> >Argh, what's the great thing about standards again. I still prefer mLAN, as > >it uses generic, consumer i/o cards, and firewire is fitted to almost all > >laptops without needing expensive audio only hardware.
A single firewire standard would be great, but it hasn't happened yet. MOTU, Digi, Metric Halo, and Yamaha all have incompatible proprietary implementations. Plus there is the minor 4 or 6 conductor thing courtesy of Sony. Starting to look like a mess to me. > it all still sounds pretty dubious to me, Me too. > hopefully, this should echo the fact that i'm with steve: MADI is an > audio-only system, its expensive, and i don't think it has any > particular technical benefits over mLAN. its sole advantage at this > point is that anyone (as i understand it) can implement it without the > licensing and other uncertainties that surround mLAN at this time. The gear that uses it is expensive, but it isn't. RME will sell theirs for the same price as a hammerfall. There is no reason why budget gear can't use it. Audio-only systems are all that's available right now. MADI and adat optical exist as open solutions right now. S/MUX support for adat is spotty. mlan, and 1394 in general, doesn't exist as an open solution. Sure I would like midi and audio on the same cable, but it's not available right now. 6 months from now I will go with mlan if it is openly available. If not then I will go with madi if I can afford it. Otherwise I will go with adat optical. I have been postponing new gear purchases for a long time waiting for an open 1394 solution. Eventually I will have to stop being a cheerleader and actually acquire some gear. The current favorite, adat optical, simply doesn't impress me. If development stays on course, and I am ready to start using ardour in 6 months, mlan will be the only solution of the three that will *not* be available. Tom
