Design Article
Comment
Voegelchen
Keep in mind, that 1394 has one simple benefit not mentioned here: There are no ...
kdboyce
As an interesting side note to this article, the entire music score and music ...
Digital audio relies on the features and benefits of IEEE 1394
Morten Lave, CEO of TC Applied Technologies
5/25/2011 9:58 AM EDT
Realistically, the 1394 interconnect is the only viable solution for the scenario we've just reviewed. The reasons include bandwidth, topology, isochronous capability, timing information carried with the data, and peer-to-peer communications. It's also important that 1394 allows scalability via additional devices that musicians can add to the bus as required.
Professional audio requires significant bandwidth. The I/O boxes capture 24-bit data sampled at rates as fast as 96 kHz. The 1394 interconnect supports data rates as fast as 400 or 800 Mbps. And faster 1.6- and 3.2-Gbps versions are on the way. Generally, the 400-Mbps flavor affords the performance required in a professional audio application.
The story, however, goes well beyond bandwidth. The 1394 interconnect is inherently a peer-to-peer bus. Any device can initiate a data transfer to any other device or to multiple devices. The host PC does not have to be involved. In our concert scenario, the I/O box can transfer data directly to a mixer and the PC.
The 1394 interconnect guarantees QoS (quality of service) via its isochronous capabilities. Essentially, a 1394-based device can reserve the bandwidth it needs. Ad hoc traffic on the interconnect will not impact the real-time audio streams.
Timing information is also carried along with data on the 1394 interface. That timing information is critical for the producers mixing a recording back in the studio - allowing easy synchronization of multiple channels.
The scalability angle allows musicians to buy I/O boxes and mixers with the channels they presently require while knowing that they may need more channels later. It may also allow a band to carry less gear to a performance relative to what they need in a studio.
The 1394 interconnect supports almost any topology including most commonly a daisy chain of devices. That makes it easy to connect a PC, I/O box, and mixer. But device manufacturers such as Presonus also utilize that topology to offer an expandable system. For example, you can link two 16-channel mixers and realize a 32-channel mixer with the 1394 interface proving the real-time connection.
The peer-to-peer and synchronization capabilities also come into play in such daisy-chained scenarios. For example, the second mixer acts as a slave to the first. But the slave mixer can simultaneously transfer its output to the master mixer and the PC.
Next: USB and Ethernet
|
|
|
|
|
frenet
5/25/2011 1:19 PM EDT
IEEE 1394 is being removed from its last nich market, professional audio. I can understand the problem of Mr Lave and his desire to see IEEE1394 being the super champion of professional audio and have TCTechnologies which bet everything on IEEE1394 succeed. But if there is no doubt IEEE1394 is a better technology than USB from a latency point of view and from P2P transfer it's a doomed technology which will not live the next 5 years.
USB3 is there with all its default but it will conquer the professional audio by its ubiquity and cheapness. Present in all new motherboards and chipset it's free for the consumer and the raw transfer speed will compensate for lack of P2P transfer. CPU+GPU processing power is cheap (AMD Fusion processor for example), the fact handset manufacturer will not deploy usb3.0 does not seem an heavyweight argument.
And even ethernet with realtime capacity and AVB should unify on stage all the different bus used (midi/DMX/analog transport).
IEEE1394 is a superior technology as was token ring, it wont prevent it to disappear soon. I hope TCTechnologies is going to do USB and Ethernet products soon.
Sign in to Reply
Charles Hansen
5/26/2011 5:47 PM EDT
Frenet's comment is on the mark.
The "article" was written by the CEO of a company whose revenue depends heavily on FireWire audio. More of an "advertorial", really...
Sign in to Reply
kinnar
5/29/2011 2:15 PM EDT
Technically IEEE1394 has got more benefit compared to USB if you compare architecture of both. So even though USB 3.0 is getting standardized still the audio equipment designer are using IEEE1394.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
5/29/2011 5:10 PM EDT
Having lived through the various Ethernet/token ring/100VG LAN wars, not to mention Internet Protocol vs IPX vs ISO, and other contenders like DECnet and SNA, let me say I am skeptical about how IEEE 1394's specific attributes will ensure its longevity. Every scheme has its strong suits, but what history shows time and again is that the winner almost always find a way around its weaknesses. The winner is usually the simplest and cheapest solution, which overpowers the competition by "throwing bandwidth" at the problem. Which it can afford to do thanks to its lower cost. And beyond that, the winner usually finds a way, in its upgrade cycle, to introduce features that were once the sole province of the fancier schemes.
The first two versions of USB might have required the PC bus master to poll any connected device, but USB 3.0 is supposed to permit any connected device to initiate transfers. So the advantage of 1394 peer to peer communications becomes not so unique after all. The original USB might have been restricted to mouse and keyboard connections, but USB 2.0 can reach 480 Mb/s, and 3.0 has a path to at least 5 Gb/s. So honestly, how difficult can it be to establish multiple audio patyhs over such an interconnect?
The initially more "elegant" solutions are certainly not the ones that prove to be the ultimate winners.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
5/29/2011 7:08 PM EDT
Although the author's company has a financial interest in 1394's continued use in pro audio, his points are still valid. 1394's isochronous capability, peer-to-peer capability, and carrying timing information with the data are huge benefits in a recording studio or in a live sound production environment. USB and Ethernet were historically inadequate to meet the demands of multi-channel pro audio production. That could be overcome with the sheer power of huge bandwidth, but it's difficult to imagine audio engineers abandoning a solution that already works, on the promise that something newer and cheaper has more bandwidth, so don't worry about the protocol limitations.
Sign in to Reply
Bellhop
6/3/2011 3:29 PM EDT
Betamax was technically superior to VHS. The rest is history.
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
6/30/2011 2:40 AM EDT
As an interesting side note to this article, the entire music score and music production for the movie "Avatar" was done on 6 Pro Tools HD hardware and software systems and some Mac computers. The HD interface was PCI Express. Earlier, non "HD" products used Firewire and USB2.0.
Sign in to Reply
Voegelchen
4/26/2013 4:47 AM EDT
Keep in mind, that 1394 has one simple benefit not mentioned here: There are no switches necessary and you can use it as a bus if you have many devices, like in a studio (mixer, mics, effects,...). USB has the disadvantage only to be a point 2 point connection, ethernet needs switches and switches cost time, see AVB and limited number of 7 hops (endpoints & switches)... also regenerating clock from USB devices isn't that easy if not impossible to reach firewire quality in this point. In the technical point of view, firewire is a better solution than ethernet or USB.
Sign in to Reply