The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Hi-end digital mixer vs PT ITB Equalizer Plugins
Old 5th August 2014
  #91
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsSka View Post
Nope I'm seeing it in your post. Are my C words also being replaced with C|24 too?

Cost Courier Chris Console... Cautomation
Cyes.....
Old 5th August 2014
  #92
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
the thing that needs to be recognized is that the PT sessions are carrying the automation- and what happens when we carry those PT sessions through a desk which has the 1000+ channels of input is that we are looking at an enormous difference in cost- as you are spending exponentiall more in order to get all your dubber tracks PLUS the large format i/o that is required to mix them- there is simply nothing more economical when dealing with that than an HDX system and an AVID control surface-


mixing in PT also removes the desk from the equation if there is a need to move the sessions from room to room.


ps- am I the only one seeing "C|24" being inserted for the leading character "c" in my text? it is really annoying....
Huge benefit to working ITB. We have come across sessions that want to come in for some 'updates' that take 1-2 hours. The setup takes 4 hours to restore the studio back to it's mixing state for that job - loading floppy disks into lex 960/tc6000s, patching MADI for the DFC, moving workstation KVM, loading the clone hard drive.. the lot. It'd take an hour or so if it was all ITB with a couple of control surfaces..

Having said that.. it gives us something to do.. and production (mostly) pay for the time.
Old 5th August 2014
  #93
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post

I'm confused about the stem output routing though. To get all machines an output to the single stem recorder - are you just racking up 192's/HD IO's and AES patching directly into the stem recorder? Summing multiple machines to a single machine has never been neat in ProTools land imo
HD MADI is the way to get your outputs to the stem recorder. 64 channels per unit.
Old 5th August 2014
  #94
Yeah, what's with the C thing?
Old 5th August 2014
  #95
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garret View Post
HD MADI is the way to get your outputs to the stem recorder. 64 channels per unit.
How do you break that down into stems? Say you need to shoot DME stems - 6 outputs from playback 1, 6 from 2, 6 from 3.. instead of routing chunks of 64 how can you just route chunks of 6 without a MADI router?
Old 5th August 2014
  #96
That's way the Icon stages are probably better off using only AES.
Old 5th August 2014
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
For the cost of the kit it does sound like it gets you a similar workflow for perhaps 2/3 the price of a similar suited DFC - like you guys we run a 1120 input DFC with usually 5 playback machines. Were you guys ever console-based? I should save some of this discussion hopefully for when i swing by the Dub Stage in a couple weeks..


Actually, the cost difference is way way more.
Because you stilll have an equal number of playback machines.
The big cost difference is the cost between an icon, and a DFC.
Old 5th August 2014
  #98
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Cyes.....
Must be a glitch in the NSA computers that are filtering our posts.
Old 5th August 2014
  #99
A big Icon setup, like Marti's one, would be somewhere around 140 to 160 k (list price) no?
An equivalent DFC or S5 would be around 300k, maybe a bit more for a real dual operator setup (ie. to reflect what you get with two Icons like Marti)

Considering the S5, and it's Eucon capabilities, you do end up paying nearly double, but you get something that does end up doing a lot more things, including a complete film monitoring system, summing of whatever and all that stuff.

Factor that into the price of a big film mix stage, where the projector alone costs anywhere from 20 to 100k, and add the fact that the stage will then appeal to more clients (having both ITB and console solutions): it then turns out that the price difference is not "that" crazy.

EDIT: this applies to film, I think we have basically all agreed on the fact that for TV ITB is a quite a big advantage
Old 5th August 2014
  #100
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven1145 View Post
A big Icon setup, like Marti's one, would be somewhere around 140 to 160 k (list price) no?
An equivalent DFC or S5 would be around 300k, maybe a bit more for a real dual operator setup (ie. to reflect what you get with two Icons like Marti)

Considering the S5, and it's Eucon capabilities, you do end up paying nearly double, but you get something that does end up doing a lot more things, including a complete film monitoring system, summing of whatever and all that stuff.

Factor that into the price of a big film mix stage, where the projector alone costs anywhere from 20 to 100k, and add the fact that the stage will then appeal to more clients (having both ITB and console solutions): it then turns out that the price difference is not "that" crazy.

EDIT: this applies to film, I think we have basically all agreed on the fact that for TV ITB is a quite a big advantage
When you take into account the rest of the studio startup costs you're right.. it's not too much different but let's not forget certain studios will run third party gear for those added features like the PD-1 mentioned earlier in use with the ICON.. and the all expensive Soundmaster ION Atom w/ Virpads for the DFC side of things (which adds a good 40k to the price). Maybe i was too generous with the comparison but you can't get an exact comparison as you won't get identical features.
Old 5th August 2014
  #101
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Yeah, they would probably very quickly become obsolete if another platform took over, although you can easily feed in tracks from another system using digital inputs and mix conventionally, in which case it would operate the same as a DFC or S5, but that kind of minimizes its strengths.
So let's dive into the assertion that an ICON in "standalone" mode would operate the same as a DFC or S5 -

Here are some things I believe a "Hi-end digital mixer" should include:

-A Monitor section
-Multiple Machine Control
-Metering
-Automation
-Ergonomic layout with comfortable components
-Anything else?


The X-Mon is no way comparable to the monitor sections of the DFC or S5. Don't trust me, trust Marti. "As for monitoring we put in the QSC QSYS. It is the best sounding, most flexible outboard monitor system. I can monitor in any format (and create custom monitor configurations) and are doing so now."

How many systems could an ICON lock together? Obviously Satellite would not be applicable if the operator was running Nuendo, for example. I believe DFC can do 8. Not sure on S5. AVID S6 can do 8.

Metering on an ICON is, well let's just say, nothing like what you get on a DFC or S5 and totally incomparable to the kind of feedback you get from a Harrison. I know Metering is not that important to Film Mixers but just mentioning it since the claim was that an ICON is the same…

Unlike other "Hi-end digital mixers," an ICON would not be able to write automation in the DAW (again, if it were Nuendo).

Concerning ergonomics - let's be honest, PT users have excepted the layout of AVID consoles because the advantages of working ITB are so vast.

For these reasons, and certainly others, I don't believe it's fair to say an ICON is the same as a DFC or S5 or any "Hi-end digital mixer" for that matter.
Old 5th August 2014
  #102
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Must be a glitch in the NSA computers that are filtering our posts.
It's Avid's new viral marketing algorithm. It uses an actual virus! Pretty slick, huh? Huh?
Old 5th August 2014
  #103
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsSka View Post
ggegan is bang on the money.

I might be a bit pig ignorant about this, but I feel that Fairlight's own systems evolved in this way:

Build a hardware digital mixer, utilising a PC with processor cards to process everything, with remote control for your tape/hard disk recorder. We got built in dynamics, built in EQ, flexible stems/bus management, what else do we need?
OK, let's add a multitrack recorder as a software feature within the console for your stems.
While we're at it, let's let people put their own recordings into our own recorder and play it back as if it were a tape.
Let's add some VST plugin support for the mixing.
Let's install our Pyxis engine along with it so you can play back video without an external machine.
Maybe people will want to edit too, let's add some editing features.
Add more features...
It's a DAW with a control surface.

At what point does the Fairlight then stop being a digital mixer and ends up being a fully featured DAW? You can still use Fairlight as purely a mixer (just only use Live tracks as opposed to audio tracks) - and you still get all the bus routing, reductions etc. etc.
I'm enjoying the discussion. Quick clarification - like PT, Fairlight started with a DAW. Then they added a mixer. For the first few they used a PC to run the console, so it kind of piggybacked on the DAW but was never truly integrated. That is why they still have a separate mix "file" within your project. And why somethings are accomplished in a similar manner to working on a traditional console. PT takes the edge on integration. I do like having the ability to automate routing with Fairlight (or Euphonix).

I can say as much as I appreciate large traditional consoles, I don't have any interest in going back.
Old 5th August 2014
  #104
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
So let's dive into the assertion that an ICON in "standalone" mode would operate the same as a DFC or S5 -

Here are some things I believe a "Hi-end digital mixer" should include:

-A Monitor section
-Multiple Machine Control
-Metering
-Automation
-Ergonomic layout with comfortable components
-Anything else?


The X-Mon is no way comparable to the monitor sections of the DFC or S5. Don't trust me, trust Marti. "As for monitoring we put in the QSC QSYS. It is the best sounding, most flexible outboard monitor system. I can monitor in any format (and create custom monitor configurations) and are doing so now."

How many systems could an ICON lock together? Obviously Satellite would not be applicable if the operator was running Nuendo, for example. I believe DFC can do 8. Not sure on S5. AVID S6 can do 8.

Metering on an ICON is, well let's just say, nothing like what you get on a DFC or S5 and totally incomparable to the kind of feedback you get from a Harrison. I know Metering is not that important to Film Mixers but just mentioning it since the claim was that an ICON is the same…

Unlike other "Hi-end digital mixers," an ICON would not be able to write automation in the DAW (again, if it were Nuendo).

Concerning ergonomics - let's be honest, PT users have excepted the layout of AVID consoles because the advantages of working ITB are so vast.

For these reasons, and certainly others, I don't believe it's fair to say an ICON is the same as a DFC or S5 or any "Hi-end digital mixer" for that matter.
I've mixed extensively on all three consoles, in fact Todd AO sent me as part of a delegation to Neve in Burnley England to spec out the first two DFCs that were sold in LA and then I mixed a ****load of feature projects on them. I know what they can and can't do and how the ergonomics of each work. It's my opinion that the ergonomics of the NEVE and S5 are no better than the ICON, but that's my opinion and you obviously have your opinion which is different, and that is totally valid, but that's subjective. The DFC, the S5, the ICON, and all the other digital mixers are obviously not the same, but you can definitely do the same things on all of them, with the exception of the ICON which also allows you to edit. The early digital Neves also had an editing module, but it was abandoned.

Regarding monitor sections, I've worked on a lot of different film consoles at the major studios around town over the years and until all-digital consoles were installed most of them had custom built monitor sections because the factory built ones weren't acceptable. Those were still great consoles.

We all have our preferences, but I have to be able to do a great mix on any of those consoles, and others, and I can.
Old 5th August 2014
  #105
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
How do you break that down into stems? Say you need to shoot DME stems - 6 outputs from playback 1, 6 from 2, 6 from 3.. instead of routing chunks of 64 how can you just route chunks of 6 without a MADI router?
Typically, ICON stages with MADI I/O will have a MADI router specifically for this reason. Really, anytime you have MADI you'll want a router, since you can't simply patch it like you can AES copper.
Old 6th August 2014
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
I don't know about the newer versions of the Harrison, but the one I mixed on at sony required two complete consoles, if one wanted to work independant from each other.
Same with the S5. Two separate consoles to work mix Independant from each other. Some effectively you need twice the console.
Old 6th August 2014
  #107
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurfyou View Post
I'm enjoying the discussion. Quick clarification - like PT, Fairlight started with a DAW. Then they added a mixer. For the first few they used a PC to run the console, so it kind of piggybacked on the DAW but was never truly integrated. That is why they still have a separate mix "file" within your project. And why somethings are accomplished in a similar manner to working on a traditional console. PT takes the edge on integration. I do like having the ability to automate routing with Fairlight (or Euphonix).
Thank you for putting me straight!
Old 6th August 2014
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
We all have our preferences, but I have to be able to do a great mix on any of those consoles, and others, and I can.
Of course you can. You could do a great mix on anything.

I hope I haven't come off as an ICON hater. I'm not. I believe ITB is the way to go and that an ICON console is a very good choice for working with ProTools (as if there's really anything else). I just prefer to think of ITB with controller as an evolutionary step. Hence my whining about it not being a Console...
Old 6th August 2014
  #109
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
Of course you can. You could do a great mix on anything.

I hope I haven't come off as an ICON hater. I'm not. I believe ITB is the way to go and that an ICON console is a very good choice for working with ProTools (as if there's really anything else). I just prefer to think of ITB with controller as an evolutionary step. Hence my whining about it not being a Console...
I totally understand, Nathan, and I don't think you are an ICON hater. This is really kind of a philosophical discussion that I hope you consider to be friendly, because I do. Over the course of our careers we will all be asked to work using a number of different tools and we will need to be able to do just as good a job on any of them. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether something is a console or a controller, it's the tool we need to master for that particular project.
Old 15th August 2014
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Sorry to resurrect a thread from last week, but a thought occurred to me while I was looking at the Immersive Audio conference material.

One of the benefits of a console is the fact that they can be much faster to introduce leading-edge technology. DAW manufacturers have to wait until consumer technology, and consumers, are ripe for a technology. Whereas consoles don't have that limitation because they are built specifically for the designated task.

For example: When motorized, touch-sensitive joysticks were first introduced, they were very large and expensive, and of course they needed 2-axis panning to be useful (DAWs at that time were generally limited to 2-channel panning). It was impractical to introduce a joystick as a DAW add-on. But for film dubbing stages, it was practical and very desirable.

Some other examples: When "computer automation" of the mix became desirable, consoles had dedicated hardware for that task while DAWs were still struggling to play a few tracks of audio. When "digital processing" became necessary, consoles used specialized DSP chips to sum and process hundreds of channels long before a desktop computer could do that.

Today's example might be "immersive audio". Harrison consoles are able to integrate 128-wide panning formats alongside the older formats, while DAWs are still using kludgy combinations of plugins because the DAW infrastructure isn't built for wide-format panning. Nor is it interesting to 99.9% of the userbase that make up the bulk of their sales.

DAWs eventually catch up to what film consoles were doing a few years before. Similarly, consoles catch up to the advancements of DAWs ( waveform views, plugins, conforming, etc) I think the best facilities have both, so they can combine the strengths of each.

-Ben
Harrison Consoles
Old 15th August 2014
  #111
Lives for gear
 
dr.sound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis View Post
Today's example might be "immersive audio". Harrison consoles are able to integrate 128-wide panning formats alongside the older formats, while DAWs are still using kludgy combinations of plugins because the DAW infrastructure isn't built for wide-format panning. Nor is it interesting to 99.9% of the userbase that make up the bulk of their sales.

DAWs eventually catch up to what film consoles were doing a few years before. Similarly, consoles catch up to the advancements of DAWs ( waveform views, plugins, conforming, etc) I think the best facilities have both, so they can combine the strengths of each.

-Ben
Harrison Consoles
I agree Ben. Very well said!
Old 16th August 2014
  #112
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
I'm confused about the stem output routing though. To get all machines an output to the single stem recorder - are you just racking up 192's/HD IO's and AES patching directly into the stem recorder? Summing multiple machines to a single machine has never been neat in ProTools land imo
These days I would go the Dante route for this.
Old 16th August 2014
  #113
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmokrator View Post
These days I would go the Dante route for this.
The issue here is that Pro Tools requires Avid cards/hardware to run a Satellite admin.

That said, you could probably pull this off with a few RedNet 5 units attached to HD/HDX/HD Native cards, though you'd probably want a Sync HD at each system for lockup (and LTC should you need it for external gear).
Old 16th August 2014
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Ben:
I would love to see your concept for routing and multichannel panning implemented in a DAW.
But the only DAW that really have the market position where it in some way would male sense is PT. And PT is just to limited in its current technology to handle that amount of busses and channels.
I wish Steinberg would want to risk the developing time to be able to implement something like that. But I doubt it will ever happen. Not enough sales that would warrant the work involved.

Kosmokrator:
Using something like Dante is clearly the future.
I considered switching from Madi to Dante, but the current limitations of I/O per machine (128chs) and the total of a full system (512 chs) is still to low to handle a full post dubstage setup.
So Dante in its current incarnation just isn't flexible enough.
Old 16th August 2014
  #115
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG View Post

Kosmokrator:
Using something like Dante is clearly the future.
I considered switching from Madi to Dante, but the current limitations of I/O per machine (128chs) and the total of a full system (512 chs) is still to low to handle a full post dubstage setup.
So Dante in its current incarnation just isn't flexible enough.
Dante HC, just introduced, expands one machine to 512 bidirectional channels.

It's clearly the future for larger facilities, and especially when Dante Via is going to be rolled out, enabling every computer connected to the Intranet to become a networked audio i/o.

Exciting times.

BTW, I'm in no way affiliated to Audionate. I just happen to really believe in the technology.
Old 16th August 2014
  #116
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmokrator View Post
Dante HC, just introduced, expands one machine to 512 bidirectional channels.

It's clearly the future for larger facilities, and especially when Dante Via is going to be rolled out, enabling every computer connected to the Intranet to become a networked audio i/o.

Exciting times.

BTW, I'm in no way affiliated to Audionate. I just happen to really believe in the technology.
Well that's annoying, I must have been in touch with them in May regarding the possibility of at least using two PCIe cards to increase the local I/O and it seemed like a no go. They could have bloody well hinted that a new tech was just around the bend that could be what I needed.

Now I have just got a few more madi cards delivered and a new madi router. And MADI works pretty darn good anyway.
But I wouldn't mind to have been able to test this setup as well.

Well they lost a client for now anyway. Pretty daft...
Old 21st August 2014
  #117
Daft

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG View Post
Well that's annoying, I must have been in touch with them in May regarding the possibility of at least using two PCIe cards to increase the local I/O and it seemed like a no go. They could have bloody well hinted that a new tech was just around the bend that could be what I needed.

Now I have just got a few more madi cards delivered and a new madi router. And MADI works pretty darn good anyway.
But I wouldn't mind to have been able to test this setup as well.

Well they lost a client for now anyway. Pretty daft...
Much as I really enjoy being publicly called "daft" I feel that maybe I might shed some actual facts onto this discussion.

1. Dante is not limited to a set number of channels because it is a packet switched network. We suggest that a maximum channel count of [email protected] in each direction be used on a single gigabit link. Because Dante is by default unicast in nature, this means that many thousands of channels can and do exist on many gigabit networks already deployed. This has always been the case. My "Switch test" battery throws upwards of 700 channels at a switch, and then we test its resilience in a number of ways. I have worked with a number of 10Gig backbone networks... take your number and x10 to the channel count.

2. The Dante PCIe card can work with up to 128 channels @96KHz sample rate in each direction. This means that if you plug 2 of these into a switch you are around the 700mbps mark, which means that if you want to send all 256 96KHz channels down a single cable

***EDIT- on re-reaading I see that this could be misinterpreted... you can still only have one Dante PCIe card per machine this has not changed ***

... this is as much as you might want to consider. We have not got a magic new technology that allows you to put more than this PCIe channel count in a single machine right now. This does not mean however that someone won't come up with a standalone 512x512 recorder (and this is not a hint... I am unaware of any such project). This would be some kind of system that had been significantly re-architectured away from the PCIe bus.

My Current experimental record rig consists of PCIe cards in Enterprise servers (running win 7 desktop with Nuendo)... OK so a bit fan- noisey... but the beauty of the network is that these machines live with the other servers, and in the office, all the audio comes through the Building's structured cabling... I log into the machines using RDP from a Raspberry pi velcroed to the back of my monitor... local monitoring is through any one of a number of quieter devices in my local rack... if it wasn't a secure facility the tradeoff between speed caused by encryption is compensated for by the enterprise RAID card and the SAS disks... this essentially means that without the login its a lump of fairly useless metal to anyone without the credentials. Advantages of the server hardware are - natively rack mountable... remote control cards, hot swappable dual PSUs and multiple hot swappable drive bays.

I am interested if people think there is a massive market for a gargantuum playback/recording channel count single machine - how does this play against say a method for accurately synchronising multiple devices on the transport control side?

thanks
Old 21st August 2014
  #118
Lives for gear
 

Correction: I was not calling "you" daft. Fact is Kieran Walsh didnt mention anything of that kind mentioned above when We emailed back and forth in May.
If you are not Kieran then don't feel offended. If you are, perhaps you should let the comment get to you...
When a possible new type of client asks about what can be done and gets negative answers, and then release a new product just a month later that does exactly what was asked for...
That is at least one way of not getting that one client...

And yes we need quite a bit of I/O.
Currently running 192 ch of MADI I/O on a 2012 MacPro (we used to run 256 chs but because of a OSX bug mixing up PCIe cards we had to make do with 192 for the moment). To this machine we feed from multiple other Madi equipped DAWs.
Do we need a lot more? No not at this point in time. But 192 is almost getting to be a bit tight. But the MacPro and Nuendo had no issues handling the 256chs of IO apart from that pesky OSX bug.

Would I have considered swapping to Dante rather than buying a large Madi Router and more cards locking us into a rigid setup rather than a flexible one? Yes I would have.
If someone would have told me what was in the cards. Just a few weeks down the line.
Old 21st August 2014
  #119
Erik,

I gave you perfectly good accurate advice.

The maximum channel count into a single Dante-enabled machine does not and has not, and likely will not for some time exceed 128 channels at 48KHz - I have no idea why you are accusing me of giving you innacurate negative advice?

I wish that I could promise you all these things that you seem to believe are possible- I really do... but I am trying to make sure that the information out there is accurate.

Maybe I could clarify where you misunderstand what has been said here- I really do want to help you- but also respect that you have a job to do and would rather not waste your time with empty promises.

Thank you

Kieran

*** as shown in my edit to the previous post... I may have found my own source of ambiguity- apologies if this was the source***


*** EDIT 2: Furthermore it is not an error when I (maybe confusingly) seem to flit between 48KHz Fs and 96KHz Fs... people that know what I do for a living will be well aware that I do actually know what I am talking about in this respect... as I have tried to explain obliquely in public... and very specifically by email ... the packet based nature of Dante and PCIe do not nescessarily form a linear relationship of channel count and Fs... therefore the Dante PCIe card CAN do 128x128 at 96KHz Fs... it is also limited to 128x128 at 48KHz Fs - the limiting factor is the internal bus of the machine rather than the horsepower of the FPGA on the PCIe card***

Last edited by Audinate Tech EU; 21st August 2014 at 10:38 PM.. Reason: revision
Old 22nd August 2014
  #120
Lives for gear
 

I'm sorry that you feel offended.
Here's what's said on your website, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding what it says, but to me it does sound like a oem circuit that can run on a PCIe board, but perhaps I just misunderstood what it actually is:
Quote:
“The launch of Dante HC, which quadruples the maximum channel count for a single device to 512 x 512 channels, enables our OEMs to design a new generation of highly scalable networked products.” Dante HC offers a wide selection of interface options including SPI, I2C, RS232 and configurable GPIO. A powerful onboard microprocessor allows local control and management without the need for any additional CPU. Dante HC benefits from the same advanced robust feature support that is included across Audinate’s portfolio of Dante-enabled solutions, as well as future support for the AES67 standard.
Taken from this page, last paragraph:
https://www.audinate.com/article/aud...es-dante-hc™

And yes I thought I understood what you said when we discussed via email, and when I read the stuff about Dante HC I felt like I was cheated on, as it suggests to me that it should be able to handle a lot more than 128chs. But reading the text again It really doesn't say it's intended for a PCIe card anywhere, so I may have misunderstood what Dante HC is all about.

You wrote:
Quote:
the limiting factor is the internal bus of the machine rather than the horsepower of the FPGA on the PCIe card
I can't understand this, as I have said earlier, a standard MacPro handles 256x256 channels using dual 128channel madi cards without any major issues from a technical standpoint. At the same time as running a Black Magic SDI video card pushing HD video no less.

So if indeed there's a limit it has to be a limit of how OSes handle TCP/UD network protocols over PCIe rather than anything else?
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump