Is the RME Fireface 800 connected with Firewire 800 as fast as PCI-Express?

[Marrone]

Can anyone please comment on this? Thanks!!

Marrone

[Tony Montana]

I think in order of speed it's:

PCI-e
PCI
Firewire 800

[majortom]

Here's my understanding of it:

If you're talking about an x2, x4, x8 or x16 PCI-e card then it will have more bandwidth than Firewire 800. Firewire 800 has more bandwidth than PCI, unless of course your firewire card is plugged into a PCI slot, then it's really limited to the speed of the PCI bus.

There's really two issues though when you're talking about "speed", one is bandwidth, how much info can be transferred at once and the other is latency, or how fast the info gets there.

So PCI-e has the most bandwidth, but I'm not sure about latency. I think that depends on the motherboard, the card, and the driver. I would guess that PCI-e has less latency than Firewire, but there are many variables. Latency is probably a bigger concern with audio than bandwidth.

Hope that helps a little bit.

[majortom]

Also, for what it's worth I got better latency with my Fireface800 and a PCI-e firewire card than with a Lynx Aurora and an RME PCI AES-32 card.

I don't monitor anything going through DAW-based effects or virtual instruments when I track, though, so it doesn't really matter much to me.

[Marrone]

Whoo i actually never thought about it......I always assumed that PCI express will always be faster than Firewire. I have the new Mac Pro which has 2 Firewire 800 ports. Which card would have less latency in my case? A upcoming RME PCI express card or a Fireface 800 connected with Firewire 800? Can anyone comment on this??

Marrone

[diamondjim]

I remember reading that a single FF800 connected via FW800 will still only function at 400 mbit/s. You need to have 2 units connected serially to get the benefit of 800. The info is on the RME web site in the tech support area for the FF800.

diamondjim
Barn Jazz Home

[digibird]

Originally Posted by majortom

Also, for what it's worth I got better latency with my Fireface800 and a PCI-e firewire card than with a Lynx Aurora and an RME PCI AES-32 card.

I don't monitor anything going through DAW-based effects or virtual instruments when I track, though, so it doesn't really matter much to me.

Could you tell us, please, the differences in quality of sound between Fireface 800 and Lynx Aurora? This is just the upgrade I have been contemplating, and your input could be most helpful. Thanks.

[majortom]

Originally Posted by Marrone

Whoo i actually never thought about it......I always assumed that PCI express will always be faster than Firewire. I have the new Mac Pro which has 2 Firewire 800 ports. Which card would have less latency in my case? A upcoming RME PCI express card or a Fireface 800 connected with Firewire 800? Can anyone comment on this??

Marrone

If you're talking about using the motherboard's firewire ports vs. a PCI-e firewire card, then I don't think it makes any difference.

If you're talking about going with an all PCI-e option like an Aurora and an AES-32 card, then I'd say the all PCI-e would be more stable and probably less latency.

My PCI setup is definitely more stable than my old firewire setup. I used to get occasion glitches and lock ups. I just can't the latency much below 10ms with my PCI-based AES-32 card. But, there's so many variables that it's hard to be sure.

[subatomicpieces]

are people REALLY still worried about "latency" in 2007?!?!?! I guess I had just assumed that most people were using direct monitoring through dsp-based monitor mixing applications like the mixer that comes with RME interfaces...

there are SO MANY ways to work around monitoring latency these days that I'm just shocked that anyone is still monitoring THROUGH their DAW.

To address the original question... FW400 is fast enough to do everything that the Fireface 800 claims to do.

[majortom]

Originally Posted by digibird

Could you tell us, please, the differences in quality of sound between Fireface 800 and Lynx Aurora? This is just the upgrade I have been contemplating, and your input could be most helpful. Thanks.

I upgraded because I started recording bands using a "live" setup and I needed more channels. I like the Fireface a lot, it's has solid converters, the drivers are good, and Totalmix rocks. The preamps are pretty blah.

A/D-wise, the Aurora seems to handle hotter signals better, meaning the high-end doesn't sound as harsh when you are recording a signal at -3 dbfs for example. But, you could just as easily say, don't record stuff that hot. And there's plenty of arguing on this board about that.

D/A-wise, I hear a little more detail in the highs (stuff like reverb tails and instruments buried in the mix) and the low-end seems a little tighter on the Aurora, but I wasn't able to do A/B comparisons, so maybe I'm just mic'ing stuff better these days. At any rate, the bass traps I added to my room made a much bigger difference in my ability to hear things more accurately.

As I mentioned before, the aurora/AES-32 setup is more stable. The firewire interface seemed to glitch occasionally under heavy CPU loads.

If you're thinking that this upgrade will suddenly lift a veil from your recordings, I think you'll be disappointed.

I'm not knocking the Aurora. I'm very happy with it. But, if I didn't need the extra channels, I'd probably have spent the money on some room treatment and a really nice microphone. When you consider the price of the Aurora and the interface to the computer it's pretty pricey for what is essentially an incremental improvement.

[majortom]

Originally Posted by subatomicpieces

there are SO MANY ways to work around monitoring latency these days that I'm just shocked that anyone is still monitoring THROUGH their DAW.

I think the only people that care are people tracking virtual instruments. It can get pretty distracting for some people when the latency gets too much over 10 ms.

[digibird]

Originally Posted by majortom

I upgraded because I started recording bands using a "live" setup and I needed more channels. I like the Fireface a lot, it's has solid converters, the drivers are good, and Totalmix rocks. The preamps are pretty blah.

A/D-wise, the Aurora seems to handle hotter signals better, meaning the high-end doesn't sound as harsh when you are recording a signal at -3 dbfs for example. But, you could just as easily say, don't record stuff that hot. And there's plenty of arguing on this board about that.

D/A-wise, I hear a little more detail in the highs (stuff like reverb tails and instruments buried in the mix) and the low-end seems a little tighter on the Aurora, but I wasn't able to do A/B comparisons, so maybe I'm just mic'ing stuff better these days. At any rate, the bass traps I added to my room made a much bigger difference in my ability to hear things more accurately.

As I mentioned before, the aurora/AES-32 setup is more stable. The firewire interface seemed to glitch occasionally under heavy CPU loads.

If you're thinking that this upgrade will suddenly lift a veil from your recordings, I think you'll be disappointed.

I'm not knocking the Aurora. I'm very happy with it. But, if I didn't need the extra channels, I'd probably have spent the money on some room treatment and a really nice microphone. When you consider the price of the Aurora and the interface to the computer it's pretty pricey for what is essentially an incremental improvement.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I appreciate the effort and input.

[R3k]

Originally Posted by majortom

I think the only people that care are people tracking virtual instruments. It can get pretty distracting for some people when the latency gets too much over 10 ms.

Those people will be feeling the strain of using a heavy processor instensive instrument on a DAW with plug-in delay compensation than feeling the latency of their sound driver.. imo

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by majortom

There's really two issues though when you're talking about "speed", one is bandwidth, how much info can be transferred at once and the other is latency, or how fast the info gets there. Latency is probably a bigger concern with audio than bandwidth.

Very well put... Latency as in the delay when playing VST instruments etc. is not primarily related to bandwidth, be it Firewire or PCI(e).

[BlueSwan]

In what ways are "bandwidth" important in audio recording then?

[majortom]

I guess when the number of tracks you're recording exceeds the bandwidth of the interface, you'll have problems. They'd probably manifest as dropouts.

I did some calculations a while back. A stereo 96/24 track requires about 4.39 Mbits/s of bandwidth to record. So, even with a PCI interface which has a theoretical max of 127 MBytes/sec and let's say a real bandwidth of half that, the interface should have enough bandwidth to record 100 simultaneous tracks or more. Even with other stuff on the bus, your disk drive or something else will probably crap out before your interface does.

So, that's why I say bandwidth of the interface is probably not the most important concern. But, I've been wrong before.

[Elak]

Firewire 800 has more bandwidth than PCI

Not true