[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/21/2011 7:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Sure, we can measure it. That's what code verification is all about. The
problem is that measuring it is far more difficult and expensive than
writing
the code in the first place, so people are not apt to do it. The good
news
is that measuring it is the only way to actually write good code and that
people doing things like aircraft controls and mission-critical
embedded stuff
actually do it.

People who write code for things like aircraft controls and
mission-critical embedded stuff know exactly what hardware and operating
system they're writing for. But you can never be sure what the code will
encounter when it tries to run on a consumer-tailored computer (more
often than not tailored by the consumer).





Meh. People who write drivers for PCI, USB or Firewire devices on a
PC should be able to handle pretty much anything. Drivers get short
shrift. "Software is free".

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
It's not so much the complexity of the computing as the timing that
matters when you're working on audio. Things have to happen *now*, which
isn't the case when you're working on spreadsheets or controlling a
machine which has a latency of a tenth of a second after the control hits
it. All the other cases you give need timing precision on the order of
hundredths or tenths of a second, sound has to be within a small fraction
of a millisecond. For an audio CD, you have to do *all* the processing on
a pair of samples within 1/44,100 of a second, before it's too late,
because the next sample just arrived. For multitrack recording and
manipulation, multiply by a lot, especially if the sample rate is 192KHz
as used by some applications.

All of which the average computer has been quite capable of doing for over a
decade!
That *some* people have problems is no surprise, some people have problems
tying their shoe laces :-)


In Windows, network traffic, especially wireless traffic can take over the
whole computer for long enough to cause an audible glitch that wouldn't be
noticed on almost any other application.

Well there's your problem, turn off networks while trying to do any critical
audio or video!


The problem's even worse for video, of course.

Nope, many people have no problem with video either, even HD, but it does
place a far greater load on the computer than audio. Fortunately computers
can cope these days.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/21/2011 10:52 PM, Trevor wrote:

Well there's your problem, turn off networks while trying to do any critical
audio or video!

I recommend that, too, and also recommend that people use
one computer just for audio work and another computer for
all their other work and play. But these days, there are
some audio applications that involve networking so you cant
turn it completely off all the time.

What we need is a better operating system for audio
applications, of course, that can also handle those "other"
chores when needed and keep them out of the way when they're
not needed. I don't need my audio computer to continually
check for e-mail when I'm working in the studio, but I might
want access to a file on another computer or even a remote
system without having to restart the OS with networking
turned on.

Nope, many people have no problem with video either, even HD, but it does
place a far greater load on the computer than audio. Fortunately computers
can cope these days.

It's easier to forgive a dropout in video than with audio.
We watch TV like that all the time. Video requires moving
more data per second than audio, but that's what computers
are good at.


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

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

John Williamson wrote:

In Windows, network traffic, especially wireless traffic can take over
the whole computer for long enough to cause an audible glitch that
wouldn't be noticed on almost any other application.

Network traffic per se doesn't, but network - or harddisk - time-out may and
it will be noticed because it will be a wait-4-explorer - ie. filesystem can
not be navigated for the duration of reaching the fifth resource-timeout or
until resource is found.

Within limits, it doesn't matter if a cell on a spreadsheet is a bit
slow being calculated as long as it's in the right order when it comes
out of the printer or it's ready when the data is needed by other
cells. If your sample's late, you will hear it. Even if a rocket
ignites a fraction of second late, the problem can usually be
rectified later. If something's late at the speaker cone, it's too
late to do anything.

Yes, but all of that is speculation except that I did have "stray sample
loss" on a p2-300 because of some hardware time-out or bandwidth issue that
was caused by having the network cable inserted during sp-dif transfer to
the machine.

The problem's even worse for video, of course.

The issues, data over and underrun, apply for recording audio and video, not
for general audioputing except in special cases of hardware contention, one
example given above, another being sharemem graphics under worst case
conditions. The "issue mechanism" usually appears to be that windows tends
to assume that "trickle traffic" is not critical.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:52:24 +1000, Trevor wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
In Windows, network traffic, especially wireless traffic can take over
the whole computer for long enough to cause an audible glitch that
wouldn't be noticed on almost any other application.

Well there's your problem, turn off networks while trying to do any
critical audio or video!

Unless you are using networked audio. Though I suspect the few people who
need that are already using real-time Linux based systems anyway.

[geoff]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2011 10:52 PM, Trevor wrote:

Well there's your problem, turn off networks while trying to do any
critical
audio or video!

I recommend that, too, and also recommend that people use one computer
just for audio work and another computer for all their other work and
play. But these days, there are some audio applications that involve
networking so you cant turn it completely off all the time.

What we need is a better operating system for audio applications, of
course, that can also handle those "other" chores when needed and keep
them out of the way when they're not needed.

Um, that's easy-peasy. You set your Windows default audio device to your
consumer' (built-in ?) interface. Any serious audio recording software lets
you directly specify internally to that app which device or driver (or
driver type) to connect to.

I don't need my audio computer to continually check for e-mail when I'm
working in the studio,

That takes about three clicks to disable.

but I might want access to a file on another computer or even a remote
system without having to restart the OS with networking turned on.

No prob.


Nope, many people have no problem with video either, even HD, but it does
place a far greater load on the computer than audio. Fortunately
computers
can cope these days.

It's easier to forgive a dropout in video than with audio. We watch TV
like that all the time. Video requires moving more data per second than
audio,

Involves moving much more data, but fewer times per second !

geoff

[Olafur Gunnlaugsson[_2_]]

Þann 18/06/2011 12:27, skrifaði mcp6453:
Is there a way to totally purge XP of all of its audio drivers and codecs
without reinstalling the operating system? Just deleting them from Device
Manager doesn't seem to do the trick.

Remove the driver from the (hidden) driver windows subfolder if nothing
else works, on Vista and W7 you will have to remove the backup file as
well otherwise the system may decide to restore the driver.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

You're absolutely right, which goes back to my original point, even if I
didn't
make it clearly. Computers are built for computing, not sound.

You seem to think that computing and sound are necessarily working at cross
purposes to each other?

Raise your consciousness and realize that all analog audio gear is just
special purpose analog computers attempting to very approximately do what
general purpose digital computing equipment can do far better and with
greater flexibility and precision for a far lower cost.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/23/2011 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

You're absolutely right, which goes back to my original point, even if I
didn't
make it clearly. Computers are built for computing, not sound.

You seem to think that computing and sound are necessarily working at cross
purposes to each other?

Raise your consciousness and realize that all analog audio gear is just
special purpose analog computers attempting to very approximately do what
general purpose digital computing equipment can do far better and with
greater flexibility and precision for a far lower cost.

No, that's not what I think. What I think is that computer (digital) designers
are not really concerned about proper integration of audio components into stock
computers. Computers are adapted to sound, not built for it, at least according
to the system designers I know (and I'm in the semiconductor industry.)

You seem to think that I'm trying to adapt a Realtek onboard audio card to
ProTools. Raise your consciousness and realize that I am talking about a very
limited application that takes advantage of the onboard sound card as one of
several sound sources and inputs. That's all. The heavy lifting is handled by
external cards (for the portable rig) and internal cards (for the desktop.)

[Neil Gould]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 6/23/2011 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

You're absolutely right, which goes back to my original point, even
if I didn't
make it clearly. Computers are built for computing, not sound.

You seem to think that computing and sound are necessarily working
at cross purposes to each other?

Raise your consciousness and realize that all analog audio gear is
just special purpose analog computers attempting to very
approximately do what general purpose digital computing equipment
can do far better and with greater flexibility and precision for a
far lower cost.

No, that's not what I think. What I think is that computer (digital)
designers are not really concerned about proper integration of audio
components into stock computers. Computers are adapted to sound, not
built for it, at least according to the system designers I know (and
I'm in the semiconductor industry.)

General-purpose computers are adapted to *any* of their applications, which
is what makes them general-purpose computers. There are many dedicated
computers which have proper integration of audio components, but they tend
to look and behave like audio gear rather than general-purpose computers.

You seem to think that I'm trying to adapt a Realtek onboard audio
card to ProTools. Raise your consciousness and realize that I am
talking about a very limited application that takes advantage of the
onboard sound card as one of several sound sources and inputs. That's
all. The heavy lifting is handled by external cards (for the portable
rig) and internal cards (for the desktop.)

What advantages did you have in mind regarding the on-board sound card over
external or internal audio cards? All of my audio apps can select the
on-board sound card as a source, but I can't think of one good reason to do
so over the RME and other installed audio cards.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 6/23/2011 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

You're absolutely right, which goes back to my original point, even if I
didn't
make it clearly. Computers are built for computing, not sound.

You seem to think that computing and sound are necessarily working at
cross
purposes to each other?

Raise your consciousness and realize that all analog audio gear is just
special purpose analog computers attempting to very approximately do what
general purpose digital computing equipment can do far better and with
greater flexibility and precision for a far lower cost.

No, that's not what I think. What I think is that computer (digital)
designers
are not really concerned about proper integration of audio components into
stock
computers.

It is a fact that audio components are routinely integrateted into computers
with outstanding results, sonically speaking. In general the comptuers by
whatever means turn out to be eminently useful platforms for doing audio,
whether recording, playing or testing.


Computers are adapted to sound, not built for it, at least according
to the system designers I know (and I'm in the semiconductor industry.)

So?


You seem to think that I'm trying to adapt a Realtek onboard audio card to
ProTools.

You seem to think that you can read my mind, because I've said no such
thing. Here's a hot tip - you're not reading my mind correctly because I
never thought such a thing, either.

Raise your consciousness and realize that I am talking about a very
limited application that takes advantage of the onboard sound card as one
of
several sound sources and inputs.

In general those things work quite nicely, thank you.

That's all. The heavy lifting is handled by
external cards (for the portable rig) and internal cards (for the
desktop.)

So then where't the beef?

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/23/2011 5:06 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 6/23/2011 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

You're absolutely right, which goes back to my original point, even if I
didn't
make it clearly. Computers are built for computing, not sound.

You seem to think that computing and sound are necessarily working at
cross
purposes to each other?

Raise your consciousness and realize that all analog audio gear is just
special purpose analog computers attempting to very approximately do what
general purpose digital computing equipment can do far better and with
greater flexibility and precision for a far lower cost.

No, that's not what I think. What I think is that computer (digital)
designers
are not really concerned about proper integration of audio components into
stock
computers.

It is a fact that audio components are routinely integrateted into computers
with outstanding results, sonically speaking. In general the comptuers by
whatever means turn out to be eminently useful platforms for doing audio,
whether recording, playing or testing.


Computers are adapted to sound, not built for it, at least according
to the system designers I know (and I'm in the semiconductor industry.)

So?


You seem to think that I'm trying to adapt a Realtek onboard audio card to
ProTools.

You seem to think that you can read my mind, because I've said no such
thing. Here's a hot tip - you're not reading my mind correctly because I
never thought such a thing, either.

Raise your consciousness and realize that I am talking about a very
limited application that takes advantage of the onboard sound card as one
of
several sound sources and inputs.

In general those things work quite nicely, thank you.

That's all. The heavy lifting is handled by
external cards (for the portable rig) and internal cards (for the
desktop.)

So then where't the beef?

Arny, I'm not going to debate you. Most of the time I appreciate your posts as
being very helpful and informed. Then, for some reason, no one can say anything
with which you agree. You go off on your argumentative tangents. I don't know
what pleasure you and a couple of others here get out of being argumentative for
the sake of arguing, but have at it.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

Arny, I'm not going to debate you. Most of the time I appreciate your
posts as
being very helpful and informed. Then, for some reason, no one can say
anything
with which you agree. You go off on your argumentative tangents. I don't
know
what pleasure you and a couple of others here get out of being
argumentative for
the sake of arguing, but have at it.

Be as insulting as you like. Gratuitously accuse me of not being sincere. Go
your own way. If that's what floats your boat, enjoy!

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/23/2011 10:29 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

Arny, I'm not going to debate you. Most of the time I appreciate your
posts as
being very helpful and informed. Then, for some reason, no one can say
anything
with which you agree. You go off on your argumentative tangents. I don't
know
what pleasure you and a couple of others here get out of being
argumentative for
the sake of arguing, but have at it.

Be as insulting as you like. Gratuitously accuse me of not being sincere. Go
your own way. If that's what floats your boat, enjoy!

No insult intended. It's just an observation. And I'm not going anywhere. I've
probably been here as long as you have. Maybe longer. I don't have a boat, and I
don't enjoy unprovoked exchanges such as this one.

[geoff]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

Arny, I'm not going to debate you. Most of the time I appreciate your
posts as
being very helpful and informed. Then, for some reason, no one can say
anything
with which you agree. You go off on your argumentative tangents. I don't
know
what pleasure you and a couple of others here get out of being
argumentative for
the sake of arguing, but have at it.

Yes Arny can go a bit astray at times. But this time it seems to be you
that has the irrational bee in his bonnet.

geoff