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

[matt h. <hen...@ca...>]

I can't remember the specific combination as I have been migrating my
foundation to TASCAM DTRS but I do recall pulling 2ms latency out of a
trashpicked laptop and an echo AF.

such beautiful stuff.

preachin to the choir

On 2/9/21, Luke Tidd <luk...@gm...> wrote:
> 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
>