1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Firewire 800 and USB 3.0

Discussion in 'Converters / Interfaces' started by toddmatthew, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. toddmatthew

    toddmatthew Guest

    Okay so I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I want to know when in the heck are we going to see a refresh in interface technology that uses either Firewire 800 or USB 3.0? Both of these have much faster transfer rates than their predecessors, and most quality computers have Firewire 800 and I believe USB 3.0 is becoming more common place. And as far as I know, faster transfer CAN mean more channels correct? So while everyone seems to be stuck in the 2, 4, 8 and a handfull of 16 (for lack of a better term) "modules", can't we start to move beyond that now? I know that more channels would raise the cost on components alone, regardless of the ability to send them in one cable. But isn't it time we see some 24 channel (ADAT aside) interfaces that aren't using DSubs or ethernet? For instance, I'd like to see combo's from Avid, M-audio (avid), Tascam, Alesis... and whoever else makes those, with much more I/Os. Aside from my longing for more channels, what advantages do you think the new generation of cables could do? Maybe lower latency? Eh, I guess the cable has less to do with that than the processing of the data.

    Anyway, happy Friday everyone!
     
  2. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Well, there is likely to be some sort of shakeup when USB 3 and Firewire 1600 (1394c) truly become available. As of today no devices exist that utilize USB3 or 1394c.

    There are a very very few motherboards and about two models of hard drive that utilize SATA 6 and they are mucho expensive.

    New technology does not always catch on. Firewire 800 (1394b) was utilized by a few manufacturers but it certainly did not become ubiquitous by any means. 1394b is quite capable of streaming 56 channels as it is. 1394a can easily stream 28 channels. We still never saw any interfaces other than the Onyx 1640 or Allen & Heath ZED R16 that would take even 16 channels.
     
  3. blaumph2cool

    blaumph2cool Active Member

    I think the key here is not rushing to the next new bandwidth technology, but rather for companies like m-audio, presonus, tascam, and the like to start using better components and writing better drivers so their units work properly with the number of channels they have now. Someone please please tell them to stop using the DiceII crap!
     
  4. soapfloats

    soapfloats Well-Known Member

    +1 to both Jack and blaumph

    Just got my FF800, which can use FW800, but still getting it set up right.
    I got the FF b/c of issues w/ a manufacturer which blaumph mentioned, though I will not - it has served me well and I have communicated my issues often enough.

    Regarding the OP, I can't say I'm that interested.
    The thing that sucks about living in a digital recording world is that like all things electronic, it doesn't take long for your $$$$ to turn into $.
    It's more about the front end, for me. Interface, preamps, mics, and monitors (not front end)
    That said, in addition to the FF and new monitors, we're getting a new MacPro (dual boot Leopard/Win7) and controller.
    You gotta keep up w/ the computer stuff - just not necessarily be at the front.
     

Share This Page