Fantom and DAW/Audio Interface

Have you tried using the Fantom-G as your audio interface? Depending on what you need, you may find it perfectly enough – if you're already happy with recording your guitars and microphone and don't feel like the quality is lacking. Otherwise, yes, a dedicated interface may be better for what you do.

I'm a proponent of using an interface as it will give you more control and recording options. That said, if your kit doesn't include many other instruments you may not need the extra inputs.

The Saffire Pro does look like quite a nice interface for a good price. Eight inputs/outputs + digital I/O for $400. It can provide you 24bit/96khz which may be useful for your film projects. The converters are supposedly solid and the preamps are also spoken well of. I thought the loopback option was interesting although I'm not sure how immediately useful it would be.

Added benefits aside, you should be aware of the issues you could come across too. Firewire audio drivers can be a big pain if they are not compatible with your hardware(however, I still prefer over USB). Recording in higher bit/sampling rates is going to use more harddrive space. More gear equals more cables, equals more money, and more things to worry about.

Unless you are expanding your studio, I think the Saffire is probably a little overboard. If indeed you do need 24bit/96khz+ sampling, there are less expensive options with equally as good of preamps and converters. As the Saffire doesn't have any special DSP effects that might help monitoring/latency, it's really only giving you more inputs that you don't currently need.

On the other hand if you are indeed planning on expansion, you might also look towards something like an RME, MOTU, or Apogee interface. These are very much the standard for quality.

Oh, BTW, if you're on a Mac, you should try Apogee One or Duet.

dbijoux: You're right, there are issues concerning Firewire interfaces and, speaking of Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, I own this interface and I did experience incompatibilities with my HP laptop's integrated Firewire adapter. Of course there is always a solution. It's common for many Firewire interfaces to demand a Texas Instruments chipset for the computer's Firewire interface. Once I got myself a Digitus ExpressCard/34 Firewire adapter, things are perfect now. The Pro 40 offers nearly zero latency, very good audio quality, and I'm able to run whatever I need for my projects inside Sonar 8 PE. Plus it sports all the ins and outs I'll be wanting for the next years.

As far as "USB vs Firewire" argument is concerned, when it comes to audio interfaces, most people will prefer Firewire, as it is far more stable than USB. Of course incompatibilities like the one I mention can exist, but once you set up everything alright, Firewire is the way to go.

We have Lawry I/Os at one and both Apogee 16 AD/DA + Symphony cards at the other studios I'm working at. They are extremely nice and very high quality, but unfortunately also quite expensive.

I also like the Echo Audiofire12 which is a lot cheaper, but still very high quality. You can get one used for around 400€. Of course now one has to check 64bit driver support...

At home I use my Fantom G as my audio interface. It works well, but I wish the MIX IN screen would be an actual mixer (with abilty to save scenes) so I could use L+R inputs AND usb inputs at the same time, AND mic inputs AND guitar/bass inputs AND Digi IO. I don't understand why just one must be active...

As far as "USB vs Firewire" argument is concerned, when it comes to audio interfaces, most people will prefer Firewire, as it is far more stable than USB. Of course incompatibilities like the one I mention can exist, but once you set up everything alright, Firewire is the way to go.

The truth is, that both interfaces are very similar in their ability to work sufficiently as audio interface solutions. Tascam (a leader in audio technology) released a USB audio interface recently with model US-1641. It is USB "2.0" of course and has been highly rated by musicians. With a plethora of features e.g.:

* 16 simultaneous Inputs
* 4 Simultaneous Outputs
* 14 x 4 Analog Input/Output
* Stereo S/PDIF Digital Input/Output
* 8 XLR Mic Inputs with Phantom Power
* USB 2.0 Computer Interface
* Up to 96kHz/24-bit Audio Resolution
* Zero-latency Hardware Monitoring
* Independent Monitor and Headphone Outputs
* 16-channel MIDI Input and Output
* Includes Steinberg Cubase LE4 and TASCAM Continuous Velocity Piano
* ASIO and Core Audio support for Windows XP, Windows Vista and Mac OS X
* Weight: 3.2kg / 7.1 lb
* Dimensions (WxDxH): 19" x 11.1" x 1.74" (482.6mm x 280mm x 44mm)

>> and at $400 bucks (280 Euro) it is a fine example of an highly touted USB audio interface solution.

Firewire is nice too of course, especially if you are into Video editing/transfer. If that is the case then you may want to go with Firewire because of its "constant connection" methodology. But truth be known, Firewire is on the verge of becoming extinct most likely once USB 3.0 hits the market later this year, or early next year, and once it finally gets fully established in the marketplace. In fact, Apple Computer has been eliminating Firewire connections altogether from some of its computer products, relying instead upon USB 2.0 in their place and eventually on USB 3.0 when it comes out and gets established in the marketplace. I think Apple has indeed seen the writing on the wall concerning Firewire when comparing it "spec wise" to USB 3.0, and have decided to eventually pull the plug on Firewire at some point down the road most likely. In the time being though, both options are considered "sufficient" for using as an audio interface solution. >> Six of one, half dozen of the other in other words. Take your pick - depending on your specific need.

Not to get too far off subject, but there is no truth in the extinction of Firewire. Even Firewire 400 is better than USB 2.0 and Firewire 800 is far ahead. 1394c is spec'd to use fiber connections and transfer at 6.4gb/s (50% faster than USB 3.0).

The problem with Firewire and specifically audio interfaces seems to me that the manufacturers lack thorough implemenation of their drivers. Firewire is far more advanced relying on hardware rather than the CPU and OS to manage the protocol. USB 1.0 and even 2.0 never reached the proposed transfer rates in the real world.

What I've noticed is that the cheaper firewire solutions seem to be plagued by compatibility issues while higher end interfaces seem to have far fewer complaints. I suppose this could be a combination of things, ie: most running an RME or Motu aren't likely to be using a budget laptop as their DAW.

As for Apple, who knows where they are going? It seems to me Microsoft has an intrinsic advantage to implementing USB as they originally designed it. Why there are many reports of Apple's firewire problems with some interfaces, I'm not sure.

PS. I agree, there are probably more important considerations to what you need than USB vs Firewire; namely I/O, A/D/A conversion, and timing/latency.

Yes, Firewire is still being "enhanced" just as USB is being improved and enhanced. Although even though 1394c has been around since 2007 there are currently no products or chipsets which include this capability that I'm aware of. Future iterations of FireWire are expected to bring a bump in speed to 6.4 Gbit/s, yes, but who knows when or if this will become a reality?

OTOH, on the "near" horizon USB 3.0 is looming to take the speed crown away from its rivals and should severely hinder and/or diminish any chance that Firewire will once again reign supreme in the future in my humble opinion. That's not to say it can't happen but when you look at the current fiasco with 1394c one wonders.

Read on:

Intel demonstrated a working version of USB 3.0 at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas way back in January '09. Here's why it will make eSATA and FireWire obsolete.

When USB 3.0 is expected to hit the market in early 2010, it will have been 10 years since the now ubiquitous USB 2.0 was introduced (April 2000). The current USB 2.0 specification runs at a theoretical maximum speed of 480Mbps, and can supply power.

According to the USB Implementers Forum, there were 2 billion USB 2.0 devices shipped in 2006 (one for every three people in the world), and the install base was 6 billion (almost one for every person in the world). In November 2007, the USB Implementers forum announced the USB 3.0 specifications, and Intel officially demonstrated the technology at CES 2009.

Now, the juice: USB 3.0 promises a theoretical maximum rate of 5Gbps, meaning it's 10 times faster than USB 2.0. USB 3.0 is also full duplex, meaning it can upload and download simultaneously (it's bi-directional); USB 2.0 is only half duplex.

Put side by side with eSATA and FireWire 800, USB 3.0 is far superior. eSATA, an external connection that runs at the same speed as the internal SATA 1.0 bus, has a maximum theoretical of 3Gbps. This makes USB 3.0 faster than eSATA and about six times faster than FireWire 800 (full duplex at 800Mbps).

USB 3.0 also provides another advantage; while eSATA is faster than FireWire 800, unlike FireWire it cannot supply power. USB 3.0 has the advantage of being faster than both, even while supplying power.

Finally, USB 3.0 has improved power management, meaning that devices can move into idle, suspend, and sleep states. This potentially means more battery life out of laptops and other battery-based USB-supporting devices like cameras and mobile phones.

Of course, there are other factors to consider; the FireWire 3200 standard is also in the works and promises to allow 3.2GHz speeds on existing FireWire 800 hardware. USB 2.0 generally doesn't meet its theoretical maximum throughput, due to its dependence on hardware and software configuration, where FireWire gets much closer.

It's hard to say whether USB 3.0's updated architecture will still use more CPU time than FireWire does.

But in the age of powerful hardware (can anyone say "3.2GHz, quad-core CPUs"?), all of this means that FireWire is still not going to match USB 3.0's theoretical maximum of 5Gbps.

The ultimate signal that this war has already been won is Apple's recent decision to ditch FireWire from its consumer line in favor of USB. Previously, Cupertino had been one of FireWire's greatest advocates. And surely the company will be one of the first to adopt USB 3.0.

Alex Serpo of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.

>> Will Firewire indeed become extinct like many predict? Time will certainly tell but it is true that Apple has been known to pull some really fancy rabbits out of its hat on occasion. So I wouldn't put it past them to make a comeback. Besides, competition is good for both consumers and manufacturers alike. So the constant tug of war to outdo one another is really a good thing and insures innovation and competitive prices in the marketplace.

keysme: All these are really very interesting, but I don't know how will the new USB 3.0 standard be adopted by the audio technology industry. Right now USB 2.0 offers slightly higher speed than Firewire400, but even Firewire400 gets preferable than USB 2.0 when it comes to high-quality audio interfaces. Not to talk about Firewire800. Right now Firewire offers the advantage of better stability.
So I don't think that the situation can be predicted, it is too early to judge right now. Only time will tell.
Of course for eSATA things can be dramatic, since it is only a storage standard, so it can be overcome from USB 3.0 when the new standard hits the market.

All said, for us users it's all good for us, to have all the industry compete for the most successful protocol. It helps the competition work for us, to have the best products at our disposal.

Interesting read, I agree.

Was that an Intel press release by chance?

I have Firewire and eSATA II/USB2.0 here. When I transfer in eSATA it seems 100x faster, like greased lightning! My problem with USB is that well it's Microsoft spec and furthermore is like another all-in-one solution to me. I have to wonder if you were simultaneously recording multi-tracks on a USB interface to a project on an external drive, would it hit a speedbump? Obviously, with 3.0 even running at half of 5Gb/s should provide ample bandwidth for most anything today - tho I wonder what kind of CPU overhead these blinding speeds are going to cause.

That said, I don't fully understand why the Firewire chipsets and integrating with Windows is problematic. I also have had issues with my interface, but it's very much in part to the developers. I think many companies are still getting their 'software' division up to speed - hopefully someday solving silly driver issues, if they can keep up with Microsoft releases.

One thing we haven't mentioned here is PCI-based interfaces. Certainly another option to look at if you're not on laptop.

keysme: All these are really very interesting, but I don't know how will the new USB 3.0 standard be adopted by the audio technology industry.

In my opinion they will jump on it i.e. "adopt" it eventually, but how long it takes before they actualy do is very questionable if you ask me. For example, look at the situation with keyboard manufacturers adopting USB 2.0 over the former USB 1.1. It seems like Roland and the rest of them were trying to milk USB 1.1 for what seemed like forever and then "begrudgingly" adopted USB 2.0 only after they couldn't get any more milk out of USB 1.1 in my opinion.

There was a buzz in the keyboard community a few years ago and keyboardists, in many cases, were 'demanding' that keyboard manufacturers "get with the program" and start offering the current USB 2.0 specification on their keyboard products, which USB 2.0 has been commonplace now for a decade as we all know. For whatever reason (and I have my theories ) the keyboard manufacturers are about 7 years behind the curve when it comes to adopting current computer technology products. I think the main reason they do this is for marketing purposes (to sell more products believe it or not). Roland, Yammie, Korg and the rest of them essentially stand back and watch as people buy current technology products from the computer industry e.g. computers, peripherals, components, you name it. People experience these amazing new technologies in their lives and are saturated and satiated by all the new technology and they get use to the "bigger, faster, better, cooler things" that they bring to the table. Then along come the "poky" keyboard manufacturers, who cater to musicians and in our particular case keyboardists - who have already experienced these "extreme cool" gadgets the computer industry has on the market to offer. So then the keyboard manufacturers (after milking the older technologies for all their worth e.g. USB 1.1, etc.) throw out an occasional "bone" (hopefully with some real "meat" on it too, right? ) to us, the keyboard masses, i.e. you and me and every other keyboardist on the planet for that matter. When we dawgs get a whiff of the aroma from the "bone" we essentially devour it or them (if they happen to throw us several bones at a time - having been already nearly starved by and from the older technologies the keyboard manufacturers seem to cling on to what seems like forever i.e. USB 1.1, etc.

So narrowing down what I am trying to say, when Roland or Yammie or Korg throw us a bone or two, or three, etc., it causes an extreme "buzz" (hype) within the keyboard community and, depending on the "coolness" of the bone(s) they throw us (hopefully with a lot of meat on them too like I said ) sales then skyrocket because keyboardists (and people in general) have already realized and experienced the 'uber' benefit that these new technologies bring to the table, and which the computer industry has already "lavishly" bestowed on the public for years, before the keyboard industry seems to get around to updating their "obsolete" and ready for the computer dinosaur museum technologies that they seem to cling on to for years and years on end, and seemingly with NO pity for the masses who crave the "uber" cool new technologies e.g. USB 3.0, the "fastest" processor possible, software that is actually fully functional, etc. And the reason they do it, like I said, is to "stimulate sales" in my opinion - all in the name of "withholding" the latest/greatest technologies that the computer industry "lavishly" and "frequently" bestows on the masses on what seems to be a "continual" basis. >> Polar opposites from Roland, Yammie, Korg and the rest of the keyboard manufacturers it seems huh..

Now before people stone me or throw me to the lions (you know who you are.. ) I was extremely pleased when Roland finally implemented USB 2.0 on the Fantom G. But as you can see, that was just a little over a year ago, when in fact USB "2".0 has already been commonplace on the market for a decade. >> Such is life on the "poky" keyboard manufacturer's farm I suppose eh? But in all reality, things "could" change and they "could" deliver newer technologies "sooner" to the public if they "wanted" to. But then, in my opinion, their sales would begin to taper off because the incentive to "buy, buy, buy" would slowly evaporate because the "buzz" within the keyboard community would instead be a small insignificant blip on the radar, instead of the now "tsunami" when they happen to throw us beggars a bone or two e.g. USB 2.0, etc.

If indeed the keyboard manufacturers actually kept pace with the current technologies that the Computer Industry already has on the table to offer to the public, the occasional "tsunami" buzz they now offer would mostly be a gentle "ripple" on the water in my humble opinion. Or at least so goes my theory anyway. So they withhold and withhold and withhold, and then the occasional "tsunami" to liven things up in the marketplace, like when they offer USB 2.0, etc. >> So that means we should start seeing USB "3".0 in Roland keyboards in about a "decade" or so huh? lol.. Oh.., and I'm sure Roland will sell a "boat load" of them when they eventually do come out with one with USB 3.0 right?

Ah!! those occasional "bones" sure are good aren't they! I feel a little hungry again though, now that I think about it. Roland?? Are you dudes out there?? Pretty please?? With sugar on top?? Ah, c'mon! Be a sport.. You can do it!

A decade? I just got USB 2.0 this year!!!

Ok, I half scanned your reply - but here's the thing. Even if Roland put USB 2.0 on the X or Juno lines, it wouldn't have mattered because the memory reads are so damned slow. In this case, USB is not the bottleneck and is certainly more than sufficient to transfer MIDI.

In a strange turnaround, this whole concept of workstation vs computer almost half fits with the discussion and why augmenting the keyboard with a DAW is essential for a comprehensive workflow.

Remember, Roland is not Microsoft - turning out beta Operating Systems every other year.

>A decade?

Yes, the USB 2.0 specification was released in April 2000.

Lets not forget Fantom G uses DIMM tech that is "ancient" too.

Look at what Beat Kangz are going to squeeze into their little 999USD Beat Thang, just take a look at the specs. Then think about what Roland offers for twice as much money, in terms of connectivity, innovation, workflow.. etc. http://vimeo.com/6105769

I think it will be a well needed enema for the competition once it is released...

dbijoux,

yeah USB 1.1 is certainly fine for Midi but there is some additional benefit with USB 2.0 when it comes to working with Samples, etc. I agree with you that there are other bottlenecks, such as the processor, side bus, internal memory speeds, etc. that can inhibit the overall effectiveness of USB 2.0's peak throughput. Which just goes to show you that the keyboard manufacturers are indeed way behind the curve ball when it comes to enabling "peak performance efficiency" throughout the "entire" keyboard system(s), not just one or two separate areas where other bottlenecks could still linger.

Again, I think it is a case of "withholding" the latest greatest on their keyboards because in doing so it actually stimulates their own bottom line - when they do happen to do the occasional spec "upgrade" dance or jig. It's more of a "shock and awe" approach within the keyboard community and when it happens people suddenly are more willing to open up their wallets and fork over their dough and because of it Roland, Yammie, and Korg will receive the bountiful rewards from that "withholding". I could be wrong but that is how I theorize why they do things the way they do. Case in point, when Roland comes out in three or four years with their next full blown Workstation which has 192 notes of polyphony (plus a few other major goodies like DDR implementation) you could almost hear the wallets opening up in mass now. Cha-ching!!

Of course Dan Krisher could put an end to all the speculation but I doubt he would give away Roland's "secret" though. Roland's higher up's are probably holding a gun to his head right now just in case he happens to get itchy fingers too. Yeah, don't even think about it Dan. Your job is too important to "us" (and you) for you to think about losing it on our behalf by giving away Roland's generational secret. Nevertheless, speculation continues to abound in cyberspace as to why keyboard manufacturers appear to be sooooo 'poky' when it comes to implementing "reasonably" current product technology on their keyboard product lines within a 'similar' time frame that the Computer industry does. Again, I, for one, have my own theory as to why - which I've just divulged to the world, or at least to those here on RC. >> What you do with the information you have received is up to you.