My Favorites
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 744
- Joined: 2006/04/22 05:45:05
- Status: offline
I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
I had these problems with M audio drivers:
Very noisy sounds like continuously gzzztt.!
Latency
Pops clicks every 2 seconds
Its all finish now thanks to the asio4all.
How is it possible other company built better driver than M audio team? That should be embarrassing for those who work there.
can't believe this...!
 click image
|
chrisby
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 248
- Joined: 2004/02/23 19:20:58
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 01:10:36
(permalink)
Did you try the m-audio wdm drivers? I'm pretty sure that asio4all just wraps whatever wdm drivers are there for the device so if you might want to give that a try (or not, up to you...).
|
FastBikerBoy
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 11326
- Joined: 2008/01/25 16:15:36
- Location: Watton, Norfolk, UK
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 02:23:57
(permalink)
I found the same thing, although with Alesis, but then their drivers are widely acknowledged as crap.
There'll be others on here who'll tell you that because ASIO4ALL actually uses the original drivers ASIO4ALL can't possibly work better, but of course you, I and I suspect several others know better. Just goes to show that 'theory' and reality are two completely different things.
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 03:06:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: FastBikerBoy
I found the same thing, although with Alesis, but then their drivers are widely acknowledged as crap.
There'll be others on here who'll tell you that because ASIO4ALL actually uses the original drivers ASIO4ALL can't possibly work better, but of course you, I and I suspect several others know better. Just goes to show that 'theory' and reality are two completely different things.
This isn't a swipe at Chrisby at all but I like the word 'wrapper' being blindly quoted every time ASIO4ALL comes up as a subject like its some sort of impenetrable suit of armour that would undoubtedly render it inferior yet very few of those that level that as a criticism actually know what it does but must think it makes 'em sound all informed an' all by using the term. Given the massively reduced latency times it yields for me I assume it must be bypassing the drivers own routines and providing a more efficient route to the hardware than the driver it is 'wrapping' rather than adding the thick extra coat of inefficient complexity that gets inferred by those using the the statement. Even weirder than that are the folk that despite the immutable fact it can and does improve a host of setups and situations they still want to brand you as some kind of heretic for even thinking such a thing. What is with that?
post edited by Jonbouy - 2009/01/31 03:17:12
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|
strikinglyhandsome1
Max Output Level: -3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7224
- Joined: 2006/11/15 09:21:12
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 03:45:09
(permalink)
No trouble with my M-audio drivers with noise or pops
Quiet as a mouse hovering over cheese.
|
chrisby
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 248
- Joined: 2004/02/23 19:20:58
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 04:42:33
(permalink)
Uhhhh, well, I'm actually a dev and while I don't always do device driver work I have done a fair bit and in fact have spent the last month or so doing an SD Card driver for an embeded system that uses a blackfin processor. I do know very well what a wrapper is and how they work. While I'm not positive I know exactly how asio4all works internally I'm pretty sure that it works how I think; it "wraps" the manufacturers' WDM drivers with an asio interface and translates the asio calls to WDM calls. Which is why I suggested to the original user that he/she try the WDM drivers directly. I wasn't making a judgement whether the wrapper worked better or worse, only trying to point out that, since the OP was in effect using the WDM drivers anyway (I believe), it might be worth trying them directly. I do agree though that there are a lot of tech suggestions here that fall far from the mark. I generally try to stay out of topics like that though 'cause it's usually the most clueless that want to argue the most. ORIGINAL: Jonbouy
ORIGINAL: FastBikerBoy
I found the same thing, although with Alesis, but then their drivers are widely acknowledged as crap.
There'll be others on here who'll tell you that because ASIO4ALL actually uses the original drivers ASIO4ALL can't possibly work better, but of course you, I and I suspect several others know better. Just goes to show that 'theory' and reality are two completely different things.
This isn't a swipe at Chrisby at all but I like the word 'wrapper' being blindly quoted every time ASIO4ALL comes up as a subject like its some sort of impenetrable suit of armour that would undoubtedly render it inferior yet very few of those that level that as a criticism actually know what it does but must think it makes 'em sound all informed an' all by using the term.
Given the massively reduced latency times it yields for me I assume it must be bypassing the drivers own routines and providing a more efficient route to the hardware than the driver it is 'wrapping' rather than adding the thick extra coat of inefficient complexity that gets inferred by those using the the statement.
Even weirder than that are the folk that despite the immutable fact it can and does improve a host of setups and situations they still want to brand you as some kind of heretic for even thinking such a thing.
What is with that?
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 05:01:28
(permalink)
This isn't a swipe at Chrisby at all There ya go my instinct was right here at least...  My understanding of 'wrapper' in respect of ASIO4ALL is pretty much the same as yours too and I concede the fact that I don't know for sure either, in fact I'd venture I have far less tech knowledge than you yourself have of these things. Strange though how different systems do different things, as SH says he has no trouble with his drivers and I'm sure the same is true for many M-Audio users, which all serves to show getting things to play nicely is seems to be more of a dark art than anything else sometimes.
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|
strikinglyhandsome1
Max Output Level: -3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7224
- Joined: 2006/11/15 09:21:12
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 05:29:00
(permalink)
I could be in denial though, Jonbouy
It has to work - I can't afford another card!!!
|
chrisby
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 248
- Joined: 2004/02/23 19:20:58
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 07:05:27
(permalink)
Not to be (too much) of a jerk about it but the truth is that it isn't a dark art at all. The deal is, basically, when it comes to this kind of stuff if you weren't directly involved with the development (or atleast have access to the source code) you are probably speculating at best. I've spent the last few decades doing low mostly level/back end stuff and am always amazed to hear other dev's in my own company going on about how the back end works (with the utmost authority in their voices) and often getting it wrong. But then they say it with conviction and then the guy that does phone support hears and does the same thing, and then the field support guy parrots what that guy says, and before long you're just scratching your head wondering how so many people can be so sure and so wrong at the same time. It's not surprising at all that calling the manufacturers wdm drivers through an asio wrapper would produce different results from calling the manufacturers asio drivers directly. It also wouldn't be surprising that calling the wdm drivers through an asio wrapper would produce different (and possibly better) results then calling the wdm drivers directly since the calling sequence and parameters would likely be different. It's kinda counter intuitive but certainly within the realm of possibility. ORIGINAL: Jonbouy
...getting things to play nicely is seems to be more of a dark art than anything else sometimes.
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 07:21:16
(permalink)
I think really you should get a hold of the Centrance latency tool. I did a check some time ago on the latency of ASIO4ALL agains the ASIO drivers of a particular interface. Yes the ASIO4ALL driver reported less latency, and it was more stable, when I checked it with the Centrance utility it showed a clear difference between the reported latencies and the real latency for both drivers. However when I adjusted the latency of the original ASIO driver to be the same as the ASIO4ALL (both in real time) then I found little difference between stability of both.
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 08:21:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: syrath
I think really you should get a hold of the Centrance latency tool. I did a check some time ago on the latency of ASIO4ALL agains the ASIO drivers of a particular interface. Yes the ASIO4ALL driver reported less latency, and it was more stable, when I checked it with the Centrance utility it showed a clear difference between the reported latencies and the real latency for both drivers. However when I adjusted the latency of the original ASIO driver to be the same as the ASIO4ALL (both in real time) then I found little difference between stability of both.
I have it. And yes you are exactly right, there is nothing on earth that will change the latency inherent in the hardware whatever driver you use once it's hit the hardware, whatever card you use you just gotta wait 'til it comes out the other end. All you can do is minimise the time it takes and any problems on it's way there so the figures should remain pretty constant providing the software is efficient enough and in the same ball-park so really its a case of more importantly what works best in terms of stability and reliability, on your particular system, rather than skimming the last minute amounts of latency off. In some cases A4A plain don't work in other cases the WDM or proprietary ASIO driver don't which makes the choices much easier. To that end A4A provides an option that wouldn't otherwise be available as the OP appears to have found out.
post edited by Jonbouy - 2009/01/31 08:23:39
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|
jim y
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 721
- Joined: 2003/11/08 13:16:43
- Location: The Middle of Wales.
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 12:05:33
(permalink)
I used to believe A4A shouldn't be different from Sonars WDM/KS - because as said, they both work thru the same KS connection of the WDM driver. Furthermore, the KS connection is in the end of a system component called kmixer (the kmixer bypass requires kmixer!) and this is part of Windows - the manufacturers driver does not supply it. What the driver does supply is the minimum hardware buffer size information and supported formats - and this is where I believe things can be different.
I think A4A has had a lot more development as to knowing what different drivers reports to the KS host than Sonar has and more options for dealing with differences from the standard Sonar expects. Also, every improvement I've seen for Sonars audio engine has been along the lines of being more efficient with ASIO or supporting more recent Windows audio like WaveRT.
So you could have a case where...
A, The drivers own ASIO support is badly implemented and...
B, A4A can work the device in WDM/KS mode better than Sonar can and...
C, Sonar is more efficient with ASIO than WDM/KS anyway.
Then Sonar ASIO with A4A could well be better than with either the devices own ASIO or Sonars WDM/KS mode.
Jim
|
Fog
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12302
- Joined: 2008/02/27 21:53:35
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 13:05:00
(permalink)
my fav's .. did I miss something? what card are you using.. ya know MANY factors can affect how a card runs..the best known IRQ conflicts.. my m audio delta 1010 will not work so great if I have networking enabled due to it sharing the same IRQ.
Jon is the A4A poster boy. (he knows thats in jest.. please don't beat me up ) if they work great for you then fair enough.. but other factors are involved.
they try to release drivers that won't have their support lines jammed up.. as do most companies unless they are on a performance drive.hehe
BUT every machine is different.. OS , CPU , whats sharing IRQ's and what's polling.. some tasks are forced to poll and are prioritised to do so
(I can't remember how many years ago I did RT embedded systems at uni..hehe)
although a lot of the code I'm sure is shared across the family of cards to make it more straight forward to do updates.. e.g. all the delta's are basically the same driver etc.
|
guitartrek
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2842
- Joined: 2006/02/26 12:37:57
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 13:22:22
(permalink)
It is still surprising to me that people who have not experienced first hand how in certain circumstances ASIO4all can improve things, still trash it as just a WDM wrapper. If that's all it is, why wouldn't people just use WDM? Why would there even be an ASIO4all and why would so many people use it? The guy who wrote it is a BIOS engineer and knows what he is doing. He has spent tons of time developing this API and he didn't spend all this time on it if it didn't do something "exta". For me it worked much better than Line6's drivers in Vista (WDM and ASIO), until a few months ago when Line6 finally made a decent Vista compatible driver. I really don't know technically why it works, I just know it does work. Here is a link to another thread where some people have elaborated on the technical advantages of ASIO4all: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1498620&mpage=1&key=� I still use ASIO4all when using my laptop's own audio. I no longer use it for anything else, but in the right circumstance it can make a huge difference. It is much more than a "WDM Wrapper".
|
cornieleous
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 809
- Joined: 2004/11/04 03:17:18
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 14:33:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: guitartrek
It is still surprising to me that people who have not experienced first hand how in certain circumstances ASIO4all can improve things, still trash it as just a WDM wrapper. If that's all it is, why wouldn't people just use WDM? Why would there even be an ASIO4all and why would so many people use it? The guy who wrote it is a BIOS engineer and knows what he is doing. He has spent tons of time developing this API and he didn't spend all this time on it if it didn't do something "exta".
For me it worked much better than Line6's drivers in Vista (WDM and ASIO), until a few months ago when Line6 finally made a decent Vista compatible driver. I really don't know technically why it works, I just know it does work. Here is a link to another thread where some people have elaborated on the technical advantages of ASIO4all: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1498620&mpage=1&key=�
I still use ASIO4all when using my laptop's own audio. I no longer use it for anything else, but in the right circumstance it can make a huge difference. It is much more than a "WDM Wrapper".
It is a WDM wrapper, why take exception to that label like its going to belittle your use and enjoyment of it? The name wrapper does not mean that by intelligent design the developer did not find a way to improve upon native WDM drivers. A wrapper interfaces with the inputs and outputs of whatever is 'inside', but that does not mean it cannot pull special tricks to make the end result better than the performance of the object 'inside' alone would be. Unless any of us has the source code, its useless to speculate. You can learn a bit by reading the version update history though. By the way, I do have personal experience with four different cards I have tried ASIO4ALL with. It generally does not do any better than my M-Audio card drivers (Delta 44 or FastTrackUltra) for either ASIO or WDM but it does of course improve stock cards such as Realtek. D.
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 16:35:32
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Fog
Jon is the A4A poster boy. I resemble that remark! Ya, the poster bouy for an Audio gizmo that'd be right....my Ma always said I had the perfect face for radio... 
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|
mmarton
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 666
- Joined: 2006/01/26 13:23:30
- Location: White Rock, B.C. Canada
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 16:59:45
(permalink)
fwiw M-Audio's drivers work better when using WDM. I found this with their 24/96 card I had. ASIO didn't work very well no matter what. When I switched to my E-MU 1820M it was the other way around. They "have" wdm drivers but they're basically unusable. ASIO works well with this card.
Happy Sonar Platinum 64 bit Registered Owner Epi Casino, Les Paul, Strat, Martin GPCPA3, Cort C4Z bass, Roland D20 Synth, TC Konnekt48, Sansamp BDDI, Roland JDXI, APS Klasiks, Windows 10 64bit
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 17:18:41
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: guitartrek
It is still surprising to me that people who have not experienced first hand how in certain circumstances ASIO4all can improve things, still trash it as just a WDM wrapper. If that's all it is, why wouldn't people just use WDM? Why would there even be an ASIO4all and why would so many people use it? The guy who wrote it is a BIOS engineer and knows what he is doing. He has spent tons of time developing this API and he didn't spend all this time on it if it didn't do something "exta".
Just to clear things up a little and incase the commet was directed at me, I have used the ASIO4all drivers in the past to get an interface working where it wasnt working at all. I just wanted to point out that I have seen in the past that even though it appears that the ASIO4all drivers are giving and improvment latency wise (in writing) that the information on latency can be misleading, leading people to believe that the A4All driver works better than the original, but when it comes to scientifically measuring it , they are actually experiencing worse performance (in realtime terms) than they were before.
|
rkopald
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86
- Joined: 2009/01/05 15:15:20
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 19:49:06
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: strikinglyhandsome1
No trouble with my M-audio drivers with noise or pops
Quiet as a mouse hovering over cheese.
Agreed. M-Audio drivers on my end rock solid.
|
PaPi
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1032
- Joined: 2008/12/27 18:02:03
- Location: SoCal
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 21:36:30
(permalink)
I've been using two M-Audio Fast Track Ultra 8R's since they were released last year and I've experienced none of the problems you're quoting. Solid drivers, no problems with Vista x64 and Sonar 8/PE x64.
|
stratcat33511
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3636
- Joined: 2004/12/27 09:48:37
- Location: Tampa FL
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 21:44:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: strikinglyhandsome1
No trouble with my M-audio drivers with noise or pops
Quiet as a mouse hovering over cheese.
I agree as well
|
zungle
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2745
- Joined: 2006/02/15 13:00:33
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/01/31 22:49:40
(permalink)
1st......What is your set up exactly?
Aren't we wasting time without 'em?
I have used several USB1.1,USB2.0 ,PCI and Firewire interfaces........some very lightly.
I use 2,(sync'ed in 1 machine)AP24/96's daily with never and I mean never a glitch,tick or pop.............
I have used ASIO4All with 2 USB interfaces both had intermittent glitches ........
Later.
|
My Favorites
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 744
- Joined: 2006/04/22 05:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 01:21:38
(permalink)
Well i have no complain anymore, but if you believe i would be happy with M audio drivers and need my system specification: GA-P35-DS4, 4GB Abit, CoreQ 2.40Ghz, Old Nvdia card, M audio FW1814, On board disabled, up to date Vista 32 bit 
click image
|
Fog
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12302
- Joined: 2008/02/27 21:53:35
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 07:05:07
(permalink)
My Favorites , post up your IRQ list as well if you want.. also the interface if firewire right? are you running a Ti chip set.
|
My Favorites
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 744
- Joined: 2006/04/22 05:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 07:30:48
(permalink)
I am not so good with computers. I don't know irq list and TI chip set. TI chip set means motherboard chip set? Where can i find irq list? I remember i see some irq numbers during bios loading but too fast disappears.
click image
|
My Favorites
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 744
- Joined: 2006/04/22 05:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 07:39:29
(permalink)
I think that would be good idea if Cakewalk make program for that. Like tune up utility, 1 click then will corrects all the wrong windows settings. Adjust everything for music
click image
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 07:56:39
(permalink)
If you read up on the history of ASIO4ALL it was borne of a need to make ASIO drivers available for host software where only WDM drivers had been written. Remember that ASIO comes from Steinberg (MAC) and that WDM is Windows Driver Model (MS).
So the clever chappy that devised A4A filled a need by making the WDM driver appear like an ASIO one by his little piece of software which interestingly he himself calls a wrapper. Of course he's refined and developed it a long way from its humble beginnings and it can indeed work better thatn the original WDM or even ASIO drivers (API's) but not always. I've never had much success with it. Mostly because the orignal WDM drivers that get wrapped are really really lousy. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear kind of thing I guess.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 08:16:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: My Favorites
I am not so good with computers. I don't know irq list and TI chip set. TI chip set means motherboard chip set? Where can i find irq list? I remember i see some irq numbers during bios loading but too fast disappears.
IRQ is Interrupt ReQuest. TI is the company named Texas Instruments which manufacturers semiconductor chips used in Firewire devices for audio/video interfacing to a computer.
|
Fog
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12302
- Joined: 2008/02/27 21:53:35
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 08:43:11
(permalink)
My Favorites, ok to get to the irq list... press windows key + break (pause is on the same key) together from there, you can get to device manager.. go into advanced.. if you look at the list you can expand.. the firewire thing, will list what type of firewire you have.. to see whats sitting at what IRQ, view by resource (IRQ) .. and you'll get a list of numbers.. it'll show whats sitting where, somethings might sit (share) at the same IRQ. so that sometimes can knock the sync / timing of things off.. .esp.. say a graphic card + sound card or network card want to use the same resource. as for the 1 fix solution, well hhmm interesting idea but with IRQ's conflicts there are a number of ways of dealing with them, either disabling the device thats not used (e.g. on mine I don't have my network card in use IF I'm not online) OR if you move the card, physically inside the machine it might assign to a different IRQ, but in your case your using firewire, so a different kettle of fish and that can't be applied.. sometimes even the order you install things can have an influence on things. the thing is with sonar etc.. it's using what it's given to work with and is a bit generic in the sense it sticks to a standard , whether that asio or wdm etc.. (if Noel etc posts thats wrong, I'm in trouble..hehe) . much as card makers don't know what sequencer your gonna use, the software doesn't know what hardware your gonna use. sometimes even a reinstall of the audio driver helps, I mean mine was giving me jip when the hard drive was accessing.. after a fresh install of the n-audio drivers played ball again.
post edited by Fog - 2009/02/01 08:44:03
|
Common Child
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 59
- Joined: 2006/12/27 11:21:41
- Status: offline
RE: I can't believe ASIO4All better than M audio drivers
2009/02/01 12:56:10
(permalink)
i have the Mobile Pre, and M-Audio STILL has not released a driver for Vista 64 bit. Without ASIO4ALL it is absolute crap.
|