Riaan C wrote:
1) It appears trite that a native ASIO driver (eg one that ships with a Edirol or NI type interface) will provide better sound than ASIO4ALL (which is designed as a generic for soundcards without dedicated ASIO drivers). But would this also apply to one that ships with a bottom of the range Behringer interface? Behringer quality being what it is, should I rather be looking at ASIO4ALL? This is the device I have (Behringer UCA200).
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/driver/behringer.uca200/
Well, the first thing I would have to say to the above is that the ASIO driver has nothing to do with the sound quality of any given unit (including your motherboard's on-board sound circuit) other than giving it the capacity to operate correctly with a PC's WDM [Windows Driver Model]-based audio system. ASIO means "Audio Stream Input/Output" and is the driver protocol that most major manufacturers have adopted for their products in order for them to "speak" to a PC and bus multichannel audio around. The difference between ASIO4ALL and an ASIO driver you will get for a specific device (such as the Edirol, or Behringer), is that ASIO4ALL is a hardware independent driver and the former is written specifically for the given device to interface with the operating system. This has absolutely no effect on sound quality.
What does have an effect on sound quality, however, is the quality of the converter chips, the stability of the system clock, and the quality of the analogue components in the design. Now, as you can imagine, the sound circuit on your motherboard is not a professional grade unit. It will most likely be capable of capturing up to 44.1 kHz 24-bit (which is fine) but you will no doubt find that the inputs and outputs are unbalanced and reference to a -10dBv level (professional reference level is +4dBu). You will also find that the analog components are cheap as chips and not nearly good enough for any critical recording use, and maybe even stage use. IMO, of course.
One more thing on ASIO4ALL. What you have to remember is that it's a workaround so there will always be drawbacks. There is no doubt in my mind that the drivers that shipped with your Behringer are the best match for that particular interface. In any case, you would never be able to get ASIO4ALL to work with the Behringer anyway because it is solely written to work with the AC97 on-board sound circuit you will find on all desktop motherboards. Stick with the Behringer driver.
Riaan C wrote:2) Is it true that Vista (and Windows 7) do not really need ASIO drivers - due to the audio upgrades essentially solving the KP-mixer issue? Many seem to believe that what ASIO drivers do in XP (bypass the internal audio processing between device and hardware) is not an issue in Vista/7 as the Vista audio driver provides a direct link. I've now moved from a XP to a Vista stage laptop, so this is a relevant issue.
Any advice?
What you are referring to is the Kmixer, or the Kernel Audio Mixer driver and it contains the windows WDM audio and Directsound components. These are specified by Microsoft as consumer-level protocols and were never intended for serious audio use. Although, I can not really comment on what you are asking as I don't have experience using professional audio software and hardware with native Windows WDM/Directsound drivers. I would have to say, then, that it is no coincidence that most programs are designed to be used with the ASIO protocol because it is, quite frankly, the most effective and efficient means of delegating audio tasks within a Windows environment. I suspect this is because Windows is not designed with audio professionals in mind and since Steinberg already took the initiative in creating it, I doubt Microsoft will be bothered to come up with their own professional grade protocol, like Core Audio on a Mac.
Cheers ?
