L-vizzz
member
Joined: 19/09/03
Posts: 61
Loc: Antwerp, Belgium
|
|
Guys, i'm confused here. I bought a mid 2009 macbook pro recently and wanted to buy a RME
Fireface 400 to go with it in Logic. I was quite sure this was a rock solid combination,
allowing low latency and a very decent track count even on the slow 5400 system drive. I
don't have huge projects and don't need to record many tracks at ones, more the typical
bedroom recording stuff. But streaming twenty-something tracks didn't seem like too much
to ask.
But then i started reading the threads on gearslutz (don't know if
that's a good idea) and on the RME forum and i'm starting to worry. For starters, there's
a thread in which they speak about not being able to playback 7 tracks (admittedly at
96khz) and record an eight track on the system drive. Honestly that surprises me a lot,
since streaming a few tracks seems like the least you could as from a new system like
this. Then they also advice the OP to get a USB-interface and leave the firewire for the
hard disk.
Now i honestly thought that the difference between the Fireface
400 and the UC would be something like the difference between awesome and even better, so
i decided for the firewire one and leave a USB-slot for a midi controller. But reading all
this makes me have second thoughts. Surely my planned combination can't be all that bad,
can it?
So i guess what i'm asking is if the guys at gearslutz aren't
exagerating a bit (seriously, somebody claims there that you cannot expect more than 8
tracks streaming at once from your system's drive, which i find hard to believe).
And if you would choose between the Fireface 400 (fireface) and the UC (USB),
which one would you get?
Thanks and sorry for the long post 
Edited by L-vizzz (05/11/09 10:05 PM)
|
Scope
Joined: 03/07/06
Posts: 1809
|
|
FW every time.
8 tracks?
What a load of BS.
I used to get 16
tracks of 16bit/44.1 from a G3/400mhz powerbook, with capacity for more - and that was
over 10 years ago!
Sounds like there are other issues for those other users.
Are they on Mac or PC ?
I use a (FW) Mackie Onxy Satalite with a Macbook and
it does the job perfectly when I am away from my studio.
But to be sure, ask if
you can try the system out with your MBP when you go to buy it
|
L-vizzz
member
Joined: 19/09/03
Posts: 61
Loc: Antwerp, Belgium
|
|
thanks, that's what i thought. They were speaking about logic on mac btw.
When
you're using your macbook on location, do you record to the internal drive?
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
As I said on the RME Forum, when using a Fireface 400 with either a Mac Mini or a Macbook
on OS X 10.4.11, the maximum possible CPU load is about 50% for a latency of 64 samples
and a SR of 44.1kHz.
On Windows XP, with exactly the same Apple and RME
hardware, the max CPU load increases to about 95%. Moreover, the same audio audio
processes use slightly more CPU on OS X (10.4) than on Windows XP.
Did this
situation change with OS X 10.6? I still did not try Snow Leopard...
When
it comes to choosing between USB 2 and Firewire, I think it's not so important for the
performances.
I do have a Fireface 400 but I tend to dislike the Firewire connector.
The connection is not solid at all and the Firewire 800 is only slightly better (that
said, I never had any problem because of this). Also, Firewire looks like being likely to
disappear pretty soon.
BUT it allows to power the Fireface 400 from the computer,
which is great. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can power the
Fireface UC through the USB-2 bus. This is the only reason for I would not get a Fireface
UC now. I hate these messy wall wart adapters and try to avoid when I can.
Best,
-j
|
L-vizzz
member
Joined: 19/09/03
Posts: 61
Loc: Antwerp, Belgium
|
|
you're right, Fireface UC cannot be buspowered. I was also thinking of firewire to get the
most out of the few ports available on the macbook and use all of them instead of leaving
the firewire empty. Mmm, still not sure. The uncertain future of firewire is making me
wonder about resale value, but i realize that this is not the main criterium to buy stuff.
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
We can hope it will always be possible to use Firewire on desktop computers thanks to
expansion cards.
If I needed a new audio interface, I would choose something
with only digital inputs and outputs, and possibly with a more standard communication
protocol than Firewire, USB-2 or the like (but I know it does not exist yet).
-j
|
Scope
Joined: 03/07/06
Posts: 1809
|
|
I dont think FW is going to disappear that quickly, simply because there are too many
users and E-sata has not exactly raced off the blocks.
I record direct from the
bus-powered Onyx to my internal drive
and then back-up in target mode, to my Mac
Pro once back in the studio.
Its all very neat and tidy requiring only one
power socket, or about 2hours continuous recording time when on battery, which is
acceptable given what it is doing.
* normal battery life is about 3.5hrs.
I have
an 800 to 400 cable so I can use the Onyx on a newer machine and when I tested it, ran
flawlessly.
No hassle, no drivers, no endless updates,
No messy cables or
PSUs everywhere,
Just portable simplicity.
Which is how it should be.
|
stinkfinger
Joined: 31/07/07
Posts: 271
|
|
Quote Bob Moose:
As I said on the
RME Forum, when using a Fireface 400 with either a Mac Mini or a Macbook on OS X 10.4.11,
the maximum possible CPU load is about 50% for a latency of 64 samples and a SR of
44.1kHz.
I use this
setup, I'm not sure what you mean? How do I check my system to see this for myself? My
audio performance meters in Logic go right to the top before it starts glitching.
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
Quote stinkfinger:
Quote Bob Moose:
As I said on
the RME Forum, when using a Fireface 400 with either a Mac Mini or a Macbook on OS X
10.4.11, the maximum possible CPU load is about 50% for a latency of 64 samples and a SR
of 44.1kHz.
I use
this setup, I'm not sure what you mean? How do I check my system to see this for myself?
My audio performance meters in Logic go right to the top before it starts glitching.
Hello stinkfinger,
Here
is a description of what I did.
I just wanted to know which is the maximum
CPU load that you can use without getting any audio glitch. I first did all the test
within Max/MSP (a standalone software that is similar to Reaktor), but got the same
results with other softwares, including Reaper and Pure Data.
In the first
placed I put the FF400 latency to 64 samples and the sampling rate to 44.1kHz. In Max/MSP,
you can also tune the software DSP block size and I used 64 samples too.
Then
I loaded an oscillator playing a low frequency sine through the speakers. As this is a
"pure" tone, it's very easy to hear any unwanted artifact.
Next I loaded some
more things in Max/MSP, only in order to increase the CPU load. More precisely, I used a
polyphonic FM synth that was continuously playing but not connected to the audio output
(in order to be able to monitor the sine tone). I raised its number of voices
progressively, which increases the CPU load, while listening carefully to the sine.
Above a certain number of voices, some audio artifacts appeared, which is normal.
I took some time for finding the maximum number of voices that still allow the sine to be
played properly (let's call this number of voices "N").
Finally, leaving the
N voices running, I opened the Mac OS X CPU monitor (not the Max/MSP CPU monitor) and
found that the CPU load was about 50% (for both cores).
I hope it's
more clear now (not sure! so please ask for further questions if you need it).
Best,
-j
|
stinkfinger
Joined: 31/07/07
Posts: 271
|
|
mine seems to behave a bit better than that in logic, my problem is getting logic to use
both cores, dont suppose you know any tips on that?
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
Quote stinkfinger:
mine seems to
behave a bit better than that in logic, my problem is getting logic to use both cores,
dont suppose you know any tips on that?
Maybe Logic, which is an Apple software, has a slightly better
integration with OS X than non-Apple audio softwares (who knows?). But "a bit better" is
really not satisfying for me. Why isn't it possible to use all the CPU power? This is
possible on Windows XP (besides silent fans and 6-pin Firewire sockets, one good thing
about Intel Mac computers is that they can run on OS X, Windows and Linux). I hope the
situation is better using 10.6 instead of 10.4, but I never tried.
Also, some MOTU
audio interface users say they can run their CPU up to about 70% on OS X (but I don't have
a MOTU interface). Anyway, again 70% is far from being ideal.
About using both
cores with Logic, I'm afraid you cannot do much as it depends on the software programing.
There is an interesting SOS article about multi-core processors:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan08/articles/pcmusician_0108.htm
All the best,
-j
|
L-vizzz
member
Joined: 19/09/03
Posts: 61
Loc: Antwerp, Belgium
|
|
I decided to stick with the plan of getting the Fireface 400. Main arguments are the
possibility to use more ports on the MBP (and be less dependent on hubs) and indeed the
fact that it is buspowered. I won't use it buspowered all the time but i think it will be
handy if i want to lay down an idea and not have to plugin too many cables. Thanks for the
replies guys.
|
jayzed
member
Joined: 19/03/04
Posts: 686
Loc: North London
|
|
I think you've done the right thing. Not having an external FW hard drive, it makes sense
to use this port for your audio. Using FW rather than USB2 also hits your CPU slightly
less hard, and if Bobs' problems turn out to be more widespread using this interface you
are going to need all the cycles you can get. You can always use your USB2 for an external
drive at a later date, drives aren't as time critical as streaming audio so this is
probably a better use of your ports. You can switch to BT for your mouse or whatever in
that case.
I wouldn't worry about FW being dropped, it's likely that it will
continue to be used on the higher end Macs for some time - especially FW800 and it will
always be possible for a user with expansion slots to get an interface.
Only
8 tracks on internal drive? Pshaw. Gearslutz used to be a lot better but it seems to be
full of know-all know-nothings these days, quoting Einstein whilst insisting that the
Nyquist/Shannon Theorem is only a theory, so can be (or is) wrong.
BTW, Bob -
what do you mean by new interface, digital only? Have you heard something I haven't? As
someone who supports Macs in an audio environment I'd hate to miss something important.
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
Quote Paulus Bianco:
BTW,
Bob - what do you mean by new interface, digital only? Have you heard something I haven't?
As someone who supports Macs in an audio environment I'd hate to miss something important.
I mean an audio interface that
only has:
- a socket (eg. Firewire or USB-2) for connecting it to your
computer
- some digital audio input/output ports (ADAT, AES, S/PDIF or MADI...
and MIDI of course).
A few ones:
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_digiface.php
http://www.maudio.co.uk/index.php?do=products.main&ID=c92a3d7039123bba
1fa72b463f867e64
There are also similar internal cards for using with
desktops.
Then you can choose the preamplifiers or converters you
need (and lots of good preamplifiers have built-in A/D conversion).
Currently this solution is not always the cheapest... And the Fireface is really OK for
me; even if I do use some additional microphones preamplifiers, I don't need another
interface.
But I would have considered a modular solution if I started from
nothing.
-j
|
Gear Reviews
Previous
Topics
Next
Threaded
Fireface 400 or UC (USB) on Macbook Pro
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
