Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Compatibility

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-26-2018, 11:25 AM   #41
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 25,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
That's just your opinion and not based upon any facts and just demonstrates your lack of understanding of Open Source code.
Some opinions are more informed than others and there is plenty of evidence that A4A != RME drivers. I work in both OSS and proprietary and I've seen and dealt with horror stories on both sides of that fence without question. But if that's your argument then A4A needs to up their game since they are still far behind RME in the driver stack game. No dog in this OSS fight, don't care really, just wanted to point out that trying to make Behringer the same as RME is just technically incorrect and that manufacturers that do support drivers long term are better than those who don't.

Get the Behringer, you can certainly make plenty of music with it so I don't see the problem here. They are certainly better than they were in the 90s.
__________________
Clever is not the same as good, clever is from the head, good is from the heart. -Benmont Tench

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-26-2018 at 11:33 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:26 AM   #42
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
The entire RME range runs the current drivers...

My FF400 is over ten years old, and uses the latest driver.
Cyrano seems to understand where I'm going with all this. Regardless if Behringer has been a contributor to ASIO4ALL, using open source is in our best interests and not just about developers relinquishing their responsibility.

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=213491

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
It's not as black-and-white as you seem to think.

An example outside of coding. A few years back, graphene was invented. The scientists who created it, put it in the public domain to keep it out of the hands of the corporate patent sharks. These were threatening the inventors even before the knowledge was released.

The same can be applied to open source. Release it and use that as proof you are the author and you created it and released it that day.

Years ago, I was involved in a software project that was brilliant and could have been saved if it had been released as open source. Now, it's gone because the company behind it went broke. The people who took over had no interest in the code, so they simply ignored it. Since then, I've seen it happen a number of times.
So I will put a preference towards supporting companies using open source code, in this case ASIO4ALL over proprietary ASIO drivers.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:31 AM   #43
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Just like any other company, there are no guarantees RME will continue to stay in business and continue to make audio interfaces.
There is always some risk...

At the same time you want invest $300 + $300 into companies which obsolete interfaces, no longer advance nor bug fix drivers without cancelling own activities and even continue building new interfaces. They sell interfaces for $300 and not for $600 planing IN ADVANCE they do not have to support them (and several times at the end of interface life it become public that the hardware/software was developed not by own team but subcontracted... f.e. older Tascam interfaces)

An interesting conclusion, sorry I do not understand that logic

Quote:
You speak of ASIO4ALL in regards to Behringer as if it's a bad thing and being a software engineer, I'm kind of surprised by this since you seem to be lacking the insight benefits.
Opposite. Being a software engineer I clearly understand what ASIO4ALL is and what it is not. It is NOT a hardware audio interface driver.
BTW in most cases ASIO4ALL was useful before, WASAPI works better now.
But WASAPI is still not ASIO in terms of simplicity (for developers). Apple has Core Audio, but MS is not on the same level (at least not yet).

Quote:
I will also point you to a successful example that is taking that same approach. As a software developer I'm sure you've heard of Google with their Android OS correct? Isn't that what the Android OS paradigm is really about?
Android is heavily reworked Linux kernel (with several reasons it is not merged into main stream) + Java machine + libraries + applications. Almost all hardware related code for particular devices has closed source. An interesting approach for mobile and embedded devices, what make it strong when used as intended make it weak for let say normal computers.
But I do not think all that is relevant in this thread.

Quote:
So from my viewpoint, I see Behringer being much more innovative than RME
So far Behringer has shown it is good in acquiring brands, replicating good solutions and selling the result for cheap. Do you have links to any own innovations from that company?


I also wish RME could write open source drivers, at least for Linux. But I guess they worry "Copyface" can appear shortly after the source is released. There was already some curiosity with ALVA

REAPER is also closed source, no?
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:34 AM   #44
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Some opinions are more informed than others and there is plenty of evidence that A4A isn't = RME drivers. I work in OSS and proprietary and I've seen and dealt with horror stories on both sides of that fence without question. But if that's your argument then A4A needs to up their game since they are still far behind RME in the driver stack game. No dog in this fight, don't care really, just wanted to point out that trying to make Behringer the same as RME is just technically incorrect and that manufacturers that do support drivers long term are better than those who don't.

Get the Behringer, you can certainly make plenty of music with it so I don't see the problem here.
I'm with you. There are definitely pros and cons for each. Thus, the reason I started this thread to find out prior to making a purchase decision. I think it's ridiculous that I even have to have a discussion related to driver support in the 1st place for an audio interface. I have no doubts RME makes good drivers. I mentioned that in my initial pro/cons list as one of the pros for the RME devices, so I didn't ever say Behringer made better or comparable drivers. You're just stating what I have already stated at the beginning of this discussion. Echo audio also made good drivers I've used in the past and were in the game just prior to RME entering it. I've been around the block a few times, I've seen how the story how these things tend to play out over the long hall. If you look at my join date of this forum, you'll see I go back a long way with Reaper from its initial conception.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:39 AM   #45
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 25,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
So I will put a preference towards supporting companies using open source code, in this case ASIO4ALL over proprietary ASIO drivers.
I would support that but if some company builds an interface from scratch, then writes the drivers for that device from scratch, the term proprietary becomes a term unrelated to the technical advantages of doing so. There is nothing about RME drivers that has anything to do with anything but RME hardware working properly - that's not proprietary vs OSS, it's special purpose vs generic. Once you go generic, you by definition inhibit what you could do by concentrating on a single design.
__________________
Clever is not the same as good, clever is from the head, good is from the heart. -Benmont Tench

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-26-2018 at 11:45 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:43 AM   #46
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 25,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
I'm with you. There are definitely pros and cons for each. Thus, the reason I started this thread to find out prior to making a purchase decision. I think it's ridiculous that I even have to have a discussion related to driver support in the 1st place for an audio interface. I have no doubts RME makes good drivers.
All good, I'm for all of it, OSS, proprietary etc. but as I mentioned in what I just posted... I just think that when I (for example, I don't actually make interfaces LOL) could write my drivers for my hardware, I can do better because I don't have to be generic and deal with "any old thing" someone else slaps together - that especially annoying if I (again an example) wanted to make things as good as I can, but I have to dilute that to satisfy someone else who really doesn't care because they just want to make the sale. Many manufacturers who essentially rebrand hardware and use class-compliant drivers are doing just that, trying to profit from a market they don't have the expertise to be in.

Take care.
__________________
Clever is not the same as good, clever is from the head, good is from the heart. -Benmont Tench
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 11:46 AM   #47
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azslow3 View Post

REAPER is also closed source, no?
Justin Frankel the owner of Reaper is one of the biggest supporters of Open Source code. So are you kidding me? Reaper is closed source due to the other closed source "proprietary" crap which has been brought into Reaper such as Rewire, VST, and ASIO.

http://www.davidkushner.com/article/...angerous-geek/
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 12:05 PM   #48
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Justin Frankel the owner of Reaper is one of the biggest supporters of Open Source code. So are you kidding me? Reaper is closed source due to the other closed source "proprietary" crap which has been brought into Reaper such as Rewire, VST, and ASIO.

http://www.davidkushner.com/article/...angerous-geek/
VST and ASIO are open source
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 12:26 PM   #49
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azslow3 View Post
VST and ASIO are open source
Yet with ASIO being open source, no one has released code for it so multiple ASIO devices can be used simultaneously like can be done with ASIO4ALL?

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-26-2018 at 12:47 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 12:48 PM   #50
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Yet with ASIO being open source, no one has released code for it so multiple ASIO devices can used simultaneously like can be done with ASIO4ALL?
1. Open source does not mean "not proprietary".
2. ASIO4ALL does not allow to use multiple (not even single!) device throw ASIO driver. It allows aggregate several devices throw WDM driver into one device accessible throw ASIO API from user land software (DAW).
3. There are other aggregation solutions, f.e. https://www.audinate.com/products/so...tual-soundcard


To stay a bit on topic and related to (2). Without World Clock and with digital connection in your setup, DBX is going to be the clock master throw S/PDIF. By itself that does not mean things will work bad, there is high probability the interface you choose can deal with that. But to be on safe side, choose the interface which support World Clock. In this case you can synchronize the rest from it and that is originally intended way for syncronization.
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 01:07 PM   #51
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Yet with ASIO being open source, no one has released code for it so multiple ASIO devices can be used simultaneously

seasonal greetingzz- well maybe steinberg still own rights to anything developed with asio or vst techno... licenses etcetc...> https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/technologies.html
it does seem kinda odd jf+co seem to be orientated towards open sources-yet their softwares remain closed...multimillionair,or not? heh

cockos could write their own uniques drivers to go with their unique softwares,that could have gone with their own unique hardware interfacings-- but, they do not! -currently..
a lot of hardware interfacing manufacturers actually give away free softywares with their sound cards/usb devices these days-- things like pro_foolz lite_ abelnot and what not... so users kinda stick with what they were 1st introduced to making music with more often,than not... right?
if cockos done the same ^ -it would not only introduce many more custu moars-but they could actually rule the roost and sing like a bird as intended!!
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 01:30 PM   #52
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
seasonal greetingzz- well maybe steinberg still own rights to anything developed with asio or vst techno... licenses etcetc...>
That was my assumption and what the irony of my question was pointing towards. To call something Open Source without knowing the licensing restrictions behind it is really misleading. Thus my thinking is that if it were truly open source with a LGNL, GNU, or even MIT license behind it, it seems someone would have developed and released code by now for it which addressed the initial concept problems currently associated with ASIO such as the single device limitation.

I will need someone to point me to the location of the ASIO source code along with the available associated licenses before I start to believe it is open source in the truest sense of the definition.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 01:40 PM   #53
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
I will need someone to point me to the location of the ASIO source code along with the available associated licenses before I start to believe it is open source in the truest sense of the definition.

^ello-well you can visit both ms windoze sdk +steinberg sdk pages to gather more info--oh+ you will probably also need to visit your national patents pages..
true open source-comes by 0 agreements=truth be told.
propellerheads softwares make their own brand of plugins not unlike vst,but rack extension techno..2 flips of the same coin tbmh..<still using asio tech though.

as soon you agree to anything- you enter a contract of some kind...
the only way around all this is if: a company like cockos created everything from scratch-- the operating system+the audio hardware+audio software/drivers,and made users not agree to any contracting of any kinds.
payments need not come in fake notes or promises-payments can come with humility,honesty,compassion,passion,grattitudes+ global co_operations.

dunno.
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 02:09 PM   #54
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
That was my assumption and what the irony of my question was pointing towards. To call something Open Source without knowing the licensing restrictions behind it is really misleading. Thus my thinking is that if it were truly open source with a LGNL, GNU, or even MIT license behind it, it seems someone would have developed and released code by now for it which addressed the initial concept problems currently associated with ASIO such as the single device limitation.

I will need someone to point me to the location of the ASIO source code along with the available associated licenses before I start to believe it is open source in the truest sense of the definition.
Open source is one thing. The license is another. Note that GNU GPL v3 is extreme restrictive license... For example you can not use any source with such license together with many other open source licenses (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html) nor with ANY non open source licenses.

And sure, everything you do you provide for free... If not, why you think everything done by programmers should be "free"?

Also note that combining different interfaces in practice is rarely useful. In such case they should be externally synchronized and aggregation introduce unavoidable latency in case there is any inter-operations between IN/OUTs from different devices. When people do not care about these 2 restrictions and ready to accept software sample rate matching, there is no need for ASIO.

ASIO and VST sources/licenses: https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/developers.html
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 02:30 PM   #55
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Well, Santa Claus just dropped this stuff off at my front door. Time to get busy building a couple racks to put this stuff into. I'll have to install those drivers as well and try this Behringer out.



Thanks for all the tips.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 02:38 PM   #56
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azslow3 View Post
Open source is one thing. The license is another. Note that GNU GPL v3 is extreme restrictive license... For example you can not use any source with such license together with many other open source licenses (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html) nor with ANY non open source licenses.

And sure, everything you do you provide for free... If not, why you think everything done by programmers should be "free"?

Also note that combining different interfaces in practice is rarely useful. In such case they should be externally synchronized and aggregation introduce unavoidable latency in case there is any inter-operations between IN/OUTs from different devices. When people do not care about these 2 restrictions and ready to accept software sample rate matching, there is no need for ASIO.

ASIO and VST sources/licenses: https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/developers.html
Yeah, your posts are becoming useless and hostile at the same time. Nowhere did I say programmers should work for free. If that's what you read into my actually statements, then it's obvious you have nothing useful to offer since you are unable to read or having a constructive conversation. I requested to see the actual ASIO source code and it's associated license since those are the items associated with "open source" code and you were the one who said they're open source but instead you decided to post a link to the various available open source licenses and the link to the Steinberg SDK site which contains neither. An SDK and Open source are not the same, you should be ashamed to call yourself a software engineer if you think they are. Again you're just showing you have nothing useful to provide since you are unable to distinguish the difference between an SDK and Open Source code. In other words, since communications with actual human beings seems to challenging for you, it's time for you to go piss off and go troll someone else.

Oh...and have a happy new year!

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-26-2018 at 02:57 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:11 PM   #57
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 745
Default

I have tried to answer on question you have asked. Politely and with references. Sorry if something could be interpreted differently.

Please do not worry, I will never disturb you again. I have already understood that is useless and just wasting my time.
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:12 PM   #58
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,644
Default

A lot of confusion here...

Open source means that the source is available for everyone to see. Nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't necessarily mean "free", nor "gratis". And it hasn't got much to do with specific licenses either. Open source software can be commercial and have a very limiting license. Or it can be gratis, free and unlicensed, eg public domain. And everything in between.

I know a lot of people associate "open source" with "gratis" but that's quite simply wrong. If you look at server or security software, you'll see a lot of it is open source, but not gratis. It's open source because it is derived from other open source software, or because of trust. How can you trust security software if you can't inspect the source?
__________________
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” Albert Einstein
cyrano is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:27 PM   #59
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
A lot of confusion here...

Open source means that the source is available for everyone to see. Nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't necessarily mean "free", nor "gratis". And it hasn't got much to do with specific licenses either. Open source software can be commercial and have a very limiting license. Or it can be gratis, free and unlicensed, eg public domain. And everything in between.

I know a lot of people associate "open source" with "gratis" but that's quite simply wrong. If you look at server or security software, you'll see a lot of it is open source, but not gratis. It's open source because it is derived from other open source software, or because of trust. How can you trust security software if you can't inspect the source?
Thank you Cyrano....this is correct information. Like I stated an SDK and Open Source are completely different. An SDK provides developers the means to interface and communicate with existing source code. It is not the actual source code and the actual source code can not be modified by the 3rd party developer. Therefore calling ASIO open source and referencing the ASIO SDK is completely inaccurate.

Like you mentioned there are various licenses. A GPL v3 license requires the developers to share any changes to the actual source code and additionally requires the sharing of the code which interacts with that source code. An MIT license is different where it requires any changes to the actual source code to be shared, but allows developers to maintain proprietary aspects in not having to share code that interacts with the source code. So which type of license does the ASIO driver fall under? Neither! Because it's not Open Source code which is licensed under any of the available open source code licenses, it's an SDK where the actual code is often provided as a binary where the code the 3rd party developers write only interfaces with that binary code but does not alter the binary and the actual code is not provided to the 3rd party developers....it's not "open Source".

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-26-2018 at 03:37 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:36 PM   #60
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Like you mentioned there are various licenses. .

^heh-yep..you will be agreeing to quite a few by installing your new products!

looks like you have most all you need now to create music-why worry about anything todo with licensing,open sources or whatever if your making music?
that's the whole point your here..right?

time spent here- coulda been a rack half done by now m8..
will there be a return to the forums here--> if you got--issues? !!
lolz--some people expect payments for simple advices-- it the way of the world eh.
what types of music are you looking at making ,or listening to with new kit?
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:57 PM   #61
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
^heh-yep..you will be agreeing to quite a few by installing your new products!

looks like you have most all you need now to create music-why worry about anything todo with licensing,open sources or whatever if your making music?
that's the whole point your here..right?

time spent here- coulda been a rack half done by now m8..
will there be a return to the forums here--> if you got--issues? !!
lolz--some people expect payments for simple advices-- it the way of the world eh.
what types of music are you looking at making ,or listening to with new kit?
I posted this earlier, but apparently others wanted to interject their non pertinent and inaccurate thoughts into the mix in regards to my interface choice. Apparently, I'm unable to make my own decisions and understand what would suit me best for my uses and budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Thanks! Exactly the info I was looking for where it sounds like the Behringer falls into that window. Now I just need to figure out how to determine latency once the one I purchased arrives.

Latency performance likely won't be a major factor for me. I'm mostly going to be using it for recording small YouTube video productions which will mainly be some VO recordings where the people I'm recording won't be monitoring themselves and I likely won't be doing any overdubbing. It's always good to know I should be covered either way.

As further background, my 7 y/o son started taking Karate classes, where the folks teaching the classes are doing volunteer work and his classes are only once a week and I suggested to the instructors that it would be nice if they had some Youtube vids where the kids could watch and use for practice throughout the week. I offered to volunteer my recording and editing services to put the videos together, where it seemed like a good opportunity for me to get back into recording.

So I'm currently working on putting a portable rack together which will include my DBX Mic-Pre channel strip processors, a patch bay and this Behringer audio interface to be able to do some onsite recording at the gym where the classes are held. Being rack mountable was one of the benefits which leaned me more towards the Behringer over the NI and Presonus options.

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-26-2018 at 04:05 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:07 PM   #62
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
I posted this earlier,

oh-sorry missed it..
fwiw-i used to do karate many years back when i was a wee lad-- the training provided me with years of strength,agility+confidence which reflected back into stuff i do todays--martial,or any other art> will surely teach focus+practice= glhf!
music requires these traits also^
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 06:52 AM   #63
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azslow3 View Post
I have tried to answer on question you have asked. Politely and with references. Sorry if something could be interpreted differently.

Please do not worry, I will never disturb you again. I have already understood that is useless and just wasting my time.
I apologize for being harsh. Your persistent pushing of the RME stuff was really starting to annoy me where it really seemed you were ignoring everything I stated.

All the things you mentioned I stated earlier in the discussion of knowing. I know RME makes great stuff. I know they support their drivers well and I also know about the downsides of Behringer. Here is my original pros and cons list I posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post

3. BEHRINGER U-PHORIA UMC1820
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EXI8Y9S...v_ov_lig_dp_it
+ Has Win10 supported drivers (4.38 released 3/18)
+ Seems like Behringer is supporting the product, but not efficiently.
+ Has coax s/pdif I/O
+ Within my budget (good value for what you get)
- Troubles getting drivers installed and setup
- It's a Behringer, can't trust the quality or functional reliability
- Sound quality reviews seem hit and miss.
- larger in size than I would prefer
- User complaints about ASIO Win 10 driver problems
Bonus item considerations
+ Has Midi connections
+ Additionally has optical Input and output for flexibility
+ Could rack mount it with DBX and TC devices

5. RME Babyface Pro
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XU0DYLE...v_ov_lig_dp_it
+ Has officially supported Win10 drivers (1.166 released 12/18)
+ RME driver support top notch
+ Sound quality reviews stellar.
+ Preferred size
- Doesn't have coax s/pdif I/O
- Has optical I/O requiring coax to optical converter
- Price double budget, not a good value hardware wise.
Bonus item considerations
- Single Midi connection?
At the end of the day it boiled down to price and how it would fit my specific needs. You seem to have been ignoring what I will be primarily using the device for and substituting them for your own personal preferences. I'm mainly looking for a S/PDIF interface and spending $600 while planning on recording a single non monitored voice over track seems WAY over priced for my needs. If it lasts from now until the end of time and even has 0mS latency was just not high on my priority list for what I needed. Pretty much everything you outlined about Behringer and RME was listed in my Pros and Cons above and I even mentioned prior that if the RME was even in the same ball park price wise, it would have been near the top of my list. I'm purchasing this device to do "volunteer" work and I also have a family to support. Purchasing a $600 sound interface device for the need of having a S/PDIF input just was not in the cards, my wife would have killed me. I'm envious you don't have those same kind of responsibilities and can afford to be more frugal and shell out $600 to do volunteer work. I've had that luxury in the past when I owned and ran my own recording studio, so I understand your viewpoint. Those are just not the shoes I'm wearing today. The Behringer was rack mountable, which I decided would fit my setup better, it has a COAX S/PDIF input, and it has a driver which seems to be working on Windows10 setups for others and I found one at a great price of $224 brand new. That entire stack of equipment I posted cost me less than the cost of a Babyface Pro. For "me" and my intended uses, I could have gotten the same benefits for my needs by using the Sound Devices USBPre I already own and installing the available 3rd party drivers as I would have from the Babyface Pro. Actually, I would have gotten more benefits from the USBPre, since it has an actual Coax s/pdif input and wouldn't require a separate coax to optical adapter. It was the rack mount feature of the Behringer which convinced me to spend the additional $224 and knowing it had more capabilities "if" I ever needed them, although I may not ever even need to use them.

I understand you were just trying to be helpful, but if you don't seem to be listening to someone and their specific needs the assistance tends to get lost and becomes annoying noise.

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-27-2018 at 07:35 AM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 07:45 AM   #64
WyattRice
Human being with feelings
 
WyattRice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,914
Default

Hi Rednroll.

Thanks for all the info.

I'm in a similar situation, and all I really need is a spdif input to record two channels from a mic pre (API A2D) that has digital out.
I mostly record at 44.1, but sometimes I might need 88.2 or 96.

I have an Avid mbox 3 thingy, but when using the spdif input, it only sees two sample rates. 48 or 96. It won't do 44.1 or 88.2

Now that you have the Behringer, if your change the sample rate on your Dbx 376 (and spdif is the master clock?), does the Behringer see the change as well, from 44.1 to 96?

Many thanks,
Wyatt
WyattRice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 08:39 AM   #65
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattRice View Post
Hi Rednroll.

Thanks for all the info.

I'm in a similar situation, and all I really need is a spdif input to record two channels from a mic pre (API A2D) that has digital out.
I mostly record at 44.1, but sometimes I might need 88.2 or 96.

I have an Avid mbox 3 thingy, but when using the spdif input, it only sees two sample rates. 48 or 96. It won't do 44.1 or 88.2

Now that you have the Behringer, if your change the sample rate on your Dbx 376 (and spdif is the master clock?), does the Behringer see the change as well, from 44.1 to 96?

Many thanks,
Wyatt
I'll have to get back to you on this in a few days. Before I get elbows deep into this setup, my next step was to build a couple rack mount cases. I was looking into purchasing rack mount cases but I found they were kind of expensive and I would need to modify them for what I wanted to do anyways, so I've decided to just go ahead and build the racks myself instead which will obviously take some time to build and wire them up but will give me exactly what I want to do. One of the things I wanted to do was to mount some XLR mic input connectors onto the side or back of the rack case. That way I could plug mics into those XLR connections on the rack and run the wires to the DBX 48 patch bay, and then use the patch bay to connect to either the DBX 376, 286A, 286S, or Behringer Mic Pres by using patch cables.

For the immediate time I had originally planned to just install the driver and test out the Behringer to ensure it was working well and decide if I need to return it or not. However, since you requested and it would also be a good test for my setup as well, I'll connect the DBX 376 digital out to the Behringer and include that in my tests and let you know what I find.

From past experiences on my setups and interfaces, digital input connections just required you to set the clock source to external in the sound device settings so it was using the source clock, in this case the 376. I also mainly record at 44.1 sample rate as well. LOL! I don't even recall if my 376 supports higher sample rates but will definitely let you know.

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-27-2018 at 09:39 AM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 08:54 AM   #66
WyattRice
Human being with feelings
 
WyattRice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
I'll connect the DBX 376 digital out to the Behringer and include that in my tests and let you know what I find.
Thanks!
WyattRice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 09:20 AM   #67
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattRice View Post
Thanks!
Just checked on the 376...I have it stored away currently. It has 44.1, 48, 88.2, and 96 sample rate selections, as well as 16,20, and 24 bit depth selections.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 10:21 AM   #68
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

ey-well it looks like ya coulda got a cheaper deal @dv247 (and asked for simon.spel. !)
https://www.dv247.com/en_GB/GBP/Behr...PCM0014077-000
oh-dollar$ not gbp-doh

did you happen to look @ this also? > https://www.dv247.com/en_GB/GBP/Behr...PCM0008615-000
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:44 AM   #69
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
did you happen to look @ this also? > https://www.dv247.com/en_GB/GBP/Behr...PCM0008615-000
Interesting! I was originally looking for a simple Coax S/PDIF to USB interface and didn't stumble across that one or find any that didn't have anything more than a standard MS Sound Mapper driver. Now you point this one out, I likely would have gotten that instead.

Although looking at the description it seems to indicate MS sound Mapper driver as well.
"Works with your PC or Mac computer—no setup or drivers required". Also it doesn't have balanced analog outs to connect to my studio amp for monitoring. I needed that for editing and mixing purposes. I probably could have run unbalanced outs to my amp via the headphone jack in a pinch. Oh well, I'll bookmark it as a reference for later if ever needed. Thanks for bringing it to my awareness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
ey-well it looks like ya coulda got a cheaper deal @dv247 (and asked for simon.spel. !)
https://www.dv247.com/en_GB/GBP/Behr...PCM0014077-000
oh-dollar$ not gbp-doh
Looks close to what I ended up paying. Factor in shipping costs, and I'm sure it would have been more.
https://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?...USD&amount=161

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-27-2018 at 12:06 PM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:54 AM   #70
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

lolz-- ahgg ..dealing time can be a pita (looking for ways to bend the light)
haste makes waste. heh--- might even grab a couple myself,,never tried them.. driverless- spdif--
hmm.. cheap sometimes is ok,or even better in some ways!
like,some people actually used to prefere 10bit sampling etcetc--lower than 44.1k recordings can still sound pretty wikkid!!

oh-shipping costs? thought they also had an online/american store..no?
if i go to local uk website-1st thing it does is try to redirect me to usa branches...dunno.
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 01:21 PM   #71
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
kid!!

oh-shipping costs? thought they also had an online/american store..no?
if i go to local uk website-1st thing it does is try to redirect me to usa branches...dunno.
Looks UK based only. London and Cologne locations. I found an affiliate store in Germany with a cheaper price...LOL!
https://www.musicstore.de/en_US/USD/...EM0000dekl2-fo

Closest we have to that is Guitar Center or Sam Ash in the U.S. where their prices were higher than I got it.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 03:59 PM   #72
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

heh- it may be easier than carting around a big rack of processors!!
some of the finalizers are nice too i hear..
beware of imports though: >had a really long wait for a product to return from manufacture fault repairs in japan recently-- took over 6weeks.. :/
^that^ almost crushed any enthusiasm originally had for product!
hope you grab some decent recordings.
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:44 PM   #73
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri1 View Post
heh- it may be easier than carting around a big rack of processors!!
Yeah, I've been going back and forth with myself of what to include in the portable rack. I'm currently planning on building 2 racks where one will be portable and the other stationary and left in my studio. I'll have a patch bay strip on both of the racks and plan to use those to inter connect the racks for my studio setup.

I think I'm leaning towards the setup I have outlined below which should make building the racks easier since they will be the same size (6U). So when I get to cutting wood, it will all be the same cuts, times 2.

What I keep debating with myself over is that I keep asking myself, "Do I need to have any reverb units in the portable rack?". For now, I'm leaning towards "No I don't" to keep the size/weight down.

So the plan is that RACK1 will be my portable setup, and RACK2 is what can be left back at the ranch and shouldn't be needed.

RACK 1 (6U) [Portable & studio record]
1U- DBX 376 Tube mic-pre channel strip
1U- DBX 286A mic-pre channel strip
1U- DBX 286S mic-pre channel strip
1U- Behringer UMC1820 audio interface
2U- Drawer (cable,mic&headphone storage)
---------------------------------------
1U- DBX PB48 patch bay (Back mount)
1U- Power Strip (Back mount)
2U- (7)XLR Mic input connectors (Back mount)

RACK 2 (6U)[Studio Monitor stationary]
1U- TC Finalizer multiband compressor
1U- Lexicon MX400 dual fx unit
1U- Lexicon MPX100 reverb unit
1U- DBX 215S 15band 2CH graphic EQ
2U- Haffler 2ch amp
--------------------------------------
1U- DBX PB48 patch bay (Back mount)
1U- Power Strip (Back mount)

Last edited by Rednroll; 12-28-2018 at 12:41 AM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 09:50 AM   #74
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
What I keep debating with myself over is that I keep asking myself, "Do I need to have any reverb units in the portable rack?". For now, I'm leaning towards "No I don't" to keep the size/weight down.

^totally agree with no verb-- your already getting the most natural room reverb in the spaces your in. > artificial reverb is usually well over cooked/applied by users anyways,as people like to emphasize such things!!
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 10:21 AM   #75
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
The entire RME range runs the current drivers...

My FF400 is over ten years old, and uses the latest driver.
The original MOTU 896 is 18 years old now and runs with their current driver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
It boils down to audio interfaces have a limited shelf life...
The notion that hardware like this has a limited life and is disposable and that planned obsolescence via software is unavoidable... Don't buy stuff from grifters!

Last edited by serr; 01-01-2019 at 10:27 AM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2019, 09:02 AM   #76
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
The original MOTU 896 is 18 years old now and runs with their current driver.
Good to know since I own a MOTU midi interface which I haven't used in the past 15 years. When it comes time for me to connect that back up, I'll let you know how it all goes when it comes to installing their 32bit drivers for it on my Win10 64bit OS machine....oh but wait, it has a parallel port interface connection since when I originally purchased it, that was the most common standard interface connection for midi interfaces. Odd how I haven't received a Parallel port to USB adapter from MOTU in the mail or haven't seen them make one available for their older parallel port interface devices. Maybe I should have purchased a 896 way back when? The one which has Firewire interface connections? Hasn't Apple moved on to lightning connections or is it Thunderbolt and are no longer supporting Firewire? I know my current Windows machine doesn't support Firewire and not really interested in trying out USB to Firewire adapters. Kind of seeming like I may have of had the same issues if I had gotten the 896.

It's a good thing MOTU posted a support article to let me know how to install my MOTU parallel port Midi interface on Windows XP. I hope it still applies today for Windows 10 x64. Unsure since the article seems a bit outdated.
http://motu.com/techsupport/technote...-18.2083364902

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
The notion that hardware like this has a limited life and is disposable and that planned obsolescence via software is unavoidable... Don't buy stuff from grifters!
Some people tend to act like they're smarter than others when hindsight is 20/20 and luck has seemed to fallen their way. Maybe you could tell me what the standard audio interface connector will be 20 years from now and when all the OSes decide to move to a 128bit OS and provide a list of devices available today which will have 128bit drivers for them? Now that would be pretty useful but it seems to me that you're kind of missing the point of my statement that you quoted.

Last edited by Rednroll; 01-04-2019 at 10:36 AM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2019, 09:23 AM   #77
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Some people tend to act like they're smarter than others when hindsight is 20/20 and luck has seemed to fallen their way.
Well, I sure picked well with MOTU on that one!
That was good luck. Always good luck to find a reliable company!

Protools seemed like pretty good luck to have bought into back in the day too! Until 2009 when they fell apart at the seams anyway. Hindsight on that one isn't looking so great today!

Reaper? Yep. Feeling pretty smart again!


Apologies if I read too much into your statement! To justify a grifter-like SOP around planned obsolescence is what I wanted to quip about. This doesn't require hindsight. I'll drop my favorite company in an instant when I see this behavior take over. Like Apple for example. I may not be the smartest one in class but I know that planned obsolescence is intentionally dishonest and I know not to believe a single word from any company peddling such bs.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2019, 11:00 AM   #78
Rednroll
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post

Apologies if I read too much into your statement! To justify a grifter-like SOP around planned obsolescence is what I wanted to quip about. This doesn't require hindsight. I'll drop my favorite company in an instant when I see this behavior take over. Like Apple for example. I may not be the smartest one in class but I know that planned obsolescence is intentionally dishonest and I know not to believe a single word from any company peddling such bs.
I made the statement earlier that standard interface connections change and so do the OSes which none of the interface developers have any control over. That was really the point I was making and the reason these interface devices tend to become obsolete. Now I agree, the better companies such as MOTU and RME tend to do a better job on supporting and revising their drivers on their older devices to be compatible with the newer OS changes, but they still have no control over when Microsoft, Intel or Apple decide to change their interface standard connector, which is kind of my point with the MOTU devices.

My Echo Audio PCI express audio interface cards I own had great drivers and driver support. They were one of the 1st companies which had drivers which allowed you to purchase multiples of their audio interfaces where they would all be in sync and worked together thus allowing you to expand your I/O capabilities when your needs for more I/O expanded. I own (3) of those Echo Audio PCI express card devices which allowed me to have 18in/30out with my DAW via ASIO or WDM driver support. I'm currently having a hard time figuring out a way to plug them into my laptop.

USB connections seems to be currently the most common interface connection. I find it odd that most of the interfaces out, they are only USB 2.0 compatible and not developed for USB 3.0. Seems they could benefit from the additional data bandwidth no? Maybe they're skipping straight to USB C or Apples latest supported interface connection?

Last edited by Rednroll; 01-04-2019 at 11:11 AM.
Rednroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2019, 11:58 AM   #79
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 25,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
I made the statement earlier that standard interface connections change and so do the OSes which none of the interface developers have any control over.
Only for general clarity... no one (that I remember) who made the point that some manufacturers don't keep up with legacy gear/drivers is talking about ^that. It's a worthwhile point, just not the reason people are typically complaining about it.

It's about when the vendor has every ability to just update the drivers to the current OS but they choose not to. I have 'some' but not that much empathy for just moving on as it can be nearly impossible to keep updating software/hardware that hasn't been manufactured in years,. However, on multiple occasions I've helped end users literally hack installers to install a driver that didn't even need updating, the problem was they were shitty at building the installer by pre-limiting 'greater than' versions when they built the installer. So in all cases, any talk of manufacturers supporting gear it is specifically about what the can but don't support.

That said there's no need for us to get into the weeds on this, some want to buy an interface, it's in their best interest to know who and who doesn't support their devices/drivers for how long. Some manufacturers have a clear track record at doing so, others absolutely do not. There really isn't anything more to it than that. How's the Behringer working btw?
__________________
Clever is not the same as good, clever is from the head, good is from the heart. -Benmont Tench
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 12:04 PM   #80
dmcknight
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
Well, Santa Claus just dropped this stuff off at my front door. Time to get busy building a couple racks to put this stuff into. I'll have to install those drivers as well and try this Behringer out.



Thanks for all the tips.

Hey Red, how's the 1820 working for you? I'm about to buy one with a GC gift card and ran across this thread, while doing the same type of research you did.

Last edited by dmcknight; 01-08-2019 at 11:26 AM.
dmcknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.