usb vs firewire

[Jamminonmybass]

whats the difference? you see firewire capable mixers, and usb mixers. also firewire interfaces and usb interfaces. so my question is what the major difference is. They both obviously achieve the same goal, but it seems like generally you pay more for firewire compatability. thanks a lot

[Jamminonmybass]

....bump?

[jarviss]

isnt firewire faster?
:confused:

-G

[Sir_Robert]

depends on what type you have. moseph knows a lot about this stuff, maybe he will pop in.

different types are faster. i think that firewire has a faster version out than USB does but im again not sure

[vizo]

If you're only needing a few tracks at once, then USB is fine. If you need more than 2 or 4, then firewire is the way to go. Why do you think most interfaces with less than 2 inputs are USB and most with more are firewire? That's not always true but it's still a good starting point. If you have a firewire port/card in your computer then by all means go for the firewire device. If you're worried about speed and latency, PCI is still the fastest method out there with very little to no latency at all.

Edit: I'm talking about recording interfaces [Firepod for example], not mixers.

[Seafroggys]

Firewire is much faster then usb, but less common. I got a new custom built computer in October, and the motherboard didn't even have internal Firewire support.

Much more common on Macs.

[Moseph]

vizo is pretty much correct, but a few details that might be of interest:

1) Most usb/firewire enabled mixers serve a dual purpose of a mixing console, and provide the option of sending 2+ channels of audio streaming into a computer. Firewire-enabled mixers tend to provide more channels (18 is a common number), whereas USB mixers tend to only provide 2-4 channels of recording to a computer. In other words, a usb or firewire mixer is both an analog mixer and a computer interface at the same time.

2) The direct correlation between speed and channels is basically that at faster speeds you can transmit more data in near-realtime. This is why firewire devices tend to have more channels: they are capable of sending more data in a second.

3) Most people are speaking of USB 1.1 when they say "USB" and IEEE 1394 Firewire 400 when they say "firewire". Other, newer protocols exist that are faster than those respective versions. Most devices do not yet make use of these protocols.

[Seafroggys]

USB 2 has been around a long time, actually.

[Sir_Robert]

inst USB 2.0 faster than Firewire 400?

[ELB]

Usually Firewire is the faster of the two. Probably explains why macs started to use firewire instead of USB.

-ELB

[Moseph]

Technically, USB 2.0 is nominally faster than Firewire 400. However, the difference in practice is pretty neglible since neither will run at their nominal speeds at all times. However, when dealing with HUGE amounts of data, every little bit of speed you can possibly get will help the process along, so for transfers more than a few GB, USB 2.0 (theoretically) will win the footrace.

[Aus_rock_god]

Firewire creams USB.

USB = Transfer of info one way at a time (PC to Hardware - Hardware to PC)

Firewire = Transfer of info both ways simutaniously.