Support |
Hey Luis, > Ive actually been quite happy with it,but the recent problem with my >firewire problems also made me realize how fragile this things are and >think what if that happened while i wes traveling or at a gig. > I still dont know what went wrong,if it was a FW cable that burned my >PCI card,RME,Presonus and macbook FW port,then i d be terrified to do a >tour with this, > i didnt know that a FW cable can cause such damage! In that ruggedness discussion, I sometimes get the feeling that people compare things which can't be compared with each other properly. If you take as an example a musician who uses a setup of stomp boxes or rackmount effects, you'll usually find them mounted into shock-mount rack cases or specific cases for pedal boards, with everything screwed firmly in place, cables of fitting length tied together neatly etc. And these devices are constructed and made to be subjected to the perils of life on the road and to last for a long time. If you take a macbook, on the other hand, this is definitely not a device designed for life on the road, much less to last for a long time. As typically people tend to get a new computer every two years or so, this is the life span they target, and as most people usually have them either sitting on their desk or packed neatly in a stylish laptop bag and don't have them thrown by roadies etc., they will last for that time span. And finally, they are not made to be used in some kind of "fixed installation" (with all the cables permanently in place), so cables just come out at all ends - and to keep it cheap, cheap implementations are used for connectors which were designed cheaply in the first place. Mounting a laptop into a performance rig is one of the things that are as of now unresolved in my opinion. Although I've finally settled with integrating a laptop (as opposed to, say, a rackmount industry PC) into my rig, this is still the weak point of my setup. There are no mounting screws in my laptop. Connectors come out on different sides. Etc. etc. So if you'd compare (reliability of) computer-based solutions to stompbox/rack effects implementations, you'd need to consider computer made for being on the road: embedded/industry computers which adhere to the higher protection classes - together with fitting keyboard/pointer and screen, and mounted firmly in a rack. Still, by using prudent wiring, I think I am able to avoid things like firewire cables breaking. And besides, I don't power my firewire interface via the bus. Which brings me to your question: > But what about a bus powered FW soundcard like the RME FW400 or other? Simple: use the external power supply! > i guess there is no other way around it,wether is SW or HW you always >need a backup. I was just thinking about that other post I read the other day where someone said "Have you ever heard of someone who brings a computer in case his pedalboard fails?". Seriously, although from most of our experiences it seems that computer setups more often tend to have a complete failure, it's not just that. When doing fault tree analysis, you usually consider for a system of several components a) how big the risk is that this specific component fails (as a sum of its different means of failure) and b) how hard that affects you. And when we look at the comparison of the three main setups we tend to see - A) pedalboard setup, B) rack setup, C) computer setup, and leave your instrument(s) out of the consideration for one moment, it's some like this. A: Failure risks for all components are more or less equal and not too high. What's more, usually none of the components is that pivotal and thus is a showstopper (with the possible exception of a central PSU) - meaning if your coveted MXR 90 phaser fails, you can simply patch around it and continue nearly unaffected. B: There is usually one pivotal component: the mixing console. For that reason, some people tend to bring a spare power supply for bigger consoles, because that seems to be the pivotal component that's most likely to fail (a single channel failing won't hurt you that much). C: So you have your computer, your interface and some means of MMI. If the computer or the interface fails, it's over. Completely. No audio without the computer or the interface. So as in C the risk of a single failure as a showstopper is the sum of the individual failure rates (as a number between 0 and 1) of the components, for A (if we assume that you have to stop if three pedals are gone) it's the product of the individual failure rates. In other words, if the failure risk both for a single stompbox and for a computer or interface was equal (which I'm not claiming) and 0.1 (10%, which I'm not claiming, either), then the risk of a complete breakdown was: for the computer 20%, for the pedalboard 0.1% which is 2000 times lower. What do we learn here? Change your computer setup so the single components aren't showstoppers. E.g. use an audio interface which allows for standalone operation (like your FF400) in combination with an additional simple effects device which would allow you to get going, and have adapters ready which allow you to work with your computer's integrated soundcard. Whoops, the cumulated failure rate has dropped from 20% to 1%. Rainer