DICE II Firewire Driver Settings
Mike Rivers
feeling mixer (built like a real mixer, too) but its digital part
doesn't seem to be very happy with my computer (which works fine with a
Mackie Onxy 1200F). It snaps, crackles and pops even when playing two
channels, it gets worse with time, and eventually the driver loses
communication with the mixer and it has to be reset.
The driver control panel has a "Normal" setting as well as Safe Modes 1,
2, and 3. No explanation of what those do, but it seems to work worst in
Normal and better in the Safe modes. I haven't been able to find any
significant public information on the DICE II chip other than press
releases. Anyone have experience with those Safe modes or have a product
with a DICE that says something about them in the manual?
The computer is pretty well optimized with all the standard Windows
settings. Setting the buffer to 512 samples seems to work a little
better but it doesn't get any better with a larger or smaller buffer.
I'm not worried about latency (yet), I'd just like to be able to get a
few hours of mixing time on it to get a feel for it without having to
put up with all that hash and eventual silence.
It's the weekend, so I haven't tried to contact A&H yet. I'm afraid that
it's one of those things where the Firewire chip in my computer isn't
the best match for the one in the mixer. The card in the computer has a
VIA chip which most people will tell you doesn't work with anything (but
I can tell you that it works fine with Mackie's stuff). I have a PCMCIA
adapter for my old laptop computer (NEC chip in that one) and I think it
works better than the studio computer when playing stereo tracks through
the Zed, but that laptop doesn't really have enough horsepower to play
more than about 6 tracks so it's not a fair comparison.
Tired of screwing with it for the day, but I was just wondering if
anyone knows what that "Safe Mode" is and whether it's really meant to
make it work better under some conditions.
--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d.com)
philicorda
> I have an Allen & Heath Zed R16 here for review. Great sounding and
> feeling mixer (built like a real mixer, too) but its digital part
> doesn't seem to be very happy with my computer (which works fine with a
> Mackie Onxy 1200F). It snaps, crackles and pops even when playing two
> channels, it gets worse with time, and eventually the driver loses
> communication with the mixer and it has to be reset.
>
> The driver control panel has a "Normal" setting as well as Safe Modes 1,
> 2, and 3. No explanation of what those do, but it seems to work worst in
> Normal and better in the Safe modes. I haven't been able to find any
> significant public information on the DICE II chip other than press
> releases. Anyone have experience with those Safe modes or have a product
> with a DICE that says something about them in the manual?
The safe modes are to mitigate problems when other drivers (for video,
usb etc) spend too much time in a DPC call, and the kernel cannot run the
soundcard driver in time for it to service the audio buffers.
They solve this by using larger kernel side buffers = increased latency.
The larger buffer size means there can be a longer delay before the
driver runs.
I imagine the latency gets longer with the higher safe modes.
So, some other driver on your system is not real time safe, or else
perhaps a driver has made a non preemptable system call that must be
carried out before another driver can run.
I learnt most of this from here:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/153150-alesis-i-o-konnekt-
firestudio-dice-ii-chipset-interfaces.html
and don't fully understand it.
The difference between the kernel side buffers and the normal audio ones
is that the audio buffers affect how many samples are in each buffer that
is sent to the soundcard, thus a larger buffer means less interrupts so
each interrupt is more likely to be serviced in time. A larger driver
kernel buffer affects how long another driver can spinlock before the
sound card driver must run.
I don't understand why the safe modes work, as if the kernel is
spinlocked, surely it will miss the sound card's interrupt too?
>
> The computer is pretty well optimized with all the standard Windows
> settings. Setting the buffer to 512 samples seems to work a little
> better but it doesn't get any better with a larger or smaller buffer.
> I'm not worried about latency (yet), I'd just like to be able to get a
> few hours of mixing time on it to get a feel for it without having to
> put up with all that hash and eventual silence.
>
> It's the weekend, so I haven't tried to contact A&H yet. I'm afraid that
> it's one of those things where the Firewire chip in my computer isn't
> the best match for the one in the mixer. The card in the computer has a
> VIA chip which most people will tell you doesn't work with anything (but
> I can tell you that it works fine with Mackie's stuff). I have a PCMCIA
> adapter for my old laptop computer (NEC chip in that one) and I think it
> works better than the studio computer when playing stereo tracks through
> the Zed, but that laptop doesn't really have enough horsepower to play
> more than about 6 tracks so it's not a fair comparison.
>
> Tired of screwing with it for the day, but I was just wondering if
> anyone knows what that "Safe Mode" is and whether it's really meant to
> make it work better under some conditions.
I had some initial problems with my DICEII based Presonus Firestudio. Not
working well at low latency and the occasional glitch. Getting a new TI
PCI firewire card improved matters. (And a VIA one too that did not work
so well.)
Mike Rivers
> The safe modes are to mitigate problems when other drivers (for video,
> usb etc) spend too much time in a DPC call, and the kernel cannot run the
> soundcard driver in time for it to service the audio buffers.
Misnamed, I think, but that sounds like a reasonable thing to do to help
people like me who don't know what a DPC call is and thinks a kernel is
where popcorn starts.
> They solve this by using larger kernel side buffers = increased latency.
> The larger buffer size means there can be a longer delay before the
> driver runs.
> I imagine the latency gets longer with the higher safe modes.
>
> So, some other driver on your system is not real time safe, or else
> perhaps a driver has made a non preemptable system call that must be
> carried out before another driver can run.
So, is there anything I can do about this that will make it work better
other than to slow it down? I'll check out that Gearslutz reference to
see if there's anything I can use there. I may have actually run across
that in my Googling, but most of what I saw about the DICE was about the
Alesis I/O thing so I passed it up. The Zed is probably too new for
anyone to start talking about it yet.
> The difference between the kernel side buffers and the normal audio ones
> is that the audio buffers affect how many samples are in each buffer that
> is sent to the soundcard, thus a larger buffer means less interrupts so
> each interrupt is more likely to be serviced in time. A larger driver
> kernel buffer affects how long another driver can spinlock before the
> sound card driver must run.
I thought that Firewire was supposed to mitigate problems like that
because of its smarts to keep data flowing. At least that's one of the
arguments that people use in the Firewire vs. USB2 wars.
> I had some initial problems with my DICEII based Presonus Firestudio. Not
> working well at low latency and the occasional glitch. Getting a new TI
> PCI firewire card improved matters. (And a VIA one too that did not work
> so well.)
Yeah, that's one of the standard Firewire audio fix-its. Whatever
Firewire I/O card you have, get something different. <g> It's getting
harder to tell what chipset a particular card uses though. They used to
put that info on the box sometimes, now you don't always even get a box.
And the hardware manufacturers don't necessarily use the same parts this
year that they used last year. So if someone who bought a Brand A card a
couple of years back and found (by checking it in the Windows Device
Manager) that it had a TI chip tells you to get one like it, unless you
buy one just as old, there's no guarantee that you'll get the chip
you're looking for.
When I got the Mackie Onyx mixer card, my first Firewire audio deveice,
I didn't have a Firewire card in any of my computers. My laptop was the
most powerful one at the time, so I got a PCMCIA adapter for it. Got
clicks and pops, so I exchanged it for a different brand, and then a
third one, until I finally found the noises were related to the network
card. A new driver for that fixed the problem, and I suspect that any of
the Firewire cards I had would have worked fine.
Soundhaspriority
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:n5qRk.325$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
but I found nothing. I don't think the explanation is completely correct.
All ASIO buffers are in the kernel. "Kernel side buffers" is borrowed
terminology from Linux. The way this field works, people coin and borrow new
terms all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, but I can't find a
correspondence between the term and a programming scenario. However, there
are separate buffers set up by the firewire driver. They're all in the
kernel, along with the ASIO buffers.
> I thought that Firewire was supposed to mitigate problems like that
> because of its smarts to keep data flowing. At least that's one of the
> arguments that people use in the Firewire vs. USB2 wars.
>
It is supposed to, but we have the Agere chip in the Mac and the DICE chip
in the peripheral as examples of things not working out. USB is software
driven. Firewire chips have substantial firmware. Some versions of the
Prolific chipset, revs B and C, can actually get firmware updates.
>> I had some initial problems with my DICEII based Presonus Firestudio. Not
>> working well at low latency and the occasional glitch. Getting a new TI
>> PCI firewire card improved matters. (And a VIA one too that did not work
>> so well.)
>
> Yeah, that's one of the standard Firewire audio fix-its.
[snip]
I try to look at the best Firewire can do, not the worst. The fact is, there
is no other even semi generic alternative that provides anywhere near the
performance. Better alternatives exist in proprietary forms. Apogee, Emu,
RME, and Motu all offer proprietary alternatives.
If there is information that allows someone to predict success with
reasonable certainty -- such as using an Echo product instead of this, it's
a plus. If I were you, and had the responsibility of a reviewer, I would
call up Allen and Heath, and find out exactly what adapter chipset they
engineered to. Ifthat chipset is a $50 proposition, it's not a drawback. I
think that they should loan you a card so as to give the product the best
chance, or possibly you might decline to review. If you get "their" card,
and it still doesn't work, serious reservations may be in order.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-65112
hank alrich
> Misnamed, I think, but that sounds like a reasonable thing to do to help
> people like me who don't know what a DPC call is and thinks a kernel is
> where popcorn starts.
You are SUCH an old fart. Nowadaze everyone knows popcorn starts with a
microwave!
"I guess the times have changed, kids are different now,
"'Cause some don't even seem to know the milk comes from a cow.
"My little boy can tell the names of all the baseball stars,
"I remember how we memorized the names on railroad cars"
Utah Phillips
(I've been splitting wood all day and seem to be infected with
off-topicness.)
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
Soundhaspriority
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1iq3m99.149rgmg11wq4ryN%walk...@nv.net...
Time for you and Chris Hornbeck to go at each other with hatchets :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> I tried to find some programming information that I could interpret for you,
> but I found nothing. I don't think the explanation is completely correct.
> All ASIO buffers are in the kernel. "Kernel side buffers" is borrowed
> terminology from Linux. The way this field works, people coin and borrow new
> terms all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, but I can't find a
> correspondence between the term and a programming scenario. However, there
> are separate buffers set up by the firewire driver. They're all in the
> kernel, along with the ASIO buffers.
Well, thanks for the effort, but the bottom line, as I see it, is that
whatever the explanation, there's absolutely nothing we can do to fix it
other than to try different hardware and see if that works any better.
There's nothing you can test and then repair.
> I try to look at the best Firewire can do, not the worst. The fact is, there
> is no other even semi generic alternative that provides anywhere near the
> performance. Better alternatives exist in proprietary forms. Apogee, Emu,
> RME, and Motu all offer proprietary alternatives.
The bottom line is that all of this stuff can work. Manufacturers don't
intentionally make defective products. But since they're trying to work
in the world of open systems and can't possibly test every combination,
they (and we) have to accept that there will be combinations that don't
work very well. It's the responsibility that we take on by not paying
for the engineering and testing of a turnkey system. The majority of the
users get satisfactory operation, the others jump on to forums and
complain about poor designs and inadequately tested drivers.
> If there is information that allows someone to predict success with
> reasonable certainty -- such as using an Echo product instead of this, it's
> a plus. If I were you, and had the responsibility of a reviewer, I would
> call up Allen and Heath, and find out exactly what adapter chipset they
> engineered to. Ifthat chipset is a $50 proposition, it's not a drawback.
For the purpose of a review, it really doesn't matter. It works well
enough so that I can say that (when it works) it sounds good and go on
to describe the functionality and features. If I wanted to buy it, I'd
certainly make an attempt to find the optimum interface hardware. The
thing is that as a reviewer, I don't work like an ordinary person who
gets a hardware setup and works with it for a couple of years. If I have
to change a card to get the A&H to work, then change to another card to
get the Mackie to work, then another card to get a Personus to work, and
another card to get a t.c. to work . . . Then I get an RME and find that
it works fine with the last Firewire card I put in the computer, so I
get curious and put in another one and it works, and I put in a third
one and it works . . . . I need to say something about this. All
arbitrary of course, for the sake of this discussion, but "I tried Brand
X and I couldn't get it working so I bought a Brand R and it worked
right off" seems to be pretty common. So what do they know that the
others don't?
> think that they should loan you a card so as to give the product the best
> chance, or possibly you might decline to review. If you get "their" card,
> and it still doesn't work, serious reservations may be in order.
Well, maybe, but they don't know what else is on and in my computer. For
the best review, they should lend me a computer that they've tested. And
that gets back to the turnkey engineering. An important part of a review
SHOULD be how well they've dealt with the "it should work with whatever
the customer has" aspect. But that's a really tough assignment. I feel
for them.
audioae...@gmail.com
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > I tried to find some programming information that I could interpret for you,
> > but I found nothing. I don't think the explanation is completely correct.
> > All ASIO buffers are in the kernel. "Kernel side buffers" is borrowed
> > terminology from Linux. The way this field works, people coin and borrow new
> > terms all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, but I can't find a
> > correspondence between the term and a programming scenario. However, there
> > are separate buffers set up by the firewire driver. They're all in the
> > kernel, along with the ASIO buffers.
>
> Well, thanks for the effort, but the bottom line, as I see it, is that
> whatever the explanation, there's absolutely nothing we can do to fix it
> other than to try different hardware and see if that works any better.
> There's nothing you can test and then repair.
>
> > I try to look at the best Firewire can do, not the worst. The fact is, there
> > is no other even semi generic alternative that provides anywhere near the
> > performance. Better alternatives exist in proprietary forms. Apogee, Emu,
> > RME, and Motu all offer proprietary alternatives.
>
> The bottom line is that all of this stuff can work. Manufacturers don't
> intentionally make defective products. But since they're trying to work
> in the world of open systems and can't possibly test every combination,
> they (and we) have to accept that there will be combinations that don't
> work very well. It's the responsibility that we take on by not paying
> Well, maybe, but they don't know what else is on and in my computer. For
> the best review, they should lend me a computer that they've tested. And
> that gets back to the turnkey engineering. An important part of a review
> SHOULD be how well they've dealt with the "it should work with whatever
> the customer has" aspect. But that's a really tough assignment. I feel
> for them.
Hank
fell two oaks out in the horse pasture, it is coming into that
season!!
you can tell as mike is bitchin' about firewire and his cheap
computers.
I am thinking that I need to buy a hydraulic splitter, the muscles are
not happy.
mike
will it work with a mac
the newest mac book pro's are the cat's meow.
audioae...@gmail.com
> > I tried to find some programming information that I could interpret for you,
> > but I found nothing. I don't think the explanation is completely correct.
> > All ASIO buffers are in the kernel. "Kernel side buffers" is borrowed
> > terminology from Linux. The way this field works, people coin and borrow new
> > terms all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, but I can't find a
> > correspondence between the term and a programming scenario. However, there
> > are separate buffers set up by the firewire driver. They're all in the
> > kernel, along with the ASIO buffers.
>
> Well, thanks for the effort, but the bottom line, as I see it, is that
> whatever the explanation, there's absolutely nothing we can do to fix it
> other than to try different hardware and see if that works any better.
> There's nothing you can test and then repair.
>
> > I try to look at the best Firewire can do, not the worst. The fact is, there
> > is no other even semi generic alternative that provides anywhere near the
> > performance. Better alternatives exist in proprietary forms. Apogee, Emu,
> > RME, and Motu all offer proprietary alternatives.
>
> The bottom line is that all of this stuff can work. Manufacturers don't
> intentionally make defective products. But since they're trying to work
> in the world of open systems and can't possibly test every combination,
> they (and we) have to accept that there will be combinations that don't
> work very well. It's the responsibility that we take on by not paying
> Well, maybe, but they don't know what else is on and in my computer. For
> the best review, they should lend me a computer that they've tested. And
> that gets back to the turnkey engineering. An important part of a review
> SHOULD be how well they've dealt with the "it should work with whatever
> the customer has" aspect. But that's a really tough assignment. I feel
> for them.
Hank
Arny Krueger
news:55f0e852-ce19-4899...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com
They tell me that a lot of the new Mac Books don't even have firewire ports.
OK, the pro still has a firewire chip, but isn't this a sign that Apple is
abandoning firewire?
audioae...@gmail.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
> They tell me that a lot of the new Mac Books don't even have firewire ports.
> OK, the pro still has a firewire chip, but isn't this a sign that Apple is
> abandoning firewire?
none of the most recent mac books have firewire.
the mac book pro does.
there are a lot of petitions to apple about this.
I think that they are just getting ready for the newest firewire, 3.2
gig!!
and it will be backwards compatible.
philicorda
> philicorda wrote:
>
>> The safe modes are to mitigate problems when other drivers (for video,
>> usb etc) spend too much time in a DPC call, and the kernel cannot run
>> the soundcard driver in time for it to service the audio buffers.
>
> Misnamed, I think, but that sounds like a reasonable thing to do to help
> people like me who don't know what a DPC call is and thinks a kernel is
> where popcorn starts.
>
>> They solve this by using larger kernel side buffers = increased
>> latency. The larger buffer size means there can be a longer delay
>> before the driver runs.
>> I imagine the latency gets longer with the higher safe modes.
>>
>> So, some other driver on your system is not real time safe, or else
>> perhaps a driver has made a non preemptable system call that must be
>> carried out before another driver can run.
>
> So, is there anything I can do about this that will make it work better
> other than to slow it down? I'll check out that Gearslutz reference to
> see if there's anything I can use there.
This is the relevant part:
"When developing a driver that can exhibit low audio latency there is a
compromise between obtaining low latency and avoiding clicks every time
another driver creates a large DPC spike. In the DICE drivers this is
balanced by the ‘safe mode’ setting. Higher ‘safe mode’ makes the system
less sensitive to DPC latencies (insensitive to anything below the ‘safe
mode’ threshold) by relying on more buffering in the kernel and therefore
more latency."
> I may have actually run across
> that in my Googling, but most of what I saw about the DICE was about the
> Alesis I/O thing so I passed it up. The Zed is probably too new for
> anyone to start talking about it yet.
If using one of the safe modes improves matters, you could download a
program called 'DPC Latency Checker':
http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
This will show you in microseconds the longest spinlock that the kernel
is holding. The safe mode must make the buffers larger to deal with the
time spent waiting for the lock to be released. There is a far better
explanation on that page of the problem than mine.
If there are long spinlocks, then it's back to magic spells and randomly
disabling hardware until the errant driver is found.
I'm sure there is an equivalent for 'latencytop' on Windows that will
tell you exactly where the kernel is spending all it's time, rather than
just that there is a problem. A Windows developer would know more about
this.
>
>> The difference between the kernel side buffers and the normal audio
>> ones is that the audio buffers affect how many samples are in each
>> buffer that is sent to the soundcard, thus a larger buffer means less
>> interrupts so each interrupt is more likely to be serviced in time. A
>> larger driver kernel buffer affects how long another driver can
>> spinlock before the sound card driver must run.
>
> I thought that Firewire was supposed to mitigate problems like that
> because of its smarts to keep data flowing. At least that's one of the
> arguments that people use in the Firewire vs. USB2 wars.
The firewire interface can use DMA to transfer data directly into memory,
without utilising the CPU. Once the data is there though, the kernel mode
sound card device driver still needs to run to process that data. If
there is another driver ahead in the queue that is taking too long, then
the data may not be processed before the sound card is ready to send it's
next block.
>
>> I had some initial problems with my DICEII based Presonus Firestudio.
>> Not working well at low latency and the occasional glitch. Getting a
>> new TI PCI firewire card improved matters. (And a VIA one too that did
>> not work so well.)
>
> Yeah, that's one of the standard Firewire audio fix-its. Whatever
> Firewire I/O card you have, get something different. <g> It's getting
> harder to tell what chipset a particular card uses though. They used to
> put that info on the box sometimes, now you don't always even get a box.
> And the hardware manufacturers don't necessarily use the same parts this
> year that they used last year. So if someone who bought a Brand A card a
> couple of years back and found (by checking it in the Windows Device
> Manager) that it had a TI chip tells you to get one like it, unless you
> buy one just as old, there's no guarantee that you'll get the chip
> you're looking for.
My guess is that changing the Firewire card a few times cleans the
contacts in the PCI slot. :) It could be that the hardware is irrelevant
and what makes the difference is changing the device driver, or perhaps
IRQs getting reassigned when you move hardware around. Or perhaps it
really is just magic.
I'd like some more authoritative explanations of all this stuff too,
which is why I'm writing mine in the hope of making a *real* geek annoyed
enough to correct me. :)
>
> When I got the Mackie Onyx mixer card, my first Firewire audio deveice,
> I didn't have a Firewire card in any of my computers. My laptop was the
> most powerful one at the time, so I got a PCMCIA adapter for it. Got
> clicks and pops, so I exchanged it for a different brand, and then a
> third one, until I finally found the noises were related to the network
> card. A new driver for that fixed the problem, and I suspect that any of
> the Firewire cards I had would have worked fine.
It would be interesting to know if the network driver would have shown up
on the DPC latency checker.
Soundhaspriority
"philicorda" <philicordaN...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dUERk.22481$nA3....@newsfe03.ams2...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:24:51 +0000, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure there is an equivalent for 'latencytop' on Windows that will
> tell you exactly where the kernel is spending all it's time, rather than
> just that there is a problem. A Windows developer would know more about
> this.
>
program on the machine with a profiler option. The normal CPU load estimate
is done by sampling. Perhaps there will eventually be an instruction set
extension that would make it possible.
There are a lot of things the machine doesn't know about itself. One eternal
source of difficulty is in processes that recursively spawn threads. It
crashes machines, the problem afflicts every OS, and there has never been an
effective cure.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> will it work with a mac
> the newest mac book pro's are the cat's meow.
How should I know? I don't have a Mac and they didn't send one along
with the console. "It" being the A&H Zed 16. If "it" is "Firewire" well
I know that works with the computer and interface card that I have. The
Mackie.1200F works fine for me, yet I've seen dozens of people on the
Mackie forum having problems with the 1200F that are of the same nature
as I'm having with the Zed. My point isn't that Firewire doesn't work
for audio, it's that there isn't yet sufficient standardization of
interface components (including stuff inside the computer, I suspect)
that any particular combination, of which there sure surely thousands
possible, can't be assured of working flawlessly. It doesn't matter to
the user (me, in this case) what the problem is until someone can give
me a solution - not a "try this."
Mike Rivers
> I think that they are just getting ready for the newest firewire, 3.2
> gig!! and it will be backwards compatible.
HAH!!!! I'll believe it when I see it.
Mike Rivers
> My guess is that changing the Firewire card a few times cleans the
> contacts in the PCI slot. :) It could be that the hardware is irrelevant
> and what makes the difference is changing the device driver, or perhaps
> IRQs getting reassigned when you move hardware around. Or perhaps it
> really is just magic.
I'll go for the magic. My Firewire card seems to be running on an
ancient Microsoft driver. It says 7/1/2001 Ver. 5.1.2535.0. I tried
looking for an update to that driver on the Microsoft support web site
but there doesn't seem to be one. So the card is talking to the CPU the
same way it was seven years ago.
audioae...@gmail.com
...>My point isn't that Firewire doesn't work for audio, i
>t's that there isn't yet sufficient standardization of
> interface components (including stuff inside the computer, I suspect)
> that any particular combination, of which there sure surely thousands
> possible, can't be assured of working flawlessly. It doesn't matter to
> the user (me, in this case) what the problem is until someone can give
> me a solution - not a "try this."
>
buy a Mac Book Pro. no thousands of possibilities, it is your
"turnkey" system.
it works!!!
which is why I laugh every time you restart this same thread!
Mike Rivers
> buy a Mac Book Pro. no thousands of possibilities, it is your
> "turnkey" system.
Maybe it works now, but what about three years from now? They don't pay
me enough for writing reviews to buy a new computer or two every year.
That might indeed be a good solution for someone whose setup is going to
remain static for a while, but when you get new stuff in every couple of
months that's "supposed" to work with the nominal system that I have,
then, dammit, it SHOULD work. I'm not complaining about the DICE chip or
the Zed mixer, I'm complaining about the perception of compatibility
that isn't.
audioae...@gmail.com
but when you get new stuff in every couple of
> months that's "supposed" to work with the nominal system that I have,
> then, dammit, it SHOULD work. I'm not complaining about the DICE chip or
> the Zed mixer, I'm complaining about the perception of compatibility
> that isn't.
I say the problem is you have the less expensive, older models of
computers bought with the prime consideration of how little you would
spend. You then try to hook something up to it that requires more then
then your pieces of crap can deliver. Then you post here bellyaching
about how it doesn't work right.
Is this is how they do design and development, low bid.
I wonder how long your patron's will tolerate your inability to work
with their products?
oh yeah, they really don't pay you, you take product as payment.
sounds like payola, should one trust the reviewer who take payola and
can not get the product to work properly?
Mike Rivers
<philicordaNOSPPPAAA...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> If using one of the safe modes improves matters, you could download a
> program called 'DPC Latency Checker':
> This will show you in microseconds the longest spinlock that the kernel
> is holding. The safe mode must make the buffers larger to deal with the
> time spent waiting for the lock to be released. There is a far better
> explanation on that page of the problem than mine.
> If there are long spinlocks, then it's back to magic spells and randomly
> disabling hardware until the errant driver is found.
Interesting. The meter stays well down in the green, in the ballpark
of 30 us range whether a file is playing or not, when using either the
Mackie or Zed interface. The Mackie plays fine, the Zed is more hash
than music.
What I did note, however (and this might be some characteristic of the
DPC checker) was that as soon as I closed Nuendo, it slammed all the
way up to the top of the display and stayed there. I thought maybe it
was that the audio interface (I was using the Mackie at the time) was
desperately trying to find somebody to talk to, but turning it off
didn't stop the high DPC usage even after a couple of minutes. Closing
the DPC checker and restarted it showed all grean.
hank alrich
> audioae...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > buy a Mac Book Pro. no thousands of possibilities, it is your
> > "turnkey" system.
>
> Maybe it works now, but what about three years from now?
I'm six years into using this TiBook. Mind you, I'm not a reviewer, so I
don't get the joy of trying to get it to work with the newest and
coolest stuff.
Since the MIO works so damn well I have no desire or need to think of
upgrading. Hell, Metric Halo has a lot of new action available for my
interface, but I'm not going there until I can't keep this old Mac
running.
I replaced the HD five years in, and will soon replace the optical drive
with one that burns DVD's.
Mike Rivers
> I say the problem is you have the less expensive, older models of
> computers bought with the prime consideration of how little you would
> spend. You then try to hook something up to it that requires more then
> then your pieces of crap can deliver.
Requires more WHAT? What's missing from my system that more money could
buy (other than an Apple nameplate)? What does Apple know that others
don't?
> Then you post here bellyaching about how it doesn't work right.
But it DOES work right. I have three other Firewire audio interfaces
that work just fine with this computer. The fact that the DICE-II chip
wasn't in commercial products at the time that I bought the Firewire
card that I put in this computer may be related to the problem. However,
the Firewire specification and standards were in place when the DICE-II
was developed. So why doesn't it work? I can only surmise that there's
something that the DICE wants or needs that didn't exist a couple of
years ago.
The whole idea behind a computer-based SYSTEM is that things work
together because every interface is designed to meet the standards for
that interface. Now I recognize that standards evolve and the
documentation and universal acceptance often comes along later, and this
may be the case here. But "You need a Macbook Pro" doesn't guarantee
that it won't be obsolete for the DICE-III or whatever comes along next.
I'd be happy to plug this mixer into your Macbook Pro if you bring it
over. That will provide ONE data point. Then we can plug my Onyx
Satellite into your Macbook Pro and you'll see that it doesn't work.
> I wonder how long your patron's will tolerate your inability to work
> with their products?
I do, too. I'm pretty smart, but I'm not rich. Some of their customers
are the other way around and will gladly buy a new computer that's
guaranteed to work with the new hardware they want. I call that a
turnkey system, and that by purchasing this way, you're paying someone
else to do the research, the worrying, the testing, and the integration.
But much of the gear in the marketplace today is sold to people who are
intent on doing their own system engineering - because they think they
can, or that it's the only way they can afford the functionality that
they want.
> oh yeah, they really don't pay you, you take product as payment.
> sounds like payola, should one trust the reviewer who take payola and
> can not get the product to work properly?
This is bordering on libel. Watch it! I get paid for my reviews. I
don't get given gear in exchange for reviews. And you're getting off the
subject. I think you don't have the technical answers I'm seeking so
you're just shooting the messenger. It doesn't help. There are lots of
messengers, many of whom are less resourceful than I am. At least I'm
trying to find out what the problem is so I can guide my readers toward
getting a successful system. If the only computer it works with is a
Macbook Pro, so be it. If the manufacturer tells me this, or recommends
specific Firewire adapters and OS versions, I'll certainly pass that on.
But from a Mac zealot who has never tried the product I'm testing, your
blanket recommendation doesn't carry much weight with me.
Mike Rivers
> Since the MIO works so damn well I have no desire or need to think of
> upgrading. Hell, Metric Halo has a lot of new action available for my
> interface, but I'm not going there until I can't keep this old Mac
> running.
Since my Mackie HDR24/96 and Soundcraft 600 work so well together, I see
no need in upgrading my personal system (no computers necessary). But I
can't make the boat payments reviewing gear that nobody will buy today.
Arny Krueger
> audioae...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I say the problem is you have the less expensive, older
>> models of computers bought with the prime consideration
>> of how little you would spend. You then try to hook
>> something up to it that requires more then then your
>> pieces of crap can deliver.
> Requires more WHAT? What's missing from my system that
> more money could buy (other than an Apple nameplate)?
Well, its those Intel processors that Apple uses. No other PCs have them.
Whoops! ;-)
> What does Apple know that others don't?
Clearly at one time Apple understood Firewire better than everybody else.
However, it is a canon of engineering that if you understand what you are
doing, you can reduce what you are doing to plans, procedures, bills of
material, design rules, and specs. You can then give them to other
reasonably good people and they will duplicate what you did.
If you can't do that, then you aren't much of an engineer, especially if you
can't do it over a period of time that is as long as Apple has been pushing
Firewire.
So, either Apple are total incompetents who can't engineer worth squat, even
when given a decade to get it right, or there's no magic to Apple firewire.
;-)
audioae...@gmail.com
Mike
should I do a search of this group and get a list of how many times
you have posted about having problems with YOUR computer and the
firewire interface for equipment you are trying to review? (earliest
post Dec 29 2000 total #1660)
or how about the article you were going to write and wanted resource
material.
(which I suppled many links for!)
why does the apple product work ... good design with a build that is
not looking for the cheapest price point.
My research into a computer daw lead me to purchase the mac and metric
halo products.
this same research had me purchase plextor optical burners and a
windows machine.
I buy based on research and not some cult inspiration or how cheap I
can buy it !!!
I have given my advice in the past but you always disregard it unless
Scot on Dan Lavery say the same thing. I would think that having 8
years of posting here about your lack of firewire understanding would
have given you the tools needed but this new thread proves otherwise.
Mike Rivers
anything in the DICE driver control panel - the buffer size or the Safe
Mode setting (this is really complicated and I don't want to go into it,
but there's a detailed - though I don't know how accurate - explanation
of it on the Gearslutz forum) it plays fine for a while, and then gets
progressively worse.
I had left it playing in a loop while I went off to check the e-mail,
and when I was walking back to the studio, I thought my neighbor was
blowing his leaves in my back yard. It was the Zed/Nuendo grinding away.
I changed the buffer size (made it a notch smaller), and that seemed to
kick-start it into correct operation for a while before it started
grinding away again. This is the sort of behavior I've read about with
Onyx Firewire stuff here, I think.
This might be an off-the-wall postulate, but it almost sounds like
there's no clock synchronization between the Zed and the computer. I
thought that was supposed to happen magically through the Firewire
connection, but maybe it's not happening and the audio output from the
console is getting out of sync with what the Firewire I/O card in the
computer is expecting. If the clock rates weren't synchronized, they'd
start off close enough, but would gradually drift apart, causing
progressively more missed samples.
Does anyone really know how this works?
Mike Rivers
> should I do a search of this group and get a list of how many times
> you have posted about having problems with YOUR computer and the
> firewire interface for equipment you are trying to review? (earliest
> post Dec 29 2000 total #1660)
Me? Firewire in 2000? It must have been a mention of the word, but
searches without context will do that for you. Thanks for trying.
> why does the apple product work ... good design with a build that is
> not looking for the cheapest price point.
What's better about the design that makes it work? That's what I'm
trying to find out. Instead of giving me technical information, you just
wave the Apple flag. Sorry, but I'm not buying it, particularly in light
of Apple's recent decision to discontinue Firewire on their computers
that don't carry the "Pro" label. I think this may be a very smart
MARKETING (not technical) decision on their part, being as how there are
more and more people (like me) who will be buying Firewire audio gear
(because there's more and more of it on the market) and finding that it
doesn't work with their $400 Mac Mini. Apple doesn't like to have
unhappy customers. If they get $1800 for the computer, they can afford
to support it better.
So I guess this supports your "cheap" argument. But it also supports my
argument that the Firewire standard is not yet sufficiently well
defined, or stable, or strictly adhered to (or all of those) for
whatever reason. Therefore it WILL require more support from the
manufacturers, and problem-solving for specific interface combinations.
> I buy based on research and not some cult inspiration or how cheap I
> can buy it !!!
I do, as well, for certain things. But we're talking about a Firewire
interface card, not a computer. If I was using the Firewire port on the
computer (which I'm not, because it doesn't have one) you could question
Dell's engineering vs. Apple's. But there aren't a lot of choices when
you want to buy a PCI or PCIe Firewire I/O card, and there's precious
little research that leads to a solid conclusion as to which one will
work in a given application. So what's a fellow to do?
> I have given my advice in the past but you always disregard it unless
> Scot on Dan Lavery say the same thing. I would think that having 8
> years of posting here about your lack of firewire understanding would
> have given you the tools needed but this new thread proves otherwise.
Oh, don't feel sorry for yourself. I've tried some of your suggestions
and may have even learned something from what you've had to say. But I
want to know the reasons behind what works, and "not spending enough
money" isn't a good one. I ask a lot of questions, or the same question
many times and perhaps in different ways, because I'm searching for a
MEANINGFUL ANSWER, not just a recommendation. Rest assured, you've been
helpful at times.
If I wanted to use a Metric Halo I/O box, I'd have to buy a Mac, because
that's all they support, and my Mac research would lead me to the
particular computer that best suited my needs. This might even be the
best solution for what I do. But that's not the problem here. Given
that, at least for a few weeks, I MUST use this A&H Zed R16, I need to
find a suitable mate for it, and not at great personal expense. The way
to do this is to gather real technical information, not anecdotes.
audioae...@gmail.com
and how did you deal with the pin 3 dilemma??
I mean the differences between the AES and the EBU until an agreement
was reached?
(does any standard really get followed if the manufacturer finds a
REASON not to?)
I think your first post as I found it was about using firewire to
create a LAN between some Roland device or was it a Korg ... in one
room and your studio setup elsewhere.
If someone with your depth of experience can not get a satisfactory
setup,
what does a layman expect when using these devices.
Have you explored finding a local mac user to help test the firewire.
ps the mini still has a firewire port.
hank alrich
> The whole idea behind a computer-based SYSTEM is that things work
> together because every interface is designed to meet the standards for
> that interface. Now I recognize that standards evolve and the
> documentation and universal acceptance often comes along later, and this
> may be the case here. But "You need a Macbook Pro" doesn't guarantee
> that it won't be obsolete for the DICE-III or whatever comes along next.
Agreed. It seems to me that either the "standard" has some unfortunate
wiggle room, or that manufuacturers are claiming to meet the standard
but not doing so.
Even with Macs, when wanting to expand my FW interface capabilities in
order to hang the MIO and the outboard HD on different ports, the TiBook
having but one, I was directed to make sure the PCMCIA card I bought
used the TI chip. I do that and things have perfectly. But there were
plenty of warning of other chipsets not working well or at all with the
same computers.
hank alrich
> why does the apple product work ... good design with a build that is
> not looking for the cheapest price point.
It doesn't take much time to scan the 'net for info on Macs shitting
around some FW situation. And I use Macs erxclusively, with generally
fine results and little downtime.
Mike said you're not helping. He's right.
How about you go get a ZED and hook it to yoru Mac and report back?
Mike Rivers
> Mike
> and how did you deal with the pin 3 dilemma??
> I mean the differences between the AES and the EBU until an agreement
> was reached?
Is this a real question? What dilemma? Since you're going back to
prehistoric times with my writings and references, did you read my July
1999 article in Recording on the subject? The important thing is to
understand what "Pin 2 Hot" means. In general, I wired up everything
here with pins 2 and 3 connected straight through (not "corrected"
anywhere). If something had an XLR connector but was unbalanced with
signal on pin 3 rather than pin 2, I either rewired it or I made a
special cable for it. My tape decks maintained polarity from input to
output so it really didn't matter how the cables were conceived as long
as the wiring wasn't reversed. If I was mixing or overdubbing on to a
tape that came from elsewhere (for example, was recorded on a Studer - I
had an Ampex) that had the opposite polarity at the heads, I just
inverted the signal going to it or coming from it. No problem.
But the important part was that either by inspection or with simple test
equipment (which could be as simple as a headphone) I could DETERMINE
how something was wired and could deal with it by finding the proper
adapter in a drawer or by making it. I can't do either at the boundaries
of a Firewire interface. If there IS test equipment, I don't know what
it is, and it's not likely to be simple. And you sure can't tell by
inspection what's going on. It's getting harder even to tell what chips
are in the devices.
> (does any standard really get followed if the manufacturer finds a
> REASON not to?)
That's a good question. Talk to John LaGrou (Millenia Media) about the
AES grounding and shielding standard and he'll tell you why doing it
their way everywhere can reduce the performance of his mic preamp, so he
modifies the standard to comply where practical. But talk to Grant of
Gordon Instruments, who redesigned the whole grounding system of his
preamp to comply with the standard and he'll tell you that it was a
bugger, but in the end he was better off. Both are fine preamps, and
neither one has been known to cause problems when installed in the
obvious and reasonable manner.
> I think your first post as I found it was about using firewire to
> create a LAN between some Roland device or was it a Korg ... in one
> room and your studio setup elsewhere.
Can't imagine what that would be, must have been just in passing.
Clearly it isn't relevant to the issue we're discussing now.
> If someone with your depth of experience can not get a satisfactory
> setup,
> what does a layman expect when using these devices.
My point, exactly. But if we all went back to analog interfacing, we
could figure these things out much more easily. <g>
> Have you explored finding a local mac user to help test the firewire.
> ps the mini still has a firewire port.
I have a friend with a Mac Mini and I just asked him last night to bring
it along when he and his wife come over for Thanksgiving dinner. Now
this is my friend Don who has more stuff than Scott Dorsey's old
garage, and more layers of cabling than a TV switch room. He's into old
computers and networking. Anyway, he begged off. Said that he has the
power supply and power cable tied into place where it's not easy to
access. And (getting back to standards) he said that even if he could
pull the power supply from the front of the rack, and he thinks that
might be possible, he'd want to leave the AC cable in place - and it
doesn't use a standard IEC connector, so he, nor I, don't have another
one to use.
However, here's one for you. I've been working this Zed with files
imported from other recorders and getting the progressively worse
crackles and dropouts. I didn't want to start recording with it until I
knew it worked. Well, this afternoon, I connected my Mackie HDR (analog
outputs) to the mixer inputs, put Nuendo into record, and copied an
8-track project to the computer. It played back flawlessly, and has been
looping for an hour or so. I opened up Sound Forge and played one of the
stereo files that previously crackled and groaned and it, too, played
back just fine. It's been going about 15 minutes now without a snort.
Now, I didn't DO anything other than to open Nuendo for recording.
Surely that couldn't have fixed it. And if it did, how would Nuendo fix
it for Sound Forge? I can't retrace my footsteps because there aren't
any footprints. I hate it when you don't know why you apparently fixed
something, because it's probably still broken.
audioae...@gmail.com
and what type of wood were you splitting? oak/black locust/ shag bark
hickory
with a maul or did you get some mechanical advantage?
after how many years of hearing the same thing does one have the right
to claim that
crying wolf is not professional?
do you think I could get paid to do it?
do you think he will send it to me to try (grin)
should I use the ti powerbook or the mac book pro (or the inspiron or
the xps)?
I just was doing a gut response to his _constant_ plea for firewire
help!!!
Would you use SAE tools on a metric machine??
hank alrich
> On Nov 10, 3:23 pm, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> > <audioaesthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > why does the apple product work ... good design with a build that is
> > > not looking for the cheapest price point.
> >
> > It doesn't take much time to scan the 'net for info on Macs shitting
> > around some FW situation. And I use Macs erxclusively, with generally
> > fine results and little downtime.
> >
> > Mike said you're not helping. He's right.
> >
> > How about you go get a ZED and hook it to yoru Mac and report back?
>
> and what type of wood were you splitting? oak/black locust/ shag bark
> hickory
Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, and Incense Cedar. Later I will split some
California Black Oak, some Alder, and some Post Oak.
> with a maul or did you get some mechanical advantage?
About three-quarters of it with a maul, and the rest with my
father-in-law's splitter.
> after how many years of hearing the same thing does one have the right
> to claim that
> crying wolf is not professional?
Every situation is unique. Tell me: does the ZED work with _your_ Mac?
Yes or no? If you haven't tried it then assuming it will work with a Mac
may not turn out to be valid.
> do you think I could get paid to do it?
Do you have a decade or so of published reviews that support your
reputation as a reviewer? Do you have a publisher seeking a review from
you?
> do you think he will send it to me to try (grin)
Probably not. He did send me the FW option card for the Mackie Onyx
line, because I had one here at the time and we wanted to know how it
sounded, if it worked with my Mac, and with Logic Pro 6.4.3. Conversion
quality was average, far below that of my MIO, and it worked fine with
the computer and app. It also worked fine with the Cube.
> should I use the ti powerbook or the mac book pro (or the inspiron or
> the xps)?
You should try them all and report back. <g>
> I just was doing a gut response to his _constant_ plea for firewire
> help!!!
In general, Mike, when looking for help, gives pretty detailed
information about what he's trying to do with what, and about what is or
is not happening.
The point to take home here is this: he is troubleshooting a specific
system and it is pointless to say, "Oh, just change the system". Imagine
the moon shots if NASA had taken that approach. "Yeah, guys, well it's
not working, so we're going to abandon y'all and try another approach.
Any last words for the folks back home? Have a nice death!"
> Would you use SAE tools on a metric machine??
Not relevant. Firewire is supposed to be a standard at least as tight as
either of those, and apparently, as itereated by various manufacturers,
it is not. Hence, the pointer to get a card with a TI chip for my Mac
when I needed a PCMCIA FW card. Some folks had to return card with other
chips and get one with the TI in order to have FW work with their Macs
via a PCMCIA card.
philicorda
<snip>
> However, here's one for you. I've been working this Zed with files
> imported from other recorders and getting the progressively worse
> crackles and dropouts. I didn't want to start recording with it until I
> knew it worked. Well, this afternoon, I connected my Mackie HDR (analog
> outputs) to the mixer inputs, put Nuendo into record, and copied an
> 8-track project to the computer. It played back flawlessly, and has been
> looping for an hour or so. I opened up Sound Forge and played one of the
> stereo files that previously crackled and groaned and it, too, played
> back just fine. It's been going about 15 minutes now without a snort.
>
> Now, I didn't DO anything other than to open Nuendo for recording.
> Surely that couldn't have fixed it. And if it did, how would Nuendo fix
> it for Sound Forge? I can't retrace my footsteps because there aren't
> any footprints. I hate it when you don't know why you apparently fixed
> something, because it's probably still broken.
Of course it will work today.
November the 10th is the Scottish Pagan festival of Nincnevin, honouring
the goddess Diana, who had a daughter by Lucifer. She tricked him by
appearing in the form of a cat and seducing him.
The celebration of the God who tricked Lucifer (latin: 'Carrier of fire')
means this is a most auspicious time for these interfaces.
Mike Rivers
> Of course it will work today.
> November the 10th is the Scottish Pagan festival of Nincnevin, honouring
> the goddess Diana, who had a daughter by Lucifer. She tricked him by
> appearing in the form of a cat and seducing him.
By the time I tried it here, it would have been very close to tomorrow
in Scotland, but that's probably as good a reason as any for it
mysteriously starting to work. I suppose if I tried it with a Macbook
Pro and it worked, after that it would work with my Dell with the
CompUSA Firewire card.
> The celebration of the God who tricked Lucifer (latin: 'Carrier of fire')
> means this is a most auspicious time for these interfaces.
audioae...@gmail.com
so all his problems were with his windows setup?
>
> > should I use the ti powerbook or the mac book pro (or the inspiron or
> > the xps)?
>
> You should try them all and report back. <g>
>
> > I just was doing a gut response to his _constant_ plea for firewire
> > help!!!
>
> In general, Mike, when looking for help, gives pretty detailed
> information about what he's trying to do with what, and about what is or
> is not happening.
what is not happening is his computer setup
it is flawed!! do you want to go into outer space using a flawed low
bid system
>
> The point to take home here is this: he is troubleshooting a specific
> system and it is pointless to say, "Oh, just change the system". Imagine
> the moon shots if NASA had taken that approach. "Yeah, guys, well it's
> not working, so we're going to abandon y'all and try another approach.
> Any last words for the folks back home? Have a nice death!"
yeah but then they would have a working system before lift off
it seems like mike's is never really working!
so the scenario would be this
we saved $$$$ on a different part
does anyone know why it crashed?
>
> > Would you use SAE tools on a metric machine??
>
> Not relevant. Firewire is supposed to be a standard at least as tight as
> either of those, and apparently, as itereated by various manufacturers,
> it is not. Hence, the pointer to get a card with a TI chip for my Mac
> when I needed a PCMCIA FW card. Some folks had to return card with other
> chips and get one with the TI in order to have FW work with their Macs
> via a PCMCIA card.
not relevant ...
so using any old tool (no mater what the spec is) should work
9/16 is 11 mm about ... why did the bolt strip
I bought the lest expensive firewire card ... didn't work
tried the next card ... same thing ... after four cards I have one
that works ... kinda.
some of the time ... when the moon is right.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar
I was a trombone player now I play the loudspeaker (electro acoustic
musician)
Mike Rivers
> what is not happening is his computer setup
> it is flawed!! do you want to go into outer space using a flawed low
> bid system
If that's the case, how come it works now? My problem isn't that I have
a flawed system, my problem is that I don't understand what's happening
under the hood and I STILL (after years of asking) haven't found out how
to figure that out. I can tell you how to troubleshoot what appears to
be a cable problem (or determine absolutely that it isn't) using
inexpensive, easy-to-use, and easily obtainable tools. Can you tell me
how to troubelshoot a Firewire connection problem other than to get
another computer? You keep avoiding my real question - which I've
certainly stated enough ways so that you surely know what it is that I
don't know.
Are you suggesting that computers are just too complicated for mere
mortals and they only way to troubleshoot the problem is to start over
from scratch?
> I bought the lest expensive firewire card ... didn't work
> tried the next card ... same thing ... after four cards I have one
> that works ... kinda.
> some of the time ... when the moon is right.
Given no valid technical means for making a choice, one must start
somewhere. Why not start off with the one with the lowest cost?
> I was a trombone player now I play the loudspeaker (electro acoustic
> musician)
Clearly, then, you have no real world experience with the many varieties
of studio equipment. Shut up and play your MP3 files.
audioae...@gmail.com
> If that's the case, how come it works now? My problem isn't that I have
> a flawed system, my problem is that I don't understand what's happening
> under the hood and I STILL (after years of asking) haven't found out how
> to figure that out. I can tell you how to troubleshoot what appears to
> be a cable problem (or determine absolutely that it isn't) using
> inexpensive, easy-to-use, and easily obtainable tools. Can you tell me
> how to troubelshoot a Firewire connection problem other than to get
> another computer? You keep avoiding my real question - which I've
> certainly stated enough ways so that you surely know what it is that I
> don't know.
>
> Are you suggesting that computers are just too complicated for mere
> mortals and they only way to troubleshoot the problem is to start over
> from scratch?
>
> > I bought the lest expensive firewire card ... didn't work
> > tried the next card ... same thing ... after four cards I have one
> > that works ... kinda.
> > some of the time ... when the moon is right.
>
> Given no valid technical means for making a choice, one must start
> somewhere. Why not start off with the one with the lowest cost?
>
> > I was a trombone player now I play the loudspeaker (electro acoustic
> > musician)
>
> Clearly, then, you have no real world experience with the many varieties
> of studio equipment. Shut up and play your MP3 files.
mike
hey great come back
I do not own an mp3 or anything that has lossy compression,
they suck!!!
I do not have your real world experience with the many varieties of
studio equipment.
I do not write on subjects I have no knowledge.
I did give you my answer,
http://www.1394ta.org/index.html
this was posted here three years ago when you were writing an article
on firewire!!!
buy something based on research!!
if you do not understand something,
find an expert!
why haven't you posted these problems on the other list-serves I have
seen you on?
ie http://www.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/
or some place new gearslutz
or maybe your public library!!
audioae...@gmail.com
> I was a trombone player now I play the loudspeaker (electro acoustic
> musician)
Clearly, then, you have no real world experience with the many
varieties
of studio equipment. Shut up and play your MP3 files.
ah now I get it
you have a thing against trombone players...
as an electro acoustic musician, I need to explain to you that
the original recording studios were for broadcasting
so the original engineers were broadcast engineers.
when classically trained musicians gained access to these tools
they experimented with the electronics.
They played sounds created by electronics (the recusers to synthesis)
through the transducers that changed electrical energy onto
acoustical energy.
You know this as a speaker.
So they played the loudspeaker, which is the last musical instrument.
So all studio engineers who are musicians and are concerned with the
"sound" they are creating are electro acoustic musicians.
Even classically trained trombone players.
or self taught bluegrass pickers!!!
Mike Rivers
> I did give you my answer,
> http://www.1394ta.org/index.html
> this was posted here three years ago when you were writing an article
> on firewire!!!
I don't remember the question and I never wrote an article on Firewire.
I did write an article on interfaces in general that were used for audio
equipment. Firewire was included, as well as USB, and all the various
flavors of analog audio. However, no matter what the question a pointer
to an industry organization web site isn't usually the answer. And in
this case, it isn't even a good start. If, for instance, if the question
was "Which PCI cards have a TI Firewire chipset, where can I buy one,
and how much does it cost?" the answer could not be found there.
I think I may have asked about acutal throughput speed, and there is
indeed a table for a a specific chip and a disk drive. I don't know how
this relates to audio, however. I'm still looking for that Firewire
benchmark speed test.
> if you do not understand something, find an expert!
I've been trying, but I haven't found the right expert yet. Either he or
she doesn't exist or costs too much.
> why haven't you posted these problems on the other list-serves I have
> seen you on?
> ie http://www.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/
> http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/
> or some place new gearslutz
I try to ask questions where I think there might be some knowledge. I
ask certain questions on the Pro Audio list that I don't ask here, and
if you've seen a post of mine on ProSoundWeb, it was either incidental
or a copy from some other forum. I expected that there might be some
EXPERIENCE here, and that's what I was seeking. I guess I was wrong
since all I seem to be getting is arguments from you about why I haven't
bought a Mac.
Mike Rivers
> On Nov 11, 7:29 am, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> I was a trombone player now I play the loudspeaker (electro acoustic
>> musician)
Wait a minute! I thought YOU wrote that. It was a quote from somebody's
message. Maybe you quoted it and I missed the attribution.
> ah now I get it
> you have a thing against trombone players...
Actually, I played the trombone when I was in 7th through 9th grade.
Sold it to buy a guitar when I got into college during the Folk Scare.
Turns out that a lot of folk musicians from the late '50s and '60s were
trombone players in another life. I actually wanted to be the next Paul
Desmond, but the school didn't have any alto saxes but they needed
trombone players for the band. I kind of liked JJ Johnson and Kai
Winding's duets at the time, so I said "OK, I'll learn to play the
trombone."
audioae...@gmail.com
> Actually, I played the trombone when I was in 7th through 9th grade.
> Sold it to buy a guitar when I got into college during the Folk Scare.
> Turns out that a lot of folk musicians from the late '50s and '60s were
> trombone players in another life. I actually wanted to be the next Paul
> Desmond, but the school didn't have any alto saxes but they needed
> trombone players for the band. I kind of liked JJ Johnson and Kai
> Winding's duets at the time, so I said "OK, I'll learn to play the
> trombone."
mike
my writing ability is always correct, opps sorry for misattribution
true blue trombonium - jj & kia on dave brubeck live at the 57
newport lp.
may I suggest you post on a computer savvy group.
my logic is that although your topic is audio,
your subject problem is computer.
and maybe someone more computer literate may be able to better direct
you
to someone or place that will further your quest.
hank alrich
Mike Rivers
> may I suggest you post on a computer savvy group.
> my logic is that although your topic is audio,
> your subject problem is computer.
Computer people don't understand audio. They'll probalby tell me that if
it works with a disk drive it's OK. Besides, I think the problem may be
with the connector. I was making some measurements on the console today
and it started to crap out when I bumped it alittle hard. Wigging the
connector gives me the same sort of problems as it would develop on its
own eventually. The connectors don't really feel very good - in fact
this is a problem with Firewire in general - the connectors don't feel
very good. I did a little work with some gaffer tape and now it seems
more stable.
And I'm not sure what my quest really is. I just want something that's
supposed to be plug-and-play to play when I plug it in. But that's
probably asking too much.
Soundhaspriority
> audioae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Mike
[snip]
>
> However, here's one for you. I've been working this Zed with files
> imported from other recorders and getting the progressively worse crackles
> and dropouts. I didn't want to start recording with it until I knew it
> worked. Well, this afternoon, I connected my Mackie HDR (analog outputs)
> to the mixer inputs, put Nuendo into record, and copied an 8-track project
> to the computer. It played back flawlessly, and has been looping for an
> hour or so. I opened up Sound Forge and played one of the stereo files
> that previously crackled and groaned and it, too, played back just fine.
> It's been going about 15 minutes now without a snort.
>
> Now, I didn't DO anything other than to open Nuendo for recording. Surely
> that couldn't have fixed it. And if it did, how would Nuendo fix it for
> Sound Forge? I can't retrace my footsteps because there aren't any
> footprints. I hate it when you don't know why you apparently fixed
> something, because it's probably still broken.
>
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> Is this a dual core machine?
No. I'm beginning to suspect the Firewire connector on the chassis. I
can create the crackling noise with the very slightest movement of the
cable. Of course there's all sorts of things that can be wrong that
cause the same kind of noise. I've taped the cable down to the table to
reduce the possibility of motion.
audioae...@gmail.com
> audioaesthe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > may I suggest you post on a computer savvy group.
> > my logic is that although your topic is audio,
> > your subject problem is computer.
>
> Computer people don't understand audio. They'll probalby tell me that if
> And I'm not sure what my quest really is. I just want something that's
> supposed to be plug-and-play to play when I plug it in. But that's
> probably asking too much.
Mike
Your quest is to better understand this so you can better write about
it.
and yes a "computer nerd" does have a limited understanding
and yes an audio geek has a limited understanding.
You, GRASSHOPPER, are seeking someone who transcends
and ya haven't found them here!!!
Soundhaspriority
OK. It should not do that. Cracked solder joints, as you well know, also
behave oddly in combination with other things, such as which way the cable
wants to push the connector.
If you determine it's not the problem, there are other things we could look
at, though, as you seem to agree, it's academic without a TI card in there.
Understanding in detail why it does not work is not nearly as important as
identifying a good configuration.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> If you determine it's not the problem, there are other things we could look
> at, though, as you seem to agree, it's academic without a TI card in there.
Are you suggesting that a Firewire interface card with a TI chip is the
cure-all? My VIA card seems to be working fine, when the system works.
And these days it's losing itself so infrequently that I can't really
blame che chipset.
> Understanding in detail why it does not work is not nearly as important as
> identifying a good configuration.
Not for me. I want to understand WHY a certain configuration is good. I
don't think it's a good device if it will only work with a certain
interface card, unless that card is supplied with the device. That's the
good thing about interfaces that use a PCI or now PCIe card. You put it
in and it works - unless of course it doesn't. <g>
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> If you determine it's not the problem, there are other things we could
>> look at, though, as you seem to agree, it's academic without a TI card in
>> there.
>
> Are you suggesting that a Firewire interface card with a TI chip is the
> cure-all? My VIA card seems to be working fine, when the system works. And
> these days it's losing itself so infrequently that I can't really blame
> che chipset.
>
first thing to try -- except where, as in this case, you have a specific
lead elsewhere, the cable behavior.
>> Understanding in detail why it does not work is not nearly as important
>> as identifying a good configuration.
>
> Not for me. I want to understand WHY a certain configuration is good.
That isn't usually available to a nonprogrammer. It might not be available
to a programmer either. A long time ago, I was trying to program an
interrupt controller, by loading it up with machine code. The controller
would not take the sequence. So I called up the chipmaker that produced the
interrupt controller, explained to them the setup, and their reply was: We
know it (my config) doesn't work, but we don't know why. And they made the
chip.
Sometimes, in order to really know why, you have to be the engineer with
the test rig, or failing that, a bus probe with custom programming. When the
answer is found, it's put in the usage specs, but the real reason is buried
in the engineering archives of some company as confidential information. Or,
it's coded into the driver, the source code of which is confidential
information.
These days, knowing why is not like understanding the physics of a process.
These days, the fundamental knowledge is that of standards. If you have a
document that states the rules for using a device, as in driver calls, or
compatibility, that's the best you're going to get.
This goes for companies as well as individuals. About two years ago, I was
speaking with an engineer at Echo. He told me that the latest Via chips were
actually showing better performance than TI chips, something which I then
verified myself. He had no idea why; he just had a spec and a boilerplate
driver for Via chips. The company continues to specify TI interface chips
because the older ones give so much trouble.
> I don't think it's a good device if it will only work with a certain
> interface card, unless that card is supplied with the device. That's the
> good thing about interfaces that use a PCI or now PCIe card. You put it in
> and it works - unless of course it doesn't. <g>
>
I had an elderly friend whose name is on the first heart-lung machine, but
he never managed to get his arms around software. In fact, he hated
programmers with a passion. You want something that isn't available anymore,
and probably will never be again. The world changes, and we don't like it.
In fact, there are lots of things I don't like about the new world: bad
literature, bad music, and mp3 players ;) But we have to pick our battles.
Regardless of what you write, or what I read and listen to, the world will
just keep moving further and further away from what we wish for.
When I started out, I was toggling programs in by a front panel, and I could
see every register of the machine. Every JK was made of transistors that I
could touch. Now a JK isn't even visible with an optical microscope; it
takes at least ultraviolet to resolve the geometry. The number of
abstractive layers between the processor and the programmer continues to
increase.
An effective person learns how to manipulate the always newly changing
levers that the new world provides. To do so increases personal power.
Regretting what we lost is seldom appreciated except by those who share the
loss.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Chris Hornbeck
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The world changes, and we don't like it.
>In fact, there are lots of things I don't like about the new world: bad
>literature, bad music, and mp3 players ;) But we have to pick our battles.
>Regardless of what you write, or what I read and listen to, the world will
>just keep moving further and further away from what we wish for.
I must strongly disagree. The (modern) world is a human construct, a
product of engineering, and so it is a choice. Please, please, don't
give up. Never give up. It's the only correct Human choice. Anything
less is a literary conceit, and Morally Ambiguous, or worse, if such
exists. And bullshit.
We're Humans. We're males (and a few females, in helpful, supportive,
life-affirming, non-threatening-of-masculinity roles...). We Engineer
the world.
The Modern World must, by definition, look pretty bad to anybody,
in any age or era, with half a hope for their childrens' futures,
because it's ALWAYS desperate. Always. Always. Always.
But we're descended from at least four billion years of ancestors
who managed to muddle on anyway. By definition, our ancestors
muddled on in the face of desperate odds. The world has always,
without exception (possibly even in the Eisenhower era!) been
desperate.
Only slightly kidding!, and much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Soundhaspriority
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2f8nh4l4f69443u56...@4ax.com...
Chris, your argument is, as usual, so eloquent, I can't snip. But still, I
say, pick your battles. Fight for goodness, beauty, and truth, but not to
make computers as simple as they were in 1957. I have repaired Ampexes, and
I can understand how someone rooted in the era of analog dominance might
yearn for the days when you could put your finger on a component (carefully,
because the voltages were high!), and know exactly what it did. That level
of understanding eludes us with modern digital systems. Because one has to
understand a part to use it, a different kind of understanding evolved to
deal with it. Each part becomes a "black box"; like an elementary particle,
it has a defining law. A modern computer is made of nested black boxes.
Microsoft executes it in thousands of pages of documentation, in which many
objects are described with notes similar to the following: "The spinlock is
an opaque object. Internals are not documented." So once again, the
universal physical law is replaced by a specification.
My friend who worked on the first heart-lung machine, with a post-grad Moore
School degree, remained inplacably hostile to the above, and expressed it in
animosity toward programmers. He managed to squeak into the transistor era,
and could fix TV sets. He could go no further; his mind was insuficiently
plastic. And needless to say, he lost the ability to influence the
engineering world, because he was no longer on common terms with it.
It doesn't pay to overthink. Sometimes, when I fix a family computer, or one
belonging to a friend, I'm asked, "what went wrong?" My most honest reply,
which I only give to people who can actually understand it is, "I don't
know, but if I did, I would not be able to make it understandable to you."
My other answer is, "There are anecdotes that this doesn't work with that."
I don't trouble myself, because it is impossible to understand a modern
microcomputer as a whole.
I think it was Bulwer-Lytton who said something like, "If one could
completely understand a single rose, one would know the whole universe."
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Chris Hornbeck
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<Great stuff, saved, but snipped here for bandwidth>
including:
> But still, I say, pick your battles. Fight for goodness, beauty, and truth,
> but not to make computers as simple as they were in 1957.
Fair enough, as long as we can keep goodness, beauty and truth as
simple as they were then. Well, maybe that's not such a good idea...
How about this? We agree to keep goodness, beauty, truth and
computers as significant as they were in 1957? That's, sadly,
a politically/ religiously popular idea, even in 2008. Arf.
But maybe it depends on the definition of "1957". Here in
Little Rock, Arkansas, that's a year of both great pride and
great shame. The state's Governor, previously a reasonably
forward-looking (in context only, of course) guy, got himself
into an embarrassingly stupid position, aligned against the
President, a previously backward-looking guy who fought The War
with a racially segregated military.
Neither Governor nor President seemed to have any high purpose
in the Little Rock school desegregation standoff of 1957. No
beauty, no truth, back then, fersure, but maybe a goodness arose,
finally, over the years that followed. And none of it could have
happened without the ground swell of local citizen's (mostly
women!) support from both sides of the tracks.
Folks picked their battles, and are still fighting them. Here
in Arkansas a ballot measure to restrict the adoption of children
to *not* include "co-habitating couples", widely understood to
mean those horrible GAY couples that are so dangerous to young
children, passed with a large margin last week. Civil rights
is a forever battle.
Goodness, beauty and truth.
Right on, right on.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Arny Krueger
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> If you determine it's not the problem, there are other
>> things we could look at, though, as you seem to agree,
>> it's academic without a TI card in there.
> Are you suggesting that a Firewire interface card with a
> TI chip is the cure-all?
I've played this game, and there are no cure-alls.
> My VIA card seems to be working
> fine, when the system works.
Guess what, the VIA chip and card-level implementations of it haven't been
identically the same all along.
> And these days it's losing
> itself so infrequently that I can't really blame the
> chipset.
There's only 2 things to possibly blame...
I'm an equal-opportunity blamer, blame them both! ;-)
> Not for me. I want to understand WHY a certain
> configuration is good. I don't think it's a good device
> if it will only work with a certain interface card,
So much for many of the Pro Tools audio interfaces. The vendor only
guarantees them if you use a TI chip, last I looked.
> unless that card is supplied with the device.
Good point, as the cards are very cheap, even the good ones. Why risk a
$500 interface when you could throw in a card that might cost $5 in OEM
quantities?
>That's the good thing about interfaces that use a PCI or now PCIe
> card. You put it in and it works - unless of course it
> doesn't. <g>
There you go. ;-)
Mike Rivers
> I'm just saying that if the TI is the recommended chipset, that's the
> first thing to try
OK. TI was what Hank said Metric Halo recommends for use with his
interface. The A&H guy I talked to said they didn't have a list of
recommended interface cards or chip sets.
>> I want to understand WHY a certain configuration is good.
>
> That isn't usually available to a nonprogrammer. It might not be available
> to a programmer either.
My point, exactly (almost). It suggests that there's really nobody who
understands enough about these things to be able to know if they'll
work, or why they won't. I'm sure it's not impossible to figure out, but
it's easier to just tell the customer "Try something else. It'll only
cost you $20." Plus shipping, of course, and another $20, and another
$20 until you stumble across one that works.
> Sometimes, in order to really know why, you have to be the engineer with
> the test rig, or failing that, a bus probe with custom programming. When the
> answer is found, it's put in the usage specs, but the real reason is buried
> in the engineering archives of some company as confidential information. Or,
> it's coded into the driver, the source code of which is confidential
> information.
None of which is helpful to the user. If there were good interface
standards and interface control documents that everyone followed, then
everything would work, or at least you could figure out why it doesn't.
With analog hardware, it's pretty simple because there are a fairly
small number of parameters that affect the operation, and if it doesn't
work correctly, or doesn't work at all, there are usually some pretty
good clues. Things can be measured easily. If you're connecting a tape
deck to a mixer, you can use a generator to see if the mixer input
works, and you can use the same generator to determine the input
sensitivity. You can use a voltmeter to see if the recorder is putting
out a signal, you can determine the voltage level, and find out what
pins on the connector are active.
With a digital interface, the parameters are primarily data format (word
length, content, which end the most significant bit is on, polarity) and
timing. Neither of those can be determined by equipment that's easy to
find or use. A good program will prevent things from depending on
external timing to work, but often these things are sacrificed on the
assumption that whatever it will be used with will be fast enough. And
sometimes there's just no connectivity. For example, why can't a
Firewire driver tell Windows to run the interface at 400 mbps (if that's
what it needs for successful operation)? I suppose the answer is that
Windows doesn't let itself be told things like that. Why not? Because
they didn't think there would be a need. (or maybe because it's Microsoft)
But I digress.
> These days, the fundamental knowledge is that of standards. If you have a
> document that states the rules for using a device, as in driver calls, or
> compatibility, that's the best you're going to get.
So where are these things? The manufacturer must know something because
they have to be able to test their own hardware and software. But maybe
they don't anticipate enough variables in that testing. It would be nice
to know at least what they know works.
> When I started out, I was toggling programs in by a front panel, and I could
> see every register of the machine.
I did that, too. It was easy to see why something wasn't working or what
it was trying to do when it stopped.
> An effective person learns how to manipulate the always newly changing
> levers that the new world provides.
The usual way to do that is just to buy something that you don't yet have.
Scott Dorsey
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:07:02 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
><now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> The world changes, and we don't like it.
>>In fact, there are lots of things I don't like about the new world: bad
>>literature, bad music, and mp3 players ;) But we have to pick our battles.
>>Regardless of what you write, or what I read and listen to, the world will
>>just keep moving further and further away from what we wish for.
>
>I must strongly disagree. The (modern) world is a human construct, a
>product of engineering, and so it is a choice. Please, please, don't
>give up. Never give up. It's the only correct Human choice. Anything
>less is a literary conceit, and Morally Ambiguous, or worse, if such
>exists. And bullshit.
Yes, people make machines. And that means people should control machines,
and NOT the other way around. Too many people forget that.
One of the great things about the modern world is that there are so many
different generations of technology that have been made, and there is no
reason you cannot pick and choose between them. If you want to heat your
house with a woodstove, grow all your own food, and use a 2" Ampex, there
is nothing preventing you from doing so.
If you don't like bad literature, bad music, or mp3 players, you don't
have to use them. You can't necessarily prevent anyone else from using
them, but you can take solace in the fact that they are ephemeral and will
soon be gone and replaced with something else.
>The Modern World must, by definition, look pretty bad to anybody,
>in any age or era, with half a hope for their childrens' futures,
>because it's ALWAYS desperate. Always. Always. Always.
People in general are like that, but that doesn't mean that you have to be
that way personally. That's the marvelous part about being human.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> One of the great things about the modern world is that there are so many
> different generations of technology that have been made, and there is no
> reason you cannot pick and choose between them. If you want to heat your
> house with a woodstove, grow all your own food, and use a 2" Ampex, there
> is nothing preventing you from doing so.
That's true, but the practical side is that if you don't want to spend
your life building and fixing things, you need to buy what's available.
And in a field like recording-for-the-low-budget-musician-not-engineer,
most products are designed with known compromises to meet the designated
price point.
I'm pretty much convinced that the problems that I've been experiencing
that started this thread are attributable to:
(a) the Firewire cable connector (the easy part to fix)
and
(b) what the computer does when the connection gets flaky (a harder part
to fix).
If (a) was fixed, say by incorporating one of those Neutrik Firewire
connectors with the XLR-type shell, then maybe they wouldn't have to fix
(b) because it wouldn't be a problem - at least not on the mixer end.
But if the driver recovered gracefully when the hardware aw disconnected
and re-connected, there might be an intermittent click or blast of
noise, but it wouldn't require the proper order of restarting
(including, apparently, rebooting the computer) there wouldn't be a
problem. Both solutions cost money, one in added parts cost, the other
in added software and testing.
Price point busted! Back to the comfort of analog. <g>
Soundhaspriority
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I'm pretty much convinced that the problems that I've been experiencing
> that started this thread are attributable to:
>
> (a) the Firewire cable connector (the easy part to fix)
> and
> (b) what the computer does when the connection gets flaky (a harder part
> to fix).
>
reason they threw out off-the-shelf Firewire entirely and built their own.
If it's the cable, you are justifiably annoyed that the system throws errors
and doesn't give you any kind of heads-up. BTW, the Vista driver interface
was redesigned to make this easier to do. It's a shame the rest of Vista
doesn't work too good.
[snip good stuff]
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> So where are these things? The manufacturer must know something
They know more than we do, but not what we used to know about things. See my
previous post.
>because they have to be able to test their own hardware and software. But
>maybe they don't anticipate enough variables in that testing. It would be
>nice to know at least what they know works.
>
Once again, this is the way the world works these days. They do not have
complete knowledge. The problem of establishing compatibity with generic
hardware is unsolved. Apple took another route; hence, less compatibilty.
>> When I started out, I was toggling programs in by a front panel, and I
>> could see every register of the machine.
>
> I did that, too. It was easy to see why something wasn't working or what
> it was trying to do when it stopped.
>
>> An effective person learns how to manipulate the always newly changing
>> levers that the new world provides.
>
> The usual way to do that is just to buy something that you don't yet have.
>
On the level of the user, it frequently is true that one has to buy a TI
card. To me, this is a petty detail. It's like carping about the texture of
toilet paper. If I were reviewing a device that uses DICE, I would find out
what card they tested with, use that, and note in the review that it didn't
work with my Via card, or whatever. I would test and provide a compatibility
table, based upon the equipment I have. It would look like this:
Echo
Audiofire 12 Tascam FW-1082 DICEII Sound Devices 744T (file
transfer only)
Via adapter, Asus laptop
TI adapter #1, Asus laptop
TI adapter #2, Asus laptop
built-in via, Asus laptopVia adapter
Via adapter, Compal laptop
TI adapter #1, Compal laptop
TI adapter #2, Compal laptop
built-in via adapter Compal laptop
In each box, I would put the maximum channel/bitrate of successful capture.
I would then discuss the nature of an extended BIOS interrupt as provided by
the Asus, as compared to the shared interrupt of the Compal, and the
performance of the built-in Firewire adapter. I would discuss the
motherboard chipset architecture, which is vital to understanding why some
devices work in isochronous mode, and some don't.
I have never, ever, seen a good review of an audio capture device. It seems
the problem is that audio reviewers don't know enough about computers, and
computerniks don't know or care enough about audio. The technical standards
of the "pro" magazines are just about zero. I'll tell you who does reviews
right: John Atkinson, in Stereophile Magazine. He wrings the gadget out in
his lab. Meanwhile, a different person listens, and records his subjective
impressions, without knowing the lab results. JA then interprets the lab
results with reference to what the observer heard.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> in conversation with a manufacturer i work with (who shall remain
> un-named) there has recently been discovered an issue with the DICE
> driver in one of the updates. the driver has been taken apart by this
> particular manufacturer and is being corrected; i can't say what other
> manufacturers are doing.
Interesting. Given that there are a few superfluous settings on the
control panel (that have nothing to do with anything that A&H builds), I
suspected that the driver just came out of the box from t.c. Hopefully
everyone who uses the chip doesn't have to write their own driver from
the manual.
> seeing symptoms similar to yours led to chasing the issue, finding the
> error and correcting it. it's now a question of making certain that's
> all it was. i'll let you know more as it is appropriate.
Thanks. I owe my contact at A&H a call before the end of this week. I'll
ask if there's an updated driver in the works.
Mike Rivers
> Once again, this is the way the world works these days. They do not have
> complete knowledge. The problem of establishing compatibity with generic
> hardware is unsolved. Apple took another route; hence, less compatibilty.
It's tough to make something that will work with generic hardware, but
if the hardware complies with the interface specification, then it
should be easy. But I suppose there are some corners cut when they think
they can get away with it. Reminds me of a cartoon I used to have over
my desk of a canoe laying across a couple of sawhorses. One end was
curved up and the other end was curved down. One end was marked
"Hardware" and the other end "Software."
> On the level of the user, it frequently is true that one has to buy a TI
> card. To me, this is a petty detail. It's like carping about the texture of
> toilet paper.
It's a little more than that. It's really more like you bought something
with XLR connectors and all you have is cables with phone plugs. But at
least in that instance you can clearly see what you need, and it doesn't
really matter if you buy cables with Switchcraft, Neutrik, or generic
Chinese connectors. They'll all work because they meet the XLR
specification.
What's worse is when the output doesn't have a level control and you
have to connect it to an input without a level control. Each
manufacturer assumes that the other end will have the adjustment so why
have two. The old dog user will put a pot in a box and be done with it.
The new user will wonder why his recording is distorted or too quiet. No
matter what, these days you have to do a certain amount of system
engineering yourself. But it's so much easier when you can see what
you're doing.
> If I were reviewing a device that uses DICE, I would find out
> what card they tested with, use that, and note in the review that it didn't
> work with my Via card, or whatever.
Suppose I was lucky enough to have a card with which it works (which I
apparently do). I wouldn't have any reason to mention that it doesn't
work with certain cards unless the manufacturer offered that
information. I'm certainly not going to take on the task of finding
which cards it doesn't work with. The manufactuer doesn't pay me enough
to be a tester for the manufacturer.
> In each box, I would put the maximum channel/bitrate of successful capture.
> I would then discuss the nature of an extended BIOS interrupt as provided by
> the Asus, as compared to the shared interrupt of the Compal, and the
> performance of the built-in Firewire adapter. I would discuss the
> motherboard chipset architecture, which is vital to understanding why some
> devices work in isochronous mode, and some don't.
Hey, they only want me to write 900-1000 words.
> I have never, ever, seen a good review of an audio capture device. It seems
> the problem is that audio reviewers don't know enough about computers, and
> computerniks don't know or care enough about audio.
I think anyone reviewing a product like this should know something about
audio, But not necessarily much more about computers than to install
whatever software is necessary and figure out how to make it work. You
can read my review in Pro Audio Review of the Mackie 1200F for a
reasonably complete technical article about a computer audio interface.
But I didn't have to fiddle with it, it just worked with the two
computers and three interface cards that I have.
Sound on Sound has pretty good reviews. Hugh Ford, who died a few years
before Studio Sound died did great reviews, but he was gone before
computers. But most of us try to transcend computer issues since
they're likely to be different for different users. If it just plain
doesn't work, we send it back.
--
Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio - John Watkinson
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> Once again, this is the way the world works these days. They do not have
>> complete knowledge. The problem of establishing compatibity with generic
>> hardware is unsolved. Apple took another route; hence, less compatibilty.
>
> It's tough to make something that will work with generic hardware, but if
> the hardware complies with the interface specification, then it should be
> easy. But I suppose there are some corners cut when they think they can
> get away with it. Reminds me of a cartoon I used to have over my desk of a
> canoe laying across a couple of sawhorses. One end was curved up and the
> other end was curved down. One end was marked "Hardware" and the other end
> "Software."
>
other in an interesting way. The market has sold this proposition to the
user: "We will provide you with rapid innovation, and you, in return, will
help us make it work, because, if we had to wait to sell it until it was
perfect, we couldn't afford to do it at a price you could afford."
When we think this is unprecedented, we forget that cars used to be much
worse than they are today. Jags and Audis used to dot the sides of the
roads. Radiators used to boil. When the clutch cable on my VW Golf split
like a bad artery, I took it as a personal affront. VW didn't care about me!
And come to think of it, Mike, did you grow up with Bill Cosby's "TV pliers"
on top of the TV? The one used when the tuner knob fell off? I did. And all
the flakey contacts in the tuner? And all the leaky caps and gassy tubes?
And NTSC (never-the-same-color)? TVs were terrible! I think they make
modern computers look good.
There are completely different rules for mission critical, and medical
devices. There are pacemakers, and there are robots specialized to brain
surgery. A single servo mis-swipe could kill an individual, yet these
incredibly complicated machines have been engineered so as to make a such a
failure unlikely. The price of the machinery is astronomical.
Someday, perhaps, the pace of innovation will slow. Then they may try to
sell computers on the basis of reliability.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Sound on Sound has pretty good reviews. Hugh Ford, who died a few years
> before Studio Sound died did great reviews, but he was gone before
> computers. But most of us try to transcend computer issues since they're
> likely to be different for different users. If it just plain doesn't work,
> we send it back.
>
computer aspect. There seems to be a lack of common points of reference. The
worst that can exist is when so-and-so says A is better than B, another
so-and-so says, B is better than C, and another guy says C is better than A.
This may not exist in reviews, but it certainly exists in forum opinions.
It boils down to a lack of context. When someone says, "this mike sounded
terrific", I want the context to be clearly stated. I don't want to guess,
and I don't want to hunt. Because of the lack of context, a naive reader
could be lead to believe that a forty buck guitar mike is as blameless as a
DPA. But I see this. I see incredibly naive statements by reviewers who gave
good reviews because some gadget made their guitar sound good.
I've got news for them. There is a world of music that has nothing to do
with the guitar. Yet some guy was, presumably, paid to review a Studio
Projects LSD-2 mike, a large capsule stereo design based on the Neumann. So
he arranged two guitar cabinets as L & R, played some music, and declared
that the mike had a hole in the middle. Such a review is useful only to an
individual who wants to record two guitar cabinets with one mike. In other
words, it's worthless.
Take the reviews of preamps. A lot of them sound like the Jackie Mason
"jewish restaraunt patron" routine. The reviewer is paid to find
differences. So he finds them. Since audio memory is not very good, the
reviewer typically declares that an $800 preamp sounds good for an $800
preamp. Do you know how bad this is for a beginner, Mike? Three years ago I
was a beginner, and it took me six months to realize these guys were writing
crap.
Have you seen the reviews where the first 1/4 of the review discusses the
box it came in, the artwork, all six faces of the box, how easy it was to
get the box open? Then a discussion of how heavy, or light, "it" is, with
the typical vocabulary of "hefty", "knob a little flimsy",.... I saw a
review of the Sony PCM-D50 like this. Yes, it's nice that it's made of Al.
But Sony gave him an ECM957PRO along with it. Did he say ANYTHING about the
957PRO? Absolutely nothing! He did like the internal mikes, which convinces
me he has a hearing problem.
This is absolutely useless to the buyer. The buyer gets 10X more info
reading the forums. The buyer wants to know, or should want to know, about
the problems.
The MOTU Traveler is an example of this. I would really like to love the
Traveler. It is soooo neat. With a Traveler, I could use a bare tetrahedral
mike to record Ambisonics. All the reviews of the Traveler glorify the
sound, the compactness, the build, the display, everything. There's just a
little problem...
The Traveler doesn't work very well. The units go bad. They get noisy. The
Firewire doesn't work right, with complaints very similar to your initial
experience with the DICE, except much worse. And after the original
reviewers declared that the pres of the Traveler were just about as good as
they come, others are now complaining how bad they are compared to... Once
again, a lack of context.
So, permit me to point out a possible outcome. You review the Zed R16, and
you decide you like it. People buy it, some possibly because you liked it.
And then, sad to say, it turns out to be a disaster like the Traveler. How
will you feel? I'm not saying you should do anything different. You decide.
Answer for yourself: How do I serve the prospective buyer in a useful
fashion?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
audioae...@gmail.com
> besides, we're not completely the bastard child of the computer industry
> yet...
We're not ?
wanna buy a firewire card ...
Mike Rivers
> The market and the user have adjusted to each
> other in an interesting way. The market has sold this proposition to the
> user: "We will provide you with rapid innovation, and you, in return, will
> help us make it work, because, if we had to wait to sell it until it was
> perfect, we couldn't afford to do it at a price you could afford."
That's a pretty good statement of the way I see it. But I think that
part of the problem (and this certainly applies to recording gear and,
until very recently, houses) is that people have been sold on the idea
that what used to be too expensive for individuals is now well within
their means. What they don't get for the low cost, however, is the
experience of a manufacturer who figures out all the quirks and bulids
the gear so that it will be trouble-free when used properly (by an
experienced user). What business do we have messing with the inner
workings of computers anyway? <g>
> And come to think of it, Mike, did you grow up with Bill Cosby's "TV pliers"
> on top of the TV? The one used when the tuner knob fell off? I did. And all
> the flakey contacts in the tuner? And all the leaky caps and gassy tubes?
> And NTSC (never-the-same-color)? TVs were terrible! I think they make
> modern computers look good.
I don't remember TV pliers, but the last TV set that I had which had a
mechanical tuner had knobs good enough so that they didn't break. My
present TV is from about 1982. It doesn't look very good any more,
though a digital converter did improve it in some respects (and break it
in others). I suppose I'll replace it when it dies, but it may never dies.
> There are completely different rules for mission critical, and medical
> devices. There are pacemakers, and there are robots specialized to brain
> surgery. A single servo mis-swipe could kill an individual, yet these
> incredibly complicated machines have been engineered so as to make a such a
> failure unlikely. The price of the machinery is astronomical.
And still, occasionally, it screws up. I haven't heard of any
operational tragedies with surgical equipment that wasn't operator
error, but pacemakers get recalled now and then when they discover a
problem. A friend of mine's wife wanted to have Lasik eye surgery, and
my friend, a very good engineer, told her to ask the surgeon what sort
of software reliability design methods and testing were used on the
equipment.
> Someday, perhaps, the pace of innovation will slow. Then they may try to
> sell computers on the basis of reliability.
It's possible to buy a highly reliable computer, but Windows is still
Windows (yeah, I know, I should just bag it and run Linux) and Firewire
is still Firewire. I did observe at this Fall's AES show that the
balance seemed to be tilting away from low cost products and there were
more higher cost products on display. Maybe I'll see all the cheap stuff
at the NAMM show and it will only be a dream.
Mike Rivers
> I am actually more bothered by the sound side of pro reviews than the
> computer aspect. There seems to be a lack of common points of reference. The
> worst that can exist is when so-and-so says A is better than B, another
> so-and-so says, B is better than C, and another guy says C is better than A.
Well, people want A/B comparisons. I try to avoid them and discuss a
product on its own merits, but sometimes the benchmark is so obvious
that I have to mention it. I've often written that the mic preamp in a
unit (one that isn't a stand-alone mic preamp) sounds just fine, and is
similar in character to a Mackie. But when I review a mic preamp (and
it's something I don't often do) I'll usually compare it to a Mackie and
my Great River using several mics on my voice. I think that's the best
basis for comparison and more meaningful than saying "I used it with a
KM184 on my baby Taylor" (I don't have either).
> This may not exist in reviews, but it certainly exists in forum opinions.
That's a whole different ball game. I think that most forum "reviews"
are just a way to say "look at what I bought." How often have you read
someone asking "What's your opinion about an ZYX-471?" and getting a
reply "I have an ABC-94." ?
> It boils down to a lack of context. When someone says, "this mike sounded
> terrific", I want the context to be clearly stated. I don't want to guess,
But if he says it sounded terrific on drum overheads, that's pretty
meaningless to me. I don't have those drums and that drummer, and almost
surely I'm not recording a similar sounding song. I'd rather read about
how much gain it has, how quiet it is, whether it has any frequency
response humps, and what flavor of distortion it adds, if any is
audible. That will give me an idea of what I can use it on.
> reviewer typically declares that an $800 preamp sounds good for an $800
> preamp. Do you know how bad this is for a beginner, Mike? Three years ago I
> was a beginner, and it took me six months to realize these guys were writing
> crap.
The trouble is that you can't write the same thing every time, even if
that's really the way it is. There are so many similar mics and preamps
that, within a certain price range, and for a certain range of
applications, it makes absolutely no difference which one you buy. But
that isn't very helpful to a beginner either. This is why a beginner
shouldn't start out on line with a credit card in hopes to get
everything he needs to do whatever he does in the next ten years (and
spend less than $500 because that's all he has). He should to to a music
store or pro audio shop, ask questions about what THEY sell, do some
listening, and make a choice. But that's not the way people live their
lives today.
> Have you seen the reviews where the first 1/4 of the review discusses the
> box it came in, the artwork, all six faces of the box, how easy it was to
> get the box open? Then a discussion of how heavy, or light, "it" is, with
> the typical vocabulary of "hefty", "knob a little flimsy",....
More than once I've commented on what appears to be inadequate packaging
or something that's particularly difficult to open without damaging the
box (you may want to ship it some day) or compliment it on particularly
good packaging. The "feel" is pretty important when it comes to
something with knobs that you need to use. And traditionally, things
that are heavy are heavy because they're well built. I hate that the
gain trim knobs on a mixer feel wobbly, particularly when the result of
this is that you can't adjust them accurately because the last ten
degrees of rotation have 25% of the gain range. And just touching the
knob causes the gain to jump a dB or two.
> This is absolutely useless to the buyer. The buyer gets 10X more info
> reading the forums.
But 90% of it is from people who haven't used anything else so they can
only give a subjective opinion. There's some value to that, but you have
to weigh it for what it's worth, and it's important to know the
qualifications of the reviewer. I'm not saying that magazine reviews are
always better than on-line reviews, but if you follow formally published
reviews, you get to learn who thinks what is important, who listens for
what, and who tests for what. I know, for instance, when I read a review
by Paul Stamler, I can relate to what he says because he works with the
same kind of music and sources that I do. Someone who records heavy
metal may find Paul's reviews less useful, as I would find little use
for a mic that's been tested on drums, amplifiers, and a strummed
acoustic guitar.
> The Traveler doesn't work very well. The units go bad. They get noisy. The
> Firewire doesn't work right, with complaints very similar to your initial
> experience with the DICE, except much worse. And after the original
> reviewers declared that the pres of the Traveler were just about as good as
> they come, others are now complaining how bad they are compared to... Once
> again, a lack of context.
A reviewer of a new product doesn't have the benefit of history, and
unless it's DOA and he gets a replacement (or it's something like mics
that are suitable for use in a pair so he gets two) he doesn't usually
have any basis for evaluating reliability or consistency. There are some
things we can predict, though, based on experience with similar
products. For example, I've pointed out that the hinged cover over the
memory card in the Zoom H2 is likely to be the first thing to break (but
then mine hasn't broken yet), or that the 1/4" jacks don't grip a plug
very well.
But on the other hand, people who write about something on a forum
usually don't write about how great something is, they write about how
badly it sucks and how they didn't get any satisfaction from the
manufacturer.
> So, permit me to point out a possible outcome. You review the Zed R16, and
> you decide you like it. People buy it, some possibly because you liked it.
> And then, sad to say, it turns out to be a disaster like the Traveler. How
> will you feel?
I'd feel awful. But hopefully I'll spend enough time with it to get a
good sense of the problems that a user is likely to encounter. And if I
think it will turn out to be a disaster, I won't review it.
Manufacturers don't intentionally make bad products, but sometimes
there's something I see that they've never thought about that might be a
problem to some. And there will always be customers who had a specific
application in mind for which it's just not appropriate. Hopefully I can
guide people away from that so they don't buy it if they aren't going to
be happy with it.
For example, this A&H mixer loses two Firewire channels when running at
2x sample rates. Instead of 18 in and out (16 inputs channels and the
stereo main mix), you get 16. But what I didn't discover until I tried
it is that you don't have a choice of which channels you lose, and it
turns out that they're the main stereo pair. So if you want to record a
live session straight to stereo at 96 kHz (not an unreasonable thing,
though I probably wouldn't do it myself), you can't do it on this mixer.
Some people may never run into this limitation, for others, it would be
a deal killer. But I wouldn't advise anyone to buy it in hopes that
they'll rewrite the driver control panel to let you choose which 16
inputs to use.
But it amazes me how much faith some people have that a product that
doesn't fit their needs when they buy it will somehow eveolve into what
they dreamed it was. There are people who have had Mackie Firewire
interfaces for two years and aren't using them at all because there
aren't Vista drivers available. Does this make any sense at all? Why buy
something you can't use? Still, they continue to hang on to it and rag
on Mackie for taking so long to get them the drivers they need. Why
didn't they buy something else? Well, because the Mackie just looked SO
GOOD.
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
[snip]
>
> For example, this A&H mixer loses two Firewire channels when running at 2x
> sample rates. Instead of 18 in and out (16 inputs channels and the stereo
> main mix), you get 16. But what I didn't discover until I tried it is that
> you don't have a choice of which channels you lose, and it turns out that
> they're the main stereo pair. So if you want to record a live session
> straight to stereo at 96 kHz (not an unreasonable thing, though I probably
> wouldn't do it myself), you can't do it on this mixer. Some people may
> never run into this limitation, for others, it would be a deal killer. But
> I wouldn't advise anyone to buy it in hopes that they'll rewrite the
> driver control panel to let you choose which 16 inputs to use.
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8K6&q=motu+dice+chipset&btnG=Search
A lot of bad news on the DICE chipset. Frankly, if someone comes into this
forum asking about it, I would tell them to stay away. It's too much risk.
What if 5% of the users are backed into a corner from which they cannot
easily exit by, for example, buying a TI interface card. It's too much risk.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
[snip]
Packaging is worth two lines, at most.
> The "feel" is pretty important when it comes to something with knobs that
> you need to use. And traditionally, things that are heavy are heavy
> because they're well built. I hate that the gain trim knobs on a mixer
> feel wobbly, particularly when the result of this is that you can't adjust
> them accurately because the last ten degrees of rotation have 25% of the
> gain range. And just touching the knob causes the gain to jump a dB or
> two.
>
True, but the typical web reviewer digs no deeper.
>> This is absolutely useless to the buyer. The buyer gets 10X more info
>> reading the forums.
>
> But 90% of it is from people who haven't used anything else so they can
> only give a subjective opinion. There's some value to that, but you have
> to weigh it for what it's worth, and it's important to know the
> qualifications of the reviewer.
It's a pity that I find I can get more out of reading the forums than out of
a review. But that's the way it is. I google up every forum I can see, and I
read the opinions, each of which has little weight. Sometimes I find that
several individuals have used the product in widely different ways. If they
all like it, the composite is much more valuable to me than some guy who has
a writing job and two guitar cabinets for L&R.
> I'm not saying that magazine reviews are always better than on-line
> reviews, but if you follow formally published reviews, you get to learn
> who thinks what is important, who listens for what, and who tests for
> what. I know, for instance, when I read a review by Paul Stamler, I can
> relate to what he says because he works with the same kind of music and
> sources that I do.
Yes, there are a few. I recognize the name. His recording activities are not
comprehensive enough to provide "the answer", but he's worth a lot more than
zero.
> Someone who records heavy metal may find Paul's reviews less useful, as I
> would find little use for a mic that's been tested on drums, amplifiers,
> and a strummed acoustic guitar.
>
>> The Traveler doesn't work very well. The units go bad. They get noisy.
>> The Firewire doesn't work right, with complaints very similar to your
>> initial experience with the DICE, except much worse. And after the
>> original reviewers declared that the pres of the Traveler were just about
>> as good as they come, others are now complaining how bad they are
>> compared to... Once again, a lack of context.
>
> A reviewer of a new product doesn't have the benefit of history, and
> unless it's DOA and he gets a replacement (or it's something like mics
> that are suitable for use in a pair so he gets two) he doesn't usually
> have any basis for evaluating reliability or consistency. There are some
> things we can predict, though, based on experience with similar products.
> For example, I've pointed out that the hinged cover over the memory card
> in the Zoom H2 is likely to be the first thing to break (but then mine
> hasn't broken yet), or that the 1/4" jacks don't grip a plug very well.
>
> But on the other hand, people who write about something on a forum usually
> don't write about how great something is, they write about how badly it
> sucks and how they didn't get any satisfaction from the manufacturer.
>
It helps if one can get some numbers. Let's say I want to compare the DICE
chipset experience to the Echo Audio experience.
Google this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=echo+audiofire+problems&start=10&sa=N ,
ie., "Echo Audiofire problems", and excepting Vista, note the rarity of
hits.
Google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8K6&q=motu+dice+chipset&btnG=Search
and the count, per page, of complaints related to DICE is huge.
This tells me more than any review I've seen.
>> So, permit me to point out a possible outcome. You review the Zed R16,
>> and you decide you like it. People buy it, some possibly because you
>> liked it. And then, sad to say, it turns out to be a disaster like the
>> Traveler. How will you feel?
>
> I'd feel awful. But hopefully I'll spend enough time with it to get a good
> sense of the problems that a user is likely to encounter. And if I think
> it will turn out to be a disaster, I won't review it.
If you choose to do that, my hat is off to you.
> Manufacturers don't intentionally make bad products, but sometimes there's
> something I see that they've never thought about that might be a problem
> to some. And there will always be customers who had a specific application
> in mind for which it's just not appropriate. Hopefully I can guide people
> away from that so they don't buy it if they aren't going to be happy with
> it.
>
That is where you, the experienced user, can make the best contribution, in
operational characteristics.
> For example, this A&H mixer loses two Firewire channels when running at 2x
> sample rates.
[snip]
Echo manuals give Firewire capacity tables, how many one can daisychain per
bitrate, and they are very confident that one can live by them.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
hank alrich
> "Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote
> > I'd feel awful. But hopefully I'll spend enough time with it to get a good
> > sense of the problems that a user is likely to encounter. And if I think
> > it will turn out to be a disaster, I won't review it.
>
> If you choose to do that, my hat is off to you.
Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
Disregard all advertising for this unit until further notice."?
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
hank alrich
> A lot of bad news on the DICE chipset. Frankly, if someone comes into this
> forum asking about it, I would tell them to stay away. It's too much risk.
> What if 5% of the users are backed into a corner from which they cannot
> easily exit by, for example, buying a TI interface card. It's too much risk.
Is _that_ what's in the rig at the A&H end of it?
Mike Rivers
> It's a pity that I find I can get more out of reading the forums than out of
> a review. But that's the way it is. I google up every forum I can see, and I
> read the opinions, each of which has little weight. Sometimes I find that
> several individuals have used the product in widely different ways. If they
> all like it, the composite is much more valuable to me than some guy who has
> a writing job and two guitar cabinets for L&R.
The trouble with forums is that they're interactive. One user's problem
escalates into a dozen branches. You know that User A had a problem but
you never seem to find out what the actual problem was, or what the
solution is. Usually they (the posters) just go away. I looked at that
Google link that you posted in another message and I couldn't get
anything useful out of it, just a bunch of random people frustrated with
what they bought. If you believe what you read on forums, you'll be
afraid to buy anything.
> It helps if one can get some numbers. Let's say I want to compare the DICE
> chipset experience to the Echo Audio experience.
But who wants to compare "the DICE experience" with "the Echo Audio
experience?" You want to compare the products. Suppose the one that has
all the features you need didn't work for a user or two, and the one
that nobody had anything bad to say about it didn't meet your needs?
> Google
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8K6&q=motu+dice+chipset&btnG=Search
> and the count, per page, of complaints related to DICE is huge.
No, I won't. Your Google references are too general. Tell me what's
significant to you. By the way, A&H says that they've never heard of the
problems that I've been having and they're sending me another one in
case I have a "weird" one. It can happen. By the way, I'm back into the
"crackle and pop" mode, but I had a few good days. <g> If I had bought
this console, I would have returned it to the dealer. I'd give him the
option of sending me a replacement or sending me a refund. Sometimes a
dud escapes the factory. I'm hoping this is the case here. But you seem
to be convinced that there's a problem with the DICE chip and that
nothing that uses it is going to work right. You could be right, there
are always things that the manufacturers don't uncover - users do things
the designers never anticipated. But it's hard to believe that something
that works fine for a few days will then become cantankerous. If I only
knew what I did to fix it the first time, I'd do it again (and tell you
what I did) but I tried "the fix" from last time (recording something)
and that didn't help this time.
Anyone got a virgin they can loan me for a sacrifice? When's the next
full moon anyway?
Scott Dorsey
>
>Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
>manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
>intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
>until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
>Disregard all advertising for this unit until further notice."?
I have turned reviews like that into several magazines. Some of them
were published. Sometimes I got a kill fee instead.
I reviewed one of the first Feilo-designed microphones sold in the US.
That review sadly never made it into print.
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> But who wants to compare "the DICE experience" with "the Echo Audio
> experience?" You want to compare the products. Suppose the one that has
> all the features you need didn't work for a user or two, and the one that
> nobody had anything bad to say about it didn't meet your needs?
>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8K6&q=motu+dice+chipset&btnG=Search
>> and the count, per page, of complaints related to DICE is huge.
>
> No, I won't. Your Google references are too general. Tell me what's
> significant to you. By the way, A&H says that they've never heard of the
> problems that I've been having and they're sending me another one in case
> I have a "weird" one.
Yes, they've "never heard of..." Good one, A&H.
>It can happen. By the way, I'm back into the "crackle and pop" mode, but I
>had a few good days. <g> If I had bought this console, I would have
>returned it to the dealer. I'd give him the option of sending me a
>replacement or sending me a refund. Sometimes a dud escapes the factory.
>I'm hoping this is the case here. But you seem to be convinced that there's
>a problem with the DICE chip and that nothing that uses it is going to work
>right.
I wouldn't say I'm convinced. Legal quality proof is seldom available. If I
see a huge number of complaints about A and few about B, I stay away from A.
Suffice it to say, I saw so many complaints about DICE, would not consider
buying a DICE based unit.
I picked Echo only because their products are relatively troublefree. Echo
does not offer a product comparable to the A&H device. I do know that they
write their own drivers.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gflap2$a80$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> hank alrich <walk...@nv.net> wrote:
>>
>>Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
>>manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
>>intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
>>until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
>>Disregard all advertising for this unit until further notice."?
>
don't think it serves justice to ruin a company. I would simply choose not
to write a review, UNLESS the item seems deliberately intended to deceive. I
can well imagine how this could be the case with a Chinese microphone.
> I have turned reviews like that into several magazines. Some of them
> were published. Sometimes I got a kill fee instead.
>
> I reviewed one of the first Feilo-designed microphones sold in the US.
> That review sadly never made it into print.
> --scott
> --
Then you deserve the compliment made by the "German doctor" in the movie,
"The Fortune Cookie." To prove he is faking paralysis, the insurance
companies subject the character played by Jack Lemmon to a terrifying
medical examination. The German doctor says, "In zee old days, ven vee had a
case like zis, vee would throw za patient in za schnakepit." An American
doctor replies, "But Doctor, he could die!" To which the German doctor
replies, "Zen vee haf found an honest man."
As a continuation of the remark I made to Mike, I actually found that
reconciling multiple forum remarks has provided me with the best insights
into audio gadgetry. Unfortunately, one has to have the mentality of a gold
panner. It takes many hours over many days, tripping by chance over remarks
in unrelated discussions. It's worth the time because the "popular press"
does not serve the audio recordist well.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1iqep0e.1gr1sic1aissrcN%walk...@nv.net...
which is for Firewire clients (mixer, A/D), and that the recommended host
(in your computer) use a TI chipset.
Subject to correction by Mike.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
> Would a magazine publish a review that essentially said, "The
> manufacturer has blown it with this piece of kit and it doesn't work as
> intended or advertised. My suggestion is that nobody buy this product
> until the manufacturer figures out how to issue a version that works.
These days, probably not, but then again, these days such a review
probably wouldn't be necessary. I wouldn't hesitate to warn users who
fall into a certain class about certain shortcomings. For example, I'm
pretty sure I mentioned in my Mackie 1200F review that at the time I
wrote it, Vista drivers weren't available and that Vista users have
reported mixed results from OK to Doesn't Work At All. I would hope that
should be sufficient warning, but some people will buy anyway figuring
that Vista drivers MUST be right around the corner.
I wrote the review nearly a year ago (it was published sometime over the
Summer) and a Vista driver still isn't available. It's not my place (or
the editor's) to rag on Mackie for that, but it's certainly the reader's
responsibility to consider the situation if he's already using Vista or
plans to upgrade soon. As far as the problems I've been having with the
A&H, before I write anything about questionable hardware or drivers, I
want to be very sure that it isn't a problem that I can correct by
changing something in my system. Maybe it really is just a poorly
fitting plug (though it seems that the driver should recover more
gracefully from this sort of communication error). Maybe it really does
prefer a different Firewire interface chipset. These are the things I
want to try to sort of, and that means learning about some things than I
really want to. But that's what it takes to keep up the Lamborghini
payments.
"Before I write anything about questinable hardware or drivers . . . "?
Who am I kidding? By posting here, what I've said in trying to learn
about what might be wrong will be preserved on web sites I've never
heard of, probably for the next hundred years. But I hate those posts
that say, essentially "I have a problem. Can someone tell me why?"
audioae...@gmail.com
have you read the review in SOS?
Mike Rivers
> have you read the review in SOS?
Review of what? The Zed R-16? No. I don't subscribe to Sound on Sound
and just pick up a couple of issues a year at AES and NAMM shows. I'll
take a look at the magazine's web site and see if it's there. Did they
say they had trouble getting the Firewire I/O to work or keep working?
Mike Rivers
> Review of what? The Zed R-16?
OK, I found the teaser on the web site. Guess I'll have to find the
magazine or wait until June to read it on line. But you can give me a
little hint, can't you?
audioae...@gmail.com
> >> have you read the review in SOS?
> > Review of what? The Zed R-16?
>
> OK, I found the teaser on the web site. Guess I'll have to find the
> magazine or wait until June to read it on line. But you can give me a
> little hint, can't you?
your seeing all I've seen!!
maybe this new John will be of some assistance?