From: Jonathan W. <jw...@ph...> - 2008-03-17 22:24:07
|
Hi Jorn > > Jorn Nettingsmeier wrote: > >> * do you really want to donate your developer time to uncooperative > >> manufacturers? > >> * do you want to open a new market to vendors that don't play along? > >> * do you want to waste time with wire-level signal analysis when you > >> could just as well put your interface on ebay and get a supported one? > > > > These are similar to the points raised at an LCA2008 talk by Dirk Hohndel in > > Melbourne which I attended. In principle I agree with your point of view. > > However, at least for myself there is one major issue: there *isn't* another > > single "supported" interface on the market which I can afford which is > > capable of doing the things I need my interface to do. My choices are to > > either use an alternative operating system OR do what I can to make my > > interface work under the operating system of my choice. > > > > Putting my interface on ebay and getting a supported one won't work - there > > isn't a supported one which can do what I need. > > perfectly valid points. in fact, the MOTU would also be the perfect > solution for my needs, because i need exactly reproducible gain settings > for ambisonic recordings. > > i just decided to live with some extra hassle (manually recording test > tones and adjusting in post processing) and support focusrite rather > than an uncooperative vendor. If there was a way for me to work around the lack of device features while using an alternative device I would have been more than happy to. However in my case I needed my interface to work away from a PC, be controllable without a PC and include a flexible matrix mixer. The lack of these features cannot be worked around with workflow and/or software changes which is why I ended up going with the unit I did. > i'm not questioning your motives or your programming work - the point > i'm trying to make is that people should consider the attitude of > vendors towards open-source drivers when they are purchasing. I agree completely - refer to another post of mine to one of the ffado lists yesterday. If all one needs is a good multichannel audio interface then there are plenty of devices to choose from whose vendors support the ffado effort. When the requirements become more specific the waters get somewhat muddier. > if it turns out there is no alternative to a reverse-engineered product > given their requirements, fine. your work will give them choice, which is > a good thing. but if there *is* an alternative, i'd suggest to treat > reverse-engineered products as second-class citizens and instead throw > your money at vendors who get the point. I have no problem with this - if there is a vendor-supported device which fits the bill then one should always choose this over one from a vendor which is hostile towards the ffado effort - and then tell the hostile vendor why they missed out on the sale. It's only though this behaviour that we have any hope of educating the hostile vendors. > maybe such a note could be attached to the entries on the ffado website? I would suggest that a better idea might be to have a "purchasing an interface for use with FFADO" page which discusses this issue. Trying to add such a note to individual device entries will be tedious and make it more difficult to update if the situation ever changes. Regards jonathan |