CPU vs audio interface

[kilbot]

i'm not sure if this has been brought up before... i did a search and the amount of threads i weeded though didn't seem to mention it, so:

i'm under the impression that audio interfaces do the sound processing...? is that accurate or correct?
b/c it would seem to me, using an external soundcard would put a hell of a lot less strain on your computer's cpu when using audio programs (djing, production etc)

the reason i ask goes back to the whole netbook thing with their atom processors. i'm sure those of us that use laptops would love to have a $300 gigging machine instead of taking our $1000 main lappy and risking it's life.

however my lil sis has an EEE pc with an atom 270 in it and 2 gigs of ram. i'm thrown traktor and ableton on there and along with using and external audio interface, it still didn't seem up to snuff. (with fresh installs of windows xp)
even though these atom processors are underpowered by today's standards, they've still gotta be way ahead of yesterday's cpu's right?
and with another device doing the audio work, that should be more than enough i imagine...

so, do audio interfaces actually do the all the audio processing work?

[pier]

No, the cpu does the audio processing of effects and such. The audio card is resposible for latency and consistency of the audio signal.

Streaming samples and working with recorded audio depends on the memory (buffer) and the hard drive.

The driver of the soundcard works with the cpu to ensure stability.

I'm not 100% sure of that, but after having produced music many years I believe this is how it works.

When you record audio I supose the driver is also responsible for sending the data to the disk, I don't think that goes through the cpu. The A/D enconder streams binary data and then it goes to the RAM as a buffer, and finally to the disk.

At least IMO...

[BentoSan]

Some cards also do DSP processing, but this only includes the effects that are on the card. In general the CPU on the PC is whats doing all the work.

[Xonetacular]

Netbooks won't be able to run ableton and traktor well, not enough processing power. That's why they are called netbooks, they aren't meant to do any serious tasks.

[BentoSan]

Netbooks won't be able to run ableton and traktor well, not enough processing power. That's why they are called netbooks, they aren't meant to do any serious tasks.

I wouldn't call Traktor a seriously cpy intensive task, its cpu usage is pretty minimal - i woudnt be surprised if a netbook could run it without pushing too hard.

Ableton on the other hand gets pretty full on when you load up the effects and synths.

[Xonetacular]

I wouldn't call Traktor a seriously cpy intensive task, its cpu usage is pretty minimal - i woudnt be surprised if a netbook could run it without pushing too hard.

Ableton on the other hand gets pretty full on when you load up the effects and synths.

I have heard Traktor can run on a netbook with two decks, once you start turning on an effect or seven or trying to use 4 decks it freezes up and lags.

[kilbot]

Some cards also do DSP processing, but this only includes the effects that are on the card. In general the CPU on the PC is whats doing all the work.

man that sure makes me feel cheated by audio interfaces...
i mean, say you've got a card you paid like $400 for (NI audio 8 or echo audiofire or anything to that effect) and i'm prolly looking at this all wrong, but that's as much as a computer, and the computer is still doing all the work?
i know the two are really comparable, and audio related equipment will always cost buttloads of cash. and granted, the computer can't do it all it's own, otherwise these wouldn't exist.
but so much money for a little box with some a/d d/a converters and places to plug shit in, it's madness i tell you!

[BradCee]

I have heard Traktor can run on a netbook with two decks, once you start turning on an effect or seven or trying to use 4 decks it freezes up and lags.

had they streamlined everything possible? also was it pro or 3? just checked the specs and it looks like you could get 3 to run happily on a netbook, my wifes one just about beats the bare minimum.

however all that aside, the screens are tidgy and you'd be squinting all night

[charo]

however my lil sis has an EEE pc with an atom 270 in it and 2 gigs of ram. i'm thrown traktor and ableton on there and along with using and external audio interface, it still didn't seem up to snuff. (with fresh installs of windows xp)
even though these atom processors are underpowered by today's standards, they've still gotta be way ahead of yesterday's cpu's right?

the atom processor when it gets down to it is less powerful then the older Pentium 3M chip if that tells you anything about its performance.

[pier]

man that sure makes me feel cheated by audio interfaces...
i mean, say you've got a card you paid like $400 for (NI audio 8 or echo audiofire or anything to that effect) and i'm prolly looking at this all wrong, but that's as much as a computer, and the computer is still doing all the work?
i know the two are really comparable, and audio related equipment will always cost buttloads of cash. and granted, the computer can't do it all it's own, otherwise these wouldn't exist.
but so much money for a little box with some a/d d/a converters and places to plug shit in, it's madness i tell you!

AD/DA is the most important thing in digital audio quality. I paid like a 1000$ for the RME 400, and it really made a difference.

Hell, there are even digital clocks that cost thousands of dollars, not even conversors, but the master clocks that control the conversion.