Subject: Re: audioscience [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 04:19:10 EET
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 10:27, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote:
> > > > Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your
> > > > doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer
> > > > just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source
> > > > developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would
> > > > never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com.
> > >
> > > Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence!
>
> > Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA,
> > no volunteers needed. :)
>
> Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA
> driver and our underlying HPI driver.
> We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as
> Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the
> linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or
> properly.
>
> (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and
> kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into
> the alsa tree)
>
> So step right up...
Hi Eliot, thanks for clarifying this up for us. Nevertheless i think
that what you do is great and your the *only* company that does provide
official alsa drivers and support for professional audio products(i know
it's just you but anyway, the philosophy is cool). I think that you
would get a lot of feedback if you entered the studio market.
>
> > > would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast)
> > > with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their
> > > act together.
>
> So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like
> to see in a "pro audio card"?
I think that having a breakout box with 24/192 converters inside the
breakoutbox would rock. 8 analog i/o is fine too. Most such devices
usually offer around 26 channels of inputs + 26 chans of outputs, ~1/2
being digital. Hmmm now that i think about it, the 5042(the AES/EBU one)
with a breakoutbox with analog i/o would be really cool. Not sure about
how much load the DSP processor can handle and whether it's flotingpoint
capable, but running a few ladspas on such DSP would be very nice too.
:)
Just some initial thoughts.
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 02:25:26 EET