Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Transfer Speed of USB and Firewire Interfaces

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:34:43 AM

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

Not too long ago (but long enough so that I don't remember enough key
words to narrow down a Google search) there was a discussion here
about the speed - ultimately related to the number of audio streams at
a given sample rate - that could be passed by USB 1.1, USB 2.0,
Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.

Could someone either dig that thread up for me, recap the conclusion,
or point me to the real source of the information? I understand the
mantra "Nothing is guaranteed, consider yourself lucky if you get half
what the theory predicts." I don't really want to know for my own use,
but I want the information for an article comparing various ways to
move digital audio from one place to another (as audio, not files) and
I'd like it to be reasonably factual.



--
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
December 8, 2004 9:34:44 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
- ultimately related to the number of audio streams at
> a given sample rate - that could be passed by USB 1.1, USB 2.0,
> Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.
>
> Could someone either dig that thread up for me, recap the conclusion,
> or point me to the real source of the information? I understand the
> mantra "Nothing is guaranteed, consider yourself lucky if you get
half
> what the theory predicts." I don't really want to know for my own
use,
> but I want the information for an article comparing various ways to
> move digital audio from one place to another (as audio, not files)
and
> I'd like it to be reasonably factual.


"USB was not designed to handle large blocks of streaming data, such as
digital audio, as efficiently as FireWire does, so it demands more
processing overhead for any given audio command."

< http://emusician.com/mag/emusic_outside_storage/index.h... >

< http://emusician.com/hardware/emusic_fired/index.html >

< http://emusician.com/special_report/what_is_firewire/in... >

< http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_playing_fire/inde... >

the biggest difference is not speed but protocol, ie, firewire does not
need a computer to facilitate the interface between devices.

and you might also be interested in mlan, "one cable to rule them all."
< http://www.yamaha.co.jp/tech/1394mLAN/english/ >

dale
long run audio
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:49:19 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Not too long ago (but long enough so that I don't remember enough key
> words to narrow down a Google search) there was a discussion here
> about the speed - ultimately related to the number of audio streams at
> a given sample rate - that could be passed by USB 1.1

Data point: USB 1.1 can pass full duplex 24-bit 44.1/48k but will congest on 88.2k/96k unless it is half duplex.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:20:05 PM

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

On 8 Dec 2004 06:34:43 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
-----------------8<------------------------>
>Could someone either dig that thread up for me, recap the conclusion,
>or point me to the real source of the information? I understand the
>mantra "Nothing is guaranteed, consider yourself lucky if you get half
>what the theory predicts." I don't really want to know for my own use,
>but I want the information for an article comparing various ways to
>move digital audio from one place to another (as audio, not files) and
>I'd like it to be reasonably factual.

- While I don't know for the thread you are searching, I googled a
bit, and stumbling as usual trough a wood of wannasell pages, I came
across this link:

http://forums.vnunet.com/thread.jsp?forum=7&thread=4457...

which may be of interest. Among the other things, I noticed that Mac
users aren't very happy with the USB 2.


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:57:30 PM

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

The issue is kind of dead for sound recording until you start to want a
zillion tracks.
I use a no fan, no external power supply StarTech.com external hard drive
case, USB2.0 with a 2.5" 5400 rpm, ultra quiet, Seagate 100gig drive.
If you think I like this external drive a bit, your right. 100 gigs in a
shirt pocket and almost silent in its foam case.

It can copy a 1.5 gig audio file to my slower Celeron laptop in 2.2 mins.
It can copy a 1.5 gig audio file to a different partition in the same
external drive in 4.5 mins.

So the issue of bandwidth now being more important than "speed" is true, but
I am happy enough with USB2 for audio recording use.

Rich Peet


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1102469309k@trad...
>
> Not too long ago (but long enough so that I don't remember enough key
> words to narrow down a Google search) there was a discussion here
> about the speed - ultimately related to the number of audio streams at
> a given sample rate - that could be passed by USB 1.1, USB 2.0,
> Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.
>
> Could someone either dig that thread up for me, recap the conclusion,
> or point me to the real source of the information? I understand the
> mantra "Nothing is guaranteed, consider yourself lucky if you get half
> what the theory predicts." I don't really want to know for my own use,
> but I want the information for an article comparing various ways to
> move digital audio from one place to another (as audio, not files) and
> I'd like it to be reasonably factual.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
December 9, 2004 12:33:26 AM

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

In article <31ot4sF3au0r2U1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> Data point: USB 1.1 can pass full duplex 24-bit 44.1/48k but will congest on
> 88.2k/96k unless it is half duplex.

When TASCAM first came out with the US-xxx line, they were quoting six
streams, in general up to four going in and two coming back
simultaneoulsy. That was at 48 kHz, 24-bit. Double the sample rate and
you get three streams, not enough for two channels coming and going.


--
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
December 9, 2004 12:48:56 AM

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

Rich Peet wrote:

> The issue is kind of dead for sound recording until you start to want a
> zillion tracks.
> I use a no fan, no external power supply StarTech.com external hard drive
> case, USB2.0 with a 2.5" 5400 rpm, ultra quiet, Seagate 100gig drive.
> If you think I like this external drive a bit, your right. 100 gigs in a
> shirt pocket and almost silent in its foam case.

So, how many tracks are you able to reliably playback on your drive?
Have you found any sort of limit?

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:36:20 PM

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

Somewhere I have an application that measures the bandwidth for audio of a
hard drive. I will post if I can find that program.

I have just checked it out to 12 channels of 44.1 kHz 24 bit and that was
not a problem at all.


Rich
"EricK" <eric@Raw-Tracks.com> wrote in message
news:31q039F3egvb7U1@individual.net...
> Rich Peet wrote:
>
>> The issue is kind of dead for sound recording until you start to want a
>> zillion tracks.
>> I use a no fan, no external power supply StarTech.com external hard drive
>> case, USB2.0 with a 2.5" 5400 rpm, ultra quiet, Seagate 100gig drive.
>> If you think I like this external drive a bit, your right. 100 gigs in a
>> shirt pocket and almost silent in its foam case.
>
> So, how many tracks are you able to reliably playback on your drive? Have
> you found any sort of limit?
>
> --
> Eric
>
> www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:36:21 PM

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

Rich Peet wrote:
> Somewhere I have an application that measures the bandwidth for audio of a
> hard drive. I will post if I can find that program.

Try <http://www.sesa.es/us/dl/dskbench.zip&gt;
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:32:31 PM

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

This external USB2 drive shows
Write of 11.24 MB/s with a CPU load of 9.6%

Using a block size of 131,072 it can transfer 101 tracks of 44.1 khz 16 bit
audio using a cpu load of 7.8%
Using a block size of 4,096 it can transfer 35 tracks of 44.1 khz 16 bit
audio using a cpu load of 33.5%

Good enough for a pocket size, silent, 5400 external drive for me.

Rich

Thanks Kurt,

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:31rikfF3fs3shU1@individual.net...
> Rich Peet wrote:
>> Somewhere I have an application that measures the bandwidth for audio of
>> a hard drive. I will post if I can find that program.
>
> Try <http://www.sesa.es/us/dl/dskbench.zip&gt;
>
!