I would like to know what are the multiple output audio interfaces that function properly with windows xp. If you have successfully run a multiple out firewire interface with PD in XP, could would please send me a mail?
I tried the digidesign 002 asio driver, but when I select it in PD's audio settings panel, the digidesign 002 interface says it is working, but it does not play any audio. Has anyone been able to make it function with PD?
tom
MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http://www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp
Hi Tom, you should have a look at the RME (www.rmeaudio.com) and Maudio interfaces (http://www.midiman.com/). I have an RME HDSP multiface (which is not firewire-based) and i'm really happy with it. However, judging from the RME mailing list the new Fireface seems to be at least as good.
best greetings, Thomas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Fredericks" iamonthebeach@hotmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: mattn-l@rogers.com; cubis@comcast.net; dave@davesabine.com; thefishfinger@ihug.com.au Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [PD] best audio interface for windows xp (digidesign)
I would like to know what are the multiple output audio interfaces that function properly with windows xp. If you have successfully run a multiple out firewire interface with PD in XP, could would please send me a mail?
I tried the digidesign 002 asio driver, but when I select it in PD's audio settings panel, the digidesign 002 interface says it is working, but it
does
not play any audio. Has anyone been able to make it function with PD?
tom
MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http://www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
happy with it. However, judging from the RME mailing list the new Fireface seems to be at least as good.
but only if you don't mind latency.
the fireface is a cool thing if you need microphone-in (it has built int mic-preamps and is powered via firewire - so you only need yor laptop, the fireface and some decent microphones to make high-quality recordings) ieee1394 transmits data in bursts (at least, that it is how i understand it) which makes it unusable for really low latency applications (a problem which is not present with the digiface or MADI-cards)
mfg.asd.r IOhannes
Reply to a message from August 24:
In the RME website they have the latency tests, which go down until 3ms in some pc laptops (IBM, HP and some others). With powerbook it is 1.5ms. Is the latency in the other system better? (digiface or MADI-cards)
----- Original Message ----- From: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" zmoelnig@iem.at To: "Thomas Grill" gr@grrrr.org Cc: tom@danslchamp.org; pd-list@iem.at; mattn-l@rogers.com; cubis@comcast.net; dave@davesabine.com; thefishfinger@ihug.com.au Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [PD] best audio interface for windows xp (digidesign)
happy with it. However, judging from the RME mailing list the new
Fireface
seems to be at least as good.
but only if you don't mind latency.
the fireface is a cool thing if you need microphone-in (it has built int mic-preamps and is powered via firewire - so you only need yor laptop, the fireface and some decent microphones to make high-quality recordings) ieee1394 transmits data in bursts (at least, that it is how i understand it) which makes it unusable for really low latency applications (a problem which is not present with the digiface or MADI-cards)
jmmmp wrote:
Reply to a message from August 24:
In the RME website they have the latency tests, which go down until 3ms in some pc laptops (IBM, HP and some others). With powerbook it is 1.5ms. Is the latency in the other system better? (digiface or MADI-cards)
on MADI we had latencies go down to 4.5ms (if i remember correctly; probably it was a bit more like 6ms)
i do not think that fireface will really get low latencies with any dsp-software. of course you could utilize the "onboard" mixer to have the so-called "0 latency"-features of the card, but then you cannot do any processing of the data. this is kind of a marketing trick, as people tend to think that latency means ADC->FirefaceIN->PC->FirefaceOUT->DAC while it really is ADC->FirefaceIN->FirefaceOUT->DAC.
and then pd's structure imposes the 4.5ms latency, so you will never get as low as advertised.
mfg.asd.r IOhannes
-
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
jmmmp -
Thomas Fredericks -
Thomas Grill