[Mike Rivers]

Is there such an animal?

No, I don't need a faster mouse, but I'm thinking about a
potential problem with using a multi-channel USB audio
interface on my sleazy little computer that has only two USB
ports (USB2, fortunately) but as far as I can tell, they're
both off the same "hub."

Folklore, and I believe it's correct, is that all ports on a
USB hub run at the speed of the lowest device connected. So
plugging in both a standard mouse (which, as far as I know,
is USB 1.1) so I don't have to work with the touch pad
together with the audio I/O box would slow the audio data
flow down to USB 1.1 speed.

TASCAM was getting 6 44.1 kHz streams (4 in, 2 out) with
their USB 1.1 interfaces several years back, but given the
current crop of USB 2 interfaces that can do 8 channels at
96 kHz, putting a standard mouse on the same USB bus is a
pretty big sacrafice.

So what options are available, if any. How about those
wireless mice with the stubby little USB receiver? Are they
USB 2.0? Or do some or all new USB mice use USB 2.0? I
haven't bought a new mouse in years since the optical ones
don't wear out.

This computer doesn't have an expansion card slot, so I
can't "plug in" another USB port.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Is there such an animal?

No, I don't need a faster mouse, but I'm thinking about a
potential problem with using a multi-channel USB audio
interface on my sleazy little computer that has only two USB
ports (USB2, fortunately) but as far as I can tell, they're
both off the same "hub."

Before going through the rest of your quest, it may be a good idea to verify
that your ports are branched off of the same "hub". This is not the case
with my computers, including two notebooks. It also sounds as if you're
wanting to solve a problem that you may or may not have. Why not test your
audio interface under load and see whether you have a problem?

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/18/2011 8:21 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Before going through the rest of your quest, it may be a good idea to verify
that your ports are branched off of the same "hub". This is not the case
with my computers, including two notebooks. It also sounds as if you're
wanting to solve a problem that you may or may not have.

So you're answering my general question by telling me that I
might not have a problem? Puhlleeeze!

I have several computers, and one or more of them may
actually have more than one actual USB bus. However, I
seriously doubt that's the case with the netbook that only
cost $200. I think it was a valid question. If I don't have
a problem, maybe someone else does.

Why not test your
audio interface under load and see whether you have a problem?

I may not be able to create a valid test with an ample
margin. I'd rather just know that I'm not doing something
that is potentially a problem. Wouldn't you?

And since you might actually know something about this that
i don't, how do you know that your notebook computers have
independent ports? Are they Macs? On a Mac, you can see
what devices are connected to which ports, but on a PC,
unless there's a utility that will display this, you can't
tell using the most likely tool that Windows offers (the
Device Manager).

This morning I finished reading the article that caused me
to think about this, and, without mentioning any names, says
that there are some powered USB hubs (external, of course)
that can path both USB1.1 and USB2.0 connections at their
respective speed without slowing down the whole shebang.
Though it's one more thing to reduce portability and add
another point of failure, perhaps one of those, if I could
be sure I had one, might be a good work-around, or at least
a useful test tool.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/18/2011 8:21 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Why not test your
audio interface under load and see whether you have a problem?

I may not be able to create a valid test with an ample
margin.

Why would this be difficult? Load all of the interface's inputs with a
signal, start recording, wiggle the mouse, and then look at the resultant
waveforms to see if there are glitches. What am I missing here?

And since you might actually know something about this that
i don't, how do you know that your notebook computers have
independent ports?

I could surmise that the ports were separate by connecting a device to
different ports. If the device was previously connected to the port, the
system recognized it. If not, it loaded drivers for the device _for that
port_ and recognized it on subsequent connections. Although there are other
possible explanations for this behavior, most likely if the ports were just
branches of a hub the computer would recognize the device on any port once
it was previously connected since there wouldn't be any way for it to
distinguish between them.

But, you're right that not all computers have this configuration, so someone
may have to solve the problem if it turns out that there is a problem based
on the above test.

This morning I finished reading the article that caused me
to think about this, and, without mentioning any names, says
that there are some powered USB hubs (external, of course)
that can path both USB1.1 and USB2.0 connections at their
respective speed without slowing down the whole shebang.
Though it's one more thing to reduce portability and add
another point of failure, perhaps one of those, if I could
be sure I had one, might be a good work-around, or at least
a useful test tool.

It could be a useful tool, and not be too cumbersome, since those things
aren't very large or heavy.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/18/2011 9:45 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Why would this be difficult? Load all of the interface's inputs with a
signal, start recording, wiggle the mouse, and then look at the resultant
waveforms to see if there are glitches. What am I missing here?

For one thing (sorry for withholding this information), I
don't actually HAVE an 8-channel 96 kHz USB interface at the
moment. I'm gathering information as to what problems I
might run into and how they might be solved. But the
problem, as I see it, isn't when you wiggle the mouse, it's
throughput when the USB1.1 device is connected to the same
port as the audio interface. I suppose I could get some
insight by recording without the mouse connected, then
recording with the mouse connected and see if there's a
difference. If a problem shows up immediately, that's a
positive test. But if I don't see a glitch until half an
hour? Or two hours? I don't really have what's in essence a
calibrated test instrument, I can only conduct a simple
demonstration.

I could surmise that the ports were separate by connecting a device to
different ports. If the device was previously connected to the port, the
system recognized it. If not, it loaded drivers for the device _for that
port_ and recognized it on subsequent connections. Although there are other
possible explanations for this behavior, most likely if the ports were just
branches of a hub the computer would recognize the device on any port once
it was previously connected since there wouldn't be any way for it to
distinguish between them.

Unfortunately, that's the way it works in Windows. It's not
a function of the path, it's a function of the hole. I can
plug a USB flash drive into each of the four ports of the
hub I have mounted under my desk (for easy reach) and even
though there's only one cable going to the computer, the
first time it's plugged into a new hole, it looks like "new
hardware."

But, you're right that not all computers have this configuration, so someone
may have to solve the problem if it turns out that there is a problem based
on the above test.

I'm not sure I'm correctly interpreting what I've been
reading since my first post, but it seems that modern USB
controllers, identified in the Device Manager as "Enhanced
USB Controller," actually have two devices to interface with
the connector. One handles USB2.0 devices, the other handles
USB1.1 devices. Since they operate independently, and the
computer side of each is what's bussed together to talk to
the computer, such a controller may indeed not have a
problem with mixing device speeds. Three computers that I
looked at, including the cheap netbook, have such a controller.

I found an interesting utility, USBINFO which is now
discontinued (hell, all three of the computers that I ran it
on are also discontinued), so it's only usable as annoyware
for a limited number of runs. What it does is displays the
USB configuration, showing separate low and high speed
controllers. When I plug a high speed USB drive into any of
the ports, this utility shows it connected to the high speed
controller. If I connect a low speed device (in this case a
Behringer UCA-200 stereo audio interface) to any of the
ports, the utility shows it connected to the low speed
controller.

I have one laptop dating back to about 2000 (currently on
the dining room table, doing my tax return) that was
pre-USB2 and hence doesn't have an Enhanced USB controller.
I'll have to try loading up that utility and compare its
diagram with one on the newer computers

So maybe, like so much other computer information on the
'net (and even in print), what was true a couple of
generations ago is no longer true. I'd like to get a reading
from someone who has a better and more up to date general
knowledge of computers, specifically Windows, than I, however.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Frank]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:41:24 -0500, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article USB 2.0 Mouse ????,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:


"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Is there such an animal?

No, I don't need a faster mouse, but I'm thinking about a potential
problem with using a multi-channel USB audio interface on my sleazy little
computer that has only two USB ports (USB2, fortunately) but as far as I
can tell, they're both off the same "hub."

Mike, if Device Manager's "View | Devices by connection" (as opposed
to "View | Devices by type") option isn't giving you the information
that you require, there's a Microsoft-written program, available in
several different versions for use with different versions of Windows,
called "USB Device Viewer" which might help you out in determining
your system's USB hardware configuration.

It's a simple executable with no installation required and the file
name is "usbview.exe". It's included, I believe, with various
Microsoft DDKs (Driver Development Kits), but I would think that if
you do a Google search you'll come up with one or more links via which
you can download just this one file. 32-bit versions of the file are
small and under 100 kB in size.

I've got at least two or three different versions of this program
floating around here, but I doubt that any of them would work on your
netbook system which I assume runs Windows 7.

Mike, get a Logitech gaming mouse, or, probably, any gaming mouse. These are
prized by gamers for reporting speed, which requires USB 2.0

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Bob, it was my understanding that there's no such thing as a USB 2.0
mouse, or a USB mouse that actually requires that it be plugged into a
USB 2.0 port on the computer (host) side of the connection.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that so-called "gaming
mice" simply operate the USB 1.1 port in its Full-Speed transfer mode
of 12 Mbps rather than in its Low-Speed transfer mode of 1.5 Mbps. Or,
when such a gaming mouse is connected to a USB 2.0 port, the port
operates in USB 1.1 Full-Speed transfer mode (at 12 Mbps) rather than
in Low-Speed transfer mode (at 1.5 Mbps).

If you have any links to USB 2.0 mice, please share.

Thank you.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Frank]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:56:33 -0500, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article USB 2.0 Mouse ????,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:


Bob, it was my understanding that there's no such thing as a USB 2.0
mouse, or a USB mouse that actually requires that it be plugged into a
USB 2.0 port on the computer (host) side of the connection.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that so-called "gaming
mice" simply operate the USB 1.1 port in its Full-Speed transfer mode
of 12 Mbps rather than in its Low-Speed transfer mode of 1.5 Mbps. Or,
when such a gaming mouse is connected to a USB 2.0 port, the port
operates in USB 1.1 Full-Speed transfer mode (at 12 Mbps) rather than
in Low-Speed transfer mode (at 1.5 Mbps).

If you have any links to USB 2.0 mice, please share.

Frank, the USB details of gaming mice used to be displayed by Logitech.
Now, with universal USB 2.0 host controllers, they no longer reference this.
I found a 3rd party website with a reference to a Logitech mouse,
advertising full speed USB 2.0:

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=931691-0215

This might be important to Mike, as not all USB 2.0 runs at 480 mb/second

Here's another mouse specced as USB 2.0, but without the "full speed"
qualifier:

http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail...C4%82USB2MOUSE


Thank you, Bob, for those links, although in both cases, I suspect
that the "USB 2.0" reference was more advertising fancy than anything
else, as I believe that both of these mice operate the port in USB 1.1
Full-Speed transfer mode at 12 Mbps instead of the more common
Low-Speed 1.5 Mbps mode, which is all that more pedestrian mice (and
keyboards and pointers and trackballs and other HID or Human Interface
Devices) require.

Even the most aggressive mouse in the world shouldn't require use of
the USB 2.0 High-Speed 480 Mbps mode of operation. I know that if I
had a mouse like that, I'd hide in the next room.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/18/2011 3:45 PM, Frank wrote:

there's a Microsoft-written program, available in
several different versions for use with different versions of Windows,
called "USB Device Viewer" which might help you out in determining
your system's USB hardware configuration.

I found that one (before I saw your message, but thanks
anyway) and it does give more info than Device Mangler, but
it's actually more information than I can understand.

I doubt that any of them would work on your
netbook system which I assume runs Windows 7.

No problem. All of my computers run WinXP.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that so-called "gaming
mice" simply operate the USB 1.1 port in its Full-Speed transfer mode
of 12 Mbps rather than in its Low-Speed transfer mode of 1.5 Mbps.

Sounds logical. I wasn't aware that there was a low speed
until I started playing around with those USB snooping
programs.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/18/2011 3:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Frank, the USB details of gaming mice used to be displayed by Logitech.
Now, with universal USB 2.0 host controllers, they no longer reference this.
I found a 3rd party website with a reference to a Logitech mouse,
advertising full speed USB 2.0:

Well, what do web sites know. It was from a few web sites
that I got the notion that connecting a USB 1.1 device to a
USB 2.0 bus dragged the bus down to the USB 1.1 speed, but
apparently that isn't the case with the Enhanced USB
controllers that have been common for at least the last five
years. I still need to do a better test to be sure that it
works the way I think it does but it seems that plugging a
mouse and a high speed audio interface into ports on the
same bus will get sorted out in the controller.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/18/2011 5:26 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Frank, most, if not all gaming mice run full speed USB 2.0. Gamers are not
of your mindset. They want to chisel at latency for reasons irrelevant to
the rest of us.

The Logitech manual says "full speed." It doesn't say USB
2.0 full speed. Kind of scary, though, comes with a set of
weights to adjust the inertia and customizable grip.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Frank]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:25 -0500, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article USB 2.0 Mouse ????,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:


Thank you, Bob, for those links, although in both cases, I suspect
that the "USB 2.0" reference was more advertising fancy than anything
else,

Frank, most, if not all gaming mice run full speed USB 2.0. Gamers are not
of your mindset. They want to chisel at latency for reasons irrelevant to
the rest of us.

This manual, http://www.logitech.com/repository/1.../12840.1.0.pdf

makes the relevant statement at the top of page 5.


That's exactly what I meant, Bob, it's a USB 1.1 Full-Speed device
running at 12 Mbps. All that it needs to be connected to is a standard
USB 1.1 port (although it would work exactly the same when connected
to a USB 2.0 port because USB 2.0 is downward compatible with USB
1.1).

The term used at the top of page 5, "full-speed, USB device", refers
to the USB 1.1 Full-Speed 12 Mbps mode of operation. It does not refer
to the USB 2.0 480 Mbps High-Speed mode of operation (that's typically
used for data-intensive operations such as the connection of hard disk
drives).

The manual is making a big deal out of the fact that unlike ordinary
mice, it doesn't operate in the usual Low-Speed 1.5 Mbps mode that was
specifically intended for use with low speed human interface devices
such as mice and keyboards.

Here's an example of a so-called "USB 2.0 keyboard(tm)".

Matias USB 2.0 Keyboard
http://www.matias.ca/usb2keyboard/

The reality is that it's not a USB 2.0 keyboard. It's a regular USB 1
keyboard that happens to include a "dock" that supports USB 2.0.

Despite that fact that it's a USB 1 device, it's being advertised as a
USB 2.0 keyboard.

If you read the "System Requirements" section of the page, you'll see
that it's got two USB connectors, one (for the keyboard and USB 1.1
hub) to connect to either a USB 1.1 or USB 2.0 port on the host
computer and the other (for the USB 2.0 dock) to connect to a USB 2.0
port on the host computer. It's only the connection for the dock that
needs to be made to a USB 2.0 port. The keyboard/hub cable can be
connected to a USB 1.1 port and will work just fine that way.

Regards,

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Frank]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:18:07 -0500, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article USB 2.0 Mouse ????,
Mike Rivers wrote:

On 2/18/2011 5:26 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Frank, most, if not all gaming mice run full speed USB 2.0. Gamers are not
of your mindset. They want to chisel at latency for reasons irrelevant to
the rest of us.

The Logitech manual says "full speed." It doesn't say USB
2.0 full speed.

Right, as "full-speed" refers to USB 1.1 Full-Speed at 12 Mbps.

Kind of scary, though, comes with a set of
weights to adjust the inertia and customizable grip.

Some gamers are indeed scary to normal folk.

Being a serious minded professional these days, I probably shouldn't
announce this in a public forum such as a Usenet newsgroup, but when I
was a young fellow, I was known to have 16-hour sessions with Doom -
and certain other games.

P.S. I hope that your audio interface works okay sharing the
controller (if indeed it's shared) with a mouse.

Regards,

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 2/18/2011 3:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Frank, the USB details of gaming mice used to be displayed by Logitech.
Now, with universal USB 2.0 host controllers, they no longer reference
this.
I found a 3rd party website with a reference to a Logitech mouse,
advertising full speed USB 2.0:

Well, what do web sites know. It was from a few web sites that I got the
notion that connecting a USB 1.1 device to a USB 2.0 bus dragged the bus
down to the USB 1.1 speed, but apparently that isn't the case with the
Enhanced USB controllers that have been common for at least the last five
years. I still need to do a better test to be sure that it works the way I
think it does but it seems that plugging a mouse and a high speed audio
interface into ports on the same bus will get sorted out in the
controller.

I've never really thought about it before, but I've had a USB 2 external
drive hooked up to the same external hub as old USB 1.1 mouse, and the
throughput was not affected at all. I was using the USB to transfer audio
projects between computers because it was so much faster than scp over a
100mb network.

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 2/18/2011 3:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Frank, the USB details of gaming mice used to be displayed by Logitech.
Now, with universal USB 2.0 host controllers, they no longer reference
this.
I found a 3rd party website with a reference to a Logitech mouse,
advertising full speed USB 2.0:

Well, what do web sites know. It was from a few web sites that I got the
notion that connecting a USB 1.1 device to a USB 2.0 bus dragged the bus
down to the USB 1.1 speed, but apparently that isn't the case with the
Enhanced USB controllers that have been common for at least the last
five years. I still need to do a better test to be sure that it works
the way I think it does but it seems that plugging a mouse and a high
speed audio interface into ports on the same bus will get sorted out in
the controller.

I've never really thought about it before, but I've had a USB 2 external
drive hooked up to the same external hub as old USB 1.1 mouse, and the
throughput was not affected at all. I was using the USB to transfer audio
projects between computers because it was so much faster than scp over a
100mb network.

Sean

That is not an acid test, because spikes in latency don't stop a hard
drive transfer.

No, but it's evidence that the controller didn't limit the drive connection
to 1.1 speeds. That would be *very* noticible.

Sean