Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2014, 01:56 PM   #1
vanhaze
Human being with feelings
 
vanhaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5,247
Default Stunned about USB audio interfaces..or not ?

I am not at all a PC audio tech guy but it always keeps me surprising how USB audio interfaces still have a substantial part on the audio interface market.

I mean. can a USB (2) audio interfaces really do their job right in a prof. environment ?
Regarding audio bandwidth etc ?

I always thought that i have to look at least at firewire or pcie or even Thunderbolt based audio interfaces for good performance ..am i totally wrong ?

Can USB audio interfaces stand up against those protocols in terms of performance ?

I am talking bottlenecks.
vanhaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:02 PM   #2
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

If it's just a 2 input device, it's fine.

There's nothing wrong with the speed of USB 2, it's all electrons at the end of the day (buss speed notwithstanding).

If you have a 16 input interface, then it's a different story.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:10 PM   #3
tls11823
Human being with feelings
 
tls11823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,481
Default

I have a Zoom R16 that connects via USB 2. I've recorded eight simultaneous tracks on many occasions and have never experienced problems.
__________________
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.
--Charles Kingsley... or maybe Albert Einstein... definitely somebody wiser than myself--
tls11823 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:11 PM   #4
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhaze View Post
I am not at all a PC audio tech guy but it always keeps me surprising how USB audio interfaces still have a substantial part on the audio interface market.

I mean. can a USB (2) audio interfaces really do their job right in a prof. environment ?
Regarding audio bandwidth etc ?
why would you think it's the professional environment that is buying $150-$250 2 channel USB interfaces. USB boxes have a huge share of the home recording market but that's not the same thing at all

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhaze View Post
I always thought that i have to look at least at firewire or pcie or even Thunderbolt based audio interfaces for good performance ..am i totally wrong ?

Can USB audio interfaces stand up against those protocols in terms of performance ?

I am talking bottlenecks.
in a lot of cases FW or thunderbolt may not be enough if you need 48 tracks or more at once in and out.

however this has nothing to do with the quality of the converters used. USB, FW, Thunderbolt, MADI, PCI etc are all just communication protocols to get the signal once it has been converted into digital by the converters into the computer and back out agin to the converters for listening. It does not have anything to do with audio quality

just bear in mind that thousands of records have been made with avid 192 interfaces on a protools HD system
Not super high end or boutique by any stretch of the imagination (but not a two channel USB protocol either)
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:21 PM   #5
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I mean. can a USB (2) audio interfaces really do their job right in a prof. environment ?
Regarding audio bandwidth etc ?
How many tracks is considered professional? To be fair to your intent, it's the number simultaneous inputs to serve whatever clients you happen to get. However, I've recorded decent track counts without issue. My interface does both FW and USB, I have never noticed any difference between the two.


Quote:
I am not at all a PC audio tech guy but it always keeps me surprising how USB audio interfaces still have a substantial part on the audio interface market.
Because the bandwidth scare != to the 99% of the who users aren't going to exceed that bandwidth. There is just so much unnecessary chatter about it that I think it gets unfairly slighted TBH. The consumer, prosumer and pro market is far, far bigger than the market that needs 24 simultaneous tracks being recorded at the same time.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 09-12-2014 at 02:27 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:21 PM   #6
bluzkat
Human being with feelings
 
bluzkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 6,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhaze View Post
I always thought that i have to look at least at firewire or pcie or even Thunderbolt based audio interfaces for good performance ..am i totally wrong ?

Can USB audio interfaces stand up against those protocols in terms of performance ?
I've been using USB interfaces for 10 years without a problem. Always had low enough latency that it was never an issue.

Just so you know... firewire is almost dead, soon it will be just a memory.

My USB interface just keeps on working.


__________________
Peace...
bluzkat
bluzkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:49 PM   #7
Fergler
Human being with feelings
 
Fergler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,205
Default

I've used 16 channels over USB 2.0, at low latency there are clicks and pops to be concerned about (pretty infrequent) but at high latency there are *never* any and is reliable.

So no, not stunned.
Fergler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 02:57 PM   #8
plush2
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 2,110
Default

There's a good deal of FUD around this debate. I think the fact manufacturers like RME and MOTU are offering hybrid interfaces (usb2.0 and firewire combined) with no limitations in either mode suggests it's not really the port that makes the soundcard.

If you are wondering where the line is for professional facilities I would assume it falls more in a choice of MADI or Dante. The port that plugs into the computer is really not as large of a consideration as it once was.
plush2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 03:24 PM   #9
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

We shouldn't be surprised that usb is popular for audio interfaces, being that it is the most popular (and cheap) protocol for computer peripheral devices in general.

Could the audio interface market be bettered by a different protocol? I would think so. Usb connectors and cables aren't exactly robust, as in being in the same league of 1/4" and xlr audio connectors and cables, and cable length limits aren't great. There is some added latency for usb compared to pci. Usb doesn't provide much power on the bus. Throughput isn't as good as some other protocols for higher sample rates and track counts.

There are probably some other cons, but the pros are that it is generally good enough for the majority of users and it's cheap do to it's general popularity. Look at thunderbolt's licensing and cabling costs in comparison.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 03:36 PM   #10
vanhaze
Human being with feelings
 
vanhaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5,247
Default

Thx for all the replies !

For me personally, i only use 1 stereo in and 1 stereo out.
For my understanding form all your posts, USB2 audio interfaces will be capable of taking this "load" easily.
vanhaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 05:00 PM   #11
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Usb connectors and cables aren't exactly robust, as in being in the same league of 1/4" and xlr audio connectors and cables, and cable length limits aren't great.
Actually with 1/4" and XLR plugs it all depends on the manufacturer. If you buy Radio Shack plugs they will last a long time if you take very very good care of them. On the other hand if you want plugs that will take what you throw at it then you'll need Switchcraft or better.

I don't know anything about USB plugs and cords, I've never had one fail on me yet but then I don't have a lot of USB stuff.

Quote:
There is some added latency for usb compared to pci. Usb doesn't provide much power on the bus. Throughput isn't as good as some other protocols for higher sample rates and track counts.
I'm sure this is true brainwreck and if I wasn't retired and still serious about recording several tracks, this would be a big factor. I had all PCI on my old XP and recorded 24 tracks all linked with Word Clock and it worked great. If I was to do the same thing today, I'd probably still be looking at PCI.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 05:14 PM   #12
JimFichs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: nyc
Posts: 35
Default

When I was researching interfaces earlier this year, I was surprised that there were no USB 3.0 interfaces being sold. My intent was to future proof my hardware as much as my budget would allow. After some reading, I realized that it wasn't necessary. A little Goog goes a long way.
JimFichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 05:31 PM   #13
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Actually with 1/4" and XLR plugs it all depends on the manufacturer. If you buy Radio Shack plugs they will last a long time if you take very very good care of them. On the other hand if you want plugs that will take what you throw at it then you'll need Switchcraft or better.

I don't know anything about USB plugs and cords, I've never had one fail on me yet but then I don't have a lot of USB stuff.
Yea, there are some really crummy 1/4" cables; mostly the molded types. As a kid, I had plenty of those things stop working. I never had a failed soldered 1/4" or xlr cable that wasn't easily repairable, other than the cable getting cut or smashed. Usb cables? I can't say that I have had one fail, either (only use them at home), but I have broken multiple usb sockets (at home), and I have seen enough of them broken/failed on other peoples' devices to know that they aren't exactly gig quality.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 06:04 PM   #14
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

I think USB relies on the processor more for its communication protocol than does FW, which is more intrinsic in its design, but for quite a while now, machines have been powerful enough to take up this slack with no outward signs of bottlenecking -throughput is pretty similar.

This made quite a bit of difference in the early days of FW and USB where spare performance might not be always available for the USB interface in real-time applications, but I think those days are long past unless you are unfortunate enough to have a compromised setup in some way.


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 06:47 PM   #15
pattste
Human being with feelings
 
pattste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Usb connectors and cables aren't exactly robust
True enough but Thunderbolt is even worse and Firewire wasn't much better than USB either. All of these formats are designed as general purpose connectors. Pro audio is number 17 on the list of the top 10 things computer manufacturers (Apple included) are concerned about.

I used to have a Firewire audio interface and my RME Babyface wipes the floor with it in terms of latency, stability or anything else.
__________________
My Music
Reaper(x64) 4.72 - Studio One Pro (x64) 2.6.3
i7-3630QM 2.4GHz - 8Gb RAM - 256Gb SSD - RME Babyface - Eve Audio SC204 - Windows 8.1
pattste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 07:14 PM   #16
chas51
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: milky way galaxy, for now
Posts: 930
Default

I've been using a Babyface for a couple years. the 1 problem I had, I suspect was because of the loose worn out female usb connection on my laptop. those connections......well, I lost what I thought was a great take (corrupted and worthless).......because of it.
wish I could find super duper usb cables and for my next laptop, super high quality usb female sockets.
chas51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 07:35 PM   #17
Swede
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 36
Default

Check this out and do the math
http://www.audiomountain.com/tech/audio-file-size.html

Note the difference in a lower case b and upper case B. b=bit B=byte. 1 byte is commonly 8 bits. Now to make it simple do 10 instead to compensate for data transfer overhead.

Just do the math and you easily come to the conclusion that you need a lot of inputs to be choked from the throughput of USB 2.0 and Firewire 400. You can easily get a transfer rate of 30 to 35 MB per second with USB 2.0. That would be a lot of audio channels even at high settings. How many channels do you record simultaneously? If it's less than 50 don't even worry about it.

If it pops and cracks then it's more likely your CPU that can't keep up and your sample rate needs to be adjusted.

Just my two cents...
Swede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 08:30 PM   #18
SamuelC
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 232
Default

LOL CPU ?? LMAO

You can have an I7 running 5 gihz AND IT STILL CRACKLE!!! it has nothing to do with the CPU!! why do people keep posting nonsense.

It has to do more with how much money you want to put down in order to have the lowest latency possible.

Example the Behringer X32 uses the X-UF USB/ Firewire Interface BUT YOU CAN NOT BUY THEM!! as they only make them for large Digital and PRO Mixers market.

So so you want 40+ tracks going?

Buy a Behringer X32 and you can have 32 tracks going over Firewire and USB.

Cost = EST $3800

If you want a USB interface you have no choice it's RME or Presonus ( Presonus locks down their USB clocks internally to 1ms)

Many companies are not properly locking down the timers on usb devices, which makes for a nightmare in order to test out which interface is better

Any interface can pump in many tracks, the only issue is down to how much latency you want to deal with.

For me Edirol Fa101 all day Firewire.
SamuelC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 09:05 PM   #19
rvman
Human being with feelings
 
rvman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 525
Default

After being away from music for several years and coming back last year, I'm really surprised at Firewire. I remember it was supposed to be the future ( like thunderbolt now ).

And I'm pleasantly surprised that USB has gained so much. I hated the early days of it.
__________________
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× ××××××××××
Reaper, Reason 8, Studio One Artist, EZ Drummer 2, and not enough time.
rvman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 10:34 PM   #20
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhaze View Post
...can a USB (2) audio interfaces really do their job right in a prof. environment ?
Regarding audio bandwidth etc ?...
The problem with USB is not what you think it is.

USB 2.0 is theoretically capable of 480Mbps data-transfer. Firewire 400 is 400Mbps, firewire 800 is theoretically capable of 800 Mbps.

For reference, one channel of CD-quality audio (16bit/44.1k sample-rate) is roughly 700 kbps, or 0.7 Mbps. So with either firewire 400 or USB2, we are theoretically talking about 600+ channels of CD-quality audio, or 200+ channels at 88.1 kHz/ 24-bit.

So any of the above is more than capable of handling any kind of sane real-world audio project.

The supposed problems with USB vs firewire go back to two factors:

- One is just legacy complaints of USB 1.0 audio. People who should know better kept saying USB is no good, long after their complaints were obsolete.

- the second, more legitimate one, is that USB is typically controlled by the CPU, while firewire typically gets a dedicated controller chip.

This second cut both ways for a long time. In the early days of both, slower computers could have problems processing USB data while doing CPU-intensive stuff like DW and plugins. That made firewire preferable, since firewire had its own controller, and didn't rely on the CPU for data-throughput.

But by the same token, a lot of early firewire chipsets were problematic for low-latency audio (the dreaded RICOH especially), and that made USB preferable. It was never really cut-and-dried.

But going back ~12 years ago, most manufacturers who were "serious" about audio interfaces were targeting Macs, and Macs were all shipping with firewire, and mostly (but not entirely) with the better TI firewire chips. Meanwhile, USB 2.0 was supposedly "backwards compatible", meaning it was possible to install a USB2 card in some fairly slow and outdated computers, and to plug in a USB2 interface to a USB1 port, which led to a ton of complaints about USB interfaces, many of which were unjustified.

Bottom line is, with modern computers, the difference between USB2, Firewire, Thunderbolt, or anything faster is trivial-to-nonexistent for most real-world audio purposes. What matters is the quality of the interface and the drivers. The one exception I know about is with Intel's first-gen USB 3.0 chipsets, which have a known issue with isochronous data-transfer integrity, that can be problematic for low-latency audio. I believe that Presonus claims to have found a fix for this with their current drivers, but I'm not sure about anyone else.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 11:13 PM   #21
ProfRhino
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Default

It may matter to you or not, but the problem with USB is not so much the bandwidth, it's CPU load, i.e. low latency performance.
And even the newest machines are plagued by this.
My external USB3 drives are roughly on par with the internal ones regarding speed, but do two or three simultaneous file transfers (between different drive pairs !) and watch the PC get really sluggish.
Ime nothing can hold a candle to a well done (RME) PCIe system, with PCI being extremely close (depending on your mainboard).
USB and Firewire can work pretty well, certainly good enough for 2 I/Os, but the drawbacks get more obvious with higher channel counts or when you're comparing low latency performance.
With all audio interfaces, the quality of firmware & drivers makes a huge difference, I have not seen any better ones than RME on PC yet.
Lynx PCI were also pretty good, do they still exist ?

ymmv,
Rhino

Last edited by ProfRhino; 09-12-2014 at 11:19 PM.
ProfRhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2014, 12:04 AM   #22
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

I went through a number of USB interfaces and finally broke down & bought a Babyface (to go with my 9652 HDSP in the main studio box) and could not be happier.

I spend a lot of time overseas and now take the baby face and a cheesy little i5 dual core 2.5mhz laptop with me.

Gets the job done with no tweaking etc from me.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 05:51 PM   #23
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerider View Post
What stuns and stumps me about USB is: where are the USB3 audio boxes ? USB3 has been out for years. It's stable now. Where are the audio boxes to take advantage of it. If Allan&Heath can put out a 36 track mixer board that uses USB2, why are there no USB3 boards ?
There are multiple reasons why nobody is bothering to make USB 3 audio interfaces:

1. For the reasons in my above post, USB 3.0 is redundant, compared with USB 2.0, unless you need something like 200+ tracks of simultaneous IO. USB3 doesn't improve latency, just throughput, and USB2 is already overkill, throughput-wise, for any kind of sane real-world audio project.

2. By making a USB 3 interface, the manufacturer would only be limiting their market-share, not offering any real improvement in performance or functionality. There is no advantage to it, it just makes your interface incompatible with a lot of older computers.

3. In many instances, USB 3.0 is actually WORSE for low-latency audio, due to a known issue with Intel's USB3 chipsets handling of isochronous data-transfer. You can look on the Presonus or Native Instruments boards, or search google, but a lot of people are reporting better performance by disabling USB3 features and just using their new computers with USB 2.0 functionality.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.