.... Here is a link to the EDIROL Page.
Ooopppsss.... Here is a link to the EDIROL Page.
P
Polaris20
Active member
laptoppop said:
That's only because Intel is shoving it down everyone's throat. Efficiency-wise, it is not as good as firewire.
Macs? Nah, they're too busy moving on to bigger and better things like firewire 800
100MB a second anyone?
I don't even have a Mac, but damn that's cool.
S
Sklathill
Soundcard Junkie
Intel shoving down everyone's throat? I don't really see that; Intel's implementation of USB2 on their chips only came extremely recently. And does anyone remember how MS neglected to put out of the box support for USB2 when XP was released?
Firewire was more an Apple thing than USB2 was an Intel thing. Also, remember how reactionary USB2 was in the pricing for implementation, as firewire=royalties while USB2 was originated as royalty-free.
At least, that's what I remember seeing in my PC Magazine from a few years ago. Man, I used to love that magazine...
If I had a choice, I'd go with Firewire audio devices because all the testing I've seen on such devices have comparable units with both interface types the firewire device requiring less CPU overhead than the USB2 device. OTOH, this isn't totally fair, because there are no motherboards that implement both into the same core logic, rather than on separate aftermarket chips...
Firewire was more an Apple thing than USB2 was an Intel thing. Also, remember how reactionary USB2 was in the pricing for implementation, as firewire=royalties while USB2 was originated as royalty-free.
At least, that's what I remember seeing in my PC Magazine from a few years ago. Man, I used to love that magazine...
If I had a choice, I'd go with Firewire audio devices because all the testing I've seen on such devices have comparable units with both interface types the firewire device requiring less CPU overhead than the USB2 device. OTOH, this isn't totally fair, because there are no motherboards that implement both into the same core logic, rather than on separate aftermarket chips...
B
brzilian
New member
Intel shoving down everyone's throat? I don't really see that; Intel's implementation of USB2 on their chips only came extremely recently. And does anyone remember how MS neglected to put out of the box support for USB2 when XP was released?
Last time I checked, XP was released way before USB 2.0 became a standard and was actually implemented with hardware.
Firewire was more an Apple thing than USB2 was an Intel thing. Also, remember how reactionary USB2 was in the pricing for implementation, as firewire=royalties while USB2 was originated as royalty-free.
Actually, the Firewire spec was developed by IEEE as a standard for home netorking versus the Ethernet standard that existed at the time for the corporate world
At least, that's what I remember seeing in my PC Magazine from a few years ago. Man, I used to love that magazine...
If I had a choice, I'd go with Firewire audio devices because all the testing I've seen on such devices have comparable units with both interface types the firewire device requiring less CPU overhead than the USB2 device. OTOH, this isn't totally fair, because there are no motherboards that implement both into the same core logic, rather than on separate aftermarket chips...
That is more a product of the efficiency of the protocol Firewire uses compared to USB rather than the implementation of the controller logic into motherboard chipsets
Last time I checked, XP was released way before USB 2.0 became a standard and was actually implemented with hardware.
Firewire was more an Apple thing than USB2 was an Intel thing. Also, remember how reactionary USB2 was in the pricing for implementation, as firewire=royalties while USB2 was originated as royalty-free.
Actually, the Firewire spec was developed by IEEE as a standard for home netorking versus the Ethernet standard that existed at the time for the corporate world
At least, that's what I remember seeing in my PC Magazine from a few years ago. Man, I used to love that magazine...
If I had a choice, I'd go with Firewire audio devices because all the testing I've seen on such devices have comparable units with both interface types the firewire device requiring less CPU overhead than the USB2 device. OTOH, this isn't totally fair, because there are no motherboards that implement both into the same core logic, rather than on separate aftermarket chips...
That is more a product of the efficiency of the protocol Firewire uses compared to USB rather than the implementation of the controller logic into motherboard chipsets
P
Polaris20
Active member
Sklathill said:
Extremely recently? Over a year ago is not extremely recent. And as Brzlian said, firewire was not an "Apple thing". It was an IEEE thing.