Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Scott
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote: ...
I'd also be interested in that. However at present I've deal with such
matters by having mutliple (non computer) recorders and sources. I
still tend to have the old-fashioned view that it is simpler and
better to have the recorders and sources divorced from a computer whos
hardware and software is subject to continual 'updates and changes'
that mean you'd have to keep re-calibrating and checking if the audio
i/o was still working correctly.

You don't have to put in the updates and changes. For a critical
machine, I'd really recommend that once a working configuration is
found, you stick to it. No updates, no patches, no "security fixes". And
I'd also suggest no general net access to/from it either. Then I see no
particular problem in using a computer as opposed to a reel-to-reel
recorder, for example.

The 'problem' can be when you use the same machine for many purposes. So
decide to upgrade or carry out alterations because you need/want them for
some reasons other than being able to record/replay sound.

FWIW I do tend to keep two machines for 'work' and another for a dedicated
task like 'playing audio'.[1] But you still may eventually find you want to
make changes even for such tasks, or decide after a few years that you want
to change the OS, etc.

Some of the recorders I have and use are a decade old. None of the
computers I use have an OS that old, and a lot of the software is much more
recent. The recorders all make recordings which are then trivially easy
access with all the computers I use, regardless of OS or hardware. So I can
use 3 different Linux distros and RISC OS as suit me without having to
bother about them all having suitable sound hardware.

So the problem here is with the meaning of "don't have to". That will
depend entirely on the circumstance and wishes of the user. Some people may
only have one box. And perhaps not have enough HD space to have multiple
OSs installed, etc. I agree that no-one (usually) holds a gun to your head,
though. ahem Although I sometimes have the impression that MicroSoft
would like to be able to do that to deter you from daring to use
alternatives... :-)

I also agree with your point about avoiding what isn't needed like 'net
access' although in my case that *is* needed for the sound-decidcated box
since one of its main duties is to provide the BBC iPlayer and net radio
streams.

(Yes, OK. I was really thinking of avoiding sites that can alter the
machine's software. iPlayer and net radio are [probably!] kosher.
Windows update definitely isn't :-) )


And of course this comes down to what suits the individual. If you prefer
to do it all on a single computer hardware/OS/software combination that is
fine with me. Just that I wonder if you will stick with that specific
combination for a decade or more. :-)

Slainte,

[1] And one for "if this goes wrong it will trash everything" experiments.


I think we're singing the same song, really.

If you have a need - say audio recording - that is critical, it makes
sense to have equipment dedicated for that task. The price of a low-end
laptop plus A/D/A box is probably less than, say, a ferrograph or revox
(or whatever the magic name is these days - I'm out of touch) anyway.

Actually, while we're here, have you seen these; I found them yesterday:
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/fit-pc2/
They look (on the face of it) ideal for being out and about recording,
even if a mite pricey. Small and tiny power usage.

And yes, if it /really/ matters, you do have to have an 'I don't mind
trashing this' box for messing around^W^Wtesting on.



--
Mike Scott (unet2 at [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

In article , Mike Scott
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Scott
[snip]

I also agree with your point about avoiding what isn't needed like
'net access' although in my case that *is* needed for the
sound-decidcated box since one of its main duties is to provide the
BBC iPlayer and net radio streams.

(Yes, OK. I was really thinking of avoiding sites that can alter the
machine's software. iPlayer and net radio are [probably!] kosher.
Windows update definitely isn't :-) )

Indeed. ahem Some viruses are bigger than others. :-)


[1] And one for "if this goes wrong it will trash everything"
experiments.


I think we're singing the same song, really.

Yes. :-)

If you have a need - say audio recording - that is critical, it makes
sense to have equipment dedicated for that task. The price of a low-end
laptop plus A/D/A box is probably less than, say, a ferrograph or revox
(or whatever the magic name is these days - I'm out of touch) anyway.

Yes. I'm happy to agree that for many having a specific 'computer' as the
basis for recording/replay software makes a lot of sense. However I guess I
am old enough to have seen a number of 'generations' of computer hardware
come and go. So am a bit wary of the way that particular market 'churns' in
a way that an 'upgrade' in one area means losing something that worked in
another. Once SCSI was 'the future'... ;-

Plus I am wary of the way vendors (and many users) in the computer area
seem to assume "I can hear something" is equivalent to "it works
correctly". Too much experience with fan noises, interrupt disruptions
hidden 'resampling' or other processes that can degrade the data without
the user noticing unless they are wary and have the ability to test.

I'm also happy to accept that my primary preference for OSs like Linux and
RO and software based on them mean life isn't the same as if I had been
happy to be assimilated by the borg. 8-]

Actually, while we're here, have you seen these; I found them yesterday:
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/fit-pc2/ They look (on the face of it) ideal
for being out and about recording, even if a mite pricey. Small and
tiny power usage.

I came across them a while ago. But never got to the bottom of how easily
they could be made to work for such purposes. So I simply resorted to what
I essentially knew would work from the word 'go'. In my case that was
buying a Tascam HD P2. That then records onto SD cards and I can then read
the cards with any of computers I have. The Tascam also has 'firewire'
allegedly as a 'mass storage device'. But I was hardly astonished to find
that didn't connect 'out of the box' and I've not sorted that as yet.

Only twiddle with the Tascam was that I then had to write a convertor as
the software I had didn't recognise the BWF headers. But that kind of
problem is trivial compared with the ones you can fall into with driving
hardware, at least from my POV.

And yes, if it /really/ matters, you do have to have an 'I don't mind
trashing this' box for messing around^W^Wtesting on.

In my case this is particularly important as I often have no idea what I am
about to do [wrong]. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In message , Ian Bell
writes
On 12/06/10 13:39, Mike Scott wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
I am thinking of buying a E-MU 0202 USB 2.0 Audio Interface. Anyone got
one of these running under Linux?


I've been using an 0404, which I would assume is similar. Haven't found
a way of setting the sample rate, so I'm stuck at 48kHz, where 44.1
would be more appropriate here perhaps. Also, full-duplex mode doesn't
seem to keep up properly, and I've had to resort (for guitar effects) to
sampling with the 0404 and playing back through the internal sound card:
I don't know if this is the PC, a USB problem or the 0404 itself. Oh,
and the 1/4inch jack part of the neutrik connectors are a bit prone to
bad contact.

(And I really /don't/ like creative's power supply. I can't see any fuse
link on it for one thing, which seems a bit dubious to me.)



Interesting, I really need full duplex. I am trying to work out if I
can get a decent external (USB) sound device to work with an audio
measurement software package like Visual Analyzer or RMAA (both of
which work fine with wine).

Cheers

ian

I use (at work) an EMU0404 with Visual Analyser and with ARTA to do
amplifier and loudspeaker measurements (using a Dell desktop pc). I
have never successfully managed to get full-duplex operation running
reliably above 48kHz. Half-duplex is no problem, but then I can get
that with my own M-Audio Transit.

Obviously (like you I guess), I need full-duplex because I need to
reference the measured output to the input signal.
--
Chris Morriss

On 13/06/10 17:21, Chris Morriss wrote:
In message , Ian Bell
writes
On 12/06/10 13:39, Mike Scott wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
I am thinking of buying a E-MU 0202 USB 2.0 Audio Interface. Anyone got
one of these running under Linux?


I've been using an 0404, which I would assume is similar. Haven't found
a way of setting the sample rate, so I'm stuck at 48kHz, where 44.1
would be more appropriate here perhaps. Also, full-duplex mode doesn't
seem to keep up properly, and I've had to resort (for guitar effects) to
sampling with the 0404 and playing back through the internal sound card:
I don't know if this is the PC, a USB problem or the 0404 itself. Oh,
and the 1/4inch jack part of the neutrik connectors are a bit prone to
bad contact.

(And I really /don't/ like creative's power supply. I can't see any fuse
link on it for one thing, which seems a bit dubious to me.)



Interesting, I really need full duplex. I am trying to work out if I
can get a decent external (USB) sound device to work with an audio
measurement software package like Visual Analyzer or RMAA (both of
which work fine with wine).

Cheers

ian

I use (at work) an EMU0404 with Visual Analyser and with ARTA to do
amplifier and loudspeaker measurements (using a Dell desktop pc). I have
never successfully managed to get full-duplex operation running reliably
above 48kHz. Half-duplex is no problem, but then I can get that with my
own M-Audio Transit.

Obviously (like you I guess), I need full-duplex because I need to
reference the measured output to the input signal.


Yes, that's pretty much it. I do not particularly need a reference so
much as a convenient source of low distortion test signals.

Cheers

ian

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. I do not particularly need a reference so
much as a convenient source of low distortion test signals.

FWIW I tend to use either a CD player or a computer for that. Then use a
recorder to record the results. Where referencing is needed I use one
channel of the recorder to record the stimulus and the other the response.

For example, this is what I did to obtain the results shown on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/ArchiveMa...2/Testing.html

which let me assess the in-room response from a loudspeaker, including
measuring the phase/time effects.

I agree that what you use is a matter of what you find convenient. However
I also tend to be concerned to ensure that sources are well defined and
well behaved. An advantage of using a good audio playing device is that
it can deliver good output signals. Given my background in measurement
labs I guess I am not bothered by the idea of using seperate dedicated
items for the different roles in the measurement process.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
.....
I came across them a while ago. But never got to the bottom of how easily
they could be made to work for such purposes. So I simply resorted to what
I essentially knew would work from the word 'go'. In my case that was
buying a Tascam HD P2. That then records onto SD cards and I can then read
the cards with any of computers I have. The Tascam also has 'firewire'
allegedly as a 'mass storage device'. But I was hardly astonished to find
that didn't connect 'out of the box' and I've not sorted that as yet.


Whoooo.... I am way out of my league here :-)

I wonder if the firewire on that is fireproof though. (I speak as one
whose camcorder has recently become fit for the tip and nought else :-( )


--
Mike Scott (unet2 at [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

In article , Mike Scott
wrote:
[snip]

I wonder if the firewire on that is fireproof though. (I speak as one
whose camcorder has recently become fit for the tip and nought else :-(
)

Pass. I don't know if I will get the firewire working. I bought on the
basis that I'd just transfer recordings using the SD cards. With a USB card
reader this works fine on all the machines I have, regardless of OS or age.
Just that the older machines are sloooower to transfer the data.

If I do sort out the firewire I'll regard it as a 'bonus'. But since I
didn't need it I've not yet tried at all to even diagnose why it didn't
simply work.

Of course, even USB will eventually become 'obsolete'. But it will probably
do me for now, and I suspect there will be other ways of reading solid
state cards, etc.

FWIW I've always tended to aim at using media that are as close to 'common
carrier' status as possible. Hence a continuing preference for CD Audio
since almost every type of disc player and computer will handle them. But
all formats and transfer methods end up nominally obsolete in the end.
Fortunately you can generally hang on to old devices to deal with this.
e.g. I still have a reel-to-reel and cassette tape deck. They don't get
used much, but every now and then prove it was worth keeping them! :-)

Mind you, I do have the tendency to gather old clutter. Tomorrow, all being
well, I am getting a large set of 'Wireless World' issues dating back to
the 1920s ! 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14/06/10 09:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , Ian Bell
wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. I do not particularly need a reference so
much as a convenient source of low distortion test signals.

FWIW I tend to use either a CD player or a computer for that. Then use a
recorder to record the results. Where referencing is needed I use one
channel of the recorder to record the stimulus and the other the response.

For example, this is what I did to obtain the results shown on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/ArchiveMa...2/Testing.html

which let me assess the in-room response from a loudspeaker, including
measuring the phase/time effects.

I agree that what you use is a matter of what you find convenient. However
I also tend to be concerned to ensure that sources are well defined and
well behaved. An advantage of using a good audio playing device is that
it can deliver good output signals. Given my background in measurement
labs I guess I am not bothered by the idea of using seperate dedicated
items for the different roles in the measurement process.

Slainte,

Jim



Separate devices does not bother me either. I use a Ferrograpgh RTS2 as
an oscillator and an HP wavemeter for measurements. The thing about a PC
based instrument is it can generate all sorts of waveforms e.g for
measuring intermod as well as its obvious FFT and storage advantages. I
guess I could create these all on a CD but it is somewhat awkward.
Separately recording the info, importing it into a PC and finally seeing
the results would sorely try my patience when trying circuit
modifications. Hence my current quest.


Cheers

Ian