Does anyone out there have the apogee ensemble interface? I have a firepod and am considering getting the ensemble. Would I notice a large difference in sound quality? What are the advantages of having it integrated in to logic? Any help is much appreciated. Andy

On Feb 9, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Andy Johnson wrote: > Message posted by Andy Johnson <atjohnson@berklee.net>: > > Does anyone out there have the apogee ensemble interface? I have a > firepod and am considering getting the ensemble. Would I notice a > large > difference in sound quality? What are the advantages of having it > integrated in to logic? Any help is much appreciated. The A/D and D/A converters are much better than what you have. You should notice a significant difference. Brian

> I have a Mac dual 2.0 G5 which I usually run at 24 bit/44.1 with buffer > setting around 256. > I might lower it while recording certain things, and then raise it while > mixing. I never have > any problems with latency I would say, running quite a few soft synths > including the Virus > TI w/Virus Control, Akoustik Piano, quite a few EQs, a couple of PSP > Vintage Warmers, > bussing to verb tracks, etc. I don't really use Altiverb or really high > demand plugs. Could you, please, lower the buffer to 128 samples and see if it's still capable of handling a decent track/plug count? TIA. Best, Andy

> > > Here's a question: has anyone had luck using an Ensemble and a Lacie > FW HD playing back samples and audio, on the same FW bus? > > George Leger III > ________________________________________________________ Mine didn't work. Apparently, the LaCie drives don't work with Ensemble or Fireface 800s properly. Brian

On Feb 10, 2007, at 6:02 PM, George Leger III wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Andy Hardwake wrote: > > > > I have a Mac dual 2.0 G5 which I usually run at 24 bit/44.1 with > > buffer > > > setting around 256. > > > I might lower it while recording certain things, and then raise > > it while > > > mixing. I never have > > > any problems with latency I would say, running quite a few soft > > synths > > > including the Virus > > > TI w/Virus Control, Akoustik Piano, quite a few EQs, a couple > of PSP > > > Vintage Warmers, > > > bussing to verb tracks, etc. I don't really use Altiverb or > > really high > > > demand plugs. > > > > Could you, please, lower the buffer to 128 samples and see if it's > > still > > capable of handling a decent track/plug count? TIA. > > > > Best, > > > > Andy > > Here's a question: has anyone had luck using an Ensemble and a Lacie > FW HD playing back samples and audio, on the same FW bus? > > George Leger III > ________________________________________________________ > > http://www.myspace.com/georgelegeriii > > http://www.utopiaparkwaymusic.com > > Mac AND PC: The only way to fly 8-} > > > > Hello George I've got an Ensemble running with with a LaCie FW 800 external drive on a dual core G5 2ghz. I suppose the Lacie's FW800 means my G5 is probably connected to Ensemble on a separate FW bus. In any case, LP is happily running with both boxes. Craig

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, c2 <c2@...> wrote: > > Hello George > I've got an Ensemble running with with a LaCie FW 800 external drive > on a dual core G5 2ghz. I suppose the Lacie's FW800 means my G5 is > probably connected to Ensemble on a separate FW bus. In any case, LP > is happily running with both boxes. > Craig I'm running an external LaCie as well, but only for samples. I've always used the internal drive for audio with good results so I never changed. I did have trouble with the Ensemble in the beginning because I had switched out the short FW cable that came with it for a longer one. It constantly crackled and went offline. After going back to the original cable it works great. And I do run it at 128 buffer setting with good results as well.

On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:20 PM, c2 wrote: > > I've got an Ensemble running with with a LaCie FW 800 external drive > on a dual core G5 2ghz. I suppose the Lacie's FW800 means my G5 is > probably connected to Ensemble on a separate FW bus. There's only one FW bus on any Mac I've ever seen (including the dual G5.) The multiple ports are on the same bus.

> I did have trouble with the Ensemble > in the beginning because I had switched out the short FW cable that came with it for a > longer one. It constantly crackled and went offline. After going back to the original cable > it works great. Uh-oh! How long is the original cable? Thanks for a heads-up. Best, Andy

> > Here's a question: has anyone had luck using an Ensemble and a Lacie > > FW HD playing back samples and audio, on the same FW bus? > > > > George Leger III > > ________________________________________________________ > Hello George > I've got an Ensemble running with with a LaCie FW 800 external drive > on a dual core G5 2ghz. I suppose the Lacie's FW800 means my G5 is > probably connected to Ensemble on a separate FW bus. In any case, LP > is happily running with both boxes. > Craig It is my understanding that the FW800 port is on the same bus as the FW400 ports. I'm not sure how that works, but it's what I've been told. Andrew

When I spoke to Apogee engineers, I was told that there are two ports (1394a and 1394b standards) on the G5s. The 1394b (FW800) supports both 800 and 400 bilingual devices and the 400 supports only 400, 200 etc. devices. I had a LaCie drive on my machine when using a Fireface 800 and they specifically mention that it isn't compatible with other audio devices. This was proved out when I stopped getting pops and clicks at any buffer size when I removed it. When I got my Ensemble I hooked the drive up again and had the same problem. From what I remember of the 1394a/1394b specs, they both support 64 nodes - one of which is the computer (like the old HP IEEE488 interface or SCSI concept) with limited chaining and cable lengths. As a result, the front and back panel connectors would simply be a node on each of the actual ports. Brian

Andrew Harvey <pbook@bagheera.id.au> wrote: > It is my understanding that the FW800 port is on the same bus as the FW400 ports. I'm not sure how that works, but it's what I've been told. They are. Firewire 800 devices will be able to run at full speed on a bus, even if a Firewire 400 device is plugged in. Pk.

At 07:25 AM 02/11/2007, you wrote: >Message posted by Petros Kolyvas ><<mailto:pkolyvas%40gmail.com>pkolyvas@gmail.com>: > >Andrew Harvey <<mailto:pbook%40bagheera.id.au>pbook@bagheera.id.au> wrote: > > It is my understanding that the FW800 port is on the same bus as > the FW400 ports. I'm not sure how that works, but it's what I've been told. > >They are. Firewire 800 devices will be able to run at full speed on >a bus, even if a Firewire 400 device is plugged in. Yes---as long as you don't daisy chain FW400 devices with the FW800 devices. This, according to Apple when this question first surfaced a couple of years back. They also said that if you plug an even slower device into any part of the chain, such as a camera, it will bring the entire bus down to that speed, regardless of port.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Hardwake" <andyhardwake@...> wrote: > > > I did have trouble with the Ensemble > > in the beginning because I had switched out the short FW cable that came with it for a > > longer one. It constantly crackled and went offline. After going back to the original cable > > it works great. > > Uh-oh! How long is the original cable? Thanks for a heads-up. > > Best, > > Andy > I think the original cable is only 3', which is why I had switched it out. Tech support got me back on track with it, and as I say, it now works great.

I've used a Fireface 800 with 2 OWC FW drives that were Daisy Chained into a 400 Port while the FF800 was plugged into the 800 port with perfect success on my G5 Mac. I can read or write Logic songs off the FW drives using the FF800 with no cracks or pops. I've also used the FF800 with a Macbook where I Daisy Chained a FW drive from the FF800 while the FF800 was plugged into the FW 400 of the Macbook with perfect success. With the G5 2X2 I run 128 bit buffer most of the time and run the FW devices with no problems. On the Macbook I was running 1024 bit buffer, because I was told that for doing living recordings I should set the buffer rate to the highest setting. I'm thinking you can probably use a smaller buffer, I just didn't experiment with it. In both instances I used different lengths of FW cables with no negative effect. One cable used was at least 8 feet long for one of my tests, because my Macbook was sitting across the room from my FF800. Obviously, shorter FW cables are always going to be the better route to take. Cheers

>> >> They are. Firewire 800 devices will be able to run at full speed on >> a bus, even if a Firewire 400 device is plugged in. > > Yes---as long as you don't daisy chain FW400 devices with the FW800 > devices. This, according to Apple when this question first surfaced a > couple of years back. They also said that if you plug an even slower > device into any part of the chain, such as a camera, it will bring > the entire bus down to that speed, regardless of port. This is correct - the bus assumes the rate of the lowest device located on the bus. Brian

At 10:53 AM 02/11/2007, you wrote: > >> > >> They are. Firewire 800 devices will be able to run at full speed on > >> a bus, even if a Firewire 400 device is plugged in. > > > > Yes---as long as you don't daisy chain FW400 devices with the FW800 > > devices. This, according to Apple when this question first surfaced a > > couple of years back. They also said that if you plug an even slower > > device into any part of the chain, such as a camera, it will bring > > the entire bus down to that speed, regardless of port. > >This is correct - the bus assumes the rate of the lowest device >located on the bus. > >Brian Actually, that's not exactly what I said, and, according to Apple, not entirely true. When it was revealed that there was still only one Firewire bus despite the presence of multiple ports at different speeds, the concern was that the use of any FW400 devices (which were by that time plentiful) anywhere on the system would basically make the FW800 port useless. Apple claims this isn't true, that devices on the FW800 port will operate at the higher speed even when FW400 devices are present on the bus---as long as no FW400 devices are physically part of the chain connected to the FW800 port. Only the use of slow cameras and such has a negative effect on the entire bus. I have never tried to verify the veracity of their claim, but that's their story and I'm stickin' to it! Sean

According to the Metric Halo makers: > Apple claims this isn't true, that devices on > the FW800 port will operate at the higher speed even when FW400 > devices are present on the bus---as long as no FW400 devices are > physically part of the chain connected to the FW800 port. ... this is true - that an 800 device will still be read at 800, even with a 400 device on the bus. I'm pretty amazed at the latencies working on my MH-ULN2 - tracking even on big sessions at 64, and virtually unlimited plugins mixing at 256 in 24/44. I did try working at 24/96, but I found the hit on my computer was substantial, and I got tired of the stoppages. I'm on a Quad G5/4.5BG RAM, BTW. ciao, Ian >>>> Ian Henderson http://www.ianhenderson.net http://www.myspace.com/ianfreefall Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums &amp; communities. Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:logic-users-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:logic-users-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: logic-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums &amp; communities. is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- Ian Henderson <hello@ianhenderson.co.za> wrote: > According to the Metric Halo makers: > > > Apple claims this isn't true, that devices on > > the FW800 port will operate at the higher speed > even when FW400 > > devices are present on the bus---as long as no > FW400 devices are > > physically part of the chain connected to the > FW800 port. Well I wish someone could resolve this once and for all because I've heard some very respected members of this list state the exact opposite. JP

> > I've got an Ensemble running with with a LaCie FW 800 external drive > > on a dual core G5 2ghz. I suppose the Lacie's FW800 means my G5 is > > probably connected to Ensemble on a separate FW bus. In any case, LP > > is happily running with both boxes. > > Craig > > > I'm running an external LaCie as well, but only for samples. I've always used the internal > drive for audio with good results so I never changed. I did have trouble with the Ensemble > in the beginning because I had switched out the short FW cable that came with it for a > longer one. It constantly crackled and went offline. After going back to the original cable > it works great. And I do run it at 128 buffer setting with good results as well. > same holds for me: ensemble with an LaCie FW disk for sample-storage only and internal drive for audio. Buffer-size vs. latency is not an issue when recording with Ensembles Maestro mixer while disabling software-monitoring..

>> According to the Metric Halo makers: >> >>> Apple claims this isn't true, that devices on >>> the FW800 port will operate at the higher speed even when FW400 >>> devices are present on the bus---as long as no FW400 devices are >>> physically part of the chain connected to the FW800 port. > > Well I wish someone could resolve this once and for > all because I've heard some very respected members of > this list state the exact opposite. I believe that the FW IEEE spec states this very fact. The confusion may be when there is a dormant FW400 device on a FW800 bus - in that case, I believe it operates at the 800 spec speeds. I the FW400 device is active, the bus drops to FW400 speeds. Brian

On Feb 26, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Brian Mikiten wrote: > > I believe that the FW IEEE spec states this very fact. The confusion > may be when there is a dormant FW400 device on a FW800 bus - in that > case, I believe it operates at the 800 spec speeds. I the FW400 > device is active, the bus drops to FW400 speeds. So here's the deal. FW800 devices will run at 800Mbps on the same bus in any combination with FW400 devices, so long as no 800 device is physically daisy- chained *after* a 400 device (since the 400 device can't pass through data at 800.) You can have a 400 device chained to the back of the 800 device and the 800 device will work at full speed. You can have 400 and 800 devices connected to the same hub and the right stuff will happen. You can certainly have 400 and 800 devices plugged into separate ports on your computer and the right stuff will happen (this is effectively the same as using a hub, since there's only a single FW bus in there.) It is the case that a 400 device will soak up more than its fair share of bandwidth on the bus, seeing as it takes twice as long to transfer the same data (and everybody else is locked out for that time.) But it is *not* the case that a 400 device automatically poisons the bus to slow down for everybody, unlike USB 1.1 vs. 2.0. This is presumably one of the reasons why there is a separate USB bus per port, at least on Macs. --Dave

> > I believe that the FW IEEE spec states this very > fact. The confusion > > may be when there is a dormant FW400 device on a > FW800 bus - in that > > case, I believe it operates at the 800 spec > speeds. I the FW400 > > device is active, the bus drops to FW400 speeds. > > > So here's the deal. > > FW800 devices will run at 800Mbps on the same bus in > any combination > with FW400 devices, so long as no 800 device is > physically daisy- > chained *after* a 400 device (since the 400 device > can't pass through > data at 800.) We're still contradicting ourselves here. At this point i don't know what to believe. JP

At 09:36 PM 02/26/2007, you wrote: > > > I believe that the FW IEEE spec states this very > > fact. The confusion > > > may be when there is a dormant FW400 device on a > > FW800 bus - in that > > > case, I believe it operates at the 800 spec > > speeds. I the FW400 > > > device is active, the bus drops to FW400 speeds. > > > > > > So here's the deal. > > > > FW800 devices will run at 800Mbps on the same bus in > > any combination > > with FW400 devices, so long as no 800 device is > > physically daisy- > > chained *after* a 400 device (since the 400 device > > can't pass through > > data at 800.) > >We're still contradicting ourselves here. At this >point i don't know what to believe. >JP Yes, it can get confusing. Once again, according to Apple two years ago: as long as the FW800 port has only FW800 devices attached, it will operate at 800 regardless of the presence of FW400 devices on the FW400 ports. They didn't mention this idea of placing a FW400 unit at the end of a FW800 daisy-chain, and since there isn't much point in doing that because there are FW400 ports, I'd suggest playing it safe and keeping them discrete.

--- Sean McCoy <osr@jeffnet.org> wrote: > > Yes, it can get confusing. Once again, according to > Apple two years > ago: as long as the FW800 port has only FW800 > devices attached, it > will operate at 800 regardless of the presence of > FW400 devices on > the FW400 ports. They didn't mention this idea of > placing a FW400 > unit at the end of a FW800 daisy-chain, and since > there isn't much > point in doing that because there are FW400 ports, > I'd suggest > playing it safe and keeping them discrete. But then what about the idea that there is only one FW bus shared by all of the ports and that the bus speed for al devices drops to the speed of the slowest device on the bus? I'm sure I read this in several places. I even purchased a hub because one of my devices is FW 200. Is this all incorrect? JP

On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:24 PM, james page wrote: > > > But then what about the idea that there is only one FW > bus shared by all of the ports and that the bus speed > for al devices drops to the speed of the slowest > device on the bus? I'm sure I read this in several > places. I even purchased a hub because one of my > devices is FW 200. > Is this all incorrect? There is only one bus, but it is quite capable of operating at different speeds on a per-transaction basis. Somebody got it confused with USB, which does have the slow-down characteristic. --Dave

At 12:24 PM 02/27/2007, you wrote: >--- Sean McCoy <<mailto:osr%40jeffnet.org>osr@jeffnet.org> wrote: > > > > Yes, it can get confusing. Once again, according to > > Apple two years > > ago: as long as the FW800 port has only FW800 > > devices attached, it > > will operate at 800 regardless of the presence of > > FW400 devices on > > the FW400 ports. They didn't mention this idea of > > placing a FW400 > > unit at the end of a FW800 daisy-chain, and since > > there isn't much > > point in doing that because there are FW400 ports, > > I'd suggest > > playing it safe and keeping them discrete. > >But then what about the idea that there is only one FW >bus shared by all of the ports and that the bus speed >for al devices drops to the speed of the slowest >device on the bus? I'm sure I read this in several >places. I even purchased a hub because one of my >devices is FW 200. >Is this all incorrect? Apple claimed this was unequivocally incorrect, that the single bus was capable of operating at multiple speeds as long as the FW800 port wasn't connected to any slower devices. HOWEVER, they also said that any devices slower than 400 anywhere on the bus would bring the entire bus speed down to that speed. So whatever your FW200 device is, it could be compromising your entire FW system. If it's a camera or something similar, I'd unplug it from the bus whenever it isn't in use.

The Engineer in me got tired of this so I did some research. Here are the facts based on the IEEE 1394 and IEEE 1394b standards: 1) Both standards (400 and 800) support multi-speed protocols and several different "channels". 2) Most of the speeds are theoretical and heavily based on drivers, cable lengths and the devices themselves. 3) FW800 DOES NOT CHANGE SPEEDS to accommodate a lower speed device. Period. My memory was wrong. The standard supports multiple devices at multiple speeds. Practically, the bus also has a bandwidth and loading up a FW800 bus with 20 devices and expecting your audio to stream at real time with little in the way of pops and clicks won't happen. The real issue here is BANDWIDTH. Note to self. 4) Multiple FW800 ports can help if you buy the cards that allow multiple channels. In a perfect world, most of us know that you'd put your FW audio device on it's own channel and port. There you have it. Brian

--- Sean McCoy <osr@jeffnet.org> wrote: >> > Apple claimed this was unequivocally incorrect, that > the single bus > was capable of operating at multiple speeds as long > as the FW800 port > wasn't connected to any slower devices. HOWEVER, > they also said that > any devices slower than 400 anywhere on the bus > would bring the > entire bus speed down to that speed. So whatever > your FW200 device > is, it could be compromising your entire FW system. > If it's a camera > or something similar, I'd unplug it from the bus > whenever it isn't in use. Well unfortunately, it happens to be my Apogee Trak2 mlan FW card. Can't do without that. I do have it isolated into an OWC PCI card which I was told would allow the other devices to work up to speed. JP