Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
CPU Performance of USB sound cards
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  8 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
dE|_  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 2:14 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: "dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:14:34 -0000
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 2:14 am
Subject: CPU Performance of USB sound cards
In anybody's practical experience, do these outboard USB 'audio interfaces'
put more strain on the CPU & RAM than PCI cards?

If anybody has used an M-Audio Fast Track, I'd like to hear what you thought
of record/monitor latency.
(It's either that or their Delta 44 PCI card)

Cheers,

--
dE|_

PS I'm not taking that secure recording research any further but thanks a
bundle for all the input.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Mike Rivers  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 6:36 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:46 -0500
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 6:36 am
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

dE|_ wrote:
> In anybody's practical experience, do these outboard USB 'audio interfaces'
> put more strain on the CPU & RAM than PCI cards?

How would you measure "strain?" I doubt that anyone has, for example, ever
loaded up a project to the choking point with plug-ins when using a USB
interface,
then switched over to a PCI interface to see if it's better or worse.

In theory, there's more load on the "computer" with a USB interface
transferring
the same amount of audio data as a PCI interface because the USB bus needs
fairly constant attention whereas the PCI bus pretty much takes care of
itself. But
in practice, PCI audio interfaces by themselves don't seem to cause
problems.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Soundhaspriority  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 6:43 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:43:02 -0500
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 6:43 am
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

"dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:t3XIm.62485$y%.9272@newsfe29.ams2...
> In anybody's practical experience, do these outboard USB 'audio
> interfaces' put more strain on the CPU & RAM than PCI cards?

> If anybody has used an M-Audio Fast Track, I'd like to hear what you
> thought of record/monitor latency.
> (It's either that or their Delta 44 PCI card)

> Cheers,

First a comparison of USB and Firewire:

USB is a high CPU load, high latency interface.
Firewire is a low CPU load, low latency interface. Actually, it's zero load
with respect to the interface  itself; the visible load is the CPU cost of
moving the data elsewhere in the machine.
USB is half duplex, meaning it can transmit only in one direction at a time.
Firewire is full duplex, meaning it has full bandwidth in both directions at
once.

But since you asked about PCI: It has the lowest latency of any of the
established interfaces, lower than Firewire. Only PCI-e is lower.

PCI: best
Firewire: very good
USB: not acceptable for low latency applications.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
dE|_  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 6:49 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: "dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:49:36 -0000
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 6:49 am
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

"Mike Rivers" <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message

news:hd1ts6$ahu$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Okay should have said "Load" not "Strain". I don't buy PC Monthly mag.
You put your stamp on what myself and a buddy suspected, although doesn't
get spoken of in reviews.

You don't actually need that many plugins to make a PC fall on it's arse,
just bad handling of them. FL Studio 5 only takes about 5 Waves DX p-ins on
my machine before it starts stuttering. Cubase will do 12+ and not seen a
problem yet.

--
dE|_


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sean Conolly  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 4:07 pm
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: "Sean Conolly" <sjconolly...@yaaho.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:07:51 -0500
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards
"dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:j5%Im.109289$ei3.80496@newsfe22.ams2...

> You don't actually need that many plugins to make a PC fall on it's arse,
> just bad handling of them. FL Studio 5 only takes about 5 Waves DX p-ins
> on my machine before it starts stuttering. Cubase will do 12+ and not seen
> a problem yet.

That seems to be true with or without a USB interface. I use both PCI and
USB at diffrent times and the host seems to run out of gas at the same point
on both.

As far as Waves vs. VST, well all I use is VST and I was able to load a fair
number of EQs and effects on 12 tracks, even on an 1G P3 system.

Sean


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Alan  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 4:42 pm
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: Alan <ashu...@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:42:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

Note that PCI slots in motherboards are fast disappearing in favour of PCIe.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Mike Rivers  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 11:41 pm
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:41:28 -0500
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

Sean Conolly wrote:
> That seems to be true with or without a USB interface. I use both PCI and
> USB at diffrent times and the host seems to run out of gas at the same point
> on both.

That seems to jive with my experience - that modern computers have
plenty of
gas to run the I/O, even I/O that involves a fair amount of busy work.
It's the
number crunching that takes up the resources. That's why I suggested an
experiment
using plug-ins to load the computer, then see if different I/O hardware
made a difference.

And, yes, PCI slots are getting rare, particularly in store-bought
computers, though there
still seem to be built-it-yourself motherboards with at least one legacy
PCI slot and the
BIOS to accommodate it. We've been saying this may be the last
generation for the last
three or four generations (two years maybe) and they're still hanging in
there. Maybe
PCI cards will be like vacuum tubes - for some applications, there's
just no better
substitute.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
dE|_  
View profile  
 More options Nov 10, 3:03 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: "dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:03:51 -0000
Local: Tues, Nov 10 2009 3:03 am
Subject: Re: CPU Performance of USB sound cards

"Sean Conolly" <sjconolly...@yaaho.com> wrote in message

news:hd2vbc$9v8$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> "dE|_" <spambust...@websitefoundry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j5%Im.109289$ei3.80496@newsfe22.ams2...
>> You don't actually need that many plugins to make a PC fall on it's arse,
>> just bad handling of them. FL Studio 5 only takes about 5 Waves DX p-ins
>> on my machine before it starts stuttering. Cubase will do 12+ and not
>> seen a problem yet.

> That seems to be true with or without a USB interface. I use both PCI and
> USB at diffrent times and the host seems to run out of gas at the same
> point on both.

> As far as Waves vs. VST, well all I use is VST and I was able to load a
> fair number of EQs and effects on 12 tracks, even on an 1G P3 system.

> Sean

I've got a really old sound card, a Prodif Plus from the 90s but hung on to
it for it's ADAT connection with my 8-Track, not cheap. I've started
recording with Cubase now and it's just falling on it's arse. 2.8GHz P4 w/2G
RAM

There's 3 different ASIO drivers to pick from, one can accomodate loads of
plugins, even run Fruity Loops and the seriously cool Waves plugins but has
a shocking 625ms total latency!! Driver with lowest monitor latency of 20ms
stutters with plugins so it comes down to a driver switch and disable/enable
plugins between record and mix.

Time to upgrade I think.

--
dE|_


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google