I Hate Windows Audio

[mcp6453[_2_]]

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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
virgin installation.

Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
long to know better.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:27:21 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:

>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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>virgin installation.
>
>Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>long to know better.

Whenever I have had Skype stutter it has been a problem in the
Internet. I've never had a problem with any of my windows-based
machine, although I daresay it is possible to screw one up to the
point where the audio no longer works properly. I wouldn't be blaming
Windows for that too readily though.

d

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2011 8:11 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:27:21 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>> virgin installation.
>>
>> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>> long to know better.
>
> Whenever I have had Skype stutter it has been a problem in the
> Internet. I've never had a problem with any of my windows-based
> machine, although I daresay it is possible to screw one up to the
> point where the audio no longer works properly. I wouldn't be blaming
> Windows for that too readily though.

I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
believe I am experiencing.

The problem is not the Internet. Skype has the ability to test the audio output
directly from the program (Tools | Options | Audio Settings). The audio stutters
from there.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:04 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:

>On 6/18/2011 8:11 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:27:21 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>>> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>>> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>>> virgin installation.
>>>
>>> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>>> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>>> long to know better.
>>
>> Whenever I have had Skype stutter it has been a problem in the
>> Internet. I've never had a problem with any of my windows-based
>> machine, although I daresay it is possible to screw one up to the
>> point where the audio no longer works properly. I wouldn't be blaming
>> Windows for that too readily though.
>
>I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
>configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
>not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
>believe I am experiencing.
>
>The problem is not the Internet. Skype has the ability to test the audio output
>directly from the program (Tools | Options | Audio Settings). The audio stutters
>from there.

Do other audio programmes behave ok? Specifically ones that use the
audio inputs - recording for instance.

d

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2011 8:55 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:04 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2011 8:11 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:27:21 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>>>> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>>>> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>>>> virgin installation.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>>>> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>>>> long to know better.
>>>
>>> Whenever I have had Skype stutter it has been a problem in the
>>> Internet. I've never had a problem with any of my windows-based
>>> machine, although I daresay it is possible to screw one up to the
>>> point where the audio no longer works properly. I wouldn't be blaming
>>> Windows for that too readily though.
>>
>> I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
>> configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
>> not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
>> believe I am experiencing.
>>
>> The problem is not the Internet. Skype has the ability to test the audio output
>> directly from the program (Tools | Options | Audio Settings). The audio stutters
>>from there.
>
> Do other audio programmes behave ok? Specifically ones that use the
> audio inputs - recording for instance.

Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are usually
caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible and
hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:13:44 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:

>On 6/18/2011 8:55 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:04 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/2011 8:11 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:27:21 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>>>>> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>>>>> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>>>>> virgin installation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>>>>> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>>>>> long to know better.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever I have had Skype stutter it has been a problem in the
>>>> Internet. I've never had a problem with any of my windows-based
>>>> machine, although I daresay it is possible to screw one up to the
>>>> point where the audio no longer works properly. I wouldn't be blaming
>>>> Windows for that too readily though.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
>>> configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
>>> not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
>>> believe I am experiencing.
>>>
>>> The problem is not the Internet. Skype has the ability to test the audio output
>>> directly from the program (Tools | Options | Audio Settings). The audio stutters
>>>from there.
>>
>> Do other audio programmes behave ok? Specifically ones that use the
>> audio inputs - recording for instance.
>
>Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
>application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are usually
>caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible and
>hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.

Has the PC been around long? I mean has it picked up the usual
detritus of re-installed and changed sound cards etc that can fill it
up with driver remnants that could possibly cause this?

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:12:51 -0700, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>mcp6453 wrote:
>> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
>> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
>> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
>> virgin installation.
>>
>
>Stuttering is most likely because there is packet loss.
>
>> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
>> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
>> long to know better.
>
>
>Try another VoIP service like Yahoo Voice, if nothing else as a
>comparison.

Better yet, get some actual results off a voip test site.

http://myspeed.visualware.com/indexvoip.php

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

mcp6453 wrote:
> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
> virgin installation.
>

Stuttering is most likely because there is packet loss.

> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
> long to know better.


Try another VoIP service like Yahoo Voice, if nothing else as a
comparison.

--
Les Cargill

[Sean Conolly]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message
...
> 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. Hopefully there is a utility
> somewhere.
> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem
> is
> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly
> with a
> virgin installation.
>
> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's
> official
> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this
> too
> long to know better.

It doesn't sound like a driver issue, it sounds like you're concerned that
there's a conflicting codec - that the Skype audio is going through the
wrong codec somehow.

When I look in Device Manager, under Sound / Video controllers -> Audio
codecs, with options to remove (not going to test that), disable (tested and
works) and to change the priority. The later is probably your best bet, but
you want to raise the priority one step at a time, and reload Skype between
each test so the codec picks up the new settings. Don't go to high or your
system may freeze when the audio starts.

Good luck,
Sean

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/18/2011 8:29 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
> configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
> not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
> believe I am experiencing.

Isn't that the way of the world these days? Things work on
some systems and not others, and updates add new features
that few actually need and break or remove old familiar
features that work.

No Skype here. I still have a telephone (and one with a
rotary dial, even).


--
"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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:37:55 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/18/2011 8:29 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
>> configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
>> not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
>> believe I am experiencing.
>
>Isn't that the way of the world these days? Things work on
>some systems and not others, and updates add new features
>that few actually need and break or remove old familiar
>features that work.
>
>No Skype here. I still have a telephone (and one with a
>rotary dial, even).

Much in demand by Foley artists, no doubt?

d

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2011 9:21 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:13:44 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
>> application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are usually
>> caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible and
>> hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.
>
> Has the PC been around long? I mean has it picked up the usual
> detritus of re-installed and changed sound cards etc that can fill it
> up with driver remnants that could possibly cause this?

It's a brand new installation of Windows 7 Pro. The computer is a Lenovo 9960,
which is a quad (two dual) core.

As far as the current project is concerned, I'm all good to go except for one
problem that I quite discovered by accident. The onboard sound card (remember,
this project is podcasting) is bleeding the input audio through to the output or
speaker connector. The "listen" box is not checked. I can find NO reason for the
audio to be looped through. The audio bleeds through after a reboot with no
applications open. It's the ADI chipset.

Just to make sure I didn't do something wrong, I substituted a different
computer with a similar onboard sound card. It doesn't bleed.

If all else fails, I can use a PCI sound card and avoid the internal card, but
doing so uses a slot that I may need.

Any ideas?

(This ain't exactly pro audio, but it is quiet around here.)

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2011 1:37 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2011 8:29 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> I don't think it is a Windows problem. It is a Skype problem. However, the only
>> configuration to which I have access is Windows. Skype works on some systems but
>> not others. The newer updates are known to be extremely buggy. That's what I
>> believe I am experiencing.
>
> Isn't that the way of the world these days? Things work on some systems and not
> others, and updates add new features that few actually need and break or remove
> old familiar features that work.
>
> No Skype here. I still have a telephone (and one with a rotary dial, even).

When it works, Skype is amazing. It's hard to talk to someone by phone if you've
spent a lot of time on Skype. When people call me on the phone, I call them back
on Skype, even if I use Skype Out to call their phone. It's the best
speakerphone that I've ever used. People constantly ask me what I'm talking on.

Lots of people use their built in laptop mics. Those suck. I use a Heil PR40
(obviously not just for telephone calls but for other projects on the same
computer.)

[geoff]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message
...


> Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
> application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are
> usually
> caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible
> and
> hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.

I think you might have narrowed it down to being a Skpe problem then, as
everything else seems to works quite happily together. Your blaming
Winidows and drivers is a bit of a stretch in the circumstances.

geoff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2011 8:47 PM, geoff wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
>> application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are
>> usually
>> caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible
>> and
>> hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.
>
> I think you might have narrowed it down to being a Skpe problem then, as
> everything else seems to works quite happily together. Your blaming
> Winidows and drivers is a bit of a stretch in the circumstances.

The Windows issue is how difficult it is to manage drivers and codecs. My
original post was whether there was a simplified method of solving the problem.
Apparently you have one. Can you share it?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:37:26 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:

>On 6/18/2011 9:21 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:13:44 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the only
>>> application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are usually
>>> caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the visible and
>>> hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.
>>
>> Has the PC been around long? I mean has it picked up the usual
>> detritus of re-installed and changed sound cards etc that can fill it
>> up with driver remnants that could possibly cause this?
>
>It's a brand new installation of Windows 7 Pro. The computer is a Lenovo 9960,
>which is a quad (two dual) core.
>
>As far as the current project is concerned, I'm all good to go except for one
>problem that I quite discovered by accident. The onboard sound card (remember,
>this project is podcasting) is bleeding the input audio through to the output or
>speaker connector. The "listen" box is not checked. I can find NO reason for the
>audio to be looped through. The audio bleeds through after a reboot with no
>applications open. It's the ADI chipset.
>
>Just to make sure I didn't do something wrong, I substituted a different
>computer with a similar onboard sound card. It doesn't bleed.
>
>If all else fails, I can use a PCI sound card and avoid the internal card, but
>doing so uses a slot that I may need.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>(This ain't exactly pro audio, but it is quiet around here.)

Well, I always disable onboard sound and fit a proper card - onboard
sound has never worked properly for me. You may have identified the
problem.

d

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/18/2011 5:37 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

> It's a brand new installation of Windows 7 Pro. The computer is a Lenovo 9960,
> which is a quad (two dual) core.

That's a lot wrong right there. A new installation is rarely
optimized for audio. Apparently Windows 7 has a problem with
audio and multi-core processors. I've heard most issues are
with USB audio interfaces, some with Firewire audio
interfaces, but who knows?

That's not related to your problem, though. That sounds like
either cockpit trouble or poor hardware design with the
internal sound card. Are you talking about low level leakage
(which could be a grounding problem within the computer) or
it's nearly as loud as the program material you want to hear
and you have no way to control it?


--
"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

[Phil W[_3_]]

"mcp6453":

> If all else fails, I can use a PCI sound card and avoid the internal card,
> but
> doing so uses a slot that I may need.

So, the podcast part is so important, that you rather would not spend a
proper sound card on this purpose? Don´t you think, that tells enough...?

And BTW, there are PCIexpress soundcards available nowadays, so you can save
the PCI slots for other cards. ;-)
I´d rather put in one of those, than lose nerves on stupid onboard audio
issues.

Of course, I don´t know, what you´re about to to with that machine, but what
PCI cards does a modern PC really need? Maybe a Firewire card or so, but
pretty much everything else, that you needed PCI cards for in the past, is
either onboard or beyond obsolete.


Phil

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/19/2011 8:58 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2011 5:37 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> It's a brand new installation of Windows 7 Pro. The computer is a Lenovo 9960,
>> which is a quad (two dual) core.
>
> That's a lot wrong right there. A new installation is rarely optimized for
> audio. Apparently Windows 7 has a problem with audio and multi-core processors.
> I've heard most issues are with USB audio interfaces, some with Firewire audio
> interfaces, but who knows?
>
> That's not related to your problem, though. That sounds like either cockpit
> trouble or poor hardware design with the internal sound card. Are you talking
> about low level leakage (which could be a grounding problem within the computer)
> or it's nearly as loud as the program material you want to hear and you have no
> way to control it?

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. My thoughts
followed along the lines of a possible internal short or wiring problem that was
causing input audio to bleed through to the output port. To test the theory, I
muted the audio on the chip. The audio went away. In my mind, that eliminated
the problem being a cross connection.

Knowing that Windows 7 drivers are still not the best in many cases, I decided
to try a Vista driver. It turned out to be the same driver, which is not a
surprise. It would not and did not need to install again. However, while I was
looking at the driver page, I focused on the "roll driver back" button. Since
I've never tried it before, I clicked it. After a very brief pause, the driver
version number changed to an earlier one. I immediately checked for bleed, and
it was gone. Completely. It wasn't cockpit trouble.

I did a podcast tonight with the new arrangement, and it worked flawlessly. If I
can find a way to keep Skype from randomly picking new drivers for input and
output, I'll be good to go. The Delta 1010LT allows me to run Skype, Talkshoe
(using Blink), and Paltalk on the same computer with two more pairs of channels
still available. The Behringer mixer I borrowed has 4 aux sends and two stereo
subgroups, effectively making six sends without getting into the balancing/pan
routine for individually addressing the channels in the subgroups.

Earlier today, I did a webcast from my in-laws using two computers and another
Behringer mixer. I never did get the output on the Griffin iMic to work, and I
never got the input to work on the cheapo/crapo USB-to-RCA converter. So I got
on the air using one for the input and the other for the output. The audio was
flawless, but it was a pain to set up. For the reasons Mike mentions, I think I
want to find a nice USB sound card with competent drivers suitable for XP and
Windows 7.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/19/2011 1:11 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/18/2011 9:21 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:13:44 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, everything else that I have tested behaves well. If Skype is the
>>>> only
>>>> application installed, it probably behaves well. These problems are
>>>> usually
>>>> caused by driver conflicts. Hence, if I could wipe out all of the
>>>> visible and
>>>> hidden drivers and codecs in XP, I may be able to solve the problem.
>>>
>>> Has the PC been around long? I mean has it picked up the usual
>>> detritus of re-installed and changed sound cards etc that can fill it
>>> up with driver remnants that could possibly cause this?
>>
>> It's a brand new installation of Windows 7 Pro. The computer is a Lenovo
>> 9960,
>> which is a quad (two dual) core.
>
> Wait - before you were talking about problems in XP, but now you're saying
> Win 7? Which is it? Or are you using the XP VM in Win7 ?

The problem is, was, and will always be on my Windows 7 computer. Sorry for the
slip. All of my other computers are XP.

[Bigguy2010]

On 18/06/2011 12:27, mcp6453 wrote:
> 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. Hopefully there is a utility somewhere.
> Skype is spitting and stuttering on my third computer. While the problem is
> apparently with Skype, I'm betting that even Skype will work correctly with a
> virgin installation.
>
> Lots of people complain about audio stuttering in Skype, but Skype's official
> response is, "it's not our problem." They're wrong. I've been doing this too
> long to know better.

Try some of the Sennheiser USB headphones

Sennheiser PC151 / PC161 etc...

These come with a USB to mic + headphone 'dongle' with a built in sound
card chip.
No drivers required in Win7.
It shows up as a new sound device and works extremely well with Skype.

G

[pongespob]

On Jun 19, 10:55*pm, mcp6453 > wrote:

> 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.


Maybe you can clarify further. What exactly does that mean? Digital
audio involves computing at every stage, does it not? It's another
task based on crunching code. Are you under the impression that a
computer should be able to do spreadsheets, run factories and space
vehicle launches and missions but digital audio is somehow too much to
ask of it?

[John Williamson]

pongespob wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:55 pm, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Maybe you can clarify further. What exactly does that mean? Digital
> audio involves computing at every stage, does it not? It's another
> task based on crunching code. Are you under the impression that a
> computer should be able to do spreadsheets, run factories and space
> vehicle launches and missions but digital audio is somehow too much to
> ask of it?

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.

Linux has special real-time kernels optimised for sound work, that give
priority to threads involving audio programs and audio data transmission.

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.

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.

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> pongespob wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 10:55 pm, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Maybe you can clarify further. What exactly does that mean? Digital
>> audio involves computing at every stage, does it not? It's another
>> task based on crunching code. Are you under the impression that a
>> computer should be able to do spreadsheets, run factories and space
>> vehicle launches and missions but digital audio is somehow too much to
>> ask of it?
>
> 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.

Just as well Windows can do all that at a doddle then. Mine processes 24
cahnnels of 24-bit 44k1 audio without breaking a sweat.

> Linux has special real-time kernels optimised for sound work, that give
> priority to threads involving audio programs and audio data transmission.

That'll be why there are so many market-leading real worls applications for
it then.

> 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.

Only if there is something wrong, or the computer is totally underpowered.

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

No problem dooing video stuff on my computers.

geoff

[Neil Gould]

John Williamson wrote:
> pongespob wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 10:55 pm, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Maybe you can clarify further. What exactly does that mean? Digital
>> audio involves computing at every stage, does it not? It's another
>> task based on crunching code. Are you under the impression that a
>> computer should be able to do spreadsheets, run factories and space
>> vehicle launches and missions but digital audio is somehow too much
>> to ask of it?
>
> 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.
>
> Linux has special real-time kernels optimised for sound work, that
> give priority to threads involving audio programs and audio data
> transmission.
>
> 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.
>
If you suffer from these problems, then your computer is misconfigured. I
haven't had any such problems going back to a PC-XT and Windows 3.1 with a
ZA2, Turtle Beach and other cards in it over 20 years ago.

> The problem's even worse for video, of course.
>
One of the other cards in that XT was a Targa board, and I had no trouble
doing NLE on it. It was slow, but it worked. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/20/2011 5:52 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> If you suffer from these problems, then your computer is misconfigured. I
> haven't had any such problems going back to a PC-XT and Windows 3.1 with a
> ZA2, Turtle Beach and other cards in it over 20 years ago.

Things were simpler back then. How many people today would
be caught dead using Windows 3.1 and a Turtle Beach sound
card? But they worked.

--
"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

[pongespob]

On Jun 19, 10:56*pm, mcp6453 > wrote:

> The problem is, was, and will always be on my Windows 7 computer. Sorry for the
> slip. All of my other computers are XP.


You made the statement "computers are made for computing". Still
waiting for you to clarify that.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 5:52 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> If you suffer from these problems, then your computer is
>> misconfigured. I haven't had any such problems going back to a PC-XT
>> and Windows 3.1 with a ZA2, Turtle Beach and other cards in it over
>> 20 years ago.
>
> Things were simpler back then. How many people today would
> be caught dead using Windows 3.1 and a Turtle Beach sound
> card? But they worked.
>
What more can one ask for? ;-D
There are certainly more choices today, but there are a lot more system
resources, too. Point being that audio just isn't all that hard to get
working right if you have quality components to begin with.

--
best regards,

Neil

[pongespob]

On Jun 20, 3:57*pm, John Williamson >
wrote:

> It's not so much the complexity of the computing as the timing that
> matters when you're working on audio.


Is it not true that people on here as well as major labels
successfully produce and release material done with computers and have
been doing so for some time?

[John Williamson]

pongespob wrote:
> On Jun 20, 3:57 pm, John Williamson >
> wrote:
>
>> It's not so much the complexity of the computing as the timing that
>> matters when you're working on audio.
>
>
> Is it not true that people on here as well as major labels
> successfully produce and release material done with computers and have
> been doing so for some time?

Maybe not world class, but I've been using computers for sound work a
couple of decades. I don't need to optimise them as much now, but it
still pays to tweak a couple of things, IME. Having said that, though,
modern OS's place a lot more demands on the hardware than the older
ones, and I've had problems with computers that ran perfectly under XP
SP1 failing to work entirely when SP3 was installed.

As others have said, though, modern computers have so much power
available that the limits are now with the operator, not the hardware.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/20/2011 5:52 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> If you suffer from these problems, then your computer is misconfigured. I
>> haven't had any such problems going back to a PC-XT and Windows 3.1 with
>> a
>> ZA2, Turtle Beach and other cards in it over 20 years ago.
>
> Things were simpler back then. How many people today would be caught dead
> using Windows 3.1 and a Turtle Beach sound card? But they worked.

My Tahiti and Pinnacle worked fine on XP !

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/20/2011 10:18 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> There are certainly more choices today, but there are a lot more system
> resources, too. Point being that audio just isn't all that hard to get
> working right if you have quality components to begin with.

One problem is that there's a "component" for which we
really can't measure quality, and that's the software - in
the case of an audio I/O device, the driver. People talk
about "poor quality drivers" but that just means that
there's something that isn't doing its job of connecting the
hardware with the operating system. This is understandably a
more vast job than in the pre-Windows days because there are
so many things that make the operating system more complex.
This might be a "poor quality operating system" to some.
They usually tell you how great Linux is. ;)



--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/21/2011 7:05 AM, geoff wrote:

> My Tahiti and Pinnacle worked fine on XP !

I have a Maui. I retired it in favor of a Lynx L22 by the
time I got to Win98.

--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>One problem is that there's a "component" for which we
>really can't measure quality, and that's the software - in
>the case of an audio I/O device, the driver. People talk
>about "poor quality drivers" but that just means that
>there's something that isn't doing its job of connecting the
>hardware with the operating system. This is understandably a
>more vast job than in the pre-Windows days because there are
>so many things that make the operating system more complex.

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.

What IS impossible is measuring the quality of the user interface, and that
is the real rub.

>This might be a "poor quality operating system" to some.
>They usually tell you how great Linux is. ;)

Well, it can be a good operating system but not be the right tool for the
job. These days we do realtime work on Windows and MacOS and Linux, and
none of them really have the facilities for doing realtime operations properly.

With a real realtime OS, when you make a call to the kernal, you tell it
how much time you have to wait before it has to be completed, and priority
between processes is constantly juggled dynamically to make sure everybody
can meet deadlines properly. But people don't use real realtime OSes for
audio, unless they are using an older Sonic workstation or a RADAR (which is
based on BeOS).

But, because computers are so cheap and fast, we throw lots of CPU at the
problem, and most of the time it works just fine in spite of the fact that
the OS doesn't have realtime mediation. But, sometimes it doesn't, and
then people post here complaining.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>> One problem is that there's a "component" for which we
>> really can't measure quality, and that's the software - in
>> the case of an audio I/O device, the driver. People talk
>> about "poor quality drivers" but that just means that
>> there's something that isn't doing its job of connecting the
>> hardware with the operating system. This is understandably a
>> more vast job than in the pre-Windows days because there are
>> so many things that make the operating system more complex.
>
> 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.
>
> What IS impossible is measuring the quality of the user interface,
> and that is the real rub.
>
The "quality" of the user interface is mostly subjective opinion. Since the
user has so much control over the final configuration, those opinions
probably should be based on how well they have set up their system. But,
these days it's more popular to blame someone else for one's problems.

>> This might be a "poor quality operating system" to some.
>> They usually tell you how great Linux is. ;)
>
> Well, it can be a good operating system but not be the right tool for
> the job. These days we do realtime work on Windows and MacOS and Linux,
> and none of them really have the facilities for doing realtime operations
> properly.
>
Fortunately, audio (and video) are "slow" enough by modern CPU speeds that
there should rarely be an issue caused by collisions. But, that won't get
one around badly written software apps that perform as though they are the
only thing happening in a multitasking environment.

> With a real realtime OS, when you make a call to the kernal, you tell
> it
> how much time you have to wait before it has to be completed, and
> priority between processes is constantly juggled dynamically to make
> sure everybody
> can meet deadlines properly. But people don't use real realtime OSes
> for audio, unless they are using an older Sonic workstation or a
> RADAR (which is based on BeOS).
>
BeOS... I inve$ted in that company based on the quality of its OS... 8-(

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

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).



--
"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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
>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).

which is why I use dedicated devices, often with their own
embedded software. every installation on a machine of mine
is by definition a custom tailored system, because of the
screen access. Screen access software/hardware vendors are
accustomed to thinking in turns of spreadsheets word
processing and the like that average office drones who are
blind will have to interact with. sUpport folks for the
audio hw/sw aren't used to thinking in terms of screen
access, and the whole process of giving the user maingful
feedback is cpu intensive anyway, and this makes for an
unstable system when trying to do such a thing as
simultaneous multi-track recording, etc.

What I want most is a standard file format put out by these
devices, standard media, this way the general purpose
computing devices only have to move files around.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

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).

In a perfect world, you have a verified operating system, which talks to
individual drivers provided by hardware manufacturers and which are
individually verified. And they don't run in the same address space so
the drivers can't scribble all over the kernal and vice-versa.

In such a world, it doesn't matter what you do with the hardware as long
as you have the proper drivers for it.

Unfortunately this world doesn't exist. The closest we can come is for
the hardware manufacturer to provide their own OS and a certain set of
standards (like Apple does) and hope for the best.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>
>What I want most is a standard file format put out by these
>devices, standard media, this way the general purpose
>computing devices only have to move files around.

There is an AES committee promoting just that... they have come up with the
Broadcast WAV format and are working on others. It is worth joining if you
have a vested interest in this sort of thing.
--scott


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

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-21 (ScottDorsey) said:
>In article >, <0junk4me@bellsouth.
>net> wrote: >
>>What I want most is a standard file format put out by these
>>devices, standard media, this way the general purpose
>>computing devices only have to move files around.
>There is an AES committee promoting just that... they have come up
>with the Broadcast WAV format and are working on others. It is
>worth joining if you have a vested interest in this sort of thing.
YEp, convert from hd-24 to those often. This is why the
black box will probably be my migration path from the
Alesis. My main thing is the ui of the device. I don't
want a touch screen, I want to feel the button that I push
to arm track 9, and the "transport" buttons <grin>. I don't
expect to have to go into the thing and modify the software
to make it usable by me. My assistant can always tell me
what the display says, so long as I can deal with i/o and
tranposrt independently.

I do my calibration with test tones so that 0vu analog gives
me house standard, usually -12 seems to work for me, but if
mixing for broadcast, etc. I"ll use whatever they want <g>.

I was aware of an AES committee relating to that, but am not
a member. YEah I probably should be, but ...





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[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