I don't know either of those products personally, though I haven't heard too many good things about M-audio.
Anyways, I use an Edirol UA-25. Cheap and cheerfull stuff. For the money I paid I'm stoked, easy as to use and clean sound.
I should hit em up for marketing fees.

There's a great post by someone about why Firewire beats USB.
It's to do with USB being a shared protocol and so any device can request bandwidth from the computer and potentially cause dropouts in your audio streaming. Firewire doesn't allow this, so the audio interface *always* has enough bandwidth to carry down it.

The search isn't being too helpful, as ever. I don't think I've EVER found anything specific using it.

yeah i just read up on the omega, and that is only a usb 1.1 connection so it does have a hard time.

I think a firewire interface is looking stronger and stronger the more i look into it, just a debate now to go for the m-audio 410 or look for simular in the price range...
any suggestions, thanks greener for the tip as well im looking at it right now..

Codemonkey wrote: There's a great post by someone about why Firewire beats USB.
It's to do with USB being a shared protocol and so any device can request bandwidth from the computer and potentially cause dropouts in your audio streaming. Firewire doesn't allow this, so the audio interface *always* has enough bandwidth to carry down it.

The search isn't being too helpful, as ever. I don't think I've EVER found anything specific using it.

There's a slight advantage to USB though if configured right as it's a "dumb" protocol. This means that it simply passes the data straight to its intended target (DAW/HD). FW requires additional steps. (Hence the need for a driver for anything Firewire but not necessarily anything USB.) However, as you mentioned, since it is a shared protocol, anything requesting information across the same bus as the USB (say a keyboard/mouse, dongle, etc.) could cause a skip. This is why, if you're using a USB HD or interface, you should minimize all USB connections to only those necessary (use a USB to PS2 adapter for your keyboard and mouse) and if possible, keep your interface and/or hardware on its own bus/irq.

That being said - check out the TC Konnekt 8. I have it's bigger brother and can tell you, it's an amazing box and it should come in less than $400 USD.

Cheers-
Jeremy

thanks Jeremy, by the big brother i take it you mean the konnekt 24D?

the TC Konnekt 8, does seem good, but it only has two inputs correct or did i miss something?

Cucco wrote: [quote=Codemonkey]There's a great post by someone about why Firewire beats USB.
It's to do with USB being a shared protocol and so any device can request bandwidth from the computer and potentially cause dropouts in your audio streaming. Firewire doesn't allow this, so the audio interface *always* has enough bandwidth to carry down it.

The search isn't being too helpful, as ever. I don't think I've EVER found anything specific using it.

There's a slight advantage to USB though if configured right as it's a "dumb" protocol. This means that it simply passes the data straight to its intended target (DAW/HD). FW requires additional steps. (Hence the need for a driver for anything Firewire but not necessarily anything USB.) However, as you mentioned, since it is a shared protocol, anything requesting information across the same bus as the USB (say a keyboard/mouse, dongle, etc.) could cause a skip. This is why, if you're using a USB HD or interface, you should minimize all USB connections to only those necessary (use a USB to PS2 adapter for your keyboard and mouse) and if possible, keep your interface and/or hardware on its own bus/irq.

That being said - check out the TC Konnekt 8. I have it's bigger brother and can tell you, it's an amazing box and it should come in less than $400 USD.

Cheers-
Jeremy

I don't actually agree with all of this. the reason is fairly straightforward in that, as you say, USB is just a dumb port, while Firewire is isosynchronous, meaning that it guarantees the delivery of time-critical data up to the limits of its data transfer rate. It was designed specifically with multichannel audio and video streaming in mind.

And like other proprietary formats such as Beta, Firewire will die a lonely death.

USB is a nifty (cheap) way of sending digital data. Don't be a fool and what you get is a HUGE amount of trouble free streaming.
If you're a fool and can't get your head around a flow chart, get Firewire.

Greener wrote: And like other proprietary formats such as Beta, Firewire will die a lonely death.

USB is a nifty (cheap) way of sending digital data. Don't be a fool and what you get is a HUGE amount of trouble free streaming.
If you're a fool and can't get your head around a flow chart, get Firewire.

Can you elaborate on why and when Firewire will die?

I'd also like you to elaborate on the flow chart. Perhaps provide one. Maybe explain what you mean to all the "fools" out there, instead of just insulting people.

Back up your claims. Show us fools what you are talking about.

I'm getting a little tired of your five plus posts per day filled with what often appear to be insults followed by an insinuation that you know better. I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but you sure come across as a bit of a wanker.

At the risk of being insulted, I agree with VonRock. Greener, I am curious as to why USB would be preferable to Firewire after all the research I've done says otherwise. Not to mention the advise of other people on this forum...

I apologize in advance if I've made any grammatical errors.

Thanks,

Firstly. I know nothing, I make everything up and have no empirical evidence to support anything I say, ever. I don't keep paperwork.

Secondly. What I do with my hands and bits in my free time is my business.

Thirdly. You put a comma where you should have put a full stop. It's cool mhutch, I forgive you.
//Edit: If you read your signature as being apart of that post
then that comma is justified. You run a tight ship mhutch.

Next up Firewire.

Firewire is a proprietary protocol and hardware chipset. You can think of it like Beta video tapes.
USB isn't. You can think of it like VHS tapes.
Beta was better than VHS. I can still buy and rent VHS.
Last time I saw Beta was in the 80's...

Flow chart. Cpu -> bus -> device
If you go: Cpu -> bus -> device + device it will still work for mice and keyboards but will usually give you errors when streaming a boat load of audio.
USB can work fine if you understand this... Infact, used like this it will push almost as much data as Firwire.
But Firewire has expensive built in routing tech which aids people who probably can't figure out how to wank.

I use my brain, I save dollars and get the job done.

If that makes me a wanker that insinuates I know better it could be because I am and do.

If my posts sap your precious energy, vonRocK, don't read them.
Though I don't think you do actually read them. Most of the time I'm chewing out people getting them to explain wtf they are on about so someone who has the experience can come in and answer helpfully. Some of the time I share things I know and some of the time I poke fun at idiots.

And sometimes, like this one, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.

Wikipedia:

USB compared with FireWire

USB was originally seen as a complement to FireWire (IEEE 1394), which was designed as a high-speed serial bus which could efficiently interconnect peripherals such as hard disks, audio interfaces, and video equipment. USB originally operated at a far lower data rate and used much simpler hardware, and was suitable for small peripherals such as keyboards and mice.

The most significant technical differences between FireWire and USB include the following:

* USB networks use a tiered-star topology, while FireWire networks use a repeater-based topology.
* USB uses a "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol; peripherals cannot communicate with the host unless the host specifically requests communication. A FireWire device can communicate with any other node at any time, subject to network conditions.
* A USB network relies on a single host at the top of the tree to control the network. In a FireWire network, any capable node can control the network.
* USB runs with a 5 V power line, whereas Firewire can supply up to 30 V.

These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the two buses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in time-sensitive applications such as audio and video. Although similar in theoretical maximum transfer rate, in real-world use, especially for high-bandwidth use such as external hard-drives, FireWire 400 generally, but not always, has a significantly higher throughput than USB 2.0 Hi-Speed.[19][20][21][22] The newer FireWire 800 standard is twice as fast as FireWire 400 and outperforms USB 2.0 Hi-Speed both theoretically and practically.[23] The chipset and drivers used to implement USB and Firewire have a crucial impact on how much of bandwidth prescribed by the specification is achieved in the real world, along with compatibility with peripherals.[24] Audio peripherals in particular are affected by the USB driver implementation.[citation needed]

One reason USB supplanted FireWire, and became far more widespread, is cost; FireWire is more expensive to implement, producing more expensive hardware.

I don't think that firewire is going anywhere. It just might not be built into your Dell/HP computer. If you want something better it will almost always cost more. This is a simple fact about technology.

Firewire is built into my computer, an Asus.

Look, I like alot of the features you get with Firewire. And I understand that _all_ off the high end gear comes with Firewire. I'm not knocking it. I just can do exactly the same thing with USB, for a lot cheaper.

"* USB runs with a 5 V power line, whereas Firewire can supply up to 30 V. "

So how does my USB 1.1 mic pre give me 48v phantom power?
A voltage transformer.

USB 1.1 is fast enough to give 2 channels of 96k 24bit audio streaming.

USB 2.0 is as fast as Firewire 400... How many channels is that? Enough for a home studio?

I really can see the day coming when Apple will have a new chipset and protocol to ride and that will be the new industry standard and that's what all the pro-sumer gear will come with... USB will still be chugging along. Just like your PS2 port on your motherboard... Redundant? Yes. Gone? No.

hackenslash wrote: [quote=Cucco][quote=Codemonkey]There's a great post by someone about why Firewire beats USB.
It's to do with USB being a shared protocol and so any device can request bandwidth from the computer and potentially cause dropouts in your audio streaming. Firewire doesn't allow this, so the audio interface *always* has enough bandwidth to carry down it.

The search isn't being too helpful, as ever. I don't think I've EVER found anything specific using it.

There's a slight advantage to USB though if configured right as it's a "dumb" protocol. This means that it simply passes the data straight to its intended target (DAW/HD). FW requires additional steps. (Hence the need for a driver for anything Firewire but not necessarily anything USB.) However, as you mentioned, since it is a shared protocol, anything requesting information across the same bus as the USB (say a keyboard/mouse, dongle, etc.) could cause a skip. This is why, if you're using a USB HD or interface, you should minimize all USB connections to only those necessary (use a USB to PS2 adapter for your keyboard and mouse) and if possible, keep your interface and/or hardware on its own bus/irq.

That being said - check out the TC Konnekt 8. I have it's bigger brother and can tell you, it's an amazing box and it should come in less than $400 USD.

Cheers-
Jeremy

I don't actually agree with all of this. the reason is fairly straightforward in that, as you say, USB is just a dumb port, while Firewire is isosynchronous, meaning that it guarantees the delivery of time-critical data up to the limits of its data transfer rate. It was designed specifically with multichannel audio and video streaming in mind.

Well...USB is capable of delivering its entire bandwidth as long as it doesn't have to compete for resources. Firewire, as Greener mentions, takes that guesswork out by negotiating its protocols and connections in advance. If you're careful with system implementation and planning, this should be a non-issue.

Second, Firewire wasn't designed with multi-channel audio and video in mind, that's just how it found its niche in the market.

Don't get me wrong -
I personally use and prefer Firewire interfaces over USB. My only point is that you shouldn't simply rule out USB - it's a viable, tested and reliable format.

TheUkProducer wrote: thanks Jeremy, by the big brother i take it you mean the konnekt 24D?

the TC Konnekt 8, does seem good, but it only has two inputs correct or did i miss something?

Two analog line inputs (includes the mic pres- which, BTW, are as good as you'll find on any interface), 2 SPDIF channels and/or 8 ADAT inputs.

Start with this and add a nice pre with digital outs or a separate AD converter and you've got a rockin system that will outlive any of us.

FWIW - I had a FW410 for a few months and it was really bad IMO.

Everything sounded horribly digital. Granted my skill level wasn't that great, but I wasn't really doing anything at that time other than trying to record an electric guitar with an SM57 and some vocals with an SM58.
The software also was a bit buggy as I recall. This is going back about 18 months or so.

Greener,

I personally don't care what tools somebody uses. A common mantra around here, the equipment is secondary to the skill of the person using it. I come to these forums, and having been doing so for some time, to get advise from people who are in the know.

Cucco shared some valuable information about USB. He is an obvious professional that wanted to clarify that USB is a perfectly good protocol for recording when it is set up properly. He did not insult anybody who doesn't use it, and he backed up his statements with a simple, consise explanation.

You just claimed that everybody who uses firewire is a fool, and that it would die a lonely death. That, in my opinion, is bad advise. Firewire is a widely used protocol that is not going to go anywhere soon.

But then I see the real reason why you don't like Firewire and had to add the snide comment about all of us fools.

You don't like Apple.

So please Greener, stop drinking and posting. Don't use sarcasm. And don't give out bad advise interlaced with insults.

You could have stated that USB is a less expensive protocol that is perfectly good for the data transfer needs of sound recording if properly set up and a common format that will be around for many years to come. You could have added that you dislike buying into proprietry systems like firewire because (insert reasons here).

Anyways, for the click only crowd that want to know a little more, here is a [="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire"] wiki [/]="http://en.wikipedia…"] wiki [/] link to concerning firewire, and [[url=http://="http://en.wikipedia…"]another[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]another[/] all about USB.

At this point, both are required reading.

One thing of interest in the USB wiki -
The apple iMac G3 of 1998 was NOT the first computer to offer USB terminals standard. I was selling computers in 96, 97 and 98 and we had Packard Bells, Compaqs and IBMs along with the Macs. The Packard Bells were the first machines that I saw (in mid-97) to have USB plugs. Despite the common gripe that Packard Bells were entirely proprietary, this new architecture that they went to at this time used an ATX form factor motherboard with only a mildly funky power plug (internal from PS to MB). Everything else was quite non-proprietary.

Just a thought.

Good eye. Must be one of those Apple zealots trying to steal the glory!

:D

Here's something from the Firewire Wiki

"However, the royalty which Apple Inc. and other patent holders initially demanded from users of FireWire (US$0.25 per end-user system) and the more expensive hardware needed to implement it (US$1–$2), both of which have since been dropped, have prevented FireWire from displacing USB in low-end mass-market computer peripherals, where product cost is a major constraint"

I wonder when they dropped this royalty? And did they drop it in order to compete with USB, or maybe they had well recouped the cost of development?
Or, like Greener suggested, maybe they have a brand new protocol ready for deployment?

Interesting questions vonRock,

I wonder if it applies to both Firewire 400 and 800.
Going from 400 to 800 looked very much a staged upgrade to keep the royalties rolling in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Firewire dropped off Mac sometime in the near future.
Seen a serial port on a Mac recently?

I'm interested to know the theoretical limit of Firewire. What is the maximum sample rate for 24bit (32bit unsigned data) streaming audio that can be pushed through Firewire 800.

Anyone know the Kbps for 24bit single channel 48khz and for say 24bit single channel 96khz?
And what's the kbps bandwidth of Firewire 800?

Okay, from what I can see (read visualise). Firewire 800 could stream 24 tracks of 1024khz/32bit audio.
Assuming you can utilise all 786.432 Mbit/s of Firewire 800.

Soooo... It could be a while before it's superseded.

Thanks for the explanation Greener. And yes, I was using the comma in association with my signature. :)

Here is Digidesign's opinion about interfaces:

MBox2 (4-in/2-out) = USB interface
MBox2 Pro (6-in/8-out) = FireWire interface
Digi 003 (8-in/8-out) = FireWire interface
Digidesign 192 (16-in/8-out ) = PCI interface