![ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d](https://cdn.pianodreamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/spectrasonics-keyscape-intableF.jpg)
- RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D MAC OS
- RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D DRIVERS
- RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D DRIVER
I have separate internal high-end sound cards for my laptop and desktop and apart from superb sound playback it is a pleasure to use them when recording. Now this might not be of importance when listening to MP3 files which have compressed sound but when listening to WAV or flac files and live sound the separate card wins. Additionally the performance specification of high-end audio cards usually exceed the specification of on-board hardware. One is that by using a separate card it is more electrically isolated from electrical noise produced by the motherboard and hard disc. There are other issues when considering whether to use a separate internal or external sound card. The probable reason for this is USB timing jitter reaching the ms range.) For example, I currently can't plug the R24 in directly, and this leads to crackle-free 96kHz operation being more or less impossible even when using huge buffers on the computer side. (Side note: the limited and often fixed internal buffer is also in my opinion the reason most USB audio devices don't really play nicely with USB-hubs. for accoustic phase measurements, where absolute timing consistency and lowest latency are vital) is still PCIe, as far as I know.
![ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d](https://pianopricepoint.com/wp-content/plugins/justified-image-grid/timthumb.php?src=https:%2F%2Fpianopricepoint.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2FSteingraeber-Sohne-D232.jpg)
For the same reason the really, really high-end stuff used in scientific setups (e.g. USB is no real-time bus protocol and introduces jitter and latency of its own.
RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D DRIVER
The reason for this is that the driver increases the latency somewhat, and also the R24 itself has an internal playback buffer (of probably about 128 samples). The total latency of my setup (Zoom R24) is closer to 10ms, however, leading to a total round-trip of ca. This corresponds to a software-induced latency of 2.7ms. For example, I normally use a buffer size of 128 samples at 48kHz in Pianoteq. There is software latency, driver latency and hardware latency.
RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D DRIVERS
Onboard drivers of Macs are very good here as you may also have experienced. The lowest achievable latencies differ depending on the device and its drivers, but values of 5-10ms (or 10-20ms roundtrip) are possible in most cases, and this is usually squarely in 'fast enough' town.Īll I know for sure is that latency is a matter of driver, not hardware.
RAVENSCROFT 275 VS STEINWAY D MAC OS
The newer Windows architecture(s) as well as the Mac OS audio architecture and ALSA on Linux allow for reasonably low latencies in fact this now works so well that for Windows an ASIO emulation layer exists that sits on top of WDM kernel streaming (ASIO4All) and makes native ASIO drivers obsolete most of the time. That is, roundtrip latencies (recording to playback) of less than 50ms are nowadays achievable even without special drivers like ASIO. Latency is largely not an issue anymore, IMHO, at least when only playback is concerned. On a PC notebook, it is usually not even a question, though. One probably still benefits from a good audio interface, but maybe not as much. However (although without speaking from personal experience) Mac audio interfaces are supposed to be a whole lot less bad.
![ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d ravenscroft 275 vs steinway d](https://recording-voice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/embertone-1.jpg)
AC'97 and relatives) are just awful in the first two disciplines. There are (in my humble opinion) three main considerations when speaking about audio interfaces.