wdm vs. asio
Home > Home Recording Forum > Computers & Software > wdm vs. asio
Posted on Apr 24, 2003 07:21 pm
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
hey.
i still havent bought my software yet, and good thing, as i am stumbling across all these weird little considerations that i had no idea about. like the driver issues. drivers are something i dont understand very well. all i know is that very low latency is desirable. so do any of you have an opinion as to which type of driver, WDM or ASIO, is faster?
from what i understand (and i may be wrong..ive just been doing light reading) cubase works primarily (or maybe exclusively) with ASIO, which steinberg invented. and sonar works best with WDM. is this right? i need to figure this stuff out before i know what kind of software is compatible, and which kind i like better.
my next question is: do soundcards typically use/support/whatever both kinds of drivers? cause i ordered an audiophile 2496. i dont see, in its specs, any mention of specific driver types. and....jeez, i also, now that i look at, dont see whether it works with windows XP. maybe i just assumed it did.
[ Back to Top ]
Apr 24, 2003 09:03 pm I have the Audiophile and it has ASIO and WDM. Generally ASIO is only supported by mid-to-high end cards, or peopel that want to be thought of as mid-to-high end card makers.
Sonar works FAR better with ASIO IF you have Sonar 2.2, before that it will ONLY support ASIO, or the very old and feeble MME.
if an application supports ASIO and your card has ASIO drivers, you are ALWAYS best off going that route. WDM isn't bad, much better than MME, but still not as good as ASIO.
Apr 25, 2003 12:46 am This might clear up some other issues you might run into. This come from the F.A.Q located on my site.
What drivers are required?
- ASIO & ASIO 2 are low-latency driver standards adopted by many hardware & software manufacturers because of their ability to process audio with very low latency. ASIO is necessary for most Steinberg products and is advantageous for many other manufacturers' hardware & software.
- WDM (Windows Driver Model), is also a low-latency driver standard. It offers system level control of the CPU for real-time audio processing. WDM support is advantageous in newer Cakewalk programs, Sonic Foundry programs, and any audio program that supports Direct-X effects & instruments.
- GSIF (GigaSamplerInterface), is a proprietary driver model to allow real-time playback of Gigasampler & GigaStudio. Although not used by any other programs, the popularity of GigaStudio has made GSIF a valuable driver addition to most audio interfaces.
- CORE is Apple's relatively new low-latency driver standard for OS X and is designed to offer audio programs direct CPU control for real-time audio processing.
What plug-in formats does it support? (Basically 2 types, Plug-In and Stand-Alone)
- Direct X is a Multimedia plug-in format developed for Windows by Microsoft.
- DXi/DXi2 (Direct X Instruments) is a Windows plug-in standard promoted by Cakewalk and requiring WDM audio drivers.
- MAS is a plug-in format designed for MOTU programs like Digital Performer (Mac).
- RTAS (Real Time Audiosuite) is a plug-in format used for native CPU processing within Digidesign applications such as ProTools LE.
- TDM is the proprietary plug-in format for Digidesign ProTools that requires custom hardware.
- VST is Steinberg's "defacto standard" plug-in format for effects and software synthesizers. VST is supported by the largest number of host application and plug-in manufacturers of any format. Most other plug-in formats have "wrappers" available which allow them to load VST effects and software synthesizers.
Apr 25, 2003 02:35 pm ok...
i think i'll assume that ASIO is best but WDM is only slightly worse, and therefore it shouldnt really matter. however, from what ive been seeing in books, i think i prefer cubase over sonar. so far im leaning towards asio.
i dont understand VST or direct x. plugins: how do they work? from what i understand, VST and direct X are both...plugin types? plugins are something i tend to get quite excited over--not that i've used many, but i can see the potential--and so i'm trying to figure out what type i should go with, which i guess will influence what software i settle on. are there 'more' VST effects? is direct x 'better'? i want to eventually be able to load reverb profiles of strange spaces, and just basically have a lot of versatility with effects. but i know nothing. can anyone clear this up?
thanks
Apr 25, 2003 03:43 pm Some helpful advice for ya,
Try downloading some of the demos of the software instead of reading to figure out what you think is best. I do agree that knowing your software is a essential key in choosing it but getting a hands-on feel for is also a good idea.
VST and Direct X are plug-in formats. They give added functionality to a host application.
As far as if there are more VST plugins, VST is supported by the largest number of host application and plug-in manufacturers of any format. On the rest, like I said just download demos and see for yourself. The question you asked "which one is better" is a common question and you would get multiple results. The one you like is the best one for you.
Apr 25, 2003 04:50 pm VST and DirectX are just programming standard, digital hit it pretty well on the above thread...jues also got into nauseating detail in another thread scattered around this forum somewhere...VST uses considerably less system resources to run, from some testing I did with a few plugins it usually runs around 30%-40% less system power to use them if I recall correctly. VST is also supposedly an easier standard to code for, which is why there are so many freeware pluging in VST, cuz it's easier for us commoners to learn it.
As far as ASIO/WDM. With my Audiophile 2496 and Sonar 2.2 I was running at 89.9 ms of latency (pretty darn high, equal to or great than a hgiher-end SoundBlaster), as soon as I switched to ASIO it plummeted to 8.1.
I would call that considerably more than "slightly worse".
Apr 25, 2003 07:01 pm hey that is intense. that leans me toward cubase. i like the looks of cubase better. it seems friendlier and it looks easier to use, plus it uses asio. and if it uses VST then that also makes me want it. as far as downloading demos...maybe i will do that. id like to get most of my info from reading because i find tinkering to be frustrating, unless it's an intuitive program like cool edit pro is. but these big pro sequencing/recording programs are a different level entirely for me and i know i'm going to have trouble setting up the drivers and inputs and yadda yadda, and i just dont feel like jumping into all that quite yet.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 26, 2003 12:25 am Well forty, I will let ya know that Sonar does support ASIO now as of version 2.2 and I have never gotten Cubase to run as smooth on my box. But I still like cubase. And the other thing VST, they now offer a software addapter to host VST plugs and VSTi in Sonar.
Apr 26, 2003 03:35 am hmm...
2.2... is that sonar xl? people tell me to explore sonar xl and cubase sx. are those the more advanced programs? how does the numbering system work...what are the names of the most highly developed versions?
it just looks to me like cubase is less complicated. i haven't been reading stuff in an orderly way . . . but it looks to me like sonar uses about 5 different file types, and thats more than i want to mess with. at this point, i dont need any midi at all (besides basic sync capability) and i dont like the idea of these .bun files and .arr files...so i want a program that has more muscle in the realm of digital audio. i might be wrong but it looks like cubase is stronger there? man i need to go to borders, get a coffee, and read.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 26, 2003 08:08 pm Sonar XL is the direct compatition for Cubase SX. they are realisticly equal in every aspect. I take that back though, Sonar now does VST through a host pluggin, whereas Cubase does not do DX. Sonar actually does have much easier interface to learn and run. And I will also let you know there are really 2 main types of files in Sonar. The old .bun file is now the .cwp file which is essentially the same thing only better with better file storing architecture. You can tell Sonar exactly were you want to store your project. The .cwp file also keeps all the files data including the audio in one place so it is not searching all over the place to find the files that belong to the project. And XL now includes mastering level pluggins so you can do a project from start to finish and never leave Sonar. The learning curve of Sonar is also not nearly as steep as Cubase either. Dont get me wrong, Cubase is still one of the top performers in the software DAW line. And as far as muscle goes, Cakewalk just realeased Project 5 which links right to Sonar and actually opens right in Sonar and will take its timing and commands right from Sonar. Project 5 is a full service synth and sampler based part of the whole system, and with those 2 working in harmony there is virtually nothing you cant do with them. And Project 5 uses VST and VSTi natively so there is no need for a pluggin addapter to convert VST to DX.
And 2.2 is the newest version of Sonar, XL is just the deluxe version of Sonar with all the bells and whisltes. And as far as the midi thing goes, you can use Sonar for strictly audio if you desire, I use it that way all the time.
Apr 26, 2003 10:44 pm noize, thats a great answer. answered all my questions and went a long way in converting me.
but are you saying that sonar xl is the deluxe version of sonar 2.2? i need to know that, i think. like, which is better/most up to date?
i would probably use sonar over cubase based on this sales pitch you made. but i am interested in using VST, so i wonder: does the plugin VST converter i heard about for sonar actually work without a ton of lag time? its another level of processing, i take it, so i was wondering if it was slow.
forty
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 26, 2003 10:58 pm 2.2 is the version number, meaning it is the latest most up to date release of the product. Sonar is availabel in 2 forms, Sonar and Sonar XL. The XL package is the deluxe package with some extra added DX synths, and a couple of mastering pluggins. You may find that you wont need any VST pluggins with Sonar, but to be honest, I still use WaveLab to da all my final tweaks on the final stereo mix, but that is just me. I have done finished product in Sonar as well and it seems to do a fine job. But as far a lag time using the VST to DX converter, no there is no lag time and CPU usage is nil. It actually makes the VST run as if it were a DX plug.
Hope this answers the questions.
Apr 27, 2003 02:13 am thanx
