Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

31870887

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts







  • Quote Originally Posted by Anderton
    View Post

    Aha! I get to teach you something about the iPB-10 for a change!! The USB interface feature is actually very cool, for a couple reasons. We'll cover Windows first, then Mac.



    Note that with Windows machines this is a WDM driver, not ASIO. So in your host, you'll need to select WDM, WASAPI, or WaveRT (in ascending order of preference) as the driver mode under Preferences, or wherever you choose the driver mode. If you select ASIO as the driver nothing will blow up, but "DigiTech iPB-10 In/Out" will not show up as an available input or output. You also don't want to use MME or DirectX (unfortunately, the only non-ASIO Windows option with Ableton Live), because then the latency will be so long as to be unusable.



    With Sonar using WDM, the lowest I could go was 441 samples, or 10ms latency. With WASAPI as the driver mode, Sonar could hit 220 samples (5 ms) with no problems.



    With Mixcraft 6, which offers WaveRT, I could get down to 5ms (Mixcraft doesn't indicate the number of sample buffers, but I assume this would be around the same as WASAPI on Sonar). Presumably these latency figures are one-way, not round-trip, but still those are still more than acceptable and on a par with many commercially-available audio interfaces. I was quite surprised that the iPB-10 drivers were compatible with WaveRT; not that many are.



    With Core Audio, using an older Quad Core Xeon Mac I was able to get 45 samples with Ableton Live - excellent performance, with a listed 6.3ms round-trip latency.



    However, the really cool part is that under the iPB-10's settings, you can adjust the ratio of what you're hearing from the DAW's output via USB, and what's coming from the iPB-10. If you monitor from the iPB-10, you essentially get zero-latency monitoring with effects because you're listening to the iPB-10 output, not monitoring through the computer. So typically for this mode you'd turn the DAW track's input echo (also called input monitor) off, and set the iPB-10 XLR fader mix for 50% USB and 50% iPB-10. Then you'll hear your DAW's tracks from the USB side, and your guitar (with zero latency and any iPB-10 processing) from the iPB-10 side.



    If your computer is fast enough that you can get 10ms or latency or under (preferably under), then you can monitor solely via USB and turn on input echo/input monitoring at your DAW so you can monitor your guitar through the computer. This lets you monitor the guitar through any plug-ins inserted into your guitar's track, with of course the tradeoff being the latency caused by monitoring through the computer.



    So yes indeed, you can use the USB as a decent computer audio interface, and as long as your host supports one of the faster Windows audio protocols or you're using a recent Mac, you're in good shape.



    But wait - there's more! The audio interfacing is class-compliant, and doesn't require installing drivers for either Windows or Core Audio. Furthermore, it seems very few people realize that WDM/WASAPI/WaveRT drivers have been able to aggregate multiple interfaces for years. (Apple Core Audio can aggregate too; it got a bad reputation because it didn't work all that well initially, but these days it's pretty reliable.) So, you can still use your favorite, go-to interface along with the one in the iPB-10.



    Cool, eh?




    Hi Craig, a question about what you wrote above.



    As I had understood, WaveRT drivers can only work with PCI/PCI Express interfaces, not with USB (or Firewire) interfaces, (because WaveRT relies upon DMA buffers which USB and FW interfaces don't have, bla bla bla...).



    It seems that iPB-10 has "compliant" USB and that no separate USB driver installation is necessary, so that the iPB-10's USB connection just uses Windows' built-in USB driver.



    So, I'm very surprised that you were able to select WaveRT in Mixcraft (which you said surprised you too). I do know that Sonar definitely supports WaveRT for some time. But it seems that there was no option available to you under Sonar for WaveRT?



    At the risk of going OT, perhaps Mixcraft is internally using the ASIO4ALL driver (wrapper layer for WDM drivers, which can emulate ASIO and WaveRT)?



    Anyway, perhaps you (or DTRep) can clarify about this? I'm already using V-Studio 20, and iPB-10 looks like a nice way to get similar functionality with iPad, but I woul like to know more certainly about low latency possibilities when used with PC DAW.



    Btw, nice to see you still keeping so busy. Been following your writings since the "Polyphony" days!



    Doc M

    Comment








    • Quote Originally Posted by gregg29576
      View Post

      Question for Anderton or anyone else that wants to offer an opinion. I'm wondering how you think the IPB-10 will work with my gear. I currently have a PRS 2 Channel-H amp head with a 2x12 custom made cabinet. (sealed back) I have two 12" Eminence "Swamp Thang" speakers. My guitars are a PRS 20th Anniversary Custom 24 that I have installed a matched pair of BareKnuckle Abraxas pickups. Also have a 1975 Ibanez "Strat" (lawsuit series) with the EMG DG-20 (Gilmore) pickups. (Love me some David Gilmore). I am currently using my Boss GT-10 in a 4CM using the effects loop send/return. I'm not really using amp modeling since I love the way the dirty channel sounds on my amp. I guess my question is....should I use the IPB-10 in 4cm or just go straight in and use some of the modeling in the IPB-10? Or do you think its' just going to be trial and error?



      Thanks for any input.




      What you're describing is really pretty subjective...I can't duplicate that setup here. So, I'd say trya ll the options. You may end up using the iPB-10 just for the effects, a combination of effects and amp modeling, or...well, maybe something you haven't thought of yet! You have a lot of options with your setup.
      N E W S O N G ! To Say 'No' Would Be a Crime (Remix) is now streamable from my YouTube channel.

      Subscribe, like, and share the links!

      Comment








      • Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Memory
        View Post

        Hi Craig, a question about what you wrote above.



        As I had understood, WaveRT drivers can only work with PCI/PCI Express interfaces, not with USB (or Firewire) interfaces, (because WaveRT relies upon DMA buffers which USB and FW interfaces don't have, bla bla bla...).




        Noel Borthwick at Cakewalk is quoted as saying: "Note that WaveRT only applies to PCI audio devices so its a relatively smaller set of hardware that can take advantage of this technology." So, it seems like you're right; this article is above my pay grade, but you might be able to decipher and translate








        It seems that iPB-10 has "compliant" USB and that no separate USB driver installation is necessary, so that the iPB-10's USB connection just uses Windows' built-in USB driver.



        So, I'm very surprised that you were able to select WaveRT in Mixcraft (which you said surprised you too). I do know that Sonar definitely supports WaveRT for some time. But it seems that there was no option available to you under Sonar for WaveRT?



        At the risk of going OT, perhaps Mixcraft is internally using the ASIO4ALL driver (wrapper layer for WDM drivers, which can emulate ASIO and WaveRT)?



        Anyway, perhaps you (or DTRep) can clarify about this?



        I've pinged Acoustica to see if they can answer your question, because not only could I select WaveRT, but I could select Mixcraft 6's "exclusive" mode which provides low latency for WaveRT. In any event, the latency was really low, so someone involved in this must be doing something right...
        N E W S O N G ! To Say 'No' Would Be a Crime (Remix) is now streamable from my YouTube channel.

        Subscribe, like, and share the links!

        Comment


        • So talk about responsiveness...Dan Goldstein at Acoustica was kind enough to provide the following. Thanks, Dan!



          "What we call WaveRT in Mixcraft is really, technically, what Cakewalk calls WASAPI. Here's the breakdown:



          * WASAPI is the new API (Application Programmer's Interface) for doing low-latency audio through Windows Vista and Windows 7.


          * WaveRT, technically, is a driver model for supporting low-latency audio hardware.



          "I think it's confusing to name your audio platform after the API - what the heck does 'WASAPI' mean to the average musician? So in Mixcraft, we chose to refer to the two audio communication methods as Wave and WaveRT. Likewise, WaveRT Exclusive Mode in Mixcraft is really WASAPI Exclusive Mode, and amazingly, generally performs quite well regardless of the underlying driver model.




          "Again, it's purely an aesthetic choice. Wave vs Wave Real Time (WaveRT) is a lot easier to understand then Waveform Audio API vs. Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). Adding a layer of technical complexity by expecting musicians to learn and know the different between WAAPI and WASAPI is, well, just cruel (and unnecessary.)
          "



          So there you have it. I never had a clue what "WASAPI" stood for (I thought it sounded like the name of a town in northern New Jersey), and now I know why
          N E W S O N G ! To Say 'No' Would Be a Crime (Remix) is now streamable from my YouTube channel.

          Subscribe, like, and share the links!

          Comment








          • Quote Originally Posted by Anderton
            View Post

            So talk about responsiveness...Dan Goldstein at Acoustica was kind enough to provide the following. Thanks, Dan!



            "What we call WaveRT in Mixcraft is really, technically, what Cakewalk calls WASAPI. Here's the breakdown:



            * WASAPI is the new API (Application Programmer's Interface) for doing low-latency audio through Windows Vista and Windows 7.


            * WaveRT, technically, is a driver model for supporting low-latency audio hardware.



            "I think it's confusing to name your audio platform after the API - what the heck does 'WASAPI' mean to the average musician? So in Mixcraft, we chose to refer to the two audio communication methods as Wave and WaveRT. Likewise, WaveRT Exclusive Mode in Mixcraft is really WASAPI Exclusive Mode, and amazingly, generally performs quite well regardless of the underlying driver model.




            "Again, it's purely an aesthetic choice. Wave vs Wave Real Time (WaveRT) is a lot easier to understand then Waveform Audio API vs. Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). Adding a layer of technical complexity by expecting musicians to learn and know the different between WAAPI and WASAPI is, well, just cruel (and unnecessary.)
            "



            So there you have it. I never had a clue what "WASAPI" stood for (I thought it sounded like the name of a town in northern New Jersey), and now I know why




            Thanks for following up on this Craig!



            Naw. Everyone knows WASAPI is that green spicy stuff you put on sushi.



            Ok, now I understand what Acoustica/Mixcraft are doing (although I do think their calling it "WaveRT" is rather misleading as that is actually (as they well know) a different audio driver mode in Windows since Vista). And now, I'm beginning to wonder whether Acoustica even actually support the "real WaveRT" lower latency driver mode for PCI/PCIe interfaces in Mixcraft (which as you now know, Sonar actually does). Hmm..



            Anyway, it's now clear that your reported 5ms latencies under both "WASAPI" in Sonar and "WaveRT" in Mixcraft were indeed achieved using the exact same driver mode, so in fact a valid "apples to apples" comparison.



            Now, may I make another request please?



            If you have access to a second iPad and an Apple "camera connection kit" (CCK) USB>dock adapter, can you try connecting the iPB-10's USB to the second iPad via the CCK* to see if the iPad recognizes the iPB-10 as an audio I/O device?



            The fact that the iPB-10's USB is Core Audio compliant suggests this may well be possible so I'm very curious. As you may know, there are already some interesting DAW apps available for iPad.



            * Note: It might be necessary to connect the iPB-10 USB via a powered USB hub to the CCK, as the iPad dock connector can't supply much power for CCK-connected USB devices.



            TIA!

            Comment








            • Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Memory
              View Post

              If you have access to a second iPad and an Apple "camera connection kit" (CCK) USB>dock adapter, can you try connecting the iPB-10's USB to the second iPad via the CCK* to see if the iPad recognizes the iPB-10 as an audio I/O device?



              The fact that the iPB-10's USB is Core Audio compliant suggests this may well be possible so I'm very curious. As you may know, there are already some interesting DAW apps available for iPad.




              Just a heads up in case you didn't know (but you probably did):



              When you connect an iPad to the iPB-10 via the iPB-10's dock connector, you can run a DAW on that iPad to record directly. In the Nexus App, you have to change the 1/4" (and maybe the XLR) mix to about 50% so that both the iPB-10 and iPad audio interface both get equal parts of the audio mix.



              My guess is that the iPB-10 already presents itself as USB Audio-class compliant device (input and output) to the iPad. Control of the iPB-10 is probably done via an HID class driver or a custom set of end-points.



              I use GarageBand all the time for doing rough song demos with the iPB-10 and my CCK with Korg Nanokey MIDI keyboard (studio in a backpack!). I'm getting ready to explore other DAW's in the near future.

              Comment


              • NOTE ON SCROLL ISSUE: Craig - Just finally spoke with tech support at DT regarding the bank up/down issue. He had me do a hard reset - after which my unit still scrolls at 20 banks in 2 seconds (no change). I asked him to test a unit there and his results were "about 4 full bank cycles in 10 seconds". If that's accurate (maybe not, since he just used a rough timing method), that is a third NEW data point:



                Results for bank press and hold scroll:

                Anderton: 0.2 sec/bank

                Paka: 0.1 sec/bank

                tech: 0.125 sec/bank



                He also said variations could be a result of different components being used from one unit to the next, including processors! This suggests that the firmware is using clock cycles rather than time conversions to time the scroll. It also suggests that at least one of my processors is faster than yours. (I wonder if this gives me any advantage in any of the other capabilities?) The bank reversion time on the other hand, being consistent across both of our units would seem to use time conversions which are independent of the processor speed. VERDICT: I'm overclocked baby! But at twice the scroll rate you have, it still is a PITA to time the scroll to land anywhere near my target bank.

                Comment








                • Quote Originally Posted by paka
                  View Post

                  Results for bank press and hold scroll:

                  Anderton: 0.2 sec/bank

                  Paka: 0.1 sec/bank

                  tech: 0.125 sec/bank




                  What version of iPad do you have?



                  The iPB-10 may be sending notifications to the iPad when you change banks and the USB stack *might* become flooded on the first generation iPad which would result in a slightly slower scroll speed than the iPad2 and iPad3. Faster iPads might be keeping up with the USB packets and scrolling faster.



                  This is a stretch though. Aside from USB controller issues, the USB stack in the iPad should be plenty fast enough even on the iPad1.

                  Comment


                  • @ Reposed Roller: Interesting idea. I can't test that theory because I'm using an iPad 2 and I'm getting the faster results. Anderton is the one with the slower rate, so maybe if he has an iPad 1 attached, that could be the reason. But I doubt this is the case. I think if the update messages were being sent, it would be a separate stack which would not talk back to or otherwise influence the LED readout. This just seems intuitive, but who knows? The scroll is on the iPB, and the rate is independent of whether the iPad is connected or not (at least for me with the iPad 2, so you could still be right). However, this seems like a firmware setting, plain and simple. Which is also why a Nexus update alone is unlikely to ever resolve either of these timing issues.



                    What is your bank/sec rate on your setup? Also, anyone else that would care to post their press and hold bank scroll rate would be encouraged to do so. Probably best to time at least 30 full cycles (without stopping) of 1-20 starting at bank 1.

                    Comment








                    • Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Memory
                      View Post

                      Thanks for following up on this Craig!



                      Naw. Everyone knows WASAPI is that green spicy stuff you put on sushi.



                      Ok, now I understand what Acoustica/Mixcraft are doing (although I do think their calling it "WaveRT" is rather misleading as that is actually (as they well know) a different audio driver mode in Windows since Vista). And now, I'm beginning to wonder whether Acoustica even actually support the "real WaveRT" lower latency driver mode for PCI/PCIe interfaces in Mixcraft (which as you now know, Sonar actually does). Hmm..



                      Anyway, it's now clear that your reported 5ms latencies under both "WASAPI" in Sonar and "WaveRT" in Mixcraft were indeed achieved using the exact same driver mode, so in fact a valid "apples to apples" comparison.




                      Actually, this seemed worthy of further comment from Acoustica. Please sit down, fasten your seat belt, and prepare to have your head explode as you learn more not only about the inner workings of Windows, but the apparent need for some language police in Redmond. You're also about to find out why your comment "it's now clear that your reported 5ms latencies under both WASAPI in Sonar and WaveRT in Mixcraft were indeed achieved using the exact same driver mode" is pretty right on.



                      Again, Dan from Acoustica:



                      "Calling it WaveRT is really no more misleading then Sonar referring to WASAPI as a 'Driver Mode,' which it isn't:







                      "Let me explain the dilemma.




                      "In Windows Vista, Microsoft introduced
                      two new technologies for achieving low-latency audio in Windows.



                      1) WASAPI, an interface between applications and the Windows Operating System that facilitates low-latency audio.


                      2) WaveRT, a new driver model that facilitates low-latency audio between a hardware device and the Windows Operating System.




                      "Unfortunately, Microsoft did not come up with a name for this new set of technology - i.e. VistaAudio. So, the question is, what should this collective low-latency technology be called?




                      "Sonar chose to call it WASAPI Driver Mode, which is wrong, because WASAPI is not a driver mode. WASAPI lets software communicate with the hardware, but that hardware driver
                      may use the new WaveRT driver model, or it may use one of the older Windows driver models.



                      "We chose to call low-latency Windows audio 'WaveRT,' which is also wrong because WaveRT technically refers to a specific driver type, and using WASAPI does not guarantee you'll be communicating with a WaveRT driver.




                      "If Microsoft had just called all this 'VistaAudio' or 'HyperAudio' or something, we wouldn't have this confusion at all.




                      "As to 'whether Acoustica supports the 'real WaveRT''lower latency driver mode,' this is misleading on several levels. Windows software has
                      no choice in the matter -- Windows communicates with the audio hardware using whatever driver model is installed. If you have a WaveRT driver for your hardware, then applications have no choice but to use WaveRT. Sonar doesn't do anything magical here at all. In fact, all audio in Windows is ultimately built on WASAPI, so if you select WDM (or 'Wave' in Mixcraft), Windows Vista and Windows 7 will simply be simulating the Waveform Audio API on top of WASAPI. Ultimately, all audio in Windows Vista and Windows 7 goes through WASAPI and all communication between Windows and your audio hardware goes through whatever driver is installed on your computer.



                      "Even with an actual WaveRT driver, though, the only way to achieve very low latency with Windows software is to communicate with the driver via WASAPI Exclusive Mode. This mode gives the application almost direct access to the driver, and if the driver is capable of low latency audio communication, you can achieve very low latency (as low as 3ms) this way.




                      "Again, the idea that Mixcraft doesn't 'support the real WaveRT' doesn't make sense. The driver is how the hardware communicates with the Operating System. We have no choice but to support it.




                      "Don't take my word for it, however. A quick bit of Googling found this article, 'Inside the Mechanics of Sonar 8 with Cakewalk Engineering,'where Noel Borthwick says the same thing I'm saying:




                      "CDM: You talk about using a WaveRT driver. Do you have to do anything to switch to WaveRT?




                      Noel: You don’t switch to WaveRT. In WDM [Windows Driver Model] mode, there is no choice – if a driver exposes itself as WaveRT, that’s the only mode of communicating with it. The same applies in WASAPI except the difference is that WASAPI itself communicates with the driver in WaveRT mode internally."



                      http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/0...k-engineering/



                      "So, to summarize: Mixcraft's "WaveRT" setting and Cakewalk's "WASAPI" setting are the same thing, neither name is really technically correct, and the end result is the potential for low-latency audio without a special 3rd party driver (like an ASIO driver). And in general, this technology works very, very well."




                      Thank you Dan, I appreciate your time. I have three comments about this.



                      1. I am extremely glad that other people design software so I can just use it and not have to worry about this stuff.

                      2. Microsoft should pay me oodles of money to consult as an official Language Policeman so this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future.

                      3. I get really, really low latency in Mixcraft using exclusive mode with what they call "WaveRT," and in Sonar using what they call "WASAPI." So as I far as I'm concerned, they can call it whatever they want as long as it doesn't increase the latency. I'm going to propose that Microsoft call it "EGAS" mode, for "Even Guitarists Are Satisfied."



                      Am I the only person who's learning a lot from this?

                      N E W S O N G ! To Say 'No' Would Be a Crime (Remix) is now streamable from my YouTube channel.

                      Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                      Comment








                      • Quote Originally Posted by Reposed Roller
                        View Post

                        Just a heads up in case you didn't know (but you probably did):



                        When you connect an iPad to the iPB-10 via the iPB-10's dock connector, you can run a DAW on that iPad to record directly. In the Nexus App, you have to change the 1/4" (and maybe the XLR) mix to about 50% so that both the iPB-10 and iPad audio interface both get equal parts of the audio mix.



                        My guess is that the iPB-10 already presents itself as USB Audio-class compliant device (input and output) to the iPad. Control of the iPB-10 is probably done via an HID class driver or a custom set of end-points.



                        I use GarageBand all the time for doing rough song demos with the iPB-10 and my CCK with Korg Nanokey MIDI keyboard (studio in a backpack!). I'm getting ready to explore other DAW's in the near future.




                        Hi Reposed Roller, yes I was aware, thanks. What I was curious about was whether this kind of RP-iPad hookup was also possible with the iPB-10:



                        http://www.digitech.com/en/rp-to-ipad



                        I'm already familiar with recording through mfx audio interfaces (V-Studio 20 and G2.1Nu) into a DAW via USB while also running their editors on same PC, and also recording on iPad (G-Band, Amplitude, Auria) with IODock (maybe iU2 also soon). My iPad1 is getting long in the tooth so will probably go for a newer model soon, meaning having 2 around to play with. So just looking at all options for what might work in the studio and occasional gigging. Always liked Digitech's gear, even still use an old Vocalist Workstation occasionally.



                        Nice to meet another Nano user (have the set here, even came with a USB hub).

                        Comment








                        • Quote Originally Posted by Anderton
                          View Post

                          Actually, this seemed worthy of further comment from Acoustica. Please sit down, fasten your seat belt, and prepare to have your head explode as you learn more not only about the inner workings of Windows, but the apparent need for some language police in Redmond. You're also about to find out why your comment "it's now clear that your reported 5ms latencies under both WASAPI in Sonar and WaveRT in Mixcraft were indeed achieved using the exact same driver mode" is pretty right on.




                          Doc M: Oh no, what have I started? Hey, I take it all back!





                          Again, Dan from Acoustica:



                          "Calling it WaveRT is really no more misleading then Sonar referring to WASAPI as a 'Driver Mode,' which it isn't:



                          Doc M: Yeah. Silly name games, all very "confuscating".







                          "Let me explain the dilemma.




                          "In Windows Vista, Microsoft introduced two new technologies for achieving low-latency audio in Windows.



                          1) WASAPI, an interface between applications and the Windows Operating System that facilitates low-latency audio.


                          2) WaveRT, a new driver model that facilitates low-latency audio between a hardware device and the Windows Operating System.




                          "Unfortunately, Microsoft did not come up with a name for this new set of technology - i.e. VistaAudio. So, the question is, what should this collective low-latency technology be called?




                          Doc M: I'll see your dilemma sir, and raise you an obfuscation!



                          Actually, MS did come up with a name for its collective Windows audio APIs: "Core Audio"! Yeah, cute, probably just to upset Apple... Baffled me too, when Echo Audio devoted an entire page of the release notes for their recent Windows drivers to "Core Audio". WTF?



                          "Sonar chose to call it WASAPI Driver Mode, which is wrong, because WASAPI is not a driver mode. WASAPI lets software communicate with the hardware, but that hardware driver may use the new WaveRT driver model, or it may use one of the older Windows driver models.



                          Doc M: Yes, confusion is bound to arise when a user goes to select their audio interface's I/O ports in the audio setup options of an application such as Mixcraft or Sonar and the naming is not clear/standard.



                          "We chose to call low-latency Windows audio 'WaveRT,' which is also wrong because WaveRT technically refers to a specific driver type, and using WASAPI does not guarantee you'll be communicating with a WaveRT driver.



                          Doc M: Yup. Wrongo! I'm glad you admit the error of your ways.



                          "If Microsoft had just called all this 'VistaAudio' or 'HyperAudio' or something, we wouldn't have this confusion at all.



                          Doc M: Nope, it's "Core Audio"! Hey, an apple has a "core", so...



                          "As to 'whether Acoustica supports the 'real WaveRT''lower latency driver mode,' this is misleading on several levels. Windows software has no choice in the matter -- Windows communicates with the audio hardware using whatever driver model is installed. If you have a WaveRT driver for your hardware, then applications have no choice but to use WaveRT. Sonar doesn't do anything magical here at all. In fact, all audio in Windows is ultimately built on WASAPI, so if you select WDM (or 'Wave' in Mixcraft), Windows Vista and Windows 7 will simply be simulating the Waveform Audio API on top of WASAPI. Ultimately, all audio in Windows Vista and Windows 7 goes through WASAPI and all communication between Windows and your audio hardware goes through whatever driver is installed on your computer.



                          Doc M: Ok, had no intention of being misleading, and you've already admitted the mis-nomer. As explained, it all depends upon which driver is installed and selected.



                          "Even with an actual WaveRT driver, though, the only way to achieve very low latency with Windows software is to communicate with the driver via WASAPI Exclusive Mode. This mode gives the application almost direct access to the driver, and if the driver is capable of low latency audio communication, you can achieve very low latency (as low as 3ms) this way.



                          Doc M: Yes, although MS claim that in Win 7 even "share mode" audio streams now run in low-latency mode:



                          http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...2%28v=vs.85%29



                          "Again, the idea that Mixcraft doesn't 'support the real WaveRT' doesn't make sense. The driver is how the hardware communicates with the Operating System. We have no choice but to support it.



                          Doc M: Hey man, don't blame me for becoming confused by your application' s irregular naming scheme!



                          And I'm not the only one confused! See this post over in another forum by someone using Mixcraft with several audio interfaces all lacking any WaveRT drivers, who was convinced that they were using WaveRT driver mode in Mixcraft:



                          http://frontierdesign.com/forums/top...-dakota-lives/



                          "Don't take my word for it, however. A quick bit of Googling found this article, 'Inside the Mechanics of Sonar 8 with Cakewalk Engineering,'where Noel Borthwick says the same thing I'm saying:



                          "CDM: You talk about using a WaveRT driver. Do you have to do anything to switch to WaveRT?




                          Noel: You don’t switch to WaveRT. In WDM [Windows Driver Model] mode, there is no choice – if a driver exposes itself as WaveRT, that’s the only mode of communicating with it. The same applies in WASAPI except the difference is that WASAPI itself communicates with the driver in WaveRT mode internally."



                          http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/0...k-engineering/



                          Doc M: Yes, except in Mixcraft, which identifies the driver mode being used by an audio device such as the iPB-10 lacking any vendor-supplied WaveRT driver as using "WaveRT" when it is actually using some other entirely different driver mode (such as the built-into-Windows USB audio system drivers). See, it's like this Dan, I'm not taking your word for it.



                          "So, to summarize: Mixcraft's "WaveRT" setting and Cakewalk's "WASAPI" setting are the same thing, neither name is really technically correct, and the end result is the potential for low-latency audio without a special 3rd party driver (like an ASIO driver). And in general, this technology works very, very well."



                          Doc M: Ok, then, will the "real" WaveRT please stand up?











                          Quote Originally Posted by Anderton
                          View Post

                          Thank you Dan, I appreciate your time. I have three comments about this.



                          1. I am extremely glad that other people design software so I can just use it and not have to worry about this stuff.

                          2. Microsoft should pay me oodles of money to consult as an official Language Policeman so this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future.

                          3. I get really, really low latency in Mixcraft using exclusive mode with what they call "WaveRT," and in Sonar using what they call "WASAPI." So as I far as I'm concerned, they can call it whatever they want as long as it doesn't increase the latency. I'm going to propose that Microsoft call it "EGAS" mode, for "Even Guitarists Are Satisfied."



                          Am I the only person who's learning a lot from this?




                          Craig, thanks muchly for getting this clarified further!



                          My take on all the above: the iPB-10's USB offers quite decent audio latency with Windows' built-in USB audio drivers in Sonar and Mixcraft, but only if one selects "WASAPI" in Sonar and "WaveRT" in Mixcraft.



                          Did I miss anything?



                          Ouch, head hurts!

                          Comment








                          • Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Memory
                            View Post

                            Doc M: Oh no, what have I started? Hey, I take it all back!



                            Craig, thanks muchly for getting this clarified further!



                            My take on all the above: the iPB-10's USB offers quite decent audio latency with Windows' built-in USB audio drivers in Sonar and Mixcraft, but only if one selects "WASAPI" in Sonar and "WaveRT" in Mixcraft.



                            Did I miss anything?



                            Ouch, head hurts!




                            Yes! You missed that you're supposed to select "Core Audio" in either one of them, but ONLY when using them on the Mac. I mean, using them on Windows. I mean...



                            Now that you mention it, I remember I was doing documentation for a company when Vista came out, and was documenting a cross-platform interface. The configuration screen showed "Core Audio" in Windows and I was totally confused. When I called the company and said "You forgot to change the screen for Windows, you're showing the Mac one" there was this long pause, a sigh, and then an explanation that Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, decided to use the term Core Audio (more reason they should pay me tons of bucks to be their language police).



                            We talked about this for a while, and they decided it would be best if I avoided the use of the term Core Audio as much as humanly possible when dealing with the Windows aspect of the manual.



                            I can certainly see why two Windows-only programs avoided using Core Audio like the plague. Come to think of it, I don't have ANY Windows audio program that mentions that term in any way, shape, or form. I can just see the forum postings..."Did you hear that both Mixcraft and Sonar are now compatible with the Mac?"



                            But wait...it gets MUCH better.



                            Just to further confuse things, my desktop PC DOES have an onboard hardware sound chip. I disconnected all interfaces from my computer so that only the sound chip was active. I then booted Sonar, and it identified the sound chip's drivers as WaveRT drivers. However, the only way it could access these was if I chose WDM or WASAPI - there's no WaveRT option in Sonar.



                            Meanwhile, when I booted Mixcraft, it listed the same drivers but unlike Sonar, which appended WaveRT to the name, Mixcraft displayed what Windows called them, which was High Definition Audio Device. But, I could address them with the Mixcraft WaveRT drivers as well as with WDM.



                            So...I spent some Google time, and found lots of references to WaveRT with respect to Realtek sound chips. Given that Mixcraft is a relatively inexpensive program, my assumption is that they used WaveRT instead of WASAPI because in all my googling about Realtek, the term WASAPI never showed up. So a musician gets a laptop...hmm, which driver should I use...hmmm...well I have a Realtek chip and it says something about WaveRT, so I'll try that...hey, it works! That must be right.
                            N E W S O N G ! To Say 'No' Would Be a Crime (Remix) is now streamable from my YouTube channel.

                            Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                            Comment


                            • Craig, I suspect you aren't mistaken!



                              I believe that WaveRT driver support was something MS required for Vista/Win7 certification of onboard "High Definition Audio" chips (which use PCI/PCIe system interfaces), so most current onboard audio chips like your Realtek chip do in fact have WaveRT drivers.



                              Which is very probably the reason Sonar appended "WaveRT" to the Realtek HDA driver name - it is a WaveRT driver!. Now, as for Mixcraft, ask Dan. My head still hurts.





                              Of course, onboard audio quality may not be all that great compared to a lot of expensive outboard pro gear, but it should at least perform with low latency.



                              Afaik, very few "pro" PCI/PCIe interfaces (of which there are very few) have WaveRT drivers. Echo offer them, as do Lynx, and that may be it. Everyone else only offer ASIO drivers, which can also perform quite well as you know. All the other pro interfaces are USB or Firewire, which can't use WaveRT but can use ASIO if ASIO drivers are developed for them.



                              So <drumroll>, the greatest WaveRT driver deployment for low-latency/low cpu-load audio is very probably all those onboard audio chips in current PCs.



                              And now, please feel free to resume your iPB-10 pro review already in progress. Really. Please!

                              Comment








                              • Quote Originally Posted by DigiTechRep
                                View Post

                                I just got out of a meeting with engineering and they have just finished wrapping up all of the update code for testing. We will test for ~2 weeks and then submit to Apple.




                                Any update on the update? ~2 weeks passed by...

                                Comment













                                Working...
                                X