[DanielleOM]

On 4/28/2014 6:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/28/2014 6:37 AM, DanielleOM wrote:

I seem to recall an earlier thread where you [Trevor] had referenced
some of the
newer MOTU interfaces with USB. Have you managed to try any of them on
a PC using the USB interface?

I've never had an MOTU interface here (I've got to meet their
marketing manager and mooch one for a review - it's a tough sell when
your publication is a web site and not a printed magazine. I've tested
a few Focusrite USB interfaces as well as the PreSonus 44VSL and they
have no problems with Windows PCs.

I don't do any critical recording
here. I mainly use it to shoot stuff back and forth to a bass player
for practice purposes. No longer have a computer here that has FW. Last
time I did any recording I just went direct from my Soundcraft EFX8
mixer in and out to the computer just using the laptop analogue inputs
and outputs. Would prefer to have something more compact here, and I
find the mixer stays cleaner if it only comes out of it's storage bag at
gigs.

What's your source, if you don't use the mixer? Do you need mic
inputs? Line inputs? Instrument (direct) inputs? And how many? For
cheap, simple, compact, and sounds better than most laptop "sound
cards" I was about to suggest the Behringer UCA-202. It comes with an
ASIO driver, but for simple stuff it works fine with the generic
Microsoft USB Audio driver that comes with Windows. But it has
consumer line level RCA jacks for inputs so you'd need an outboard mic
preamp if you need a mic input. It's really designed to hang on to the
"tape" outputs of a mixer.





For interface devices I have my Motu Ultralight (but cannot use as I now
have no Firewire computer), one Studio Projects VTB1 preamp, a couple of
Guitar Center brand low cost passive DIs. The guitar I have been using
lately has one passive hum bucking style pickup in it. I have two
Sterling Audio (Guitar Center Brand) condenser mics, (one vocal and one
instrument), and also two Shure Beta series dynamic vocal and instrument
mics. For the quick and dirty recording I was happy using the passive
guitar pickup and the shure dynamic mic as that minimized crosstalk
between voice and the guitar. The two channels were fine. I also have
a K&K belt style preamp here. Although I bought it to use with a K&K
pickup, (3 mini piezo disks glued under the guitar bridge plate), it's
come in handy when I have attended open mics. I think there's a lot of
people hosting open mics that don't know the difference between an
instrument and line input. If I start talking about input and output
impedance and importance at different frequencies their eyes just kind
of glaze over and they ignore me.

I hosted an open mic for about 4 years. The Studio Projects VTB1, I
found came in handy, when trying to tame some of the older under saddle
piezo pickups. It seemed to get rid of that nails on a chalkboard sound
that couldn't seem to take care of with EQ. I was just talking with a
friend of mine who spends much more time than I do recording. Although
she said she liked the VTB1 as a guitar interface, she didn't like it
all that much for a microphone preamp. It's been a long time since I
have had a microphone hooked up to it. It's one of my pieces of gear
that spends more time in my friend's studio than it does at my place.

For live sound use we both like the Soundcraft mixers.

In any case two channels should be adequate for my near term needs.


Danielle

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/28/2014 7:05 PM, DanielleOM wrote:


For interface devices I have my Motu Ultralight (but cannot use as I now
have no Firewire computer), one Studio Projects VTB1 preamp, a couple of
Guitar Center brand low cost passive DIs. I have two
Sterling Audio (Guitar Center Brand) condenser mics,
and also two Shure Beta series dynamic vocal and instrument
mics. For the quick and dirty recording I was happy using the passive
guitar pickup and the shure dynamic mic as that minimized crosstalk
between voice and the guitar. The two channels were fine.
In any case two channels should be adequate for my near term needs.

For that sort of thing, I've had most experience with the Focusrite
Scarlett series.
http://us.focusrite.com/product-range/scarlett

Look over the number of channels in (you're probably not concerned with
the number of channels out) and pick out something that's comfortable
for your budget. I wouldn't go too cheap because you might find yourself
limited in what of your present gear you can use. The 6i6 gives you two
combo XLR connectors on the front, each of which can be either a mic,
DI, or line level, and there are two line level inputs on the back so
you can connect your VT1B should you want to add a third mic, or prefer
its DI to your passive boxes or the Focusrite input (which I think
sounds really good). And if you want to get fancy and do a little
multitrack production, you can have independent mixes for the main
(monitor speakers) and headphone outputs, or two independent headphone
mixes if you're working in the studio with a partner.

There's a detailed review of the early models, the 8i6 and 18i6 on my
web site.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Phil W[_3_]]

Mike Rivers:
On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
PC
laptops also have USB3 right?

Looking at current desktop mainboards, most or all of them have USB3, BUT
still only as an addition to USB2! Therefore, I´d assume it´s the same with
laptops. It seems like the manufacturers still don´t consider USB3 "ripe"
enough to only this on their mainboards.
And if you´re running a Windows version prior to Win8, it can be quite a
hassle to find the driver download for a USB3 PCIe card on older mainboards,
if it´s a Renesas chip.

USB3 is being phased in, but there isn't much yet in the audio world that
requires it yet. But if I got an audio interface today that required USB3,
or, for that matter, Thunderbolt, I couldn't use it until I got a new
computer. And nobody really _wants_ to get a new computer. There's too
much toilet training involved.

When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer
port?
But at least USB adapters are available for both.

But for how much longer? Sure, there will always be someone selling one on
eBay, but pretty soon they'll stop being manufactured.

Just built a new PC with a Gigabyte GA-Z87-HD3 mainboard. The board has
*internal* connectors for 1 COM-port and 1 Parallel-port (which can be
de/activated and set in the BIOS/UEFI). The quest is to find such a slot
bracket out there in the dark corners of the retailing world.

[Trevor]

"DanielleOM" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall an earlier thread where you had referenced some of the
newer MOTU interfaces with USB. Have you managed to try any of them on a
PC using the USB interface?

Yes, the ultralite hybrids work just fine.


Have an older Ultralight but no longer have a PC with Firewire.

Yes that's the problem for many, and getting worse. No idea if the firewire
ones can be upgraded to the hybrid interface, but it would be nice. If I
lived in the USA I'd ask MOTU anyway.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Computers will continue to have USB ports for a while yet, but I predict
that audio I/O manufacturers will move away from it in the coming years.
Every port has a speed limit, and the customers are demanding more
features (like more channels and higher sample rates) that require more
throughput speed. This is all about system engineering, and unqualified
end users are having to become their own system engineers.

I don't see it. There are simply no problems with 8 channels at 24/96, and
VERY FEW amateurs who want or buy anything more. The far smaller number of
professionals will make their own choices where necessary.


Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
PC
laptops (with Thunderbolt) also have USB3 right?

USB3 is being phased in, but there isn't much yet in the audio world that
requires it yet. But if I got an audio interface today that required USB3,
or, for that matter, Thunderbolt, I couldn't use it until I got a new
computer. And nobody really _wants_ to get a new computer. There's too
much toilet training involved.

Right, BUT fortunately USB3 is backward compatible with USB2, and USB2 is
all most interfaces require. So it's nice to have USB3 on the new laptops.
Thunderbolt as well perhaps, but I'd rather my interface was USB than
Thunderbolt.


When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer
port?
But at least USB adapters are available for both.

But for how much longer? Sure, there will always be someone selling one on
eBay, but pretty soon they'll stop being manufactured.

You can easily build your own for a few dollars. But by the time they are no
longer commercially available, nobody will want or need one.


Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice
versa.

MOTU's previous "hybrid" line of interfaces accommodated Firewire and
USB2. This years models accommodate Thunderbolt and USB2. An "in between"
Firewire adapter has to be bi-directional, and it also has to be smart.
This is why there were few Firewire-USB adapters, and those that you can
find only adapt the power pins of the connector (so you can charge the
battery in your Firewire camera from a USB port). You can't send data
across it.

Yes I realise that, due to limitations of USB that apparently Thunderbolt
does not have.


In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.

That's about all I have around here, and I've been pleasantly surprised
that I've been able to use them to record 16 simultaneous channels of
24-bit 44.1 kHz sample rate audio through a USB port. But these aren't
using 10 year old drivers.

So as I said, drivers COULD have been written.


Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They
simply
chose Firewire instead.

It's all about making business decisions. If you can buy an off-the-shelf
solution, why spend your development money writing drivers?

Because you get a market to yourself if no-one else is doing it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Phil W" wrote in message
...
Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
PC laptops also have USB3 right?

Looking at current desktop mainboards, most or all of them have USB3, BUT
still only as an addition to USB2!

And that is a problem why exactly?


Therefore, I´d assume it´s the same with laptops. It seems like the
manufacturers still don´t consider USB3 "ripe" enough to only this on their
mainboards.

Nope, it's due to Intel's chipset choices.


And if you´re running a Windows version prior to Win8, it can be quite a
hassle to find the driver download for a USB3 PCIe card on older
mainboards, if it´s a Renesas chip.

So simply buy one WITH drivers. My old WinXP computer is happily running a
PCIe USB3 card with the drivers supplied. (No idea what the chip is.)


Just built a new PC with a Gigabyte GA-Z87-HD3 mainboard. The board has
*internal* connectors for 1 COM-port and 1 Parallel-port (which can be
de/activated and set in the BIOS/UEFI). The quest is to find such a slot
bracket out there in the dark corners of the retailing world.

Still available new, and millions available from old computers. The pin
header on the last M/B I added one too (also Gigabyte) a year ago was the
same as used on old XT clones with their multi I/O cards! So that's what I
used :-)
And IF you can't find one, you can easily make one with two still readily
available connectors and a piece of ribbon cable!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:

Right, nobody bothered to check before jumping on the Apple bandwagon.

Much like your "question" about how long Apple had included FW in ints
machines. Google.

That "question" was actualy rhetorical. But it must be the only time Apple
has kept a port that long, they usually change them every model to sell more
peripherals. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Pshhhh. I did a test with a *netbook* spooling the .wav data to a
remote Win7 server over *wireless*. 12 actual channels @ 44.1/24 .

Granted, that was an experiment but it worked. I did jack the buffering
way the heck up, and it was not to where I needed foldback...
And for the session, I used to onboard harddisk.

Sure it CAN work fine, if you are lucky. Unfortunately most forget to
disable their AV or something else causes a hiccup every now and then.
That's why they are always complaining about dropped samples. Not for me!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/28/2014 6:37 AM, DanielleOM wrote:

I seem to recall an earlier thread where you [Trevor] had referenced some
of the
newer MOTU interfaces with USB. Have you managed to try any of them on
a PC using the USB interface?

I've never had an MOTU interface here (I've got to meet their marketing
manager and mooch one for a review - it's a tough sell when your
publication is a web site and not a printed magazine. I've tested a few
Focusrite USB interfaces as well as the PreSonus 44VSL and they have no
problems with Windows PCs.

I don't do any critical recording
here. I mainly use it to shoot stuff back and forth to a bass player
for practice purposes. No longer have a computer here that has FW. Last
time I did any recording I just went direct from my Soundcraft EFX8
mixer in and out to the computer just using the laptop analogue inputs
and outputs. Would prefer to have something more compact here, and I
find the mixer stays cleaner if it only comes out of it's storage bag at
gigs.

What's your source, if you don't use the mixer? Do you need mic inputs?
Line inputs? Instrument (direct) inputs? And how many? For cheap, simple,
compact, and sounds better than most laptop "sound cards" I was about to
suggest the Behringer UCA-202. It comes with an ASIO driver, but for
simple stuff it works fine with the generic Microsoft USB Audio driver
that comes with Windows. But it has consumer line level RCA jacks for
inputs so you'd need an outboard mic preamp if you need a mic input. It's
really designed to hang on to the "tape" outputs of a mixer.


I have tested one, but ignoring it's only 2 channels Vs the MOTU ultralite's
8, the audio quality is simply unacceptable IMO for anything remotely "pro".
It is however a cheap upgrade for many laptops and any non serious
applications.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2014 6:11 AM, Trevor wrote:

I have tested one [Behringer UCA-202], but ignoring it's only 2 channels Vs the MOTU ultralite's
8, the audio quality is simply unacceptable IMO for anything remotely "pro".
It is however a cheap upgrade for many laptops and any non serious
applications.

That's exactly the point. Danielle said that the application wasn't
anything remotely "pro."

Your batch of other comments suggests that you're a pretty independent
kind of fellow who doesn't care what the rest of the world is buying (or
can't buy) you'll find a solution. This isn't how business in the world
of computer audio interfaces work. There will always be manufacturers
who make professional tools for professionals - professionals who are
comfortable adapting a computer or buying a new one to accommodate the
new device _when it's time_. But the dabblers and the musicians want or
need to record something are going to get "the latest thing" shoved down
their throats because "the next latest thing" is no longer available and
besides it won't with the next computer they buy.

It keeps the products improving in certain aspects, but makes it
difficult to drive the old car until the wheels fall off unless you're
willing to replace the engine that still runs.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Pshhhh. I did a test with a *netbook* spooling the .wav data to a
remote Win7 server over *wireless*. 12 actual channels @ 44.1/24 .

Granted, that was an experiment but it worked. I did jack the buffering
way the heck up, and it was not to where I needed foldback...
And for the session, I used to onboard harddisk.

Sure it CAN work fine, if you are lucky.

I don't think I was that lucky. All the observable bandwidths were
unstressed by this activity.


Unfortunately most forget to
disable their AV or something else causes a hiccup every now and then.

Sure! These things happen. I don't remember giving the A/V the day
off.

But gad - a $300 WalMart special netbook
and yer good to go. Life is good!

But don't try to mix on the netbook.

That's why they are always complaining about dropped samples. Not for me!

Trevor.



--
Les Cargill

--
Les Cargill

[John Albert]

On 4/28/14 7:11 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems
to me that every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or
maybe earlier up through last year. That's not a bad run.

Firewire is still available on the current-generation Mac Mini.
But it was originally introduced in "late 2012".

Most Macs that had a firewire port have dropped it in favor
of a second thunderbolt port. But for $30, Apple offers its
thunderbolt-to-firewire adapter.

I understand there are -some- audio interfaces on which this
doesn't work...

[hank alrich]

John Albert wrote:

On 4/28/14 7:11 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems
to me that every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or
maybe earlier up through last year. That's not a bad run.

Firewire is still available on the current-generation Mac Mini.
But it was originally introduced in "late 2012".

"Apple first included FireWire in some of its 1999 models, and most
Apple computers since the year 2000 have included FireWire ports,
though, as of 2014, it only remains as interface on the Mac Mini-model,
being replaced by the Thunderbolt-interface on all other Mac-models."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394

Most Macs that had a firewire port have dropped it in favor
of a second thunderbolt port. But for $30, Apple offers its
thunderbolt-to-firewire adapter.

I understand there are -some- audio interfaces on which this
doesn't work...


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[John Albert]

On 5/3/14 2:07 PM, hank alrich wrote:
"Apple first included FireWire in some of its 1999 models, and most
Apple computers since the year 2000 have included FireWire ports,
though, as of 2014, it only remains as interface on the Mac Mini-model,
being replaced by the Thunderbolt-interface on all other Mac-models."

Yes, but I was referring to the "late 2012" Mac Mini, which
I believe is the only currently-selling Mac that retains a
firewire port.

If Apple ever gets around to updating the Mini, I'll guess
it's going to lose its firewire port, as well. That will
force everyone to the thunderbolt-to-firewire adapter.

Aside:
Never having owned a desktop PC, I find it amusing about
connection problems regarding audio interfaces.

Having used a couple of them with Macs at home via firewire
(first a Presonus Firebox, later an Echo Audiofire8), my
experience with both was that they may be the
"easiest-connecting" devices I've used with the Mac. That is
to say, with the Mac's built-in "CORE Audio drivers" no
"external drivers" are required at all, just plug the device
in and it's there. Ready to be used immediately.

Makes software updates a snap, too.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/4/2014 4:28 PM, John Albert wrote:

Having used a couple of them with Macs at home via firewire (first a
Presonus Firebox, later an Echo Audiofire8), my experience with both was
that they may be the "easiest-connecting" devices I've used with the
Mac. That is to say, with the Mac's built-in "CORE Audio drivers" no
"external drivers" are required at all, just plug the device in and it's
there. Ready to be used immediately.

I've always had PCs so it's just not in my nature to switch to, or worse
yet, double up with a Mac. I know plenty of people do but it's just not
in my nature. That being said, I love the way that Apple did this. They
thought that audio was important enough so that they developed a
standard for connecting audio devices that, at least so far, has been
good enough so that the hardware manufacturers are following it.

I wish I could connect audio hardware to my PCs as easily as I plug in
thumb drives, but I guess all Microsoft ever cared about was extending
the desktop to files in other places.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 5/05/2014 10:40 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:


I've always had PCs so it's just not in my nature to switch to, or worse
yet, double up with a Mac. I know plenty of people do but it's just not
in my nature. That being said, I love the way that Apple did this. They
thought that audio was important enough so that they developed a
standard for connecting audio devices that, at least so far, has been
good enough so that the hardware manufacturers are following it.


But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all the
possible features of the connected device, else you will need a driver.
I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in Windows for
common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get tricky and you do
need the specific driver.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
I've always had PCs so it's just not in my nature to switch to, or worse
yet, double up with a Mac. I know plenty of people do but it's just not in
my nature. That being said, I love the way that Apple did this. They
thought that audio was important enough so that they developed a standard
for connecting audio devices that, at least so far, has been good enough
so that the hardware manufacturers are following it.

I wish I could connect audio hardware to my PCs as easily as I plug in
thumb drives, but I guess all Microsoft ever cared about was extending the
desktop to files in other places.


Actually plenty of basic audio devices use the standard MS windows drivers.
Simply plug them in and they work.
OTOH if you have a specialised device with extra capabilities, you will need
special drivers for a Mac as well. Not that much difference really.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:

But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
tricky and you do need the specific driver.

The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the
control program
is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
tricky and you do need the specific driver.

The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
program
is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.

Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
tricky and you do need the specific driver.

The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
program
is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.

Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

Trevor.

In one case one needn't install "drivers". I think that is Mike's point.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug
it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.


In one case one needn't install "drivers". I think that is Mike's point.


And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases, (Apple *or*
Windows), one must install a driver/program.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
program is sometimes integrated into the driver setup.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.


Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

Nobody should care, but sometimes the differences between how the PC and
Mac control panel program is written can be significant - one might not
look like the other, or there may be features available in one that
aren't in the other. And for those out on the edge, for example, you can
get multichannel audio in and out of a few interfaces in Linux but the
people who wrote the Linux audio driver stopped there and didn't try to
write an equivalent control panel. The end result (that the user might
very well care about) is that while you can use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
tricky and you do need the specific driver.

The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
program
is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.

Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

You don't need to care about it until it breaks, and then you need to care
a lot about it and know more about it than the documentation will tell you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/6/2014 4:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases, (Apple*or*
Windows), one must install a driver/program.

Now we're dealing with subtleties of language. What's a
"driver/program?" A driver is a special category of program, just as is
a control panel GUI. My point (Hank got it) is that while you may need
to install a control panel program (_which is NOT a driver_) on a Mac, a
driver is neither necessary nor provided.

On a PC, we're used to saying "install the drivers" which, on a modern
multi-channel audio interface with a built-in monitor mixer, typically,
installs a WDM driver, an ASIO driver, and perhaps a MIDI driver, as
well as the control panel program, all with one click on "Setup." For a
simple interface, for example the Behringer UCA202) you can just plug it
in and it will use the Windows USB Audio driver to get audio in and out.
If you want to take advantage of the lower latency that ASIO provides,
there's an _optional_ ASIO driver that you can install, but you need to
do it - installation isn't automatic. But it's too simple to need a
control panel, so there isn't one of those.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/6/2014 9:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

You don't need to care about it until it breaks, and then you need to care
a lot about it and know more about it than the documentation will tell you.

That, too. And usually when it breaks or doesn't work with a new
program, OS, or computer, the first line of advice is "get the latest
drivers" without regard to what that actually means.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Albert]

On 5/5/14 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

What's that legal adage?
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law."

With respect to audio interfaces:
"The basic in/out is nine-tenths of the connection."

That's what Apple has accomplished with "CORE Audio" --
establish a solid I/O connection. The "mixer" and other apps
that run "on top of the connection" are icing on the cake...

I believe the latest iterations of the Mac OS now have some
kind of CORE Audio driver support for USB devices, as well
as firewire. Not sure how well that works out in practice,
as I've only used firewire interfaces so far.

[geoff]

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.

How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
eventually, and that was a decade ago.

geoff

[geoff]

On 7/05/2014 1:23 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2014 4:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases,
(Apple*or*
Windows), one must install a driver/program.

Now we're dealing with subtleties of language. What's a
"driver/program?" A driver is a special category of program, just as is
a control panel GUI. My point (Hank got it) is that while you may need
to install a control panel program (_which is NOT a driver_) on a Mac, a
driver is neither necessary nor provided.

On a PC, we're used to saying "install the drivers" which, on a modern
multi-channel audio interface with a built-in monitor mixer, typically,
installs a WDM driver, an ASIO driver, and perhaps a MIDI driver, as
well as the control panel program, all with one click on "Setup." For a
simple interface, for example the Behringer UCA202) you can just plug it
in and it will use the Windows USB Audio driver to get audio in and out.
If you want to take advantage of the lower latency that ASIO provides,
there's an _optional_ ASIO driver that you can install, but you need to
do it - installation isn't automatic. But it's too simple to need a
control panel, so there isn't one of those.



Often driver installs are one simple application that install both WDM
and ASIO drivers, and the mixer or support app appropriate to that device.


geoff

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the
control
program is sometimes integrated into the driver setup.

On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.

Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug
it
in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

Nobody should care, but sometimes the differences between how the PC and
Mac control panel program is written can be significant - one might not
look like the other, or there may be features available in one that aren't
in the other. And for those out on the edge, for example, you can get
multichannel audio in and out of a few interfaces in Linux but the people
who wrote the Linux audio driver stopped there and didn't try to write an
equivalent control panel. The end result (that the user might very well
care about) is that while you can use the audio I/O you can't use the
built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.

Sure, that's the extreme version of jumping on the Apple bandwagon.
Fortunately not all companies are so short sighted, so we at least have a
choice.
Linux though will always be forgotten unless it ever becomes a mainstream OS
choice, which doesn't seem likely. Unfortunately a very chiken and egg
problem. I'd use it myself if there was more hardware support, but that will
never happen until more people use it, and people won't use it until there
is more hardware support. So for now it's a good system for dedicated
servers and not much else unfortunately.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 5/6/2014 4:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases,
(Apple*or*
Windows), one must install a driver/program.

Now we're dealing with subtleties of language. What's a "driver/program?"
A driver is a special category of program, just as is a control panel GUI.
My point (Hank got it) is that while you may need to install a control
panel program (_which is NOT a driver_) on a Mac, a driver is neither
necessary nor provided.

Right, and in many cases a driver is neither necessary or provided with
Windows interfaces. Sometimes an *optional* ASIO driver is provided, and
AFAIC, as long as the driver in the box or on the web site works, I don't
give a rats either way!


On a PC, we're used to saying "install the drivers" which, on a modern
multi-channel audio interface with a built-in monitor mixer, typically,
installs a WDM driver, an ASIO driver, and perhaps a MIDI driver, as well
as the control panel program, all with one click on "Setup." For a simple
interface, for example the Behringer UCA202) you can just plug it in and
it will use the Windows USB Audio driver to get audio in and out. If you
want to take advantage of the lower latency that ASIO provides, there's an
_optional_ ASIO driver that you can install, but you need to do it -
installation isn't automatic. But it's too simple to need a control panel,
so there isn't one of those.

Exactly. Just as I said. What do you suppose I didn't get?

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 08/05/2014 08:13, Trevor wrote:
Linux though will always be forgotten unless it ever becomes a mainstream OS
choice, which doesn't seem likely. Unfortunately a very chiken and egg
problem. I'd use it myself if there was more hardware support, but that will
never happen until more people use it, and people won't use it until there
is more hardware support. So for now it's a good system for dedicated
servers and not much else unfortunately.

It's excellent for office work, as long as you're not tied into MS
Office, though Libre Office is rapidly becoming more compatible with
Office than Office is between versions, and it's secure at the moment
for internet activities. Most office staff could switch to it with
minimal retraining, and many governent bodies worldwide are doing so.

On my computer, until I fire up a multi track recording session in
Audition or a video editor, it makes no difference which OS I boot, as
the basic stereo I/O is supported by my interface on both systems, with
the multichannel stuff being the only real problem. That and video...

It's a shame that BeOS never caught on, as that was fully optimised for
real time audio and video work.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.

How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
eventually, and that was a decade ago.

geoff

MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may choose
to support one platform or another. At the time Apple absorbed Emagic,
Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was about 30% of sales and 70%
of support costs. Their desire to exit the Windows side coincided well
with their move. MOTU lea es "support" to its user base. MHL has the
best factory support I've ever witnessed.

Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will offer
cross platform access.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil Gould]

hank alrich wrote:
geoff wrote:

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions
of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example
those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support
Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you don't have a
Mac you can't use it.

How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
eventually, and that was a decade ago.

geoff

MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple absorbed
Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was about 30% of
sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit the Windows side
coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es "support" to its user
base. MHL has the best factory support I've ever witnessed.

Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will offer
cross platform access.

What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of 10%
market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were they saving
far too much on support costs and need the extra burden? ;-D
--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
geoff wrote:

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions
of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example
those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support
Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you don't have a
Mac you can't use it.

How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
eventually, and that was a decade ago.

geoff

MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple absorbed
Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was about 30% of
sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit the Windows side
coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es "support" to its user
base. MHL has the best factory support I've ever witnessed.

Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will offer
cross platform access.

What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of 10%
market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were they saving
far too much on support costs and need the extra burden? ;-D

I think they've chosen a path of steady development and growth for about
fifteen years, kept things closely held and manageably sized. The
company has never been about gross revenue. They are not out to conquer
the market. They build high quality gear and software, to an admirable
standard rather than a bean counter's idea of a competitive price. My
MIO remains the best digital audio purchase I've ever made, for around
thirteen years.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil Gould]

hank alrich wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
geoff wrote:

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.

I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC
versions of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for
example those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't
support Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you
don't have a Mac you can't use it.

How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
eventually, and that was a decade ago.

geoff

MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple
absorbed Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was
about 30% of sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit
the Windows side coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es
"support" to its user base. MHL has the best factory support I've
ever witnessed.

Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will
offer cross platform access.

What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of
10% market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were
they saving far too much on support costs and need the extra burden?
;-D

I think they've chosen a path of steady development and growth for
about fifteen years, kept things closely held and manageably sized.
The company has never been about gross revenue. They are not out to
conquer the market. They build high quality gear and software, to an
admirable standard rather than a bean counter's idea of a competitive
price. My MIO remains the best digital audio purchase I've ever made,
for around thirteen years.

There are a few companies out there that put quality above sales volume.
I've been quite satisfied with my RME interface for over a decade, for
example. But, I still don't understand why MH would want to go back to a
market with such a high support overhead. It sounds like a loser to me.
--
best regards,

Neil

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:31:31 AM UTC-7, mcp6453 wrote:
Since the new Mac Pro does not accept plug-in cards, I assume that the recording industry is moving to Thunderbolt audio

interfaces. Is that correct? If you were going to build a new Mac-based studio today, what would your audio interface

look like, assuming FireWire is out of the mix?

Check out the new MOTU 828X