Preamp racks/Firewire interfaces - your opinions please

For some time now I've been looking at getting the MOTU 896, as it appears to be a great deal and of great quality. However, the more I look at the forums I've noticed that everyone seems to love their presonus stuff a whole lot.
So now for your opinions. . . does anyone have any good info or experience with either one of these? Which do you guys like better? Or are there any other interfaces that you'd pick over either of these two? Thanks a lot.

Its tough, and its all about budget. I wanted to record 16 channels in a live setting, so I went with two firepods. So far, a pretty good experience, though i've had some problems with digital artifacts at random times. Tech support has been pretty good, but we haven't fixed the problem. I've recently discovered that it might be the longer fw cables i bought a while back, not sure yet.
That said, I'm planning on purchasing an Ensemble once it ships with working drivers and someone has tested it. This way, I'll have 4 apogee pre-amps, 4 line inputs (one firepod in hardware mode will feed this) for a total of 8 apogee A/D convertors, then daisy chain my other pod for an additional 8 channels, also clocked by the Ensemble w/ SPDIF. It should make the pods sound even better.
From what I've read on these boards, I would definitely go with RME, Metric halo, or possibly the Ensemble. Haven't heard good things about the 896 pres.
Regardless, you will probably need more pre-amps if you are recording drums, so something like the Presonus Digimax FS or LT will probably be the cheapest option. It really depends on how many pres you need exactly.

Similar Messages

Worth Buying? (Your Opinions Please!)

Hello!
I have a macintosh G5 and a PowerbookG4.
Is it worth me buying the new 20" Cinema Display when I have the 17" Studio Display?
If I buy it, can I use both monitors at once? Or does the cinema display take up both ports?
Thanks for your opinions...

Hi Actingbiz,
the Dual 2 G5 have dual graphics cards on board, so you can hook up both your 17" and 20" displays.
Is it worth it ? Well, two 23" cinema diplays would be nicer ...
But seriously; looking at those apps you've listed in your profile, I'd say you'll certainly benefit from a 2nd screen, even if it's not the same model as the older one. If possible at all, I'd always go for two identical screens; and I'd also try not to downgrade.
Hope this helps

Your opinions please using Sonicfire Pro 5 in FCP7

Im using FCP7 and interested in Sonicfire Pro 5 (or 5.1 i think for the MacPro?) for the reason that it looks as though it could speed up my music creation, mainly because of its mood-mapping technology. I would be interested to hear from actual users on how effective/good this is app is.
Detailed opinions apprectaed.. Sonic is not cheap in UK !!
thanks.

If I need to hook an audience (festival selection people) in the first 5-10 minutes does this signal something that is not so 'sizzle-y'? < </div>
Festival selection staff are supposed to be sophisticated enough to appreciate that a narrative is a journey. Hooking an audience in the first 30 seconds is what you do in a commercial television show. Your audience is different, you have a bunch of folks sitting in a dark room who want to be entertained.
But, back to the title cards. Variations have been used effectively in hundreds of superb films; Star Wars comes to mind. The question is whether or not your film needs it. Focus groups are lousy editors and they're even worse at writing movies. Your director has to decide if the focus groups are writing his movie.
bogiesan

Intel iMac 20' users - any problems with noise on your firewire interfaces?

Someone please tell me that they have a quiet intel iMac 20'/Firewire interface set up, I'm having problems with a lot of digital noise from my Saffire LE & badly am hoping it's 'fixable' or just a faulty unit but more so, praying it's not noise from the iMacs Power supply that will interfere with any firewire interface I get???
I've read many posts about G5's suffering from noisy psu's which was one factor in my choosing an intel iMac & I chose the Saffire on it's great reviews for sound quality, there's no way I can work with the noise I'm getting & I'm pretty much panicking that if it IS the iMac & firewire thats the problem I'll be screwed as i only have 6 pin firewire as a useable option (really don't want to use usb2)
Incidentally, the 'budget' set up I had previously (PC & soundblaster audigy) didnt suffer from any noise like this (at least not that was even audible with the mixer levels at conversational level!) which i guess rules out any blame of this on 'mains hum/interference'?
The noise is there with the saffire's monitor output knob at any setting & with no inputs connected, it;s even worse if i power the saffire with it's external psu instead of off buss power. I'm not using a firewire hub & I've tried switching firewire leads & removing the firewire hard drive i have in the other port in case this was affecting it.
Would really appreciate hearing from anyone with similar troubles or even better anyone thats NOT having this problem with a 20' intel iMac & firewire interface so at least i know there's light (& quiet!) at the end of the tunnel
Adam
Intel iMac 20' Mac OS X (10.4.7)

funnily enough I'm going the other way, I have a rack of external modules/>sampler/fx etc & a crate of looms I've just unplugged as they've not been >turned on in so long!!!
I hear you there!
The noise is there without any inputs at all to the interface, its defiantely >digital though, its like a toned version of the sound of an old telephone >modem.
What I mean, is try disconnecting everything, drives and all. You might even disconnect the interface and crank up the iMacs volume to see if it is there. If it is, you can try the UPS and see if that takes care of it. Then add them in one at a time. All it takes is one cheap power brick in the mix to cause all kinds of trouble (if your using powered monitors, that brick too). Noisy components can actually send noise back into the source power.
I know it can be really frustrating, especially if you have noise coming from more that one source. The key is to strip everything until it is quiet and then add them back in to see where the worst is. Then come up with a plan to try to get rid of the noise.

Which firewire interface for Final Cut Pro on MacPro?

I currently own a Presonus Firepod, and it seems to work pretty well, but may sell this when I upgrade from a MacMini to a MacPro. I use my Mac for Logic Pro currently.
I anticipate running Final Cut Pro in the near future, so I'm wondering about the ability to read/generate SMPTE time code that the MOTU traveller supplies?
There will be no external mixer, so this interface will connect directly to speakers & headphones. (would be nice to be able to mute speakers and control headphone mix using just the firewire interface).
I don't anticipate needing more than 2 Mic inputs - and my current mike is a Rode NT1. (As the NT1 is not a top-of-the-line mic, unsure if I should place a lot of emphasis on worrying about the pre-ams?)
I would like decent mic preamps, and ability to graphically monitor input and output levels (is this graphic monitoring necessary, or is just the single overload indicator sufficient?).
Which interfaces in $600-$1500 range would work best with Final Cut Pro - and Logic Pro?

I saw the Traveller ads in Videography mentioning
time code, so I presumed it had an advantage over
other interfaces.
I found this in some ad copy:
"""The Travler provides on-board SMPTE time code synchronization features that allow you to slave your Traveler system to SMPTE time code without a synchronizer. The Traveler provides a DSP-driven phase-lock engine with sophisticated filtering that provides fast lockup times and sub-frame accuracy. The included MOTU SMPTE Console software provides a complete set of tools to generate SMPTE for striping, regenerating or slaving other devices to the computer."""
So it likely uses an audio port for timecode I/O. However, unless you have external equipment that you want to slave to Logic Pro, (or have Logic slave to) e.g. a timecode DAT, then this really is not necessary. FCP would not see the Travaller as a "controllable" device.
For Final Cut Pro use, I'd probably shoot in HDV.
When shooting a green screen near my computer (or
maybe even on-site), I wondered if there would be an
advantage to recording the audio thru an interface
like the traveller.
The advantage is that you could capture additional mics and audio tracks with your mac while the cameras shoot. Just slate your takes and sync up later.
Do I actually need an interface that provides time
code, or is that only needed for movie work?
I have SMPTE I/O on my Unitor8, directly accessable in Logic Pro. In 8 years I've probably used it twice to capture audio from some modular digital multitracks. So, unless you have some specific need.....
Maybe it is simpler just to connect to the mic
directly to the camera's input?
Indeed. You should always have camera audio available. Anything else is supplemental. Alternatively, you could use the Travaller or RME, etc. as a "live to camera" mixer in a studio situation. Plug your mics into the interface, create a submix and send it to the camera while simultaneously capturing each mic to an individual track in Logic Pro. There are many possibilities.
G5 QuadPPC2.5, Ram:12.5g, Magma PCIe-PCI expansion Mac OS X (10.4.8) 2X Hammerfall DSP Digiface+Multiface, Digi 002r, 4X UAD-1

Are there ANY firewire interfaces that work with 24" imac 2.16 Core 2 duo?

This is really getting frustrating. I have now tried and failed at getting both an m-audio profire lightbridge and a TC electronic studio konnekt 48 to work on this computer. Both interfaces were tested with Leopard and Tiger, no success.
My computer is NOT the aluminum imac, it's the earlier whiteface version, so it's supposed to have the TI chipset(I've been told that the aluminum imacs don't work because they have a agrere chipset....) The firewire port works fine with an external hard drive, but no one seems to be able to write software drivers that work.
If anyone is successfully running a firewire interface with this model computer please let me know what OS you are running, the interface, and what software you are using.
I'm starting to think that the problem is on apple's end, it shouldn't be this hard for third party manufacturers to write reliable drivers. both m-audio and tc electronic's forums are littered with complaints about bad drivers for the last year or so.
Message was edited by: MNMinstrel

Yildox - I've been doing a little more research... Your imac has a known problem, it's the particular firewire chipset it uses, made by Agere. The older white versions have a Texas instruments chipset, which is supposed to be better, though I haven't had any success with mine so far in the audio interface department.
I really think that the problem is bigger than that though. Everyone having a problem with a firewire audio interface seems to have one similarity, a mac made in the last 2 years running OS 10.4.9 or later.

HD I/O card opinions please

I'm brinking a purchase of an HD card for my Quad. In the immediate future it's to handle DVCPROHD projects, as everyone and their wife/husband/partner/pet seems to want to shoot with the Varicam these days, but obviously I'll consider other formats fair game too. I'm interested to know the community's opinions on the cards.
Context: Offline editorial mostly, not much finishing. But I'd like to be able to finish and deliver occasionally. So I don't need humungous hardware acceleration of compositing timelines. Monitoring flexibility would be good, so I don't always need HD monitors. I'm (currently) only working with Firewire drives. Yes, contemplating a SATA RAID.
It seems I'm looking at (in order of cost):
DeckLink HD Pro PCIe™
Aurora Pipe HD
Aja Kona LHe
Aja Kona 3
Obvious and pointless answers like "the Kona 3 is the best" or "h4xx0rs want Pipe, it's teh snappy" will be rudely dismissed. In fact, since the Kona 3 is the obvious winner already, maybe it's only about the other three cards. Ladies and Gentlemen, cast your ballots please.

DVCPRO HD does not require a capture card to capture nor work with. FCP has been able to capture that format via firewire ever since FCP 4.5 (the reason it got the moniker 'FCP HD').
BUT...you will need a card to output your finished product to other tape formats, as I do not know of one place that takes a DVCPRO HD master tape. Or, you can output to DVCPRO HD tape and take that to be dubbed at a post facility.
OK...the Kona 3 is the king. Just to let you know, the Aurora Pipe HD has not been released yet, so really it is between the Decklink Pro HD 4:2:2 (or 4:4;4) and the Kona.
Shane

Let's discuss my application architecture,and give me your opinions

hello
we have several internal systems that are within the same lan and want to communicate with several external systems that may be in the other buildings by using the release line.i am now considering the architecture for the project,and have got an immature blueprint,please help me to make it more perfect by give me your opinions,the scenario as:
within the lan,there are several systems that are developed by using different languages,let's suppose they are two(named internal1 and internal2),the two systems need to communicate with other two external systems(named external1 and external2) that are also developed by using different languages.all of the communications are bi-direction.there are several combinations:
1 internal1 <--> internal2
2 internal1 <--> external1 or external2
3 internal2 <--> external1 or external2
in my project,the timelimit is critical,as short as possible.
according to the mentioned requirements,i decide to develop a infomation exchanging platform by using java which sit in the MIDDLE of the internal and external systems and WITHIN the lan,act as information dispatcher or coordinator,both of the internal system and external system communicate with it only.considering the multi-language and time-critical feature,i choose the way of socket communication among the systems and design a set of xml format internal protocol.otherwise,i think the message middleware are also needed within my project as message buffer.when i deepen into the detailed designing,i get some confusions,let us discuss them as followiing:
1 if is the socket the good solution for my project?how can i assign the ports?because of the introduction of the information exchanging platform into my project,the communication combination is simplified to "internal system<-->info exchange platform" and "external system<-->info exchange platform",the crucial point for the port designing is how to assign the port in the info exchange platform,that is SERVER socket port.in my designing,i plan to assign different port for each subsystem.thus,the devleopment to the info exchange platform is simplified,that is:when the message comes,i don't need to analyse the xml message to check which system it comes from.but some people suggest me to open ONE port to all the internal systems,and ANOTHER port to all the external sysetms.i don't know which solution is better?if are there some regulations that concern about the socket port assigning?
2 if is the information exchanging platform needed?some one suggest that subsystems can communicate with each other directly,
the coordinating platform is not needed.but i think,from the EAI point of view,there should be a adapter between the internal system and external system.
3 where should i put the message queue server?and if is the mom needed?i plan to use the mq between the exchange platform and external systems ONLY,and it is also within the lan,in my designing,i config two queue for EACH external system,one for incoming message and other for outgoing message,to each queue,i assign a message listener to execute different operations on its "onMessage" method,that is:when the message come from internal system,the exchange platform send them to the exact OUTGOING queue according to the destination of the message,then the listener of the queue call the socket of the according external system and send the message to it.otherwise,when the external system need to send the message to internal system,it call the exact socket port in the exchange platform that is assigned to it as mentioned above,the platform accept the msg,and send them to the exact incoming queue,then the listener deal with the msg and send them to the internal destination.in this solution,i put the mq behind the socket,but someone give me another suggestion,that is i directly put the message queue between the exchange platform and the external systems instead of using the socket as the front-end,all of them send the message to the queue and listen the queue,but i think,in such solution,the external system must listen the queue REMOTELY,is it a good way?
also,somebody tell me that the exchange platform and remote external system can communicate each other DIRECTLY by socket,the message queue is not needed,i don't make sure if the mq is necessary in my situation?and what is the benefit and disadvantage?
as for the communication between the internal system and info exchange platform,i think the mq is NOT needed,they can communicate each other directly by socket,furthermore,in my designing,i make them connect to each other FOREVER,that is i don't close the socket after each message transferation,as mentioned above in the issue of the socket assigning,every port in the exchange platform is DEDICATED,that means the port is specific to each system,so that they don't need to create and close socket connection frequently,that will make the program more performant,but if i use one port to listen all the internal system,then the socket must be closed by the end of each transferation because of the block problem,that is just another reason why i use dedicated port connection to each of the internal system.
4 the another question is the secure issue accompanying by the socket,i think i needn't consider such problem in the internal connection,but to the connection between the platform and external system,the issue become preeminent,that is i must open the socket port in the firewall.but i think the connection between the lan and the external system use special line,not by internet,i wonder if the secure probem is critical in such situation?otherwise,i remember that some kinds of product from visibroker company can solve the firewall socket problem by using the http channel protocol,but i don't remember its name for sure,it seem like is called something gateway.who used such kind thing?and tell me how does it work?

hello
we have several internal systems that are within the same lan and want to communicate with several external systems that may be in the other buildings by using the release line.i am now considering the architecture for the project,and have got an immature blueprint,please help me to make it more perfect by give me your opinions,the scenario as:
within the lan,there are several systems that are developed by using different languages,let's suppose they are two(named internal1 and internal2),the two systems need to communicate with other two external systems(named external1 and external2) that are also developed by using different languages.all of the communications are bi-direction.there are several combinations:
1 internal1 <--> internal2
2 internal1 <--> external1 or external2
3 internal2 <--> external1 or external2
in my project,the timelimit is critical,as short as possible.
according to the mentioned requirements,i decide to develop a infomation exchanging platform by using java which sit in the MIDDLE of the internal and external systems and WITHIN the lan,act as information dispatcher or coordinator,both of the internal system and external system communicate with it only.considering the multi-language and time-critical feature,i choose the way of socket communication among the systems and design a set of xml format internal protocol.otherwise,i think the message middleware are also needed within my project as message buffer.when i deepen into the detailed designing,i get some confusions,let us discuss them as followiing:
1 if is the socket the good solution for my project?how can i assign the ports?because of the introduction of the information exchanging platform into my project,the communication combination is simplified to "internal system<-->info exchange platform" and "external system<-->info exchange platform",the crucial point for the port designing is how to assign the port in the info exchange platform,that is SERVER socket port.in my designing,i plan to assign different port for each subsystem.thus,the devleopment to the info exchange platform is simplified,that is:when the message comes,i don't need to analyse the xml message to check which system it comes from.but some people suggest me to open ONE port to all the internal systems,and ANOTHER port to all the external sysetms.i don't know which solution is better?if are there some regulations that concern about the socket port assigning?
2 if is the information exchanging platform needed?some one suggest that subsystems can communicate with each other directly,
the coordinating platform is not needed.but i think,from the EAI point of view,there should be a adapter between the internal system and external system.
3 where should i put the message queue server?and if is the mom needed?i plan to use the mq between the exchange platform and external systems ONLY,and it is also within the lan,in my designing,i config two queue for EACH external system,one for incoming message and other for outgoing message,to each queue,i assign a message listener to execute different operations on its "onMessage" method,that is:when the message come from internal system,the exchange platform send them to the exact OUTGOING queue according to the destination of the message,then the listener of the queue call the socket of the according external system and send the message to it.otherwise,when the external system need to send the message to internal system,it call the exact socket port in the exchange platform that is assigned to it as mentioned above,the platform accept the msg,and send them to the exact incoming queue,then the listener deal with the msg and send them to the internal destination.in this solution,i put the mq behind the socket,but someone give me another suggestion,that is i directly put the message queue between the exchange platform and the external systems instead of using the socket as the front-end,all of them send the message to the queue and listen the queue,but i think,in such solution,the external system must listen the queue REMOTELY,is it a good way?
also,somebody tell me that the exchange platform and remote external system can communicate each other DIRECTLY by socket,the message queue is not needed,i don't make sure if the mq is necessary in my situation?and what is the benefit and disadvantage?
as for the communication between the internal system and info exchange platform,i think the mq is NOT needed,they can communicate each other directly by socket,furthermore,in my designing,i make them connect to each other FOREVER,that is i don't close the socket after each message transferation,as mentioned above in the issue of the socket assigning,every port in the exchange platform is DEDICATED,that means the port is specific to each system,so that they don't need to create and close socket connection frequently,that will make the program more performant,but if i use one port to listen all the internal system,then the socket must be closed by the end of each transferation because of the block problem,that is just another reason why i use dedicated port connection to each of the internal system.
4 the another question is the secure issue accompanying by the socket,i think i needn't consider such problem in the internal connection,but to the connection between the platform and external system,the issue become preeminent,that is i must open the socket port in the firewall.but i think the connection between the lan and the external system use special line,not by internet,i wonder if the secure probem is critical in such situation?otherwise,i remember that some kinds of product from visibroker company can solve the firewall socket problem by using the http channel protocol,but i don't remember its name for sure,it seem like is called something gateway.who used such kind thing?and tell me how does it work?

Career in ABAP - Your feedback please

Hello All:
I have been doing VB, javascript, XML ASP and some WEb stuff from the past 6 years and now I got opportunity to work in SAP ABAP programming. I heard SAP market is always good and I already started learning ABAP and just wondering if I am taking a right decision for my career! I know my decision is going to be final but I appreciate if you can give some of your opinions! Thanks in advance.

hi Mithun,
You're wise to "look before you leap" into ABAP right now. As I noted in a previous question, the classic role of the ABAP programmer is changing. The future SAP developer will be a hybrid of ABAP, EAI, and Web/Java-based expertise.
It's not bad to get yourself a foundation in ABAP programming, but I think you're right to ask some hard questions about how marketable ABAP skills will be down the line. The market is definitely going to get crowded for the general ABAP programmer. And you're right - automated tools like Report Painter are making it harder for the average ABAP programmer to find good projects. BW is becoming the standard reporting environment for SAP customers, and tools that automate presentation and reporting are getting more robust with each BW release. Even though there will always be the need for custom ABAP programming, object-oriented development tools like BADIs will definitely reduce the need for "grind it out" ABAP coding. For all those reasons, if I were moving into SAP development, I would pursue two different angles. First, I would try to obtain hardcore ABAP development skills (custom development, user exits, dialog programming - heavy hardcore development. Not so much using neat tools but doing the hardcore custom work that conversion and reporting tools just can't do).
Second, I would try to get development experience utilizing mySAP, EAI, and R/3 product extensions. This means mastering SAP's integration toolkit, including BAPIs, BADIs, the SAP Java Connector, and the Web Application Server (formerly the Internet Transaction Server). But I would take it further and get exposure to emerging web platforms, languages, and integration protocols including Java, J2EE, and the many flavors of XML. Exposure to competing web-based development platforms such as Microsoft's .NET solution would also give you an edge. And since you can't expect SAP's customers to rely only on SAP's EAI solutions, acquiring skills with third party EAI tools from vendors like webMethods, Tibco, and Vitria would be another key part of your skill set. In addition to all that, you want to build in as much business process and application integration know-how into your skills as you can. These "big picture" skills help to protect you against both offshore outsourcing and the competition amongst "core ABAP" programmers. Put all of these skills together, and you're truly "the ABAP programmer of the future." But at the same time, your skills will be transferable to other non-SAP environments, giving you real flexibility in the marketplace. So, the bottom line for you: yes, go into ABAP if you see a good opportunity, but continue to keep your eyes open and do your best to enhance your core ABAP know-how with all the Web-based development skills you can get your hands on.
Please Reward Points to the helpful answers and closed the thread....
Regards,
Santosh

Your Opinions: Inner Classes Need static Members

Hi All,
I want to solicit opinions for a minor change to the way inner classes work. I submitted this as an RFE to Sun and they rejected it, really without giving a reason. I'd like to know your opinions. If there is strong support I will repost the RFE.
As you probably know, inner classes cannot have static members. The following generates a compiler error:import java.util.*;
public class MyClass {
   class MyInnerClass {
      // Next line causes compiler error...
      static Map m = new HashMap();
}In order to get around this you have to make the Map variable a static member of the containing class:import java.util.*;
public class MyClass {
   static Map m = new HashMap(); // so much for encapsulation...
   class MyInnerClass {
}I am suggesting that inner class be allowed to contain static members. Here's my reasoning...please comment:
There are times when members (i.e., fields and methods) rightfully belong to the class as a whole, not to any particular instance of a class. I'm sure we've all found times when it was necessary to have static members in our classes. The same issues that necessitated using static members in top-level classes make them desirable for inner classes as well.
Designing a class as an inner class is a step toward encapsulation. By forcing static members that logically belong in an inner class to be declared in the containing class is to crack the encapsulation, IMHO.
Even though a containing class has access to all of an inner class' members (including private members) and vice versa, I think the notion of inner static members still is more OO-ish.
What are your opinions? Would allowing inner classes to contain static members make Java more object oriented? I think it would.
Technically, I don't think there's any reason this cannot work since the JVM has no notion of inner classes, per se.
What do you think?

an inner class is effectively a non static instance
variable of its enclosing class. Instance member, but not a variable. it's a class, a type, not a variable.
>
I think the problem here is that making a field static
means more than just that that field and its value are
common to every instance of the class. It means that
the value is valid without an instantiation of that
class.
Since the class itself must be instantiated (it is
not static), What do you mean, excatly, by "_must_ be instantiated"? You are not ever "required" to instantiate anything unless you want to use it.
you can't have static member data inside it. I don't see how this follows from the previous part of the statement.
How would you reference the static member data of
the inner class? You would have to specify an
instance of the inner class, and since this breaks
the meaning of static, you can't have static members
in an inner class.How about outerObj.InnerClass.staticMember The syntax is well defined. The question at hand is, do we really want to allow this? The syntax to do this should only be an issue after that question has been answered in the affirmative. The people at Sun have decided not to allow it, so for now, syntax is a non-issue.
>
if you wanted a static member in an inner class you
could put it in a super class of the inner class...Or in the enclosing class, as suggested in the orginal post.

I'm just not sure what Firewire interface to buy

I've been lightly researching FW interfaces for the past 4-5 months and had my heart set on the Firebox until the Edirol FA-66 came out. Then I decided to wait until reviews of the Edirol surfaced before making my decision between the two interfaces. However, I cannot find a review for the Edirol! It's been out since April, has it not?
And now the Saffire comes along and throws a wrench into my research.
I'm going to be purchasing a unit in the next month or two.
My needs are:
Record Vocals (mic to come)
Record Acoustic Guitar (SM-57 for now, better mic(s) later)
Record a djembe (African Drum)
Use Midi from a keyboard
Use some drum loops until I can record a real set
I want to eventually use 2 mic's to record my acoustic guitar and may also want to use a vocal mic at the same time (3 inputs).
Price isn't much of a factor but less than $500 would be ideal. I don't NEED a Firepod ($600) so I am not considering it. So I guess price is a factor then .
I'm frustrated! Computer specs are in my siggy. In addition to my iMac, I have the newest generation 12" iBook.

I have an Edirol FA-101 (the big brother to the FA-66), and I'm a big fan of the Edirol Firewire interfaces for several reasons. The below comments apply to the FA-66 as well.
1.) It's hot-pluggable, as opposed to M-Audio interfaces. The chip that Edirol uses apparently senses when it's connected so as not to blow your Firewire port.
2.) No driver is necessary. The Mac OS has support for the Edirol FW interfaces built in, so there's no driver conflicts or updates necessary.
3.) It's one sharp looking interface; the red is awesome! (Okay, this shouldn't be a factor, but it still looks cool).
4.) Edirol has a lifetime warranty on non-moving parts. MOTU, for example, has a paltry 90 day warranty. I love MOTU interfaces as well (I had an 828 for a long time), but the Edirol warranty is great.
5.) Edirol's tech support is great. I always get an e-mail response from them within the hour, no matter how trivial the question.
So, I strongly recommend Edirol as you can see, but there are some great interfaces out there, so it'll be hard to go wrong. I would probably stay away from M-Audio simply because of their hot-plugging issues, but if you play by their rules, even their interfaces get good reviews. Still, I'd go for Edirol if I were you.
Good luck!

Very Happy With New FireWire Interface

I went to Guitar Center tonight to buy my son something for his punk band (he's the lead guitarist, singer and songwriter). I ended up buying him an amp modeling stomp box with lots of different kinds of sounds and settings (three pedals plus an expression pedal).
While I was there, I was looking at FireWire interfaces for my new MBP, which will replace my G5. They had an M-Audio Firewire Solo, which normally retails for $199. They had a return, and were asking $110. I got it for $100. Brought it home, set it up, and it works really well. And no more chirps from the G5. I went ahead and routed the audio cables through a ground loop isolator (I used two for the G5), which also converts unbalanced audio cables to balanced, so I could save the $40 they wanted for a pair of those (yes, $40).
I am very happy right now. I was working on an ambient-ocean themed song before pulling the G5. Tonight, I have already added a voiceover track using the phantom-powered mic input, and added a mix of sounds from my old Roland and Korg synth rack modules. Very cool. Very happy.

I have to agree with you. We got the G4 last week and to date (touch wood) there were no problems with our packages, switching over or any other problems. It was really smooth and the G4 box is fast quick and works really well. A good bit of kit that the family really like.
GF

IMac and USB or Firewire interface?

I'm close to purchasing a new quad core iMac. My only hesitation is that the iMac has only a single Firewire input. At the moment I use a MacBook 2 GHz with an Edirol UA-25 USB interface and two external Firewire drives, one for recording audio and the other for samples.
But what if I need to replace my interface? There are far more Firewire audio interfaces than there are USB offerings. I assume that daisy-chaining the two external drives plus a Firewire interface might over-tax the iMac's single Firewire input. On the other hand, the most I ever record at one time are two tracks. I guess what I'm really asking is this: Given my need for only two inputs, what's the difference between a USB and a Firewire interface?
Jim

It's a Firewire 800 port.
Daisy-chain or use a hub. For maximum performance in daisy-chaining, hook up your FW800 devices first, and hang the FW 400 device(s) off that. If you have more than on FW 400 device, use a hub.
Also, I don't think there's ever been a Mac that had more than one Firewire controller, i.e. even on machines with more than one port, all Firewire ports hook up to a single chipset, meaning it's just an integrated hub, with no speed benefit at all from the multiple sockets.

Firewire Interface not working because of missing voltage

Hi,
I am using a Qutafire Firewire Interface for music production on my MacPro. I just got a new 17" MacBook Pro and wanted to connect it to the laptop. Unfortunatelly the Firewire 400 port doesn´t suooly enough power for the interface. - I tested it with the old macbook of my girlfriend and it is working as allways. I also tryed to connect it with several new Macbooks and Macbook Pros of my friends and it isn´t working there either. Can it be, that the new motherboards etc. don´t give support enough power to the firewire ports?
What can I do?
Thanks
Michael
PS: Well I can connect the interface with the laptop using my taurus raid system (connect via FW 800) but, as soon as my Logic projects become bigger (more software instruments) the lantency arises, too.

How do you know the issue is insufficient power? Are you getting an error message to that effect?
Firewire is a standard and I have a hard time believing Apple would have violated the standard and provided sub-par power output from the MBP's ports. On the other hand, it could be that the Qutafire requires slightly more power than the FW spec allows for, and that older Apple notebooks were tolerant of the out-of-spec condition whereas the MBP is not. I have seen cases like that with USB.
Perhaps a small, portable, FW hub with its own power supply will be your best solution if you can't get it working any other way.

Should I do it? I need your opinions.

I'm getting an iMac (see below) Apple just posted a refurbished model of what I am looking for. Being thirteen years old, should I go ahead and buy it, or should I work for a few more months and get a brand-new iMac. There's no question of putting off my purchase more than a few months, as I'm sick of Windows and don't have any Macs available to me. Please post your opinions!

Either you already "did it," or someone else did.
It's gone, but don't worry, there are plenty more on the way.
I understand that Apple traditionally runs a "Black Friday" sale.
Might be worth holding off for 6 days to see what they offer.
Just a general comment on Apple refurbs -- I notice they have
a 24" white 2.16 GHz C2D listed for $1449. You can buy the
same machine, BRAND NEW, from smalldog.com for $50 more,
and it comes with iLife'08 (plus iLife'06 on the install disks).
The Apple refurb comes with iLife'06 only.
BTW, keep an eye on smalldog.com -- they're an authorized
reseller with excellent service, and they often have refurbs.
...sometimes refurbs are a good deal, sometimes not,
Looby

Preamp racks/Firewire interfaces - your opinions please

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for