Does anybody know how much it matters to go with a USB 2.0 device for an interface? I was dead set on something like the Fast Track Ultra, since it's 2.0, and I have a keyboard, mouse and printer already running off of USB on my Vostro. But, does that even matter? OR...should I be able to still get good, clean, quality recordings with the Fast Track Pro for about $200 less? This is only for the A/D conversion from my DBX into my PC, so I'm not going to be asking the interface to do too much. I have no problem getting the more expensive 2.0 device, but only if it really makes a difference. Anybody know??
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
How much does SPEED matter?
- Thread starter marketweis
- Start date
B
bobbybooey
Guest
I'm not even remotely a computer/tech guy, but fwiw I bought a Focusrite Saffire firewire interface last year because I'd heard that the USB interfaces slow down your computer since USB eats CPU resources and firewire does not.
yeah, the way I understand it is what you say...that firewire is not dependent upon the actual CPU, and therefore doesn't bog down the system. Then along came USB 2.0, which I think is supposed to have a better data transfer rate than firewire.
I just don't know if, for simple one channel work like I'm going to be using any usb device for, that increased speed is something I even need. I think I've read that 2.0 is really supposed to make a difference when recording multi-channel stuff, while maintaining quality of recording.
Of the few 2.0 interfaces out there, I think the E-mu 0404 is the only one that isn't priced a lot higher than the non 2.0's. However, I've heard Creative is going to be folding the E-mu brand (??) and also heard that the gain/input controls on the E-mu are crazy sensitive.
I just don't know if, for simple one channel work like I'm going to be using any usb device for, that increased speed is something I even need. I think I've read that 2.0 is really supposed to make a difference when recording multi-channel stuff, while maintaining quality of recording.
Of the few 2.0 interfaces out there, I think the E-mu 0404 is the only one that isn't priced a lot higher than the non 2.0's. However, I've heard Creative is going to be folding the E-mu brand (??) and also heard that the gain/input controls on the E-mu are crazy sensitive.
My situation is similar as I only record one event at a time (voice).
I purchased an Alesis 8-channel USB mixer and it works flawlessly. For me it was a price issue as the firewire version was a full $100 more. It has worked well for me with no latency issues whatsoever.
I do connect my external hard drives via firewire though.
I purchased an Alesis 8-channel USB mixer and it works flawlessly. For me it was a price issue as the firewire version was a full $100 more. It has worked well for me with no latency issues whatsoever.
I do connect my external hard drives via firewire though.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Today's computers are so powerful that the amount of cpu power taken by a USB interface is insignificant. I have no trouble recording on a 1999 Toshiba laptop, with a 400mhz AMD processor, and 96mb of ram (I use it to record things like FM and and satellite radio sometimes, using a Creative USB interface). I'm sure your PC is more powerful than that!
I don't know your machine, but if you have time to wait for the 1.1 go for it. I'm telling you though, the 2.0 is worth it's weight in gold! Way faster, much better. Time should be your only issue though.
My brother is a progammer and builds pcs as well. According to him USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire. Not much, but it is.
He's building me a true Quad core with 4GB RAM (expandable to 16GB, but that would require a 64bit OS)
The motherboard will allow for 8 USB ports and four firewire. I'm covered all around.
He's building me a true Quad core with 4GB RAM (expandable to 16GB, but that would require a 64bit OS)
The motherboard will allow for 8 USB ports and four firewire. I'm covered all around.
Fast Enough
I've avoided this discussion because there's so much misinformation out there about Firewire vs. USB that I didn't want to get involved in a smackdown. Some of that misinformation is now making it into the discussion, so I felt compelled to jump in.
The primary answer is that both technologies are more than fast enough for the highest bit-rate uncompressed audio that you can ever justify in the real world. Both are also more than adequate for high-quality video.
USB 2.0 offers very wide compatibility with systems and devices. It does require some clock cycles on the CPU, and is a master-slave type bus structure that degrades performance as you plug in more devices.
Firewire is not as widely available. It does not require CPU clock cycles. Devices communicate peer-to-peer, and negotiate access to the Firewire bus. Firewire also can deliver decidedly higher power to peripheral devices.
For a rational discussion of real-world application of the two technologies, see http://www.directron.com/firewirevsusb.html.
I've avoided this discussion because there's so much misinformation out there about Firewire vs. USB that I didn't want to get involved in a smackdown. Some of that misinformation is now making it into the discussion, so I felt compelled to jump in.
The primary answer is that both technologies are more than fast enough for the highest bit-rate uncompressed audio that you can ever justify in the real world. Both are also more than adequate for high-quality video.
USB 2.0 offers very wide compatibility with systems and devices. It does require some clock cycles on the CPU, and is a master-slave type bus structure that degrades performance as you plug in more devices.
Firewire is not as widely available. It does not require CPU clock cycles. Devices communicate peer-to-peer, and negotiate access to the Firewire bus. Firewire also can deliver decidedly higher power to peripheral devices.
For a rational discussion of real-world application of the two technologies, see http://www.directron.com/firewirevsusb.html.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
16 bit linear pcm (stereo) is about 1.4 megabits per second. Unless you're working with many tracks (over the usb interface, not mixing on the pc) at once, and/or at very high bitrates/sample rates, USB 1.0 has plenty of bandwidth. If, ofr example, you're recording your voice through a USB interface, USB 2 won't "sound" any different than USB 1. There either is sufficient bandwidth, or there isn't. And if there isn't, you'll hear things like the audio becoming choppy, clicking, muting, and eventually no sound. Not likely in your scenario (if I understand it correctly).
I've done LOTS of recording over a USB 1.0 interface on a very old Toshiba laptop I use for time-shifting stuff from satellite and HD Radio. At 44.1khz in stereo, I have NEVER had a single glitch on this VERY OLD (1999) 400mhz AMD unit with 96mb of ram, and again USB 1.0! I'd wager a nice lunch that your system is much more powerful than that!
I've done LOTS of recording over a USB 1.0 interface on a very old Toshiba laptop I use for time-shifting stuff from satellite and HD Radio. At 44.1khz in stereo, I have NEVER had a single glitch on this VERY OLD (1999) 400mhz AMD unit with 96mb of ram, and again USB 1.0! I'd wager a nice lunch that your system is much more powerful than that!
- Status