Hi! I'm currently looking for a small outboard-mixer and maybe also a multi-I/ O soundcard to replace my good old 2-in/2-out internal PCI-card Terratec EWX24/96. My big question now is: Are multi-I/O USB 2.0 audio-interfaces as stable as comparable internal PCI-cards, even with low latency that is suitable to play softsynths live? What's the way to go - USB or PCI? I was excited to discover the product-category of mixers with an integrated USB-audio interface like the Alesis MultiMix 8 USB 2.0. http://alesis.numark.de/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=71&lang=en According to its downloadable manual, apart from regular mixer operation you can use it as an ASIO interface with 8 parallel input channels and 2 output channels from Computer to mixer. While I'm sure it's stable enough to run at higher latencies for audio- recording, I wonder, if such a USB interface can be pushed to low enough latencies to play softsynths live via the 2 output channels, while recording the 8 input channels. A screenshot in the manual shows a setting with 1024 samples/buffer with, as it seems, 62.5 ms latency at 44.1 kHz. Right now I'm used to push things down to 192 samples/buffer and 4 ms latency with my Terratec card. So I'm a bit unsure about this. (Since different sound-card configuration- tools and different Cubase versions can either state plain input-latency or combined in-/out-latency, the buffer-size is the important and unmistakable metric here!) If that thing would work with low latency, such a unit would be *exactly* what I need. Does anybody in here have experience with similar units or at least with USB 2.0 multi-I/O interfaces in general? Is this state-of-the-art or are internal PCI-cards like M-Audio Delta 1010LT still the way to go for reliable performance? (But I need a mixer for non-PC mixing, too, so the combined unit would just be brilliant, *if* it can decently play softsynths...) Bye, Krid -- www.dirk-music.de
"Krid" <> wrote in message news:-berlin.de... > Hi! > > I'm currently looking for a small outboard-mixer and maybe also a multi-I/ > O soundcard to replace my good old 2-in/2-out internal PCI-card Terratec > EWX24/96. > > My big question now is: Are multi-I/O USB 2.0 audio-interfaces as stable > as comparable internal PCI-cards, even with low latency that is suitable > to play softsynths live? What's the way to go - USB or PCI? > > > > I was excited to discover the product-category of mixers with an > integrated USB-audio interface like the Alesis MultiMix 8 USB 2.0. > > http://alesis.numark.de/index.php? > option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=71&lang=en > > According to its downloadable manual, apart from regular mixer operation > you can use it as an ASIO interface with 8 parallel input channels and 2 > output channels from Computer to mixer. > > While I'm sure it's stable enough to run at higher latencies for audio- > recording, I wonder, if such a USB interface can be pushed to low enough > latencies to play softsynths live via the 2 output channels, while > recording the 8 input channels. > > A screenshot in the manual shows a setting with 1024 samples/buffer with, > as it seems, 62.5 ms latency at 44.1 kHz. Right now I'm used to push > things down to 192 samples/buffer and 4 ms latency with my Terratec card. > So I'm a bit unsure about this. (Since different sound-card configuration- > tools and different Cubase versions can either state plain input-latency > or combined in-/out-latency, the buffer-size is the important and > unmistakable metric here!) > > > If that thing would work with low latency, such a unit would be *exactly* > what I need. > > Does anybody in here have experience with similar units or at least with > USB 2.0 multi-I/O interfaces in general? Is this state-of-the-art or are > internal PCI-cards like M-Audio Delta 1010LT still the way to go for > reliable performance? (But I need a mixer for non-PC mixing, too, so the > combined unit would just be brilliant, *if* it can decently play > softsynths...) > USB should technically be fast enough at a top data throughput speed of 480Mb/s to do what you want without problems, however because most PCs use multiple USB devices and the fact that sometimes due to on-board USB hubs, you can find the available USB bandwidth is split - this can be more of a problem with laptops. Firewire 400 which has a top data throughput speed of 400Mb/s can actually be - and often is - faster in real world use than USB 2.0. Internal PCI or PCI-e audio cards are generally much better in terms of data throughput. Firewire 800 devices are now available, and I believe USB 3.0 is imminent, both of which should perform a lot better than Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 Portability is the attraction with USB 2.0 and Firewire audio interfaces. I have used/collected a few decent audio interfaces ranging from older Echo and Terratec cards, to USB 1.1 2in/2out interfaces, to USB 2.0 multi i/o interfaces, to multi i/o Firewire interfaces, and a digital mixer with Firewire connectivity to enable multi channel i/o for use with a DAW The firewire multi-i/o devices I have used are the M-Audio FW1814 and the MOTU Traveler, both of which are capable of low latencies that would cope with what you want to do, but they don't have stand-alone mixing capabilities. These are compatible with Windows XP and Windows Vista 32 bit/64 bit and shoud also be compatible with Windows 7. Both units are ADAT compatible too, so you can expand the i/o from eight channels to sixteen with an ADAT compatible microphone pre-amp like the Behringer UltraGain ADA8000 The USB 2.0 interface I have used is the Tascam US-1641, and it's OK. I've used it with a laptop to do some live recording as it's more compact than the Firewire units I have and offers 14 usable inputs in one unit. Ive found it to be occasionally glitchy, but that can depend on which of my two laptops I've used it with, and what other USB devices are attached simultaneously. As for low latency operation, it should go as low as the firewire interfaces, but in practice, I would say it probably doesn't. Again it's compatible with XP, Vista 32 bit/64 bit and should therefore be compatible with Windows 7. The mixer I currently have is the Yamaha 01v96v2, and this is a fairly small (physically) stand-alone mixer that can be used as it comes to interface with a variety of recorders and computer interfaces using ADAT (8 in/8 out), and having USB MIDI i/o and motorised faders, it can be used as a control surface with Cubase. The power to use this mixer as a fully integrated multi-channel audio interface comes in the form of an add-on card - the MY16-mLAN card, which is a Firewire 400 device and allows 16 channels in and out of a DAW lime Cubase. Alternatively, you can use a MY16-AT card to expand ADAT i/o to 24 channels. The only downside at the moment is that for some reason, Yamaha have not yet released a 64 bit driver for Vista which is pretty annoying. But otherwise, the combination of the 01v96v2 and MY16-mLAN card would do what you want with plenty of room to spare. I use my Yamaha desk for live PA work with my band, live recording and for home studio recording as well. It's a relatively compact solution all round, and the fact that it works as a control surface with Cubase is great. Yamaha LS9 users find the 01v96 a little small for their liking for live work as you have to switch banks once to get access to all 32 channels, but for a normal little band it's a very versatile solution all round and it doesn't take up much room. Low latencies are certainly possible and better with a more powerful desktop or laptop. A new one of these with the cost of the card factored in is not particularly cheap and the price is not being helped by the recession, but you may get a good deal going second-hand on eBay or elsewhere. Your definition of 'small' may mean few channels rather than physical size and therefore the 01v96 might be overkill. There are other solutions available and I'm pretty sure MOTU make an audio interface that also works independently as a mixer - yes they do the 896Mk3 and a couple of other interfaces they make will work alone as stand-alone mixers, but essentially you'd be working with rack mountable units, so I think these are less capable by quite a long way than the 01v96 in that they don't work as a control surface. Maybe a cheap MIDI control surface like the Behringer BCF2000 would work in tandem with one of these. MOTU are traditionally not the cheapest interfaces At the other end of the spectrum, you have the little Xenyx mixers from Behringer which are primarily for live use, but most of them do come with a simple USB 2 in/ 2 out audio interface dongle that you can use with a computer. For the money the Xenyx mixers are OK, but whilst they are not excessively noisy devices, the noise floor is somewhat higher than the Yamaha as you'd expect with them being budget devices. Extremely low latency with the included USB audio interface may be possible, but the USB interface is really nothing special, however, you're not tied to using this as you can literally use any compact mixer with any audio interface and get the capability you've outlined. I don't know how well the Alesis MultiMix performs at low latencies, but Tascam offer something similar in their M164-UF mixer although again this is a USB 2.0 device. A lot depends on your budget of course and currently most people don't have a lot of money to spare for stuff like this. If you are happy with the performance of your current computer and audio card, then personally I would probably stick with it for a bit longer, but maybe look at something like a second-hand 01v96v2 mixer if the right deal comes along, to which you could add an mLAN card at a later date. The 01v96v2 mixer has been 'discontinued' by Yamaha, but what that means in reality is that they have simply renamed it as the 01v96VCM and included some additional FX which you've always been able to buy separately anyway. These FX are quite costly (about a third to half the price of the entire mixer if bought separately). Fortunately for me, I was able to qualify my mixer for the upgrade grace period and was sent a CD for free by Yamaha to bring my 0196v2 up to the current VCM standard, but some slightly older 01v96v2 mixers won't have been eligible for this and will therefore be worth quite a bit less on the secondhand market, which may be of benefit to you. I hope my reply has given you some further food for thought at least
Hi nickm! Thanks a lot for your comprehensive input! On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:18:05 +0100, nickm wrote: > USB should technically be fast enough at a top data throughput speed of > 480Mb/s to do what you want without problems,[...] Firewire 400 which > has a top data > throughput speed of 400Mb/s can actually be - and often is - faster in > real world use than USB 2.0. Internal PCI or PCI-e audio cards are > generally much better in terms of data throughput. [...] > Portability is the attraction with USB 2.0 and Firewire audio > interfaces. Yes, but in my case portability is not a major concern, just an added extra. My thoughts were more along the lines that for a multi-I/O interface in most cases you'll have some sort of bigger breakout box anyway, so why not just move it completely to an external box that's connected via USB or Firewire. As far as electronics are concerned, an external closed metal box with a digital connection to the PC should also have less electromagnetic interference issues than an unshielded PCI card residing inside the PC. Theoretically, at least, this could provide a lower noise floor. Also the attraction with these mixers is that they can be used stand- alone as a regular mixer. The main thing is that it would spare me a lot of cable re-plugging. [...] > The mixer I currently have is the Yamaha 01v96v2, [...] For my needs that's overkill and really beyond my intended budget. [...] > At the other end of the spectrum, you have the little Xenyx mixers from > Behringer which are primarily for live use, but most of them do come > with a simple USB 2 in/ 2 out audio interface dongle that you can use > with a computer. For the money the Xenyx mixers are OK, but whilst they > are not excessively noisy devices, the noise floor is somewhat higher > than the Yamaha as you'd expect with them being budget devices. Actually a small Behringer Xenix 1002 was my first consideration, just for jamming without the PC and for not having to plug cables back and forth to my 2 soundcard inputs all the time. But since my EWX24/96 has been discontinued and will not receive any Vista or Win7 drivers any more, I'll sooner or later need a new soundcard anyway. So if I *have* to buy a new card, this time I'd prefer to go multi-I/O. That's why the Alesis MultiMix 8 looked like an interesting answer to *both* of these issues. And because driver-support for PC hardware will always be discontinued sooner or later, I'd rather spend my money on a regular outboard mixer than an audio-interface with proprietary break-out box that can be kicked into the bin when Win 9 comes around. ;-) What's more, USB audio is a standardized USB device class and - at least with stereo channels and high latency - runs with every recent OS, including Linux, right out of the box without additional drivers. This doesn't directly provide ASIO support, of course, but at least is still better than a completely unrecognized outdated soundcard. It's a start and there are drivers like ASIO4all around, that can turn USB audio into an ASIO device. However my experiments with my Boss GT-10 guitar-processor's USB output and ASIO4all have been disappointing as far as latency was concerned. (Trouble is, you can only use *one* ASIO driver at a time and need to run your USB inputs plus the internal soundcard through the same driver.) So my recording-tests left me wondering if it was the ASIO4all driver or my specific PC setup or a USB audio problem in general or just a performance-problem of the GT-10 itself. Thanks a lot for pointing out that some Behringer mixers at least have USB 2 in/out! Upon further research the Xenix 1204 also seems worth a consideration. It won't give me multi-I/O, but might be a cheaper alternative that still provides basic USB recording. [...] > I don't know how well the Alesis MultiMix performs at low latencies, but > Tascam offer something similar in their M164-UF mixer although again > this is a USB 2.0 device. Looks interesting, but has twice the channels I need and therefore twice the price I was planning, too. ;-) > > A lot depends on your budget of course and currently most people don't > have a lot of money to spare for stuff like this. If you are happy with > the performance of your current computer and audio card, then personally > I would probably stick with it for a bit longer, but maybe look at > something like a second-hand 01v96v2 mixer if the right deal comes > along, to which you could add an mLAN card at a later date. [...] > > I hope my reply has given you some further food for thought at least Yes, thanks a lot. As expected, you stated that Firewire is superior to USB and PCI cards are still the most reliable setup. No big surprise there, but actually I had hoped for a surprise. :-( As mentioned, I'm a bit fed up with perfectly good soundcards for which driver-support is discontinued. I think I'll give one of those mixers with USB a try. If it doesn't perform as expected, I'll still have a decent mixer. (Though none of the budget devices has multiple output buses for routing separate channels to a multi-I/O card like the 1010LT.) Any other opinions and experiences out there? Any hard facts like someone using a similar USB device at around 256 samples/buffer with multiple channels without glitches? Bye, Krid -- www.dirk-music.de
Krid wrote: > Yes, but in my case portability is not a major concern, just an added > extra. My thoughts were more along the lines that for a multi-I/O > interface in most cases you'll have some sort of bigger breakout box > anyway, so why not just move it completely to an external box that's > connected via USB or Firewire. > As far as electronics are concerned, an external closed metal box > with a digital connection to the PC should also have less > electromagnetic interference issues than an unshielded PCI card > residing inside the PC. Theoretically, at least, this could provide a > lower noise floor. > > Also the attraction with these mixers is that they can be used stand- > alone as a regular mixer. The main thing is that it would spare me a > lot of cable re-plugging. > > [...] > >> The mixer I currently have is the Yamaha 01v96v2, [...] > > For my needs that's overkill and really beyond my intended budget. > > [...] >> At the other end of the spectrum, you have the little Xenyx mixers >> from Behringer which are primarily for live use, but most of them do >> come with a simple USB 2 in/ 2 out audio interface dongle that you >> can use with a computer. For the money the Xenyx mixers are OK, but >> whilst they are not excessively noisy devices, the noise floor is >> somewhat higher than the Yamaha as you'd expect with them being >> budget devices. > > Actually a small Behringer Xenix 1002 was my first consideration, just > for jamming without the PC and for not having to plug cables back and > forth to my 2 soundcard inputs all the time. > > But since my EWX24/96 has been discontinued and will not receive any > Vista or Win7 drivers any more, I'll sooner or later need a new > soundcard anyway. So if I *have* to buy a new card, this time I'd > prefer to go multi-I/O. > > That's why the Alesis MultiMix 8 looked like an interesting answer to > *both* of these issues. Theoretically, you´re right. Practically, I can only urgently suggest NOT to spend any money on an Alesis MultiMix (whatever model). Some friends of mine have a MultiMix16 FireWire in their rehearsal space and I´ve recorded rehearsals for them a few times, so I think I can say something about the overall quality of the mixer. The knobs feel very cheap and the whole thing looks like a plastic toy - no wait, real toys look and feel more stable. Even Behringer mixer of comparable size have a better material quality. The EQs don´t sound good and do more harm, than good to the signals. And this is only the analog mixer part! More problems come up with the Firewire interface. > And because driver-support for PC hardware will always be discontinued > sooner or later, I'd rather spend my money on a regular outboard mixer > than an audio-interface with proprietary break-out box that can be > kicked into the bin when Win 9 comes around. ;-) Regarding driver-support, you can forget Alesis. Even worse than Terratec - I also had an EWX2496, which I got rid of because of driver issues. This MM16 FW is now about 2 years old, but Alesis obviously don´t consider it necessary to release new drivers. They just moved this model to "discontinued products", which obviously means, there won´t ever be a newer driver than the current one. The problem with the available driver version is, that it produces horrible crackles during multi-track playback through the ASIO driver - tested that with several computers, always the same symptoms... It starts with playback and gets worse over time and after about 30 seconds, there´s nothing but "noise" in the output. Most of the times, it´s possible to get clean recordings, but I recently also experienced that this effect also got into the recorded .WAV files (which I checked on my main pc at home with a Delta2496). The only way to get rid of this effect was to reboot the notebook used for recording and switching the MultiMix off and back on. Took at least 15 minutes to get that crap working again. :-\ BTW: my notebook works flawlessly with a MOTU 828 mk2 Firewire (at another place). > What's more, USB audio is a standardized USB device class and - at > least with stereo channels and high latency - runs with every recent > OS, including Linux, right out of the box without additional drivers. > This doesn't directly provide ASIO support, of course, but at least > is still better than a completely unrecognized outdated soundcard. Basically true, but only for stereo use, not multi-IO. > Thanks a lot for pointing out that some Behringer mixers at least have > USB 2 in/out! Upon further research the Xenix 1204 also seems worth a > consideration. It won't give me multi-I/O, but might be a cheaper > alternative that still provides basic USB recording. It´s a cheap USB audio interface, nothing more nothing less... With the older models it was an additional small box, with newer mixers it´s built into the mixer itself. In both cases, ONLY the stereo "main out" signal is fed to the USB interface. >> I don't know how well the Alesis MultiMix performs at low latencies, >> but Tascam offer something similar in their M164-UF mixer although >> again this is a USB 2.0 device. and since they´re multitrack USB devices, you can´t use a "class compliant USB audio" driver. > Yes, thanks a lot. As expected, you stated that Firewire is superior > to USB and PCI cards are still the most reliable setup. No big > surprise there, but actually I had hoped for a surprise. :-( Maybe, it will change with USB3.0 and Firewire800. As it took relatively long, until the manufacturers could switch to USB2.0, I wouldn´t expect the availability of USB3.0 devices too soon. > As mentioned, I'm a bit fed up with perfectly good soundcards for > which driver-support is discontinued. I think I'll give one of those > mixers with USB a try. If it doesn't perform as expected, I'll still > have a decent mixer. (Though none of the budget devices has multiple > output buses for routing separate channels to a multi-I/O card like > the 1010LT.) As I wrote above, the analog mixer in this "Alesis Multimix16 Firewire" is far from being "decent" in all regards. Better get a Behringer mixer with direct outs and a M-Audio Delta66 or a bigger model. > Any other opinions and experiences out there? Any hard facts like > someone using a similar USB device at around 256 samples/buffer with > multiple channels without glitches? Sorry, my experiences only cover Firewire and PCI so far. Some years ago, a friend of mine had a Tascam122 with USB1.1. It didn´t work on his own pc, but showed no problems on another friend´s pc... So, IF you don´t have an urgent need for portability, better stick with PCI. Even though I only have experience with a Firewire Alesis Multimix device, I assume the USB versions won´t be any better. At least the analog mixer won´t be different probably. Phil
Partially replying to you and partially replying to Phil W... and probably partially going slightly off-topic here and there - sorry Some firewire devices just don't get on with some firewire interfaces for some reason. The default firewire interface is nearly alwayas recommended to be based on a Texas Instruments chipset at the computer end, and that's usually the first thing any support tech will advise you to fit if you are having problems. However none of that 'excuses' badly written drivers, and there are certainly some bad drivers out there PCI or PCI-e is probably the best way to go for now as portability isn't an issue. Firewire is definitely more stable in my experience than USB or USB 2.0 and as far as performance goes it is better than USB 2.0 in the real world. Even then, some laptops are fussier than others. A breakout box does help to get the preamps etc.. far enough away from the internal clicks and buzzes of the internals of the PC, but data throughput on the host card is still almost certainly going to be better than using either firewire or USB. My main reason for using firewire devices is portability. Taking a laptop and an eight channel interface to rehearsal is a lot less bulky than taking a full mixing desk and PC, monitor etc... along - although there are certain circumstances that would warrant that sort of commitment. I can get 16 channels of audio onto a laptop with a MOTU traveler and Behringer UltraGain ADA8000 which is good enough for live gigs and even some studio based recording work (I don't do this professionally - just a serious hobby) I am surprised at your experience Phil of the Alesis Multi-mix. I have always found Alesis stuff to be reasonably good quality at the price. I've never seen one in the flesh, so I don't know on the basis of any first hand experience but I am just gobsmacked that some of these companies are prepared to let standards slip to such a low point as you've experienced. For home use, these units don't necessarily need to be ultra rugged but there has to be a basic level of reliability and quality in place. MOTU and Edirol both had Vista drivers available for 32 bit and 64 bit Vista from day one of Vista, so at that time they both showed a lot of commitment to their customers. There were issues regarding memory over 3GB with the initial 64 bit drivers for my Traveler, but after pinpointing it to the amount of memory in my system (I had 4GB) and reporting back to them, they did something about it. I have three old Terratec EWS88MT cards in one of my older PCs - they still work OK under Windows XP and Windows Vista 32, and so should still work under Windows 7, but if they don't, the cards are all about ten years old and this is to be expected, however, I still have a perfectly usable Windows XP system in which to use them with Cubase 5 if I want to. As long as the software I use doesn't place excessive demands on the system - and it doesn't for now even with Cubase 5, it can literally go on forever or until something breaks It's still way more capable than my old 16 track analogue machine I used to have. I have an old Tascam US-224 USB interface which came out at about the same time as the 122. It works most of the time, but has some idiosyncrasies and I wouldn't say it's 100% reliable. It never saw a great deal of use and is sitting virtually brand new on a shelf. A lot of USB audio devices demand direct connection with the USB controller and in cases where there's a hub involved they sometimes just don't want to know. Laptops vary in how a given number of usable USB ports ids achieved and many cheaper models simply have an on-board hub or two to increase the number of physical ports but with fewer on board controllers. Additionally things like on board card readers also work on the USB as can some wi-fi network devices, which outwardly appear to be discrete devices. The main reason firewire works better for audio is that there's usually one firewire device attached to the firewire bus and therefore there's little else to interfere with its operation. At the last time of looking, Roland had not come up with a Vista 64 bit USB driver for the Boss GT-10, but that may well have changed now - I should look. Line 6 have had 64 bit support for most of their interfaces including the XT Live and X3 Live for quite a while. Yes - the USB audio interface supplied with some of the Behringer Xenyx mixers is nothing special - as Phil says it's a cheap 2 in/2 out interface. If that's all that's required, fine but it's not great - should work with ASIO4ALL. The desks themselves aren't bad value at all for the money and they can be used to feed multi channel audio interfaces by using the channel FX insert points to tap the audio signal path using a TRS jack and connecting the tip and ring together. There was some talk a while ago about an ASIO4ALL driver that would support multiple interfaces in ASIO mode, but I don't know if that ever came to fruition. I rarely use ASIO4ALL. Then each device would still have to have a means of synchronising to a common Word Clock and on cheaper interfaces this is not possible without at least S/PDIF i/o
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:13:57 +0100, "nickm" <> wrote: > I have >always found Alesis stuff to be reasonably good quality at the price. Wasn't it Alesis who came out with that strange mixer a few years back where everything was on one huge circuit board? Do any survive? CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:51:07 +0200, Phil W wrote: [...] > Theoretically, youŽre right. Practically, I can only urgently suggest > NOT to spend any money on an Alesis MultiMix (whatever model). Some > friends of mine have a MultiMix16 FireWire in their rehearsal space and > IŽve recorded rehearsals for them a few times, so I think I can say > something about the overall quality of the mixer.[...] Whoa! Thanks a lot for your warning. Sounds like this really would have been a bad choice. Quite surprising to hear a recommendation to prefer a Behringer unit to Alesis. =:-o > > Regarding driver-support, you can forget Alesis. Even worse than > Terratec - I also had an EWX2496, which I got rid of because of driver > issues. This MM16 FW is now about 2 years old, but Alesis obviously > donŽt consider it necessary to release new drivers. They just moved this > model to "discontinued products", which obviously means, there wonŽt > ever be a newer driver than the current one. Thanks again for another important warning! That's why I'm glad that at the time I didn't buy an expensive soundcard with breakout box, but instead bought a dbx mic-preamp to go with the EWX card. Standard studio gear like this will still be good for years to come without any driver issues. ;-) > The problem with the available driver version is, that it produces > horrible crackles during multi-track playback through the ASIO driver - > tested that with several computers, always the same symptoms... It > starts with playback and gets worse over time and after about 30 > seconds, [...] Well, sounds quite similar to a GT-10 with ASIO4all. ;-) [...] [Behringer] > ItŽs a cheap USB audio interface, nothing more nothing less... With the > older models it was an additional small box, with newer mixers itŽs > built into the mixer itself. > In both cases, ONLY the stereo "main out" signal is fed to the USB > interface. Yes, I was aware of that. However on closer inspection it looks like, in contrast to comparable Alesis or Yamaha units, it's really only 2-in and not 2-out back to the mixer. [...] > As I wrote above, the analog mixer in this "Alesis Multimix16 Firewire" > is far from being "decent" in all regards. Better get a Behringer mixer > with direct outs and a M-Audio Delta66 or a bigger model. [...] > Even though I only have experience with a Firewire Alesis Multimix > device, I assume the USB versions wonŽt be any better. At least the > analog mixer wonŽt be different probably. Again, thanks for your warning. I'd have thought that for the heavier price-tag I could at least expect a mixer section, that's quite a bit above Behringer's consumer quality. What's the general opinion on the cheaper Yamaha mixers like the Yamaha MW-10 C? Would these at least offer a quality improvement compared to Behringer? Bye, Krid -- www.dirk-music.de
Hi nickm! Again, thanks a lot for your detailed feedback! [...] > At the last time of looking, Roland had not come up with a Vista 64 bit > USB driver for the Boss GT-10, but that may well have changed now - I > should look. Line 6 have had 64 bit support for most of their > interfaces including the XT Live and X3 Live for quite a while. Is that actually an ASIO driver? According to the manual it seemed it's mainly there to provice MIDI over USB. Somehow the driver refused to install on my system, and I didn't bother investigating any further, because my main goal was recording via ASIO. Maybe I'll give it a second try. But the problem remains that I can't use a Boss ASIO driver and the Terratec ASIO driver at the same time. Or am I wrong there? > Yes - the USB audio interface supplied with some of the Behringer Xenyx > mixers is nothing special - as Phil says it's a cheap 2 in/2 out > interface. Are you sure about the "2 out"? I couldn't yet find this in the descriptions. Might just be 2 in. .... Then again, even the GT-10 has bidirectional stereo-audio. So this seems like some sort of common standard. > If that's all that's required, fine but it's not great - > should work with ASIO4ALL. The desks themselves aren't bad value at all > for the money and they can be used to feed multi channel audio > interfaces by using the channel FX insert points to tap the audio signal > path using a TRS jack and connecting the tip and ring together. I'm not quite sure I understand you. I've been looking hard at the product pictures of Xenyx 1002 and the like and couldn't see dedicated channel send outputs. Just the usual knobs to route a certain amount of each channel's signal to the common stereo-send. > There was some talk a while ago about an ASIO4ALL driver that would > support multiple interfaces in ASIO mode, but I don't know if that ever > came to fruition. I rarely use ASIO4ALL. Then each device would still > have to have a means of synchronising to a common Word Clock and on > cheaper interfaces this is not possible without at least S/PDIF i/o Like I mentioned, this was the common denominator to run the GT-10 and the EWX through the same ASIO driver. It seemed to work well at higher latencies. But probably because of the GT-10 the common latency could not be pushed down low enough to play softsynths via the EWX or for real-time ASIO monitoring of the GT-10 signal. If there's a way to use two dedicated ASIO drivers at the same time, that would be a big help. Is there? (I'm still using Cubase SE 3. If it's possible with later version this still would be important to know.) Bye, Krid. -- www.dirk-music.de
On 18 Jun 2009 17:14:44 GMT, Krid <> wrote: > >Maybe I'll give it a second try. But the problem remains that I can't use >a Boss ASIO driver and the Terratec ASIO driver at the same time. Or am I >wrong there? Yes, I think you can still only have one active ASIO driver. CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
nickm wrote: > Some firewire devices just don't get on with some firewire interfaces > for some reason. The default firewire interface is nearly always > recommended to be based on a Texas Instruments chipset at the > computer end, and that's usually the first thing any support tech > will advise you to fit if you are having problems. However none of > that 'excuses' badly written drivers, and there are certainly some > bad drivers out there I knew, I should have mentioned, that both my notebook AND my "tower" pc have Texas Instruments FW chipsets. The tower actually has 2 FW controllers, a PCI card with TI + a VIA FW controller on-board (Asus P4B800 or so, don´t recall the board model, as it´s only my "second" machine). Both chipsets work flawlessly with the MOTU 828 mk2 and several driver versions throughout the last 2,5 years. ;-) The notebook is an older Dell inspiron 510m, which I got pretty cheap from a good friend last summer. So, I had the chance to try it out with the MOTU and it worked. Besides that, I knew about the TI chipset thing before, so I knew what to look for. Luckily, this notebook has a TI chipset built-in, so it´s just fine for my needs. > I am surprised at your experience Phil of the Alesis Multi-mix. Let me tell you, not only you...! :-\ > I have always found Alesis stuff to be reasonably good quality > at the price. I still like their old fx/reverb units - as you say, "reasonably good quality at the price". Unfortunately, the material and sound quality of these does in no way compare to that of the MultiMix devices. When I first saw the Multimixes in the catalog/on the web, I thought: hey, nice little things. A short while later, some friends happened to have bought one for use in their rehearsal space. Since they had no real clue how to use it, they asked me to record their rehearsals through it. What leads me to the thought, that the problems are driver related, is the fact, that it worked fine in the beginning. Then Alesis offered a firmware update and new driver version. Since then, the problems occured... And those problems occur with my Dell notebook and a newer Toshiba notebook, they own themselves. Recently, the actual owner of the MultiMix has bought a new Macbook and also experienced problems - even though, I only heard about that "second hand". > I've never seen one in the flesh, so I don't know on the > basis of any first hand experience but I am just gobsmacked that some > of these companies are prepared to let standards slip to such a low > point as you've experienced. For home use, these units don't > necessarily need to be ultra rugged but there has to be a basic level > of reliability and quality in place. Believe me, I was shocked myself when I found out, how crappy the overall quality of the Multimix is. Especially, since I know and appreciate older Alesis devices from the 90s. I expected nothing too special, but an okay quality for rehearsal space/home use. Any Behringer mixer, I´ve used yet - and that´s quite a few - seems more stable and reliable - and I´ve experienced quality problems with those. Anyway, the EQs on other small mixers sound better than those on this Alesis Multimix. If I had a company with a name and good reputation like Alesis, I would not put such products in the stores. That doesn´t necessarily mean, the newer models can´t be improved, but I doubt it. It seems like a product, where too much money had to be saved in production to press actually too many features at once into one box. > MOTU and Edirol both had Vista drivers available for 32 bit and 64 > bit Vista from day one of Vista, so at that time they both showed a > lot of commitment to their customers. There were issues regarding > memory over 3GB with the initial 64 bit drivers for my Traveler, but > after pinpointing it to the amount of memory in my system (I had 4GB) > and reporting back to them, they did something about it. How´s your experience with Edirol USB drivers? Another friend and his girlfriend are looking for a USB interface (2 ch for home use) and I´m not sure, what to suggest them. In this case, it should be USB, so they´re able to connect it to various computers easily. So far, I´ve considered M-Audio´s Fast Track series. The general problem with USB audio interfaces seems to be, that the manufacturers with a good reputation from "analogue days" like Tascam, Alesis don´t manage to provide good drivers, while those manufacturers that come from the computer side (like M-Audio etc.) provide good drivers, but not the coolest analogue parts in their audio interfaces. :-\ Hopefully, the day will come, when the good parts from both worlds are finally combined. Phil
>>Maybe I'll give it a second try. But the problem remains that I can't >>use a Boss ASIO driver and the Terratec ASIO driver at the same time. Or >>am I wrong there? > > Yes, I think you can still only have one active ASIO driver. Thanks, Laurence! Brief and precise as always. ;-) It's cool that one can still get highly qualified answers and opinions in this group, like all of you offered, despite the very low traffic these days. (...or *because* of it?) Bye, Krid. -- www.dirk-music.de
"Krid" <> wrote in message news:-berlin.de... > Hi nickm! > > Again, thanks a lot for your detailed feedback! > > [...] > >> At the last time of looking, Roland had not come up with a Vista 64 bit >> USB driver for the Boss GT-10, but that may well have changed now - I >> should look. Line 6 have had 64 bit support for most of their >> interfaces including the XT Live and X3 Live for quite a while. > > Is that actually an ASIO driver? According to the manual it seemed it's > mainly there to provice MIDI over USB. Somehow the driver refused to > install on my system, and I didn't bother investigating any further, > because my main goal was recording via ASIO. > > Maybe I'll give it a second try. But the problem remains that I can't use > a Boss ASIO driver and the Terratec ASIO driver at the same time. Or am I > wrong there? As Laurence says, you can only use one ASIO driver at a time - but you can use several audio devices with the WDM driver, however latency is quite high. I think the ASIO4ALL driver that I mentioned in my last post having read about was supposed to tackle using several disparate devices at once with low latency. The X3 Live and XT Live use USB to carry audio as well as MIDI and yes it definitely is an ASIO driver as well as a WDM driver > > >> Yes - the USB audio interface supplied with some of the Behringer Xenyx >> mixers is nothing special - as Phil says it's a cheap 2 in/2 out >> interface. > > Are you sure about the "2 out"? I couldn't yet find this in the > descriptions. Might just be 2 in. Absolutely certain. I have a little Xenyx 2222FX mixer which I use for rehearsals with a couple of powered speakers for vocals and it came with a separate USB interface. It is stereo in and stereo out. It's OK to use as an interface for system sounds certainly and probably a bit more too. No MIDI though which most of the interfaces designed for use with a DAW do have. > > ... Then again, even the GT-10 has bidirectional stereo-audio. So this > seems like some sort of common standard. > > >> If that's all that's required, fine but it's not great - >> should work with ASIO4ALL. The desks themselves aren't bad value at all >> for the money and they can be used to feed multi channel audio >> interfaces by using the channel FX insert points to tap the audio signal >> path using a TRS jack and connecting the tip and ring together. > > I'm not quite sure I understand you. I've been looking hard at the > product pictures of Xenyx 1002 and the like and couldn't see dedicated > channel send outputs. Just the usual knobs to route a certain amount of > each channel's signal to the common stereo-send. I'm not particularly familiar with the Xenyx 1002, but my 2222 FX has standard channel inserts which use stereo jack sockets and from which you definitely can tap the mic preamps individually to send audio to an interface like the M-Audio FW1814 for recording. The Xenyx 1002 and 1204 do not have individual channel inserts nor the USB interface but the Xenyx 1222FX and above do. > > >> There was some talk a while ago about an ASIO4ALL driver that would >> support multiple interfaces in ASIO mode, but I don't know if that ever >> came to fruition. I rarely use ASIO4ALL. Then each device would still >> have to have a means of synchronising to a common Word Clock and on >> cheaper interfaces this is not possible without at least S/PDIF i/o > > Like I mentioned, this was the common denominator to run the GT-10 and > the EWX through the same ASIO driver. It seemed to work well at higher > latencies. But probably because of the GT-10 the common latency could not > be pushed down low enough to play softsynths via the EWX or for real-time > ASIO monitoring of the GT-10 signal. OK - in the good old days, which I'm sure you'll remember as like me you've been around this NG for a long time - back in the time when Cubase VST was new (or even before it was a bubble in its dad's beer glass) and we were all using Windows 9x, (or possibly even Windows 3.11) a lot of people used SoundBlaster cards to get audio into their PCs. Low latency wasn't really viable for that type of setup, and although there were cards around like the Turtle Beach Tahiti in the early to mid 1990's which were much better, the latencies you could achieve were not really low enough to be monitoring directly from the DAW. So the workaround was to monitor the the input from source and the output together as Cubase had a built in time 'offset' to fool us into thinking we were playing along with it in real time. For the most part this worked OK. Taking a mixer like the Xenyx 1222FX, what I would do would be to plug its cheap but functional little USB interface into my PC/Laptop and plug its outputs into channels 7&8 line inputs and my monitor speakers into the Xenyx's stereo outputs. That's monitoring of the computer audio output sorted. I'd then plug my mics when needed into channels 1 & 2 of the Xenyx via the mixer's XLR sockets or the output of my guitar processor (GT-10/X3 Live or whatever) into channels 1& 2 line inputs when needed (you can't use both XLR and line inputs at the same time on any channel). Next I'd make up a special pair of adapters to tap the pre fade FX Send/Return on channels 1 & 2 by using a stereo 1/4" jack plug with the tip and ring connections soldered together to allow the audio to follow its normal path through the mixer and then with a piece of co-ax audio cable I'd connect the core to the tip/ring connectors on the jack plug and the screen to the shield connector on the jack plug and connect the other end to an RCA phono plug - one of these per channel of course. The phono plugs then connect to the left and right inputs of the USB audio interface. This covers getting audio into the computer, and if you want to monitor what you are recording you simply turn up the faders on channels 1 & 2 on the mixer to get a suitable blend between what's already been recorded and what you are recording. The already recorded mix is controlled from Cubase's mixer. You adjust the levels going into the computer by using the standard Windows (or ASIO) 'in-computer' record level controls AND the trim pots on channels 1 & 2 on the Xenyx (or similar) mixer. If you use your interface's WDM drivers, you won't get low latency but this won't really matter for most practical purposes. This is not just limited to the Behringer USB interface. To be honest I'm not sure whether the USB interface that comes with these Xenyx mixers actually has an ASIO driver available. There was no CD with mine as far as I can recall, but I have a sneaking feeling that there may be an ASIO driver available for download - but don't quote me on that - my memory isn't what it once was . If you have an interface that has more than two stereo inputs, you can just modify the above to give you more input channels - but of course most interfaces with more than two channels will have a low latency ASIO interface anyway, so monitoring at source is not going to be as necessary. Or, if you want to use more than one audio interface to get audio in to your PC simultaneously, you can do that - but only by using Windows' WDM drivers for each interface. You need then to synchronise your two (or more) audio interfaces in some way, or the audio will drift and after a few seconds Cubase would stall. So you need a common time clock or Word clock from which all attached audio interfaces and your DAW obtain their sync. The Behringer USB audio interface will not support this unfortunately as it only has analogue audio in/out and no digital i/o such as S/PDIF which could support Word clock sync. In the early days of my digital recording experiences, I had a number of disparate interfaces and a Fostex B16 analogue recorder from which I wanted to dump audio from 16 tracks into the current version of Cubase in a single pass. The interfaces were: two Echo Gina 20 cards, a Guillemot ISIS (8 ch) and a Sound Blaster Live. I also had a DAT recorder. I ended up using the DAT recorder in Record standby to accept two channels of audio and to pass it out from its S/PDIF i/o to the S/PDIF input of one of the Echo Gina cards which was considered a viable audio input by Cubase. The DAT recorder was set to 44.1KHz 16 bit and acted as the master Word Clock. I used the Echo Gina card's analogue input as a second audio input and set the Gina to accept external Word Clock info from the DAT recorder. I then sent word clock information from the first Gina to the second Gina via its S/PDIF output, and then from the second Gina to the ISIS the same way and finally from the ISIS to the Sound Blaster Live, which accepted the incoming Word Clock sync via its S/PDIF input (although there was nothing in the SB's software/driver to tell it to do this - it was more by luck than anything else that it worked). I then had all the analogue inputs of my interfaces at my disposal and achievedthe 16 simultaneous audio channels I needed. To work with two or more disparate audio interfaces using their Windows WDM drivers in this way, they would have to have additional digital interfaces (i.e. S/PDIF) and the ability to act as a Word Clock master or slave, but there's no reason why something like this method wouldn't still be as valid today as it was in 1997 > > If there's a way to use two dedicated ASIO drivers at the same time, that > would be a big help. Is there? (I'm still using Cubase SE 3. If it's > possible with later version this still would be important to know.) ASIO WDM method as above is the only way I know works for definite > > > Bye, > Krid. > > -- > www.dirk-music.de
<Snippage> Yeah. I still like some of Alesis' older stuff. I have an old Quad GT and an ADAT HD-24. The HD-24 seems to be fussy about the type of hard drive and the drive bay connectors can be a bit fussy too. I had a couple of problems with whole sessions being lost and have had to resort to third party software to recover them, although in one case that didn't work which is especially annoying as it was of the last ever live performance of a local band featuring a great entertainer on drums and vocals, who at the time had been diagnosed with a serious illness, and who in fact died at Easter this year. Additional washers on the drive caddy apparently help to firm up the connection, but still - bl**dy annoying. I got the ADAT specifically to overcome computer related problems when recording live. Now I take a laptop system as well as the ADAT if it's important. >> MOTU and Edirol both had Vista drivers available for 32 bit and 64 >> bit Vista from day one of Vista, so at that time they both showed a >> lot of commitment to their customers. There were issues regarding >> memory over 3GB with the initial 64 bit drivers for my Traveler, but >> after pinpointing it to the amount of memory in my system (I had 4GB) >> and reporting back to them, they did something about it. > > How´s your experience with Edirol USB drivers? Another friend and his > girlfriend are looking for a USB interface (2 ch for home use) and I´m not > sure, what to suggest them. In this case, it should be USB, so they´re > able to connect it to various computers easily. So far, I´ve considered > M-Audio´s Fast Track series. Well. My Edirol UA20 is pretty old now, so I was surprised even in January 2007 that they had taken the trouble to produce Vista 64 drivers. It's only a USB 1.1 device, but nevertheless works pretty well. In my limited experience of their drivers I have found them to be solid performers on every computer i have tried the device with. The UA20 can be picked up pretty cheaply on eBay. I got one that way for a mate of mine who wanted something cheap but functional and reliable. I use mine more for MIDI these days to be honest when updating firmware on stuff that doesn't have USB. > > The general problem with USB audio interfaces seems to be, that the > manufacturers with a good reputation from "analogue days" like Tascam, > Alesis don´t manage to provide good drivers, while those manufacturers > that come from the computer side (like M-Audio etc.) provide good drivers, > but not the coolest analogue parts in their audio interfaces. :-\ Yes - I'll agree in part with that statement. The Tascam US-224 interface whilst it works isn't the greatest and it's certainly not overly intuitive or user friendly. The newer UA-1641 is OK though and pretty reliable. I believe Tascam had all the development work done for them by a third party partner rather than developing their computer audio products in-house. I may be wrong on that. As far as M-Audio goes, I have found them to be incredibly slow at coming up with drivers. It took them around 18 months folowing the release of Windows Vista 64 to come up with a driver. That's why I bought a MOTU Traveler, whilst my M-Audio FW1814 sat gathering dust on a shelf. Thankfully, I can use the M-Audio box again now. What really annoyed me about M-Audio was their complete silence about driver development. I probably won't buy M-Audio stuff again because of that. The new 64 bit drivers are OK, but fussy about firewire interfaces on different machines - wouldn't work on a Toshiba laptop I have with a 64 bit version of Vista without constantly dropping out and causing random BSOD behaviour, yet the same driver was fine on my Vista 64 desktop. I persevered with the laptop for a while, but life is too short - even running a separate PC card firewire interface in the laptop with a TI chipset didn't resolve it. > Hopefully, the day will come, when the good parts from both worlds are > finally combined. > > > Phil >
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:20:32 +0100, nickm wrote: [...] > Absolutely certain. I have a little Xenyx 2222FX mixer which I use for > rehearsals with a couple of powered speakers for vocals and it came with > a separate USB interface. It is stereo in and stereo out. It's OK to > use as an interface for system sounds certainly and probably a bit more > too. No MIDI though which most of the interfaces designed for use with > a DAW do have. Ah, thanks for reminding me! I almost forgot MIDI, because I actually take it for granted. That's another issue. As I need MIDI anyway I'm pretty certain now that I'll just drop the whole USB audio idea and simply go for a small and less expensive mixer. For the time being I'll keep my good old EWX and with my next PC I'll rethink if I'll just get a new 2-in/2-out card with MIDI or maybe this time a multi-I/O, which would be the Delta 1010LT. [...] > OK - in the good old days, which I'm sure you'll remember as like me > you've been around this NG for a long time - back in the time when > Cubase VST was new (or even before it was a bubble in its dad's beer > glass) and we were all using Windows 9x, (or possibly even Windows 3.11) > a lot of people used SoundBlaster cards to get audio into their PCs. > Low latency wasn't really viable for that type of setup, and although > there were cards around like the Turtle Beach Tahiti in the early to mid > 1990's which were much better, the latencies you could achieve were not > really low enough to be monitoring directly from the DAW. Yes, but those where the times before it became common to use amp- simulators and record your dry guitar through them. That's what I've been doing for the last few years, so of course low latency was a must. And it already was an issue as soon as VST soft-synths started appearing. But yes, like the GT-10 and my planned mixer indicate, I'll be reverting back to using more outboard gear again and will be using the outboard mixer for direct monitoring. Actually I started looking for a mixer, when just before my first post, I bought an old Bass POD via ebay. Switching cables becomes more and more of a hassle, so it's really time for a small mixer now. However I'll still be needing softsynths for drums and the occasional synth-sound, so latency will still stay an important point. [...routing and connection-suggestions] But if I could follow you correctly, you can't route each of the 8 to 12 input channels separately to a multi-I/O card with these budget mixers, right? > ASIO WDM method as above is the only way I know works for definite That's still some vague hope I have for my EWX. Before buying a new interface, I'll probably just get the new PC first and then see if by any chance Windows 7 has a standard WDM-driver that supports the EWX. Of course that's rather unlikely as it's not one of the common consumer and gamer's cards. BTW, nobody commented no the cheaper Yamaha mixers. What's your opinion on these? Since I'll finally abandon the USB audio idea, I guess something like the Yamaha MG-102 C should still be better than a Behringer unit, don't you think? Bye, Krid -- www.dirk-music.de
"Krid" <> wrote in message news:-berlin.de... > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:20:32 +0100, nickm wrote: > [...] >> Absolutely certain. I have a little Xenyx 2222FX mixer which I use for >> rehearsals with a couple of powered speakers for vocals and it came with >> a separate USB interface. It is stereo in and stereo out. It's OK to >> use as an interface for system sounds certainly and probably a bit more >> too. No MIDI though which most of the interfaces designed for use with >> a DAW do have. > > Ah, thanks for reminding me! I almost forgot MIDI, because I actually > take it for granted. That's another issue. As I need MIDI anyway I'm > pretty certain now that I'll just drop the whole USB audio idea and > simply go for a small and less expensive mixer. For the time being I'll > keep my good old EWX and with my next PC I'll rethink if I'll just get a > new 2-in/2-out card with MIDI or maybe this time a multi-I/O, which would > be the Delta 1010LT. Perhaps something like the Edirol UA-25 which looks quite a neat interface would do what you want. > > [...] > >> OK - in the good old days, which I'm sure you'll remember as like me >> you've been around this NG for a long time - back in the time when >> Cubase VST was new (or even before it was a bubble in its dad's beer >> glass) and we were all using Windows 9x, (or possibly even Windows 3.11) >> a lot of people used SoundBlaster cards to get audio into their PCs. >> Low latency wasn't really viable for that type of setup, and although >> there were cards around like the Turtle Beach Tahiti in the early to mid >> 1990's which were much better, the latencies you could achieve were not >> really low enough to be monitoring directly from the DAW. > > Yes, but those where the times before it became common to use amp- > simulators and record your dry guitar through them. That's what I've been > doing for the last few years, so of course low latency was a must. > > And it already was an issue as soon as VST soft-synths started appearing. Agreed - definitely, but there are ways around it if you positively had to find a workaround. The ideal is to monitor the guitar with FX but to actually record it dry so that you can change your mind about how it sounds later using a VST plugin, which is what you would probably be doing no matter what interface you use. Obviously you couln't monitor the effected signal via the computer but with some clever signal splitting before. Similarly depending on the MIDI keyboard you have, you could simply monitor what you're playing using a similar in-built sound as you'd simply be recording MIDI instructions. It would definitely be a P.I.T.A. but posible nevertheless > > But yes, like the GT-10 and my planned mixer indicate, I'll be reverting > back to using more outboard gear again and will be using the outboard > mixer for direct monitoring. Actually I started looking for a mixer, when > just before my first post, I bought an old Bass POD via ebay. Switching > cables becomes more and more of a hassle, so it's really time for a small > mixer now. Yes - definitely more convenient > > However I'll still be needing softsynths for drums and the occasional > synth-sound, so latency will still stay an important point. Did you mention you use Groove Agent. On playback any softsynths will keep pace with recorded audio output and Cubase compensates on the positioning of any new stuff being recorded. > > > [...routing and connection-suggestions] > > But if I could follow you correctly, you can't route each of the 8 to 12 > input channels separately to a multi-I/O card with these budget mixers, > right? Depends on the mixer. If like the Xenyx 2222FX there is an FX insert point on every channel, you can use as many of them that you have available to tap each channel's pr-fade audio chain to send a signal to each input on your audio interface, so yes you can. The little mixers with a single FX send for the whole mixer won't work like this though - although you could almost certainly open one up to perform a mod on each channel to give you pre-fade outputs, but that would be a bit OTT unless you actually had an old mixer at hand and needed to press it into service to save some money. > > >> ASIO WDM method as above is the only way I know works for definite > > That's still some vague hope I have for my EWX. Before buying a new > interface, I'll probably just get the new PC first and then see if by any > chance Windows 7 has a standard WDM-driver that supports the EWX. Of > course that's rather unlikely as it's not one of the common consumer and > gamer's cards. > > > > BTW, nobody commented no the cheaper Yamaha mixers. What's your opinion > on these? Since I'll finally abandon the USB audio idea, I guess > something like the Yamaha MG-102 C should still be better than a > Behringer unit, don't you think? I don't actually know anything much about the cheaper Yamaha mixer range - I've never looked at any in the flesh. Sorry. But that said, any mixer with pre fade FX insert points on each channel could be used as I explained before. Direct recording outputs on any desk you look at would be the best option, but probably at a price premium. Yamaha stuff is usually reasonable quality at the cheaper end, so I think you'd be OK to consider Yamaha - but Phil W thought the same about Alesis, so there is obviously no guarantee. Every company is capable of producing a 'lemon' > > > Bye, > Krid > > -- > www.dirk-music.de >
Hi nickm! Thanks for your input again. Just yesterday I bought a Yamaha MG102C and everything's connected and set up now. I think it's a decent mixer, though the knobs feel a bit cheap, too. [...] > > Agreed - definitely, but there are ways around it if you positively had > to find a workaround. The ideal is to monitor the guitar with FX but to > actually record it dry so that you can change your mind about how it > sounds later using a VST plugin, which is what you would probably be > doing no matter what interface you use. Obviously you couln't monitor > the effected signal via the computer but with some clever signal > splitting before. Similarly depending on the MIDI keyboard you have, you > could simply monitor what you're playing using a similar in-built sound > as you'd simply be recording MIDI instructions. It would definitely be > a P.I.T.A. but posible nevertheless Yes, but like you wrote, those workarounds aren't really that comfortable. Switching back and forth between low latency for recording MIDI softsynths and high latency for safely recording audio is also an option, but all this interferes with a comfortable workflow that keeps you focused on your ideas rather than the software. > Did you mention you use Groove Agent. On playback any softsynths will > keep pace with recorded audio output and Cubase compensates on the > positioning of any new stuff being recorded. No, I don't use Groove Agent. For drums and occasionally some sampled sounds I still use a VST instrument called "VSampler", written by one semi-commercial guy and still very useful for its money. Though I'm not a keyboarder and everything needs heavy quantizing and editing for corrections, I nevertheless prefer to *record* drums and synths rather than step-programming them. So I need low latency for VSTi playback. > Depends on the mixer. If like the Xenyx 2222FX there is an FX insert > point on every channel, you can use as many of them that you have > available to tap each channel's pr-fade audio chain to send a signal to > each input on your audio interface, so yes you can. [...] > I don't actually know anything much about the cheaper Yamaha mixer range > - I've never looked at any in the flesh. Sorry. But that said, any > mixer with pre fade FX insert points on each channel could be used as I > explained before. Direct recording outputs on any desk you look at > would be the best option, but probably at a price premium. OK. Well the MG102C only has such inserts on the first two mono channels. None of the entry-level budget mixers seem to have more. Apart from price, size was also a concern for me. None of the bigger mixers would have fitted on my desk anymore. > Yamaha stuff > is usually reasonable quality at the cheaper end, so I think you'd be OK > to consider Yamaha - but Phil W thought the same about Alesis, so there > is obviously no guarantee. Every company is capable of producing a > 'lemon' I think the small MG102C I bought is a good choice for my needs. The important part is that I didn't spend any additional money on USB connectivity, that I would most likely have been disappointed by anyway. The only thing I really miss are mute buttons for the channels. But none of the other mixers of similar size had them either. By setting levels on the outboard gear itself and by using the additional gain knob on some channels, I've adjusted recording levels so that each channel's level knob is at a clearly memorizable position. So when turning unused channels down during recording, I'll hopefully be able to always set them back to the original volume between different takes. Slight lack of comfort there, but a bigger mixer would have been too bulky. Bye and thanks again for all your comments, Krid. -- www.dirk-music.de
