MACBOOK PRO Performance onboard (coreaudio) v edirol FA66

[Fantismo]

Hi there.. question to all those using the Eidrol FA-66

Is there any difference (CPU LOAD) at all by using the FA-66 and the macbook pro on board?

if not.. is there a way to buy something to lighten CPU mode...

you'd think I'd understand this by now!

thanks for your help..

[swishniak]

i worked with the edirol fa 101 for a while and it drove me crazy (weird glitches and slowness due to a 10 year old driver)

ended up using internal sound until i got my ultralite

[Fantismo]

well it doesnt have those problems... just wanted to ask anyone.. APOGEE duet or EDIROL FA-66 ?any opinions

[SubFunk]

well it doesnt have those problems... just wanted to ask anyone.. APOGEE duet or EDIROL FA-66 ?any opinions

if you are OK with the amount of the I/O on the duet, surely the duet. the sound and integration with OSX is awesome, real awesome.
the edirol does not stand a single chance in comparing the soundquality of the two.

[Fantismo]

hi subfunk - ive seen some of your posts before - nice to finally say hi to you..

so when you say the sound is better.. how do you mean.. warmer basses.. crisper highs? what exactly do you think?

thanks for any advice you can give

ben

[Pasha]

The best Audio Cards are the ones using OS Direct Drivers like CoreAudio.
Only a few manufacturer build good drivers for their Audio Cards,
I heard edirol/roland is not one of those, especially now with Snow Leopard.

my 2 cents

[SubFunk]

hi subfunk - ive seen some of your posts before - nice to finally say hi to you..

so when you say the sound is better.. how do you mean.. warmer basses.. crisper highs? what exactly do you think?

thanks for any advice you can give

ben

well, it is always hard to describe with words a sound for me... the apogee simply sounds good, punchy, clear, deep bass, crisp highs and loads of definition... compared to the edirol, also it has a very nice software panel integration into OSX. around here non of the users of the duet ever complained about the sound... apogee is really a safe product to go to, if it comes to cards and their fidelity.

and Pasha also mentioned a valid point, the stability of the drivers, well i can't speak for the edirol drivers (no personal experiences), but the duet driver is good. (apogee and apple working hand in hand together)

i don't think the edirol is a bad card, but sonically the duet surely outperforms the edirol, simple as that.

[vicz]

Of course the CPU usage depends on the sample rate you select. If you are running at 192 you will hammer the CPU, if you switch the slider back to 48 you will use much less cpu but will have to adjust your audio buffers in Live prefs for the best balance of latency and crackles depending on your plugins.

BTW you need to unplug/replug the firewire after changing the sample rate; Live will then adjust automagically.

On my imac i find 96 is the most usable sample rate, on my (non-pro!) macbook 44.1 is best.

[vicz]

The best Audio Cards are the ones using OS Direct Drivers like CoreAudio.
Only a few manufacturer build good drivers for their Audio Cards,
I heard edirol/roland is not one of those, especially now with Snow Leopard.

my 2 cents

FA66 uses CoreAudio

[arafel]

IMHO - To answer the OP question : "any dif in CPU load between built-in sound card and Fa-66'.

I use my fa-66 regularly - and there is little cpu load, above not using it.
No drivers required.. it uses OSX coreaudio.
Sound clarity is a big step-up from the built-in A/D converters.
I've noticed lots in mix, that was not evident while using the inbuilt i/o or headphone jacks.

I use the optical out of my G5 to the optical in of the fa-66. This completely bypasses any firewire bottleneck w/ my external drives.

I only hook the fa-66 up via Firewire for recording the odd-bit, nothing serious. (many new Macs will accept and recognize an optical cable plugged into the headphone jack- to transmit your output to the fa-66). Headphone and 1/8" in jacks on a mac are also optical in/ out. It is only single channel stereo.. but pure digital, no A/D conversion until the fa-66. This also works to use another mac as a sound-processing unit.

Fa-66 is a 'prosumer' card.. so for serious/ crucial soundwork... the Apogee - no question.
But the fa-66 is convenient, and sturdy. Limited budget here, so it was within my reach at the time, had multiple output channels, with 1/4 and xlr inputs w/ gain also used coreaudio... so met my needs.
Hope that helps.

[Rave]

I have the DUET. Ever since I got it my mixes dramatically improved. It even makes shit monitors sound considerably better both in clarity and detail.

Don't expect massive latency improvements to the internal soundcard just expect a mad jump in quality.

[vicz]

well it doesnt have those problems... just wanted to ask anyone.. APOGEE duet or EDIROL FA-66 ?any opinions

I have heard nothing but good things about the Apogee, though it does cost half as much again as the Edirol, and has a lot less connectivity. The Edirol is built like a tank too, and is not a bad i/f by any means, especially on a Mac.

Sure the Ultralite is better but it costs twice as much... as usual always something better to spend your money on if you are so inclined.

[Rave]

The DUET has the same DAC as the considerably more expensive Ensemble just less i/o. If you don't need the i/o save your cash.

[rosti]

I have the Edirols FA66 running with Macbook Pro (2,2ghz, 4gb RAM, osx 1.5.8 ). Its good with mixing and working with virtual instruments, but i have to use maximum buffer size when recording. Otherwise ill have pops and crackling. I would (and will in the future) stay away from all other interfaces than MOTU, RME and Apogee.

Just now i'm fighting to record stuff from my Virus C.. 26.8 ms latency or crackles...

Works better on PC though.

[continuous]

FWIW...

Had a FA-101 a few years back... sold it and bought a Traveler. The CPU load of the FA-101 was too high when trying to achieve lower latency. Always have been glad I did. Would have love an RME. I think it's worth investing in a good soundcard.

cheers