USB 2 Hardware Upgrade

    im confused - is the hardware in the TI simply 'forwards compatible 1.1' which is implicit since USB 2.0 hosts are backwards compatible...


    OR


    Is it a cheapy USB 2.0 device which actually cant run in high speed USB 2 (such that im surprised it even exists)...


    I think the extra bandwidth would be more fun for routing audio outs, such that you can push them through the TI effects, etc...


    Monomeester - I ask the question again, why are you associating the bandwidth of USB with parts? The polyphony of the virus has nothing to do with the USB or your ability to drive parts...


    It DOES have something to do with being able to have different parts on different USB outs on the ASIO driver - But i'm sure that is not the only limiting factor, the USB is not the only channel on the chain from the inner workings of the DSP chip to your studio, more channels means more buffers means more bandwidth everywhere, not just the USB...

    Zitat von Marc

    yes, USB2 w/ a transfer speed of 12mbit/s


    marc

    this is rather confusing: USB1.1 is FS 12mbit/s, USB2 is HS 480mbit/s. If the VirusTI can't go physically over FS 12mbit/s, is not USB2 at all.
    If the chip is labelled USB2 means, implicitly that it can reach HS 480mbit/s when using the HS protocol.
    Please notice that an USB2 chipset CAN be used in "legacy USB1.x mode" and that's limit the bandwidth (1.5mbit or 12mbit, depends if used in LS or FS mode) but to make it work in native HS mode (480mbit/s) is just a matter of software/firmware.
    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_2.0
    USB2 Developer Docs: http://www.usb.org/developers/usb20/


    Marc, could you talk with a technician about this thing? It would be rather interesting to know.
    Thanks!

    Looking over some recently announced laptops with win7 I just thought that since more and more manufacturers (Apple as well) tend to have just two USB ports in new laptop models Access must have pay attention to usb compatibility issue and ensure that Virus TI (if Access doesn't have plans for new synth) must be functional also through usb hubs (ok maybe disabling audio), but VC for patch editing and midi transmission must be fully functional. PC industry doesn't understand why you would need many usb ports if there are hubs, so they just remove additional usb ports and it seems that any developer for which dedicated usb port is vital must provide it's own solution these days.

    Quite right gjvti, USB is ideal for intermittent traffic which is not time critical - mice, keyboards, scanners, usb sticks. Audio streaming is within the bandwidth of USB but its not guaranteed to get there on time. This is obviously not straight forward enough to have glitch free operation in VC with audio streams, even after 3 versions and many many fixes. Insisting on a USB root of its own is a workaround for the limitation of USB, not the solution.



    IMO VC is now very very good, but the way it operates can be fragile. DAWs in general can be fragile. Neither can replace the robustness of hardware sequencing and din-plug midi. I hope that soon the exciting exploration into what is possible with DAW gets matched with reliability and dependability.



    Cheers,


    B

    I think that some people here are getting quite confused for no reason -- USB 2.0 is a specification which involves MANY parts, one of which is **support** for a higher maximum speed. See this for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_2.0


    So in light of the above spec, it's should be no great mystery how a device can support USB 2.0 while not supporting speeds above 12MBit/s: the spec clearly shows that "USB 2.0 supports up to 480MBit/s".


    Both the "supports" and the "up to" language make it quite obvious that the transfer rate being specified is a maximum, not a minimum, and furthermore this maximum speed is merely supported -- not required.


    Nowhere in the spec does it **require** 480MBps in order for devices to be certified as 2.0 compatible. There are many differences from USB 1.0 to 2.0 beyond transfer speed, however they may not be as easy to understand or as obvious to users.


    If you care about transfer speed, look at the specific speed labeling -- Low/Full/High is what matters, not the protocol version #. If it says "High Speed" then 480MBps is indeed required, otherwise it's not.


    Definitely the spec and terminology could be a bit less confusing, but it's not some inscrutable mystery beyond comprehension!


    Having said that, it seems like Firewire would be a better choice over USB, sadly for some reason it was overlooked :(

    Zitat von raigan

    Having said that, it seems like Firewire would be a better choice over USB, sadly for some reason it was overlooked :(


    I don't think it was overlooked, but they probably made that decision due to the fact that usb is common. Firewire ports aren't very standard at all on non-apple hardware

    Zitat von robg

    I don't think it was overlooked, but they probably made that decision due to the fact that usb is common. Firewire ports aren't very standard at all on non-apple hardware


    It is a common misconception that firewire would create stable and reliant communication by itself. In fact, both busses have pros and cons, yet, the decision to USB was a pretty clear one. One thing was that there was no Firewire chip capable of handling multiple audiostreams AND MIDI and stuff with low latency available. For USB, it was. In general, the debate over this is pretty tedious.


    cu
    -timo