The project is approved and I am beginning to set it up now. Except that I am
going to get a drink of water now so it will probably be 10 or 20 hours before
it is visible. :)

Eventually the project will be visible at seasoundcards.sourceforge.net. I
probably won't waste time on pretty pictures...

t/DD

This message was sent to me instead of the group --
thought someone might be able to help.

-----
I'm having a problem recording synth kick drum sounds
with my Solo Ex
and Cubase 5.1 that one of you might be able to help
me out with.
Currently, when I record a sequenced kick drum from
one of my many
keyboards or drum machines into Cubase via the Solo,
each hit of the
kick has a strange metallic ringing in the background
that isn't
normally there. In addition, much of the low warmth of
the kick
disappears.

I've tried increasing my bit rate, recording rate, and
dropping my
latency all the way, to no avail. I'm running the Solo
with Cubase
5.1 on a Windows '98 system. Any idea what could be
causing this?

Many thanks!
Brandt - brandtrax@...




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

I'm having a problem recording synth kick drum sounds with my Solo Ex
and Cubase 5.1 that one of you might be able to help me out with.
Currently, when I record a sequenced kick drum from one of my many
keyboards or drum machines into Cubase via the Solo, each hit of the
kick has a strange metallic ringing in the background that isn't
normally there. In addition, much of the low warmth of the kick
disappears.

I've tried increasing my bit rate, recording rate, and dropping my
latency all the way, to no avail. I'm running the Solo with Cubase
5.1 on a Windows '98 system. Any idea what could be causing this?

Many thanks!
Brandt - brandtrax@...

> Well, I think I could use a hand or two. I'm definitely spending
> too much time doing other things these days...

Glad to hear it.  I'll send off the $15 for the XP DDK and start
doing some heavy reading.  But again, any specific sections of the
DDK that you could focus me on would be helpful.  I appreciate your
sensitivity to SeaSound's IP (more on that in a moment) so at this
point, like I said, if I can just be helpful as a researcher who
reads the hairier docs for you -- I'm up for it.

The software licenses shouldn't be too much of a problem, as I have
one XP home license personally, and might be able to get my hands the
MSDN subscription -- need to look into cost and license
restrictions.  I'll also look into SoftIce -- I'm doing this as a
personal effort -- so the money is a bit much.



> Heck, the company I _work_ for is putting off
> upgrading because of the cost, and they're actually maybe going to
> have revenue soon. I hope. Maybe.

:)  I feel your pain.

> I can't really afford it, but I have to have it. It's like working
> with Microsoft (except that SoftIce really kicks ass).

*heh*

> I'm more concerned about Seasound's IP...

Would you mind explaining exactly what obligations remain now that
SeaSound is out of business?  At least with my own company -- our
contracts with our customers state that if we go out of business or
stop supporting our software, we are required to release the source
to them.

Unless SeaSound explicitly sold the source along with the obligation
to support the product -- I'd have a hard time believing that a court
wouldn't force SeaSound to release the driver source if anyone
bothered to file even the most basic lawsuit.

geekplus wrote:

> --- In seasoundcards@y..., "tekHedd" <tekhedd@b...> wrote:
>
>>However, Microsoft has not
>>given me any incentive to support XP. It's much more difficult, the
>>platform requirements have changed again, and of course it's
>>expensive. And it doesn't add anything I didn't have already...


At the risk of refuting my own arguments, most w2k/wdm drivers work OK
on XP. The Solo drivers should probably work too if they weren't
actually broken. (Power Management, most likely)


> The high demand feature is really high performance full duplex audio
> operation on XP.  Where high performance is measured as "real time",
> usually considered to be somewhere below 5-10ms.


Sounds reasonable.


> I think the biggest detractors to this are those who resist
> XP's "copy protection".  I put that in quotes because hacked versions


If you've ever paid money for a product that you couldn't run because
the site was down and it was after business hours, you hate the whole
idea of challenge-response licensing schemes. I don't mind
copy-protection because I don't make backups or steal software. (If you
don't use CD's as coasters, they last quite a long time.)

> My final point is this: as a software developer myself, I'd like to
> get involved in helping to research if not write the WDM driver for


Well, I think I could use a hand or two. I'm definitely spending too
much time doing other things these days...


> XP.  But I would need some pointers from you as to what the trouble
> spots are, specifically things you don't know about XP/WDM, or where
> you were surprised to find it differ from Win2K.  I have the Win2k
> DDK as well, so I should have a pretty good baseline.  What I don't


You can get the XP DDK from microsoft if you send 'em 15 bucks. I did
that yesterday. It's "free" but not available for download. I guess that
means that I can make copies of the DDK, since they're really only
charging me for shipping, right? <G>

Well, the biggest problem aside from a minimum of two (2) XP licenses
(or preferably a subscription to MSDN for the debug version) is that
SoftIce is basically indispensible. I've been using some of the
DriverWorks library as well, which I think is very nice (even though the
WDM PortCls classes don't play nice with it), but increases my
dependance on their library (which will probably be reduced now that I
see how much the subscription costs).

I dropped $1000 for SoftIce last summer, and now want $599 for the
latest version (for XP compatibility). Ouch. I mean, sure it's worth it,
however I just don't see why I should pay 60% of my original purchse
price for a minor upgrade whose major new feature is that it has a new
user-licensing scheme. :( Heck, the company I _work_ for is putting off
upgrading because of the cost, and they're actually maybe going to have
revenue soon. I hope. Maybe.

I can't really afford it, but I have to have it. It's like working with
Microsoft (except that SoftIce really kicks ass).

> At least those tasks (such as single-issue prototypes) that are
> conducive to splitting off to another developer.

There's enough things to do that I'm not particularly worried about
overlapping efforts. I'm more concerned about Seasound's IP. The ICE1712
interface code is definitely a derivative product from Seasound's driver
code.

And of course I have some issues with letting go of my complete control
over everything. :) If I can work out the IP problems I'm considering
setting this up as an open-source project, which opens the possibility
of supporting other ICE1712-based cards and other obsolete audio cards
in general. The down side is that everyone would see my horrible code
and obscene editorial comments. ;) I suspect that I would have to
sanitize some code to avoid being sued for slander...

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

--- In seasoundcards@y..., "tekHedd" <tekhedd@b...> wrote:
> However, Microsoft has not
> given me any incentive to support XP. It's much more difficult, the
> platform requirements have changed again, and of course it's
> expensive. And it doesn't add anything I didn't have already...

I think you are right in the sense that XP doesn't offer anything for
someone moving from 2000 -- many pundits have said that 2000 is just
dandy for stability.  The biggest reason to support it from my
perspective is that I have an XP license, but not a 2000 license.  So
moving to 2000 would be an "upgrade" in the cost sense.

> MIDI is relatively easy to support, so I'll probably do it anyway.

Agreed, not important, but as with all things software, you do a
healthy cost/benefit comparison -- and since you're doing this for
free -- don't forget to include a healthy dose of, "Because I *feel*
like doing it this way" in the benefits column.  My hat's off to you
in that sense.

The high demand feature is really high performance full duplex audio
operation on XP.  Where high performance is measured as "real time",
usually considered to be somewhere below 5-10ms.

> It shouldn't be too difficult to support. If I switch to XP, I will
> probably dump win2k support altogether. Who would be dismayed at
> this?

I think the biggest detractors to this are those who resist
XP's "copy protection".  I put that in quotes because hacked versions
that circumvented the "phone home" protection scheme (i.e. the
activation code) were available a few days before XP even hit the
streets.

My final point is this: as a software developer myself, I'd like to
get involved in helping to research if not write the WDM driver for
XP.  But I would need some pointers from you as to what the trouble
spots are, specifically things you don't know about XP/WDM, or where
you were surprised to find it differ from Win2K.  I have the Win2k
DDK as well, so I should have a pretty good baseline.  What I don't
have is much time to set up a development environment, so right now I
could provide the most bang for the buck in reading the hoardes of
documentation to give you helpful pointers about where to focus your
efforts, and look up trouble spots in newsgroups.  However, if you
can directly help me with the crap of setting up a good dev
environment (never written a driver before), I could certainly help
out in the coding department as well.

At least those tasks (such as single-issue prototypes) that are
conducive to splitting off to another developer.

I have CC'ed the seasoundcards group with this reply because I think the
XP issue is important. I really don't want to use or install XP, and I
want to hear more people convince me it's remotely useful before I go
and spend a lot of money for an operating system that I essentially
_don't want_.

> compatible version of the WDM. I forsee (which is
> starting to be borne out in the forum) most Windows
> users will either be using or wanting to use XP in the
> next 18 months. I thint it would be advisable, not


Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. However, Microsoft has not
given me any incentive to support XP. It's much more difficult, the
platform requirements have changed again, and of course it's expensive.
And it doesn't add anything I didn't have already except for a cartooney
interface. Why, exactly, would I "upgrade"?

More importantly, most games do not play properly on XP. :}


> experience, XP is a better OS from a sysadmin and user
> standpoint, anyway. Here is my argument:


I hear it's much better, but what does that mean? Have they made midi
timing more stable? What features of XP make it better for DAW
applications? I respond exclusively to these stimuli:

    1) market pressure
    2) obsolescence

I'm not getting paid, so that eliminates problem 1. As for 2, what does
XP do that win2k doesn't? There are clear advantages to win2k over 98,
but what are the advantages of XP? Aside from the Mighty Mouse style
interface?


> Midi is not an essential function. Anyyone with a
> computer and $30 can get a 2x2 USB midi box.... One
> midi i/o isn't going to make that much difference for
> the majority of users. Using the WDM w/ Sonar allows
> for kick-ass synths and samplers via DXi, so midi
> channels are not that critical anymore.


IMO, software synths suck, but I see your point anyway. :)

MIDI is relatively easy to support, so I'll probably do it anyway.


> ASIO doesn't need to be a high priority function
> either. The biggest reason to have a WDM (aside from
> staying current) is to run Sonar under 2K/Me/XP to
> utilize DXi. If people want to use ASIO, they can stay
> with 98SE until 2K/XP ASIO happens. ASIO compatible
> apps are happy in 98, and stable from my experience.
> They do not benefit from WDM or DXi anyway (right
> now).


Stable is relative. When my VST plugins crash cubase, it often takes out
the OS as well. I hate that. And while I'm not primarily using Cubase at
this point, I have a lot of projects and a "mastering rig" project that
I use extensively...Cubase via the multimedia drivers kind of sucks.

> If the current driver functionality could be possible
> in XP, I think it would reflect the best use of your
> time and efforts. If you need software to make this


It shouldn't be too difficult to support. If I switch to XP, I will
probably dump win2k support altogether. Who would be dismayed at this?

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

Price listed is $349, new.

This seems a little bit more than what people want to spend, but not
much more than what people have been paying over on eBay, so I think
there should be some interest.

The odd thing is that the Solo itself is listed at $495, almost $150
more than the Expander!

http://www.8thstreet.com/product_search2.asp?
combined=seasound&Manufacturer_Search=Manufacturer+Search

I had been lusting after the SoloEx ever since I saw it at MacWorld
two years ago, so when I saw it on sale in the GC catalog, I grabbed it.

But... I can't get it to work! I'm a complete beginner at this digital
sound recording stuff, though I've been working with software and
hardware for 25 years. My son is the guitarist. Anyway, as I think
geekplus said in the first post, it works great as a preamp with
headphones, but cannot get it to record with Cubase (the software it
came with). Any ideas? Can you guys point me to threads on other sites?
Thanks - I vowed to get this working over vacation.

The SeaSound is no longer listed amongst the other Clearance
inventory.


--- In seasoundcards@y..., "geekplus" <geekplus@y...> wrote:
> www.prosound.com
>
> Choose Specials/Clearance.
>
> I'd post the direct link here but it's about a *mile* long.
>
> Get yours while they still have them!  I thinking about getting a
> second one!

www.prosound.com

Choose Specials/Clearance.

I'd post the direct link here but it's about a *mile* long.

Get yours while they still have them!  I thinking about getting a
second one!

Hope all your studios expand greatly this morning if you're in the
Merry Christmas camp!  And if not, may you have the time to *finally*
ran cables through your studio the way you've always wanted to!

jOn

geekplus wrote:

> Which Oktava do you recommend?  I know about the 219 and 319, I


I just have an 012 with a cardiod capsule, but now I wish I had

two and some omni capsules. It's flexible, cheap, and sounds great.

And they make a hot large-diaphgram adapter for it as well.


For the price it's great, but the small diaphragm is totally
unforgiving if, for example, you can't sing worth a crap because
you don't practice. Sounds great for accordion or nylon string
guitar, though. (Guitar sounded a bit midrangey, but I'm
betting that was positioning and proximity effect. Did I mention
that I wanted an omni capsule?)

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

Well, you can almost definitely get the Solo working on a Win98SE
box -- that's the standard recommended platform with the current
offical drivers to get the fullest functionality from your card.

However, the new WDM drivers (which are in alpha-2, not release)
should work on most Windows 2000 setups, but *not* XP.

NT is almost definitely *not* recommended -- at least I've not heard
of anyone running SeaSound on NT.

So the most conservative recommendation is, yes, put Win98SE (Second
Edition) on one of the new boxes.  You'll get the most stable results
and the widest support for the full features of the Solo if you do
that.

--- In seasoundcards@y..., "realife_solutions_2000"
<realife_solutions_2000@y...> wrote:
> My company (whose primary function is not sound reproduction) moved
> from Win95 to Win2000 and my choices for installing the Solo are
> Win95, NT and Win2000 nachines.  Unfortunately, the win95 machines
> are the least capable in terms of CPU speed, storage capacity and
> hardware age. Does this mean I need to install win98 on one of the
> newer machines to use the Solo?
>
> TIA!
>
> PS Okay please don't laugh at me....Thought you might have written
> some drivers...

My company (whose primary function is not sound reproduction) moved
from Win95 to Win2000 and my choices for installing the Solo are
Win95, NT and Win2000 nachines.  Unfortunately, the win95 machines
are the least capable in terms of CPU speed, storage capacity and
hardware age. Does this mean I need to install win98 on one of the
newer machines to use the Solo?

TIA!

PS Okay please don't laugh at me....Thought you might have written
some drivers...

A friend of mine made a good suggestion -- computer power
conditioners perform very much the same task, i.e., clean power, for
a fraction of the cost since they sell to a MUCH bigger market than
music manufacturers.

Sure, you give up Furman's well-known rack lights, but I don't need
that for a home studio -- which is the target audience of this list.

The other thing you give up generally, is the convenience of a rack
mounted unit.

I'm going to look into that myself, as I imagine the high-end server
market would have need of rack-mounted power conditioners.  I'm just
wondering if that doesn't pigeon-hole me back into high dollars again
due to the smaller market of those products.

Enough said for now...


--- In seasoundcards@y..., "eldershirk" <eldershirk@y...> wrote:
> Try getting a rack mounted power conditioner, and run all
> electrical that is plugged into system thru it.  Fuhrman and
> Rackrider make some nice models.  I dropped my noise floor by 10-20
> DB by adding this eq.

Which Oktava do you recommend?  I know about the 219 and 319, I
guess.  I was just wondering which price points in the Oktava family
provide the best value, you know, the elbow of the parabolic curve of
price/performance.

geekplus wrote:

> Oktava!


Yeah! I love it. I want another one, and some more elements for them,
and a star filter, and a set of gel filters, and, no wait those are
camera accessories, so then I'd need a 50mm adapter...

Anyway, it sounds really nice.

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

The largest I've seen is 9 outlets per conditioner, you may need to
get 2 or 3.  That's pretty standard.  I've only got enough equipment
for 1.  If you have wall warts(transformers, there are converters you
may look for to add more room to plug things in on the conditioner.
>
> Whoa cool, I could try that. Umm...do they make a model with 20 or
30
> outlets?
>
> t/DD
> --
> tekhedd@b...
> http://www.byteheaven.com/

Oktava!

eldershirk wrote:

> Try getting a rack mounted power conditioner, and run all electrical
> that is plugged into system thru it.  Fuhrman and Rackrider make some
> nice models.  I dropped my noise floor by 10-20 DB by adding this eq.

Whoa cool, I could try that. Umm...do they make a model with 20 or 30
outlets?

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

Try getting a rack mounted power conditioner, and run all electrical
that is plugged into system thru it.  Fuhrman and Rackrider make some
nice models.  I dropped my noise floor by 10-20 DB by adding this eq.
--- In seasoundcards@y..., tekHedd <tekhedd@b...> wrote:
> geekplus wrote:
>
> > Glad you like, and doubly glad to have the great tekhedd here on
this
> > list.
>
>
> Who, me? Wow, I didn't know I had an ego until just now...
>
>
> > Were you able to read messages in the browser without having to
sign
> > up?  I think that's how I have it configured, and that's the way
it
> > should be.
>
>
> Works great. It's nice to be able to search the old messages if you
have
> a problem and you don't want to look like an idiot. I also like the
> convenience of having group messages appear in my inbox nicely
sorted
> into folders alongside wdmaudiodev and the other fine groups. :)
>
> > Of course, it's nice to be able to see who's a part of the
community,
> > I definitely respect people's desire to keep their identiyt
private
> > if they're just reading.
>
>
> Well, you can always look at who's subscribed...
>
>
> > New Year (forgive me for not being very productive over the next
week
> > or two, please, :) )
>
>
> I know how _that_ goes. :) I'll be using vacation time to do some
> programming, socialize, drink, and write music. Currently I'm
working on
> a demo of my new "christmas music" album concept that I expect to
be all
> the rage this time next year.
>
> In fact, I was recording some last night and noticed that even with
the
> levels turned down I had a noise floor of -56dB. That SUCKS. I have
an
> original solo (with the wiggly knobs), a Blue mic cable, and one of
> those nice russian-made hyper-sensitive condenser mics (whassit
> called?). I thought it was a tiny bit brittle sounding at first,
but
> after recording a few instruments decided that it was my stupid
voice. :)
>
> How can I get rid of that annoying noise floor? My dedicated music
> system is:
>    PIII 650, 256M 100mHz ram
>    No floppy or CDrom
>    3dfx Voodoo 5 5500
>    60G 7200Rpm ISA hard drive
>    Some sorta modern case and power supply
>    Original solo with pre-release late-model PCI card
>    Blue mic cable, the blue (cheapest) one. Very nice.
>    Some sorta russian small-diaphragm condenser (sweet) O-something
>
> Help! It sounds great but there's just too much noise!
>
> t/DD
> --
> tekhedd@b...
> http://www.byteheaven.com/

geekplus wrote:

> Glad you like, and doubly glad to have the great tekhedd here on this
> list.


Who, me? Wow, I didn't know I had an ego until just now...


> Were you able to read messages in the browser without having to sign
> up?  I think that's how I have it configured, and that's the way it
> should be.


Works great. It's nice to be able to search the old messages if you have
a problem and you don't want to look like an idiot. I also like the
convenience of having group messages appear in my inbox nicely sorted
into folders alongside wdmaudiodev and the other fine groups. :)

> Of course, it's nice to be able to see who's a part of the community,
> I definitely respect people's desire to keep their identiyt private
> if they're just reading.


Well, you can always look at who's subscribed...


> New Year (forgive me for not being very productive over the next week
> or two, please, :) )


I know how _that_ goes. :) I'll be using vacation time to do some
programming, socialize, drink, and write music. Currently I'm working on
a demo of my new "christmas music" album concept that I expect to be all
the rage this time next year.

In fact, I was recording some last night and noticed that even with the
levels turned down I had a noise floor of -56dB. That SUCKS. I have an
original solo (with the wiggly knobs), a Blue mic cable, and one of
those nice russian-made hyper-sensitive condenser mics (whassit
called?). I thought it was a tiny bit brittle sounding at first, but
after recording a few instruments decided that it was my stupid voice. :)

How can I get rid of that annoying noise floor? My dedicated music
system is:
    PIII 650, 256M 100mHz ram
    No floppy or CDrom
    3dfx Voodoo 5 5500
    60G 7200Rpm ISA hard drive
    Some sorta modern case and power supply
    Original solo with pre-release late-model PCI card
    Blue mic cable, the blue (cheapest) one. Very nice.
    Some sorta russian small-diaphragm condenser (sweet) O-something

Help! It sounds great but there's just too much noise!

t/DD
--
tekhedd@...
http://www.byteheaven.com/

Glad you like, and doubly glad to have the great tekhedd here on this
list.

Were you able to read messages in the browser without having to sign
up?  I think that's how I have it configured, and that's the way it
should be.

Of course, it's nice to be able to see who's a part of the community,
I definitely respect people's desire to keep their identiyt private
if they're just reading.

Anyway, now that 5 or 6 people have joined up, I'm going to start
aggregating some new content here, which you should be able to see by
New Year (forgive me for not being very productive over the next week
or two, please, :) )



--- In seasoundcards@y..., tekHedd <tekhedd@b...> wrote:
> I just want to say that I mailing lists kick serious butt. :)
>
> t/DD
> --
> http://www.byteheaven.com/

I just want to say that I mailing lists kick serious butt. :)

t/DD
--
http://www.byteheaven.com/

There's one available right now. Not for $99, but not much more.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1498133553

The last one there sold for $165.  I don't think you'll do much
better than $130 even if you wait, so if you're the kind of person to
whom $30ish dollars doesn't matter too much, I'd say go for it.

However, another thing to think about is that the full Solo has 2
input channels instead of 1, S/PDIF in/out, and allows certain after-
market modifications that the Soloist doesn't.  And it sells for
about $230 regularly on eBay.

Just something to think about.

Need one of these rascals for a small project in Chicago. Local store
was blowing them for $99 and missed. Let me know if you know where to
get one or have one FS.

Thanks!

Yes the group is still here -- just got started a short while ago.
There is quite a SeaSound community at www.seasoundaudio.com.  I'm
not crazy about the message board interface there, so I started this
one here.  My hope was to draw as many SeaSound enthusiasts from as
many different sources as possible.

On to the driver.  I'm not sure if SeaSound has decided to make
whatever they have open source yet.  Right now it seems to be that
they are trying to get one of the former (laid off) employees to
write one.

I have been in touch about getting the current code from him.  And
I'd certainly be interested in taking the effort open source (over at
sourceforge most likely) if whoever owns the current IP rights is
amenable to that.

Also, there has recently been a rumor that one of the co-founders
(not Tom Oberheim, he's moved on to other things) is interested in
getting another company to continue manufacture of the units.
However, that would be 8-12 months away *if* it happened.

I will *definitely* post a message here if the source code becomes
available -- as a developer myself, I'm interested in having WDM
driver development be my pet project for the next few months.

Glad to see you join the group -- and I would expect to see this
group expand as SeaSound enthusiasts start to get more impatient for
WDM support, and perhaps start to have their first equipment
breakdowns.

For the moment, you may want to go review all of the old messages on
the seasoundaudio.com message board.



--- In seasoundcards@y..., danv1983@y... wrote:
> hi i'm interested in bugging seasound to make their driver info
open
> source,, so some kind developer may help us.. does anyone have any
> ideas?

hi i'm interested in bugging seasound to make their driver info open
source,, so some kind developer may help us.. does anyone have any
ideas?

I've had a few reports now from people saying that they can run their
SeaSound cards on AMD+VIA hardware with WinMe.  So I'm guessing it
was either some specific VIA chipset that was the problem, or one of
the much harder-to-trace "synergistic" hardware problems.

I'll try and get a report of my exact hardware configuration on here,
but my box was a Compaq Presario, model 5284.  I picked it up in July
of 1999.

Just in case that helps anyone.

I just bought a new computer and I wanted to write in and offer some
anecdotal evidence that AMD's K6-II processors or VIA Tech chipsets
appear to have been preventing my SeaSound from working, not WinMe.
My old computer was a Compaq Presario. It's distinguishing features
were an AMD K6-II 450 MHz processor on some VIA Tech chipset, running
Windows Me. When I had installed my SeaSound card on this box, I
could only get the breakout box to power up and act as preamp w/
headphone monitor, i.e., everything but getting sound into/out of my
computer.

After installing the drivers (which was a major tooth-pulling ritual
of manually running "Add New Hardware" through the Control Panel, and
doing the "Have Disk" option) the Add Hardware wizard said "YOur new
hardware is installed" and told me to click the Finish button. But
even after a reboot there was no sign of the Solo under Device
Manager.

My new computer also runs WinMe. But it has an Intel processor (P4-
1.6GHz) and chipset (the 845, I believe). I can't think of anything
else that's terribly different about them: both have network cards,
both run my Midisport 4x4 USB MIDI interface just fine, both have a
single 20+ GB hard drive -- basic stuff.

But the SeaSound installed flawlessly on the new one, automatically --
  I just stuck in the CD when it asked me to supply my hardware's
driver disc. Beautiful, quick test showed that I was able to record a
bass guitar into Windows Sound Recorder and play it back through the
headphone monitor on the SeaSound -- so I can definitely confirm it's
working.

One last thing though -- even on my freshly OSed computer -- Cubasis
was acting very strange. It completely crashed on my twice last
night. I tried to get the 3.7R2 upgrade from steinberg.net (3.7R1 was
on the CD that came with the SeaSound), but it said "this version
cannot be upgraded" when I tried to install the upgrade. I think I'll
be buying some other software. But hey -- this is a good problem --
at least I can tell that I *need* new software.