I am thinking of buying a E-MU 0202 USB 2.0 Audio Interface. Anyone got
one of these running under Linux?

Cheers

Ian

In article , 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?

No experience with it, but a quick 'google' does return some pages like

http://wa5znu.org/log/2009/06/emu-02...-on-linux.html

Let us know how you get on. I'm still waiting for various makers of USB
sound interfaces to get back to me on the promises about 'providing details
on how to use with Linux!'. :-)

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

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.)

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

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

On 12/06/10 11:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , 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?

No experience with it, but a quick 'google' does return some pages like

http://wa5znu.org/log/2009/06/emu-02...-on-linux.html

Let us know how you get on. I'm still waiting for various makers of USB
sound interfaces to get back to me on the promises about 'providing details
on how to use with Linux!'. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


I have no particular desire for this particular device, just one that
will give me full duplex (mono even) 24/192 operation under Linux.

Cheers

ian

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
On 12/06/10 11:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , 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?

No experience with it, but a quick 'google' does return some pages like

http://wa5znu.org/log/2009/06/emu-02...-on-linux.html

Let us know how you get on. I'm still waiting for various makers of
USB sound interfaces to get back to me on the promises about
'providing details on how to use with Linux!'. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


I have no particular desire for this particular device, just one that
will give me full duplex (mono even) 24/192 operation under Linux.

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.

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'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.

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

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.

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.

--
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 Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:29:41 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I have no particular desire for this particular device, just one that
will give me full duplex (mono even) 24/192 operation under Linux.

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.

So USE a computer that you choose not to modify or update. D'oh!

In article , Laurence Payne
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:29:41 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I have no particular desire for this particular device, just one that
will give me full duplex (mono even) 24/192 operation under Linux.

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.

So USE a computer that you choose not to modify or update. D'oh!

D'oh! That rather depends on if you have any other uses, have more than
once 'computer', the timescale of use, etc, etc.

cf my posting of a short time ago. Bear in mind that what suits you might
not suit *everyone* else. Perhaps "D'oh" yourself for presuming otherwise.
:-)

TBH If I'd literally done as you say then I'd still be using hardware I
discarded a decade ago. And I'd still be limited to CDDA standard.

Mind you, if you can tell me of a soundcard that does in and out at all
rates and depths up to 192k/24bit *and* which connects to all the following
with no problems, please let me know

8-year old laptop with no DVD writer and a couple of slow USB ports
(Crunchbang/ROX)

Modern Shuttle
(Ubuntu 9.04/ROX)

Modern Laptop
(Xubuntu 9.04/ROX)

Iyonix (ARM architecture. not x86 'IBM' type hardware)
(RO 5.16)

Yes, I do use them all for audio, *and* for other purposes. Using the
recorders I have I can load recordings into *all* the above as suits *me*.
When I choose a new recorder, ditto. One change of recorder 'upgrades' all
the computers.

Then add in considering someone else who only uses one machine, and has to
do things other than simply record and play audio....

What suits someone depends on their own circumstances and preferences and
requirements. Not necessarily the same as yours (or mine). erm, D'oh...
:-)

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