T
themusicato
New member
What is an "ASIO" driver?
Is it somehow superior to an MME or WDM?
Thank YOU !!
Is it somehow superior to an MME or WDM?
Thank YOU !!
T
tf5_bassist
The LouDogg
somewhat similar to WDM if i remember correctly. just, higher quality, allows for higher sampling rates, and works with more hardware (???). also allows for lower latency, I think.
if i'm off-base, let me know.
if i'm off-base, let me know.
AlChuck
Well-known member
OK...
The older driver model for Windows, called MME (short for multimedia extensions), was inadequate to get good realtime response from software synths and plug-in effects when they first came out.
Steinberg, I think it was, came up with a different driver model that allowed more direct access to soundcard hardware on a lower level -- fewer OS hoops to have to jump through to get there, basically. They named it ASIO (Audio Stream In/Out).
Meanwhile, Microsoft was taking their own crack at solving the same problem, called WDM (Windows Driver Model). The advantage was that it would be standard, with the hooks built-in to the operating system.
So, WDM and ASIO are kind of about the same thing. I don't really know if one is significantly "better" than the other as far as latency. ASIO certainly does not offer "higher quality" (by which I assume you mean it sounds better), nor does it allow for higher sampling rates. It also doesn't work with more hardware, since WDM drivers are the norm for Windows 2000/XP systems (though there was certainly a period of time there when there were more soundcards that had ASIO drivers than had WDM drivers, since ASIO was on the market before WDM).
If you have software that supports ASIO, and a soundcard with an ASIO driver, it's possible -- maybe even likely -- that the ASIO driver is more mature than the WDM driver, so there might be an advantage to using it.
Porter
aka WookieMan
AlChuck said:OK...
The older driver model for Windows, called MME (short for multimedia extensions), was inadequate to get good realtime response from software synths and plug-in effects when they first came out.
Steinberg, I think it was, came up with a different driver model that allowed more direct access to soundcard hardware on a lower level -- fewer OS hoops to have to jump through to get there, basically. They named it ASIO (Audio Stream In/Out).
Meanwhile, Microsoft was taking their own crack at solving the same problem, called WDM (Windows Driver Model). The advantage was that it would be standard, with the hooks built-in to the operating system.
So, WDM and ASIO are kind of about the same thing. I don't really know if one is significantly "better" than the other as far as latency. ASIO certainly does not offer "higher quality" (by which I assume you mean it sounds better), nor does it allow for higher sampling rates. It also doesn't work with more hardware, since WDM drivers are the norm for Windows 2000/XP systems (though there was certainly a period of time there when there were more soundcards that had ASIO drivers than had WDM drivers, since ASIO was on the market before WDM).
If you have software that supports ASIO, and a soundcard with an ASIO driver, it's possible -- maybe even likely -- that the ASIO driver is more mature than the WDM driver, so there might be an advantage to using it.
Also, adding to this, most cards (if not all) that use ASIO drivers, come with an ASIO control panel. It is thorugh this you can set levels on the card and some will have a monitor mixer, ie almost 0ms latency monitoring of the inputs.
Porter
T
tf5_bassist
The LouDogg
AlChuck said:OK...
The older driver model for Windows, called MME (short for multimedia extensions), was inadequate to get good realtime response from software synths and plug-in effects when they first came out.
Steinberg, I think it was, came up with a different driver model that allowed more direct access to soundcard hardware on a lower level -- fewer OS hoops to have to jump through to get there, basically. They named it ASIO (Audio Stream In/Out).
Meanwhile, Microsoft was taking their own crack at solving the same problem, called WDM (Windows Driver Model). The advantage was that it would be standard, with the hooks built-in to the operating system.
So, WDM and ASIO are kind of about the same thing. I don't really know if one is significantly "better" than the other as far as latency. ASIO certainly does not offer "higher quality" (by which I assume you mean it sounds better), nor does it allow for higher sampling rates. It also doesn't work with more hardware, since WDM drivers are the norm for Windows 2000/XP systems (though there was certainly a period of time there when there were more soundcards that had ASIO drivers than had WDM drivers, since ASIO was on the market before WDM).
If you have software that supports ASIO, and a soundcard with an ASIO driver, it's possible -- maybe even likely -- that the ASIO driver is more mature than the WDM driver, so there might be an advantage to using it.
Thanks for the corrections and clarifications. I wasn't sure if WDM was used by many recording hardware manufacturers as the primary driver, i had assumed that ASIO was. (Gotta' love Steinberg).
So then am i correct in assuming (from your added second post) that ASIO is lower latency than WDM generally? or is it the same level?
Porter
aka WookieMan
tf5_bassist,
From my experience, I could get the same latency on both, however the hardware monitoring, ie listening to the direct input's, is somthing that I do use, so ASIO is the way that I go.
Porter
From my experience, I could get the same latency on both, however the hardware monitoring, ie listening to the direct input's, is somthing that I do use, so ASIO is the way that I go.
Porter
T
tf5_bassist
The LouDogg
Porter said:
Ahhh. Gotcha.
AlChuck
Well-known member
I have had a Delta 66 for 3+ years and it has always had a mixer applet that allowed input monitoring, even with its original MME drivers. So I'm not sure that this is any distinction of ASIO drivers or just something that the card manufacturers offer.