2408 mk3 is not seen in MOTU Audio setup

[Aramis]

First of all , I am reading your thread and I am wondering if you could have a pcie hardware problem since the begining .
But I wanted to add that , I do own a 828 mkIII and installed in a Mac Pro and it does work perfectly . I have decided to go firewire because of the fact that they change so many time the pci thing in the computers that you cannot re-use your stuff at some point in time .
I made readings about firewire and the bandwith is very good for audio and firewire does not use the cpu compared to usb .
The thing to remember is to not use a bunch of other devices on the same firewire connection witout analyzing what you do .
Plus , there is always the solution to add a pcie firewire controler to separate the devices . And , if you do want more hard disks , do not use the same firewire connections and preferably add SATA drives .
And finally , remember that if your 24 i/o has adat connections on it , it could be used on the 828mkIII easily in standalone mode . I do use my old 2408mkII this way right now on my 828mkIII .

Aramis

Ya'll are making me think twice about upgrading to a 424e??
Maybe I'll go for a FW interface afterall.

I could do that also since I have an 828 mk3 here also. But I thought the whole idea behind FW interfaces were geared toward the laptop crowd. I mean if you have hard drives and other miscellaneous stuff hooked up firewire to your Mac Pro, does it make sense to connect your audio interface FW also? I thought the whole idea behind the PCI card concept was to keep that signal path somewhat isolated. And then for me there's the whole issue of the 24 i/o. That's not compatible with the 828 mk3. But with the problem I'm having right now I could sell the 2408 mk3 and the 24 i/o and go firewire. Does that make any sense?? Any thoughts on that, anyone? It seems backwards to me.

scooter[/quote][/quote]

[Aramis]

I would be interested to know where you have found the information about the fact that FIreWIRE takes some cpu cycles with larger latency margins ?

Remember that between the 424 pcie card and the 2408mkIII , there is a proprietary firewire link wich does the same as a regular normal firewire bus . So , I do not see any issues about the clocks and converters .


Aramis

FW,agreeably may be more for the portable types. PCI does have more bandwidth as far as I know. Also doesn't FW take some CPU cycles with larger latency margins?
ah, but what about the convertors/clock being in the computer issues??
I would rather get a PCI card for budgetary reasons, but with these reports I wonder if getting upgraded convertors in an FW interface will be a better side move in the end?

T

[Aramis]

Oh! and by the way Aramis , do not forget that the most recent Mac Pro do have more bandwidth on the firewire to mother board link !
Very important !!!!!

Aramis

First of all , I am reading your thread and I am wondering if you could have a pcie hardware problem since the begining .
But I wanted to add that , I do own a 828 mkIII and installed in a Mac Pro and it does work perfectly . I have decided to go firewire because of the fact that they change so many time the pci thing in the computers that you cannot re-use your stuff at some point in time .
I made readings about firewire and the bandwith is very good for audio and firewire does not use the cpu compared to usb .
The thing to remember is to not use a bunch of other devices on the same firewire connection witout analyzing what you do .
Plus , there is always the solution to add a pcie firewire controler to separate the devices . And , if you do want more hard disks , do not use the same firewire connections and preferably add SATA drives .
And finally , remember that if your 24 i/o has adat connections on it , it could be used on the 828mkIII easily in standalone mode . I do use my old 2408mkII this way right now on my 828mkIII .

Aramis

Ya'll are making me think twice about upgrading to a 424e??
Maybe I'll go for a FW interface afterall.

I could do that also since I have an 828 mk3 here also. But I thought the whole idea behind FW interfaces were geared toward the laptop crowd. I mean if you have hard drives and other miscellaneous stuff hooked up firewire to your Mac Pro, does it make sense to connect your audio interface FW also? I thought the whole idea behind the PCI card concept was to keep that signal path somewhat isolated. And then for me there's the whole issue of the 24 i/o. That's not compatible with the 828 mk3. But with the problem I'm having right now I could sell the 2408 mk3 and the 24 i/o and go firewire. Does that make any sense?? Any thoughts on that, anyone? It seems backwards to me.

scooter

[/quote][/quote]

[Aramis]

Ok , here is a mistake , the 24 i/o does not have adat connections . So you would not be abble to use it standalone with a 828mkIII .
Sorry ! my mistake ...

Aramis

First of all , I am reading your thread and I am wondering if you could have a pcie hardware problem since the begining .
But I wanted to add that , I do own a 828 mkIII and installed in a Mac Pro and it does work perfectly . I have decided to go firewire because of the fact that they change so many time the pci thing in the computers that you cannot re-use your stuff at some point in time .
I made readings about firewire and the bandwith is very good for audio and firewire does not use the cpu compared to usb .
The thing to remember is to not use a bunch of other devices on the same firewire connection witout analyzing what you do .
Plus , there is always the solution to add a pcie firewire controler to separate the devices . And , if you do want more hard disks , do not use the same firewire connections and preferably add SATA drives .
And finally , remember that if your 24 i/o has adat connections on it , it could be used on the 828mkIII easily in standalone mode . I do use my old 2408mkII this way right now on my 828mkIII .

Aramis

Ya'll are making me think twice about upgrading to a 424e??
Maybe I'll go for a FW interface afterall.

I could do that also since I have an 828 mk3 here also. But I thought the whole idea behind FW interfaces were geared toward the laptop crowd. I mean if you have hard drives and other miscellaneous stuff hooked up firewire to your Mac Pro, does it make sense to connect your audio interface FW also? I thought the whole idea behind the PCI card concept was to keep that signal path somewhat isolated. And then for me there's the whole issue of the 24 i/o. That's not compatible with the 828 mk3. But with the problem I'm having right now I could sell the 2408 mk3 and the 24 i/o and go firewire. Does that make any sense?? Any thoughts on that, anyone? It seems backwards to me.

scooter

[/quote][/quote]

[scooter]

PCI card changes over the years kind of drive me crazy too. It's definitely one reason to go FW with the audio interface.

scooter

[Tonio]

Aramis,
I was questioning if FW on the MAC uses CPU cycles, as I have heard such implications. Even though the 2408mkxx uses a FW implementation between the 2408 box and PCI card, the card uses the PCI buss architecture on the MAC. So you are saying the PCI/box interfaces have a FW buss chip identical to FW bus chip on a MAC?
I recollect that the 424 PCI have the clocks on the card itself. vs a FW interace all the clocks /convertors are in the interface box. PLease correct me if I am wrong.
I would like to hear more about the above architectures.

T

I would be interested to know where you have found the information about the fact that FIreWIRE takes some cpu cycles with larger latency margins ?

Remember that between the 424 pcie card and the 2408mkIII , there is a proprietary firewire link wich does the same as a regular normal firewire bus . So , I do not see any issues about the clocks and converters .


Aramis

FW,agreeably may be more for the portable types. PCI does have more bandwidth as far as I know. Also doesn't FW take some CPU cycles with larger latency margins?
ah, but what about the convertors/clock being in the computer issues??
I would rather get a PCI card for budgetary reasons, but with these reports I wonder if getting upgraded convertors in an FW interface will be a better side move in the end?

T

[Aramis]

Tonio
Yes , indeed , that is what I am saying . The link in between the pci 424 card and the 2408 box is a proprietary firewire . So , I do not think the mechanism is so different between the 424/2408 and an 828 for data exchanges .
Of course if you fill the 424 card with 4x 2408 boxes , ou get more i/o's than the 828 but this same 828 has a firewire extra connector that MOTU say you can use to add some other firewire motu interface . But I do not know precisely how many .

Aramis

Aramis,
I was questioning if FW on the MAC uses CPU cycles, as I have heard such implications. Even though the 2408mkxx uses a FW implementation between the 2408 box and PCI card, the card uses the PCI buss architecture on the MAC. So you are saying the PCI/box interfaces have a FW buss chip identical to FW bus chip on a MAC?
I recollect that the 424 PCI have the clocks on the card itself. vs a FW interace all the clocks /convertors are in the interface box. PLease correct me if I am wrong.
I would like to hear more about the above architectures.

T

I would be interested to know where you have found the information about the fact that FIreWIRE takes some cpu cycles with larger latency margins ?

Remember that between the 424 pcie card and the 2408mkIII , there is a proprietary firewire link wich does the same as a regular normal firewire bus . So , I do not see any issues about the clocks and converters .


Aramis

FW,agreeably may be more for the portable types. PCI does have more bandwidth as far as I know. Also doesn't FW take some CPU cycles with larger latency margins?
ah, but what about the convertors/clock being in the computer issues??
I would rather get a PCI card for budgetary reasons, but with these reports I wonder if getting upgraded convertors in an FW interface will be a better side move in the end?

T