[Eeyore]

Welcome back Arny. I hope you had a decent break and please don't wage
war too soon will you ? How about giving Jenn a break for example ?

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive price and he's
curious to know if he can use any of those test tools with it. What's
the one you like again btw ?

Just curious to know your thoughts.

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?

Misread this as "Foucault's Satire." Too much squinting at swanky Saab
ads...

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of those
test tools with it. What's the one you like again btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is based on WDM
drivers.

http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which is good. It is not
uncommon for hardware that is provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to
have less function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at 24/96
(pretty much required for use as test equipment) and 24/192 (nice to have)
is not clear from the documentation.

Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range hardware, at least as
specified. Of course it may perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level test equipment.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of those
test tools with it. What's the one you like again btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is based on WDM
drivers.

http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which is good. It is not
uncommon for hardware that is provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to
have less function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at 24/96
(pretty much required for use as test equipment) and 24/192 (nice to have)
is not clear from the documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.


Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range hardware, at least as
specified. Of course it may perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level test equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required task I'm afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of
those test tools with it. What's the one you like again
btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is
based on WDM drivers.

http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which
is good. It is not uncommon for hardware that is
provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to have less
function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at
24/96 (pretty much required for use as test equipment)
and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the
documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.


Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range
hardware, at least as specified. Of course it may
perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level
test equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required
task I'm afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?

Well, that at about $800 for the 2-in, 2-out Lynx L22, and the M-Audio
Audiophile 24/192 at less than $200. Both have balanced line-level I/O. The
AP24/192 is a better than 100 dB dynamic range card, while the L22 is more
like 115 dB, but with a slightly unusual gain structure that delivers best
possible dynamic range at FS-11 dB.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of
those test tools with it. What's the one you like again
btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is
based on WDM drivers.

http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which
is good. It is not uncommon for hardware that is
provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to have less
function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at
24/96 (pretty much required for use as test equipment)
and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the
documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.

Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range
hardware, at least as specified. Of course it may
perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level
test equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required
task I'm afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?

Well, that at about $800 for the 2-in, 2-out Lynx L22, and the M-Audio
Audiophile 24/192 at less than $200. Both have balanced line-level I/O. The
AP24/192 is a better than 100 dB dynamic range card, while the L22 is more
like 115 dB, but with a slightly unusual gain structure that delivers best
possible dynamic range at FS-11 dB.

Ok, looked at the AP24/192. It still has cruddy 'consumer' connectors though. Pro
connectors are a must here.

I also forgot to mention that he wants to use his laptop, so it has to be
external.

For testing software your rate Audio Rightmark don't you ?

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
:
:
: Arny Krueger wrote:
:
: "Eeyore" wrote
: Arny Krueger wrote:
: "Eeyore"
wrote
:
: Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire
(LE) ?
: http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/
:
: No.
:
: A friend of mine's been offered one at an
attractive
: price and he's curious to know if he can use any of
: those test tools with it. What's the one you like
again
: btw ?
:
: Most if not all Windows test and measurement software
is
: based on WDM drivers.
:
:
http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf
:
: says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers,
which
: is good. It is not uncommon for hardware that is
: provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to have less
: function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation
at
: 24/96 (pretty much required for use as test
equipment)
: and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the
: documentation.
:
: Sounds encouraging though.
:
: Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic
range
: hardware, at least as specified. Of course it may
: perform better.
:
: Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as
line-level
: test equipment.
:
: No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required
: task I'm afraid.
:
: The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?
:
: Well, that at about $800 for the 2-in, 2-out Lynx L22,
and the M-Audio
: Audiophile 24/192 at less than $200. Both have balanced
line-level I/O. The
: AP24/192 is a better than 100 dB dynamic range card,
while the L22 is more
: like 115 dB, but with a slightly unusual gain structure
that delivers best
: possible dynamic range at FS-11 dB.
:
: Ok, looked at the AP24/192. It still has cruddy 'consumer'
connectors though. Pro
: connectors are a must here.
:
: I also forgot to mention that he wants to use his laptop,
so it has to be
: external.
:
: For testing software your rate Audio Rightmark don't you ?
:
: Graham
:
Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the 1m
lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Hope this helps.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE)
? http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of
those test tools with it. What's the one you like
again btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software
is based on WDM drivers.

http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ire_LE_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which
is good. It is not uncommon for hardware that is
provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to have less
function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at
24/96 (pretty much required for use as test equipment)
and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the
documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.

Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range
hardware, at least as specified. Of course it may
perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level
test equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required
task I'm afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?

Well, that at about $800 for the 2-in, 2-out Lynx L22,
and the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 at less than $200.
Both have balanced line-level I/O. The AP24/192 is a
better than 100 dB dynamic range card, while the L22 is
more like 115 dB, but with a slightly unusual gain
structure that delivers best possible dynamic range at
FS-11 dB.

Ok, looked at the AP24/192. It still has cruddy
'consumer' connectors though.

TRS is consumer?

Pro connectors are a must here.

I also forgot to mention that he wants to use his laptop,
so it has to be external.

That changes everything.

For testing software your rate Audio Rightmark don't you ?

That, plus Spectra Lab and CoolEdit/Audition. Lately, I've been using RMA
more and Spectra less. Some of that is due to the fact that I'm able to get
more out of the spectral display in Audition.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message


Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Historically, the biggest problem with EMu's hardware has been that the WMA
support has been weak. Specifically, the WMA drivers haven't fully supported
the high resolution audio features of the card which can be important for
measurements.

So TT, what happens when you try to run the freeware Audio Rightmark program
on the EMu 1616m in 24/192 mode?

I see that it has 2 different types of line inputs, which should be tested
individually. It would appear to match Graham's requirements as all 6 analog
ins and outs are speced to be balanced.

I've seen some partial test results for this device and it seems to be very
much in the running.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the 1m
lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Nice.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message


Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Historically, the biggest problem with EMu's hardware has been that the
WMA support has been weak. Specifically, the WMA drivers haven't fully
supported the high resolution audio features of the card which can be
important for measurements.

So TT, what happens when you try to run the freeware Audio Rightmark
program on the EMu 1616m in 24/192 mode?

OK I will try and explain what I have done and why. I do not use this card
as a DAC, I use a CEC DX71
http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html

Why? Because it will take a AES/EBU digital input and the EMU will output
that *AND* allows the clock function to be moved from the EMU card to the
CEC DAC. Overkill? Yes :-) Now the EMU allows a lot of inputs inc. a RIAA
phono stage and it will be a perfect integration into my set up. The CEC
DAC is *also* a pre-amp that uses balanced outputs which suits my power amp
very nicely as well.


I see that it has 2 different types of line inputs, which should be
tested individually. It would appear to match Graham's requirements as all
6 analog ins and outs are speced to be balanced.

I've seen some partial test results for this device and it seems to be
very much in the running.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the 1m
lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Nice.
Now Arny please don't get much of a swelled ego from what I am going to say
next :-) You have berated me (and others) for years over the "alleged"
audio improvements of SACD/DVD-A over Red Book CD. Since the all certain
demise of these formats and the imminent mass introduction of DMR I have
decided to wring every last drop of performance out of CD as I can. Guess
what? (gloating time here for you) This new set up of mine puts to shame my
hi-res stuff (2 ch of course).

My turn now. Despite what you have said before about over sampling IMHO it
does work and not all DACs are created equal either.

I have nearly put my whole CD collection on HD (and backed up on another
external HD as well) and access the files over the wireless network via the
laptop. I don't care about Windows and drivers as you have rightly pointed
out they don't like their res stuff and so I have been using Nero Show Time
with good success. The laptop solution was chosen instead of a HTPC because
of noise, heat, size issues etc. and the storage is elsewhere so the laptop,
a Compaq Pressariov500 with a cooler AMD chip is a cheap (quiet) computer.

BTW I'm still tweaking and getting know what this will do but my early
"subjective" opinions are very good. As yet I have still got to run some
DBTs with a switch box I have constructed which will switch the two pre-amps
over at the power amp so time synching and level matching should be a
breeze.

I hope I explained that well enough ;-)

Regards TT

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of
those test tools with it. What's the one you like again
btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is
based on WDM drivers.


http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi...ual/Saffire_LE
_GSG.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which
is good. It is not uncommon for hardware that is
provided with both WDM and ASIO drivers to have less
function in WDM mode. How this will effect operation at
24/96 (pretty much required for use as test equipment)
and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the
documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.

Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range
hardware, at least as specified. Of course it may
perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level
test equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required
task I'm afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?

Well, that at about $800 for the 2-in, 2-out Lynx L22, and the
M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 at less than $200. Both have balanced
line-level I/O. The AP24/192 is a better than 100 dB dynamic range
card, while the L22 is more like 115 dB, but with a slightly unusual
gain structure that delivers best possible dynamic range at FS-11 dB.

Ok, looked at the AP24/192. It still has cruddy 'consumer' connectors
though. Pro connectors are a must here.

I also forgot to mention that he wants to use his laptop, so it has to
be external.

For testing software your rate Audio Rightmark don't you ?

netkkkoping piece of ****.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Are you at all familiar with Focusrite's Saffire (LE) ?
http://www.focusrite.com/product/saffire_le/

No.

A friend of mine's been offered one at an attractive
price and he's curious to know if he can use any of those
test tools with it. What's the one you like again btw ?

Most if not all Windows test and measurement software is based on WDM
drivers.


http://www.focusrite.com/media/saffi.../Saffire_LE_GS
G.pdf

says that they provide both ASIO and WDM drivers, which is good. It
is not uncommon for hardware that is provided with both WDM and ASIO
drivers to have less function in WDM mode. How this will effect
operation at 24/96 (pretty much required for use as test equipment)
and 24/192 (nice to have) is not clear from the documentation.

Sounds encouraging though.


Performance-wise this is not 100 dB plus dynamic range hardware, at
least as specified. Of course it may perform better.

Compare it to a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 as line-level test
equipment.

No balanced inputs renders it useless for the required task I'm
afraid.

The other one you like is the Lynx Two isn't it ?


netkkkopn gpiece of ****.



Bertie

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the 1m
lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the
1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes something like this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5. It probably is way
overkill in terms of protocol complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the
1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes something like this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5. It probably is way
overkill in terms of protocol complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a
CEC DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional
audio recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card
to the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend
the 1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes
something like this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5.
It probably is way overkill in terms of protocol
complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?

You mean, a 100BTX LAN?

Dunno, but for applications like this, the answer is usually no.

Typically, they are just using the CAT-5 cable, not any of the standard
protocols.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...roduct=1 3552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a
CEC DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional
audio recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card
to the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend
the 1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes
something like this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5.
It probably is way overkill in terms of protocol
complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?

You mean, a 100BTX LAN?

Dunno, but for applications like this, the answer is usually no.

Typically, they are just using the CAT-5 cable, not any of the standard
protocols.

That's what I suspected. Shame really.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...p?category=237
&subcategory=
239&product=13552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the 1m
lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?


netkkkoping k00k

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...p?category=237
&subcatego
ry=239&product=13552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a CEC
DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional audio
recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card to
the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend the
1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes something like
this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5. It probably
is way overkill in terms of protocol complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?


netkkkoping piece of ****


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:

Have a look at
http://www.creative.com/products/pro...p?category=237
&subcate
gory=239&product=13552

I am running these at home on a laptop hooked up to a
CEC DX71 DAC as music server. This is a professional
audio recording unit and should suit your requirements.

Also because it has an RJ45 connector from PCMCIA card
to the break out box I have used normal CAT5 to extend
the 1m lead length to 8m so it can be run remotely.

Interesting.

Why didn't they make it firewire though ?

Reasonble question, but I suspect that the answer goes
something like this:

Firewire cable costs more and is less common than CAT-5.
It probably is way overkill in terms of protocol
complexity for the application.

It is overkill for audio.

Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?

You mean, a 100BTX LAN?

Dunno, but for applications like this, the answer is usually no.

Typically, they are just using the CAT-5 cable, not any of the
standard protocols.

That's what I suspected. Shame really.

Graham

Planespotting wannabe


Bertie

[TT]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
:
: :
: Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?
:
: Graham
:
Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me that
want a longer cable will be able to easily make one. This
is why I chose this solution so I could have my Hi-Fi PC and
1 x 6mm CAT5 cable running to the break out box where I can
then have all the interconnects the shortest possible
length.

You asked about firewire earlier - really no need. CD PCM is
only 1411kbps and DVD-A 6 ch is only 1.382 mbps so on a
cable capable of 350 mbps it is already, as Arny pointed
out, overkill.

KISS (keep it simple stupid) is what I went by. Also I
can't make firewire cables (yet)

Cheers TT

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
: :
: Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?
:
: Graham
:
Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me that
want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network card then ?


This
is why I chose this solution so I could have my Hi-Fi PC and
1 x 6mm CAT5 cable running to the break out box where I can
then have all the interconnects the shortest possible
length.

You asked about firewire earlier - really no need. CD PCM is
only 1411kbps and DVD-A 6 ch is only 1.382 mbps so on a
cable capable of 350 mbps it is already, as Arny pointed
out, overkill.

KISS (keep it simple stupid) is what I went by. Also I
can't make firewire cables (yet)

Don't need to.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Firewire-6pin-...QQcmdZViewItem

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
:
:
: TT wrote:
:
: "Eeyore" wrote
: : :
: : Can you run this box from an ordinary network
connection ?
: :
: : Graham
: :
: Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
: manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me
that
: want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.
:
: What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network
card then ?

He then becomes and Ex-mate and the PCMCIA card then
comunicates with smoke signals I suppose ;-) This is an
obvious draw back and no different to people pluging wrong
RCA plugs into the wrong places i.e SPDIF into video, video
into annalog etc. I do not know from personal experience
*if* damge will occur but the manual does make a point of
saying that damge will occur. Just don't do it.

BTW I use a lot of CAT5 as speaker cable as well so I have
this stuff running everywhere :-)


Cheers TT

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
TT wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Can you run this box from an ordinary network
connection ?

Graham

Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me
that want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network
card then ?

In fact, probably nothing, except that nothing functions properly. Usually
people building gear like this use the 100BTX voltage levels and impedances,
but do not use the same signals and protocols.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



TT wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
: :
: Can you run this box from an ordinary network connection ?
:
: Graham
:
Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me that
want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network card then ?


This
is why I chose this solution so I could have my Hi-Fi PC and
1 x 6mm CAT5 cable running to the break out box where I can
then have all the interconnects the shortest possible
length.

You asked about firewire earlier - really no need. CD PCM is
only 1411kbps and DVD-A 6 ch is only 1.382 mbps so on a
cable capable of 350 mbps it is already, as Arny pointed
out, overkill.

KISS (keep it simple stupid) is what I went by. Also I
can't make firewire cables (yet)

Don't need to.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Firewire-6pin-...3m-Cable-Lead-
FREE-
P-P_W0QQitemZ300035294784QQihZ020QQcategoryZ31493QQr dZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Graham



Fjukkwit wannabe



bertie

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Can you run this box from an ordinary network
connection ?

Graham

Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me
that want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network
card then ?

In fact, probably nothing, except that nothing functions properly. Usually
people building gear like this use the 100BTX voltage levels and impedances,
but do not use the same signals and protocols.

It would be very silly to have made it intentionally incompatible for sure but
stranger things have happened.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Can you run this box from an ordinary network
connection ?

Graham

Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me
that want a longer cable will be able to easily make
one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network
card then ?

In fact, probably nothing, except that nothing functions
properly. Usually people building gear like this use
the 100BTX voltage levels and impedances, but do not use
the same signals and protocols.

It would be very silly to have made it intentionally
incompatible for sure but stranger things have happened.

It's all about KISS. Network cards don't look like much, and that's because
all they do is front end a lot of code in the host computer. I can see why
people don't want to load up their audio products with it. There are audio
products that support 100BTX, but they are far more complex and expensive.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Can you run this box from an ordinary network
connection ?

Graham

Absolutely *NOT* and damage will occur! (so says the
manual). The reason why they did it is so mugs like me
that want a longer cable will be able to easily make one.

What happens when your 'mate' plugs it into the network
card then ?

In fact, probably nothing, except that nothing functions properly.
Usually people building gear like this use the 100BTX voltage levels
and impedances, but do not use the same signals and protocols.

It would be very silly to have made it intentionally incompatible for
sure but stranger things have happened.


Fjukkwit netkkoping ****



Bertie

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:16:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


It's all about KISS. Network cards don't look like much,
and that's because all they do is front end a lot of
code in the host computer. I can see why

That does depend upon the network card in question.

Of course.

For instance, some Intel and 3Com cards understand TCP/IP and
IPSec. They offload those functions from the main OS and CPU.

Modern CPUs are so fast that I don't know that many people worry much about
such things any more. Maybe really large file servers and those on really
fast backbones, but...

Most _inexpensive_ NICs don't do much more than handle
the physical interface, but I never buy the really junky
ones anyway. (I avoid anything with a Realtek chipset,
for instance.)

Actually, about 95% of every PC I've ever worked with had Realtek-based NICs
in them.

But the point is that all of this is a lot to burden a low-cost PC audio
interface with. I'm sure that in time...