Interesting Windows Vista Audio article...Worse or better???

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:25 pm

Hi guys,
I was reading an article regarding Windows Vista new audio system here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/arc ... 71346.aspx

More:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=145665

It seems that most of the audio processing has been moved out of the kernel to user level...It doesn't sound too good, but the guy here says it will have its advantages, and that they are serious about making Windows Vista a good option for PRO Audio...yadda, yadda...

hmmmm...

Will we EVER have ultra low latency?

imekon · Post by **imekon** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:08 pm

I think the WASAPI layer is the one pro-audio guys will use - it's as close to the 'metal' as possible, without SRC etc. Perhaps ASIO will sit on it? That's what I got from that article and others about Vista's new audio.

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:04 pm

It seems so. Nevertheless, I kinda have envy for those linux guys who have something like 1ms audio latency using some tuned linux audio distributions...

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:05 pm

AFAIK Asio bypasses windows audio control and interfaces directly with the card.

I doubt if any of you guys are using DX drivers right now, I bet you are all using asio because the latency is lower. the reason it is lower? each card gets a device specific windows avoidance asio driver.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:18 AM by DmitryKo
Larry,
, will WASAPI lessen the need for 3rd party solutions to perform driver IOCTLs for things like ASIO and EAX? I guess Vista teams have already moved much functionality (back) into user mode for increased stability of operation...

Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:09 PM by LarryOsterman
ASIO and EAX are going to continue to require ioctls, since they bypass the Windows audio infrastructure completely.

I think what this relates to more is pro-audio in the sense that a DVDa in 5:1 is pro audio. In the sense that the needed to disentangle the audio streams from the kernel to rights manage your mariah carey DVDA

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:41 pm

This is actually, probably a good thing. As, Angstrom pointed out, our better cards our not using any of the windows audio components anyways. So, it is being offloaded from the kernel memory space. Which allows for less kernel errors from flakey audio drivers. Kernel errors being those nice blue screens of death or your system just locking up completely. And with the newer direction of Intel harware with EFI your latency will be even further reduced with the lack of a BIOS to interact with before you get to the sound card. Lots of cool things are on the horizon.

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:42 pm

I may have gotten comma happy....

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:31 pm

tomperson wrote:It seems so. Nevertheless, I kinda have envy for those linux guys who have something like 1ms audio latency using some tuned linux audio distributions...

Yeah, it's a shame that they have to do so on distros that won't support any modern sound hardware....

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:31 am

What is really good is that because games and home theatre are such massive markets high-quality multi-channel audio is being integrated into Windows.

We'll have to wait and see if it's any good for making music. Personally I'm worried about all the fancy graphics (transparent windows) sucking the life out of my CPU.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:04 am

djsynchro wrote:What is really good is that because games and home theatre are such massive markets high-quality multi-channel audio is being integrated into Windows.

We'll have to wait and see if it's any good for making music. Personally I'm worried about all the fancy graphics (transparent windows) sucking the life out of my CPU.

unless your system is from the stone age, you should have a GPU which most of the graphics stuff will get offloaded to. in effect you should end up with better performance than XP when it comes to CPU handling gui related matters.

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:12 pm

Moody wrote:This is actually, probably a good thing. As, Angstrom pointed out, our better cards our not using any of the windows audio components anyways. So, it is being offloaded from the kernel memory space.

He, but they are including IIS in the kernel. How about having a nice Web Server sitting in your tuned audio machine kernel wasting memory and CPU cycles...

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:55 pm

djsynchro wrote:Personally I'm worried about all the fancy graphics (transparent windows) sucking the life out of my CPU.

Windows 14 years ago:

-imagine what a 1991-user would say about XP graphics...

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:12 pm

tomperson wrote: He, but they are including IIS in the kernel. How about having a nice Web Server sitting in your tuned audio machine kernel wasting memory and CPU cycles...

* cough* AFAIK they are not moving IIS to the kernel, just http.sys which is stuff like SSL , sure IIS needs that, as do other net apps. SSL is a secure socket layer BTW. You have to make a request on it.

Obviously if you are using SSL at the same time as you are making a track then it will be a problem. I dont think I've ever made an SSL request with Live running

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:53 pm

Yeah, you're right, my post was misleading.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't want http.sys running on MY AUDIO LAPTOP kernel...

Ahhhh, Linux, Linux, were are you when we need you!

MarkH · Post by **MarkH** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:03 pm

djsynchro wrote:Personally I'm worried about all the fancy graphics (transparent windows) sucking the life out of my CPU.

You can do this now in XP, it's just not in the shell by default. For a bunch of free apps that do this (like OS X) check out http://widgets.yahoo.com/ which is the Widget engine. Often you'll see themes for Windwblinds supporting this too. It doesn't take a hit on your CPU at all. It's great!

shaneblyth · Post by **shaneblyth** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:11 pm

well vista will be a hog of your cpu and ram and video card.
The spec of the pc will be alot higher in all these areas so lets say less VI's etc etc.
So unless you wanna buy a new system when it arrives who knows when looks like XP will be around for a long time.. Damn windows 95 runs fast on anything 98 is not much slower etc etc.. the later the OS the slower they get.