First Audio Interface - USB or Firewire?

[AndThenSome1]

I'm looking at purchasing an Audio Interface for my Mac, so i can start demoing tracks and using it as a writing tools. I'm not looking for anything too fancy, just a simple 2 in 2 out job.

The two i've got my eye on are:

Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 ([url="http://www.focusrite.com/products/audio_interfaces/scarlett_2i2/overview/"]http://www.focusrite...t_2i2/overview/[/url]) which uses USB 2.0

TC Electronic Konnekt 6 ([url="http://www.tcelectronic.com/desktopkonnekt6.asp"]http://www.tcelectro...topkonnekt6.asp[/url]) which uses Firewire.


As the TC is a little more expensive, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on whether or not the Firewire will be of that much benefit that it warrants the extra money? Has anybody used these specific interfaces?

Thanks,

Martyn

[flyfisher]

The 'headline' or maximum burst speed of USB is faster than Firewire. However, for real-time digital audio it is the sustained throughput performance that is more important.

Firewire is generally faster than USB in sustained data transfer applications. This is why it was used for miniDV camcorders where the transfer from tape couldn't be regulated and any loss of transfer speed would result in dropped data - clearly an undesirable thing. These days, most camcorders use HDDs or memory cards and the data transfer can be done in bursts so USB is fine.

So, given the choice, I would choose a Firewire interface. I have a 12 channel firewire audio interface and have never had any data loss problems.

[OldG]

I use a firewire interface for one main reason....

I can get down to around 4ms round trip latency when software monitoring with all sorts of VSTs running - I can't get near that with anything USB that I've tried.

[winterfire666]

i was looking at the same options about 3 months ago and after extensive play testing of the scarlett, the tc and the roland quad capture i went for the roland quad capture, its a about the same price as the tc, but the preamps are far superior in opinion my and the latency is the lowest i have ever had on a usb interface, there are also onboard dynamics and samplerates support up to 24bit/192kHz also with usb 3 getting more support a lot of companies are begining to phase out firewire

[lowdown]

[quote name='winterfire666' timestamp='1330003057' post='1551148']
the roland quad capture, its a about the same price as the tc, but the preamps are far superior in opinion my and the latency is the lowest i have ever had on a usb interface, there are also onboard dynamics and samplerates support up to 24bit/192kHz also with usb 3 getting more support a lot of companies are begining to phase out firewire
[/quote]

Big +1 for this unit, although i am running mine on W7 x64
The latency is very low, and the drivers are real stable.
Also the onboard dynamics features are pretty good to.
Very much well worth the money.

[AndThenSome1]

So is the Roland Quad Capture going to offer the lower levels of latency that Firewire interfaces give, even though it only runs on USB 2.0? I'm quite new to the home recording side of things and really want to avoid buying something that is going to leave me frustrated when trying to lay down tracks, and as most have said before - Firewire apparently does offer lower latency.

Thanks for all the responses so far!

[winterfire666]

quote from computer music article

USB 2.0 has a transfer speed rated at 480 Megabits per second (Mb/s) or 60 MegaBytes per second (MB/s)
Though it's rated at 60 MB/s, that's a theoretical value that is never achieved.
A more reasonable estimate is between 20-25 MB/s.
The most widely supported version today is FireWire 400 (IEEE 1394a).
It's rated at 400 Megabits per second or 50 MegaBytes per second, but just as with USB above this rate is never actually achieved.
An actual transfer rate of ~20-25 MB/s is also typical in real life.


firewire is considered fast because of its comparison with usb1 but usb 2 is just as fast
so its basically down to the effeciency of the drivers
i use the roland and have no issues at all with latency even when using 20+ tracks loaded up with vst's and virtual instuments
hope that helps.

[OldG]

AFAIK the speed is not the issue... USB send data in packets and will poll around all connected devices, On the other hand,Firewire will deliver and send it own constant exclusive stream.


[quote name='winterfire666' timestamp='1330012623' post='1551418']
i use the roland and have no issues at all with latency even when using 20+ tracks loaded up with vst's and virtual instuments
hope that helps.
[/quote]

And you can do this while recording live? monitoring VST's in real time whilst playing.... if that's the case then USB interfaces have become properly useable and I will change my previosly held opinion.

Although I will still use Firewire for the reason I stated at the top of this post.

[lowdown]

Firewire vs USB is pretty much out dated, it was mainly based on USB 1.
Good Asio drivers from the vender and multi core/fast processors will get you very low latency for tracking Audio in.
However after that, mixdown or using VST's and VSTI's, there is no need to use very low latency.
Up the buffers for that.
In Cubase 6 i can easily use 30 + instances of Kontakt sampler with Orchestral samples loaded,
plus a few other Synths and many FX.
This is on a W7 x64 [16 gig RAM] System using the Roland Quad capture, and still running under 50%. cpu.
And by today's standards, that is not excessive or even close to what some people can and indeed reach.

Look at many high end Audio cards , very much USB 2 [with USB 3 on the way]
If they were not up to the job, i am sure they would have vanished.


Garry

Edited February 23, 2012 by lowdown

[BigRedX]

FireWire works better on Macs.

However unless you're going to be running 8+ I/Os simultaneously through the interface it probably doesn't matter whether it connects by USB2 or FW. Pick the one with the nicest sounding AD DA convertors.

Edited February 23, 2012 by BigRedX