Core Audio vs ASIO in 2011

[valis]

Core audio is native to OSX and used by default with all applications except Cubase, which requires their ASIO layer as well (unless that's changed in 6?) There's no need for ASIO for anything else.

[Elika]

Originally Posted by valis

Core audio is native to OSX and used by default with all applications except Cubase, which requires their ASIO layer as well (unless that's changed in 6?) There's no need for ASIO for anything else.

that's not really what I meant, I understand core is osx specific. i am asking about the 2 more generally. if there are advantages or disadvantages to either protocol.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Elika

What are the advantages/disadvantages (if any) to using either core audio or ASIO in current machines? The most recent topic on the post I found was from 2005.

ASIO is faster offers direct monitoring with zero latency if used with compatible interface.

[Jay M]

Is ASIO an option on Macs? One advantage to core audio, is that on my Macbook I can have really low latency by just using the headphone output. It's a nice backup in case my external soundcard fails on a gig.

Other than that I can't see a difference in normal use. I use Windows on my desktop DAWs, and the Macbook for e-drumming.

I'm also curious if someone has done a recent test to measure which is actually lower latency. I seem to remember one musician on the forum reporting that he gets lower latency on Windows. That's very important with virtual instruments.

~Jay

[Kamurah]

One aspect of Core Audio that ASIO has yet to reach....

True multi-client regardless of interface or application.

I will often use itunes or even Youtube to try and match sounds through whichever DAW I am using....

In OSX Core Audio...I can have all the audio programs open I want and everything will play through the audio interface at once. I don't need to assign separate outputs or any such nonsense.

I wish ASIO did this...but it does not.

[Masaaki]

I'm using RME Fireface ASIO driver, with Reaper, and playing back some music by Windows Media Player at the same time. Am I missing somthing, or somthing has been added to ASIO driver standard recently?

Originally Posted by Kamurah

One aspect of Core Audio that ASIO has yet to reach....

True multi-client regardless of interface or application.

I will often use itunes or even Youtube to try and match sounds through whichever DAW I am using....

In OSX Core Audio...I can have all the audio programs open I want and everything will play through the audio interface at once. I don't need to assign separate outputs or any such nonsense.

I wish ASIO did this...but it does not.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Kamurah

I wish ASIO did this...but it does not.

ASIO does

maybe your interface that uses ASIO does not?

regardless,

I use Nuendo and After effects and other audio apps all at the same time and they all playback independent and simultaneously.

In fact ASIO is the only driver interface that will not only play multiple streams from your computer it can play multiple streams from other computers all piped to 1 computer with compatible hardware. Incredible capability

OSX Core Audio does not do that.

[Kamurah]

Yeah...I knew I was going to get those responses regarding multi-client....

Please read my post carefully.

The key phrase is: Regardless of interface being used.

Core Audio doesn't care if you are using the built-in sound of a Mac, a cheapo USB interface or a Fireface UFX.


My understanding (I have yet to own one) is RME has some of the best implementation of ASIO's capability, Totalmix, custom chipsets, and superb drivers. Those are some of the things that make them so appealing.

BTW Robert, are you also running an RME? If not, it would be interesting to know which other interfaces work well multi-client for ASIO.

Also...the capability you are describing (streaming from multiple comps) is VST system link no? Is that inherently a part of ASIO or is that a separate technology that needs to be incorporated into the DAW....like Cubase or Nuendo?

I ask because .....again....I was talking "Regardless of interface or application".

[valis]

Originally Posted by Elika

that's not really what I meant, I understand core is osx specific. i am asking about the 2 more generally. if there are advantages or disadvantages to either protocol.

Well I mentioned the differences as applied to Mac only to avoid bringing the platform related discussion (wars) into play.

[valis]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

ASIO does

maybe your interface that uses ASIO does not?

regardless,

I use Nuendo and After effects and other audio apps all at the same time and they all playback independent and simultaneously.

In fact ASIO is the only driver interface that will not only play multiple streams from your computer it can play multiple streams from other computers all piped to 1 computer with compatible hardware. Incredible capability

OSX Core Audio does not do that.

Yes RME offers multiclient ASIO as do a few other vendors, but my understanding is that this is technically outside of the ASIO spec. Also there is at least one ASIO layer on windows that offers multiple interface support (I forget if it's asio4all or the other one).

It's difficult to make a simple comparison IMO because there's so much variety in what vendors implement in their drivers and differences in the platforms too. I use RME multiface interfaces on both my Mac Pro and Win7 Xeon to enjoy the best of both worlds and true zero latency monitoring that's identical on both platforms too.

[rksguit]

Originally Posted by Kamurah

One aspect of Core Audio that ASIO has yet to reach....

True multi-client regardless of interface or application.

I will often use itunes or even Youtube to try and match sounds through whichever DAW I am using....

In OSX Core Audio...I can have all the audio programs open I want and everything will play through the audio interface at once. I don't need to assign separate outputs or any such nonsense.

I wish ASIO did this...but it does not.

I must say the ASIO,"one at a time thing" is annoying,for precisely what you described: comparing DAW to "other" streaming,or favourite productions,as an instant, A/B test. ASIO4all does NOT allow multi c.[not on my laptop]as I v'e tried......ASIO4all did make,or enable my "realtek" onboard,to perform a surprising RTLatency of as low as 2ms. Pretty good for,what is considered "un-usable" for DAW use, by some!

[PaPi61]

I can confirm that RME drivers allow ASIO to be fully multi-client in Windows 7. Tried that with both a Fireface UC and a Babyface, desktop and laptop, still works like a charm. I can have Cubase 6, Windows Media Player and Firefox with a YouTube video all open and working at the same time.

[Kamurah]

Originally Posted by PaPi61

I can confirm that RME drivers allow ASIO to be fully multi-client in Windows 7. Tried that with both a Fireface UC and a Babyface, desktop and laptop, still works like a charm. I can have Cubase 6, Windows Media Player and Firefox with a YouTube video all open and working at the same time.

Can you explain more on the functionality?

For instance, do you have to have Totalmix running in the background?

Can multiple applications share the same outputs? Like....can you have Cubase and Youtube sharing the headphone outputs?

Thanks!

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

ASIO is faster offers direct monitoring with zero latency if used with compatible interface.

Please elaborate.... loads of CoreAudio users use direct monitoring with 'zero' latency....

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

Please elaborate.... loads of CoreAudio users use direct monitoring with 'zero' latency....

Core audio can't do zero latency direct monitoring, what you're getting confused with is your soundcard will have it's own totalmix/cuemix system that provides it.

MC

[PaPi61]

Originally Posted by Kamurah

Can you explain more on the functionality?

For instance, do you have to have Totalmix running in the background?

Can multiple applications share the same outputs? Like....can you have Cubase and Youtube sharing the headphone outputs?

Thanks!

TotalMix is always running in the background (you can open it anytime, it's besides the fireface USB settings, they're both tucked in the notification area, on the right of the taskbar -- click on the small triangle icon that reads "show hidden icons" as you mouse over), as long as your interface is powered and connected (or simply connected, if it's a Babyface), but you really don't need to touch it to do that (opening multiple apps.) It really works like the standard WMP realtek audio on the mobo, only it's ASIO and it's not crappy...

Yes, multiple applications can share the same outputs. If you don't touch anything, it will all automatically go to outs 1&2 (and headphones 1), if you play with with TotalMix, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

[Kamurah]

Thanks for the additional info!

Yep...this is pretty much exactly like the way Core Audio works. As RME has implemented this for the PC....you just helped me decide my next interface....especially after reading the 'Latency' thread outlining all the RTL timings.

Cheers

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

Core audio can't do zero latency direct monitoring, what you're getting confused with is your soundcard will have it's own totalmix/cuemix system that provides it.

MC

Pardon my ignorance - I know very little about ASIO.

So... CoreAudio is part of the OS. TotalMix runs on the OS. The OS adds some latency. How can ASIO not add some latency if it also uses the OS?

Please post any links you may have which explains this, if you have time.

The interesting two parts is of course:
Will the latency roundtrip be shorter with with ASIO than with CoreAudio?
Are they similar (in their direct monitoring mode) in that ASIO still can run effects (not in the interface itself, but in the computer) in direct monitoring mode?

If ASIO can't tun efx in direct monioing mode, and the latency isn't lower what are the benefits?

[Masaaki]

I thought direct monitoring is the function of the hardware (interface), but needs to be supported by the driver side (ASIO or CoreAudio). The word itself is ASIO term, but the concept is the same.

To be able to add effects on the direct monitoring signal, the interface needs DSP.

[grooveminister]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

ASIO is faster offers direct monitoring with zero latency if used with compatible interface.

Ahem, does this mean if my presonus interface does not offer zero latency direct monitoring (tape style) it´s not necessarily the fault of presonus - because it simply impossible with Core Audio?

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

So... CoreAudio is part of the OS. TotalMix runs on the OS. The OS adds some latency. How can ASIO not add some latency if it also uses the OS?[

Just because Core Audio is native to the O.S, it doesn't necessarily mean its better or has lower latency, much in the same way that WaveRT which is native to Win7 doesn't guarantee lower latency/performance than ASIO.

ASIO is inherently more efficient than Core Audio because it makes less calls to the O.S per sample at any given buffer setting.

Please post any links you may have which explains this, if you have time.

I go into further detail in this report Here

Scroll down to the ASIO v Core Audio section about 3/4 way down.

Will the latency roundtrip be shorter with with ASIO than with CoreAudio?

No,

RTL in Software which allows monitoring with FX is based around the set sample buffers + safety buffers + DSP/FPGA + AD/DA of the respective Audio interfaces , so in that respect they will be the same or comparable cross platform. What ASIO will provide tho is better overall DAW performance at those respective lower buffer settings.

RTL in ASIO Direct Monitoring or Hardware Direct Monitoring via respective Mixers is based on AD/DA + DSP/FPGA , so ASIO/Core Audio does not come into play at all.

Are they similar (in their direct monitoring mode) in that ASIO still can run effects (not in the interface itself, but in the computer) in direct monitoring mode?

Neither can run FX in direct hardware monitoring mode , ( well not in a way that they are natively integrated within the Host DAW ) only in software monitoring mode. The only protocols that can run FX plugins in direct hardware monitoring are those that have the DSP integrated at the core level of the DAW host , i.e, Protools HD, Pyramix, Soundscape.

If ASIO can't tun efx in direct monioing mode, and the latency isn't lower what are the benefits?

The overall low latency performance exceeds that capable with Core Audio in respect to DAW scalability.

[nativeaudio]

What ASIO will provide tho is better overall DAW performance at those respective lower buffer settings.

I obviously haven't seen any data supporting that Logic (which I use) performs better on PC/ASIO than Mac/CoreAudio, because Logic is a Mac only app - but what you write seem to suggest that eg. Cubase performs worse on Mac than it does on PC then, because the PC version is ASIO based and the Mac version in CoreAudio based?

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

I obviously haven't seen any data supporting that Logic (which I use) performs better on PC/ASIO than Mac/CoreAudio, because Logic is a Mac only app - but what you write seem to suggest that eg. Cubase performs worse on Mac than it does on PC then, because the PC version is ASIO based and the Mac version in CoreAudio based?

I have posted a whole stack of data in regards to the comparative performance across multiple DAW hosts.

StudioOne and Reaper also display the same or very similar variables , so its not reserved to Cubase only. I also have it on good authority that Abelton Live has a similar performance advanatge on Windows as well, but I haven't personally done any testing with that host.

Core Audio /ASIO is only part of the equation, the operating systems multi processor/thread task scheduling also comes into play , as well as how the host DAW arbitrates within that. I remember Logic having quite a difficult time with anything above 8 cores/threads for a while. Windows task scheduling tends to have less of a hurdle as the core/thread count rises.

Its been covered numerous times but worth mentioning again, Logic is very difficult to do head to head comparatives due to the hybrid playback engine. Also it has its own caveats attached as you drop one or several tracks onto live mode , which from the reports on the recent thread here, lands all of the processing of those tracks on one core as well as disengages the hybrid buffer for those tracks - resulting in a spiked and potentially overloaded core.

Horses for courses..