USB 1.1 vs USB 2.0 what is the advantage ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFox
  • Start date Start date
CFox

CFox

Banned
I am looking at the Mackie Blackjack Onyx and aside from being impressed with the pres and Cirrus Logic AD converters I noticed its the old USB format.

If you are only recording one track at a time, what is the benefit of having a USB 2.0 audio card over a 1.1 card ? Considering latency is dependent on the computers CPU.
 
Tweak doesnt actually say what the "performance" difference is.

Tweaks out of date website said:
There is a huge world of difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0. Never confuse the two; it's night and day difference in terms of performance. Also never assume an interface is USB 2.0 unless it specifically says it is. If it just says "USB", then assume it is 1.1. Believe me, if it was 2.0, they would tell you. There are not that many USB 2.0 interfaces out, though it is changing. Some notable USB2.0 interfaces are the Tascam US122 Mk2 and Tascam US144 Mk2. One value that is rather incredible in the Tascam US1641. Tascam is adding to the line with the US2000, which is very similar in looks to the 1641. There is also a version of the MOTU 828mk2 that is USB 2.0 instead of Firewire. Newer to the scene are the Emu 0404 and 0202. Another excellent value are the Alesis multimix units. But be careful, there are USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 version of the multimix interface/mixers. Make sure to get the USB 2.0 versions. Check out the MultiMix8 USB2.0 and the MultiMix 16 USB2.0. On the high end for Sonar lovers is the Cakewalk V700r, which is the audio interface in their V-Studio package. Guess what? Its USB 2.0. Another professional interface, the Digidesign Eleven is now out. USB 2.0. Great box for the recording guitarist who wants to get into Pro Tools LE.
Click to expand...
 
The difference is the total amount of data it can stream at one time (bandwidth).

Usb1.1 does up to 2 simultaneous channels.

Usb2 does upwards of a dozen or so with properly tweaked drivers
(I think Tascam has one with 16 inputs)

As a comparison, Firewire400 does over 100 and Firewire800 twice that.
(why would you want that? Well, you can hang a firewire drive on the chain - I do - or a convolution effects processor and have plenty of open highway for the data without it being choked.)

Bandwidth has nothing to do with latency... that's the relationship of the unit's hardware and the driver software.
 
Heres how old 1.1 usb is

1.1 transfer 3mb sec
Firewire 400 120mb sec without breaking a sweat

1.1 is just to old to spend money on.

Surprizing how many USB interfaces are 1.1, noticed that myself. I'm goin for a Focusrite saffire pro 14 firewire $250 new, has great reviews.
 
Another important distinction between F/W and USB ... and why F/W is better at the same rated speed (or close to it since F/W is 400 kbs and USB 2.0 480 kbs.)

F/W sends a steady stream of data. USB sends 'bursts' of data. Even though the average speed is similar, the steady through put is superior for audio. F/W was developed by Sony for video.

Prado
 
Oh dear... :spank:

USB 2 has an advertised speed of 480 Mbps, but only half of it is available in each direction.

USB 1 has an advertised speed of 12 Mbps, again only half of it available in each direction.

FW 400 has 400 Mbps, available in both directions. And FW 800 doubles that. Also, the FW protocol is smarter, so the computer's processor has very little work, compared to USB. And, in theory at least, with FW you could even connect a video camera yo a harddisk without a computer. In practice there are no applications that use it.

If you copy one big file to a harddisk, performance will not vary too much between USB and FW. If you copy a large number of files, FW will be a lot faster.
 
No one has really answered the important part of this question.

If you are only recording one track at a time - what is the advantage of USB 2.0 over 1.1 ?


There doesnt seem to be one if 1.1 is adequate for the job and in fact consumes less CPU for operation.
 
Read my post above again -- the only advatage is how many channels it carries.

So if you're doing one, yup it doesn't really matter much; it'll get the job done.

As for using 'less cpu'... ah, no. It doesn't work that way.
 
TimOBrien said:
Read my post above again -- the only advatage is how many channels it carries.

So if you're doing one, yup it doesn't really matter much; it'll get the job done.

As for using 'less cpu'... ah, no. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I did read it and deduced that it didnt matter I just wanted it spelled out for me because I need nurturing at the moment - going through an emotional time with my gf. :laughings:

Okies. So USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 have similar demands on the CPU ( all other things being equal ) ?
 
Doesnt your interface have to communicate all the tracks? Lets say your running 5 software synths to playback, doesnt the Interface need to communicate all that data? (maybe someone can answer) Or do you mean your only recording one track period for your whole project?

Maybe your right, the I/O may not be that much data (even with alot of tracks) curious to know?

BTW thats a nice little unit, I guess theres no reason to need more than 1.1 on a 2x2 interface?
 
Last edited:
PDP said:
Doesnt your interface have to communicate all the tracks? Lets say your running 5 software synths to playback, doesnt the Interface need to communicate all that data? (maybe someone can answer)
Click to expand...
Your DAW does the summing. Mute the master track. Nothing comes out. The DAW ( therefore CPU ) has already summed it before it goes to the real world through the USB cards DA converters. Test this by just selecting your crappy onboard soundcard input/output device. You can run all the soft synths you want with your onboard card but once you start to record thats when it falls apart.


PDP said:
Or do you mean your only recording one track period for your whole project?
Click to expand...
No, my project will have as many tracks as I want in the DAW. I will just be laying down one track at a time.

PDP said:
Maybe your right, the I/O may not be that much data (even with alot of tracks) curious to know?
Click to expand...
There is no maybe about it. For this unit and what its designed for, it doesnt matter.

PDP said:
BTW thats a nice little unit, I guess theres no reason to need more than 1.1 on a 2x2 interface?
Click to expand...
Yep, built like a tank, great specs on the digital converters and 60 dB of boost.
 
cyrano said:
Oh dear... :spank:

USB 2 has an advertised speed of 480 Mbps, but only half of it is available in each direction.

USB 1 has an advertised speed of 12 Mbps, again only half of it available in each direction.

FW 400 has 400 Mbps, available in both directions.
Click to expand...

Not true. Only FireWire 800 and up are full duplex. FireWire 400 is half duplex just like USB. FireWire 400 frequently kicks USB's backside speed-wise because FireWire offloads a lot more of the work (particularly DMA for hard drives) to the controller itself, which means that bulk data moves get done immediately instead of whenever your OS gets around to doing it.
 
Ok, I just bought a Focusrite Saffire 6 USB 1.1 audio interface. Let's say I'm running 2 mics at the same time (I.e.acoustic guitar), does it affect the audio in a any way? Would USB 2.0 or FireWire provide any better sound quality? I want to be sure I am not sacrificing sound quality at all by using a 1.1 interface.

Thanks,

ROK
 
Sound quality sacrifice?, Not at all. The preamp and AD converters would be responsible for any quality loss. Not the connection.
 
Thanks Jimmy. So the higher transfer rate doesn't change the sound quality but will it cause any latency? For example, if I'm recording 2 mics on an acoustic at the same time wouldn't that be a considerable amount of data passing between the audio interface and the computer which could cause a slower response on a connection that offers 12 Mbps vs 480 Mbps?
 
Well, latency will be introduced by software and your interface. The connection should have nothing to do with it as far as I know. I could be wrong, but I have never heard "my latency is so high when recording two mics at once".

I could be incorrect, but you should not have any problems with a USB1 device for your purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top