Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Recording sound cards

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 11:47:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?
Thanks
Frank

More about : recording sound cards

Anonymous
July 27, 2004 5:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Frank Mazzola" <fmzep@aol.com> wrote in message
news:49b94fcf.0407270647.5f335a2e@posting.google.com

> Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
> interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?

For raw performance, little can beat PCI.

For convenience, pick USB.

Firewire is someplace in-between or perhaps the best of both - almost
PCI-like speed, and almost USB-like convenience.
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 9:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: fmzep@aol.com (Frank Mazzola)
>Date: 7/27/04 10:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <49b94fcf.0407270647.5f335a2e@posting.google.com>
>
>Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
>interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?
>Thanks

I may be wrong but I belive that Firewire is faster than the normal USB, many
core systems use PCI. Most of the 1-8 input systems use a plug (USB, Firewire)
of somesort rather than a PCI. What is it you want to do?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 10:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <49b94fcf.0407270647.5f335a2e@posting.google.com> fmzep@aol.com writes:

> Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
> interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?

Sure, but a certain characteristic might be an advantage in once case,
a disadvantage in another case, or a "don't care."

If your computer doesn't have a Firewire port, then a Firewire sound
card would be a distinct disadvantage. Of course you could always add
something to the computer, but then you have two interfaces to futz
with.

For a plain ordinary desktop computer, I'd go with a PCI interface.
For portable multitrack use, I'd go with Firewire (because it's about
the only thing that has a proven track record for doing the job). If
you're looking at portable 2-channel recording, USB is OK.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 4:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:43:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>> Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
>> interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?
>
>For raw performance, little can beat PCI.
>
>For convenience, pick USB.
>
>Firewire is someplace in-between or perhaps the best of both - almost
>PCI-like speed, and almost USB-like convenience.

How is Firewire less convenient than USB?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 4:22:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D rodg01uo4lrqvvu9juoi2k3n9co49a6da@4ax.com
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:43:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Is there any advantage/disadvantage among various soundcard
>>> interfaces, i.e., PCI, USB, or Firewire?
>>
>> For raw performance, little can beat PCI.
>>
>> For convenience, pick USB.
>>
>> Firewire is someplace in-between or perhaps the best of both - almost
>> PCI-like speed, and almost USB-like convenience.
>
> How is Firewire less convenient than USB?

Not quite as widely supported.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 4:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> How is Firewire less convenient than USB?
>


Ask anyone with a G5.....


Geoff


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/14/2004
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 6:50:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1090954138k@trad...
> For a plain ordinary desktop computer, I'd go with a PCI interface.
> For portable multitrack use, I'd go with Firewire (because it's about
> the only thing that has a proven track record for doing the job). If
> you're looking at portable 2-channel recording, USB is OK.

Of course USB2 muddies that distinction, but otherwise I agree.
And yes Firewire has a track record which USB2 is yet to establish.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 7:52:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4107309e$0$16107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:

> Of course USB2 muddies that distinction, but otherwise I agree.
> And yes Firewire has a track record which USB2 is yet to establish.

I suspect that, at least for audio devices, Firewire will continue to
lead until both USB2 and Firewire are obsolete (sooner than you'd
like).

I can recall only one USB2 multi-channel audio interface (Edirol) and
there may be another one but there are many Firewire interfaces. USB2
seems to be making headway for outboard disk drives and flash memory.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:39:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thank you all for your comments and help.
-Frank
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 7:09:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4107309e$0$16107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Of course USB2 muddies that distinction, but otherwise I agree.
> And yes Firewire has a track record which USB2 is yet to establish.



At least one reliable source has suggested that while *peak* transfer
rates for USB2 and Firewire are similar, Firewire delivers much higher
*sustained* transfer rates. Anyone have any data to either support or
debunk that claim?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In this place, Lorin David Schultz was recorded saying ...
> At least one reliable source has suggested that while *peak* transfer
> rates for USB2 and Firewire are similar, Firewire delivers much higher
> *sustained* transfer rates. Anyone have any data to either support or
> debunk that claim?

Can't lay my hands on any data but the Firewire protocol contains a
guaranteed isochronous delivery mechanism that USB lacks. This alone
makes it a much better candidate for transmission of streamed data such
as audio.

I don't want to quote figures since it's too long since I looked at the
specs but IIRC, the message response timing of USB is also much slacker
than Firewire with consequent deleterious effect on sustained bandwidth.

Also, IIRC, USB continues to place a higher burden on the host CPU than
Firewire - I may be wrong on this point so feel free to put me right.

Just my two penn'orth :) 

--

George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein]
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 8:47:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4107309e$0$16107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Of course USB2 muddies that distinction, but otherwise I agree.
>> And yes Firewire has a track record which USB2 is yet to establish.
>
>
>
> At least one reliable source has suggested that while *peak* transfer
> rates for USB2 and Firewire are similar, Firewire delivers much higher
> *sustained* transfer rates. Anyone have any data to either support or
> debunk that claim?

Duuno , but it may end up like a VHS v. beta thing. 90% of what you see in
computer shops today is USB2 (not specifically audio-orientated stuff- just
generally), hardly ever Firewire.


geoff
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 8:47:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <EB_Oc.1273$zS6.160050@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam writes:

> Duuno , but it may end up like a VHS v. beta thing. 90% of what you see in
> computer shops today is USB2 (not specifically audio-orientated stuff- just
> generally), hardly ever Firewire.

That's becasue 90% of what you see in computer shops is for a PC, and
Firewire is still more of a Mac thing. Actually Firewire is more of a
video thing than anything else and Macs are still ahead in that area,
at least in marketing.

Most of the USB2 devices that I see are those flash memory sticks. USB
printers are all USB1.1, as are mice and keyboards. It probably makes
sense, if you're going to use an external disk drive (hard disk or
CD/DVD) to use the fastest interface available, and to (still) most PC
users, that's USB2.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 9:29:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Perfect <xgeorgep@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:

> Can't lay my hands on any data but the Firewire protocol contains a
> guaranteed isochronous delivery mechanism that USB lacks. This alone
> makes it a much better candidate for transmission of streamed data such
> as audio.
>
> I don't want to quote figures since it's too long since I looked at the
> specs but IIRC, the message response timing of USB is also much slacker
> than Firewire with consequent deleterious effect on sustained bandwidth.
>
> Also, IIRC, USB continues to place a higher burden on the host CPU than
> Firewire - I may be wrong on this point so feel free to put me right.

Indeed! See : http://mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 11:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <EB_Oc.1273$zS6.160050@news02.tsnz.net>
> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam writes:
>
>> Duuno , but it may end up like a VHS v. beta thing. 90% of what
>> you see in computer shops today is USB2 (not specifically
>> audio-orientated stuff- just generally), hardly ever Firewire.
>
> That's becasue 90% of what you see in computer shops is for a PC, and
> Firewire is still more of a Mac thing. Actually Firewire is more of a
> video thing than anything else and Macs are still ahead in that area,
> at least in marketing.

That would still make it around 90% then, overall ?


geoff
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 12:58:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In this place, Eric Desrochers was recorded saying ...
> George Perfect <xgeorgep@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Can't lay my hands on any data but the Firewire protocol contains a
> > guaranteed isochronous delivery mechanism that USB lacks. This alone
> > makes it a much better candidate for transmission of streamed data such
> > as audio.
> >
> > I don't want to quote figures since it's too long since I looked at the
> > specs but IIRC, the message response timing of USB is also much slacker
> > than Firewire with consequent deleterious effect on sustained bandwidth.
> >
> > Also, IIRC, USB continues to place a higher burden on the host CPU than
> > Firewire - I may be wrong on this point so feel free to put me right.
>
> Indeed! See : http://mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
>

Thanks for that.

--

George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein]
!