genericperson wrote on Sun, 19 June 2005 21:07 |
I would be psyched if Weiss decided to put their hardware eq/comps onto dedicated PCI slot cards. That way D.W. can control the dsp architecture and copy-protection scheme, but we won't have to pay for the extra expense of a rackmount box with i/o, knobs, displays, psu's, etc. Anybody else like this idea? |
Bob Boyd wrote on Sun, 19 June 2005 20:55 |
I just don't want to relive the Mac NuBus to Mac PCI transition again. |
Bob Boyd wrote on Mon, 20 June 2005 02:55 |
If the PCI slot format still has a bright future, I would imagine you'd get greater throughput using the slot rather than a firewire port. |
JayTea wrote on Mon, 20 June 2005 06:45 |
p.s. whassup with the new PCI-X cards ? |
Bob Boyd wrote on Mon, 20 June 2005 11:53 |
Well, here it is from the man himself... I emailed Daniel about the possibility of a PCI card and he replied: "A PCI card is too small for our requirements. Regards, Daniel" |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 04:59 | ||
I'm not qualified to get Daniel's lunch, but I wonder. Today's fancy video card has more horsepower than a lowly stereo eq, doesn't it? And a wire straight to the PSU. A Watt or two per part shouldn't be a problem, even if you have four or five big ones. Even Sonic was able to get five 56k's in there! DC |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 05:59 | ||
I'm not qualified to get Daniel's lunch, but I wonder. Today's fancy video card has more horsepower than a lowly stereo eq, doesn't it? And a wire straight to the PSU. A Watt or two per part shouldn't be a problem, even if you have four or five big ones. Even Sonic was able to get five 56k's in there! DC |
Daniel Weiss wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 05:32 |
Well, the raw horsepower would fit on a PCI, agreed, but we had some other design constraints, like: - platform independence, i.e. not only PC or MAC but also hardware type remote control w/o computer (e.g. for products we plan in our highend-hifi department or for specific one of a kind applications or for OEMs). - versatile, modular audio interfacing, including analog for certain applications, which would mean a breakout box if we used a PCI card. - Modularity of DSP power which allows for upgrading in terms of number of DSPs as well as type of DSPs (new generations of DSPs). - protection of intellectual property, which is simpler in an external box. - physical presence of a Weiss box - which looks good in any studio The Powerhouse (as we call the box) has the following features: - Up to 10 Sharc DSPs (5 modules at 2 sharcs each) with a total of up to 80 MWords of fast RAM - 4 slots for audio interfaces, the first interface we designed is an 8 channel AES/EBU I/O in one slot - versatile syncing, (almost) no restrictions to sampling rates, e.g. DXD is possible - Ethernet / firewire connection to the host computer - MIDI / RS232 ports for special applications Daniel www.weiss.ch (there isn't anything about the Powerhouse on our site yet) |
genericperson wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 06:50 |
It sounds awesome, and sounds like $7000. I store my computers in a closet, so nothing to look at there! I guess I'm wierd; I like PCI cards. Phrased another way, it would be real nice to have a way to have the DS-1 MKII processing for $2000, but it seems it will always be married to some sort of elaborate hardware that drives the price up to $7000. |
Luke Fellingham wrote on Mon, 20 June 2005 03:00 | ||
I guess PCI does have higher potential throughput, but if TC's firewire Powercore platform is anything to go by then firewire should still be able to provide all the throughput that is likely to be needed! |
Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 12:35 | ||||
We had a TC Powercore and had nothing but problems with the firewire interface. The computer would stutter and then give up completely and we would have to close down the host application (Wavelab) and start the whole process over again. We finally gave up and send the unit back to the dealer. We were told that we were not the only ones having this problem. Maybe the PCI would be a better solution... |
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 21 |
but personally i don't trust firewire at all..... better than usb..... but that doesn't say alot.... |
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 09:37 |
IEEE 1394's 50mb/s transfer rate |
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 21 June 2005 15:37 | ||
Except USB2.0 has a 60mb/s transfer rate vs. IEEE 1394's 50mb/s transfer rate (with USB1.1 at a turtle like 1.5mb/s). Its probably clunky driver implementations in some USB2.0 devices that makes some Firewire devices faster in actual performance. I still also prefer PCI cards for audio devices - but one thing an external Firewire device would give you would be portability so that you could bring it from studio to studio or room to room if you wanted to. Best regards, Steve Berson |
genericperson wrote on Wed, 22 June 2005 23:05 |
I hope i'm not contributing to stuff that Brad would consider off-topic. But the subject got on to USB vs. Firewire, just wanted to chime in with some "street wisdom" (that would be Geek Street, by the way ) USB 2.0 can put up comparable burst numbers to Firewire, even exceed it sometimes. But for *sustained* transfer rates (which is what we typically rely on) Firewire is better. Besides better speed, Firewire has more robust time-stamping of the parsed data. And that's comparing "basic" Firewire. The latest Firewire probably kills USB 2.0 in all areas. "Geek Street, the King of the Beat, you seem 'em rockin' that beat from across the street." |
genericperson wrote on Wed, 22 June 2005 17:05 |
I hope i'm not contributing to stuff that Brad would consider off-topic. |