1 Topic by david iocane (edited by david iocane 2010-08-14 11:59:25)

  • Registered: 2010-08-14
  • Posts: 2

Topic: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

Hi

My first post here.   Am looking to get either the  FireFace 400 FW  or  the FireFace 400 UC.

What I dont understand is this:-

- %100 of all  Intel  PC's and  Intel  Laptops have USB ports
- Almost  %100  of  Intel PC's and  Intel Laptops  do not have FW ports
- By all reports the UC has  [ marginally ]  lower latency than the FW
- In terms of features / build / converters  etc..... these units are identical
- In terms of CPU load, whilst the FW model may have slighlty lower CPU overhead for a given load, with modern PC / Laptops, this too is now an irrelevancy

So ...... why would anyone choose the  FW  over the UC  ?

=> is it now simply a case that  MAC  users  whose hardware does not  have a USB port would still get the FW unit and everyone else would buy the UC  ?

I feel like I'm missing something really obvious and major but cant think what it is !?!?

David

  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

- Almost  %100  of  Intel PC's and  Intel Laptops  do not have FW ports

A lot PCs and Windows notebooks - especially bought for use with audio - still have FireWire ports. After years of succesful FireWire marketing from Apple and nearly all audio companies (including RME) many customers think FireWire is still superior to USB2. That was true a long time: in the beginning USB audio suffers a lot from bad chipsets (and bad audio interfaces too). But the latest USB chipsets (built for mainboards with at least an Intel Core 2 Duo) are not a point of concern anymore, so customers have the choice now.

So ...... why would anyone choose the FW  over the UC  ?

The UC provides a comparable or even better performance, but has no bus-power, because the USB could not deliver the necessary power. But many users want to use it this way. On many systems a FireWire interface could be still a better choice for the best compatibility and performance.

best regards
Knut

  • Registered: 2010-08-14
  • Posts: 2

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

Hi Knut

Given what you have said, wouldnt it be a lot smarter [ and more profitable for RME ]  and  *much* better for consumers for RME to make the FireFace with  *both* Firewire and USB in the same unit  ?   Whislt this may add somewhat to overall cost, imagine the added flexibiltiy and options for the consumer and imagine the increased sales for RME.

And by the way, when you wrote  "  ..... on many systems a FireWire interface could be still a better choice for the best compatibility and performance ...... "  if a system has both [ USB and FW ]  and is a modern / fast system  [ 2009 or later ]  the surely the UC is the better choice  ?

David

  • Registered: 2007-08-29
  • Posts: 65

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

david iocane wrote:

if a system has both [ USB and FW ]  and is a modern / fast system  [ 2009 or later ]  the surely the UC is the better choice  ?

Unless...


You need it to be bus-powered.

Macmini '19 3.2 GHz 6-Core i7, 32GB RAM, MacOS 10.15.2, LogicProX 10.4.8, FF400, UAD2 Satellite Octo
  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

Given what you have said, wouldnt it be a lot smarter [ and more profitable for RME ]  and  *much* better for consumers for RME to make the FireFace with  *both* Firewire and USB in the same unit  ?   Whislt this may add somewhat to overall cost, ...

That?s the point. It would add a lot money to the overall costs. I doubt customers will be happy if they pay something like 200 USD more for just having another connection option they only use sometimes.

best regards
Knut

  • Registered: 2009-10-03
  • Posts: 2

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

IMHO, the PEER-to-PEER nature of the FireWire interface is a main reason why FW is still an interesting solution.
You can combine several different devices using the same single cable connection to a computer.
For instance, I can reliably get 42-channel 24bit48kHz recording by establishing daisy chain connection between Fireface 800, Fireface 400 and a single FireWire400 (1394a) PC notebook port (utilizing RME DIGICheck outstanding recording feature).
Can I get the same reliability, connection simplicity and performance using USB based audio devices (on a notebook that recording on an external USB drive)? I doubt it.
Even though next generation USB3 is going to supply some power to a connected device, it is still going to be a HOST-based interface that requires a HUB.
I am not sure that there is going to be a way to connect several USB devices to each other, and to a computer via single cable.

7 Reply by Duistere Bardo (edited by Duistere Bardo 2010-08-15 23:13:23)

  • Registered: 2010-04-12
  • Posts: 6

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

The main reason I got the FF400 FW and not the UC is because it allows me to use my two USB ports on my MacBook for other stuff. smile

And bus-powered is also an important consideration for me btw.

  • Registered: 2007-05-03
  • Posts: 70

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

And what about cable length? With my FF400 I can use the 4mt cable that comes with it, and I think the UC (comes with a 1.8m cable) doesn't support such lengthy cables, or a I wrong?

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

No problem running the UC with a 5m cable here. Same goes for the 400 though. Both can be extended via hubs/repeaters.

  • Registered: 2007-05-03
  • Posts: 70

Re: FF400 FW vs FF400 UC .... why would anyone now buy the FW ?

Thanks for the clarification.