firewire?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtourangeau
  • Start date Start date
jtourangeau

jtourangeau

New member
wtf is firewire?I know usb is not the way to go but can be manageable and is slower than a pci card.Is firewire just a fancy name for an ethernet cable that plugs into an ethernet port on a network/NIC card?:confused:
 
Firewire is like USB except it's rounded on one edge.


:p







I know that it's faster than USB 2.0. I know that I needed one for my interface. And I know that Texas Instrument chipsets are supposed to be better than the others.

As far as technically why it's better...I couldn't tell you.
 
yea it looks more like a square almost. but you can get fire wire to usb 2.0 cables.
 
I don't remember the specific speed difference, but when getting ready to purchase a recording interface, it became pretty clear that firewire is substantially faster than USB.

The sales hype was backed up by user reviews as well.

Firewire, like USB is just another means of feeding information to and from a computer. Ethernet cable is too, but (someone correct me if I'm wrong) isn't generally used as a link between peripherals (recorders, music devices, etc).

Firewire has it's own proprietarily shaped plug, as does USB and ethernet.

Hope this helps...

I think I just invented a new word - proprietarily. :cool:
 
jtourangeau said:
wtf is firewire?I know usb is not the way to go but can be manageable and is slower than a pci card.Is firewire just a fancy name for an ethernet cable that plugs into an ethernet port on a network/NIC card?:confused:
Click to expand...

If you don't know what firewire is, how the hell do you know usb is not the way to go? :rolleyes:

Honestly, there's so much bullshit flying around in the fw vs usb debate it's ridiculous. However, anyone with a room temperature IQ and 10 minutes of google access could easily figure this out. Try it.

Summary: Firewire is faster in real world data applications. USB 2.0 has faster throughput, but it relies on a master/slave relationship with the cpu. This makes USB dependent upon the cpu to task bus assignments among multiple USB devices. FW have their own architecture built into the chipset. That being said, unless you're running a zillion simultaneous inputs, there is little difference between the two. For home recordist who might track 8 -10 tracks at the same time, USB is more than adequate and usually a cheaper solution than FW.
It's like saying a quad core processor is faster than a single core and therefore single core processors are "not the way to go", which is complete nonsense.
 
TeyshaBlue said:
It's like saying a quad core processor is faster than a single core and therefore single core processors are "not the way to go", which is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

Wow! :D

When I was trying to get some input on the whole FW/USB decision, I kept hearing "FW, by virtue of its speed advantage, will be less susceptible to latency."

This was the only argument I heard, but was sufficient to sway me away from Tascam's USB thingie to the sonus fw unit.

I think something many of us run into, is that we're not all ITs. And while we can read tech data till our eyes bleed, we still have a difficult time equating it into a real-world functionality choice.

It's kinda like having an automotive problem when ya don't really know shit. You're fed so many opinions and suggestions that the water gets too muddy to know what to do. Can ya relate? :D
 
And as to the quad core/dual core/ single core argument....

Okay, I became victim to that bunch of horse shit, too. I grabbed that amd quad 2.6 thinking that it would be the cat's ass to process all of the plug ins during recording. I've got it pumped to 3.3 right now.

Woohoo! Great for opening mutiple pages, and editing pictures! None of which I do on my music komputer. :rolleyes:

Long story short...it runs like a pig managing vst's, and I'm now waiting on the "basic" 3.0gz dual core chip to show up. :o
 
kinda harsh?

When I googled it ,they never showed the acual cable.Thanks for the info and criticzm.If I want to get beat-up I know where to go.
 
I opted for firewire largely because I can power my interface with it directly from my Mac. It frees up one more space on the powerstrip :)

The only bummer was that as the new iMacs feature firewire 800 I had to buy a special 800>600 cable.
 
I agree about most home studio guys can use either FW or USB. Especially USB 2.0. 99.9% of the time, they will work equally well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started from the PC vs MAC thing. Apple developed FW and the IBM/Intel guys developed USB. Eventually, PCI cards came out for PC's so you could use FW devices with them instead of a Mac.

From what I read recently, FW is dying out because the video camera manufacturers that originally used firewire have been migrating to USB. USB is becoming very universal. From keyboards to cell phones, to the goofy LED lamp I have over my mixer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top