Hello,
did you ever test your machine / audio interface settings with the built in Test (Preferences -> Audio) in Live?
Here's my test: I set the latency of my FW410 asio drivers to 64 or 128 samples and forced the CPU to 30%, 50% and 80%. In any cases, no matter which settings, after about 2' or before I get a nasty dropout and then again after a while...
In fact, when I play standalone soft synths I use to use very low latencies and I noticed that after a while I get dropouts.
After a couple of weeks spent in trying to optimize my laptop (which IS already highly optimized), I tried Sonar using the WDM drivers and.. magic! I don't get any dropout even @ 64 samples!!!!
So, despite what is said here (http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=) I tried ASIO4ALL (which I always used only for my laptop embedded AC97 interface) and... magic! my FW410 performs better than with the original asio drivers... ASIO4ALL wraps the WDM drivers and trasforms them in asio.
Since then I manage to run the Live Test with @ 128 samples and 80% CPU without dropouts.
You know what? M-Audio sucks! I wrote them and I never got any reply.
I used both the last stable drivers (.5036) and the current beta (.5051) without any improvement.
What about you?
M-Audio FW 410 secrets (Windows only)...
M-Audio FW 410 secrets (Windows only)...
Last edited by noou on Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
had this kind back then too, but never figured it out just got used to it til i dropped the whole device due to several problematic issues.
and yeah, m audio is a shitty no quality discounter. everybody knows. and i hate their obviously ifluence on ableton. versions since version 5 were just minor updates, less good ideas, and lots of more added bullshit.
and yeah, m audio is a shitty no quality discounter. everybody knows. and i hate their obviously ifluence on ableton. versions since version 5 were just minor updates, less good ideas, and lots of more added bullshit.
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
-
chrysalis33rpm
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:56 pm
- Location: San Francisco
No shit. I can't believe they bothered to add Drum Racks, tempo nudge, sidechaining, and take the software to 64 bit computation.... What a fucking waste of effort, losers. Obviously M-audio has taken control of Berlin HQ.
M-audio does suck, though. My FW 410 finally gave up last night, after 4+ years of faulty service (from day 1!). Well, I think it's a blessing in disguise.
M-audio does suck, though. My FW 410 finally gave up last night, after 4+ years of faulty service (from day 1!). Well, I think it's a blessing in disguise.
-
Johnisfaster
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:34 am
- Contact:
and add 3 new instruments (optional), a spectrum analyzer, a handful of sampled drum machines (optional), helpful things like "copy to siblings", multiple automation lanes.chrysalis33rpm wrote:No shit. I can't believe they bothered to add Drum Racks, tempo nudge, sidechaining, and take the software to 64 bit computation
what a lame update this was...
oh yeah, I forgot about the round robin mode in the randomizer device (LOVE THAT ONE), and the fact that the arp can now go up to 128th notes/10ms. savable defaults for any live device.
It was as if someone shook up a 6 foot can of blood soda and suddenly popped the top.
Re: M-Audio FW 410 secrets (Windows only)...
my previous edirol fa-101 took 10 -13 % of cpu just beeing switched on....
edirol also never really did something on this problem.
edirol also never really did something on this problem.
-
Johnisfaster
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:34 am
- Contact:
I'm on a quadcore windows xp machine, I haven't done your test though I can say I've not noticed much issue with my 410. but if you like I'll do your test when I get home and we'll see.noou wrote:thanks for supporting me in blaming M-Audio but...
do any current FW410 owner bother doing the test I proposed above? Please... I would like to confirm it's not a problem with my system but a drivers issue.
Thanks!
I tried asio4all and ended up getting worse latency on my midi equipment than with the regular 410 drivers.
It was as if someone shook up a 6 foot can of blood soda and suddenly popped the top.
yes, thank you!Johnisfaster wrote:
I'm on a quadcore windows xp machine, I haven't done your test though I can say I've not noticed much issue with my 410. but if you like I'll do your test when I get home and we'll see.
I tried asio4all and ended up getting worse latency on my midi equipment than with the regular 410 drivers.
indeed asio4all gives more latency than the regular drivers: for instance, 64 samples gives something between 64 and 128 samples with the regular drivers. I tested this with the "driver error" tutorial in Live.
I run my 410 with 128 sample buffers most of the time and it works perfectly giving about 7.6mS overall latency. Occasionally If I'm using tons of effects and soft synths I get a few drop outs and have to increase the buffer size to 256, but I can't remember the last time that happened. The beta drivers for vista seem much more solid than previous driver releases.
I'll do your test later and let you know what happens.
I'll do your test later and let you know what happens.
Noel has left the building!
Johnisfaster wrote:what a lame update this was...
compared to 3to4 or 4to5 it was, basically from my viewpoint which gives a shit about drum racks, boring halfhearted old school synthies and another thousand useless samples. thoughtful inside improvements (creative midi-communication) would have been the way, more than posing extensions. there are a few things i like about the new version, compressor and the automation improvements, but its not enough if you got a certain approach.
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
ok, thanks!Noel wrote:I run my 410 with 128 sample buffers most of the time and it works perfectly giving about 7.6mS overall latency. Occasionally If I'm using tons of effects and soft synths I get a few drop outs and have to increase the buffer size to 256, but I can't remember the last time that happened. The beta drivers for vista seem much more solid than previous driver releases.
I'll do your test later and let you know what happens.
in details, my test works like this:
- - be sure to activate only the 410 main outputs (1&2 both mono and stereo) and no inputs
- set latency to either 64 or 128 samples
- set the test frequency to 40Hz or so (it's a lot less annoying than the default 440Hz)
- raise the test volume to at least -20dB (it's easier to spot dropouts)
- set the test CPU load to either 50% or 80%
- wait for about 5 minutes (a little boring) and take note of what you heard.
@64 samples:
- CPU 50%: single dropout at 2'23"
CPU 80%: single dropout at 2'02"
- CPU 50%: single dropout at 2'40"
CPU 80%: single dropout at 2'40"
@128 samples:
- CPU 50%: no dropouts for more than 5' (then I stopped)
CPU 80%: no dropouts for more than 5' (then I stopped)