What Audio Interfaces? [Archive]

Trevor

April 26th 14, 06:08 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> Since the new Mac Pro does not accept plug-in cards, I assume that the
>> recording industry is moving to Thunderbolt audio
>> interfaces. Is that correct?
>
> Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
> interface manufacturers will adopt it.

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

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

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

Trevor.

Trevor

April 26th 14, 06:11 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> geoff > wrote:
>>On 26/04/2014 2:31 a.m., mcp6453 wrote:
>>> Since the new Mac Pro does not accept plug-in cards, I assume that the
>>> recording industry is moving to Thunderbolt audio
>>> interfaces. Is that correct? If you were going to build a new Mac-based
>>> studio today, what would your audio interface
>>> look like, assuming FireWire is out of the mix?
>>
>>The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
>>arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.
>
> So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
> big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
> converters.

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

Trevor.

geoff

April 26th 14, 07:43 AM

On 26/04/2014 5:08 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>>> Since the new Mac Pro does not accept plug-in cards, I assume that the
>>> recording industry is moving to Thunderbolt audio
>>> interfaces. Is that correct?
>>
>> Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
>> interface manufacturers will adopt it.
>
> The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
> unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
> Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
> and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
> Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
> which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
> it)
'

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

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

And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?

geoff

Scott Dorsey

April 26th 14, 12:12 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Dorsey

April 26th 14, 12:14 PM

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
>>>arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.
>>
>> So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
>> big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
>> converters.
>
>For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity are
>available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available for longer.

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 12:26 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 12:34 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

> And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?

Ten years would be a fair guess.

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 12:40 PM

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

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

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 12:54 PM

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

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

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

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

hank alrich

April 26th 14, 06:39 PM

Trevor > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/25/2014 10:31 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
> >> Since the new Mac Pro does not accept plug-in cards, I assume that the
> >> recording industry is moving to Thunderbolt audio
> >> interfaces. Is that correct?
> >
> > Maybe, but slowly. When all Windows computers have Thunderbolt, then more
> > interface manufacturers will adopt it.
>
> The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting that
> unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
> Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when USB2
> and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
> Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
> which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up to
> it)
>
>
> >> If you were going to build a new Mac-based studio today, what would your
> >> audio interface
> >> look like, assuming FireWire is out of the mix?
> >
> > Which particular interface depends on a lot of things, but as far as a
> > computer connection _today_, I'd not be afraid of USB. And don't try to be
> > too progressive and look for one designed for USB3. There's no compelling
> > reason to use anything beyond USB2 for an reasonable recording system. The
> > Antelope Orion does 32 channels in and out (analog line level) on USB2 and
> > costs a few cents under a grand. And for a basic songwriter studio, you
> > can get a fine Focusrite for a couple of hundred bucks, or a nice RME or
> > Metric Halo for several hundred.
>
> Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding USB2
> already does the job though :-(
>
> Trevor.

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

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

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 26th 14, 07:00 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
>>>> arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived obsolescence.
>>>
>>> So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the next
>>> big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the expensive
>>> converters.
>>
>> For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity are
>> available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available for longer.
>
> MADI interfaces have been around for more than 20 years now. It's a mature
> interface. There is a huge installed base going back a long way. It's
> not going away soon.
>
> It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and Lightpipe
> interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening.
> --scott
>

One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

--
Les Cargill

hank alrich

April 26th 14, 08:28 PM

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> >> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'recording industry' doesn't have to bend over and be repeatedly
> >>>> arse-****ed by Apple's cynical business model of contrived
> >>>> obsolescence.
> >>>
> >>> So, buy a MADI interface and good MADI converters and then when the
> >>> next big thing happens you replace the cheap interface and keep the
> >>> expensive converters.
> >>
> >> For as long as MADI interfaces to the "next big thing" in connectivity
> >> are available anyway. Frankly I'd rather bet on USB2 being available
> >> for longer.
> >
> > MADI interfaces have been around for more than 20 years now. It's a
> > mature interface. There is a huge installed base going back a long way.
> > It's not going away soon.
> >
> > It is weird, I never thought I'd see MADI outlast the newer TDIF and
> > Lightpipe interfaces, but it sure seems to be happening. --scott
> >
>
> One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.

And 24/48 at that.

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 10:24 PM

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

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 26th 14, 10:26 PM

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

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

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

Scott Dorsey

April 26th 14, 11:15 PM

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 4/26/2014 2:00 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> One Lightpipe is only good for 8 channels at most.
>
>But there's a de facto standard (S-Mux) for running 16 channels via two
>ADAT optical ports, or for 8 channels at 2x sample rate.

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

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

S. King

April 27th 14, 05:02 PM

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

> On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>> USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
>> friends.
>
> Is it better now? I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that
> the reason why we (in audio) have Firewire was because that was how
> people got data off their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB
> 1.1, which we had then, took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have
> that much patience and wanted to get their home movies into their
> computer in a minute or so.

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

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

Steve King

Trevor

April 28th 14, 07:46 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

> I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
> running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
> interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
> of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
> who have always put the Apple community first.
>
>> Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
>> USB2
>> and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
>
> The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
> everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
> Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
> printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
> This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
> manufacturer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But at least USB adapters are available for both.

>> Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
>> which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
>> to
>> it)
>
> Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
> Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
> have a Firewire port on it.

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

>> Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
>> USB2
>> already does the job though :-(
>
> It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.

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

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

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

Trevor.

Trevor

April 28th 14, 07:48 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>> And how long until Apple kill off Thunderbolt ?
>
> Ten years would be a fair guess.

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

Trevor.

Trevor

April 28th 14, 07:58 AM

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

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

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

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

Trevor.

geoff

April 28th 14, 08:00 AM

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

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

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

geoff

Trevor

April 28th 14, 08:15 AM

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

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

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

Agere chipsets usually work OK too.

Trevor.

DanielleOM

April 28th 14, 11:37 AM

On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/26/2014 1:08 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>> The fact very few Windows PC's had Firewire did not stop them adopting
>>> that
>>> unfortunately when USB2 already worked just fine.
>> But for many years, it was possible to add a Firewire interface to a
>> Windows PC, either with an internal card or external PCMCIA, CardBUS or
>> ExpressCard. The computers were designed for expansion. But for the past
>> couple of years, laptops haven't had an expansion card slot, and
>> motherboards on desktop computers other than serious or built-it-yourself
>> ones have become pretty short on expansion slots.
> But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
> simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.
>
>
>> Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
>> scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because nobody
>> was making them that way.
> Right, nothing has changed other than the desire to make it work as it
> always could have.
>
>
>> The perception was that although the bit transfer rate with USB2 was
>> actually a shade faster than Firewire, the fact (or belief) that a transfer
>> could be interrupted by practically anything made it seemingly unreliable
>> for more than 8 channels.
> Right, nobody bothered to check before jumping on the Apple bandwagon.
>
>
>> I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
>> running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
>> interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
>> of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
>> who have always put the Apple community first.
>>
>>> Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
>>> USB2
>>> and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
>> The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
>> everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
>> Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
>> printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
>> This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
>> manufacturer.
> The latter is probably true. However the cost of USB hubs is less than the
> cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
> are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
> though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
> and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
> parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be a spokesman for Thunderbolt,
>> I'm just saying that unless something is horribly wrong with it, it's
>> ultimately going to be the way to connect things to a computer in the near
>> future, and a few years from then, the ONLY way.
> I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just as it
> did Firewire.
>
>
>> It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show earlier
>> this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.
> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those PC
> laptops also have USB3 right?
>
>
>> When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer port?
> But at least USB adapters are available for both.
>
>
>>> Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
>>> which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
>>> to
>>> it)
>> Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
>> Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
>> have a Firewire port on it.
> Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice versa.
> You already indicated PC's are available with Thunderbolt.
>
>
>>> Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
>>> USB2
>>> already does the job though :-(
>> It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.
> In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.
>
>
>> I'm quite sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the
>> port involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast
>> enough at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
>> written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs them
>> and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while you're
>> recording a vocal track.
> Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They simply
> chose Firewire instead. But anyone who has the internet running while trying
> to record deserves all the problems they get IMO. Firewire, USB, or
> Thunderbolt!
>
> Trevor.
>
>
>
>

Trevor

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

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

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

Danielle

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 28th 14, 12:08 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 28th 14, 12:11 PM

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

I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems to me that
every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or maybe earlier up through
last year. That's not a bad run.

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 28th 14, 12:13 PM

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

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

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

DanielleOM

April 28th 14, 12:46 PM

On 4/28/2014 7:08 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
>> simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.
>
> Early on, a couple of chipsets didn't work with audio devices. Later
> on, most did, but there are still a couple of holdouts. If a computer
> or Firewire adapter has a Ricoh chipset, you can expect trouble using
> it with audio I/O devices, but TI, NEC, and VIA chipsets almost always
> work with anything audio. The problem, though, as Firewire became less
> common, is that pre-purchase information is pretty scarce. You don't
> always know what the Firewire chip is before you have the device
> installed in your computer. The reputable ones identify themselves,
> others don't. And even if someone tells you that the computer or
> expansion card that he bought last year worked with the interface you
> want to use, you can't even guarantee that this year's model will use
> the same chipset as the known working one. The hardware manufacturers
> change parts as price and availability changes and equivalents aren't
> always equal.
>
>> . . . the cost of USB hubs is less than the
>> cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit
>> when there
>> are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
>> though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports
>> puzzles
>> and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
>> parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(
>
> The thing is that there really isn't adequate testing, and there's all
> kinds of PC hardware out there. You really can't test every interface
> with every USB chip, on every motherboard. You can connect a printer
> or mouse or external hard drive to the USB port on any computer and
> it'll nearly always work. There are enough design standards and
> practices that keep manufacturers on both sides of the port for this
> kind of device. USB audio devices are getting more compatible as time
> goes on, The USB protocol is simpler than Firewire so it's easier to
> know what you can and can't get away with when designing something
> that connects via USB. And faster CPUs have certainly contributed to
> covering up some things that didn't used to work.
>
> Most manufactures of USB audio I/O devices recommend not using them
> through an external hub, even a powered one. I've never run across one
> that didn't work at all through a hub, but I've run across a couple
> that have been glitchy when going through a hub and not when connected
> directly to a port on the computer.
>
>> I doubt it, in fact I'd probably bet USB outlasts Thunderbolt, just
>> as it
>> did Firewire.
>
> Computers will continue to have USB ports for a while yet, but I
> predict that audio I/O manufacturers will move away from it in the
> coming years. Every port has a speed limit, and the customers are
> demanding more features (like more channels and higher sample rates)
> that require more throughput speed. This is all about system
> engineering, and unqualified end users are having to become their own
> system engineers.
>
>> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet
>> those PC
>> laptops also have USB3 right?
>
> USB3 is being phased in, but there isn't much yet in the audio world
> that requires it yet. But if I got an audio interface today that
> required USB3, or, for that matter, Thunderbolt, I couldn't use it
> until I got a new computer. And nobody really _wants_ to get a new
> computer. There's too much toilet training involved.
>
>>> When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer
>>> port?
>> But at least USB adapters are available for both.
>
> But for how much longer? Sure, there will always be someone selling
> one on eBay, but pretty soon they'll stop being manufactured.
>
>> Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice
>> versa.
>
> MOTU's previous "hybrid" line of interfaces accommodated Firewire and
> USB2. This years models accommodate Thunderbolt and USB2. An "in
> between" Firewire adapter has to be bi-directional, and it also has to
> be smart. This is why there were few Firewire-USB adapters, and those
> that you can find only adapt the power pins of the connector (so you
> can charge the battery in your Firewire camera from a USB port). You
> can't send data across it.
>
>> In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.
>
> That's about all I have around here, and I've been pleasantly
> surprised that I've been able to use them to record 16 simultaneous
> channels of 24-bit 44.1 kHz sample rate audio through a USB port. But
> these aren't using 10 year old drivers.
>
>> Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They
>> simply
>> chose Firewire instead.
>
> It's all about making business decisions. If you can buy an
> off-the-shelf solution, why spend your development money writing drivers?
>
>
>

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

Danielle

hank alrich

April 28th 14, 04:25 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 4/28/2014 2:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
> > Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?
>
> I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems to me that
> every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or maybe earlier up through
> last year. That's not a bad run.

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

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

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

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

hank alrich

April 28th 14, 04:25 PM

Trevor > wrote:

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

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

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

hank alrich

April 28th 14, 04:25 PM

geoff > wrote:

> On 28/04/2014 6:46 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
> >
> > But adding firewire to a PC has always been a problem, many of the chips
> > simply didn't work. USB otoh was already built in and working.
>
>
> Rather some external devices have problems working with some of the
> chipsets. Get an PC interface with a TI chipset and all is usually good
> with most devices.

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

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

hank alrich

April 28th 14, 04:25 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> USB3 is being phased in,

Note this from a year ago:

http://www.techspot.com/news/51826-early-haswell-processors-will-reporte
dly-have-a-usb-30-bug.html

http://tinyurl.com/m8oatar

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

hank alrich

April 28th 14, 04:25 PM

Trevor > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/26/2014 1:39 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> >> USB2 didn't work well for video early on. That's from my video editor
> >> friends.
> > Is it better now?
>
> All those old tape camera's had Firewire ports and there are no Firewire to
> USB2 adapters, so the question is moot.
> For digital USB2 works just fine, and always has.

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

> > I wasn't really thinking about video, but I know that the reason why we
> > (in audio) have Firewire was because that was how people got data off
> > their camcorders before we had flash memory. USB 1.1, which we had then,
> > took far too long. The fudge eaters didn't have that much patience and
> > wanted to get their home movies into their computer in a minute or so.
>
> That's NOT possible from tape no matter what interface you used. It's real
> time or nothing. The idea was NOT to drop frames in the transfer and have to
> start all over!
>
> Trevor.

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590758-information-
storage-60-year-old-technology-offers-solution-modern

http://tinyurl.com/pg28uv4

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

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

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 28th 14, 06:44 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2014 2:48 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>> Has Apple EVER kept an interface that long on ANYTHING they make?
>>
>> I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems to me that
>> every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or maybe earlier up through
>> last year. That's not a bad run.
>
> "Apple first included FireWire in some of its 1999 models, and most
> Apple computers since the year 2000 have included FireWire ports,
> though, as of 2014, it only remains as interface on the Mac Mini-model,
> being replaced by the Thunderbolt-interface on all other Mac-models."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394
>
> So the asnwer to Trevor's question is, "Yes".
>

Also
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Thunderbolt-to-FireWire-Adapter/dp/B008RXYOKY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398706707&sr=8-1&keywords=thunderbolt+firewire

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

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 28th 14, 06:51 PM

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

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

>> Thing is that when Firewire audio interfaces started to come on to the
>> scene, USB2 didn't work OK, or if it did, we didn't know it because nobody
>> was making them that way.
>
> Right, nothing has changed other than the desire to make it work as it
> always could have.
>
>
>> The perception was that although the bit transfer rate with USB2 was
>> actually a shade faster than Firewire, the fact (or belief) that a transfer
>> could be interrupted by practically anything made it seemingly unreliable
>> for more than 8 channels.
>
> Right, nobody bothered to check before jumping on the Apple bandwagon.
>
>

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

>> I don't know what happened, but in the past year or so, people have been
>> running as many as 56 channels of audio through USB reliably. And now that
>> interface manufacturers know that they can do that, I don't see too many
>> of them jumping on to Thunderbolt yet, other than those like Apogee and UA
>> who have always put the Apple community first.
>>
>>> Why anyone would want to get on the Apple interface merry-go-round when
>>> USB2
>>> and USB3 is more universal puzzles me though.
>>
>> The point of Thunderbolt isn't just to move audio, it's to move
>> everything, and on a single, daisy-chained bus. Your computer can have one
>> Thunderbolt port and you can connect your monitor, keyboard, mouse,
>> printer, external disk drives, and, oh, yeah, your audio interface to it.
>> This is simpler for the common user and less expensive for the computer
>> manufacturer.
>
> The latter is probably true. However the cost of USB hubs is less than the
> cost of Thunderbolt cables for the user. I don't see much benefit when there
> are *SO* many USB devices already. Nice to have for possible future use
> though, in *addition* to USB. The desire to rapidly dump old ports puzzles
> and annoys me. My main PC has USB3, USB2, Firewire, RS232, SCSI, and
> parallel ports. It's getting harder to do that these days though. :-(
>

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

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

VHS v. Beta?

>> It's the way the industry goes. At the MOTU booth at the NAB show earlier
>> this month, I saw two PC laptops with a Thunderbolt port.
>
> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those PC
> laptops also have USB3 right?
>
>
>> When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer port?
>
> But at least USB adapters are available for both.
>
>
>>> Hopefully we will see some Thunderbolt to Firewire adapters in the future
>>> which may sove a lot of these problems, (or not if the drivers aren't up
>>> to
>>> it)
>>
>> Apparently people are using these successfully with there two year old
>> Macs right now, however if you have a two year old PC, it's not going to
>> have a Firewire port on it.
>
> Er, obviously I meant Thunderbolt *TO* Firewire peripheral, not vice versa.
> You already indicated PC's are available with Thunderbolt.
>
>
>>> Right, pity many manufacturers went for Firewire only before deciding
>>> USB2
>>> already does the job though :-(
>>
>> It's quite possible that ten years ago it didn't do the job.
>
> In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.
>
>
>> I'm quite sure that there's more than the speed of the transfer through the
>> port involved. In order to make it work the computer needs to be fast
>> enough at doing its other chores, or the driver for the hardware has to be
>> written in a way that it gets all the resources it needs when it needs them
>> and doesn't let your computer ding you when a tweet comes in while you're
>> recording a vocal track.
>
> Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They simply
> chose Firewire instead. But anyone who has the internet running while trying
> to record deserves all the problems they get IMO. Firewire, USB, or
> Thunderbolt!
>

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

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

And for the session, I used to onboard harddisk.

> Trevor.
>
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 28th 14, 11:08 PM

On 4/28/2014 6:37 AM, DanielleOM wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

DanielleOM

April 29th 14, 12:05 AM

On 4/28/2014 6:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/28/2014 6:37 AM, DanielleOM wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall an earlier thread where you [Trevor] had referenced
>> some of the
>> newer MOTU interfaces with USB. Have you managed to try any of them on
>> a PC using the USB interface?
>
> I've never had an MOTU interface here (I've got to meet their
> marketing manager and mooch one for a review - it's a tough sell when
> your publication is a web site and not a printed magazine. I've tested
> a few Focusrite USB interfaces as well as the PreSonus 44VSL and they
> have no problems with Windows PCs.
>
>> I don't do any critical recording
>> here. I mainly use it to shoot stuff back and forth to a bass player
>> for practice purposes. No longer have a computer here that has FW. Last
>> time I did any recording I just went direct from my Soundcraft EFX8
>> mixer in and out to the computer just using the laptop analogue inputs
>> and outputs. Would prefer to have something more compact here, and I
>> find the mixer stays cleaner if it only comes out of it's storage bag at
>> gigs.
>
> What's your source, if you don't use the mixer? Do you need mic
> inputs? Line inputs? Instrument (direct) inputs? And how many? For
> cheap, simple, compact, and sounds better than most laptop "sound
> cards" I was about to suggest the Behringer UCA-202. It comes with an
> ASIO driver, but for simple stuff it works fine with the generic
> Microsoft USB Audio driver that comes with Windows. But it has
> consumer line level RCA jacks for inputs so you'd need an outboard mic
> preamp if you need a mic input. It's really designed to hang on to the
> "tape" outputs of a mixer.
>
>
>
>

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

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

For live sound use we both like the Soundcraft mixers.

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

Danielle

Mike Rivers[_2_]

April 29th 14, 05:23 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phil W[_3_]

April 30th 14, 04:46 PM

Mike Rivers:
> On 4/28/2014 2:46 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
>> PC
>> laptops also have USB3 right?

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

> USB3 is being phased in, but there isn't much yet in the audio world that
> requires it yet. But if I got an audio interface today that required USB3,
> or, for that matter, Thunderbolt, I couldn't use it until I got a new
> computer. And nobody really _wants_ to get a new computer. There's too
> much toilet training involved.
>
>>> When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer
>>> port?
>> But at least USB adapters are available for both.
>
> But for how much longer? Sure, there will always be someone selling one on
> eBay, but pretty soon they'll stop being manufactured.

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

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 10:21 AM

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

Yes, the ultralite hybrids work just fine.

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

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 10:38 AM

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

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

>> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
>> PC
>> laptops (with Thunderbolt) also have USB3 right?
>
> USB3 is being phased in, but there isn't much yet in the audio world that
> requires it yet. But if I got an audio interface today that required USB3,
> or, for that matter, Thunderbolt, I couldn't use it until I got a new
> computer. And nobody really _wants_ to get a new computer. There's too
> much toilet training involved.

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

>>> When did you last see a computer with an RS-232 or parallel printer
>>> port?
>> But at least USB adapters are available for both.
>
> But for how much longer? Sure, there will always be someone selling one on
> eBay, but pretty soon they'll stop being manufactured.

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

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

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

>> In fact it did, since my 10 YO PC's and Windows XP have no problem.
>
> That's about all I have around here, and I've been pleasantly surprised
> that I've been able to use them to record 16 simultaneous channels of
> 24-bit 44.1 kHz sample rate audio through a USB port. But these aren't
> using 10 year old drivers.

So as I said, drivers COULD have been written.

>> Yep, that's it they could have written the drivers, but didn't. They
>> simply
>> chose Firewire instead.
>
> It's all about making business decisions. If you can buy an off-the-shelf
> solution, why spend your development money writing drivers?

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 10:49 AM

"Phil W" > wrote in message
...
>>> Sure, my old one has a Firewire port. How many new ones do? I bet those
>>> PC laptops also have USB3 right?
>
> Looking at current desktop mainboards, most or all of them have USB3, BUT
> still only as an addition to USB2!

And that is a problem why exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 10:55 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor > wrote:
>
>> Right, nobody bothered to check before jumping on the Apple bandwagon.
>
> Much like your "question" about how long Apple had included FW in ints
> machines. Google.

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 11:06 AM

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Pshhhh. I did a test with a *netbook* spooling the .wav data to a
> remote Win7 server over *wireless*. 12 actual channels @ 44.1/24 .
>
> Granted, that was an experiment but it worked. I did jack the buffering
> way the heck up, and it was not to where I needed foldback...
> And for the session, I used to onboard harddisk.

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 2nd 14, 11:11 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/28/2014 6:37 AM, DanielleOM wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall an earlier thread where you [Trevor] had referenced some
>> of the
>> newer MOTU interfaces with USB. Have you managed to try any of them on
>> a PC using the USB interface?
>
> I've never had an MOTU interface here (I've got to meet their marketing
> manager and mooch one for a review - it's a tough sell when your
> publication is a web site and not a printed magazine. I've tested a few
> Focusrite USB interfaces as well as the PreSonus 44VSL and they have no
> problems with Windows PCs.
>
>> I don't do any critical recording
>> here. I mainly use it to shoot stuff back and forth to a bass player
>> for practice purposes. No longer have a computer here that has FW. Last
>> time I did any recording I just went direct from my Soundcraft EFX8
>> mixer in and out to the computer just using the laptop analogue inputs
>> and outputs. Would prefer to have something more compact here, and I
>> find the mixer stays cleaner if it only comes out of it's storage bag at
>> gigs.
>
> What's your source, if you don't use the mixer? Do you need mic inputs?
> Line inputs? Instrument (direct) inputs? And how many? For cheap, simple,
> compact, and sounds better than most laptop "sound cards" I was about to
> suggest the Behringer UCA-202. It comes with an ASIO driver, but for
> simple stuff it works fine with the generic Microsoft USB Audio driver
> that comes with Windows. But it has consumer line level RCA jacks for
> inputs so you'd need an outboard mic preamp if you need a mic input. It's
> really designed to hang on to the "tape" outputs of a mixer.

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

Trevor.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 2nd 14, 01:49 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les Cargill[_4_]

May 3rd 14, 04:23 AM

Trevor wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pshhhh. I did a test with a *netbook* spooling the .wav data to a
>> remote Win7 server over *wireless*. 12 actual channels @ 44.1/24 .
>>
>> Granted, that was an experiment but it worked. I did jack the buffering
>> way the heck up, and it was not to where I needed foldback...
>> And for the session, I used to onboard harddisk.
>
> Sure it CAN work fine, if you are lucky.

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

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

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

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

But don't try to mix on the netbook.

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

--
Les Cargill

--
Les Cargill

John Albert

May 3rd 14, 04:31 PM

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

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

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

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

hank alrich

May 3rd 14, 07:07 PM

John Albert > wrote:

> On 4/28/14 7:11 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > I don't know the chronology of Apple computes, but it seems
> > to me that every Mac has had a Firewire port from 2000 or
> > maybe earlier up through last year. That's not a bad run.
>
> Firewire is still available on the current-generation Mac Mini.
> But it was originally introduced in "late 2012".

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

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

> Most Macs that had a firewire port have dropped it in favor
> of a second thunderbolt port. But for $30, Apple offers its
> thunderbolt-to-firewire adapter.
>
> I understand there are -some- audio interfaces on which this
> doesn't work...

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

John Albert

May 4th 14, 09:28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Makes software updates a snap, too.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 5th 14, 11:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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

geoff

May 5th 14, 12:35 PM

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

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

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

geoff

Trevor

May 5th 14, 01:27 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I've always had PCs so it's just not in my nature to switch to, or worse
> yet, double up with a Mac. I know plenty of people do but it's just not in
> my nature. That being said, I love the way that Apple did this. They
> thought that audio was important enough so that they developed a standard
> for connecting audio devices that, at least so far, has been good enough
> so that the hardware manufacturers are following it.
>
> I wish I could connect audio hardware to my PCs as easily as I plug in
> thumb drives, but I guess all Microsoft ever cared about was extending the
> desktop to files in other places.

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

Trevor.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 5th 14, 06:56 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Trevor

May 5th 14, 10:45 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
>> But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
>> the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
>> driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
>> Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
>> tricky and you do need the specific driver.
>
> The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
> Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
> Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
> program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
> than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
> program
> is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
> completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
> automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.
>
> On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
> internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.

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

Trevor.

hank alrich

May 6th 14, 05:35 AM

Trevor > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
> >> But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
> >> the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
> >> driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
> >> Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
> >> tricky and you do need the specific driver.
> >
> > The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
> > Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
> > Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
> > program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
> > than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
> > program
> > is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
> > completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
> > automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.
> >
> > On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
> > internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.
>
> Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
> in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.
>
> Trevor.

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

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

Trevor

May 6th 14, 09:05 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor > wrote:
>> Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug
>> it
>> in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.
>>
>
> In one case one needn't install "drivers". I think that is Mike's point.

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

Trevor.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 6th 14, 02:14 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Dorsey

May 6th 14, 02:15 PM

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5/5/2014 7:35 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> But the Apple way is limited in that the Core driver must know all
>>> the possible features of the connected device, else you will need a
>>> driver. I guess that works most of the time for most people. Same in
>>> Windows for common-or-garden audio interfaces, but start to get
>>> tricky and you do need the specific driver.
>>
>> The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
>> Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
>> Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
>> program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
>> than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the control
>> program
>> is sometimes integrated into the driver setup, and sometimes it's a
>> completely different program, though usually one that gets installed
>> automatically when you click on "Setup" to install the driver.
>>
>> On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
>> internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.
>
>Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug it
>in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 6th 14, 02:23 PM

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

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

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

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

May 6th 14, 02:32 PM

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

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

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

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

John Albert

May 6th 14, 04:22 PM

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

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

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

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

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

geoff

May 6th 14, 10:12 PM

On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
use the audio I/O you can't
> use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.
>
> I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
> audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
> Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
> driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.

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

geoff

geoff

May 6th 14, 10:13 PM

On 7/05/2014 1:23 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/6/2014 4:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases,
>> (Apple*or*
>> Windows), one must install a driver/program.
>
> Now we're dealing with subtleties of language. What's a
> "driver/program?" A driver is a special category of program, just as is
> a control panel GUI. My point (Hank got it) is that while you may need
> to install a control panel program (_which is NOT a driver_) on a Mac, a
> driver is neither necessary nor provided.
>
> On a PC, we're used to saying "install the drivers" which, on a modern
> multi-channel audio interface with a built-in monitor mixer, typically,
> installs a WDM driver, an ASIO driver, and perhaps a MIDI driver, as
> well as the control panel program, all with one click on "Setup." For a
> simple interface, for example the Behringer UCA202) you can just plug it
> in and it will use the Windows USB Audio driver to get audio in and out.
> If you want to take advantage of the lower latency that ASIO provides,
> there's an _optional_ ASIO driver that you can install, but you need to
> do it - installation isn't automatic. But it's too simple to need a
> control panel, so there isn't one of those.
>

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

geoff

Trevor

May 8th 14, 08:13 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>>> The Apple Core Audio driver on the Mac and the Windows Audio Class
>>> Compliant USB Audio driver only take care of getting audio in and out.
>>> Devices that have built-in mixing and routing features need a separate
>>> program. In the PC world where a driver is required for anything fancier
>>> than basic class compliant USB I/O (like ASIO, for instance), the
>>> control
>>> program is sometimes integrated into the driver setup.
>>>
>>> On a Mac, it's just another program with a GUI for controlling the
>>> internal routing, switching, and mixing in the interface.
>
>> Does the average user need to care about the distinction? Or simply plug
>> it
>> in and install the drivers/programs as necessary in either case.
>
> Nobody should care, but sometimes the differences between how the PC and
> Mac control panel program is written can be significant - one might not
> look like the other, or there may be features available in one that aren't
> in the other. And for those out on the edge, for example, you can get
> multichannel audio in and out of a few interfaces in Linux but the people
> who wrote the Linux audio driver stopped there and didn't try to write an
> equivalent control panel. The end result (that the user might very well
> care about) is that while you can use the audio I/O you can't use the
> built-in low latency monitor mixer.
>
> I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
> audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
> Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
> driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.

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

Trevor.

Trevor

May 8th 14, 08:19 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/6/2014 4:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> And MY point was in sometimes neither, and sometimes both cases,
>> (Apple*or*
>> Windows), one must install a driver/program.
>
> Now we're dealing with subtleties of language. What's a "driver/program?"
> A driver is a special category of program, just as is a control panel GUI.
> My point (Hank got it) is that while you may need to install a control
> panel program (_which is NOT a driver_) on a Mac, a driver is neither
> necessary nor provided.

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

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

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

Trevor.

John Williamson

May 8th 14, 09:42 AM

On 08/05/2014 08:13, Trevor wrote:
> Linux though will always be forgotten unless it ever becomes a mainstream OS
> choice, which doesn't seem likely. Unfortunately a very chiken and egg
> problem. I'd use it myself if there was more hardware support, but that will
> never happen until more people use it, and people won't use it until there
> is more hardware support. So for now it's a good system for dedicated
> servers and not much else unfortunately.
>
It's excellent for office work, as long as you're not tied into MS
Office, though Libre Office is rapidly becoming more compatible with
Office than Office is between versions, and it's secure at the moment
for internet activities. Most office staff could switch to it with
minimal retraining, and many governent bodies worldwide are doing so.

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

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

hank alrich

May 12th 14, 09:46 PM

geoff > wrote:

> On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
> use the audio I/O you can't
> > use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.
> >
> > I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions of
> > audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example those from
> > Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support Windows at all - no
> > driver, no control panel. If you don't have a Mac you can't use it.
>
> How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
> eventually, and that was a decade ago.
>
> geoff

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

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

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

Neil Gould

May 14th 14, 01:17 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>
>> On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> use the audio I/O you can't
>>> use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions
>>> of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example
>>> those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support
>>> Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you don't have a
>>> Mac you can't use it.
>>
>> How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
>> eventually, and that was a decade ago.
>>
>> geoff
>
> MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
> choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple absorbed
> Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was about 30% of
> sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit the Windows side
> coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es "support" to its user
> base. MHL has the best factory support I've ever witnessed.
>
> Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will offer
> cross platform access.
>
What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of 10%
market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were they saving
far too much on support costs and need the extra burden? ;-D
--
best regards,

Neil

hank alrich

May 15th 14, 12:57 AM

Neil Gould > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> >>> On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >> use the audio I/O you can't
> >>> use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC versions
> >>> of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for example
> >>> those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't support
> >>> Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you don't have a
> >>> Mac you can't use it.
> >>
> >> How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
> >> eventually, and that was a decade ago.
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> > MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
> > choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple absorbed
> > Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was about 30% of
> > sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit the Windows side
> > coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es "support" to its user
> > base. MHL has the best factory support I've ever witnessed.
> >
> > Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will offer
> > cross platform access.
> >
> What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of 10%
> market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were they saving
> far too much on support costs and need the extra burden? ;-D

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

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

Neil Gould

May 15th 14, 01:03 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/05/2014 1:14 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2014 5:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>> use the audio I/O you can't
>>>>> use the built-in low latency monitor mixer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of such gross differences between Mac and PC
>>>>> versions of audio interfaces, but there are some interfaces, for
>>>>> example those from Metric Halo and Apogee, that simply don't
>>>>> support Windows at all - no driver, no control panel. If you
>>>>> don't have a Mac you can't use it.
>>>>
>>>> How bizarre - they must be true iZealots. Even MOTU saw reality
>>>> eventually, and that was a decade ago.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> MHL is doing fine, and there are quite practical reasons one may
>>> choose to support one platform or another. At the time Apple
>>> absorbed Emagic, Emagic was looking at their PC biz, which was
>>> about 30% of sales and 70% of support costs. Their desire to exit
>>> the Windows side coincided well with their move. MOTU lea es
>>> "support" to its user base. MHL has the best factory support I've
>>> ever witnessed.
>>>
>>> Metric Halo Labs has announced that the coming mega-upgrade will
>>> offer cross platform access.
>>>
>> What might account for the change of heart? Could it be that 100% of
>> 10% market share is far less gross revenue than they'd like? Or were
>> they saving far too much on support costs and need the extra burden?
>> ;-D
>
> I think they've chosen a path of steady development and growth for
> about fifteen years, kept things closely held and manageably sized.
> The company has never been about gross revenue. They are not out to
> conquer the market. They build high quality gear and software, to an
> admirable standard rather than a bean counter's idea of a competitive
> price. My MIO remains the best digital audio purchase I've ever made,
> for around thirteen years.
>
There are a few companies out there that put quality above sales volume.
I've been quite satisfied with my RME interface for over a decade, for
example. But, I still don't understand why MH would want to go back to a
market with such a high support overhead. It sounds like a loser to me.
--
best regards,

Neil