Here's what I go.

I go here: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

These nerds have their standardized tests which I'm sure are close enough for audio usage. I wish you could cross reference the CPU speed with the price to show the best bang for the buck. Maybe someday I can write a script that does that. For now, you've got to do it the old fashioned way and go to Newegg.com (or whatever) and look for yourself to see which one is right for you in terms of price.

BTW, it's worth double checking the prices. Sometimes a $900 processor and a $300 processor are virtually identical in performance!

Brandon

I see person after person after person looking for an audio interface ask if either USB 2.0 or Firewire is better. The truth is they are both fairly similar. The specs are close enough. For all practical purposes, for the guy just wanting to make music at home, they are identical.

That I don't have an issue with.

Then people ALWAYS start discussing which one has greater transient through-put and which one has better sustained bandwidth. Bla bla bla I don't even have the terminology down. I can't help but wonder, “Are there this many people out there who are designing or modifying audio interfaces?”. It just blows my mind that so many people are tearing into discrete surface mount technology in their garages.

The truth is no one I know is modifying their audio interface (preamp modifications aside).

So let's talk about the Tascam US-1641. It's a USB 2.0 interface with 14 analog inputs (8 preamps) and 2 S/PDIF inputs. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the engineers at Tascam know exactly what they are doing. Tascam has been a respected manufacturer of audio recording products for decades. I certainly have no reason to question their understanding. Most people on the forum probably aren't in a position to argue with these people either.

I think it's safe to say the Tascam guys tested the USB 2.0 method quite thoroughly before unleashing this beast to the public. To insinuate that the US-1641 is incapable of 16 simultaneous tracks of recording is also to insinuate that the designers simply through it together in a weekend and shipped it out the door. I have no idea how long R&D takes for an audio interface but I'm guessing it's substantial. I have no idea what it costs to configure a factory to produce these things, but, again, I think it's substantial! To say that Tascam or any other manufacturer of USB 2.0 audio interfaces is releasing products that simple are incapable of doing the job seems to be complete madness to me.

So What Is The Debate?
If USB 2.0 is totally capable of 16 simultaneous tracks or recording (probably more) day in and day out, what are we debating? People often make the claim that Firewire is better because of it's persistent connection. What is guy recording at home going to gain?

Taking It Further
If a person really wanted to criticize a product for it's computer connection method, we should take a look at all aspects of the design of that interface. What is the metal housing made of? I'm sure whatever the nearly retired space Shuttle Endeavor is made of is probably stronger. What about the power supply? I'm sure for $4,000,000 we can find a more stable power supply. What about input jacks for XLR and 1/4”? Are they gold plated? Wouldn't that be better?

Conclusion
The truth is you can always find ways to make the design of a machine better, but that doesn't mean that product itself will be any more effective at what it is designed to do. I'm don't see how either USB 2.0 or Firewire is going to make better recordings more reliably. They both seem to be quite adequate.

I have to be the only person on earth who upgraded from a computer as ancient as my Athlon 64 2800 to an Intel Quadcore Q8200. According to various benchmarks I've read online, it appears my Quadcore is between 9 and 14 times faster than my previous computer. With my previous computer I could get maybe 1-2 instances of Amplitude if I had 10-12 tracks of drums with typical processing at 160 samples latency before I ran into problems with glitches and such. With the Quadcore I got bored after tossing 8 instances up and I wasn't anywhere near close to maxing out the processor.

1. It's been so amazing that it makes we want to mix more.
2. When I record, I dramatically less time fighting my computer.
3. I can be as creative as I want to and my brain doesn't need to divert a junk of its energy to CPU economics.
4. New possibilities have opened up that have an outstanding effect on the recordings I'm cranking out.
5. I don't have to bother freezing tracks, committing tracks to wav files, etc. No time is wasted going through the various tactics to save CPU power.
6. Loading up drum samples such as Superior Drummer 2.0 takes a fraction of the time. The difference between 8 seconds and 60 seconds is outstanding when you are in creative mode.
7. Because I no longer have to wait 60 seconds for samples to load, my studio is way messier. I spend less time cleaning and more time rocking!
8. Creativity Viagra – Nothing kills the moment like a computer that can't keep up with the action. I find that I can work and work and work without losing my creative edge.
9. The price of upgrading was cheap. I paid less than $400 and that included upgrading my previous 60GB C: drive up to a 750GB drive.
10. Utilities even run faster. Programs such as Razorlame, my MP3 conversion software, run about 10x faster.