Firewire 410 Replacement

The Fast Track is USB only isn't it? I think that's a step backwards.

I don't think it's a step backwards due to the USB vs Firewire. The Pro is using newer technology then the 410. Once the signal is digital it makes no difference what buss it travels 1's and 0's are still 1's and 0's no matter USB, Firewire,Cat6 or whatever. What would make the most difference is analog section and the A to D conversion. But really I don't think there is going to be any noticeable differences other then the cable.

Huh! So why am I always hearing that Firewire is preferred over USB?

I think it has to do with firewire originally having much more bandwidth. At one time USB could only deliver 2 in 2 out and MIDI. Also back in Power PC chip days firewire was much better, faster and more reliable. But with intel being a long time USB supporter and sustained speeds near firewire things have changed some. Firewire is still the choice when using two or three like devices at a time because of it being a peer to peer technology. When (if) USB 3 hits the streets well game over 5 Gbit/s.

isteveus wrote:
I don't think it's a step backwards due to the USB vs Firewire. The Pro is using newer technology then the 410. Once the signal is digital it makes no difference what buss it travels 1's and 0's are still 1's and 0's no matter USB, Firewire,Cat6 or whatever. What would make the most difference is analog section and the A to D conversion. But really I don't think there is going to be any noticeable differences other then the cable.

There could very well be newer better technology on a USB device than a firewire device, but transfer protocol vs. transfer protocol, firewire is still better for audio than USB.

They're not two different busses. They use busses, but they're not busses.

Firewire includes additional information in its stream that is helpful for timing, a critical feature of audio and video, that USB doesn't have. Firewire also achieves better and more consistent real-world performance than USB.

As you suggest, the overall momentum is with USB, and already I know of one USB interface (the RME Fireface UC) that rivals Firewire interfaces, but at a price ($1300).

There are also many USB interfaces that are more than enough interface for what many users need, with more than enough performance, and perfectly fine a/d conversion. And since USB interfaces are generally cheaper than firewire interfaces, they're a better bet for customers on a budget or just starting out.

However, overall, firewire devices will perform better than USB devices, both because of its inherent advantage, and because, with that as a starting point, manufacturers use firewire in their better devices. With the exception of the USB interface from RME, every higher end audio interface I know of uses Firewire (or a proprietary direct connection with a card).

Take Apogee's product line as an example. Their entry level interface is USB (the One), their step up devices are Firewire (Duet and Ensemble), and at their high end, they use a proprietary protocol that surpasses even firewire (Symphony).

One of the reasons there was such a backlash when Apple temporarily removed firewire from its small Macbook Pro model (and then put it back after the kerfuffle) is that almost the entire universe of pro audio interfaces (and MINI DV cameras, favored by pros over AVHCD) use Firewire, not USB.

The jury's still out on USB 3.0. It would be nice if there were one standard to rule them all. But currently, firewire is still favored for audio interfaces for users willing to pay the premium due to its better performance and the fact that it subsequently shows up in the better quality devices.

Someone once posted a link to Firewire 400 vs USB benchmarks for audio and video. It showed that FW used more CPU and slower transfers when sending two way streams. Not sure about the timing thing but usb interfaces can use the internal clock just like firewire. I know manufacture have been using Firewire on higher end products so a $1300 device will be better then a $200 device. But the difference between like devices 410 vs FT Pro should not be noticeable. And I still think firewire is better when using many devices or high end products but for most garageband users who just want to record a demo or put their songs on the net it just won't matter.

I have and use lower end equipment Alesis Multimix FW, Presonus Inspire, Fast Track Pro, BlackBox and one of those 2 channel Line 6 interfaces. I find almost no difference in quality the Fast Track seem to be the most trouble free even when accidentally unplugging and plugging back in without restarting garageband.

isteveus wrote:
Someone once posted a link to Firewire 400 vs USB benchmarks for audio and video. It showed that FW used more CPU and slower transfers when sending two way streams.

They must have reversed them. If you google firewire vs. USB comparisons, you'll see what I mean.

Here's a quote from today's Wikipedia:

It <firewire> is preferred over the more common USB for its greater effective speed and power distribution capabilities, and because it does not need a computer host. Perhaps more important, FireWire uses all SCSI capabilities and has high sustained data transfer rates, important for audio and video editors. Benchmarks show that the sustained data transfer rates are higher for FireWire than for USB 2.0, especially on Apple Mac OS X…

Although high-speed USB 2.0 nominally runs at a higher signaling rate than FireWire 400, data transfers over S400 FireWire interfaces generally outperform similar transfers over USB 2.0 interfaces. Typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is likely due to USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol, whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware (requiring less or no CPU usage). For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations. Besides throughput, other differences are that it uses simpler bus networking, provides more power over the chain, more reliable data transfer, and uses fewer CPU resources.

isteveus wrote:
Not sure about the timing thing but usb interfaces can use the internal clock just like firewire.

That's something else. The firewire stream itself includes timing packets that ensure consistent data delivery. USB can waver.

I know manufacture have been using Firewire on higher end products so a $1300 device will be better then a $200 device. But the difference between like devices 410 vs FT Pro should not be noticeable.

There are many ways to compare devices, and firewire is just one of them. There are some USB devices that are better than firewire devices for sure, and for some users, a USB interface is perfect.

And I still think firewire is better when using many devices or high end products but for most garageband users who just want to record a demo or put their songs on the net it just won't matter.

I agree that no one should buy more than they need. If a USB device does the trick, then why buy Firewire? But getting back to Poflynn's comment that he had heard firewire is preferred to USB, he's right. It is. It's not as simple as it's all ones and zeroes. Firewire does a better job of delivering them.

However, like everything, you can't boil down everything to one spec. It's similar to comparing converters based on resolution. Higher resolution is generally better than lower resolution, but there are lower resolution converters that outperform higher resolution ones. Similarly, there are USB interfaces (e.g. the new one from RME) that outperform some Firewire interfaces. I'm sure the "One" from Apogee also performs well, especially given its modest requirements for data transfer.

Can't speak to the OP's needs. He may notice the step backwards in going from Firewire to USB. However, if a USB interface more than meets his needs, then it could be a step forwards. Or sideways. Or something! Certainly, if someone's needs are met by a USB device, they should look no further!

Seeing both FW and USB 2.0 can sustain speeds around 200Mbps + that shouldn't make much of a differences unless you're working with 100+ full tracks.

I still don't see how 01000011 01101101 00001101 00001010 would be any different carried over usb, FW, Cat6, optical or a flash drive.

As usual, I learn so much from you guys.

For audio and for that matter video, I always thought USB loading the CPU, was more the issue then throughput once USB 2 came out.

Wonder if we will ever see FW1600 and FW3200 implemented.
Not much news on that front. But USB 3 is apparently just around the corner.



The only other issue I can think of is that USB delivers a whopping +5V. Stepping the voltage up to +48V on a bus powered interface like the one....hmmm, I dunno.

Is the Fast track Pro USB 1? If it is I agree with Poflynn it's a step backwards.

Anyway Wesley are you using the latest driver from M-Audio?

Your issues may be addressed with the latest driver if you don't have it. But seeing as M-Audio drivers are not updated that often...good luck.

But if I had the problems you have had, I would be looking elsewhere for my next interface.

isteveus wrote:
Seeing both FW and USB 2.0 can sustain speeds around 200Mbps + that shouldn't make much of a differences unless you're working with 100+ full tracks.

It makes a difference with a lot less tracks than 100

I still don't see how 01000011 01101101 00001101 00001010 would be any different carried over usb, FW, Cat6, optical or a flash drive.

When you're dealing with time sensitive material like audio or video, it matters that they get there in time. For example, if you have 20 streams of audio, each of which is 44,100 (or 96,000 or 192,000) samples per second, it's not enough that they eventually arrive at their computery destination, they need to arrive at it in the same time interval that they are being produced in real life. Firewire will keep delivering well after USB 2.0 has choked out.

Of course we are talking 2 in 2 out interface in this case with the max of 8x2 with grageband.

I don't know any timecode specs on usb and if I were buying new equipment I would probably go firewire (exception of my macbook sans FW). But if I found a Line 6 UX8 or a fast track ultra 8R at a good price usb would not stop me.

Any reason we don't see FW 800 interfaces?

Well RME's Fireface 800 has FW800...

I think one issue for lack of FW800 lies with Windoze OS implementation of FW800 specifications.

And who needs to run 56 simultaneous channels at 24bit 192KHz. That would probably negate motivation for a company to incorporate FW800 also.

I would think they would continue support.

And if you look at the date of the latest drivers for your interface it shares a date commonality with other FW interfaces in their line-up. I would not be too concerned about that.

However, while I can't tell specifically from your post. The issue you describe is not unlike a driver issue.

So even if they do support it. One of the issues is the latest update for your interface is over a year old. Profire series over 6 months old.

Now, maybe it's because there are no issues to update.

All I can say is when Leopard came out I had drivers the same day. When Snow Leopard came out I had drivers the same day.

For you I would suggest looking to see if other 410 user's are experiencing the same kind of issues as you are to see if it is indeed driver related or something else. Including calling M-Audio.

And trying to ascertain what the issue is exactly first before spending money on something else.

That should give a better idea on whether or not you should look for another interface and or another brand.

I don't see mention of the Fast Track Pro USB spec's either. Which is possibly one indicator that it is USB 1.