Firewire vs. USB

I don't think USB is faster than Firewire. It may have a faster burst rate, but I think Firewire has a faster sustained rate or something like that.

Other people have mentioned that there is more things going on with a USB connection than just having a Firewire connection. So they feel Firewire is a better choice.

I have never used Firewire so far. I have a PCI Sound Card that works great. And my external drives I hook up through USB even though I can hook them up with Firewire or eSATA too. But I find a USB drive is perfectly adequate for recording and storing and transferring data.
 
Thanks for the 411.

So now I understand why firewire is still the best. I'm surprised to learn just how much it outperforms USB 2.0.

In 2009-2010 USB 3.0 will be the standard for USB. Can you believe 5.0 GB per second!? Cool beans.
 
So then all the audio interfaces that will be manufactured and available in the future will be most likely USB 3.0? No more firewire interfaces?
 
357mag said:
So then all the audio interfaces that will be manufactured and available in the future will be most likely USB 3.0? No more firewire interfaces?
Click to expand...

I'm sure many will be USB 3.0. Yet Firewire may come out with something better too. Right now, Firewire 400 is the most popular, but there is a Firewire 800 spec which is twice as fast. The RME Fireface audio interface uses Firewire800.

Next gen Firewire may be comparable to USB 3.0

I'm not sure how much bandwidth we actually need in the music realm. USB 3.0 is going to really be cool, not so much in the way of audio interfaces rather data transfer rates. Imagine a USB keychain flash drive that can transfer an entire DVD movie in under a second. :)
 
If memory serves me correctly, another big deal is that for some reason USB can only handle two simultaneous channels, while Firewire can handle...well, more.
 
Joyeuse said:
If memory serves me correctly, another big deal is that for some reason USB can only handle two simultaneous channels, while Firewire can handle...well, more.
Click to expand...

Not quite. USB can theoretically handle hundreds of channels. It tends to get unreliable pretty quickly, though, because of how much more work the CPU has to do. USB 3.0 will be no different in this regard, (and may well be worse).

I don't expect to see USB 3.0 audio interfaces being built at all. There's no benefit over 2.0. Frankly, I'm not sure why USB 3.0 is even being built. For A/V stuff, it isn't an improvement (same host-driven design); for disk devices, eSATA blows it away; for all other devices, the extra bandwidth isn't useful. It just seems like a solution in search of a problem....

*shrugs*
 
dgatwood said:
I don't expect to see USB 3.0 audio interfaces being built at all. There's no benefit over 2.0. Frankly, I'm not sure why USB 3.0 is even being built. For A/V stuff, it isn't an improvement (same host-driven design); for disk devices, eSATA blows it away; for all other devices, the extra bandwidth isn't useful. It just seems like a solution in search of a problem....

*shrugs*
Click to expand...


especially since there's already fw800 and speced plans for 1600 and 3200...
 
No one really knows what will be in the future. It's all speculation. I've heard Firewire will be phased out entirely. Others say it will survive.
 
dgatwood said:
Not quite. USB can theoretically handle hundreds of channels. It tends to get unreliable pretty quickly, though, because of how much more work the CPU has to do. USB 3.0 will be no different in this regard, (and may well be worse).

I don't expect to see USB 3.0 audio interfaces being built at all. There's no benefit over 2.0. Frankly, I'm not sure why USB 3.0 is even being built. For A/V stuff, it isn't an improvement (same host-driven design); for disk devices, eSATA blows it away; for all other devices, the extra bandwidth isn't useful. It just seems like a solution in search of a problem....

*shrugs*
Click to expand...

As a member of a PC accessory development team, we're more interested in the power increase USB 3.0 offers. With more keyboards and mice including power consuming LEDs, we can use all the power we can get.

Glenn D.
 
If the motherboard doesn't have Firewire onboard, only USB, and you add Firewire by using one of those PCI cards with the connectors, would a Firewire recording interface still be a better option? Or in such scenario an USB one would perform better?


The firewire interfaces I have in mind for the example are the PreSonus Firebox, and the Edirol fa-66 and fa-101.
Thanks
 
Bad Omen said:
If the motherboard doesn't have Firewire onboard, only USB, and you add Firewire by using one of those PCI cards with the connectors, would a Firewire recording interface still be a better option? Or in such scenario an USB one would perform better?


The firewire interfaces I have in mind for the example are the PreSonus Firebox, and the Edirol fa-66 and fa-101.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Currently, firewire is the best. USB 2.0 is faster in theory, but it isn't in any practical situation. As I understand it, USB uses your CPU to run, firewire devices think for themselves.
 
Right. But if the Firewire depends on a PCI slot, as in the situation I described above, do you think having PCI as an "intermediate" could compromise the quality of the recordings and/or the functionality of the device?
 
Fire wire is still going to be a better option than USB even through a PCI slot
As with onboard FW you want decent controller chips and Texas Instruments make controlers with the broadest outboard gear compatability.
I think SIIG make FW PCI cards with Texas Instrument controllers

Google em and see
 
Bad Omen said:
Right. But if the Firewire depends on a PCI slot, as in the situation I described above, do you think having PCI as an "intermediate" could compromise the quality of the recordings and/or the functionality of the device?
Click to expand...

No, PCI is faster than firewire. There will be no issues, you couldn't flood it out if you wanted to.

PCI is 33 MHz, but that's 32 bits of data per cycle. So the total throughput of PCI is 133 megaBYTES per second, that's faster than gigabit. And I'm talking about the old skool 3.3v or 5v cards in those huge slots.. PCIe and PCIx blow those numbers away.

Firewire400 is 400 megaBITS per second, which equals 50 megaBYTES per second. Firewire800 couldn't even flood out a PCI bus.
 
OK for a few channels - USB2 (works in BURSTS not CONTINUOUS data transfers, so it does NOT come close to really beating out firewire....)

Better: Firewire400 - can handle up to 100 simultaneous i/os
Data is streamed CONTINUOUSLY and can go directly from interface to external HD, not hitting the computer at all.
Hot-plugable and can have up to 63 devices on the chain.
Many interface manufacturers make their units daisy-chainable (if they wrote their drivers correctly....)
(You dont see a lot of FW800 and up because they just ARENT NEEDED.)
You MUST use a TexasInstruments firewire chipset, but that can be by add-on PCI, PCMCIA or Expresscard. Belkin and SIIG make good ones for <$60
If you're really into audio, you should NEVER buy a computer that doesn't have TI firewire chips built-in even if you dont use Firewire YET.

Best: PCI
It connected directly to the computer's main data busses.

--------------------------------------------

Been using a Motu828mkII daisy-chained to a Glyph firewire drive on a single-core Gateway 2.8Ghz laptop (with built-in TI firewire chips and a secondary USB2 drive for sample libraries and video editing) for years with ZERO PROBLEMS.
 
TimOBrien said:
Better: Firewire400 - can handle up to 100 simultaneous i/os
Data is streamed CONTINUOUSLY and can go directly from interface to external HD, not hitting the computer at all.
Click to expand...

In theory, it could be done that way, but it isn't. Data is streamed to your computer, and from there to the hard drive, even with FireWire. The difference is that if your FireWire interface's drivers are written correctly, the CPU doesn't have to be involved to nearly the same degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top