Is firewire that much better than USB?

[RonaldDumsfeld]

This is great. Nearest thing we have had to a debate in here for weeks.

Except there apears to have been a misunderstanding.

Brad is talking about transferring data between disks by Firewire or USB 2.0. No one should do this with either by choice. Either use eSATA or Ethernet. In an emergency maybe. 100% with you on that one.

I took the OP to mean was 'Firewire that much better then USB' when streaming audio to and from an audio interface.

I don't believe that for a PC user it does make 'that much' difference.

Most, if not all, of the latest products to hit the market have been USB 2.0 devices and you should not be deterred from buying them purely on that basis. (c.f. RME Fireface UC). Companies are now starting to release USB 2.0 versions of devices that outperform their Firewire originals. Even MOTUs last two releases have been USB - the UL Hybrid and now the MicroBook).

If you are buying new it makes sense to follow where the development money is going but we'll all be USB 3.0 soon anyway. Except maybe Apple people.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

This is great. Nearest thing we have had to a debate in here for weeks.

You need to look at more topics. There's plenty of debate going on. Not all of it civil...

If you are buying new it makes sense to follow where the development money is going but we'll all be USB 3.0 soon anyway. Except maybe Apple people.

Indeed, lIke Beta tapes, disco, Wankle engines, and Pia Zadora.

The cutting edge can cut both ways. As for the Microbook, sending an audio signal is not the same as sending data. Personally I don't care if it's USB 1, 2, 3, 4 Firewire 400, 800, or 16,000. I just need it to perform as fast as I need it to perform. I have USB 2 drives for storage and FW 400 and 800 drives for streaming. I tried the USB drive to stream and it choked as Brad predicted and observed.

But hey, if USB works for you, go for it. It would seem the consensus is clear. Firewire is the currently available choice. Again, eSATA is way better for sure, but not for everybody...

Are the cows home yet?

[BradLyons]

I'm not sure what the original poster was asking specifically---but what we've been discussing are two things:

POINT #1 is Firewire better than USB for audio interfaces. In general, YES. Talking more specifically FW400 v/s USB2.0---although on paper USB2.0 is 480mbps v/s 400mbps of FW400, the actual performance in the real world of FW400 is far greater than that of USB2. There is more bandwidth which leads to greater headroom of converters, more gain in mic-pres (when bus-powered), etc. There is better stability of the interface as Firewire does not time-out the way that USB does.

POINT #2 is Firewire better than USB for hard-drives streaming audio content? OH HECK YEAH---USB is the worst that you can use for streaming of disk content as it's not as fast as FW in the real-world. Again, on paper it would say different---but in the real world, it's not even close. USB is too slow to ramp up, it changes thruput over time, and it's not as smooth in that disk transfer. As to the claims about using Ethernet to transfer files, NOOOOOOOO. CAT5 transfer is slow compared to transferring files over firewire. Believe me, I have a HUGE rig setup in one of my systems. I have done duplicate transfers of 150GB of files over Firewire and CAT5, the CAT5 was significantly longer to do.

[RonaldDumsfeld]

This is great. Nearest thing we have had to a debate in here for weeks.

You need to look at more topics. There's plenty of debate going on. Not all of it civil...

Nawh. I meant here in the Windows forum. Been a bit - new users making their first post then disappearing for ever because there aren't many people hanging out regularly who cba. That's why it's good.

Yes. Yes. Brad. I now understand where the confusion came from and why.

As a PC user I would never even consider using either USB or Firewire for data transfer. Except in an emergency. Don't buy a case without a hot swappable eSATA port on the front. Or Ethernet. Simples. So yeah. Point #2. Firewire is superior to USB for data transfer - but you really shouldn't be using either for that purpose.

Now I understand why you were getting so worked up and SHOUTING.

FireWire was originally SCSI. The betamax to IDE's VHS as it were. It was designed to transfer data to hard disks fast. No wonder it wins that one hands down.

Point #2. Is Firewire 'that much' better than USB 2.0 in audio interfaces?

A clear majority of MAC users clearly still thinks it is. That's hardly surprising. Firewire is effectively an Apple product - so it just works. It also offers up to 20% greater throughput in some surveys. Useful if you need more than 40 channels but less than 50.

From the point of view of a PC user - and we are in the Windows forum here - USB 2.0 is nothing to be frightened about.

The throughput argument is just one more factor to throw into the complex equation of facilities, quality, cost etc etc that makes up a purchasing decision. In a properly maintained system exactly what protocol is used to get digital 0 & 1s from A to B is a trivial issue compared to the significant differences offered by different mic pres, # of channels, transparency. To name just 3 factors.

Would I rather own an RME Fireface 400 or an RME Fireface UC? Lower latency on the UC - yes please. No TI firewire chipset bollocks either.

What's the downside again? I'd be well advised to know which USB device is connected to which port/controller/hub/IRQ. Then again a PC is a tool and as it's operating workman I ought to know that.

From an engineering perspective things 'just work' because you don't give them any alternative.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I didn't even realize I was posting in the PC section... I feel so dirty!

And I don't think he was shouting at you, he was just SHOUTING!!

[BradLyons]

I'm not referring to MAC or WINDOWS....I'm referring to COMPUTERS. With all due respect, I'm knee-deep in this stuff. I see not only everything that works, but everything that doesn't work. In nearly every case I've seen of disk-streaming on USB, it fails--where FW400 does not, and I'm talking Windows, Mac, dekstop, laptop, etc, Why are there are only a half-dozen interfaces on the market that are 8-channels or more with USB and the other dozens are all Firewire based?

[RonaldDumsfeld]

The actual performance in the real world of FW400 is far greater than that of USB2.

Because?

There is more bandwidth which leads to greater headroom of converters, more gain in mic-pres (when bus-powered), etc

I don't understand this at all I'm afraid. Why? How? What real world situations are we talking about?

There is better stability of the interface as Firewire does not time-out the way that USB does.

This I can help with.

Device manager > Universal serial bus controllers > Properties > Power Management : uncheck the box 'Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power'.

There might be some other faux power saving options to turn off. Basic guides to DAW tuning are available via the Google Interwebz Machine and are a worthwhile read.

Why are there are only a half-dozen interfaces on the market that are 8-channels or more with USB and the other dozens are all Firewire based?

Why are all the new ones coming out USB 2.0 is a more pertinent question. We have moved on. Mostly.

[BradLyons]

Okay---let's try this. I have (2) microphones in mind here, I'll give you the specs and you tell me which one is better.

MICROPHONE A: Condenser microphone that is 20Hz to 20kHz and a max SPL of 144dB

MICROPHONE B: Condenser microphone that is also 20Hz to 20kHz but only has a max SPL of 133dB

So which microphone is better? It's pretty obvious, right? But which one is better?

[James Steele]

This is great. Nearest thing we have had to a debate in here for weeks.

As I mentioned to Ronald off list, the Windows areas of this site are to me a courtesy at the request of some Windows users. I complied because frankly it avoids confusion in the Mac-oriented boards. If there's a complaint about the Windows sections, I could just eliminate them altogether and make it a Mac only board like it used to be. Again, I'm not in this as a business and as a DP and Mac user I have absolutely no self-interest being served by the existence of Windows forums. So I make no apology if they're slow or not.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Okay---let's try this. I have (2) microphones in mind here, I'll give you the specs and you tell me which one is better.

MICROPHONE A: Condenser microphone that is 20Hz to 20kHz and a max SPL of 144dB

MICROPHONE B: Condenser microphone that is also 20Hz to 20kHz but only has a max SPL of 133dB

So which microphone is better? It's pretty obvious, right? But which one is better?

That's too easy Brad. The one with the highest commission for the salesman!

jk

[BradLyons]

Well no, my point is that the specs of Mic A are better than Mic B. By the way, Mic is an Audio Technica AT2020 for $99, Microphone B is the BLUE KIWI for $1999. There is a woooooooooorld of difference in sound between them, not even close. But how can that be, the AT2020 has more DB before clipping? Well that's just a simple example that just because there is a spec that reads one thing doesn't mean it's better. We can talk specs and numbers all day long but at the end of the day how does it actually work and perform? It's like 96kHz----A great converter at 48kHz will still sound better than most other converters @ 96kHz. Just because something is 24-bit doesn't mean it's better than a 20-bit converter. I've used 18-bit converters that ripped apart some 20-bit and 24-bit converters. Back when digital first came to be, the sound sucked! While on-paper it was much better, the real-world performance tone was awful, absolutely awful. That's when filters and improved analog sections were brought back in (hmmmm analog was used to improve digital, interesting concept).

The fact is----not a myth, not science, not specs, nothing other than what happens to those using this stuff is that FIREWIRE is a superior protocol to USB across the board when it comes to audio and video, period. I can't tell you the exact specifics why, I can only tell you that it does. Otherwise, I'd not be doing everything I do with firewire. This might be a television broadcast where I need a gigabyte per minute, or it might be a live concert where I need 700MB per minute over 2-hours, etc. If I tried to use USB where I'm using firewire, it will fail---period. Unless someone can put a system in-front of me and show me that it works at least 99 out of 100 times, I'll not change that statement

[KEVORKIAN]

Regarding Firewire vs. USB from a tech perspective...

I didn't want to type out a long post and thankfully I found an excellent article that explains the differences succinctly:

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/firewire3.htm

Here are the important points:

Speed aside, the big difference between FireWire and USB 2.0 is that USB 2.0 is host-based, meaning that devices must connect to a computer in order to communicate. FireWire is peer-to-peer, meaning that two FireWire cameras can talk to each other without going through a computer.

An important element of FireWire is the support of isochronous devices. In isochronous mode, data streams between the device and the host in real-time with guaranteed bandwidth and no error correction. Essentially, this means that a device like a digital camcorder can request that the host computer allocate enough bandwidth for the camcorder to send uncompressed video in real-time to the computer. When the computer-to-camera FireWire connection enters isochronous mode, the camera can send the video in a steady flow to the computer without anything disrupting the process.

To put it simply Firewire allows for devices to communicate directly. All the OS has to do is allocate bandwidth for a transfer and then it can get out of the way.

USB requires the OS to be a traffic cop for all transfers/exchanges of data. This is a much less efficient protocol.

That said, USB is more prevalent for obvious reasons and thus is being improved at a faster rate than Firewire. USB 3.0 promises to eclipse FW 800 and eSATA in performance:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10141810-76.html

That won't make USB a fundamentally better technology than Firewire however with a major performance improvement that eclipses the needs of most, a rising tide will lift all boats.

However, I like Firewire, and hope that Firewire 1600 comes out:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/31/fire ... d-by-ieee/

That said, Apple (who developed Firewire) and Intel (who developed USB) are now working together on Light Peak which may end up being the "One Ring to Rule them All" technology... (where's Frodo when you need him?)

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/excl ... -could-be/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BradLyons]

ahhhhh good stuff, thanks!

[James Steele]

I'll just step in and state the obvious because I like to and it makes me feel smart.

It's all about the context as well. For example, there are times when you don't NEED more than USB and if you were on a budget it might no make sense to buy more than you needed. The flip side is that one might be more robust and if you needs change and you find yourself wanting to record more tracks simultaneously, etc. you'll be having to spend more money later.

Brad's microphone example is good... but it was obvious to many of us. Especially the max SPL level that it can handle. That's not a relevant spec to me since I'm not in the habit of close-mic'ing jet aircraft. And again, there are times and situations where the $99 microphone might be adequate for what you want to do and your needs and make sense in your budget and what you're trying to accomplish.

I guess a good way to answer the original question is to say "It depends what you want to do."

[RWNorman]

I'd have to agree with Brad on this one. I've known Brad from Rec.Audio.Pro years ago and he really does know his stuff. But I've spent a couple of decades in computer technology and firewire is by far the lesser chatty interconnect. USB uses a stay alive query to maintain what is on the tree structure and whether it is alive. These queries go out regardless of whether a datastream is being moved from one device to another, which also requires an answer from all the devices. That is what I mean by chatty. Firewire isn't designed the same way, thus it is more industrial strength in terms of on-time delivery of streaming content.

For instance, my USB2/Firewire Buffalo external clocks about 22 MB/s over USB per HDTach, but when I switch it over to Firewire doing the same test, the throughput is over twice the speed. Pretty darned close to maximum throughput of firewire.

But if you want true speed on external drives, then E-Sata is the way to go provided you can place the drive fairly close. When it comes to external devices like mic pres or multitrack recording or whatever, firewire is most certainly the way to go, but as someone mentioned, you can't just throw a cheap board in because of iffy chipsets. Spend the money for an Oxford chipset and you'll do just fine.

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio