Difference between ASIO drivers

Hi,
I have SB Audigy 4 and eg. in Fruity Loops I can choose between ASIO 24/96 and Creative ASIO. Which is better? When I launched several VST plugins, both of these drivers couldn't get below 10 ms latency. In Ableton I can also see that Creative Asio driver offers more Inputs anf outputs, but only 48 kHz sample rate. With ASIO 24/96 I can choose the sample rate, but there are only 2 inputs. Could somone help me which one should I use? Thanks a lot.

macer wrote:
Hi,
I have SB Audigy 4 and eg. in Fruity Loops I can choose between ASIO 24/96 and Creative ASIO. Which is better? When I launched several VST plugins, both of these drivers couldn't get below 10 ms latency. In Ableton I can also see that Creative Asio driver offers more Inputs anf outputs, but only 48 kHz sample rate. With ASIO 24/96 I can choose the sample rate, but there are only 2 inputs. Could somone help me which one should I use? Thanks a lot.
Creative ASIO and SB Audigy ASIO [xxx] are 16-bit/48 kHz drivers.
SB Audigy 4 ASIO 24/96 [xxxx] driver gives better audio quality, but eats much more recources.
Latency is dependent on HW, like CPU, performance too (not just a driver, but if driver is poorly coded, it can then be the culprit for weak performance w/ low latency settings too). There are a test results available, showing how different latency settings affects on CPU performance @ http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=34827.
On Live, don't you see more than 2 choices listed on Input Config -panel, or is it just you have not selected (lighted) all available? Live do not have names for I/O's, so you need to check this by your self (see below).
BTW: If your card is the SB0610 --> you need only select Inputs
(1&2) AnalogMix() L/R --> LineIn (or Aux 1)
(last) Mic L/R --> microphone input (the mic line is mono!!)
(3&4) Mix L/R --> What U Hear
and outputs
(1&2) --> stereo output
(Note: Normally, outputs 3&4 are then Front L/R, 5&6 Rear L/R, etc..)
Data inside brackets above means --> channel numbers on Live settings (least I have in this way).
jutapaMessage Edited by jutapa on 06-01-2006 02:26 PM

Similar Messages

Difference between Thin Drivers and Thick Drivers

hi all,
can any one tell me the difference between Thin Drivers and Thick Drivers.
regards
ravi

OCI is Oracle Call Interface. That's the lowest-level client API Oracle offers and the API that every thick client application eventually uses. For example, a C++ application using ADO would use the OLE DB driver which is itself written in OCI.
From a deployment standpoint, the major difference is that the thin driver can be deployed to any machine that has Java installed. The OCI driver can only be deployed to machines that have the Oracle client installed.
From a performance & functionality standpoint, there are features that only the OCI driver provides. Depending on the application, the OCI driver may also be faster.
Justin
Distributed Database Consulting, Inc.
http://www.ddbcinc.com/askDDBC

Difference between oracle and BEA JDBC Drivers

One of our application plan to move from BEA JDBC drives to Oracle drivers.
We use Weblogic 9.2 as application server and Oracle 10g as the database.
Questions
=======
1. What is the basic difference between these drivers and how do we decide which one to use.
2. What can be the impact of moving to Oracle drives from BEA on the overall application...?
3. Other than change in the jdbc.datasource.url = jdbc:oracle:thin:@, do we need to take anything else into consideration.
Pls. let me know in case any further details are required.
Thanks in advance.

"1. What is the basic difference between these drivers and how do we decide which one to use."
They are totally different products made independently by different companies.
"2. What can be the impact of moving to Oracle drives from BEA on the overall application...?"
As long as your application uses standard JDBC APIs, the impacts will be minimized, and
unpredictable, some running faster, some slower... Any bug list for one driver will be
different than for the other. If you use any driver-specific extension APIs, they won't
be in the other driver.
"3. Other than change in the jdbc.datasource.url = jdbc:oracle:thin:@, do we need to take anything else into consideration."
Also changing the diver/datasource class name, and reviewing any arguments/driver properties.
Property names and functions are usually driver-specific.
Joe

Difference between Oracle9i 9.2.0.3 and Oracle9i 9.2.0.4 JDBC Drivers

Hi everybody,
Can you tell me what is Difference between Oracle9i 9.2.0.3 and Oracle9i 9.2.0.4 JDBC Drivers briefly?
In my application I am using Oracle9i 9.2.0.3 JDBC Drivers. But it is not supported when I retrieved Data with junk character from CLOB.because of IO Exception it showing Bigger type length than Maximum
if i used Oracle9i 9.2.0.4 JDBC Drivers it is working properly.
I am using WAS 4.0.3 , JDK1.3 and Oracle 9.0.
Shall I use Oracle9i 9.2.0.4 in my application and I want to know it will create any new problem in my application or not ?
please Reply me ASAP.
i am waiting for your reply
thanks a lot
bye
Message was edited by:
paulusazapakcom

Can you tell me what is Difference between Oracle9i
9.2.0.3 and Oracle9i 9.2.0.4 JDBC Drivers briefly?Search the Oracle site. That should tell if there are any differences at all. I would assume that there would be some bug fixes.
please Reply me ASAP.
i am waiting for your replySuch lines are better avoided.

Find the difference between loading and registering the drivers..

Dear Sir..
Could you please help me to find the difference between two activities..
1.Loading the drivers
2.Registering the drivers
What's the difference between loading and registeing the drivers and what activities take place by the JVM to do it all.

Dear Sir..
Could you please help me to find the difference
between two activities..
1.Loading the drivers
2.Registering the drivers
What's the difference between loading and registeing
the drivers and what activities take place by the JVM
to do it all.You load a class - it isn't specific to a driver.
That is part of java - not JDBC.
Normally JDBC drivers register themselves when the class is loaded. This is specific to the driver and has nothing to do with a user of the driver. It is only a concern to someone who must implement a driver.

Differences between mcp and mcp t sound

this is all sound sound info direct from a man at nvidia who knows
PLEASE NOTE ONLY MCP2-T BOARD MSI DO AT THE MOMMENT IS THE K7N2G-ILSR
The MCP has no hardware support for audio of any kind, period. Windows and the CPU do all the audio work on that part and there is absolutely no DSP, NVIDIA or otherwise, in that chip to help out. Try to do EAX, any kind of reverb or chorus, or a music preset on those boards and you'll see the CPU usage climb. Ditto if you add more voices to the mix: CPU usage goes up.
The MCP-T has a full hardware audio DSP, hardware acceleration for 2D and 3D streams, and Dolby Digital encode support. EQs, HRTFs, and all environmental settings are exposed and modifiable by the user. None of this is available on the soft solutions due to the heavy hit on the CPU if they were enabled.
Short of that, you can try to use the ASIO or OpenAL drivers. You'll find that neither will work on the MCP because there is no supporting hardware for them. In short, there is no way to coax an MCP to be an APU capable part, the support simply isn't in the chip
Here's the chip differences:
MCP has the following:
- ATA-133 x 2 ports
- USB 1.0/1.1/2.0 x 6 ports
- NVIDIA MAC 10/100 x 1 port
- Legacy I/O bus (PS2, Printer, Serial)
- AC 97 host based audio (no DSP)
MCP-T includes the above and adds the following:
- 3Com MAC 10/100 x 1 port
- 1394A Firewire MAC x 3 ports
- NVIDIA APU with Dolby Digtal Encoder

thats not to say mcp is bad as this proves
The MCP2 is definately hardware sound. As far as the APU goes the only difference between MCP2 and MCP2-T is the T version has Soundstorm(Dolby Digital). Basically Mcp2-T =5.1 digital output capabilities Mcp2 no digital output, analogue output only. The other differences are the T version Has Dual Lan support and a firewire controller which the plain MCP2 does not. Here are my cpu utilization test results from Audio winbench proving that The MCP2 APU is a hardware APU.
http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28870#28870
to see the test he ran ,will not copy /paste
MSI K7N2-L Mainboard
Athlon XP 2000+ Retail cooler
MSI Geforce3 TI 200
1Gig (2x512) Kingston pc2700 Ram
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 8meg cache 80 gig
WD 600BB 60 gig
Onboard Nforce 2 APU (no soundstorm
just to explain differences

Color differences between Camera RAW 6.2 and Photoshop CS5

Hi,
I have got two problems:
Everytime I open a raw file in Camera Raw, the picture is a bit darker than in Photoshop. The difference is very annoying...
and, apart from that,
2. The pictures in Adobe Bridge look much more saturated and darker than in Camera RAW or Photoshop. The result of my research was, that I have to go to "Edit -> Bridge Color Pre-Settings" and choose the right color-management. But when I klick on the button, it says that the function is something like deactivated. Someone said, I have to buy the entire Creative Suite to activate this function? Is that true?
The color profile I work with: sRGB
I already updated Bridge, Camera RAW and Photoshop. But the problem still exists...
Does anyone know the problems and may help me?
Thanks a lot!
-Aldo

Thanks for your replies.
A few minutes ago I calibrated my display again. Now, the difference between ACR and Photoshop seems to be even greater.
When the calibration was finished, the software offered a before/after-button (Before and after calibration). The "Before-image" was much more dark than the "after-image". Just as dark as the photo is in ACR(!).
Maybe there's a connection. I think Photoshop uses the right profile (the profile generated by the Spyder2Express), but ACR uses some different wrong profile.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Chris Cox wrote:
Hmm, they should be the same.
How did you calibrate your display? Where did the display profile come from?
The profile called "Spyder2express.icm" was saved in C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color

Difference between Dimension Objects L00 and L01

Dear SDNers,
While I was creating a universe data source as SAP BW Cube(OLAP) in the business layer of the universe Designer creates a class containing the characteristic as two dimension objects: Level 00 and Level 01. Ex: Material is Class-->Material Number is Sub Class->L00 material number,L01 Material Number as dimension objects and L00 Material Number Key,L01 Material Number Key as Detail object.
Please tell me What is the difference between L00 and L01 ? I have read the help but I could nt get it.

Hi swathi,
From an OLAP point of view a characteristic is like a dimension, that means that it contains all the members (level L01) and the All member that aggregates the characteristic members (level L00);
These metadata are provied by SAP BW when using OLAP drivers.
For a characteristic, the level L00 is not necessary unless you want to use the All member.
On the other hand, the level L00 is significant for hierarchies, hierarchy varaibles and structures because it contains members.
We provide an option for the universe generation and the universe update that allows to generate or not the level L00.
This option is available since BOE XI3.1 SP2.
In SP3, we improved the L00 generataion to only impacts the characteristics and not hierarchies and structures.
So the recommendation for characteristics is to not use L00.
All the best
Praveen

Are there any difference between fx. the Nvidia FX3800 and GTX 260?

Does anybody understand why I fell frustrated and confused about all this videocard discussions?
Some tells me that the FX3800 is a better card - more pro - stabillity etc. than low-price cards - like GTX 260/285/295 - and some tells me that GTX 260 = FX3800. I read on other webpages about how people are having problems having their GTX 260 recognized as a FX 3800 (not in PPro but by Nvidia software). Other places tells about how to softmod GTX 260 to a FX 3800. Some tells me that there is a big difference between these cards - others they are almost alike - same GPU etc. I read that the difference between GTX 260 and FX 3800 is only the looks of it from outside - inside they are alike - and that apart from that only drivers are different.
I have ordered the FX 3800 - believing it will perform better and more stable and give me really good playback rendering inside PPro CS5 compared to my GTX 260. If I get the same performance and stability by just changing two lines in a textfile with my old GTX 260 I feel cheated...I hope this is not happening.
Someone from Adobe or Nvidida - please tell us - what there is a differnece between fx. the GTX 260 and the FX 3800 besides from the outside look and some drivers? If there is no difference between them - I can not see any other reason for only supporting the FX cards than $$$...If there are a difference in Quadra/FX favour - and I sincerly hope so - I understand why you choose Quadro cards - but if they are just alike inside - I just feel we have all been mislead. I could have saved my money...time will show - I get the FX 3800 in a few days...can´t return it (danish rules when you buy it as a company) - so I´m 1000$ short this month...:(
I would feel much more comfortable in having ordered the FX 3800 if someone from Adobe could tell me excactly how much better FX 3800 is from the GTX 260 - apart from being supported and the GTX is not. And if there is more in it than just changing a simple textfile? Are there any more things going on inside PPro - deep inside - that affects performance with FX cards besides from two lines in a textfile? Who can help answering that question - and I mean really answering it in serious way - not just saying - off course the FX is better - because its more expenssive.
Haven´t we all experienced this in other situations? Like buying a car? Fx. Inside SKODA FABIA is a VW engine like the ones used in much more expensive VW cars. Only difference is the name and the outside look - and some comfort. The engine is the same - and in a way you could say that from an engine-point-of-view - the cars are alike. But you pay for comfort.
Is the same thing going on here? I pay more for FX 3800 for the looks of it from the outside and some software-drivers that makes it more stable - but inside it is just like GTX 260? So from a graphic-performance-GPU-point-of-view I actually have two cards that are alike and I reaaly am paying for software and not hardware?
/Morten

You are right -. and I keep spanking myself in the head with a wet towel.
I will lie in my bed - thinking of the nice new bicycle I could have bought instead of the FX 3800....;-)
No seriously - I know what I have done - and maybe I have done right - I don´t know? Time will show and I will sell or buy.
What I am frustrated about is the fact that I actually just decided to buy FX 3800 because Adobe and Nvidida toold me too - to get support for MPE and now it seems that my old GTX 260 is much like the FX 3800 if not the same inside? And I am frustrated about that it is possible to change a line in a simple textfile and suddenly get support for the GTX 260 to play MPE. This fact only put more lit on the conspiracy-fire about Adobe and Nvidia having made a simple software-trick to make some cards work others not = making a lot of money on fools like me...
You must admitt it is a rather tempting conclusion - if one is in the conspiracy-mood. Well - I try to think good about people. And Adobe convinced me at last that I needed the FX 3800 card. So I did order it eventually - because I need the MPE NOW - Can´t wait - having so bad performance and issues with PPro 4 - been so frustrated about edditting for almost ½ a year now - constantly having issues etc. And I am going to start new big project in 7 days. Have just spend 2000$ on upgrade to Master Collection and have making thoughts about wich card to buy long time ago - the GTX 285 or FX 3800 - to get the MPE support. And same day I order I suddenly see that the softmod makes my old GTX 260 to a FX 3800. And other posts claim that the cards are the same inside. No wonder I get frustrated - others must be the same.
So what I am trying to say is that: I feel like Adobe and Nvidida is not being honest with us. If it turns out that the only thing Adobe has done is making a simple textfile to make cards supported or not by enteringior changing the names of the cards inside the textfile - and nothing else....And if fx. a softmoded GTX 260 turns out to perform excactly the same and be as stable as a FX 3800 to 5-6 x the price - I will feel cheated and feel like a stupid fool.
I certainly do not hope this is what is going on. But it seems no one can help me but myself - testing and trying these cards - and I will try to post my results in this forum - so others might have easier tomake a choice...
I´l be back....
Cheers

Qosmio X70-A - difference between nVidia and Toshiba GPU driver

Is there any difference between the nvidia display driver and the one packed by toshiba?
I've been using the one from toshiba but Geforce Experience is giving me a headache with warnings about a newer driver and toshiba doesn't seem to supply one.

Yes of course there is a difference between the nVidia GPU drivers (or any drivers provided by graphic card manufacturers) and drivers provided by Toshiba.
The GPU drivers from Toshiba driver page are modified and made for mobile usage.
Every notebook model supports different components (CPU, cooling modules, etc) and different design. Therefore the heat dissipation is always different.
The GPU driver provided by Toshiba supports some kind of GPU overheating protection and protects the graphic chip from damage. This means that GPU performance is controlled by the driver and in case the internal temperature would increase to critical level, the GPU performance would be decreased. Also the notebook shuts down automatically if temperature would be too high.

HT1604 Is there any difference between Mac OS Extended Format and ExFat?

Is there any difference between Mac OS Extended Format and ExFat? I read in a blog that the ExFat was a good way to format an external drive because it avoided many of the pitfalls of the other formats, as long as it is supported by the operating system. I tried to format my new Seagate drive, and got an invalid option error. I was able to format it in Mac OS Extended format. Can you please tell me if this is similar to ExFat. Thanks.

The Mac OS format can only be natively read to and written to by a computer running the Mac OS. This creates a problem if the user wishes his external, or other drive to have seamless compatibility between two different OS's, such as Windows and Mac. Yes, there are software solutions that enable a Windows PC to work with a drive formatted as Mac OS, but it gets complicated if you wish that drive to have compatibility "on the fly" with any PC you may encounter.
It turns out that the format known as ExFAT is able to be natively read by both a Mac and a PC, without running any additional drivers on either machine. ExFAT also doesn't have some of the limitations of FAT32, which both OS's will also read/write.
ExFAt is not perfect though. Formatting the drive as Mac OS Extended has some advantages on a Mac. First, it is the only format that permits all functionality of the Mac OS, such as using the drive for Time Machine.
ExFAt is often thought of as the best middleground for an external partition/drive that needs to have easy cross platform compatibility between a Mac and PC running Vista or Windows 7.

Differences between wireless cards

Speccing out an All-In-One Pavilion to purchase. There are 3 listed wirelss options:---------------------------NetworkingNetwork port for broadband and Internet connectivity included. Internet access is sold separately. HP Wireless 802.11 b/g/n 1x1 M.2 NIC Included in price HP WLAN 802.11 b/g/n 1x1 MCard BT +$5.00 HP Wireless 802.11 b/g/n 1x1 with Bluetooth M.2 NIC +$7.00------------------------Anyone know the differences between them? The third clearly has Bluetooth, the second might (says BT). Is the 2nd one a different form factor? (MCard vs. M.2 - I know what an M.2 slot is, what's an MCard?) Are there different manufacturers for the cards? (Not all drivers are created equal.) If MCard = M.2 and BT = Bluetooth, then what exactlty is the difference between #2 & #3? I tried emailing sales support, but they don't seem to be equipped to answer such a question. Any knowledge appreciated.Thanks.

Excellent info, thank you. One follow-up question. If I choose the MCard option, the M.2 connector should then be free.Does the Pavilion 23SE Touch All-In-One have sufficient room to install an M.2 SSD for a boot drive? (The BIOS would also likely need to support it.) I realize that there is a 1TB/8GB hybrid option which appears to be newly avaialble, but I don't really like those. I checked the maintenance manual a week ago or so but it only covers the hard drive, optical drive and RAM, I think. No mention (or diagram) of the PCI-E or M.2 connectors.Thanks.

ASIO drivers for Audigy 2 SZ Video Edi

Hi All,
I've read as much information as I could get available about the new Video Editor. It seems like a "best of both worlds" combination between a video and an audio specialized cards.
One thing I noticed on the product description is that ASIO drivers, which are proeminently featured in the descriptions of other Audigy 2 ZS cards, are not even mentioned in the Video Editor.
Any one knows if this is just an omission, or does the V.E. not support ASIO in fact?
I ask because I'm considering getting a V.E. for video capture, but also as a sound board for music creation. I don't need the Wavetable Synth integrated in all the 2 ZS, or the MIDI ports of the 2 ZS Platinum or Platinum Pro, but ASIO support is important to ensure low latency monitoring.
While we're at it, does any one already has some usage experience with the Video Editor, specially as a sound board? (I expect the video part would be quite good)
thanks and regards,
jos?

Hi again,
I've just found some relevant info in the knowledge base:
Solution ID # 2378 ASIO - General Information and Essential Troubleshooting...
Which Creative cards support ASIO2.0?
SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Platinum eX*, and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS series...
But I expect this info (unfortunately, not date, that I could see) is previous to the quite recent issuing of the 2 ZS Video Editor in the market, so I'm still stuck with this question? Does the V.E. offer support for ASIO?
regards,
jos?

Is there any difference between the commerical product and the Teacher/Student version?

In Adobe Photo Shop Elements 13 and Premiere Elements 13 is there any difference between the commerical product and the Teacher/Student version? I don't remember them having two versions in the past.

Is there a difference? Sure. Will it be noticable? Maybe.
The 9i client will use one of the 9i ODBC drivers. The 8i client will use one of the 8i ODBC drivers. The 9i drivers will generally have more bug fixes & more features than the 8i drivers. It is possible, though rare, that the 9i drivers will fix a bug whose behavior your application was dependent on and/or introduce bugs that were not in the earlier version. Of course, you have to consider the different features of the underlying clients as well-- i.e. a 9.2 Oracle client cannot communicate with a 7.3.4 database, an 8i client doesn't know how to handle data types introduced in 9i (i.e. TIMESTAMP), etc.
Justin

Difference between audigy value and sound blas

Since i am unable to find comparisions between soundblaster 24bit and AudigyValue in site , Anyone can give me the difference between these two ?

Other than the name, not much. Both cards lack the EMU0K/2 chip, and have to do all processing in software (cpu processing instead of on the card). Oh yeah and the Audigy SE has newer drivers than the Value (and will probably install on the SB 24 bit).
All things considering if you are looking at a card for gaming (or just about anything else) avoid both of them.

Difference between ASIO drivers

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for