papa2004
Max Output Level: -10.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2005/03/23 12:40:47
- Location: Southeastern U.S.
- Status: offline
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 15:13:06
(permalink)
No. you are still not owning up to the grief and insults. You where basing all your 'facts' on outdated OS/software. and not on the latest versions. But that's ok. You can make up for it by going around to all the Vista is no good threads and saying something like "after my secret meeting with MS, and after 7.02, I now feel Vista is fine for DAW work." Outdated info by perhaps *3 days*... My apologies for not testing Vista literally on a daily basis! You do realize that the underlying problem (high system latency) wasn't addresed during this time... (and still hasn't been for that matter) Grief and insults? Do I need to compensate you for your pain and suffering too?  Noel met with a MS rep... using detailed information/tests/data that I provided. They were able to repro the problem for the MS rep. So... "the king of all Vista haters" did play an infinitely small roll in your Vista DAWs new/improved ultra low latency performance. And BTW, WinXP still performs a bit smoother when zooming in/out... 
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 15:21:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
Grief and insults? Do I need to compensate you for your pain and suffering too?
Yes! Pay Pal will do just fine.  No, the real issue that you are brushing away is this: Clearly your opinion caries a lot of weight. And you offer it around as the gospel truth. In light of this, it IS your responsibility to be completely up to date. When 7.0.2 was released (given the regard your opinion has amongst many) , you should have re-tested. Be it 3 days, or 3 hours. The worse part is you belittled the many people that tried to tell you that Vista was actually fine at 'ultra low latency'. edit--------and BTW, it was 4 days, not 3. And given that this is the first we hear of you saying Vista is fine at ultra low latency, it's actually been 26 days.
post edited by Modulation - 2008/01/29 15:44:53
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 15:40:37
(permalink)
The bottom line is this, each one of us is responsible for his own results.
What makes someone an expert anyway? Using the program.
I have had excellent results with my system(s) from day one in both Sonar and Vista.
No amount of expertise from someone else could change that.
We have used Sonar/Vista in a real time studio to make records and money, and frankly I didn't put to much weight in what others said, I simply built the machines I wanted and loaded them up and hit start. We had minimal hickups with one hardware vendor other than that it was business as usual.
In time Vista will shed its albatross name-tag and most will not remember these threads.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 15:51:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
The bottom line is this, each one of us is responsible for his own results.
What makes someone an expert anyway? Using the program.
I have had excellent results with my system(s) from day one in both Sonar and Vista.
No amount of expertise from someone else could change that.
We have used Sonar/Vista in a real time studio to make records and money, and frankly I didn't put to much weight in what others said, I simply built the machines I wanted and loaded them up and hit start. We had minimal hickups with one hardware vendor other than that it was business as usual.
In time Vista will shed its albatross name-tag and most will not remember these threads.
The real damage is to the newbies that don't know any better. You can see it in many of the current threads. Based solely on these expert opinions (not just here), they are going to mess around uninstalling Vista, searching for XP drivers, buying new hard drives, or even buying XP. A real waste of time and money. And they haven't even tried Vista for themselves!
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 15:54:49
(permalink)
Clearly your opinion caries a lot of weight. And you offer it around as the gospel truth. Short of those three days, Mod... it certainly was the truth. Again... backed up by facts... not heresay I have tested Vista literally scores of hours... across many different configs... across many months. All the while, the underlying problem hasn't changed. The circumvention did change (for the better)... within those 3 days. Have you tested Vista's ultra low latency performance with apps other than Sonar? When it came down to the final schpeel, we found out you weren't using software-based input-monitoring. Thus, not really pushing the limits of low-latency audio performance. Thus, you wouldn't encounter the problems I was going on... and on... about. Thus, my comments in the other thread. If you want an apology for those, I apologize. As for my data being 3-days late: I do the best I can. If my opinion carries a lot of weight, I'd suggest its the result of a good 14-year track record.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:00:54
(permalink)
The real damage is to the newbies that don't know any better. You can see it in many of the current threads. Based solely on these expert opinions (not just here), they are going to mess around uninstalling Vista, searching for XP drivers, buying new hard drives, or even buying XP. A real waste of time and money. And they haven't even tried Vista for themselves! Newbies face several 'verftical' challanges... only one of which is Vista. If a newbie has a copy of WinXP... and is familiar with it... and knows his/her audio interface works well with it... there's nothing bad about moving to WinXP. Other than Aero-Glass... nothing will be lost/sacrificed in the process. A 250GB Seagate HD w/16MB cache is ~$70.
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:02:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
Clearly your opinion caries a lot of weight. And you offer it around as the gospel truth.
Short of those three days, Mod... it certainly was the truth. Again... backed up by facts... not heresay
I have tested Vista literally scores of hours... across many different configs... across many months.
All the while, the underlying problem hasn't changed. The circumvention did change (for the better)... within those 3 days.
Have you tested Vista's ultra low latency performance with apps other than Sonar?
When it came down to the final schpeel, we found out you weren't using software-based input-monitoring.
Thus, not really pushing the limits of low-latency audio performance.
Thus, you wouldn't encounter the problems I was going on... and on... about.
Thus, my comments in the other thread. If you want an apology for those, I apologize.
As for my data being 3-days late: I do the best I can.
If my opinion carries a lot of weight, I'd suggest its the result of a good 14-year track record.
Just to be clear. I do think you, and others that do extensive testing, have earned the respect you have. You test a lot of hardware and how it interacts with Sonar. I'm not taking that away from you. But the opinions of people in the real world count as well and should not be brushed aside either. What I'm saying is .....ahhh I've already said all I need to say.. Enjoy Vista.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:06:28
(permalink)
But the opinions of people in the real world count as well and should not be brushed aside either. Point taken...
|
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3409
- Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
- Location: Kentucky y'all
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:11:56
(permalink)
HOLD THE BUS!
am i getting this correctly?
did Vista somehow in the last few days become less bloated and less of a resource PIG?
or are we just saying Vista can finally work @ low latency? at least to a point where is acceptable for hobbiest?
Surely no one is saying its acceptable for any pro level users? or did i miss something entirely
thanks
scott
Scott ADK Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:17:59
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
HOLD THE BUS!
am i getting this correctly?
did Vista somehow in the last few days become less bloated and less of a resource PIG?
or are we just saying Vista can finally work @ low latency? at least to a point where is acceptable for hobbiest?
Surely no one is saying its acceptable for any pro level users? or did i miss something entirely
thanks
scott
So I guess Jim isn't a pro now, since he said he now uses Vista in his DAW.  This is the kind of crap you'll now be subjected to, Jim. edit----welcome to the club.
post edited by Modulation - 2008/01/29 16:33:25
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:34:36
(permalink)
Jim is right. We absolutely were able to reproduce the low latency glitching at the Microsoft labs on two identical systems one running XP and the other running Vista.
I used an Edirol USB audio interface in both tests to ensure we were testing exactly the same hardware.
SONAR 7.0.2 has some optimizations so its conceivable that this might have helped with this. (any optimizations in the audio streaming path can potentially help low latency performance by reducing CPU consumption so its hard to say what specifically). AFIK there is no known MS update that intentionally improves this. If there is one, nobody told me :-)
Regarding ASIO4All. Its a great driver and Michael is a very talented engineer, but I can't see how it could very significantly improve performance over WDM with the same hardware. Basically ASIO4All wraps WDM kernel streaming and exposes it via an ASIO interface. It has support for all kinds of onboard audio devices so it works with more stuff than SONAR's stock WDM kernel streaming code.
So basically ASIO4All can only be as good as what the original device driver can do via kernel streaming. i.e. if its inefficient ASIO4All can't miraculously improve its performance.
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:39:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
HOLD THE BUS!
am i getting this correctly?
did Vista somehow in the last few days become less bloated and less of a resource PIG?
or are we just saying Vista can finally work @ low latency? at least to a point where is acceptable for hobbiest?
Surely no one is saying its acceptable for any pro level users? or did i miss something entirely
thanks
scott
See its this kinda crap that irritates me. Define "Pro Level User" Are you suggesting that major label work in a money making studio is somehow NOT PRO? Just because we don't flaunt our credits here does not imply that we are not doing professional work. I find your attitude condescending and arrogant besides wrong.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 16:48:09
(permalink)
did Vista somehow in the last few days become less bloated and less of a resource PIG? "I can learn to resist... anything but temptation." Its hard to stay out of these threads isn't it? I think I've been very vocal/clear in saying that Vista suffers from high system latency. As you well know, this is not condusive to realtime applications (including a DAW). MMCS allows you to largely circumvent this one particular issue... and achieve glitch-free ultra low latency performance. My "hypothesis" is that this last bit is what's been updated/fixed/etc very recently. With Sonar 7.02 and the latest Vista patches, I'm (finally) seeing glitch-free performance at ultra low latency. When playing "Back and Forth" at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size, I can get some very small ticks if I zoom in/out like crazy (during the most dense song section)... but that's about the extent of it. This used to cause all kinds of havoc! Sonar 7.02 projects measure about the same load under either WinXP or Vista. BTW, I never said I deleted WinXP. Vista will now dual-boot (with WinXP) on my main studio DAW.
|
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3409
- Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
- Location: Kentucky y'all
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 17:47:15
(permalink)
Hey Jim, (  yeah couldnt stay out) ok is this with standard Asio drivers? so when you boot from XP to Vista is your memory resources the same? (my new office box is dual boot XP Vista 64 (i needed the ram) ) for me in XP its 215 meg go to Vista its 745. for me that pretty much seals the deal on recommending vista for anything. or least anyone who samples. (at least until 64 bit and audio is a reality and i can stuff 8-32g ram in there and actually use it) after reading this thread i have asked Mike to benchmark my new system on both XP and Vista 64 using our Sonar test.
post edited by jcschild - 2008/01/29 18:09:21
Scott ADK Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 17:58:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
so when you boot from XP to Vista is your memory resources the same? (my new office box is dual boot XP Vista 64 (i needed the ram) )
for me in XP its 215 meg go to Vista its 745. Since you two are on the same thread discussing this, I'd like to know what the latest is on disabling SuperFetch -- ie., can it be totally disabled? That is the deal breaker for me too. Caches were meant to be turned on and off as needed. A cache that can never be turned off is simply bad engineering.
|
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 882
- Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:03:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
Hey Jim,
( yeah couldnt stay out)
ok is this with standard Asio drivers?
so when you boot from XP to Vista is your memory resources the same? (my new office box is dual boot XP Vista 64 (i needed the ram) )
for me in XP its 215 meg go to Vista its 745.
for me that pretty much seals the deal on recommending vista for anything. or least anyone who samples.
(at least until 64 bit and audio is a reality and i can stuff 8-32g ram in there and actually use it)
after reading this thread i have asked Mike to benchmark my new system on both XP and Vista 64 using our Sonar test.
Maybe you guys can scrape together some change and buy some RAM then you could run Vista like the Pro's do. 1/2 a gig difference???? When you could run 4-8 gigs in Vista? Overall ram difference in Vista could be 5500 megs+ 2 gigs of 800 DDR2 is less that $100.00 we spend more than that in webhosting.
I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:19:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
for me in XP its 215 meg go to Vista its 745.
My Vista uses around 580 mb ram. With aero on and internet on. I'm sure I could get it lower if I tried, but I've tweaked it enough to my liking and use. My tweaked XP uses around 430 mb. Not really that much more. Also a few gigs more HD space than XP. Which isn't much with 500gb + HDs and 4gb ram. She's a purty little gal. Just a little overweight. Not really what I'd call a hog. It is good to see you will be testing to update your old facts. edit-------correction. My XP uses 203 mb (I was looking at the wrong thing). So under 400 mb ram diff between Vista and XP. Like I said, I could get it lower if I took off areo and ethernet, etc..,
post edited by Modulation - 2008/01/29 18:50:45
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:31:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jcschild
Hey Jim,
( yeah couldnt stay out)
ok is this with standard Asio drivers?
so when you boot from XP to Vista is your memory resources the same? (my new office box is dual boot XP Vista 64 (i needed the ram) )
for me in XP its 215 meg go to Vista its 745.
for me that pretty much seals the deal on recommending vista for anything. or least anyone who samples.
(at least until 64 bit and audio is a reality and i can stuff 8-32g ram in there and actually use it)
after reading this thread i have asked Mike to benchmark my new system on both XP and Vista 64 using our Sonar test.
Yes... standard ASIO drivers. Memory use under Vista is significantly higher. I get ~200MB in WinXP and about ~700MB in Vista. By shutting down some un-used services and disabling Aero, I can get the idle Memory use down to 361MB.
post edited by Jim Roseberry - 2008/01/29 19:39:59
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:34:31
(permalink)
You can turn off the Superfetch service... and disable it in the Registry
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters]
"EnableSuperfetch"=dword:00000002
"EnablePrefetcher"=dword:00000001
0=Off
1=Prefetch boot process
2=Application Prefetch
3=Prefetch both
FWIW, I don't notice a significant RAM use difference between simply disabling the Superfetch service... and (also) disabling the Reg entries to shut it down completely.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:37:05
(permalink)
My tweaked XP uses around 430 mb Really??? That seems quite a bit on the high side...
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:40:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
My tweaked XP uses around 430 mb
Really???
That seems quite a bit on the high side...
Thought I'd be able to get it corrected it before it got noticed. It's corrected now. edit-----but I still don't go past 1.8 mb on my DAW using mostly VST's. Not really big on loops. But I do use Reason's answer to BFD. So some sample heavy things.
post edited by Modulation - 2008/01/29 18:57:22
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 18:54:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
FWIW, I don't notice a significant RAM use difference between simply disabling the Superfetch service... and (also) disabling the Reg entries to shut it down completely. Interesting... thanks for the info!
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 19:03:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: keith
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
FWIW, I don't notice a significant RAM use difference between simply disabling the Superfetch service... and (also) disabling the Reg entries to shut it down completely.
Interesting... thanks for the info!
I used this guide to tweak Vista: http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm I didn't disable everything though. As computers get more powerful, It becomes less necessary. Don't go crazy disabling everything though. But you can bring the resource "hit" down quite a bit by disabling a lot of services.
|
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3409
- Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
- Location: Kentucky y'all
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 19:18:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
Maybe you guys can scrape together some change and buy some RAM then you could run Vista like the Pro's do.
1/2 a gig difference???? When you could run 4-8 gigs in Vista? Overall ram difference in Vista could be 5500 megs+
2 gigs of 800 DDR2 is less that $100.00 we spend more than that in webhosting.
i think you missed the point there smart guy at least until 64 bit and audio is a reality and i can stuff 8-32g ram in there and actually use it i have 8 gig in my Vista 64 box that does not mean anything can actually use it. (Pro Audio software) with the exception of VSL. would all owners of VSL please give me a show of hands...... yeah thats what i thought @ $10k a copy it wont be many in this forum, maybe Northern Sounds. i have 16Gig in my demo Xeon NLE/animation system. i actually do have a few programs that can access it.
Scott ADK Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
|
soundtweaker
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1036
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:25:59
- Location: San Francisco
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 20:16:22
(permalink)
Get used to software being resource hogs. Software companies have to always add more features to survive year after year. It's the nature of the beast. Intel and AMD asks software companies make more CPU intensive programs so they can sell more chips. Not that they need asking. I dont find Vista a resource hog really. Yea of course it uses more ram but Vista wasnt made for old computers. With ram so cheap these days it doesnt really matter how much ram Vista takes up. BTW Windows 7 wont be out until 2011 now. How much ram it uses wont matter because most of us will be able to by 8 gigs of ram for 30 bucks anyway. What I'm saying is that it's all relative. Ok im done with misc. drivel.
post edited by soundtweaker - 2008/01/29 22:13:13
|
soundtweaker
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1036
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:25:59
- Location: San Francisco
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 20:18:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
"I can learn to resist... anything but temptation."
Good song. Even the acoustic version is great.
|
soundtweaker
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1036
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:25:59
- Location: San Francisco
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 20:32:04
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Jim is right. We absolutely were able to reproduce the low latency glitching at the Microsoft labs on two identical systems one running XP and the other running Vista.
I used an Edirol USB audio interface in both tests to ensure we were testing exactly the same hardware.
SONAR 7.0.2 has some optimizations so its conceivable that this might have helped with this. (any optimizations in the audio streaming path can potentially help low latency performance by reducing CPU consumption so its hard to say what specifically). AFIK there is no known MS update that intentionally improves this. If there is one, nobody told me :-)
Regarding ASIO4All. Its a great driver and Michael is a very talented engineer, but I can't see how it could very significantly improve performance over WDM with the same hardware. Basically ASIO4All wraps WDM kernel streaming and exposes it via an ASIO interface. It has support for all kinds of onboard audio devices so it works with more stuff than SONAR's stock WDM kernel streaming code.
So basically ASIO4All can only be as good as what the original device driver can do via kernel streaming. i.e. if its inefficient ASIO4All can't miraculously improve its performance.
Probably should have done tests with a PCI soundcard as well. Oh yea. Roland doesn't make any.
|
guitartrek
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2842
- Joined: 2006/02/26 12:37:57
- Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7
2008/01/29 22:31:22
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
So basically ASIO4All can only be as good as what the original device driver can do via kernel streaming. i.e. if its inefficient ASIO4All can't miraculously improve its performance.
Noel - Thank you for your postings on Vista. With both my Line6 devices, if I have Mult-processing checked in Sonar7, the original Line6 WDM and ASIO drivers can't deal with it. Random glitching, dropouts, etc. at the highest buffers I can set. But ASIO4ALL works perfectly with both these devices using multi-processing - at reasonable buffer sizes. When I uncheck mult-processing in Sonar7 the Line6 drivers work, but still not as well. ASIO4ALL on the UX2 allows me to use less buffers without glitching than the Line6 ASIO driver. To me, ASIO4ALL is somehow improving the performance on my system in more than one way. Does this make sense?
|