for example if the IRQ number of my SIIG firewire card connected to my audio interface is IRQ18.
Then if i boost the IRQ priorities in registries, which of the settngs should I use would get the best sounds?

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 1
IRQ8 priority 1

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 2

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 3

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 3
IRQ8 priority 2

?


--------------------
Cubase 5.1 + Foobar2000 -> ASIO + MMCSS + Windows7 -> SIIG TI chips 1394 PCIe -> Echo AudioFire 4 -> HH MX250 + Wharf Delta70
A native USA style contemporary R&B artist in HongKong

What sort of problems are you getting in order for you to think you need to do this?

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

for less audio latency by IRQ as possible it can

--------------------
Cubase 5.1 + Foobar2000 -> ASIO + MMCSS + Windows7 -> SIIG TI chips 1394 PCIe -> Echo AudioFire 4 -> HH MX250 + Wharf Delta70
A native USA style contemporary R&B artist in HongKong

Quote Parco:

---

for less audio latency by IRQ as possible it can

---

Ok, so everything is working ok, you just want lower latency on your audio interface? I'm not convinced you're going to achieve anything. Windows 7 manages all those things far better than any previous OS where prioritising was seen to be helpful. If you are trying to resolve crackles in Windows XP then it's something worth looking at, but if you're not getting crackles in the audio then the only way to get lower latency with your current setup is for the manufacturer to write you some better drivers.

At least as far as i can see. But you best bet is to try it out, do some tests and then report back if you experience any differences.

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Quote Parco:

---

for less audio latency by IRQ as possible it can

---

You've got it wrong... you don't mess around with IRQs these days. Its not 1998.

Quote Parco:

---

Then if i boost the IRQ priorities in registries, which of the settngs should I use would get the best sounds?

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 1
IRQ8 priority 1

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 2

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 3

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 3
IRQ8 priority 2

---

What genre? I find that IRQ8 priority 1 is more gritty, while priority 2 gives a warmer texture.

IRQ 0

System timer

This interrupt is reserved for the internal system timer. It is never available to peripherals or other devices.


IRQ 8

Real-time clock

This interrupt is reserved for the system's real-time clock timer and can not be used for any other purpose.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt_request


--------------------
Cubase 5.1 + Foobar2000 -> ASIO + MMCSS + Windows7 -> SIIG TI chips 1394 PCIe -> Echo AudioFire 4 -> HH MX250 + Wharf Delta70
A native USA style contemporary R&B artist in HongKong

Quote Parco:

---

for example if the IRQ number of my SIIG firewire card connected to my audio interface is IRQ18.
Then if i boost the IRQ priorities in registries, which of the settngs should I use would get the best sounds?

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 1
IRQ8 priority 1

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 2

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 2
IRQ8 priority 3

or

IRQ18 priority 1
IRQ0 priority 3
IRQ8 priority 2

?

---

What latency figures are you getting already? What are we trying to beat here? I thin most modern interfaces, like Hammerfall/Motu etc can easily achieve something like 3millisecs and I don't think you'd get much improvement on that?

Hi guys, I've just tested all the IRQ priority settings in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl.
and I've found that IRQ18=1, IRQ0=2, IRQ8=2 and IRQ18=1, IRQ0=1, IRQ8=1 are both better than all the other combinations.

And the combination of IRQ18=1, IRQ0=1, IRQ8=1 made a little bit better result than the another combination.
It give the most details, the most transparency, and the least noises come out, in acoustic hearing, the most thinnest high freq. and the most heavy shocking earthquake-like natural bass.

But of course, it cannot be defined by ears.
Everytime when I open my foobar2000 and start to test, I've also just open the firmware statistic monitor from the official driver of my Echo AudioFire 4 called "FireWire Analyzer" and compare abouth their ASIO buffer in/out total time, ASIO wakeup time and ASIO host time.

I've found that it's too WTF if the priority of IRQ0 and IRQ8 are not the same. It would made the most i/o, wakeup and host time, the most latency and heard too damn noisy.

But the priority of IRQ0 and IRQ8 are not the same, e.g. both 1 or both 2, then it would made more and more less i/o, wakeup and host time, more and more less latency.

And I've tried to repeat the experiment again and again, I've found the combination of IRQ18=1, IRQ0=1, IRQ8=1 makes the least i/o, wakeup and host time, and the least latency, even I can see the system can become the most stable, and the most fast responses, just like the whole system got a little bit faster.

Quite strange, is it?

--------------------
Cubase 5.1 + Foobar2000 -> ASIO + MMCSS + Windows7 -> SIIG TI chips 1394 PCIe -> Echo AudioFire 4 -> HH MX250 + Wharf Delta70
A native USA style contemporary R&B artist in HongKong

Quote Parco:

---

Quite strange, is it?

---

That, my friend, is not the half of it.

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Indeed, I think you've entered the Twilight Zone


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic