Dwave protocol

[AudioAstronomer]

I remember reading a while ago this is basically Bob's driver model. The manual says it is incomplete and not much more. Is this wise to use?

I notice that unless my motu drivers are set to "mme legacy mode", it does not show more than one i/o. Likewise for wdm. And the sound is completely decimated. Every X number of samples is missing, Im almost 100% positive X is the buffer divided by 16 (tried various buffers and zoomed a looped back signal and counted). Maybe i am missing something important somewhere. Or maybe this is simply not the wya to go for me. ASIO works perfectly and Im plenty happy with it (unless I can get better performance elsewhere).

[edit] I notice that before playback with WDM, the sample rate lights on my motu 896 just flash rappidly. Then dont set.

[Bob L]

MOTU and MME are generally just not a usable situation.

If you want to see what MME is capable of, try the RME Hammerfall drivers... they are still probably the best drivers written for the PC in my opinion.

The DWave protocol was a design I originated and tried hard to get the industry to jump on board... unfortunately, I guess I just didn't have enough political or financial clout to make that happen.

What is interesting though, is that Sonorus, before they closed, worked with me on the first tests of the protocol and the results were quite impressive... then Dirk wrote some modified drivers for the SoundScape Mixtreme card to help further the development... but life got in the way, and we never really finished.

I built the protocol into the core of the SAWStudio engine in hopes that some day I'd be able to convince Matthias at RME or others to jump in and take a look.

The idea of the protocol is quite different from any other driver model currently available... still, after all these years.

The problem always remains in the current Driver models that each buffer of data requires handshaking between the soundcard device and the application before this data can be transferred... this is ALWAYS subject to Windows interruption whenever Windows decides... ALWAYS... and many of the routines involved in passing audio are part of the routines that get shutdown, and there lies the problem with glitched playback and small buffer sizes... if you minimize an app, Windows can stop important audio threads while it re-organizes itself... things like that....

The DWave protocol was designed to piggy back onto the MME driver that already existed for each soundcard (in the old days anyway) and therefore was a very easy thing to implement... the beauty of it... NO HANDSHAKING WHATSOEVER during playback or record operations... therefore Windows was much less likely to ever get in the way. The early tests were very encouraging to me... the same version of SAW, the same hardware... different driver models and the performance was quite improved at low buffer latencies... without interruption from Windows doing the same tests and loading all kinds of heavy duty apps while playing back glitchfree...

Oh well... now that SAWStudio is starting to pick up in recognition... perhaps the time is yet to come for RME or some of the newer soundcards to make the jump and together we can give the industry a driver model that delivers where others choke. :cool:

Bob L

[TotalSonic]

What is interesting though, is that Sonorus, before they closed, worked with me on the first tests of the protocol and the results were quite impressive... then Dirk wrote some modified drivers for the SoundScape Mixtreme card to help further the development... but life got in the way, and we never really finished.

Bob L

I actually have the beta Soundscape/Sydec Mixtreme DWave drivers which were written by Dirk and generously forwarded to me by Perry Barrett installed on one of my systems. Both Perry & I have found definite performance improvements over standard MME using these drivers. If anyone else is using a Mixtreme for SAW and wants to try these out send me an email at steve@totalsonicmedia.com and I'll forward you the drivers.

With the renewal of lots of activities from Sydec and the soon to be release of a few amazing new hardware bundles (i.e. the Mixpander Power Pack - this thing looks like it will be "off the hook"!) I think it would be awesome if further DWave development could start up again.

Bob - I also think you could actually get a ton of interest for SAWStudio & SAWStudioLite if you let Sydec bundle SAWStudio Basic with their upcoming Mixpander or Mixtreme Powerpack systems. It seems Sydec is really serious about making better distribution happen in the states - they recently got a USA based sales office and have been creating a network of Regional demo reps similar to the RML Labs VIP Affiliate program.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Perry]

Hi Guys :)

Just to add... in doing some comparisons I found that EDL's that were starting to choke with MME drivers would become as smooth as... uhhhh... butter... when I'd switch to the DWave drivers. Graphics redraws, audio.... everything smoother.

I'd love to see further developement of this. In the meantime... I've been using the DWave beta drivers for a long time now and still use them! An excellent idea you had Bob (among many! :)

All the best,

Perry

[Jesse Skeens]

Why are you guys even bothering with MME in the first place, or do your soundcards not support ASIO?

[TotalSonic]

Why are you guys even bothering with MME in the first place, or do your soundcards not support ASIO?

The Mixtreme has excellent ASIO drivers - and with SAW using them I can get down to a buffer of 128 samples with stable performance. However for really dense sessions with lots of tracks and plugs I've found that SAW can give more sustained performance with low latencies with less glitches using MME instead of ASIO. This sustained performance gets even better with DWave.

Main thing to realize is that SAW using MME drivers can actually achieve low latencies that most apps need ASIO drivers for!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

Sorry to say, but I am not a fan of ASIO drivers at all... I have supported them because they, like MME have become yet another industry standard... but the internals of the design leave a lot to be desired from a programming aspect, at least in my opinion.

I find that their dlls can be easily stepped on by many basic Windows operations and will simply sit and spit repeated buffers out the door until service to their threads is regained.

That is the exact thing DWave tries to eliminate by its design concept of no internal handshakes during playback.

I am using the RME MME drivers on all of my important rigs and every showroom running SAWStudio that I install. I still feel the systems are more stable... again, just in my opinion and experience.

Bob L

[spiritman]

So Bob are you saying that with my ECHO Layla24 to use the MME's? Or purewave? Are you still working on you'r Dwave software? Is it only for the RME cards?

[Carlos Mills]

So Bob are you saying that with my ECHO Layla24 to use the MME's? Or purewave? Are you still working on you'r Dwave software? Is it only for the RME cards?

I am not Bob,
but the best performance for Layla 24 is achieved in Purewave Mode. There are no problems in using it with the MME settings in SAWStudio. I had Layla 24 before buying RME HDSP 9632 and it always worked very well in this configuration

[Oz Nimbus]

Just curious about what Bob's thoughts are on the whole WDM thing.... I used WDM with Sonar for years on my Delta card, and it worked really well. However, trying to use either MME or WDM with SAW & the Delta just plain doesn't work so well. However, the ASIO performance is really, really great. 2 X 64 runs very smooth.

-0z-

[Bob L]

Most of the newer cards coming out today are no longer writing pure MME drivers... but are writing WDM drivers with their own MME wrapper functions or depending on the Windows wrapper functions...

So performance starts to go into the toliet fast... more wrappers on top of already kludgy code in an already kludgy OS... its all pretty downhill from there.

At least the ASIO thing has caught on and is a more direct way of passing data back and forth to the hardware than the mess of WDM.

In RME's case... they have written, at least up to now, excellent MME drivers and have not gone the WDM direction... that may have to change for future industry compatibility, but I hope not.

In my experience so far, with most soundcards, the ASIO driver will probably give you your best latency possibilities... but may not deliver the most stable overall performance under stress conditions.

With my RME cards, I still use the MME model. They all can get down to 2x64 and remain stable... we all thought that was an impossible dream with MME only a short while ago.

Bob L

[Jesse Skeens]

The Mixtreme has excellent ASIO drivers - and with SAW using them I can get down to a buffer of 128 samples with stable performance. However for really dense sessions with lots of tracks and plugs I've found that SAW can give more sustained performance with low latencies with less glitches using MME instead of ASIO. This sustained performance gets even better with DWave.

Main thing to realize is that SAW using MME drivers can actually achieve low latencies that most apps need ASIO drivers for!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Intersting. Guess I've always had to use ASIO to get acceptable performance in other apps so I've never really considered MME for
serious stuff.

So far ASIO is giving me 3x64. Haven't tried high track counts yet.

Jesse

[Jesse Skeens]

I am using the RME MME drivers on all of my important rigs and every showroom running SAWStudio that I install. I still feel the systems are more stable... again, just in my opinion and experience.

Bob L

I'll have to check out the MME drivers for Creamware and see if they give better performance.

Oh and if I choose SStudio Basic and then decide to upgrade to Lite, can I still qualify for the GFA?

Jesse

[Oz Nimbus]

Well, how's this for stressful.....

A 24 track mix, FIVE drumagog plugins running my own home-rolled 18 layer samples, Ultrafunk EQ & Comps on seven tracks, another two Ultrafunk reverbs, plus a whole whack of Saw Gates & EQ's, plus two delays and three auto-tuners.

I'm running a P4 2.8 ghz, with 1 gig of ram, with a 4X64 buffer setting. CPU usage is in the high 90's. Surprisingly it hasn't crapped out. Not even during F-key screen redraws.

The above scenario would have been an absolute fantasy in Sonar.

-0z-

[Bob L]

Jesse,

You can trade up, direct through RML Labs, using the GFA plan... you will pay the difference in price plus the small service fee at the end of the GFA payoff.

It's an easy way to make the move to Lite or all the way up to Full without the immediate drain on the wallet.

Bob L

[Jesse Skeens]

Jesse,

You can trade up, direct through RML Labs, using the GFA plan... you will pay the difference in price plus the small service fee at the end of the GFA payoff.

It's an easy way to make the move to Lite or all the way up to Full without the immediate drain on the wallet.

Bob L


Great sounds like the plan for me.

Jesse

[Dave Labrecque]

The manual says it is incomplete and not much more. Is this wise to use?

FWIW, on my old PII system I remember being in the midst of overdub sessions and having SS stop due to insufficient steam and a lot of tracks and effects. When I flipped on the DWave option, I got enough extra HP to get through the sessions! So it's doing SOMETHING!

[spiritman]

So Bob are you saying that with my ECHO Layla24 to use the MME's? Or purewave? Are you still working on you'r Dwave software? Is it only for the RME cards?

[Bob L]

You should test which gives you better results... MME or ASIO... better not just meaning the smallest buffer settings... but which holds more stable at low settings when playing a complex session with lots of processing and tracks... then make your decision.

There is really not much more I can do with DWave until a soundcard company decides to jump back on and work with me from the driver side...

The most complete prototype so far was a beta DWave driver developed by Dirk for the old SoundScape Mixtreme.

Bob L

[matt]

I use that DWave Soundscape driver with a Mixtreme and it is faster and (call me crazy) better sound quality than ASIO (sounds like crap) or MME (satisfactory). It would be nice to see more hardware companies pick up on this obviously better format.

[Perry]

You should test which gives you better results... MME or ASIO... better not just meaning the smallest buffer settings... but which holds more stable at low settings when playing a complex session with lots of processing and tracks... then make your decision.

There is really not much more I can do with DWave until a soundcard company decides to jump back on and work with me from the driver side...

The most complete prototype so far was a beta DWave driver developed by Dirk for the old SoundScape Mixtreme.

Bob L


Just to add in here.... I expect to get one of the new Mixtreme 192's fairly soon and I'll try the DWave driver with it for sure. I've asked Dirk at Sydec about this alreay and he says it should work with the new card just fine.

I've also mentioned to him the rising interest in the D Wave driver for SAWStudio and he was talking as if he'd like to take another look at it and see just where it was when he worked with it last and go from there.

I've bragged on the performance enhancements with running it with the Mixtreme and SAWStudio to him many times and he seems interested in having another look at this. :)

I'll quiz him on this again soon. We'll see where it goes!

Perry

[Bob L]

Good news Perry, it would sure be fun to see the remaining loopholes worked out and now with the low latency buffer concepts that we have all been playing with... who knows how low we can go. :)

Bob L

[TotalSonic]

I use that DWave Soundscape driver with a Mixtreme and it is faster and (call me crazy) better sound quality than ASIO (sounds like crap) or MME (satisfactory). It would be nice to see more hardware companies pick up on this obviously better format.

Matt -
Respectfully, this doesn't make sense. ASIO is just moving the data to and from the app & the soundcard - it isn't processing it in any way differently than MME or DWave. The only thing I can imagine is that the buffers could be set so low as to be on the edge of glitching and you are hearing these artifacts during playback.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[TotalSonic]

Good news Perry, it would sure be fun to see the remaining loopholes worked out and now with the low latency buffer concepts that we have all been playing with... who knows how low we can go. :)

Bob L


I agree - it would be really awesome to see further development along these lines as I think it could lead to some very cool possibilites for those who made a SAWStudio/Sydec solution as the core of their studio.

Perry -
What's Dirk's direct email? Maybe I'll try to add some "squeak to the wheel" in hopes of getting him to give us an update.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

Steve,

It is possible for an ASIO driver to use 32 bit floating point buffer formats... with ASIO, the driver sets the format protocol... again not my favorite idea.. and if a driver does demand floating point buffers, the app has to translate its internal format to satisfy the driver... I do believe in these cases, this could be the cause of certain audio artifacts, if the app, like SAW, does not store and process its internal data in floating point.

Bob L

[TotalSonic]

Steve,

It is possible for an ASIO driver to use 32 bit floating point buffer formats... with ASIO, the driver sets the format protocol... again not my favorite idea.. and if a driver does demand floating point buffers, the app has to translate its internal format to satisfy the driver... I do believe in these cases, this could be the cause of certain audio artifacts, if the app, like SAW, does not store and process its internal data in floating point.

Bob L

I stand corrected then! thanks for the info!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[AudioAstronomer]

Indeed I had noticed this difference myself... MME certainly does seem to sound clearer than ASIO with my motu. But I cannot get MME latencies below 8000+ samples!!

Dwave sounds sooooo juicy. I have driverlust now :) hahaha

[TotalSonic]

Indeed I had noticed this difference myself... MME certainly does seem to sound clearer than ASIO with my motu. But I cannot get MME latencies below 8000+ samples!!

Dwave sounds sooooo juicy. I have driverlust now :) hahaha

I have to say I remain severely sceptical of these differences being actual until I see some physical proof - such as the same mixes played out the same converters via ASIO and MME not being able to phase cancel properly.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[AudioAstronomer]

I find, that particularly with the motu, changing the buffer sizes alone can result in some weird anomolies even if the exact same signal is recorded.

Where I've noticed the difference is not particularly output, but input. And that would be hard to prove since the converters wont clock the exact same each time, but I've seen demonstrable differences with my 896.

Then again, if all this is wrong, im happy living with the placebo effect. Unless the placebo effect is a placebo effect in itself.

[Yura]

I am not Bob,
but the best performance for Layla 24 is achieved in Purewave Mode. There are no problems in using it with the MME settings in SAWStudio. I had Layla 24 before buying RME HDSP 9632 and it always worked very well in this configuration

I must note, nowadays versin of SS works with Lyla's 24 drivers in such order...
the best performance and stability is with ASIO.
the lower performance is with WDM.
using PureWave are absolutely differ in compare with versins before 3.4 but.
if you test session where tracks are assigned to different devices, you will find the casual un-syncronicity between phases of signals outputing from those devices being in playback. With the PureWave. if you work with only one stereo output you'l never find it.

[Oz Nimbus]

Steve,

It is possible for an ASIO driver to use 32 bit floating point buffer formats... with ASIO, the driver sets the format protocol... again not my favorite idea.. and if a driver does demand floating point buffers, the app has to translate its internal format to satisfy the driver... I do believe in these cases, this could be the cause of certain audio artifacts, if the app, like SAW, does not store and process its internal data in floating point.

Bob L


Very interesting.... any idea who's drivers are demanding 32 bit float?

-0z-

[Perry]

I agree - it would be really awesome to see further development along these lines as I think it could lead to some very cool possibilites for those who made a SAWStudio/Sydec solution as the core of their studio.

Perry -
What's Dirk's direct email? Maybe I'll try to add some "squeak to the wheel" in hopes of getting him to give us an update.

Best regards,
Steve Berson


Sorry for the delay on this Steve... Here's Dirk's email address at Sydec.

dvm@sydec.be

Some more "squeak" wouldn't be a bad thing I'm sure! ;)

AND... check this out! I asked Dirk about the DWave driver again and got this interesting reply: "The driver included in V4.0 has the DWave API included. So if that user has V4.0, then he has DWave already :)"
:cool:

So... the just released new mixer version for the Mixtreme has the DWave protocol in it... already! I have the new mixer but I didn't know about this and I immediately installed the old driver over it without trying it. I'll try to test this out soon, but if Dirk says it's there then I'm sure it's there. Very cool!

And as far as I know he is still planning to look into this more with the idea of further development. :)

All the best,

Perry

[Perry]

Good news Perry, it would sure be fun to see the remaining loopholes worked out and now with the low latency buffer concepts that we have all been playing with... who knows how low we can go. :)

Bob L


Yes indeed, this is cool! As I was just replying to Steve.. it appears Dirk has already included the DWave driver into the new Version 4 mixer for the Mixtreme card! That's an exciting thing to hear.

And by the testimonies of the few that have used the DWave driver with the Mixtereme (myself included)... the DWave protocol is a definite success... and further development certainly seems in order!

I was very happy to find in talking with Dirk that he seems quite open to this (and I've know for a long time that he is an admirer of SAWStudio).

If I may be so bold :) It might be a good time for you to drop him a quick email and update him on the DWave protocol, specifically as to what other features should be supported or exactly what "loopholes" remain to be addressed. This might speed things along. I would think that hearing from you could only be a positive thing.

I will of course continue to push for this and support the idea myself in any way that I can. I still am a very firm believer that the Mixtreme soundcard is a fabulous companion to SAWStudio and makes for an incredibly powerful and versitle DAW system. With the DWave Protocol support this adds to the equation in a very nice way! :)

Perry

[Bob L]

Perry,

Good news, I will definietly drop Dirk an email.

Bob L

[Naturally Digital]

Hi Perry,

Thanks for letting us in on that one! Good to know.

Now, did I install that old one or...

Dave.

[Bob L]

Perry,

I downloaded the 4.0 driver... Dirk said it would work with my old Mixtreme hardware.

Sure enough... DWave is active in the driver... very fun for me to see.

The playback performance seems to be very nicely improved on first tests.

I will put it through the ringer to find out about all the record details and move forward from there.

Bob L

[Perry]

Perry,

I downloaded the 4.0 driver... Dirk said it would work with my old Mixtreme hardware.

Sure enough... DWave is active in the driver... very fun for me to see.

The playback performance seems to be very nicely improved on first tests.

I will put it through the ringer to find out about all the record details and move forward from there.

Bob L

Awesome! :) Very cool Bob. I'm of course anxious to see what you find out... and where this leads.

Very exciting stuff! Let us know as soon as you've done some testing..... please! ;)

Perry