Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill wrote: > Per, you wrote: > > >>it fully sufficient. I would think different though if I was up to >>making multi track recordings, as when recording twenty mic inputs at >>one go. But for everything else FW 400 is as good as FW 800. > > > I'm a little bit curious about this bandwidth issue for firewire when >used > for digital audio. Now if I understand this correctly, one of the big > plusses of FireWire over, say, USB2, is that it works extremely well > (meaning: low overhead) for streams. > > Now if we assume you record twenty mic inputs, and if we furthermore >assume > you record them in 24/96, then simple math gives us a data rate of 20 > (channels) * 96000 (samples per second) * 24 (bits per sample) = 44Mbit/s > (rounded up). With a data rate of 400 MBit/s with FW400, this shouldn't >be a > problem? What am I missing here? > > Rainer As far as I can briefly see - nothing more than maybe forgetting some protocol packet overhead. This was approx the same conclusion on the referred NG. Not wanting to start a discussion about sample rate, but.. Again, on rec.audio.pro, it was mostly agreed that sample rates above 44.1 or 48 doesn't yield anything, other than you her the drive more ;) I'll look for a link to that discussion.. Personally, I choose 48 Khz over 44.1 Khz for reasons that outboard gear often use this clockrate, so interfacing/wordclock is easier, and reportedly some plugins have issues with either slow/fast sample rate. At these sample rates the math looks even nicer, so even if adding a few overlooked speed/protocol issues, I'd say the ability to handle enough simultaneous channels for at least a minor/home studio should be enough - provided the maybe missing link is in place: that the actual interfaces and drivers works as intended per the firewire specs, and the PC/Mac interface sits in a well-designed chipset on a good mobo. I guess everyone knows about inadequite/crappy interfaces/drivers.. -- rgds, van Sinn