Echo Mia-MIDI with a Phono PreAmp or TerraTec DMX 6FIRE 24..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

As you have probably surmised from the title, this will be used for
transferring vinyl LPs to a digital CD-ROM format (16 bits and 44.1
kHz).

Turntable will be a Rega P-3 with a Rega Super Elys cartridge.

Here is my question:
I have a choice between an Echo Mia-MIDI or TerraTec DMX 6FIRE 24/96
sound card to do the AD conversion. With the DMX 6Fire I can run the
turntable directly into the break-out box and skip the Phono Pre amp
altogether and do the RIAA equalization in software. To me this looks
like a real attractive alternative to the more traditional approach of
Turntable > Phono PreAmp > Sound card. It also saves me $600 to $1,200
in cost which is pretty significant in my world. It also avoids all of
the problems that might be related to my PreAmp coloring the sound as
well (yes I'm thinking tubes).

I want the best quality recordings that I can REASONABLY obtain, but
if the difference will be dramatically better with the Mia-MIDI and a
good Phono PreAmp then I will have to go with that option. If the
results will be the same or so close that I could not tell, then I
will take the cheaper way out. The most important thing to me is to
get it right. I really want to stay away from some of the more extreme
"audiophile" solutions that call for $1,000 interconnects. I just
don't have the cash to chase after the last .05%. :-)

I plan to sample at 24 Bit/88.2 kHz and then do my final down sampling
after I'm done cleaning up and de-clicking, if that information will
be of any help.

This setup will basically be a "one trick pony". All this sound card
will do is record LPs and I have have no other audio components that I
wish to interconnect so the Phone Preamp will never be used to listen
to vinyl unless I'm doing a transfer.

So which way is better?

Thanks for getting this far! :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:57mdnZ8CFpOiHhLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> I've got some concerns about the fact that the DMX's RIAA equalization is
> done with software. Historically, this has involved some compromises in
> terms of dynamic range. I can't find any detailed specs or independent
tests
> that show how this unusual feature actually works.

Do you know if that dynamic range would be reduced to less that 80db?

I know the card has a greater dynamic range than vinyl, but are you saying
that what would come off the record would be reduced further or just that
the full range that the card has to offer would be reduced?

Thanks for the reply Arny!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

This looks REALLY intriguing and perhaps the idea of "software" RIAA has
finally arrived; maybe, I hope.
As the manufacturer Terratec is stating, that this card has:
24bit/96kHz AD converters with 100 dB dynamical range (S/NR)
24bit/96kHz DA converters with 110 dB dynamical range (S/NR)
So hopefully this card has the juice to pull it off.
More details here:
http://productsen.terratec.net/mod [...] le&artid=4

The phonograph cartridge I want to use is the Rega Super Elys with an output
of: 6.8mV - 7.2mV

What questions should I ask them to get a better handle on the capabilities
of this card as I intend to use it?
I will post their answers for further discussion and follow up.

Thank you Arny.



> > Do you know if that dynamic range would be reduced to less that 80db?
>
> At some frequencies in the audio range, probably yes.
>
> There's 40 dB of equalization in the RIAA curve. It's basically a giant
> roll-off that levels off for a while in the middle.
>
> A RIAA preamp stage generally has about 36-40 dB gain in the midrange,
> about 56-60 dB gain at 20 Hz, and 16-20 dB gain at 20 KHz.
>
> If you implement this as a broadband amplifier with flat frequency
response
> followed by the equalization implemented in the digital domain, You need
to
> have 56-60 dB gain at all frequencies. IOW. to have the equivalent of 1
volt
> of output at 20 KHz, you need to have close to 100 volts and attenuate it
by
> 40 dB. The usual RIAA preamp designs attenuate the signal before it gets
> that big.
>
> Consumer sound cards generally have maximum input in the range of 1-2
volts.
> If you attenuate that by 40 dB, you have 10-20 millivolts. So the output
of
> the flat response preamp at 20 Hz, is now limited to 10-20 millivolts,
which
> is a very small signal. If the card starts out with 95 dB SNR, then the
> equivalent SNR at 20 Hz is 55 dB. The good news is that 20 Hz is a
> frequency where the ear is insensitive and the turntable is producing a
lot
> of noise of its own.
>
> Over the whole audio range, the SNR limit due to the flat response preamp
> design might average out to be more like 75 dB in this implementation,
which
> is a somewhat better than you can get with a good turntable and a very
clean
> record. It's not that much worse than conventional high quality RIAA
preamp
> designs.
>
> The plus is that the equalization can be implemented in the digital domain
> and therefore be highly precise. Expensive high-tolerance capacitors for
> equalization (usually 2 per channel) aren't needed.
>
> I think that with the needle up and gains matched, you might be able to
hear
> a difference in the sound of the background noise, if you compared a flat
> response phono preamp followed by a digital equalizer implemented in the
> computer, as compared to a standard RIAA preamp. It would be an
interesting
> experiment. Needle on the record, it could be a horse race.
>
> People including myself have thought about implementing a preamp this way
> for years. The plus is that it eliminates the cost of some expensive
> precision capacitors and some modest-priced but not cheap precision
> resistors.
>
> > I know the card has a greater dynamic range than vinyl, but are you
> > saying that what would come off the record would be reduced further
> > or just that the full range that the card has to offer would be
> > reduced?
>
> I just don't know the actual details of how they do what they provide a
> summary description for. I'm presuming a solution here that I think is a
> logical surmise. It's an interesting approach that a lot of people have
> dismissed over the years. Sound cards are getting good enough (close to
100
> dB dynamic range) that it might work. Clearly, this approach would have
> been a disaster in the days when sound cards only had only 65 dB dynamic
> range, or marginal with current cheapo-cheapo sound cards that have more
> like 80 dB dynamic range.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:4eidnfIXR6TKZQ3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > What questions should I ask them to get a better handle on the
> > capabilities of this card as I intend to use it?
>
> At some point you'll probably buy it and pray for a good return policy if
it
> turns out to not be what you want.

Agreed, but if it were that simple, I would already own the card. :-)

I guess a better question from me to you would be what quality level of
Phono preamplifier would this sound as good as?

I know this may not sound as well as certain $15,000 phono preamps I have
heard about, but I also assume that it will be much better than one of those
$20 ones from Radio Shack as well. After I own it, how would I test this
thing to see what it's really doing? I don't think I have good enough ears
to make that decision by myself yet.

Thanks again!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7d43e2e8.0404291711.5f067aa6@posting.google.com...

>
> I don't think this is a comparison between a phono pre-amp and
> software. It's more like a comparison between a regular audio
> stand-alone phono pre-amp verses the phono pre-amp inside the TerreTec
> card. Hardware vs hardware. In which case, the one that sounds better
> to you would win. The Terra card phono input is simply a phono pre-amp
> mated to its 24/96 AD stage. I think there may have been a bit of a
> compromise to add the phono pre-amp electronics onto that card. If it
> was my choice, I would go with the separate pre-amp and an Echo card.
> The purist in me likes that because Echo is a company that
> conecentrates on just audio, and a separate phono pre-amp will
> concentrate on being jsut one thing, a good phono pre amp. Compare
> that to the phono pre-amp built into the TerraTec card. The TerraTec
> card sounds like it wants to be everything for everybody. Built in
> phono pre-amp, DTS sound, the works. Usually that means compromise.
>
>
>
> CD

From what I can tell you have TWO options with the RIAA equalization with
the TerraTec card.
The onboard hardware solution that is inside the breakout box is not really
a consideration as I do think that would be inferior to a very good phono
preamp.
But I don't find anywhere on the internet any information comparing a
software RIAA equalization with an equalization done by a good phono preamp.
With older hardware from a just a few years ago, I would think that a
software solution would be seriously lacking because of the limited
processing power available and the necessity of off-loading every function
possible onto hardware from the CPU for performance reasons is, I think,
behind us. I don't really think (from reading the reviews) that the DMX
6Fire tries to be that much to too many people. True the Mia is pretty much
a sound only device, but the DMX 6Fire dumps a lot of traditional "gaming"
functions and seems to concentrate on just music but is also a much newer
card.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the $600 to
$1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The preamps I have been considering in order of price are the:

The Bottle Head "Seduction" kit (the build it yourself option)
http://www.bottlehead.com/et/adobe [...] uction.htm

Black Cube SE phono stage
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/blcubee.html

EAR 834P PHONOBOX
http://www.ear-yoshino.com/product [...] ge=6&id=20

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jimmy The Clam wrote:

> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:7d43e2e8.0404291711.5f067aa6@posting.google.com...
>
>> I don't think this is a comparison between a phono pre-amp and
>> software. It's more like a comparison between a regular audio
>> stand-alone phono pre-amp verses the phono pre-amp inside the
>> TerreTec card.

You seem to have missed an important point - the phono preamp inside the
Terretec card 's interface box is not like most phono preamps. It lacks
equalization.

>> Hardware vs hardware.

Hardware versus hardware + software

>> In which case, the one that sounds better to you would win.

But of course, and if cost is no object, the dedicated hardware solution can
reasonably to win.

>> The Terra card phono input is simply
>> a phono pre-amp mated to its 24/96 AD stage.

Read the doc. They seem to be saying that the equalization is done inside
the PC.

>>I think there may have
>> been a bit of a compromise to add the phono pre-amp electronics onto
>> that card.

The major cause for any compromises would be simply cost.

>>If it was my choice, I would go with the separate pre-amp
>> and an Echo card.

Been there done that, it works. I have a Apt/Holman preamp and a
ConRad-Johnson preamp for he purpose. Just hook the main output of the
preamp to the line input of the sound card, adjust the volume control on the
preamp for no clipping with the loudest band on a trackability test record
and you are stylin'!

>> The purist in me likes that because Echo is a
>> company that conecentrates on just audio, and a separate phono
>> pre-amp will concentrate on being jsut one thing, a good phono pre
>> amp.

In my case the preamps were on hand. Mis-spent youth!

>> Compare that to the phono pre-amp built into the TerraTec card.

The approach they use could be surprisingly good. Low noise opamps are dirt
cheap. Parts like stereo volume controls with good channel tracking and
high-quality equalization components cost money. They reduced the hardware
load to just the opamps and a few other low cost parts.

>> The TerraTec card sounds like it wants to be everything for
>> everybody. Built in phono pre-amp, DTS sound, the works. Usually
>> that means compromise.

One word: price.

> From what I can tell you have TWO options with the RIAA equalization
> with the TerraTec card.
> The onboard hardware solution that is inside the breakout box is not
> really a consideration as I do think that would be inferior to a very
> good phono preamp.

I think I posted an analysis of why that must be, and how much of a
compromise it will be.

> But I don't find anywhere on the internet any information comparing a
> software RIAA equalization with an equalization done by a good phono
> preamp.

I'd put my money on the software.

>With older hardware from a just a few years ago, I would
> think that a software solution would be seriously lacking because of
> the limited processing power available and the necessity of
> off-loading every function possible onto hardware from the CPU for
> performance reasons is, I think, behind us.

Agreed.

>I don't really think
> (from reading the reviews) that the DMX 6Fire tries to be that much
> to too many people. True the Mia is pretty much a sound only device,
> but the DMX 6Fire dumps a lot of traditional "gaming" functions and
> seems to concentrate on just music but is also a much newer card.

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as a
consumer audio device.

> You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
> solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
> $600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

> The preamps I have been considering in order of price are the:
>
> The Bottle Head "Seduction" kit (the build it yourself option)
> http://www.bottlehead.com/et/adobe [...] uction.htm
>
> Black Cube SE phono stage
> http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/blcubee.html
>
> EAR 834P PHONOBOX
> http://www.ear-yoshino.com/product [...] ge=6&id=20

Or surf eBay for some classic gear like the Holman, that still sells for a
reasonable price. I paid about $75 for mine - the CJ came from a private
auction some years ago for even less but I don't think that could be
duplicated today.

Also:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/ [...] no+Preamps

http://www.kabusa.com/index_pp.htm

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Mpedna7KqLxlsw_dRVn_iw@comcast.com...
>
>> The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
>> $199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
>> the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
>> other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
>> 6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

>>> You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
>>> solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
>>> $600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

>> The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
>> important thing.

> Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
> garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

>I already have a SC
> Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
> could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
> entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should be
well into overkill.

>I also know I can spend
> $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

> What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
> spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
> again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
> result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
> because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca. $100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

> If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
> benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
> the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

>That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
> mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
> I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
> sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

>How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
> sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
> not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator from
www.pcabx.com .

> Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software RIAA
equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the DMX6 is
when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem with the
DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency response
is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2 - 3 dB and
that's all...


With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Christoph Wilms

TerraTec Electronic GmbH
Herrenpfad 38
D 41334 Nettetal



"Jimmy The Clam" <jimmytheclam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jqtkc.10711$IO6.7490@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Thanks Arny!
> This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec
and
> in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
> I bet they would! :-)
>
> Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
> other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my
server
> that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.
>
> I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
> the Rega turntable for another month.
> I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the
very
> end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.
>
>
>
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:E62dnQ8o5I0vyw_dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> > > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Mpedna7KqLxlsw_dRVn_iw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > >> The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
> > >> $199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
> > >> the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
> > >> other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
> > >> 6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.
> >
> > >>> You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
> > >>> solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
> > >>> $600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.
> >
> > >> The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
> > >> important thing.
> >
> > > Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
> > > garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.
> >
> > Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
> > garbage!
> >
> > >I already have a SC
> > > Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
> > > could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
> > > entirely), but I know I can do better.
> >
> > Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC)
should
> be
> > well into overkill.
> >
> > >I also know I can spend
> > > $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.
> >
> > Sane!
> >
> > > What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
> > > spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
> > > again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
> > > result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
> > > because someone is unreasonably cheap.
> >
> > If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
> $100
> > phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your
TBSC
> > would be a good option.
> >
> > > If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
> > > benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
> > > the sound?
> >
> > One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
> network,
> > like this one:
> >
> > http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf
> >
> > >That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
> > > mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
> > > I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
> > > sonically perfect car.
> >
> > The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.
> >
> > >How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
> > > sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
> > > not usually justify the file size they generate.
> >
> > You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
> > imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
> from
> > www.pcabx.com .
> >
> > > Does anything I say change your mind Arny?
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
> the
> > goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate
its
> > coloration by listening to files from
> > http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of hundred
hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.


"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZNidndjqws7bHg_d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> > OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
> > RIAA equilization via E-Mail.
> >
> > Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
> > DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
> > I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
> > with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
> > true?
> >
> > A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
> > response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
> > - 3 dB and that's all...
>
> If you go back to this post:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm= [...] omcast.com
>
> My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.
>
> To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
> approach.
>
> I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
> frequencies.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<_8ydnR04fNHLDQ_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
> Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> > That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
>
> > "I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
> > hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."
>
> I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
> frequency response.
>
> > What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?
>
> Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.
>
> > Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.
>
> I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
> number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
> brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
> However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
> of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?
I'm just tacking onto the end of this response because I'm using the
google groups web interface to the newsgroups. It's kindof clunky
giving me quite a challenge to see a thread through. I was using
Thunderbird, but my ISP's newsserver must be in th habit of expiring
articles in the blink of an eye, so I miss even more discussions with
the better interface!

Anyhow, to touch on the topics mentioned here: Arny Krueger, you'r
right, I missed the part of the phono input on the Terrate card being
non-equalized. So then that would reduce the comparison to being a
software issue, you could use either card then.

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording. The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memeory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit. Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too. The cruz tends to be a bit bass
light and less dynamic. Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db. With the MIA,
you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range. Like at -10 db you'll have 20 bits, even better than the Cruz
at its very very best. Now, some of you will say that the dynamic
range of vinyl is below even a 16 bit card, but the ability to capture
it all is much easier in a 24 bit card than in a 16 bit one.

Anyhow, I don't mean to preach, but for recording vinyl, 24 bits
minimum, I say

Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA



CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 30 Apr 2004 19:28:07 -0700, codifus@optonline.net (Codifus) wrote:

>There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
>recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
>CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
>away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
>headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
>recording.

You're kidding yourself. Both about the input of the Mia and about
the dynamic range available from vinyl.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<7aqdnbXQmLqy7g7dRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
> Codifus wrote:
>
> > There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
> > recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
> > CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
> > away for recording vinyl.
>
> Been there, done that I think it doesn't. I know it doesn't if you are
> reasonably careful with level setting. Read on!
>
> >Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic headroom, it is more able to
> capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
> > recording.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble but the Echo Mia doesn't have 24 bits worth of
> dynamic range. It actually has about 17 bits worth of dynamic range with 44
> KHz sampling, worse at 96 KHz.
>
> In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.
>
> However, vinyl recordings only have about 12 bits worth of dynamic range.
> The Mia buys you more margin when it comes to setting levels for recording.
> However, with reasonable care, the TBSC is still an overkill solution for
> digitizing vinyl.
>
> Analog recordings don't have the corner on dynamics, particularly when we
> are talking about analog tape or analog vinyl.
>
> The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
> range no matter which format they are distributed in.
>
> >The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
> > recording, 20 playing, if memory serves) to make the 16 bits more
> > accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit.
>
> 16 bits gives you about 96 dB dynamic range, This is no less than 20 dB more
> dynamic range than any commercial recording ever made has, whether LP,
> analog tape, or CD. Vinyl recordings are hard pressed to demonstrate more
> than about 65 dB worth of dynamic range. Often they only have more like 50
> dB dynamic range.
>
> >Comparing the same vinyl
> > recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
> > frequency response is flatter, too.
>
> Either card has the capability to accurately reproduce the dynamics and
> timbre of a LP.
>
> The Mia has a tad better frequency response, but anybody who cares to listen
> properly (i.e., a level-matched, time-synchronized, blind listening test)
> can be reasonably be expected to report back that the two sound cards sound
> alike with music, provide the levels are optimized for each card.
>
> The Mia, being designed for audio production, has been optimized for higher
> signal levels. I think that it makes sense to prefer the Mia for digitizing
> vinyl, but we need not criticize the TBSC to explain that preference.
>
> > The cruz tends to be a bit bass light and less dynamic.
>
> Only if you don't match it properly to the application.
>
> > Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
> > recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
> > at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
> > less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.
>
> Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
> But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
> range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
> the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.
>
> > With the MIA, you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the
> recording is
> > below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
> > range.
>
> Wrong, no way does the Mia or any other commercial audio interface current
> available have 24 bit resolution. A SOTA audio interface has more like 20-22
> bits resolution, unwieghted, 20 KHz bandwidth. Remember, dynamic range and
> resolution are two different ways to express the same concept and the same
> physical event.
>
>
> > Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
> > I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
> > card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
> > product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
> > about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
> > CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
> > the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
> > vote still goes to the MIA
>
> I agree that Echo is audio production oriented, and that Terrratec is
> consumer oriented. They are both about audio, but different market segments
> within audio. Creative is about audio, too but historically it has been more
> oriented towards the gaming segment of consumer audio. Creative has been
> going through some changes because the market is changing. They're doing a
> big business with digital audio players, and that's a music listener's
> market. Audio interfaces are natural adjuncts to digital audio players.
>
> Technological progress relates as well. 5 years ago the dirt-cheap audio
> interfaces built into motherboards were junk if you were a critical
> listener. Today, the better on-board audio interfaces are climbing into the
> sound quality range of a TBSC. I use one to digitize cassettes, and I have
> no apologies for that.

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either. My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?). I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers. With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz. It just does. I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has somethingto do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...
>
> If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
> were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
> be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?
>
> Both options are about the same price.
>
> http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi [...] ramset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


> http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per
http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTe [...] Sound_Card

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jimmy The Clam" <jimmytheclam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yAvkc.5944$nn3.4306@twister.socal.rr.com...
> That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
> "I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred
> hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:7aqdnbXQmLqy7g7dRVn-sA@comcast.com...

> In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.

Close to 15 but yes, about 2 or 3 less than the Mia.

> The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
> range no matter which format they are distributed in.

Telarc may disagree, but even then, their 1812 on vinyl had less than that.

> > Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
> > recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
> > at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
> > less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.

And it's not hard to get very close when you can easily redo it if you are
not.

> Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
> But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
> range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
> the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.

Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that will
give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
*VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.

TonyP.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jimmy The Clam" <jimmytheclam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9mXkc.9370$4D1.6055@twister.socal.rr.com...
> When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the
same
> price.
> While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long
on
> EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and
$100.
> So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
> thoughts between the two?

Yep, if YOUR cost is the same, then it's a no brainer.

TonyP.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:


> Since he already has a TBSC, I put my money on the TBSC/NAD beating,
> or equal to the DMX6.

> Extra cost $129 Vs $222.

Agreed.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

This discussion is messed up. I'm seeing questions out of timing order. A
server somewhere is not either displaying them right away or something is
delaying their appearence. All of Arny's replies just showed up now, but not
at the end of the thread.

Mia
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d [...] 3721102338

PP-2
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d [...] 3093750389

These are also not the only ones out there either, they are just the closest
to closing that I see. That's not terribly important right now and I don't
want to get into a posting match over the cost of tea in China.

Q: What are you currently using for a preamp to transcribe LPs?
A: Right now, nothing.

Arny, assuming an equilivant cost, what would you go with?
Echo Mia + PP-2?

OR

TerraTec DMX 6Fire with the software RIAA?



"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:tKSdnfpY-caOXgndRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> > Thank you very much TonyP!
> > That is very helpful.
> > The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the
> > money where you notice the difference.
>
> What are you currently using for a preamp to transcribe LPs?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:40946946$0$4548$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that
will
> give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
> *VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
> magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.
>
> TonyP.
>
>
OK, ancient Technics SL7, any cartridge, stylus up unweighted noise -84dBV
rms,
-90dBV rms at 43dB 1kHz gain setting. Preamp output capability >10V rms at
1kHz,
or > +20dBV (one of my designs, LT1028 based, with rails of +/-20V you can
get another couple of dB). A-weighting gets you another 2dB of dynamic
range, for
an overall of up to 112dB unweighted, 114dB A-weighted. Preamp matches RIAA
to <0.02dB.

Regards
Ian

PS: the SL7 shorts the cartridge outputs when the arm is up ;-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:V_ednTKj7OI6AgjdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> Ian wrote:
> > "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:40946946$0$4548$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >> Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination
> >> that will give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
> >> *VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders
> >> of magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.
>
> >> TonyP.
>
> > OK, ancient Technics SL7, any cartridge, stylus up unweighted noise
> > -84dBV rms,
> > -90dBV rms at 43dB 1kHz gain setting. Preamp output capability >10V
> > rms at 1kHz,
> > or > +20dBV (one of my designs, LT1028 based, with rails of +/-20V
> > you can get another couple of dB). A-weighting gets you another 2dB
> > of dynamic range, for
> > an overall of up to 112dB unweighted, 114dB A-weighted. Preamp
> > matches RIAA to <0.02dB.
>
> Lots of words, but not the answer to the question.
>
> We need two numbers, given in volts, with dBv being acceptible.
>
> Number #1: Output of preamp, measurement bandwidth 20-20 KHz at -3 dB
> bandwidth or more, stylus lifted 1 mm or so above record on turntable,
> turntable rotating at 33 1/3 rpm, under power line power.
>
> Number #2: Output of preamp, measurement bandwidth 20-20 KHz at -3 dB
> bandwidth or more, stylus properly tracking a test record with highest
> amplitude possible cleanly tracked (< 3% THD) sine wave, in the range of
200
> Hz - 5 KHz.
>
> No change to gain setting on preamp or associated equipment in the signal
> path between measurements.
>
>

Arny, please note the smiley in the PS. I _know_ the numbers I quoted were
bogus, because the SL7 shorts the cartridge outputs when the arm is up.
However, all the numbers you wanted are in the post. What part of
"-90dBVrms"
and ">+20dBV" don't you follow?
That gives a dynamic range of 90+20=110, with extra words
suggesting another couple of dB range was available.

Measurements were done using a 35670A over 20Hz-20kHz, I assumed the
bandwidth would be obvious in the context.

Note the challenge was:

"*ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination
that will give more than 90dB with the stylus up?"

Regards
Ian

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jimmy:
For what it's worth, i use a santa cruz with a creek obh-8 i picked up for
$125 at a repair shop, along with an old technics turntable, grado
cartridge. ... with adobe audition/cool edit you can push the limits a bit
on the levels because it will fix the few clips clips you might get if you
redline a few times. ... after cleaning up clicks, pops, noise, etc., the
sound of old records actually improves to a surprising extent... if i were
you i'd spend my money on the phono stage first and hook it up to your cruz.
.... buy a different card later when you're ready to dust off your server.
-jo
"Jimmy The Clam" <jimmytheclam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%W3lc.8841$nn3.8065@twister.socal.rr.com...
> This discussion is messed up. I'm seeing questions out of timing order. A
> server somewhere is not either displaying them right away or something is
> delaying their appearence. All of Arny's replies just showed up now, but
not
> at the end of the thread.
>
> Mia
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d [...] 3721102338
>
> PP-2
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d [...] 3093750389
>
> These are also not the only ones out there either, they are just the
closest
> to closing that I see. That's not terribly important right now and I don't
> want to get into a posting match over the cost of tea in China.
>
> Q: What are you currently using for a preamp to transcribe LPs?
> A: Right now, nothing.
>
> Arny, assuming an equilivant cost, what would you go with?
> Echo Mia + PP-2?
>
> OR
>
> TerraTec DMX 6Fire with the software RIAA?
>
>
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:tKSdnfpY-caOXgndRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > Jimmy The Clam wrote:
> > > Thank you very much TonyP!
> > > That is very helpful.
> > > The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the
> > > money where you notice the difference.
> >
> > What are you currently using for a preamp to transcribe LPs?
> >
> >
>
>