Re: [FFADO-user] Echo AudioFire 4 stability issues

[Luke T. <luk...@gm...>]

The audiofire's have been the center of my studio for years. I even
have a dedicated WinXP box tucked into a corner should I need the
official drivers or software to change settings. Not sure where I'd
move after these.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/bUE37L7nAeY2ANYK9

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:34 AM matt henschel <hen...@ca...> wrote:
>
> 4.8 is also required for both the AF8 and the AF8b (the latter also
> has adat i/o).  I would presume the same applies for the pre8 and the
> 12.  Someone should fix that one of these years.
>
> Glad to see I'm not the only one running them.  Had great luck as far
> back as a pentium iv with 2gb ram.  Solid performers.  The AF12 is
> especially sweet with the meter bridge and sample rate indicator right
> on the front panel, and nothing else.  Nice and simple.
>
> I have also had it working on numerous random firewire chipsets w/FFADO.
>
> matt
>
> On 2/8/21, Jonathan Woithe <jw...@ju...> wrote:
> > Hi Brian
> >
> > As others have said, the AudioFire 12 (AF12) requires firmware 4.8 for use
> > with FFADO.  I am not sure if the same requirement exists for the AF4
> > (AudioFire 4) [1] but I would assume so until tests prove otherwise.  If
> > firmware is an issue then FFADO will not get as far as starting the
> > streaming.  Thus if you see xruns in a particular firmware version then you
> > can conclude that FFADO is happy with that version of the firmware.
> >
> > Firmware version 4.8 is prevalent when AudioFire (AF) devices are used with
> > FFADO.
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2021, 20:23 -0500, Luke Tidd <luk...@gm...>, wrote:
> >> I'm using 2x AudioFire 12s and I think 256 or 512 was the lowest I
> >> could run them, but they were stable.
> >
> > Without any system tuning these numbers would be about right.  To push the
> > latency lower one normally has to tune the system accordingly.  A "low
> > latency kernel" (aka PREEMPT) is a good first step but even this will only
> > get you so far.  In the past, aiming for buffer sizes of 16 or 32 required
> > the use of an RT-patched kernel.  These days the standard kernel includes
> > threaded IRQs in the PREEMPT kernel (although they aren't enabled by
> > default) which avoids the need for RT kernels in all but the most
> > challenging of situations.  When pushing things this low things become
> > highly dependent on your precise system configuration, and what works for
> > one person won't necessarily apply for the next.  It's very much a case of
> > experimentation.  Try things with a PREEMPT kernel, and maybe consider an
> > RT
> > kernel if it appears necessary.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:19 PM Brian Hechinger <wo...@4a...> wrote:
> >> The error is always the same, unhandled xruns:
> >>
> >> ERROR: JackFFADODriver::ffado_driver_wait - unhandled xrun
> >
> > This means one of two things:
> >
> >  1. FFADO was not able to keep up with the incoming data stream from the
> >     device (capture overrun), or
> >
> >  2. FFADO could not feed audio data to the device fast enough (playback
> >     underrun).
> >
> > Usually (but not always) these can be addressed by careful tuning of the
> > system.
> >
> > It should be noted that sometimes the problem is related to the firewire
> > card in use.  Your ffado-diag output reports you have a firewire host
> > controller based on the "XIO2213A/B/XIO2221" chip.  Thus it could be the
> > XIO2213A, the XIO2213B or the XIO2221.  I don't know much about the last
> > one
> > as it's not overly common.  Of the other two, my understanding is that the
> > XIO2213B is a reasonable choice in this day and age.  It is also about the
> > only viable option since the best possible PCIe cards (using the Agere/LSI
> > FW643E cards) are very difficult to find[2].
> >
> > The XIO2213A did have some hardware issues, although I don't know if they
> > might affect the ability to use the AF4 at the settings you are targetting.
> >
> > FFADO users have been able to use XIO2213A cards in the past, although
> > usually at more conservative settings (512 samples for example).
> >
> > I am not aware of any specific issues with the XIO2213B chips and FFADO
> > users have reported success with them, but I don't think anyone's taken
> > them
> > down to 16 or 32 sample buffers.
> >
> > If possible it would be good if you could take a look at your Firewire host
> > controller card and identify the number on the main chip.  That way we at
> > least know for certain what hardware we are dealing with.
> >
> > The posted ffado-diag output indicated that you are using a PREEMPT kernel,
> > which as noted above is a good first step.  You will however have to enable
> > threaded interrupts and utilise something like rtirq to prioritise
> > interrupts.  Perhaps the best description of this (along with a bunch of
> > information about additional details such as CPU frequency scaling) can be
> > found at
> >
> >   https://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/system_configuration
> >
> > There is also some dated information at
> >
> >   http://subversion.ffado.org/wiki/LatencyTuning
> >   http://subversion.ffado.org/wiki/IrqPriorities
> >
> > which may never-the-less be useful.
> >
> > I would recommend that you work first to obtain stable operation at more
> > modest latency settings (for example, 3 buffers, 512 samples per buffer).
> > Once you have that working you can then start tuning the system for lower
> > latency knowing that all the basic details are working correctly.
> >
> > Finally, if you decide to pursue support for the ALSA AudioFire driver at
> > some point please use the ALSA project mailing lists.  The ALSA drivers for
> > firewire devices are developed independently of the FFADO project.
> >
> > Regards
> >   jonathan
> >
> > [1] I have a vague recollection that the AF firmware issue affected mostly
> >     the AF12.  However, I don't have time right now to chase up the
> >     historical information to back this up.  The issue from memory related
> >     to a change in the way the AF device reported its capabilities.  Logic
> >     suggests that if the AF12 was affected then it's reasonable to expect
> >     the AF4 to be too.
> >
> > [2] A great many sellers on the internet offer the StarTech PEX1394B3 card
> >     and claim in the specifications that it uses the FW643E chip.  However,
> >
> >     in every case I've pursued it turns out that the card in stock uses the
> >     XIO2213B chip.  It appears that there might have been an earlier
> > version
> >     of the PEX1394B3 from StarTech which did use the FW643, but all current
> >     stock seems to be a later version with the XIO2213B instead.  Sellers
> >     seem generally unaware of the change which is why they continue to use
> >     the old specifications dating from when the cards they sold did have
> >     the FW643 chip fitted.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FFADO-user mailing list
> > FFA...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ffado-user
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FFADO-user mailing list
> FFA...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ffado-user



-- 
Luke Tidd
Google
7055 Pleasant Dr
Austell, GA 30168
404-939-0306