[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

may I suggest you post on a computer savvy group.
my logic is that although your topic is audio,
your subject problem is computer.

Computer people don't understand audio. They'll probalby tell me that if
it works with a disk drive it's OK. Besides, I think the problem may be
with the connector. I was making some measurements on the console today
and it started to crap out when I bumped it alittle hard. Wigging the
connector gives me the same sort of problems as it would develop on its
own eventually. The connectors don't really feel very good - in fact
this is a problem with Firewire in general - the connectors don't feel
very good. I did a little work with some gaffer tape and now it seems
more stable.


And I'm not sure what my quest really is. I just want something that's
supposed to be plug-and-play to play when I plug it in. But that's
probably asking too much.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Is this a dual core machine?

No. I'm beginning to suspect the Firewire connector on the chassis. I
can create the crackling noise with the very slightest movement of the
cable. Of course there's all sorts of things that can be wrong that
cause the same kind of noise. I've taped the cable down to the table to
reduce the possibility of motion.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 7:04 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
wrote:
may I suggest you post on a computer savvy group.
my logic is that although your topic is audio,
your subject problem is computer.

Computer people don't understand audio. They'll probalby tell me that if
it works with a disk drive it's OK. ...
And I'm not sure what my quest really is. I just want something that's
supposed to be plug-and-play to play when I plug it in. But that's
probably asking too much.

Mike

Your quest is to better understand this so you can better write about
it.
and yes a "computer nerd" does have a limited understanding
and yes an audio geek has a limited understanding.
You, GRASSHOPPER, are seeking someone who transcends
and ya haven't found them here!!!

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

If you determine it's not the problem, there are other things we could look
at, though, as you seem to agree, it's academic without a TI card in there.

Are you suggesting that a Firewire interface card with a TI chip is the
cure-all? My VIA card seems to be working fine, when the system works.
And these days it's losing itself so infrequently that I can't really
blame che chipset.

Understanding in detail why it does not work is not nearly as important as
identifying a good configuration.

Not for me. I want to understand WHY a certain configuration is good. I
don't think it's a good device if it will only work with a certain
interface card, unless that card is supplied with the device. That's the
good thing about interfaces that use a PCI or now PCIe card. You put it
in and it works - unless of course it doesn't. g


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:07:02 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

The world changes, and we don't like it.
In fact, there are lots of things I don't like about the new world: bad
literature, bad music, and mp3 players But we have to pick our battles.
Regardless of what you write, or what I read and listen to, the world will
just keep moving further and further away from what we wish for.

I must strongly disagree. The (modern) world is a human construct, a
product of engineering, and so it is a choice. Please, please, don't
give up. Never give up. It's the only correct Human choice. Anything
less is a literary conceit, and Morally Ambiguous, or worse, if such
exists. And bull****.

We're Humans. We're males (and a few females, in helpful, supportive,
life-affirming, non-threatening-of-masculinity roles...). We Engineer
the world.

The Modern World must, by definition, look pretty bad to anybody,
in any age or era, with half a hope for their childrens' futures,
because it's ALWAYS desperate. Always. Always. Always.

But we're descended from at least four billion years of ancestors
who managed to muddle on anyway. By definition, our ancestors
muddled on in the face of desperate odds. The world has always,
without exception (possibly even in the Eisenhower era!) been
desperate.

Only slightly kidding!, and much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:57:46 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Great stuff, saved, but snipped here for bandwidth
including:

But still, I say, pick your battles. Fight for goodness, beauty, and truth,
but not to make computers as simple as they were in 1957.

Fair enough, as long as we can keep goodness, beauty and truth as
simple as they were then. Well, maybe that's not such a good idea...

How about this? We agree to keep goodness, beauty, truth and
computers as significant as they were in 1957? That's, sadly,
a politically/ religiously popular idea, even in 2008. Arf.


But maybe it depends on the definition of "1957". Here in
Little Rock, Arkansas, that's a year of both great pride and
great shame. The state's Governor, previously a reasonably
forward-looking (in context only, of course) guy, got himself
into an embarrassingly stupid position, aligned against the
President, a previously backward-looking guy who fought The War
with a racially segregated military.

Neither Governor nor President seemed to have any high purpose
in the Little Rock school desegregation standoff of 1957. No
beauty, no truth, back then, fersure, but maybe a goodness arose,
finally, over the years that followed. And none of it could have
happened without the ground swell of local citizen's (mostly
women!) support from both sides of the tracks.

Folks picked their battles, and are still fighting them. Here
in Arkansas a ballot measure to restrict the adoption of children
to *not* include "co-habitating couples", widely understood to
mean those horrible GAY couples that are so dangerous to young
children, passed with a large margin last week. Civil rights
is a forever battle.

Goodness, beauty and truth.

Right on, right on.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Soundhaspriority wrote:

If you determine it's not the problem, there are other
things we could look at, though, as you seem to agree,
it's academic without a TI card in there.

Are you suggesting that a Firewire interface card with a
TI chip is the cure-all?

I've played this game, and there are no cure-alls.

My VIA card seems to be working
fine, when the system works.

Guess what, the VIA chip and card-level implementations of it haven't been
identically the same all along.

And these days it's losing
itself so infrequently that I can't really blame the
chipset.

There's only 2 things to possibly blame...

I'm an equal-opportunity blamer, blame them both! ;-)

Not for me. I want to understand WHY a certain
configuration is good. I don't think it's a good device
if it will only work with a certain interface card,

So much for many of the Pro Tools audio interfaces. The vendor only
guarantees them if you use a TI chip, last I looked.


unless that card is supplied with the device.

Good point, as the cards are very cheap, even the good ones. Why risk a
$500 interface when you could throw in a card that might cost $5 in OEM
quantities?

That's the good thing about interfaces that use a PCI or now PCIe
card. You put it in and it works - unless of course it
doesn't. g

There you go. ;-)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm just saying that if the TI is the recommended chipset, that's the
first thing to try

OK. TI was what Hank said Metric Halo recommends for use with his
interface. The A&H guy I talked to said they didn't have a list of
recommended interface cards or chip sets.

I want to understand WHY a certain configuration is good.

That isn't usually available to a nonprogrammer. It might not be available
to a programmer either.

My point, exactly (almost). It suggests that there's really nobody who
understands enough about these things to be able to know if they'll
work, or why they won't. I'm sure it's not impossible to figure out, but
it's easier to just tell the customer "Try something else. It'll only
cost you $20." Plus shipping, of course, and another $20, and another
$20 until you stumble across one that works.

Sometimes, in order to really know why, you have to be the engineer with
the test rig, or failing that, a bus probe with custom programming. When the
answer is found, it's put in the usage specs, but the real reason is buried
in the engineering archives of some company as confidential information. Or,
it's coded into the driver, the source code of which is confidential
information.

None of which is helpful to the user. If there were good interface
standards and interface control documents that everyone followed, then
everything would work, or at least you could figure out why it doesn't.
With analog hardware, it's pretty simple because there are a fairly
small number of parameters that affect the operation, and if it doesn't
work correctly, or doesn't work at all, there are usually some pretty
good clues. Things can be measured easily. If you're connecting a tape
deck to a mixer, you can use a generator to see if the mixer input
works, and you can use the same generator to determine the input
sensitivity. You can use a voltmeter to see if the recorder is putting
out a signal, you can determine the voltage level, and find out what
pins on the connector are active.

With a digital interface, the parameters are primarily data format (word
length, content, which end the most significant bit is on, polarity) and
timing. Neither of those can be determined by equipment that's easy to
find or use. A good program will prevent things from depending on
external timing to work, but often these things are sacrificed on the
assumption that whatever it will be used with will be fast enough. And
sometimes there's just no connectivity. For example, why can't a
Firewire driver tell Windows to run the interface at 400 mbps (if that's
what it needs for successful operation)? I suppose the answer is that
Windows doesn't let itself be told things like that. Why not? Because
they didn't think there would be a need. (or maybe because it's Microsoft)

But I digress.

These days, the fundamental knowledge is that of standards. If you have a
document that states the rules for using a device, as in driver calls, or
compatibility, that's the best you're going to get.

So where are these things? The manufacturer must know something because
they have to be able to test their own hardware and software. But maybe
they don't anticipate enough variables in that testing. It would be nice
to know at least what they know works.

When I started out, I was toggling programs in by a front panel, and I could
see every register of the machine.

I did that, too. It was easy to see why something wasn't working or what
it was trying to do when it stopped.

An effective person learns how to manipulate the always newly changing
levers that the new world provides.

The usual way to do that is just to buy something that you don't yet have.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:07:02 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

The world changes, and we don't like it.
In fact, there are lots of things I don't like about the new world: bad
literature, bad music, and mp3 players But we have to pick our battles.
Regardless of what you write, or what I read and listen to, the world will
just keep moving further and further away from what we wish for.

I must strongly disagree. The (modern) world is a human construct, a
product of engineering, and so it is a choice. Please, please, don't
give up. Never give up. It's the only correct Human choice. Anything
less is a literary conceit, and Morally Ambiguous, or worse, if such
exists. And bull****.

Yes, people make machines. And that means people should control machines,
and NOT the other way around. Too many people forget that.

One of the great things about the modern world is that there are so many
different generations of technology that have been made, and there is no
reason you cannot pick and choose between them. If you want to heat your
house with a woodstove, grow all your own food, and use a 2" Ampex, there
is nothing preventing you from doing so.

If you don't like bad literature, bad music, or mp3 players, you don't
have to use them. You can't necessarily prevent anyone else from using
them, but you can take solace in the fact that they are ephemeral and will
soon be gone and replaced with something else.

The Modern World must, by definition, look pretty bad to anybody,
in any age or era, with half a hope for their childrens' futures,
because it's ALWAYS desperate. Always. Always. Always.

People in general are like that, but that doesn't mean that you have to be
that way personally. That's the marvelous part about being human.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

One of the great things about the modern world is that there are so many
different generations of technology that have been made, and there is no
reason you cannot pick and choose between them. If you want to heat your
house with a woodstove, grow all your own food, and use a 2" Ampex, there
is nothing preventing you from doing so.

That's true, but the practical side is that if you don't want to spend
your life building and fixing things, you need to buy what's available.
And in a field like recording-for-the-low-budget-musician-not-engineer,
most products are designed with known compromises to meet the designated
price point.

I'm pretty much convinced that the problems that I've been experiencing
that started this thread are attributable to:

(a) the Firewire cable connector (the easy part to fix)
and
(b) what the computer does when the connection gets flaky (a harder part
to fix).

If (a) was fixed, say by incorporating one of those Neutrik Firewire
connectors with the XLR-type shell, then maybe they wouldn't have to fix
(b) because it wouldn't be a problem - at least not on the mixer end.
But if the driver recovered gracefully when the hardware aw disconnected
and re-connected, there might be an intermittent click or blast of
noise, but it wouldn't require the proper order of restarting
(including, apparently, rebooting the computer) there wouldn't be a
problem. Both solutions cost money, one in added parts cost, the other
in added software and testing.

Price point busted! Back to the comfort of analog. g



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

John wrote:

in conversation with a manufacturer i work with (who shall remain
un-named) there has recently been discovered an issue with the DICE
driver in one of the updates. the driver has been taken apart by this
particular manufacturer and is being corrected; i can't say what other
manufacturers are doing.

Interesting. Given that there are a few superfluous settings on the
control panel (that have nothing to do with anything that A&H builds), I
suspected that the driver just came out of the box from t.c. Hopefully
everyone who uses the chip doesn't have to write their own driver from
the manual.

seeing symptoms similar to yours led to chasing the issue, finding the
error and correcting it. it's now a question of making certain that's
all it was. i'll let you know more as it is appropriate.

Thanks. I owe my contact at A&H a call before the end of this week. I'll
ask if there's an updated driver in the works.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Once again, this is the way the world works these days. They do not have
complete knowledge. The problem of establishing compatibity with generic
hardware is unsolved. Apple took another route; hence, less compatibilty.

It's tough to make something that will work with generic hardware, but
if the hardware complies with the interface specification, then it
should be easy. But I suppose there are some corners cut when they think
they can get away with it. Reminds me of a cartoon I used to have over
my desk of a canoe laying across a couple of sawhorses. One end was
curved up and the other end was curved down. One end was marked
"Hardware" and the other end "Software."

On the level of the user, it frequently is true that one has to buy a TI
card. To me, this is a petty detail. It's like carping about the texture of
toilet paper.

It's a little more than that. It's really more like you bought something
with XLR connectors and all you have is cables with phone plugs. But at
least in that instance you can clearly see what you need, and it doesn't
really matter if you buy cables with Switchcraft, Neutrik, or generic
Chinese connectors. They'll all work because they meet the XLR
specification.

What's worse is when the output doesn't have a level control and you
have to connect it to an input without a level control. Each
manufacturer assumes that the other end will have the adjustment so why
have two. The old dog user will put a pot in a box and be done with it.
The new user will wonder why his recording is distorted or too quiet. No
matter what, these days you have to do a certain amount of system
engineering yourself. But it's so much easier when you can see what
you're doing.

If I were reviewing a device that uses DICE, I would find out
what card they tested with, use that, and note in the review that it didn't
work with my Via card, or whatever.

Suppose I was lucky enough to have a card with which it works (which I
apparently do). I wouldn't have any reason to mention that it doesn't
work with certain cards unless the manufacturer offered that
information. I'm certainly not going to take on the task of finding
which cards it doesn't work with. The manufactuer doesn't pay me enough
to be a tester for the manufacturer.

In each box, I would put the maximum channel/bitrate of successful capture.
I would then discuss the nature of an extended BIOS interrupt as provided by
the Asus, as compared to the shared interrupt of the Compal, and the
performance of the built-in Firewire adapter. I would discuss the
motherboard chipset architecture, which is vital to understanding why some
devices work in isochronous mode, and some don't.

Hey, they only want me to write 900-1000 words.

I have never, ever, seen a good review of an audio capture device. It seems
the problem is that audio reviewers don't know enough about computers, and
computerniks don't know or care enough about audio.

I think anyone reviewing a product like this should know something about
audio, But not necessarily much more about computers than to install
whatever software is necessary and figure out how to make it work. You
can read my review in Pro Audio Review of the Mackie 1200F for a
reasonably complete technical article about a computer audio interface.
But I didn't have to fiddle with it, it just worked with the two
computers and three interface cards that I have.

Sound on Sound has pretty good reviews. Hugh Ford, who died a few years
before Studio Sound died did great reviews, but he was gone before
computers. But most of us try to transcend computer issues since
they're likely to be different for different users. If it just plain
doesn't work, we send it back.



--
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

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

The market and the user have adjusted to each
other in an interesting way. The market has sold this proposition to the
user: "We will provide you with rapid innovation, and you, in return, will
help us make it work, because, if we had to wait to sell it until it was
perfect, we couldn't afford to do it at a price you could afford."

That's a pretty good statement of the way I see it. But I think that
part of the problem (and this certainly applies to recording gear and,
until very recently, houses) is that people have been sold on the idea
that what used to be too expensive for individuals is now well within
their means. What they don't get for the low cost, however, is the
experience of a manufacturer who figures out all the quirks and bulids
the gear so that it will be trouble-free when used properly (by an
experienced user). What business do we have messing with the inner
workings of computers anyway? g

And come to think of it, Mike, did you grow up with Bill Cosby's "TV pliers"
on top of the TV? The one used when the tuner knob fell off? I did. And all
the flakey contacts in the tuner? And all the leaky caps and gassy tubes?
And NTSC (never-the-same-color)? TVs were terrible! I think they make
modern computers look good.

I don't remember TV pliers, but the last TV set that I had which had a
mechanical tuner had knobs good enough so that they didn't break. My
present TV is from about 1982. It doesn't look very good any more,
though a digital converter did improve it in some respects (and break it
in others). I suppose I'll replace it when it dies, but it may never dies.

There are completely different rules for mission critical, and medical
devices. There are pacemakers, and there are robots specialized to brain
surgery. A single servo mis-swipe could kill an individual, yet these
incredibly complicated machines have been engineered so as to make a such a
failure unlikely. The price of the machinery is astronomical.

And still, occasionally, it screws up. I haven't heard of any
operational tragedies with surgical equipment that wasn't operator
error, but pacemakers get recalled now and then when they discover a
problem. A friend of mine's wife wanted to have Lasik eye surgery, and
my friend, a very good engineer, told her to ask the surgeon what sort
of software reliability design methods and testing were used on the
equipment.

Someday, perhaps, the pace of innovation will slow. Then they may try to
sell computers on the basis of reliability.

It's possible to buy a highly reliable computer, but Windows is still
Windows (yeah, I know, I should just bag it and run Linux) and Firewire
is still Firewire. I did observe at this Fall's AES show that the
balance seemed to be tilting away from low cost products and there were
more higher cost products on display. Maybe I'll see all the cheap stuff
at the NAMM show and it will only be a dream.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

I am actually more bothered by the sound side of pro reviews than the
computer aspect. There seems to be a lack of common points of reference. The
worst that can exist is when so-and-so says A is better than B, another
so-and-so says, B is better than C, and another guy says C is better than A.

Well, people want A/B comparisons. I try to avoid them and discuss a
product on its own merits, but sometimes the benchmark is so obvious
that I have to mention it. I've often written that the mic preamp in a
unit (one that isn't a stand-alone mic preamp) sounds just fine, and is
similar in character to a Mackie. But when I review a mic preamp (and
it's something I don't often do) I'll usually compare it to a Mackie and
my Great River using several mics on my voice. I think that's the best
basis for comparison and more meaningful than saying "I used it with a
KM184 on my baby Taylor" (I don't have either).

This may not exist in reviews, but it certainly exists in forum opinions.

That's a whole different ball game. I think that most forum "reviews"
are just a way to say "look at what I bought." How often have you read
someone asking "What's your opinion about an ZYX-471?" and getting a
reply "I have an ABC-94." ?

It boils down to a lack of context. When someone says, "this mike sounded
terrific", I want the context to be clearly stated. I don't want to guess,

But if he says it sounded terrific on drum overheads, that's pretty
meaningless to me. I don't have those drums and that drummer, and almost
surely I'm not recording a similar sounding song. I'd rather read about
how much gain it has, how quiet it is, whether it has any frequency
response humps, and what flavor of distortion it adds, if any is
audible. That will give me an idea of what I can use it on.

reviewer typically declares that an $800 preamp sounds good for an $800
preamp. Do you know how bad this is for a beginner, Mike? Three years ago I
was a beginner, and it took me six months to realize these guys were writing
crap.

The trouble is that you can't write the same thing every time, even if
that's really the way it is. There are so many similar mics and preamps
that, within a certain price range, and for a certain range of
applications, it makes absolutely no difference which one you buy. But
that isn't very helpful to a beginner either. This is why a beginner
shouldn't start out on line with a credit card in hopes to get
everything he needs to do whatever he does in the next ten years (and
spend less than $500 because that's all he has). He should to to a music
store or pro audio shop, ask questions about what THEY sell, do some
listening, and make a choice. But that's not the way people live their
lives today.

Have you seen the reviews where the first 1/4 of the review discusses the
box it came in, the artwork, all six faces of the box, how easy it was to
get the box open? Then a discussion of how heavy, or light, "it" is, with
the typical vocabulary of "hefty", "knob a little flimsy",....

More than once I've commented on what appears to be inadequate packaging
or something that's particularly difficult to open without damaging the
box (you may want to ship it some day) or compliment it on particularly
good packaging. The "feel" is pretty important when it comes to
something with knobs that you need to use. And traditionally, things
that are heavy are heavy because they're well built. I hate that the
gain trim knobs on a mixer feel wobbly, particularly when the result of
this is that you can't adjust them accurately because the last ten
degrees of rotation have 25% of the gain range. And just touching the
knob causes the gain to jump a dB or two.

This is absolutely useless to the buyer. The buyer gets 10X more info
reading the forums.

But 90% of it is from people who haven't used anything else so they can
only give a subjective opinion. There's some value to that, but you have
to weigh it for what it's worth, and it's important to know the
qualifications of the reviewer. I'm not saying that magazine reviews are
always better than on-line reviews, but if you follow formally published
reviews, you get to learn who thinks what is important, who listens for
what, and who tests for what. I know, for instance, when I read a review
by Paul Stamler, I can relate to what he says because he works with the
same kind of music and sources that I do. Someone who records heavy
metal may find Paul's reviews less useful, as I would find little use
for a mic that's been tested on drums, amplifiers, and a strummed
acoustic guitar.

The Traveler doesn't work very well. The units go bad. They get noisy. The
Firewire doesn't work right, with complaints very similar to your initial
experience with the DICE, except much worse. And after the original
reviewers declared that the pres of the Traveler were just about as good as
they come, others are now complaining how bad they are compared to... Once
again, a lack of context.

A reviewer of a new product doesn't have the benefit of history, and
unless it's DOA and he gets a replacement (or it's something like mics
that are suitable for use in a pair so he gets two) he doesn't usually
have any basis for evaluating reliability or consistency. There are some
things we can predict, though, based on experience with similar
products. For example, I've pointed out that the hinged cover over the
memory card in the Zoom H2 is likely to be the first thing to break (but
then mine hasn't broken yet), or that the 1/4" jacks don't grip a plug
very well.

But on the other hand, people who write about something on a forum
usually don't write about how great something is, they write about how
badly it sucks and how they didn't get any satisfaction from the
manufacturer.

So, permit me to point out a possible outcome. You review the Zed R16, and
you decide you like it. People buy it, some possibly because you liked it.
And then, sad to say, it turns out to be a disaster like the Traveler. How
will you feel?

I'd feel awful. But hopefully I'll spend enough time with it to get a
good sense of the problems that a user is likely to encounter. And if I
think it will turn out to be a disaster, I won't review it.
Manufacturers don't intentionally make bad products, but sometimes
there's something I see that they've never thought about that might be a
problem to some. And there will always be customers who had a specific
application in mind for which it's just not appropriate. Hopefully I can
guide people away from that so they don't buy it if they aren't going to
be happy with it.

For example, this A&H mixer loses two Firewire channels when running at
2x sample rates. Instead of 18 in and out (16 inputs channels and the
stereo main mix), you get 16. But what I didn't discover until I tried
it is that you don't have a choice of which channels you lose, and it
turns out that they're the main stereo pair. So if you want to record a
live session straight to stereo at 96 kHz (not an unreasonable thing,
though I probably wouldn't do it myself), you can't do it on this mixer.
Some people may never run into this limitation, for others, it would be
a deal killer. But I wouldn't advise anyone to buy it in hopes that
they'll rewrite the driver control panel to let you choose which 16
inputs to use.

But it amazes me how much faith some people have that a product that
doesn't fit their needs when they buy it will somehow eveolve into what
they dreamed it was. There are people who have had Mackie Firewire
interfaces for two years and aren't using them at all because there
aren't Vista drivers available. Does this make any sense at all? Why buy
something you can't use? Still, they continue to hang on to it and rag
on Mackie for taking so long to get them the drivers they need. Why
didn't they buy something else? Well, because the Mackie just looked SO
GOOD.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

A lot of bad news on the DICE chipset. Frankly, if someone comes into this
forum asking about it, I would tell them to stay away. It's too much risk.
What if 5% of the users are backed into a corner from which they cannot
easily exit by, for example, buying a TI interface card. It's too much risk.

Is _that_ what's in the rig at the A&H end of it?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote

I'd feel awful. But hopefully I'll spend enough time with it to get a good
sense of the problems that a user is likely to encounter. And if I think
it will turn out to be a disaster, I won't review it.

If you choose to do that, my hat is off to you.

Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
Disregard all advertising for this unit until further notice."?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

It's a pity that I find I can get more out of reading the forums than out of
a review. But that's the way it is. I google up every forum I can see, and I
read the opinions, each of which has little weight. Sometimes I find that
several individuals have used the product in widely different ways. If they
all like it, the composite is much more valuable to me than some guy who has
a writing job and two guitar cabinets for L&R.

The trouble with forums is that they're interactive. One user's problem
escalates into a dozen branches. You know that User A had a problem but
you never seem to find out what the actual problem was, or what the
solution is. Usually they (the posters) just go away. I looked at that
Google link that you posted in another message and I couldn't get
anything useful out of it, just a bunch of random people frustrated with
what they bought. If you believe what you read on forums, you'll be
afraid to buy anything.

It helps if one can get some numbers. Let's say I want to compare the DICE
chipset experience to the Echo Audio experience.

But who wants to compare "the DICE experience" with "the Echo Audio
experience?" You want to compare the products. Suppose the one that has
all the features you need didn't work for a user or two, and the one
that nobody had anything bad to say about it didn't meet your needs?

Google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&btnG=Sear ch
and the count, per page, of complaints related to DICE is huge.

No, I won't. Your Google references are too general. Tell me what's
significant to you. By the way, A&H says that they've never heard of the
problems that I've been having and they're sending me another one in
case I have a "weird" one. It can happen. By the way, I'm back into the
"crackle and pop" mode, but I had a few good days. g If I had bought
this console, I would have returned it to the dealer. I'd give him the
option of sending me a replacement or sending me a refund. Sometimes a
dud escapes the factory. I'm hoping this is the case here. But you seem
to be convinced that there's a problem with the DICE chip and that
nothing that uses it is going to work right. You could be right, there
are always things that the manufacturers don't uncover - users do things
the designers never anticipated. But it's hard to believe that something
that works fine for a few days will then become cantankerous. If I only
knew what I did to fix it the first time, I'd do it again (and tell you
what I did) but I tried "the fix" from last time (recording something)
and that didn't help this time.

Anyone got a virgin they can loan me for a sacrifice? When's the next
full moon anyway?





--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:

Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
Disregard all advertising for this unit until further notice."?

I have turned reviews like that into several magazines. Some of them
were published. Sometimes I got a kill fee instead.

I reviewed one of the first Feilo-designed microphones sold in the US.
That review sadly never made it into print.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.

These days, probably not, but then again, these days such a review
probably wouldn't be necessary. I wouldn't hesitate to warn users who
fall into a certain class about certain shortcomings. For example, I'm
pretty sure I mentioned in my Mackie 1200F review that at the time I
wrote it, Vista drivers weren't available and that Vista users have
reported mixed results from OK to Doesn't Work At All. I would hope that
should be sufficient warning, but some people will buy anyway figuring
that Vista drivers MUST be right around the corner.

I wrote the review nearly a year ago (it was published sometime over the
Summer) and a Vista driver still isn't available. It's not my place (or
the editor's) to rag on Mackie for that, but it's certainly the reader's
responsibility to consider the situation if he's already using Vista or
plans to upgrade soon. As far as the problems I've been having with the
A&H, before I write anything about questionable hardware or drivers, I
want to be very sure that it isn't a problem that I can correct by
changing something in my system. Maybe it really is just a poorly
fitting plug (though it seems that the driver should recover more
gracefully from this sort of communication error). Maybe it really does
prefer a different Firewire interface chipset. These are the things I
want to try to sort of, and that means learning about some things than I
really want to. But that's what it takes to keep up the Lamborghini
payments.

"Before I write anything about questinable hardware or drivers . . . "?
Who am I kidding? By posting here, what I've said in trying to learn
about what might be wrong will be preserved on web sites I've never
heard of, probably for the next hundred years. But I hate those posts
that say, essentially "I have a problem. Can someone tell me why?"



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

Mike

have you read the review in SOS?

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

have you read the review in SOS?

Review of what? The Zed R-16? No. I don't subscribe to Sound on Sound
and just pick up a couple of issues a year at AES and NAMM shows. I'll
take a look at the magazine's web site and see if it's there. Did they
say they had trouble getting the Firewire I/O to work or keep working?


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Mike Rivers (that's me) wrote:
wrote:
have you read the review in SOS?

Review of what? The Zed R-16?

OK, I found the teaser on the web site. Guess I'll have to find the
magazine or wait until June to read it on line. But you can give me a
little hint, can't you?



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 8:01 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Mike Rivers (that's me) wrote:

wrote:
have you read the review in SOS?
Review of what? The Zed R-16?

OK, I found the teaser on the web site. Guess I'll have to find the
magazine or wait until June to read it on line. But you can give me a
little hint, can't you?

your seeing all I've seen!!

maybe this new John will be of some assistance?