jxalex wrote:

"The Story of Why *Everyone* Uses Onboard Sound Today"

... in places where sound is not important at all.

Or in places that are not stuck in the late 20th century (DOS).

dr_st wrote:

jxalex wrote:

"The Story of Why *Everyone* Uses Onboard Sound Today"

... in places where sound is not important at all.

Or in places that are not stuck in the late 20th century (DOS).

yep, becouse those soundcard developers just bow towards M$ and ignore the rest. Actually it is not only becouse of DOS, but also for other platforms in cases when using it for recording and MIDI, multitrack -- all of that the onboard chipsets are useless.

well, it can be asked similar way that "the story why "everyone" uses laptops today". Becouse the last ones which started using computers really use that as for entertainment in their artificial pseudosociality and thus they do not need any expansion boards. But it does not need to be always "audiophile". The things just get a much more trickier when producing something and then all the limitations are obvious of those integrated peripherals.

You don't need a soundcard for MIDI though. Just a simple USB MIDI interface does the job just fine.

Scali wrote:

You don't need a soundcard for MIDI though. Just a simple USB MIDI interface does the job just fine.

the drivers, drivers, drivers... are not for any platform. otherwise, yes... then it is only about the ASIO, not every onboard card has dullduplex operation and the limited routing options and not having multitrack.

jxalex wrote:

the drivers, drivers, drivers... are not for any platform.

Sure they are, USB-MIDI class is a standard. Heck, even my Sony Android phone has a MIDI interface when I connect it via USB.
See also here: https://www.midi.org/articles/basic-of-usb

Scali wrote:

jxalex wrote:

the drivers, drivers, drivers... are not for any platform.

Sure they are, USB-MIDI class is a standard. Heck, even my Sony Android phone has a MIDI interface when I connect it via USB.
See also here: https://www.midi.org/articles/basic-of-usb

okay, great that there is such standard, but wait wait...
why then that MOTU Midi express USB 8x8 port rack unit version has never provided the drivers for win98se ? (m-audio usb midi works, also the roland midi device). Their requirement is still atleast latest M$ platform. Still if there is such standard it is strange that it even needs the drivers. The win98se at the same time knows all the removable USB media, this is standard then.

In the past I got working only the very early USB version of their 8x8 port MOTU Midi express XT USB, but it is still not working with any platform and needs over the corner tweaks to get it running.

so, what is about that usb midi then?

jxalex wrote:

okay, great that there is such standard, but wait wait...
why then that MOTU Midi express USB 8x8 port rack unit version has never provided the drivers for win98se ?

I sense that some goalposts have moved when I wasn't looking...

Scali wrote:

jxalex wrote:

okay, great that there is such standard, but wait wait...
why then that MOTU Midi express USB 8x8 port rack unit version has never provided the drivers for win98se ?

I sense that some goalposts have moved when I wasn't looking...

?!

can be...

while that M$ and Intel have moved their goalposts so to enforce all unnecessary things what they call "upgrades" and it all has to cost $$$$$$$ of course with creeping featurism and incompatibility, planned obsolence.
Also the MOTU ends its support without minding what is the standard and who are these who use the hardware.

But of course, otherwise it would be like a dream -- to have all in use without ever swapping the platform, keeping the compatibility, and so all development kits and hardware specifications would be open - for free.

Yes, some people still want to be stuck programming in assembly over 8-bit CPUs and 64KB of RAM, and they believe the rest of the world should be stuck there with them, circle-jerking at the latest clever hacks to create self-modifying code that manages to play a chirp via PC speaker in a way that no one in 1979 believed would ever be possible. Meanwhile, some people actually want to move forward to solve meaningful problems or at least provide higher quality entertainment for the (obviously stupid) masses.

dr_st wrote:

Yes, some people still want to be stuck programming in assembly over 8-bit CPUs and 64KB of RAM, and they believe the rest of the world should be stuck there with them, circle-jerking at the latest clever hacks to create self-modifying code that manages to play a chirp via PC speaker in a way that no one in 1979 believed would ever be possible.

Guilty as charged 😀

dr_st wrote:

Yes, some people still want to be stuck programming in assembly over 8-bit CPUs and 64KB of RAM, and they believe the rest of the world should be stuck there with them, circle-jerking at the latest clever hacks to create self-modifying code that manages to play a chirp via PC speaker in a way that no one in 1979 believed would ever be possible. Meanwhile, some people actually want to move forward to solve meaningful problems or at least provide higher quality entertainment for the (obviously stupid) masses.

Oh yes, and here we are developing a soundcard remake for ISA bus instead of appreciating PCIe and trendy multicore pentiums!

Well, I am the other assembly looser who cant aprecciate those latest trends.

Unfortunately "those some people" as institutions cant solve "meaningful problems", becouse for this they need to solve it just one time, AND let it go. But this is not the case with M$-like companies as they just keep re-inventing the 20 years and more the same thing!
"Some people" in that M$ are all developing that M$ office package, instead of letting it go 20 years ago already. (Or atleast to break it in smaller programs when adding on the next one!)

Overdevelopment, clumsyness, and the time moves on the utterly weird but they undo their doings. The similar things happen with several other bigger program packages as well where they are undoing their work (the big VST versions, and sequencers like Cubase). The similar things can happen for DOS programs as well, when overdeveloped.

"Higher quality entertainment" - what is that exactly? 😀 Sounds like learning differential equations or BIOS firmware reverse engineering, becouse that is what everyone loves to do every day. Correct? 😁 😁 😉

( my rant here follows)

NOWADAYS...
those M$ and Intel corporations are releasing new hardware and software of their troubles after every year even if there is no need really. At the same time average customers are keen about it, and complain if there are not coming a new release... and not becouse their program wont work, but becouse of principle -- "this is new". While for 2 year old product they say it is "dead" if there are not coming "updates", even if it is working okay and there is really no real benefit in "newer" software versions. So they jump for a newer raw product ...which is started from the scratch and buggy! Why?
Also the videocards are after couple years trashed away again, harddiscs swapped, everything must be bigger/faster, however not noticing the programs are growing too which zero out everything.
In some point of view this all is so nuts and impractical at the same time! But mostly they are lucky while having the smell of the new hardware and unpacking (and or assembling it together) knowing that it is the latest and fastest thing.

But RETRO...

While WinTel is neverending and always obsolete next year after, then with DOS and 8bit 30 year computers it is different -- the main worry is not about being outdated soon, but rather that the available details on the market are far too new.
No one really have complained that there are no updates for the old console game or support, no complains about it if it is old version or if there is a newer version. All those new trendy things seem to be unnecessary instead then (no wavetable, 32bit CPU, no stereo sound, and hey, what about graphics? Is it really such 2D only or monochrome?). No problems again, we LOVE it!
We are amused what exquisit 286 and XT computers we can find from garbage, and lucky about the ISA cards, then thats really great, but oh boy, now THIS makes really our day if we get the faulty 5.25" floppy drive working again!! 😁 😁

. . .
All is taken and assumed while comparing the computer users on those different areas and the topics on this forum and what the people are itching about here...
So... I wonder - why such a difference? Especially when comparing the early adopters vs. retro computer re-makers.

Anyway, based on all that comparison, to me it seems that the folks with their slow obsolete 8-bit computers are luckier than those with endless opportunities never-ready computers. 8bit folks are not so much demanding and all they need is there already.
The people with those more modern computer should also achieve partly the same feeling when just sticking on the working configuration, learning how to keep it working with backups of HDD images... instead of being on that never-ending upgrade cycle.

(But now... just a thought... I design the card, someone will make the software too for it. )

thank you for reading 😉

jxalex wrote:

Scali wrote:

jxalex wrote:

the drivers, drivers, drivers... are not for any platform.

Sure they are, USB-MIDI class is a standard. Heck, even my Sony Android phone has a MIDI interface when I connect it via USB.
See also here: https://www.midi.org/articles/basic-of-usb

okay, great that there is such standard, but wait wait...
why then that MOTU Midi express USB 8x8 port rack unit version has never provided the drivers for win98se ? (m-audio usb midi works, also the roland midi device). Their requirement is still atleast latest M$ platform. Still if there is such standard it is strange that it even needs the drivers. The win98se at the same time knows all the removable USB media, this is standard then.

AFAIK, MOTU has a bit of a reputation for bad driver support (or just plain bad drivers that work for some and not for others). See Gearslutz.

I specifically did not quote the last part:

Meanwhile, some people actually want to move forward to solve meaningful problems or at least provide higher quality entertainment for the (obviously stupid) masses.

That is, while I like the challenge of making old and limited 8-bit hardware do things that have never been done before, that is just a hobby for me.
The professional side of me stays up to date with modern technology, and as my remark about USB MIDI interfaces was supposed to demonstrate, I do actually believe that soundcards are pretty much dead for most intents and purposes. Onboard audio interfaces can go a long way, even for simple DAW stuff.
I am also an amateur musician myself, and I suppose my approach is a bit of a hybrid: I bought an E-mu 0404 USB many years ago. It's both a MIDI interface, and a 24/192 recording interface with ASIO2 support.
I thought USB would be far more practical than a PCI or PCI-e card, and may also have better longevity. Before that, I used a Terratec EWX24/96 card, but it was EOL, so no 64-bit drivers were available. I needed something that would work in 64-bit, and the E-mu 0404 USB did exactly that.

Obviously I realize that as an amateur musician who records at home, I am in niche market. Most people would never record with their computer, or at least not at the semi-professional level required for a DAW (simple recordings for YouTube, simple editing with a tool such as Audacity etc, can be done just fine with an onboard interface), and would be just fine with onboard audio.

Does anyone use surround sound anymore? At one time that was going to be a big thing but then it all died away. The widespread use of headphones in online gaming probably has something to do with it.

Scali wrote:

Obviously I realize that as an amateur musician who records at home, I am in niche market. Most people would never record with their computer, or at least not at the semi-professional level required for a DAW ....

... he described the reality very well.

... the same thing is with electronics too,
as in forums it is more about looks but
seldom about schematics.

Errius wrote:

Does anyone use surround sound anymore? At one time that was going to be a big thing but then it all died away. The widespread use of headphones in online gaming probably has something to do with it.

...or the intensive use of laptops with their internal crappy speakers, and cellphones with their earphones has something to do with it? So, a proper stereo recording would be overkill for this already -- all the studio nitpicking and precision tweaks go unnoticed.

Actually, I know one fellow with the THX setup, ... and just 2 of them whom I know have the stereo too. Their trouble are much simpler issues -- every record sounds a way too different from another, industry loudness war, and there are just a few surround recordings or they are just boring.

5.1 and 7.1 systems seems to me like TV -- you can have a 4K definition screen, but there is nothing interesting to watch which can use such high definition.

If you produce music as stereo, with 60dB dynamics, then how many listen it with a proper setup and loudness? In a times of internet perhaps a few who are die hard fans of the particular music style. But as 5.1 recording? Well, recording in surround to me sounds great idea, but it seems the same thing like I would record on a 1/4" half-track tape -- besides me it is just 2 fellows who can listen, but other fellows who have the same equipment, have different music taste.

^I miss dummy head recordings. There was a time when headphone users were really being cared for.
Some radio dramas used that technique, too, for special effects. Sometimes it makes me a bit sat that electrostatic headphones never reached wide acceptance. Their sound was truely brilliant. Like that of plasma speakers, I heard.

I feel like it's really important to point out that onboard sound was already a thing on Pentium machines in the mid-90s. All in all, the whole process feels a lot more like evolution to me, and it can't be attributed to a single company/deal:

1) in early 90-s vendors start pushing CD-ROMs — probably the #1 reason to get a soundcard for most users who didn't play games or make music;
2) vendors came up with the idea of a "Multimedia PC", but this could mostly appeal to home users/education market. It's hard to imagine any "must have" business application of multimedia throughout the 90s;
3) hence, there already were a lot of computers with onboard sound aimed at home users around 1995-1996. These computers had chips from Creative, Yamaha, Crystal, ESS. Basically they had full-featured SoundBlaster clones integrated into the motherboard, often with a Waveblaster header, Gameport/MPU controllers or even onboard wavetable. So basically companies started offering onboard sound as soon as it became possible;
4) OEM motherboards are another story. Pentium boards marked the trend towards integrating everything into a standard AT/ATX motherboard: IDE controllers and COM/LPT ports are now a standard onboard feature. The issue is that not everybody needed sound — particularly office users. Still Intel and ASUS already started making AT/ATX/LPX board with onboard sound in mid-90s. Sometimes the sound would be integrated into another card: remember ASUS's Mediabus cards that had both ATI/S3 and Vibra chips. Others would add sound functionality into modems (Aztech cards on Packard Bell machines, Mwave on IBM);
5) by late 90s ISA sound cards become obsolete. SoundBlaster, AdLib was not relevant anymore. Wavetable was better on PCI, but soon also became obsolete for most users (e.g., gamers). USB gradually replaces Gameport. DVD and Video CDs are a thing now. Onboard audio appears on a lot of Slot 1/Socket 370 motherboards for both ATX/AT.
6) by this point integrated audio is really a matter of time. Dedicated soundcards really don't improve all that much — it's hard to name significant difference between even SB Live! and Audigy.

jheronimus wrote:

I feel like it's really important to point out that onboard sound was already a thing on Pentium machines in the mid-90s.

Indeed, both audio and video were integrated by the larger OEMs at a relatively early stage, to reduce cost.
For example, my Commodore PC20-III from 1987 already had everything integrated on the motherboard, including the video hardware, floppy controller, HDD, printer port, com port, and even a separate mouse port.
Some Pentiums and late 486es would already have audio integrated on the motherboard. I have a Compaq Deskpro 486 with onboard audio.