I also have presonus FP10 - It had issues, I sent it to factory, they repaired for $80.00 and it has been great for about 5 years now.  Passable sounding preamps, 8 channels.  I actually use a Mackie mixer for more inputs (1640) 16 channels at once via firewire...
 
 

Sanderxpander
I find it amazing how much Apple (?) has apparently managed to convince people that Firewire is somehow better/more stable for audio recording. Yes, in the beginning days there were more serious interfaces on Firewire, but I have never actually seen anyone have problems with the bandwidth or their USB device, where it recorded or played back fewer channels than quoted. Driver problems and stability, yes, but those exist on both sides and Firewire seems to actually be more particular about the surrounding hardware. 

A lot of the negative sentiment surrounding USB-2 audio interfaces hearkens back to early USB-1.1 units... which were flaky (performance/driver) and offered limited I/O.  Those unit's were hindered by limited bandwidth (especially for multi-I/O at higher resolution).
 
When USB-2 audio interfaces came out, I was skeptical (till I actually saw/experienced the performance of the better units).

Anyone know what the limitations of the Orion is with USB?
 
When I see folks explain that the UFX is 30 channels I think they should point out it is 30 channels at 24/48... and scales upwards as you use less channels.
 
The Orion says it can run 32 channels of 118dB range at 192kHz on USB.
 
Is that 24 bits?
 
What's the round trip latency with the Orion running at 24/48? How about 24/96?

Just want to say that I'm a very happy RME fireface UFX user. Haven't tried it with firewire because it performs so good with USB. But If I ever get any problems with the USB connection, I have the possibility to use firewire.
So as I see it, it's a very versatile unit. I can even use it with an iPad if I need to record outside my homestudio.
Another bonus is the ability to record directly to a USB memorystick.

Jim Roseberry

Sanderxpander
I find it amazing how much Apple (?) has apparently managed to convince people that Firewire is somehow better/more stable for audio recording. Yes, in the beginning days there were more serious interfaces on Firewire, but I have never actually seen anyone have problems with the bandwidth or their USB device, where it recorded or played back fewer channels than quoted. Driver problems and stability, yes, but those exist on both sides and Firewire seems to actually be more particular about the surrounding hardware. 

A lot of the negative sentiment surrounding USB-2 audio interfaces hearkens back to early USB-1.1 units... which were flaky (performance/driver) and offered limited I/O.  Those unit's were hindered by limited bandwidth (especially for multi-I/O at higher resolution).
 
When USB-2 audio interfaces came out, I was skeptical (till I actually saw/experienced the performance of the better units).

I realize this, and I agree that must be where it came from. But it's been 14 years since USB 2 was introduced. I don't know when USB 2 interfaces started to appear, but it can't have been much more than five years after that. That would make it nine years now and still there is this misconception that Firewire is better. I don't really have a point beyond being puzzled that many people still seem to believe this.

No Firewire will generally be faster for large file transfers. I'm not disputing this at all. I'm merely saying the difference is entirely irrelevant for audio interfaces, see my post on the last page.

When connecting external HDs:

• USB-2 tops out between 35-40MB/Sec
• Firewire 400 tops out ~40MB/Sec
• Firewire 800 tops out ~80MB/Sec
• USB-3 tops out ~550MB/Sec (if using an Intel USB-3 controller)  

 
Mac vs. PC shouldn't matter (both are using essentially the same hardware)
Note, you won't see that full 550MB/Sec when connecting a single conventional HD via USB-3... as the HD itself will max-out below 200MB/Sec.

Hey Dan,
 
I stand by my TC Impact Twin interface. You can get one of these new on the net for around $300. Incredible sound / value. 
 
Take a look at this article I found when when researching interfaces, in this case I was reading about the focusrite forte. However I was happy to find some other related nuggets in the testing charts that included information about other interfaces. Notice the Impact Twin fared well with a few of the top rated interfaces. 
 
Most of the interfaces today are good to very good! All the best with your search.

Sanderxpander
I realize this, and I agree that must be where it came from. But it's been 14 years since USB 2 was introduced. I don't know when USB 2 interfaces started to appear, but it can't have been much more than five years after that. That would make it nine years now and still there is this misconception that Firewire is better. I don't really have a point beyond being puzzled that many people still seem to believe this.

Jim Roseberry
•USB-2 tops out between 35-40MB/Sec
•Firewire 400 tops out ~40MB/Sec

 
As you see USB is far more variable with speed. You are likely to have a dedicated interface with firewire, not so with USB (you are plugging other USB stuff into it). Finally the protocol with Firewire is a lot more efficient in audio and video environments (streaming data). This is the reality.
 
BTW Focusrite has just released another Firewire based Saffire....

As to FW vs. USB - some people still insist on buying slot-based interfaces, which are better (don't FW and USB basically plug into slots?) but not in a real world sense.  Disinformation persists long past its due date.  Any of these choices, given the right drivers, will work.
 
And what is interesting is the manufactures seem to be turning to "premium" stereo interfaces as a way to part us from our money.  I'm hoping to get in the new Tascam unit and see how much better it is than my TC, which is very good.  I'm betting (and hoping) it ain't so I don't have a reason to spend money (again!) on an interface.

Yea, Musicroom, it looks good.  It has separate line/mic ins - don't know if the lines go through the preamps.  I've never found that to hurt, unless the preamps are really low quality and affect the sound.  But it ought to be separate for the market they are after.  And I wish it had inserts too.  And ADAT & spdif.  That would make it more ... adaptable, and not much more dollar-wise.
 
 
@

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 :)

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.

Oh, and FireWire vs. USB? USB 2.0 is faster than FW400. FW 800 is faster than USB 2.0. USB 3.0 is faster than FW 800. Thunderbolt is potentially faster than all of them, although past a certain point, any port protocol becomes I/O bound. For example Thunderbolt read speeds only become a big advantage with solid-state drives because regular hard drives can't keep up.
 
FireWire has its own dedicated chip to handle housekeeping whereas USB uses some computer resources. This used to matter when computers were less powerful, but these days the amount of CPU USB requires is a very small percentage of the total bandwidth.
 
Remember that when FireWire was born, Ronald Reagan was in the White House. It's had a good run and FW interfaces will continue to work into the future; you can get adapters for Thunderbolt. But it has less and less support on new hardware, particularly laptops; and with many laptops not having card slots any more, you can't add a FireWire port.

Ah, Jim, I expect you to have a nice computer ;-)
 
Craig, thanks for thoughts on the UH-7000.  You make it sound tempting....
 
@