[mcp6453[_2_]]

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?

[Nate Najar]

Or use an expansion chassis that connects via thunderbolt.

My guess is that the audio industry is waiting to see what happens. Thunderbolt is too new to be adopted as the new standard, and pee cees still have PCIe

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, 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?

Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then
more interface manufacturers will adopt it.

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?

Which particular interface depends on a lot of things, but as far as a
computer connection _today_, I'd not be afraid of USB. And don't try to
be too progressive and look for one designed for USB3. There's no
compelling reason to use anything beyond USB2 for an reasonable
recording system. The Antelope Orion does 32 channels in and out (analog
line level) on USB2 and costs a few cents under a grand. And for a basic
songwriter studio, you can get a fine Focusrite for a couple of hundred
bucks, or a nice RME or Metric Halo for several hundred.





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

[hank alrich]

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?


Something from Metric Halo, using a Thunderbolt to Firewire card now,
awaiting the startling upgrade MH has annouced for their next move.

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

[geoff]

On 26/04/2014 2:31 a.m., 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?


The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.

But that business model is highly successful, because once the victims
are hooked, their need for self-justifaction manifests as a
quasi-religious fervour and they feel inadequate if they don't stay on
the Apple gravy train, forevermore stoking the furnace with their
ongoing spendings.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 26/04/2014 2:31 a.m., 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?

The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
converters.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, 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?

Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
interface manufacturers will adopt it.

The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
it)


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?

Which particular interface depends on a lot of things, but as far as a
computer connection _today_, I'd not be afraid of USB. And don't try to be
too progressive and look for one designed for USB3. There's no compelling
reason to use anything beyond USB2 for an reasonable recording system. The
Antelope Orion does 32 channels in and out (analog line level) on USB2 and
costs a few cents under a grand. And for a basic songwriter studio, you
can get a fine Focusrite for a couple of hundred bucks, or a nice RME or
Metric Halo for several hundred.

Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding USB2
already does the job though :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
On 26/04/2014 2:31 a.m., 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?

The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
converters.

For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity are
available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available for longer.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 26/04/2014 5:08 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, 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?

Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
interface manufacturers will adopt it.

The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
it)
'

Don't know if that's feasible. USB3-to-Firewire never seemed to happen.

FWIW I recently picked up a Dell i7 laptop with USB2 and 3, E-SATA, SD,
Firewire, and Expresscard slot ! What a difference in approach to the
rotten-apple.

And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:

The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.

The answer is mostly that Firewire has realtime features... with USB2 you
just shove data through and hope it all makes it there in time, whereas
with Firewire you can get guaranteed throughput of a given data stream.

This is much more important in the video world, where throwing bandwidth
at the problem in place of designing systems for realtime operation is
more difficult.

Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
it)

It'll be interesting to see; I don't really know how Thunderbolt works inside.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
converters.

For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity are
available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available for longer.

MADI interfaces have been around for more than 20 years now. It's a mature
interface. There is a huge installed base going back a long way. It's
not going away soon.

It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and Lightpipe
interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2014 1:08 AM, Trevor wrote:

The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.

But for many years, it was possible to add a Firewire interface to a
Windows PC, either with an internal card or external PCMCIA, CardBUS or
ExpressCard. The computers were designed for expansion. But for the past
couple of years, laptops haven't had an expansion card slot, and
motherboards on desktop computers other than serious or
built-it-yourself ones have become pretty short on expansion slots.

Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because
nobody was making them that way. The perception was that although the
bit transfer rate with USB2 was actually a shade faster than Firewire,
the fact (or belief) that a transfer could be interrupted by practically
anything made it seemingly unreliable for more than 8 channels.

I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now
that interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too
many of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee
and UA who have always put the Apple community first.

Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.

The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have
one Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to
it. This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the
computer manufacturer.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be a spokesman for
Thunderbolt, I'm just saying that unless something is horribly wrong
with it, it's ultimately going to be the way to connect things to a
computer in the near future, and a few years from then, the ONLY way.
It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show
earlier this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.

When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer port?

Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
it)

Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
have a Firewire port on it. I wonder how well one would work with my 9
year old laptop through a PCMCIA Firewire adapter. It'll probably work
as well as a Firewire interface, but given that Thunderbolt doesn't go
through the regular PCI bus, but goes right to the heart of the
processor, the speed of an "adapted" port will be limited to the speed
of the expansion card bus.

Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding USB2
already does the job though :-(

It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job. I'm quite
sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the port
involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast enough
at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs
them and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while
you're recording a vocal track.


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2014 2:43 AM, geoff wrote:

Don't know if that's feasible. USB3-to-Firewire never seemed to happen.

Firewire was essentially dead by the time USB3 got any traction. Making
such an adapter would only prolong the time when before user of a
Firewire device would replace it. The hardware manufacturers don't want
you to use your device forever, they want you to buy a new one.

FWIW I recently picked up a Dell i7 laptop with USB2 and 3, E-SATA, SD,
Firewire, and Expresscard slot ! What a difference in approach to the
rotten-apple.

Model number? Source? Price? And what Firewire audio I/O device(s) are
you using with it? Or was this a two years old one "on eBay?"

A few months back I picked up a Lenovo laptop with all of that minus the
e-SATA, but the Firewire port had a Ricoh chipset and I guess what we
were saying about them several years back (that they don't work worth a
hoot with audio interfaces) was true - it barely worked or didn't work
at all with any of the four Firewire audio interfaces I have here, so I
returned it. Too bad. Otherwise, it was a nice computer, and I think
cost only about $200.

And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?

Ten years would be a fair guess.


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/25/2014 10:07 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
converters.

Prism and DiGiCo are both using MADI-to-USB converters to connect a
gazillion channels of audio I/O to computers. But this is beyond the
needs and most likely budget of the singer-songwriter studio. MADI has
been around for a long time, but it's only recently that it's starting
to see the light outside of really large systems..


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2014 7:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and Lightpipe
interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening.

It's just now starting to show up in smaller systems and installations
now, probably because someone finally made an inexpensive MADI chip (or
the licensing deal got better). But now a lot of those companies who
have been relying on MADI for big channel counts are looking seriously
at Dante and other AES67 audio-over-IP systems. Most of the new live
sound consoles have an Ethernet port these days, just waiting for the
next big thing.


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

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, 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?

Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
interface manufacturers will adopt it.

The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
it)


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?

Which particular interface depends on a lot of things, but as far as a
computer connection _today_, I'd not be afraid of USB. And don't try to be
too progressive and look for one designed for USB3. There's no compelling
reason to use anything beyond USB2 for an reasonable recording system. The
Antelope Orion does 32 channels in and out (analog line level) on USB2 and
costs a few cents under a grand. And for a basic songwriter studio, you
can get a fine Focusrite for a couple of hundred bucks, or a nice RME or
Metric Halo for several hundred.

Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding USB2
already does the job though :-(

Trevor.

USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
friends.

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
converters.

For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity are
available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available for longer.

MADI interfaces have been around for more than 20 years now. It's a mature
interface. There is a huge installed base going back a long way. It's
not going away soon.

It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and Lightpipe
interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening.
--scott


One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived
obsolescence.

So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the
next big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the
expensive converters.

For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity
are available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available
for longer.

MADI interfaces have been around for more than 20 years now. It's a
mature interface. There is a huge installed base going back a long way.
It's not going away soon.

It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and
Lightpipe interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening. --scott


One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

And 24/48 at that.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
friends.

Is it better now? I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that
the reason why we (in audio) have Firewire was because that was how
people got data off their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB
1.1, which we had then, took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have
that much patience and wanted to get their home movies into their
computer in a minute or so.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2014 2:00 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

But there's a de facto standard (S-Mux) for running 16 channels via two
ADAT optical ports, or for 8 channels at 2x sample rate.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/26/2014 2:00 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

But there's a de facto standard (S-Mux) for running 16 channels via two
ADAT optical ports, or for 8 channels at 2x sample rate.

And there's no reason you can't bundle a dozen lightpipes together with a
cable tie either. I am no fan of the whole Toslink thing but there is
still a considerable installed base of the stuff out there.
--scott

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

[S. King]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:24:49 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
friends.

Is it better now? I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that
the reason why we (in audio) have Firewire was because that was how
people got data off their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB
1.1, which we had then, took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have
that much patience and wanted to get their home movies into their
computer in a minute or so.

When HD video came along (2008 for me) Firewire worked better for
connecting external hard drives that were being used for video editing. I
had some USB2 external drives that I tried on my video editor's Final Cut/
MAC system. We would get occasional hiccups that would crash the
software. We didn't get that with Firewire. The popular theory was that
Firewire was better for sustained read/write of large files than USB. MAC
video people remember that and still prefer Firewire 400 or even better
800. Later, maybe 2010, usb external drives worked about as well as
Firewire. Of course, the current preference is Thunderbolt or USB3 in the
MAC world. With PC's now E-SATA is blisteringly fast.

In 2008 and before most video was still being recorded to tape, so
transfers out of the camera or from DigiBeta or DVCAM decks were real
time. Things are better now.

Steve King

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/26/2014 1:08 AM, Trevor wrote:
The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting
that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.

But for many years, it was possible to add a Firewire interface to a
Windows PC, either with an internal card or external PCMCIA, CardBUS or
ExpressCard. The computers were designed for expansion. But for the past
couple of years, laptops haven't had an expansion card slot, and
motherboards on desktop computers other than serious or built-it-yourself
ones have become pretty short on expansion slots.

But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.


Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because nobody
was making them that way.

Right, nothing has changed other than the desire to make it work as it
always could have.


The perception was that although the bit transfer rate with USB2 was
actually a shade faster than Firewire, the fact (or belief) that a transfer
could be interrupted by practically anything made it seemingly unreliable
for more than 8 channels.

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


I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
who have always put the Apple community first.

Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.

The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
manufacturer.

The latter is probably true. However the cost of USB hubs is less than the
cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(


Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be a spokesman for Thunderbolt,
I'm just saying that unless something is horribly wrong with it, it's
ultimately going to be the way to connect things to a computer in the near
future, and a few years from then, the ONLY way.

I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just as it
did Firewire.


It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show earlier
this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.

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


When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer port?

But at least USB adapters are available for both.


Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
to
it)

Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
have a Firewire port on it.

Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice versa.
You already indicated PC's are available with Thunderbolt.


Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
USB2
already does the job though :-(

It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.

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


I'm quite sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the
port involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast
enough at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs them
and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while you're
recording a vocal track.

Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They simply
chose Firewire instead. But anyone who has the internet running while trying
to record deserves all the problems they get IMO. Firewire, USB, or
Thunderbolt!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?

Ten years would be a fair guess.

Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
friends.
Is it better now?

All those old tape camera's had Firewire ports and there are no Firewire to
USB2 adapters, so the question is moot.
For digital USB2 works just fine, and always has.


I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that the reason why we
(in audio) have Firewire was because that was how people got data off
their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB 1.1, which we had then,
took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have that much patience and
wanted to get their home movies into their computer in a minute or so.

That's NOT possible from tape no matter what interface you used. It's real
time or nothing. The idea was NOT to drop frames in the transfer and have to
start all over!

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 28/04/2014 6:46 p.m., Trevor wrote:


But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.


Rather some external devices have problems working with some of the
chipsets. Get an PC interface with a TI chipset and all is usually good
with most devices.


geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 6:46 p.m., Trevor wrote:
But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.

Rather some external devices have problems working with some of the
chipsets.

Well each blames the other of course. No consolation to the user with
problems.


Get an PC interface with a TI chipset and all is usually good with most
devices.

Agere chipsets usually work OK too.

Trevor.

[DanielleOM]

On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/26/2014 1:08 AM, Trevor wrote:
The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting
that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
But for many years, it was possible to add a Firewire interface to a
Windows PC, either with an internal card or external PCMCIA, CardBUS or
ExpressCard. The computers were designed for expansion. But for the past
couple of years, laptops haven't had an expansion card slot, and
motherboards on desktop computers other than serious or built-it-yourself
ones have become pretty short on expansion slots.
But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.


Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because nobody
was making them that way.
Right, nothing has changed other than the desire to make it work as it
always could have.


The perception was that although the bit transfer rate with USB2 was
actually a shade faster than Firewire, the fact (or belief) that a transfer
could be interrupted by practically anything made it seemingly unreliable
for more than 8 channels.
Right, nobody bothered to check before jumping on the Apple bandwagon.


I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
who have always put the Apple community first.

Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
manufacturer.
The latter is probably true. However the cost of USB hubs is less than the
cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(


Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be a spokesman for Thunderbolt,
I'm just saying that unless something is horribly wrong with it, it's
ultimately going to be the way to connect things to a computer in the near
future, and a few years from then, the ONLY way.
I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just as it
did Firewire.


It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show earlier
this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.
Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those PC
laptops also have USB3 right?


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


Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
to
it)
Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
have a Firewire port on it.
Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice versa.
You already indicated PC's are available with Thunderbolt.


Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
USB2
already does the job though :-(
It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.
In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.


I'm quite sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the
port involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast
enough at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs them
and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while you're
recording a vocal track.
Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They simply
chose Firewire instead. But anyone who has the internet running while trying
to record deserves all the problems they get IMO. Firewire, USB, or
Thunderbolt!

Trevor.








Trevor

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?

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

Still need to make a decision here. 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.

Danielle

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.

Early on, a couple of chipsets didn't work with audio devices. Later on,
most did, but there are still a couple of holdouts. If a computer or
Firewire adapter has a Ricoh chipset, you can expect trouble using it
with audio I/O devices, but TI, NEC, and VIA chipsets almost always work
with anything audio. The problem, though, as Firewire became less
common, is that pre-purchase information is pretty scarce. You don't
always know what the Firewire chip is before you have the device
installed in your computer. The reputable ones identify themselves,
others don't. And even if someone tells you that the computer or
expansion card that he bought last year worked with the interface you
want to use, you can't even guarantee that this year's model will use
the same chipset as the known working one. The hardware manufacturers
change parts as price and availability changes and equivalents aren't
always equal.

. . . the cost of USB hubs is less than the
cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(

The thing is that there really isn't adequate testing, and there's all
kinds of PC hardware out there. You really can't test every interface
with every USB chip, on every motherboard. You can connect a printer or
mouse or external hard drive to the USB port on any computer and it'll
nearly always work. There are enough design standards and practices that
keep manufacturers on both sides of the port for this kind of device.
USB audio devices are getting more compatible as time goes on, The USB
protocol is simpler than Firewire so it's easier to know what you can
and can't get away with when designing something that connects via USB.
And faster CPUs have certainly contributed to covering up some things
that didn't used to work.

Most manufactures of USB audio I/O devices recommend not using them
through an external hub, even a powered one. I've never run across one
that didn't work at all through a hub, but I've run across a couple that
have been glitchy when going through a hub and not when connected
directly to a port on the computer.

I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just as it
did Firewire.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/28/2014 2:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?

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.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/28/2014 2:58 AM, Trevor wrote:
All those old tape camera's had Firewire ports and there are no Firewire to
USB2 adapters, so the question is moot.

For what it's worth, my first portable digital recorder, a Nomad Jukebox
3, has both a Firewire and USB port, but it's only for data transfer,
and I think it's USB 1.1, not USB 2.

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

[DanielleOM]

On 4/28/2014 7:08 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.

Early on, a couple of chipsets didn't work with audio devices. Later
on, most did, but there are still a couple of holdouts. If a computer
or Firewire adapter has a Ricoh chipset, you can expect trouble using
it with audio I/O devices, but TI, NEC, and VIA chipsets almost always
work with anything audio. The problem, though, as Firewire became less
common, is that pre-purchase information is pretty scarce. You don't
always know what the Firewire chip is before you have the device
installed in your computer. The reputable ones identify themselves,
others don't. And even if someone tells you that the computer or
expansion card that he bought last year worked with the interface you
want to use, you can't even guarantee that this year's model will use
the same chipset as the known working one. The hardware manufacturers
change parts as price and availability changes and equivalents aren't
always equal.

. . . the cost of USB hubs is less than the
cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit
when there
are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports
puzzles
and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(

The thing is that there really isn't adequate testing, and there's all
kinds of PC hardware out there. You really can't test every interface
with every USB chip, on every motherboard. You can connect a printer
or mouse or external hard drive to the USB port on any computer and
it'll nearly always work. There are enough design standards and
practices that keep manufacturers on both sides of the port for this
kind of device. USB audio devices are getting more compatible as time
goes on, The USB protocol is simpler than Firewire so it's easier to
know what you can and can't get away with when designing something
that connects via USB. And faster CPUs have certainly contributed to
covering up some things that didn't used to work.

Most manufactures of USB audio I/O devices recommend not using them
through an external hub, even a powered one. I've never run across one
that didn't work at all through a hub, but I've run across a couple
that have been glitchy when going through a hub and not when connected
directly to a port on the computer.

I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just
as it
did Firewire.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?





Mike, Not sure I understand you here. Have you used MOTU USB
interfaces with a PC?

Danielle

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 4/28/2014 2:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?

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.

"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

So the asnwer to Trevor's question is, "Yes".

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

[hank alrich]

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€¦

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

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2014 6:46 p.m., Trevor wrote:


But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.


Rather some external devices have problems working with some of the
chipsets. Get an PC interface with a TI chipset and all is usually good
with most devices.

That was true on the Mac side, too TI got their chip right and some
other manufacturers did not.


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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

USB3 is being phased in,

Note this from a year ago:

http://www.techspot.com/news/51826-e...s-will-reporte
dly-have-a-usb-30-bug.html

http://tinyurl.com/m8oatar

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

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
friends.
Is it better now?

All those old tape camera's had Firewire ports and there are no Firewire to
USB2 adapters, so the question is moot.
For digital USB2 works just fine, and always has.

You're talking consumer transfer of files from camera. My film and video
editing friends are talking working with outboard drives. USB didn't cut
it. Firewire did.

I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that the reason why we
(in audio) have Firewire was because that was how people got data off
their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB 1.1, which we had then,
took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have that much patience and
wanted to get their home movies into their computer in a minute or so.

That's NOT possible from tape no matter what interface you used. It's real
time or nothing. The idea was NOT to drop frames in the transfer and have to
start all over!

Trevor.

http://www.economist.com/news/techno...8-information-
storage-60-year-old-technology-offers-solution-modern

http://tinyurl.com/pg28uv4

"Although it takes about 40 seconds for an archive robot to select the
right tape and put it in a reader, once it has loaded, extracting data
from that tape is about four times as fast as reading from a hard disk."

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

On 4/28/2014 2:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?

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.

"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

So the asnwer to Trevor's question is, "Yes".


Also
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Thunderb...rbolt+firewire

Dunno if the drivers will do that right, but...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/26/2014 1:08 AM, Trevor wrote:
The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting
that
unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.

But for many years, it was possible to add a Firewire interface to a
Windows PC, either with an internal card or external PCMCIA, CardBUS or
ExpressCard. The computers were designed for expansion. But for the past
couple of years, laptops haven't had an expansion card slot, and
motherboards on desktop computers other than serious or built-it-yourself
ones have become pretty short on expansion slots.

But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.



I was careful in my 2005 purchase and had the non-evil 1394 chipset
on the motherboard.

Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because nobody
was making them that way.

Right, nothing has changed other than the desire to make it work as it
always could have.


The perception was that although the bit transfer rate with USB2 was
actually a shade faster than Firewire, the fact (or belief) that a transfer
could be interrupted by practically anything made it seemingly unreliable
for more than 8 channels.

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



It's the "it's an appliance" school...

I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
who have always put the Apple community first.

Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
USB2
and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.

The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
manufacturer.

The latter is probably true. However the cost of USB hubs is less than the
cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(


Indeed. Although for as long as I can buy SATA drives for my old XP
machine...



Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be a spokesman for Thunderbolt,
I'm just saying that unless something is horribly wrong with it, it's
ultimately going to be the way to connect things to a computer in the near
future, and a few years from then, the ONLY way.

I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just as it
did Firewire.



VHS v. Beta?

It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show earlier
this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.

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


When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer port?

But at least USB adapters are available for both.


Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
to
it)

Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
have a Firewire port on it.

Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice versa.
You already indicated PC's are available with Thunderbolt.


Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
USB2
already does the job though :-(

It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.

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


I'm quite sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the
port involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast
enough at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs them
and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while you're
recording a vocal track.

Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They simply
chose Firewire instead. But anyone who has the internet running while trying
to record deserves all the problems they get IMO. Firewire, USB, or
Thunderbolt!


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.

Trevor.





--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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