Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
whats better for recording audio?
like an RCA or 35mm jack
should have one somewhere.
probably pink with a little microphone picture
maybe i should have explained properly. i wanna get a new mixer and the ones im interested come in firewire or usb connectivity. just wondering whats best, if one has more latency, prone to breaking etc...
is an analogue mixing board
which you'd take the stereo RCA out of and plug it into your audio in of your computer.
Why would you want to mess with USB or firewire for audio?
What are you wanting to do with the audio?
certain mixing desks have firewire/usb which acts as an interface for recording multiple channels of audio.
such as this...
A 3.5mm jack will only allow a stereo signal to be recorded, that is, two tracks, For the purpose of recording the output of an analogue mixer in stereo, or mono, it will suffice. However the sound quality of most integrated soundcards leaves much to be desired.
To answer your question, firewire offers much higher data transfer rates than USB 2.0.
This means that it will let you record multiple channels simultaneously and that it should it offer lower latency. I'm not sure exactly how limiting USB 2.0 is, since my NI AK1 soundcard runs through USB 2.0 and can output two seperate stereo channels (that is, four outputs) whilst recording two seperate mono inputs, but I'm pretty sure that firewire is the way to go when you need record lots of channels.
Might be of interest: http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
You know Apple invented FireWire, right!?
Excluding the current gen MacBook, every Mac has had a FireWire port since the iMac G3.
How many Windows laptop come with FireWire?! I've not seen one in an entry-level or mid-range machine for years!
I thought anyone would work out I meant the ones you buy in the shops.
Thankfully the MacBook White has widened the firewire range again a bit but otherwise you have to pay the big bucks for the pros.
FUCK knows why Apple have been such cocks as to remove it from the normal MacBooks.
Hence the range is limited. You see?
for FireWire from Apple than there is from PC manufacturers - which simply isn't true.
Though I think you'd be hard pressed to find a PC laptop out there that doesn't have a firewire port.
However, isn't the standard MacBook the most popular Mac and the one people are most likely to buy?
Meh, it annoys me, sorry.
My housemates both have PC laptops, one is two years old, one is three months old, one Dell, one HP, neither with FireWire.
It's never really been big on Windows. I remember having to buy a PCI card for the slots when I was building a music PC not so long ago.
All the ones I've encountered have it. They never have the proper wide slot but the mini slot is normally skulking around somewhere.
most people use them for home video uploading and such, all new camcorders come with USB 2.0 - there's an e-mail exchange where Jobs explains his decision to an irritated customer like that.
it is a bit of a pain, as i now need to decide whether to splash out on a pro or to be frugal and go for the macbook white... oh buying nice things is such a CHORE :)
However, it works in a different way to the Firewire. You use the Firewire to transfer the video and you use the USB 2.0 to use it as a web cam and get still shots off it.
Maybe new camcorders all use USB 2.0 like the firewire but this one's only about 2 years old.
you'll get less latency. eg. i have a digi 002 which is firewire and an mbox which is usb2. 002 has alot less latency.
usb 2.0 sort of has higher speeds, but firewire is asynchronous or something which makes it better for audio. or something. either way, its better cos its less glitchy, and is a lot better at dealing with simultaneous recording/playback.