So, based on the direction this dialogue is taking, I really should be looking for USB three audio interfaces...
 
That is, if I want something that will last far into the future.
 
I have to say this forum has awesome discussions!!
 
Thanks all,
Dan

Rodan
So, based on the direction this dialogue is taking, I really should be looking for USB three audio interfaces...
 
That is, if I want something that will last far into the future.
 
I have to say this forum has awesome discussions!!
 
Thanks all,
Dan

Hi Dan,
 
I don't think the opinion is that USB3 is the way to go, but it was mentioned only to show the capacity of each protocol available.  If you are interested, RME has a USB3 MADI interface:  http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_madiface_xt.php
Bear in mind that this unit will require an additional MADI interface in order to expand the ins and outs.  So that will certainly be a greater cost than just a single unit (with 8 mic pres, without USB3).  Another thing to consider is that most units with USB3 (that includes external hard drive) are not backward compatible with USB2. 
 
In this regard, unless you already have USB3 on your PC, I would suggest thunderbolt simply because it is compatible with firewire and, for the most part, is much more future proof as thunderbolt is evolving (where as firewire is not).  I have read that thunderbolt can also accommodate USB, so it covers that end as well.
 
Firewire isn't really going to be dropped by audio manufactures.  For instance, Focusrite just announced a new firewire interface, the Saffire Pro 26:  http://us.focusrite.com/firewire-audio-interfaces/saffire-pro-26
and as mentioned, it is compatible with thunderbolt (as noted on Focusrite's website).
 
Hope that helps in your decision process, and cuts down some of the opposing opinions.
 
Kind regards,
 
Living Room Rocker

Its always difficult to say what the 'best' firewire interface would be without knowing exactly what the needs of the user are, compatibility, flexibility, mic inputs, a mixer surface?

I will say that one of the most stable and indispensable interfaces we have ever used is the one we are using now in our mix room. The Mackie 1640i 16 channel fire-wire mixer. The 16 onyx pre-amps are worth the price of the mixer alone. If you want 'color',  get a tube channel strip but for full range, faithful and unbelievably quiet high end mic pre's with enough gain to drive a ribbon mic, these are hard to beat for the money. The 16 on-board analog Perkins EQ's are pretty nice when you need them and you have a 'real' mixer to solve real world problems like creating cue mixes that are not tied to the main outputs and actually has instrument DI's built into a couple of channels, eliminating the need for high quality DI boxes. And it doesn't come housed in a plastic box, it's built like a tank.

The most valuable gear is the stuff you never think about because it never gives you trouble. Its a joy to come to work everyday and use.

Sanderxpander

CakeAlexS

Sanderxpander
Aren't you the one who always objects to vague statements and wants people to quantify and be specific? Statements like the above are what maintains this misconception. None of the above statements are based on fact and none of them have any meaning with regards to the real world performance of the audio interface.

I can't see what was vague or unspecific about what I wrote (I've added new stuff in bold):
 

CakeAlexS
 
1) As you see USB is far more variable with speed. - Fact, the Firewire is more efficient streaming data
 
2) You are likely to have a dedicated interface with firewire, not so with USB (you are plugging other USB stuff into it) - Fact.
 
3) Finally the protocol with Firewire is a lot more efficient in audio and video environments (streaming data). This is the reality. - Fact

 
 
I will provide references to back up statements (1) + (3) here and here, (2) is simply an obvious statement (although you could work around it by buying a dedicated USB interface). In a nutshell firewire streams data, USB is more of  a packeting system and is less efficient. There are probably better references out there that I've given on the internet I simply googled them.
 
You could argue that there isn't much difference, that may be true, but Firewire is slightly more superior and more reliable for audio applications (bottom line). That doesn't mean to say USB 2 is not up to the job, as we all know people use USB 2 quite happily, but there is a difference which goes beyond the theoretical.

On the flipside many people will find USB more convenient even under the considerations I stated earlier. It generally does the job. The end of the day it's up to the consumer to make an informed decision here.

Cheers :)

ad 1) You're right, this is correct, but entirely irrelevant since even the lowest speed is easily a factor 10 higher than what most users would ever conceive of using. Not to mention I haven't ever seen anyone complain that their interface doesn't reach the quoted number of channels, which is really the only relevant thing.
 
ad 2) Pure assumption. Many people I know use Firewire disks for instance, which would put a far, far larger strain on the bus than a mouse or keyboard would. Using Firewire disks makes sense, since the speed difference is actually noticeable there. But let's be honest - nobody copies a ton of files in the background while recording audio, which would really be the only thing that would make a significant impact on bus usage.
 
ad 3) Sorry, how is this not vague? "More efficient"? What does that even mean? That your audio sounds better? No. That you can record more channels? Possibly, if you find me a Firewire interface that records 400 channels and a user that needs it I'll retract my statement. Yes Firewire is quicker for large file transfers. Perhaps that is what you mean with including video, since you're generally dealing with larger files there and you tend to transfer them right from the video device's FW port. Not relevant for audio interfaces.
 
I'm not even really disputing your "facts", I'm disputing the conclusions you draw from them.

 
I won't cover old ground and risk repeating myself... I would say my conclusions are fairly middle of the road and backed up... If we are arguing there is a gnats piss in it then I give you that, but I would not say it makes it irrelevant.
 
 > Finally the protocol with Firewire is a lot more efficient
> Sorry, how is this not vague? "More efficient"? What does that even mean?
 
For examples about what protocol efficiency means check here.
 
 
> USB 2.0 is faster than FW400.
 
Nope sorry. But very little difference for sure. If there are any references that say otherwise I'm all ears. But it's not just a matter of connection speed, it's also protocol.#
 
At the end of the day when true thunderbolt and USB 3 interfaces come out the point will be moot anyway.

Ah, I hate it when arguments about minor tech points get all entrenched like this.
 
USB audio interfaces work as advertised, above a certain level (ie: don't get unbranded ones from Radio Shack). Firewire audio interfaces work as advertised, above a certain level (ie: don't get unbranded ones from Radio Shack).
 
In practical terms, that's nearly all of what you need to know about the protocols.

Alex has touched on a good point, though, which I think can be summarised as "don't have your audio interface dangling off a USB hub alongside your printer, scanner, gaming joystick, skype headset & and iPod". But beyond that, really there's not much in it.

Agreed John with #65 (your previous post)...
 
> Remember that when FireWire was born, Ronald Reagan was in the White House.
 
Maybe Whitehouse protocol is faster then... :)

CakeAlexS
 
> USB 2.0 is faster than FW400.
 
Nope sorry. But very little difference for sure. If there are any references that say otherwise I'm all ears.

There are plenty of references that state that the Mac's implementation of USB was inferior, and a lot of opinions that there was a huge difference between USB and Firewire were based on that.
 
But that falls under the misinformation dies hard category. As you point out there is very little difference, but it depends on how you're taking measurements. The theoretical max transfer for USB is 480 mbps and for FireWire 400, 400 mbps. BUT Firewire will hold that spec for sustained transfers; USB will not. Regardless, I said USB 2.0 is faster, not that it performs better under real world circumstances.
 
Here's an analogy. If Sprinter "A" can run 100 yards in 1 minute but then tires quickly and takes 2 minutes to run the second hundred yards, and Sprinter "B" can run 100 yards consistently in 1 minute and 15 seconds, Sprinter "B" will get to the finish line before Sprinter "A." But who can actually run faster? Sprinter "A," if you go by the first 100 yards.

I seem to be disagreeing mainly on an argumentative basis with Alex, not a factual one, so I'll leave it.

I hope anyone reading this thread will get the point I've been trying to make and which John T put so nicely and succinctly - as long as interfaces work as advertised that's really all you need to know.

For what it's worth, I would argue against jumping on USB 3 and Thunderbolt interfaces. The increased speed is entirely unnecessary for the stated purpose and neither bus type has demonstrated any staying power yet. More importantly, none of those interfaces are backwards compatible. USB 2 is still and will for a while be the safest option compatibility-wise (if that is at all a concern).

I think we effectively agree then...
 
Faster from my perception means overall throughput in real world for others it may be different. The other variables are speed and efficiency (and other traffic if relevant). USB the protocol is less efficient for transfers as it is packet based. Not only that Firewire is effectively peer to peer based which means it does not take up unnecessary CPU cycles to process it (yes even with dedicated interfaces with onboard CPU).