USB 2.0 drive - it's SOOOO slow

[David Polich]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding USB 2.0 drives pointless for recording. Storage, okay. Is it just me?

I bought a 1 TB Iomega USB 2.0 drive (they're really cheap right now) this weekend, hooked it up and formatted it. Tested it out by transferring some DP projects from one of my internal ATA drives to the Iomega - based on the transfer taking ages, I wouldn't trust any USB drive for recording audio, let alone streaming samples for Ethno or Omnisphere or BFD. I don't think I'd even trust USB 2.0 for a recording interface.

Someone correct me if I'm missing something -

[mhschmieder]

No, you're not missing anything.

As you mentioned though, USB 2.0 might be sufficient for a backup drive, relieving the need for too many daisy-chained firewire devices.

[BradLyons]

You're not missing anything other than not listening to what I've been saying for years....... Although on paper USB2.0 is faster than Firewire400, in real world performance it is NOT even close. USB doesn't sustain the same speed over time, it also has a slower ramp-up speed and well---it's just not as reliable.

[nick danger]

How much (real world) faster is FW800 over FW400? How long until MOTU and others start making their interfaces with FW800 instead of FW400?

[Jim]

How much (real world) faster is FW800 over FW400? How long until MOTU and others start making their interfaces with FW800 instead of FW400?

Somebody had a FW 800 interface at one point. More will likely come, as Apple has ditched 400. And there are even faster protocols around the corner, reputed to smoke existing formats.

800 is twice as fast as 400, real world. The numbers refer to the theoretical maximum sustained data-rate, in Mbits. 8 bits to a byte.

USB2 is perfectly adequate for a certain amount of audio streaming. Should be more than adequate for 24 tracks of 48 / 24 or better, which is probably why USB2 audio interfaces are showing up, not to mention that FW isn't even existent on some PCs. FW was mostly a Sony / Apple thing, but has been incorporated into Windows and compatible hardware.

Brad is correct that USB however doesn't stream data like FW does, as it sends data in packets, but a RAM buffer can render the differences negligible, so long as you're not operating at the upper limits of the hardware. It's only at the upper limits where one might notice a difference. File copying from one drive to another will demonstrate, as copying is designed to operate at the limits.

Think of a RAM buffer as a funnel that you're scooping sand into from a measuring cup (packet). As long as your managed rate of scooping (negotiation) stays ahead of the stream coming out of the bottom of the funnel, but doesn't overfill the funnel (creating bottlenecks), the rate of sand coming out of the funnel is no different than from a conveyor belt with a constant supply.

Brad is coming from a perspective likely of using 100 tracks of 96 KHz audio, and in that case, USB2 is most likely to come up short.

But for most people who buy a single interface, who need 8 or 16 tracks, USB2 should work fine.

David, if your Mac is a few years old... G5 or earlier, it's probably USB 1 only, and hooking up any USB 2 device will max out at the limitations of USB 1, which could account for any slowness you see. But you say ATA internal, which is relatively recent to Macs, and you probably have USB2.

All FW and USB devices operate at the max speed of the slowest device. If you have any USB1 devices connected, it will slow down your USB2 devices.

[kgdrum]

it might be interesting to see how USB3 develops over the next year or so,this looks like a major step forward for USB

http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/237414/us ... -2010.html

http://www.usb.org/press/USB-IF_Press_R ... USB_IF.pdf

[BradLyons]

No----I know of situations where 4-tracks die out on USB2. The computer does NOT access USB2 the way it does firewire, so no amount of buffering will fix that. In terms of audio interfaces over USB2, that's one thing---but there is latency. In terms of thruput for writing audio or video data, I do NOT trust USB. The speed fluctuates over time and it does come in packets.... it's not a guaranteed sustain transfer or reliable in the real world with audio.

As to FW400 v/s FW800, there is very little difference in audio I/O unless you start talking beyond 24-32 inputs, however there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in data thruput for both audio and video, especially HD video. This is even more so true when you start talking extended edit density, higher sampling rates, instant drive access, large and long files (Video related, mostly), etc. USB2 is perfectly fine for storage of files, but I'd never dare use it to capture or playback audio or video sessions no matter how small they might be. Case and point---I have a video session on my 8Core MacPro in Final Cut that is SD Uncompressed---- using the EXACT SAME GLYPH hard drive, I tested FW400, FW800, and USB2. The USB drive craps out sometimes a minute in, sometimes just a few seconds, sometimes it won't even start, and even a few times it played just fine....for awhile. With FW400, no issues....with FW800, it barely touched the buss. With FW800, I could do HD Compressed, no issues. This was all with a MOTU V4HD which was pre-buffering the video and providing DSP overhead to even further help the thruput issues.

[bongo_x]

I actually thought that when I got the USB only ipod to replace my old Firewire ipod a few years ago that it seemed much slower just syncing up and such. Maybe I was imagining it, but I'll still spread it around as the truth.

I've never tried a USB drive for audio, just backing up to one seems slow, I can't imagine that it would be OK.

bb

[Jim]

No----I know of situations where 4-tracks die out on USB2. The computer does NOT access USB2 the way it does firewire, so no amount of buffering will fix that.

Do tell. Let's see some evidence. You're dead wrong about buffering. Do some research.

Let's hear from the manufacturers and solicitors of USB2 audio interfaces. I think they might have a bone to pick with this statement.

Tascam, for instance, has a USB2 interface they claim will record 16 simultaneous tracks of 96/24... the US-1641.

So, you're saying this doesn't work, Brad?

Here's my evidence:

The data rate for 44.1 / 16 stereo is around 1420 Kbits/sec. So, let's divide that by USB2's 400 Mbits (or 4,000,000 bits or 400,000 Kbits) ceiling. How many tracks?

I get 281.7. So there must be some other factor at play if you've had 4 tracks "die out".

[BradLyons]

No----I know of situations where 4-tracks die out on USB2. The computer does NOT access USB2 the way it does firewire, so no amount of buffering will fix that.

Do tell. Let's see some evidence. You're dead wrong about buffering. Do some research.

Let's hear from the manufacturers and solicitors of USB2 audio interfaces. I think they might have a bone to pick with this statement.

Tascam, for instance, has a USB2 interface they claim will record 16 simultaneous tracks of 96/24... the US-1641.

So, you're saying this doesn't work, Brad?

Here's my evidence:

The data rate for 44.1 / 16 stereo is around 1420 Kbits/sec. So, let's divide that by USB2's 400 Mbits (or 4,000,000 bits or 400,000 Kbits) ceiling. How many tracks?

I get 281.7. So there must be some other factor at play if you've had 4 tracks "die out".

I'm NOT talking about the audio interface and thruput there.... I'm talking about HARD DRIVE PERFORMANCE, playing back tracks and files. Specs aren't exactly accurate on this topic, that's why it looks like USB2 is better over FW400----in the real world performance, it just doesn't work as good as firewire in terms of hard-drive playback.

[bongo_x]

I'm saying Brad is part of a vast Firewire conspiracy. He doesn't want the people to know about USB 2, and the pleasures within.

[buzzsmith]

Slow?!

Try loading the 65 Gigs of the Kirk Hunter Orchestra library with USB 1.1 (see sig). Kirk supplies the library on a small USB drive a little bigger than an iPhone.

It takes about 20 minutes per gig!

So while having lunch, running, whatever, I grab an instrument folder or two and move them over to the new HD that contains the Kontakt library and the Kirk Hunter library.

Out of about 90 folders, I think I'm ready to transfer folder # 73, so I'm making progress!

(All 90 don't have to be loaded for the library to work...I'm using it now. Obviously, I can't use instruments that haven't been moved yet.)

Buzzy

[BradLyons]

Wow, that would be like answering a post......but each entry would be one word, wait an hour to do another word, and so on! LOL