EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Post here if you are having problems with audio or MIDI hardware within forte

Moderator: MikeG

hisdudeness

EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:33 am

Dear all,

I just owned an EMU 1616m soundcard with the PCMCIA cardbus adapter. Now I'm struggeling a bit with the latency settings.

I get quite good results with a latency set to 10ms and buffers to 2 but here and there, especially when routing incoming audio signal through Forte I have some kind like "digital scratches/beeps" while playing. So I have a couple of questions:
- Is there anybody out there using also this soundcard and can recommend latency settings?
- I saw the knowledge tip to set the "use preferred Asio buffer size" to "1" in the options.ini but what is it about that "use preferred Asio buffers size" mode? Is it recommended to use with this kind of soundcard? Somehow the latency increases much more than using the standard settings while it doesn't feel so while playing. Also when increasing the buffer/latency size while not using this mode it doesn't seem to change much anything.

My knowledge here is not the best so I would be glad if someone could help me.

Thanks a lot!
Best regards
hisdudeness

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:50 am

Hi

I don't know that particular card, but the terms : scratches and beeps point to another sort of problem than buffersize settings and if this happens on incoming audio especially than there definitely is another problem.

My advice is to start troubleshooting the hardware first (cleaning contacts, checking cables), then look at the drivers and tweak the OS.

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:41 am

Hi Dirk,

I have these "stranges sounds" also without incoming audio signal, just fewer.

EDIT: Since I'm not an english native speaker I just found out that "glitches" seems to be the word here for that sound issue I'm facing.

Also: When playing my VST e.g. NI Akoustik Piano standalone and having incoming audio routed just by the EMU mixer application I don't have these issues.

My first thought was also if something is wrong with the soundcard/cabling but I was able to sort that reason out.

Thanks anyway for your help!

Best regards
hisdudeness

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:55 pm

Weird.

After two hours testing this evening I ended up with the settings 4ms and "use preferred asio buffer size" and the buffers set to auto.
The glitches are gone completely but I have still a very few moments when holding piano chords (NI AP) with the pedal for a long time that this will be cut. This doesn't happen when using the NI EP even with the largest samples. Also the issue with the NI AP doesn't happen when running NI AP in standalone mode and not within Forte.
The amount of buffers didn't made any changes at all. The latency settings did but just regarding the latency, not regarding the cut of the piano chords when held with the pedal.

I also faced a Win7 blue screen once when exiting Forte (the very first blue screen since using Forte and this Win7 install at all) and once while exiting Forte the message that the Preset manager is not the current version and will be replaced by the current one. I had to confirm this notification a couple of times until Forte exited.

I never had these issues with my old soundcard (ESI U46XL). There I was not running the "user preferred asio buffer size" mode and the latency was set to 12ms and the buffers to 4.
I'm really confused if I should send back the EMU 1616m now or not. On the one side the quality of the EMU sound and the possibilties with more I/Os, balanced I/Os, DSP effects etc. is very nice. Also the cardbus connection seems to be more reliable than the USB connection of the ESI U46 card.

Probably I will give the EMU a few weeks of running with the test system in some sessions with the band. But I thought that this EMU product which costs about 3 times of the ESI would not cause so much work.

I would really appreciate if there's any EMU 1616 user out there who could state that the EMU is working fine with Forte.

:x

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:48 am

As you might already know, blue screens are driver or hardware related. Application errors don't lead to blue screens.

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:59 am

Yes, I didn't want to blame Forte for that. I just tried to point out that I never had a blue screen before using the OLD soundcard. So I guess it's either soundcard driver related (EMU has published XP and Vista 32bit and 64bit drivers but no Win7 drivers so far so I'm using the Vista 32bit for my Win7 32bit install).
Or something else ;-)

Anyway I did another short test this morning since I found out that the NI AP comes with 16bit and 24bit samplesets for each piano model. My old soundcard was 16bit/44100 and the EMU is 24bit/44100. So I changed the sampleset and it seems to be ok.

Thanks!
hisdudeness

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:07 am

Hey, how's the EMU 1616m doing? I laid my hands upon a rather ancient Thinkpad, and managed to run my stage rack on it using ASIO4All, now I'm considering adding a cardbus audio interface and someone has a 1616m for sale which is more in my current price league that the RME stuff, which doesn't have any onboard mic pre's anyway. How's the latency? Still having blue screens (I'll be running XP Pro sp3 so the driver compatibility is not an issue)? Othe question: are the line inputs usable as discrete mono channels in forte, or are we stuck with 2 stereo pairs?

Thanks!
Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:59 am

Hi Dirk!

The EMU is doing fine! Now I`m using it with Win7 32 and 64bit and the latency is set to 4ms in the EMU Asio control panel which ends up in something around 15ms in Forte with 2 buffers set and the mark set to use preffered Asio buffer size (you can`t run that EMU card without that setting).

Regarding the inputs: You can use always either the mono channel or two channels in stereo, it`s up to you.

I like that system very much because:
- I can configure/prepare my rack without having anything else (keyboards etc) connect except the cardbus card. All midi ports are there, even a headphone jack so that you can prelisten sounds and prepare a lot of things (e.g. travelling in a train).
- the latency, dynamics and quality of the signal is great, no volume issues on stage, no DI boxes anymore since the breakout box has TRS jacks.
- I can use it for my personal submix with a FOH signal and you can easily define what should be routed to the headphone jack and what not.

Ok, you have to put the breakout box somewhere on stage (mine is mounted under my masterkeyboard to the left so that I have the headphone connection very close to me. But this is the same with the RME device.

Let me know if you have any questions. Happy to help!

Best regards
hd

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:33 am

Thanks, cool. So you confirm we can use the 6 analog inputs as 6 discrete input channels? For me, 15 ms latency is too much, I currently use 128 samples at 44.100 which is 2.6ms "single trip", I have set 1 buffer and forte's control panel estimates this as slightly over 10ms. That's the maximum I can tolerate, we can hear this latenly especially on sharp sounds like acoustic guitar and it's almost getting in ou way but we can handle it. Fast fingerpicking is not really comfortable with over 10 ms.

So if I could get that down a bit it would be perfect: are there lower settings possible? What does forte report when you set the number of buffers to 1?

It looks like nifty little box to me, I'd rather get a RME but although I could afford a 2nd hand Multiface, I'd need to get a an additional set of mic preamps as well and there goes portability. There's the MOTU Ultralite Hybrid I'm looking at, but all in all, if the EMU does the job, I'll start with that one for "fly-in" gigs, and save some money. BTW I'm impressed with the performances of this Thinkpad I got for 100€!

Thanks!!
Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:33 am

Hi Dirk,

since I have the EMU cardbus card always with me I can right now do some latency tests for you while being in the office ;-)

In the EMU ASIO settings you can only choose the latency setting in milliseconds which goes 2,4,5,7,10,20,40.....

With 2ms and buffer size set to 1 Forte shows 7.12ms. This wouldn`t work for my setup e.g. NI Alicia`s Keys would have dropouts.

With 4ms and buffer size set to 1 Forte shows 14.10ms, with two buffers it ends up in 18.10ms. (On my live system I use just 1 buffer, not 2 as written above).
At the beginning with using the soundcard I was a bit disappointed since I thought Forte should show up much better latency settings. I`m not quite sure if there`s a big difference with Motu and RME devices and I`m not only speaking of figures. Anyway I would really like to compare with the Motu Ultralite but even if the latency would be better with the Motu I`m not sure if I would change since the combination of cardbus AND breakout box is really perfect for me.

Probably you noticed my thread here about the Steinberg Halion Sonic plugin: With this plugin I had some issue, also regarding latency: While the NI Alicia`s Keys need some quite small latency, I need on the other side a minimum of latency for the HalionSonic because (e.g. string-) samples would dropout. So I had to find the perfect mix for HS and NI AK which is the 4ms/1 buffer. But I can`t really press the sustain very long and play the HS strings (at least some specials ones) very long without getting drops. But to be honest: this you wouldn`t do usually anyway.

And yes, you can use the 6 analog inputs as 6 discrete input channels. I can send you some screenshots by email if you want!

The Thinkpads are great! Which model have you bought? I have used a T61, now I`m using an X61 (8GB Ram, 64SSD, 2Ghz) and I just ordered an used X61 tablet to check wherever I can live with more monitor and less keyboard without getting lost in controlling Forte.
Sidenote: The Intel SATA controller is able to provide 3Gb/s speed but limited by Lenovo to 1.5Gb/s! So if you use a SSD there`s a custom Bios which enables the full 3Gb/s SATA speed. Let me know if you have some questions!

Best regards
hd

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:24 am

Hi

Thanks for your indeep reply, most helpful. My thinkpad is a X41 (ooops, it's an ancestor, but I got it for 100 including the docking station and the XP Pro licence, it's running XP Pro XP3 and has a 12.5" screen, and a Pentium M CPU @ 1.6Ghz. I didn't expect it to run my rack but it does! With ASIO4All and the onboard soundmax chip it runs fine with 128 samples buffer size which is waht I'm used to. I find this really incredible. The Thnkpad is really the ultimate roadworthy ultra-portable. I might get another, more powerful one in september. The form factor is perfect, the cooling is well, cool! And I'm amazd at how much this Pentium M processor can handle. Not that my racks are so huge (no samplers nor softsynts) but I run a couple of Voxengo's Pristine Space convolution reverbs at zero latency setting, some channelstrips, some stuff by variety of sound (very cool sounding but a bit sensible regarding buffersizes), lots of aux busses and other routings, a guitar amp sim, EXT running the backing tracks off a thumbdrive. And it works!

These laptops are really well designed.

OK, have to go to a gig now, let's resume a bit later...

greets
Dirkb
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

fab
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:53 am

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby fab » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:38 am


fab
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:53 am

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby fab » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:43 am


hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:40 am

Hi Fab,

I´m sorry but the T60 SATA controller doesn`t support 3Gb/s speed. This is limited by Intel`s hardware to 1.5Gb/s.

Only the 61-series and a view R-models are support by this Bios mod. And yes, it`s very safe since I have it running already on 2 T61, 2 X61 and now one X61 tablet. Here you get an overview:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo- ... ost6501443

The tablet is nice and the pen is very precise. So working with vst instruments is much faster now since I don`t have to move with the trackpoint or touchpad the cursor anymore. Just drop the pen right where you need need it on the display.
The display can ONLY be controlled with the pen, not with you finger. Later Lenovo models have both, pen and touch but as far as I could find out the X61 series only supports pen control.
Controlling by finger would make sense from my point of view only with changing scene back and forth since for everything else your fingers might be too thick anyway so that you would take the pen instead.
And for controlling scenes and switching between rack and sceneview you can define the tablet buttons beneath the display. And that works fine.

And the X61t is a bit heavier then the X61, about 400gramms.

But regarding cpu power and speed I don`t need more. Seems that I will continue with the tablet now.

Best regards
hd

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:00 am

Hi Fab,

Yes the RME cards are of course something I'm really looking at but this "going mobile" project started when I got this Thinkpad so cheap, I was so delighted with it I wanted to see how mobile I could get....for cheap. I can aget an EMU1616m for 150, thats a total of 250 which is ok for a casual investment. Going the RME route adds something like 500 to the bill which is not casual anymore at least for a guy like me.

I admit that a Fireface 400 has the complete feature set I need (including the ADAT ports, which I can use to add my MOTU stuff if neccessary). 2 or 4 (pretty good) mic ins, 4 line ins, ADAT and SPDIF, and solid drivers, that are my specs. Bothe 1616 and the Fireface have these.

I'm tempted..... I was looking at the MOTU Ultralite MkIII hybrid as well, or the multiface with additional mic pre's. Although a (second hand) Multiface + an addional mic pre rack is more expensive and take up more space than a Fireface 400.

OOOPs, these are difficult times! The only thing I'm absolutely sure of, that I will stick to Thinkpads. They're just perfect in about every aspect.

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

fab
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:53 am

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby fab » Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:11 am

dude: thanks ! the tablet buttons thing sounds good ! didn't know that!
and a pen could be a good alternative to a mouse pad, i want to make some furniture-resembling thingy from plywood to serve as a case so the digital stuff gains some wife acceptance factor and might be accepted in the living space - mouseless is better for this than is a tablet.

dirk, i see. 150 is of course a good price for the EMU.

used multifaces go for about 250-350 (with the RME pcmcia card) i guess and the quadmic at least another 200, so that's certainly more expense.
a used behringer ADA8000 would be cheaper but is not portable.

i do prefer the multiface even to the echo indigo, the MF is generally even more stable and uses less CPU - although the indigo is good already (but doesn't meet your specs of course). there is generally no easy way to make the multiface driver crash. i even can - also as a last resort with forte beta crashing - pull out the physical plug from the card and put it back in and everything goes on as before. BUT beware that multiface does not have a backup battery to store settings, so independent operation as a mixer is not possible (FF400 can do this!).

m-audio profire 2626 also gets good reviews from guys i know and trust but is 19" and has a bulky power supply. but it's useful, you can use it as standalone mixer and ADAT mic pre as well.

MOTU firewire interfaces get mixed reviews from windows users. also the earlier models (such as 828 mk II) are known for not-so-good preamps and poor Hi-Z inputs. also, there are issues with the flexibility of the mixer regarding a mix from playout channels and input monitoring, you would need to check if the mixer meets your needs.

fab
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:53 am

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby fab » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:58 am

you might want to check out mr. anderton's review of the roland octacapture, too:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/sho ... onclusions

seems to work well on windows 7
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/sho ... st42350049

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:34 am

Hi fab,

The Roland stuff is interesting (I'm quite a Roland believer, I still own almost every piece of gear I ever bought from them), but I'll miss the ADAT ports, and there's no driver for XP, and for the time being, only my desktop test machine has Win7 installed. XP is really still the fastest audio-OS, and not as ressource hungry as Vista and to a lesser extent 7.

A question (I still didn't decide yet): does a PCMCIA-to-firewire adapter such as the one you kindly proposed in a previous post add extra latency? I still didn't rule out the Fireface 400 which has all the specs I need. (I didn't rule out the 1616m either... A used Fireface goes for around 500€, thats 350 (!!) more than the 1616m but it's a good investment that will retain it's value a bit longer, and hopefully I could benefit from some lower latencies, which is what RME built it's reputation on!)



Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

yamus
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:36 am

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby yamus » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:28 pm

Hi Guys,

Those with Thinkpad T61's or with nVidia graphics might want to look at this thread:

I came across this problem yesterday as a friend has a T61 that was exhibiting the problem. Looks like nVidia had a big problem with their GPU, and if your Thinkpad is still under warranty, maybe you can get a new Mobo before it goes out of warranty... sounds like in all cases, the nVidia GPU will fail eventually...


-Mike

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:27 am

Hi

I finally received the 1616m I bought 2nd hand (it took a hell of a lot of time to get here, the guy who sold it to me took a 4 weeks leave and disn't find it neccessary to ship it before his vacation, then took another 10 days to settle down back home again, then waited for the weekend to wrap it up for shipping somewhere the week after.... that's wat you can call a power seller!!).

My first impressions are OK, I can run my usual rack on my X41 Thinkpad with just a couple of glitches @ 4ms latency which forte reports as beig 176 samples/17ms total. I was used to run @128/10,something but I didn't really notice the difference. I tried @2ms but than I get some crackles and unstabilities, I think the tiny laptop really isn't fast enough for that.

So far so good. Took some time to understand that the patchmix app must be launched before forte so that forte can recognise the correct asio inputs (otherwise it'll prompt for a new profile each time).

BUT: I noticed something a bit strange: with input levels (analog) set correctly, metering in patchmix is OK but the digital input signal in forte is significantly lower than with my MOTU 2408. I managed to get the levels about OK by using "trimpots" in the inserts in Patchmix before sending the signal to the driver, with a boost of 6dB...... Not so cool, but doable. I prefer that solution over having to insert extra gain stages in each module in forte, and reprogramming those each time I switch systems.

Any thoughts? I'll do a real A/B test with both systems to make sure that all the levels are preset in a way that racks will remain 100% compatible without having to add extra gain-plugins in my audio input modules to compensate, and adjust those everytime I change set-ups.

Overall, I'm quite happy, I know it isn't a super duper quad core I7/RME setup, but for a total of 250€, laptop included, I have a rather nice portable setup here with lot's of I/O's (besides the ADAT, they even managed to get a RIAA eq'd turntable input in there!! )

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:03 am

Hi Dirk,

isn`t there a setting in the I/O menu of the Patchmix software where you can set the input signal between -4db and +10db for balanced/unbalanced inputs? Or was that just for the outs? Don`t have my card with me right now but I´ll have a look later.

Regarding the latency: I need to set it to minimum of 5ms, 7ms is better because otherwise I get crackles with my NI Alicia Keys`s plugin. And I´m using a Lenovo X61 which has a Intel Core 2 Duo which is faster than your X41 as far as I remember. So I doubt that this is much related to the processor power in the laptop.

Best regards
hisdudeness

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:42 am

Hi hd,

Yeah of course I set the IO sensibility to the correct setting, the problem is not there: as I mentioned, I get correct input signal according to the metering of PatchMix (and, if I use the Mic inputs of the 1616m, the metering of the box), but I need to add an extra 6dB digitally to match the levels that my MOTU delivers to forte (or whatever other app). I find that a bit weird.

Yep, your laptop is quite a bit more powerful than mine (I'm actually trying to figure out what the most powerful Thinkpad was that still has a PCMCIA slot! Might as well be the one you have, and if I find one, I'll get it!).

I don't use many CPU hungry plugins, the heaviest ones being Pristine Space of which I use two instances (the convolution processor from Voxengo), and some modeling stuff that was coded way back when CPU power was limited so the guys thought twice before writing a line of C++, resulting in some highly efficient stuff. I tried running Amplitube3 on this laptop, with ony a single amp loaded I almost max out the CPU, so I guess I'll stick to the old stuff: cheap and efficient!

I built a draft for my new setup using quite a lot of Variety of Sound's stuff, which is great and free, a bit more ressource hungry than it could I would love, but still quite efficient and most of all great sounding (no it's not a hype, it really does sound good!). With that new approach I have the CPU at a steady 80% but it still runs OK. Great brand of laptops, nice little interface!

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:00 am

Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:19 am

Hi Dirk,

sorry to hear that you`re experiencing so much trouble with your EMU. I never noticed the CTHelper.exe nor did I have any issues with it. Although I have to admit that I`m working on Win7, not XP. Never used the EMU with XP.

Regarding the input/output level: I don`t own a MOTU device which I could compare with. But when I switched from my USB soundcard ESI U46XL I had a significant increase of the output level and no noise at all anymore which I had with the ESI when I pushed all outputs to the max.

Just to verify: You own the 1616m not the 1616?

Best regards
hd

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:42 pm

Yes, it's the 1616m, on the CardBus card. Otherwise it works OK, low latency, quite a good sound quality, not as good as on my other (much more expensive) cards (I think that there is a little bit of crosstalk which narrows down the stereo image a bit, I'll analyse it some day) but otherwise, really fine. It's not a huge issue, when I will be fed up with troubleshooting I'll just leave it alone and use it as-is. I manage to get the correct levels by inserting trim pots in patchmix, and setting the main output to the max (+12dB). That doesn't seem to noticebly increase the noise-level: it's very low indeed on this card.

I, as always, had high expectations and I'm quite satisfied: for 150€ it was a cool purchase! (I enjoy the phono inputs a lot: what a cooll idea that was to built those in!)

Just a thing I just though of that could help me: could you try to start your Windows without the CThelper.exe? (You can remove it temporarily from the startup list in msconfig), just to look if your levels change? You'll probably need to launch the PatchMix app manually, without CTHelper it won't start automatically I presume.

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:02 am

Hi Dirk,

I`m really sorry, I was very busy yesterday evening and had no time at all so I totally forgot about this topic.

Will try today and let you know, especially regarding the CTHelper.exe!

Best regards
hd

hisdudeness

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby hisdudeness » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:53 am

Hi Dirk,

just did the test with my system and the CTHelper.exe. While browsing the services starting during Windows start in the msconfig.exe I found another Creative server called CTXfiHlp.exe. I disabled both for system start and rebooted. You`re right, the Patchmix App doesn`t start automatically anymore when you insert the cardbus but beside from that everything seems normal.

Best regards
hd

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:19 am

Hi, thanks, I appreciate that. So the levels remain the same..... I guess I'll stop messing around then and leave the system as-is. Weird stuff though. The CThelper does another thingy: it sets the PCI Latency timer for the cardbus interface @64 instead of 32 clocks on startup, but it does so just before crashing. I can live with that (I guess that @32 clocks, there's a risk of audio-crackles, so they decided to give the card a bit more time on the PCI bus).So I don't have to use a 3rd party tool to achieve the same thing, so I'll just let it run and crash, that's OK, the laptop it's running on is on 24/24, I reboot twice a week at most (a bit more since the forte updates require restarts, but no big deal).

II'll just add Patchmix to the automatic startup list, and everything will be fine. Cool!

Thanks hd
Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

Dirk Offringa
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Sainte Anastasie, France
Contact:

Re: EMU 1616m (latency) settings

Postby Dirk Offringa » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:35 am

Hi,

just for the record, and to continue this as a general discussion: I just finished some serious A-B'ing (Well, actually A-B-C'ing) between my 3 actual workstations, and concluded that the EMU 1616m PMCIA interface sounds exactly the same way as does my main stage rig, which is a MOTU 2408/PCI 324 (or 424, according to which PC I use) with a rack of 8 mic pre's from Soundcraft, which are reputedly great preamps. Seriously, I can only point out very tiny differences in dynamics or stereo width, but when I say tiny I mean "I'm nitpicking in the studio using a high quality monitoring system". Maybe my old and obsolete GadgetLabs wave 8/24 interface sounds a bit better, slighly better dynamics maybe, but honestly, the differences I hear could very well be due to the Allen&Heath monitoring desk (all analog) I use here (very good sounding desk that is too).

I'm both happy and unhappy with these results: happy because I bought this EMU cardbus interface for 150€ and it can't get any better than that at such a price, unhappy because once more, great hardware, perfectly functional, is declared obsolete because the interface technology has been dropped (no more cardbus interfaces on modern laptops) and the driver development has stopped (no official drivers for Win 7). This is a huge issue for society. I just wanted to share these thoughts because we all here are being screwed, and we must be aware of this and maybe take action..... I have cupboards full of obsolete stuff that is perfectly fine, if not better than anything else currently on the market, only the interfacing technology (soft and hardware) has been dropped. These huge companies that decide these moves are creating artificial markets this way: we don't need their stuff actually, because we own it already. And these politics contribute to the planet's pollution as well, obviously.

Sorry for the rant, but well, it's a big deal for me! I'm now about to get a used, obsolete Thinkpad X61 which has Firewire, Cardbus, USB2 and a Core2Duo CPU and the whole system will be, IMHO, very high performance. Cool for me as an individual, but as a citizen I'm very angry about this situation. This rant explains at the same time why, sometimes, I emphasise the fact that I would really appreciate that the XP OS should be continued to be supported by forte. There is lots of very valuable hardware around that only runs on XP. With the current corparate policies of heavy cost-cutting, and artificial renewal of markets, the quality of the hardware will not evoluate to higher standards, on the contrary.

Dirk
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.


Return to “Audio/MIDI Hardware Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests