Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question on Santa Cruz sound card

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 7:48:27 PM

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

Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
programmable, changing another jack to this function).

1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND an
SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.

2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and other
audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode over
there.

I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding, which
makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 3:32:52 AM

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

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
<mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:

>Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
>programmable, changing another jack to this function).
>
>1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND an
>SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
>
>2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
>like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and other
>audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode over
>there.
>
>I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
>questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding, which
>makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.

Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 3:32:53 AM

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

>Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.

I'll check it out.

mz

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jnlje01q46d7o1m7fq17f3in1eu955kcm1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
> <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:
>
> >Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
> >programmable, changing another jack to this function).
> >
> >1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND an
> >SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
> >
> >2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
> >like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and
other
> >audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode
over
> >there.
> >
> >I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
> >questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding,
which
> >makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.
>
> Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 4:11:53 AM

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

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:32:52 +0100, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
><mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:
>
>>Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
>>programmable, changing another jack to this function).
>>
>>1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND an
>>SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
>>
>>2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
>>like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and other
>>audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode over
>>there.
>>
>>I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
>>questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding, which
>>makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.
>
>Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster

Abbedd
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 4:11:54 AM

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

"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o grje0144b4v1mh9e9laa9th9qfnp8f14d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:32:52 +0100, Laurence Payne
> <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
> ><mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:
> >
> >>Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
> >>programmable, changing another jack to this function).
> >>
> >>1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND
an
> >>SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
> >>
> >>2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
> >>like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and
other
> >>audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode
over
> >>there.
> >>
> >>I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
> >>questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding,
which
> >>makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.
> >
> >Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>
> Abbedd
>

Well, that's not encouraging!

mz

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 4:18:44 AM

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

ansermetniac wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:32:52 +0100, Laurence Payne
> <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
>><mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
>>>programmable, changing another jack to this function).
>>>
>>>1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND an
>>>SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
>>>
>>>2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
>>>like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and other
>>>audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode over
>>>there.
>>>
>>>I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
>>>questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding, which
>>>makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.
>>
>>Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
>
> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>
> Abbedd
>
I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.

CD
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 8:53:41 AM

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

How about this:

Can anyone recommend a card that will simply give me optical and coaxial
digital audio outputs from my computer, that is, putting out whatever sound
the computer is doing in 44.1K 16 bit format? I simply want to be able to
shoot music, whether cd, WAV, MP3, whatever, over to the main stereo and use
a Denon D/A unit on that end. I'd prefer optical, I think, to avoid ground
loops, and it'll need to go about 35 feet, so I need to confirm that a
Toslink cable can go that far.

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ccd8s1$h2j$1@news.interpublic.com...
> ansermetniac wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:32:52 +0100, Laurence Payne
> > <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
> >><mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs (maybe
> >>>programmable, changing another jack to this function).
> >>>
> >>>1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output AND
an
> >>>SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the other.
> >>>
> >>>2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and the
> >>>like, is output via the SPDIF. I would like to be able to send MP3 and
other
> >>>audio over to the main stereo in digital form if possible, and decode
over
> >>>there.
> >>>
> >>>I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
> >>>questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding,
which
> >>>makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement number 2.
> >>
> >>Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
> >
> > I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
> > it out and put back by Sound Blaster
> >
> > Abbedd
> >
> I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
> the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
> card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
> CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
> do other stuff.
>
> CD
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 3:36:53 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:2ktt4jF6e360U1@uni-berlin.de
> Been thinking about buying one, and I see it has 2 SPDIF outputs
> (maybe programmable, changing another jack to this function).
>
> 1. I need a card that will have available my regular analog output
> AND an SPDIF output simultaneously, not disabling one to get the
> other.

AFAIK, the TBSC does that.

> 2. Also, I need to know if any MP3 or other sound, besides .WAV and
> the like, is output via the SPDIF.

I'm quite sure the TBSC does that. It's the sound card in my office machine,
which is used for general audio playback. The power amp is a conventional
2-channel Pioneer receiver, so I don't have any immediate experience with
how the SP/DOF output works.

Beware of the comments about the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96. It's a fine card,
but AFAIK the analog and digital outputs are logically different audio
devices with separate interfaces for software to write data to.

> I would like to be able to send
> MP3 and other audio over to the main stereo in digital form if
> possible, and decode over there.

Shouldn't be a problem. However, the TBSC's digital output is 48 KHz, but
the resampling is of high enough quality.

> I've been looking over the Turtle beach site, and the answers to these
> questions aren't obvious - though they mention hardware MP3 decoding,
> which makes me lean toward believing that it does meet requirement
> number 2.

Actually, the MP3 decoding in the TBSC can be ignored. To activate it, you
need to use a special MP3 player that activates the feature. If you use
something like Winamp or CoolEdit, it acts just like any other sound card.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:29:41 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:2kub3nF6caceU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
> > it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC is better
than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as some would have
you believe)
They are both fairly cheap and old cards these days though.

> Well, that's not encouraging!

Says more about the person than the cards really.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:29:42 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
>news:2kub3nF6caceU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> > I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
>> > it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>
>60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC is better
>than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as some would have
>you believe)
>They are both fairly cheap and old cards these days though.
>
>> Well, that's not encouraging!
>
>Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
hearing.

Abbedd
Chief Engineer/Acoustician The Dave Guardala Companies
>
>TonyP.
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:29:43 PM

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

"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ienne0hakdvssbmhousqg2bpi8egirhbml@4ax.com

> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
> wrote:

>>"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:o grje0144b4v1mh9e9laa9th9qfnp8f14d@4ax.com

>>>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
>>>> took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

>> 60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
>> is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as
>> some would have you believe)
>> Says more about the person than the cards really.

> Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
> hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into pissing matches unless the listening
comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I invite one and all to
do DBTs of these cards and reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare either card
to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a straight wire. Just
download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:29:44 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ienne0hakdvssbmhousqg2bpi8egirhbml@4ax.com
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
>> wrote:
>
>>>"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o grje0144b4v1mh9e9laa9th9qfnp8f14d@4ax.com
>
>>>>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
>>>>> took it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>
>>> 60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
>>> is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as
>>> some would have you believe)
>>> Says more about the person than the cards really.
>
>> Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
>> hearing.
>
>Disucssions like this tend to turn into pissing matches unless the listening
>comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I invite one and all to
>do DBTs of these cards and reach their own conclusions.
>
>You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare either card
>to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a straight wire. Just
>download the test files and DBT comparators from:
>
>http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm
>
>http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm
>
>Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster. Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.


Abbedd
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:29:45 PM

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

"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4tne0hlc2tv3sstkvvi117nlafeov3ad2@4ax.com
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ienne0hakdvssbmhousqg2bpi8egirhbml@4ax.com
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:o grje0144b4v1mh9e9laa9th9qfnp8f14d@4ax.com
>>
>>>>>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
>>>>>> took it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>>
>>>> 60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
>>>> is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
>>>> as some would have you believe)
>>>> Says more about the person than the cards really.
>>
>>> Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
>>> am hearing.
>>
>> Disucssions like this tend to turn into pissing matches unless the
>> listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
>> invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
>> conclusions.
>>
>> You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
>> either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
>> straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

>> Let your ears be the judge!

> No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

> Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
> difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:32:51 PM

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

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ccd8s1$h2j$1@news.interpublic.com...
> I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
> the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
> card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
> CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
> do other stuff.

Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra money.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:32:52 PM

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

Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog in/outs,
I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without using adapters.
Just more clutter.

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:40ebb53d$0$25461$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ccd8s1$h2j$1@news.interpublic.com...
> > I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
> > the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
> > card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
> > CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
> > do other stuff.
>
> Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
> more time doing nothing.
> The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra
money.
>
> TonyP.
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:32:52 PM

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

TonyP wrote:
> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ccd8s1$h2j$1@news.interpublic.com...
>
>>I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
>>the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
>>card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
>>CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
>>do other stuff.
>
>
> Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
> more time doing nothing.
> The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra money.
>
> TonyP.
>
>
Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me:)  I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:32:53 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:2l220aF7nsqjU1@uni-berlin.de
> Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
> in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
> using adapters. Just more clutter.

Ironically, the Echo Mia, the Audiophile 2496 and the Delta 44 and Delta 66
all have unbalanced I/O. The TRS jacks are in effect, decoration.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 10:35:48 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:2kvb4tF6kd1aU1@uni-berlin.de...
> How about this:
>
> Can anyone recommend a card that will simply give me optical and coaxial
> digital audio outputs from my computer, that is, putting out whatever
sound
> the computer is doing in 44.1K 16 bit format? I simply want to be able to
> shoot music, whether cd, WAV, MP3, whatever, over to the main stereo and
use
> a Denon D/A unit on that end. I'd prefer optical, I think, to avoid ground
> loops, and it'll need to go about 35 feet, so I need to confirm that a
> Toslink cable can go that far.

Well optical rules out any of the cheap sound cards. You may be better off
using a co-ax to optical repeater which will probably have more chance at
driving the 35 foot cable as well.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 2:57:31 AM

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

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:11:53 GMT, ansermetniac
<ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
>it out and put back by Sound Blaster

Well, tell us why?

It's not top of my list. But it works. And, in basic operation,
shouldn't sound all that different to a SB.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 9:04:49 PM

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

ansermetniac wrote:
>> Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>

Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?

geoff
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 9:04:50 PM

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

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:04:49 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

>ansermetniac wrote:
>>> Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
>> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>>
>
>Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?
>
>geoff

Sorry can't hear you. Have my acoustical engineering patents stuck in
my ears.


Abbedd
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 12:44:08 PM

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

ansermetniac wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:04:49 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
> <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
>> ansermetniac wrote:
>>>> Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
>>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
>>> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>>>
>>
>> Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?
>>
>> geoff
>
> Sorry can't hear you. Have my acoustical engineering patents stuck in
> my ears.

Even George Martin is deaf nowadays ...

geoff
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 12:44:09 PM

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

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:44:08 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

>ansermetniac wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:04:49 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
>> <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> ansermetniac wrote:
>>>>> Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
>>>> I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
>>>> it out and put back by Sound Blaster
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> Sorry can't hear you. Have my acoustical engineering patents stuck in
>> my ears.
>
>Even George Martin is deaf nowadays ...

Yes, his remastering of the Beatles' CDs is a disgrace. But that is
because he is an alter kaker. I am only 44

Abbedd
>
>geoff
>
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:19:39 PM

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

"ansermetniac" <ansermetniac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ienne0hakdvssbmhousqg2bpi8egirhbml@4ax.com...
> >Says more about the person than the cards really.
>
> Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
> hearing.

Since you admit you never even tried to get it working properly, there could
be a million reasons why it sounded bad to you.
However measured performance is definitely better for a SC in proper working
condition Vs a SB Live also working properly.
I have measured both many times. There are much better cards available if
you were really worried, which obviously you are not.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:31:07 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Xu6dnc1AaJHrfnbdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
> news:2l220aF7nsqjU1@uni-berlin.de
> > Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
> > in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
> > using adapters. Just more clutter.

You need some sort of lead anyway, where's the problem?
I bet the pre-amp probably uses RCA's and the TB-SC doesn't have those!

> Ironically, the Echo Mia, the Audiophile 2496 and the Delta 44 and Delta
66
> all have unbalanced I/O. The TRS jacks are in effect, decoration.

Yes, sad isn't it. Performance does not seem to be compromised though, so
it's irrelevant to most people.

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:31:08 PM

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:40ee57d4$0$25460$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Xu6dnc1AaJHrfnbdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> > "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
> > news:2l220aF7nsqjU1@uni-berlin.de
> > > Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
> > > in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
> > > using adapters. Just more clutter.
>
> You need some sort of lead anyway, where's the problem?
> I bet the pre-amp probably uses RCA's and the TB-SC doesn't have those!

No, but I can use a direct adapter cable from the RCA to 1/8" stereo mini
plug with no other adapters, transformers, or the like. Slight compromise
possibly, but one I've used often before and feel I can live with.

Mark Z.

>
> snip>
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:31:09 PM

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

Once again, I need about a 35 feet digital audio connection from my computer
to the main stereo.
The system connections would go something like this:

TB analog input to the rec out of the preamp. TB analog output it tape input
of preamp. This allows normal record/play of analog sources from the preamp
to the computer, and monitoring of same there at the computer.

At the same time, I need a digital connection for when I wish to make the
sound card output available to the main stereo, approximately 35 feet away
(as the cable runs, so to speak).
I presently run a shielded stereo cable that distance, and it works OK,
since the main system is ungrounded, there's no particular hum problem, but
I believe the sound is compromised by the cable length etc.

So anyway, it appears from my Googling exploits that optical cables of the
length I was wanting don't exist. I see 12-footers, and couplers, but I
really doubt that three cables and 2 couplers is the way to go.

So, any problems with a coaxial digital connection of this length? It wasn't
my first choice, but I could probably live with it. Plus, I could make use
of a Denon D/A converter I already own.

Or, another thought. Are any of these 2.4 gHz transmitters any good?


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.

>snip>
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:31:09 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message news:2l7c47F9ciqvU1@uni-berlin.de...
:
:
: I apologize in advance that I'm a bit murky on the subject of balanced vs.
: unbalanced. From what I can see, however, a direct connection from
: unbalanced to balanced, as you seem to suggest, is much less than ideal.
:
: I Googled the subject, and came up with this:
:
: www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an003.pdf
:
:
: Which recommends the use of transformers, modifications to existing output
: circuits, etc.
:
: I was wishing to avoid this type of thing. Surely a phone plug gives better
: connection, all things being equal, but simply tying one side of the
: balanced line to ground bothers me. Should it not?

Did you ever listen to a tube amp? One side of the output transformer is usually grounded when
it could be balanced if the designer so wished. The other side of a balanced line output
transformer or a balanced mic input transformer is grounded.

Phil Abbate
:
:
: Mark Z.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:31:10 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message news:2l78ktF9ej8hU1@uni-berlin.de...
: Once again, I need about a 35 feet digital audio connection from my computer
: to the main stereo.
: The system connections would go something like this:
:
: TB analog input to the rec out of the preamp. TB analog output it tape input
: of preamp. This allows normal record/play of analog sources from the preamp
: to the computer, and monitoring of same there at the computer.
:
: At the same time, I need a digital connection for when I wish to make the
: sound card output available to the main stereo, approximately 35 feet away
: (as the cable runs, so to speak).

I have been running Spdif out of an M-Audio 2496 usb to a theta probasic IIIA converter via
the 30' AUDIO cable that came with a Paradigm x30 subwoofer crossover for about a year with no
problem at all. I also used the same type cable to run the output of a SBL livedrive (now in
the attic) to the same probasic IIIa as well as the output from my Fostex VF16 which is
converted to coax with a 15 dollar toslink to coax converter with no problems. I also used the
same cable to go from the Theta SPDIF out and back into the fostex and SBL.
Try it and report.

Phil Abbate

: Mark Z.
:
: --
: Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
: have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
:
: >snip>
:
:
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 10:40:36 PM

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

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cchnme$1s5m$1@news.interpublic.com...
> Why not? I'd like to know that when I set the card to a certain sampling
> rate/bit depth, that's what I'm getting, not some artificially
> re-created samples. And to take it further, what's to say that when I
> set my WDM driven TBSC to 44.1/16, a rate that it can do, this data is
> not being re-sampled either?

If the measurements I obtain from the card are as good as I expect, then I
don't really care.
There are a few cards around that do native 24/96 and yet have a frequency
response below 40 kHz, that sort of thing worries me too. Why save all the
extra samples if you still can't make use of them?

TonyP.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 1:42:20 AM

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

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 05:59:23 -0500, "Mark D. Zacharias"
<mzacharias@yis.us> wrote:

>I apologize in advance that I'm a bit murky on the subject of balanced vs.
>unbalanced. From what I can see, however, a direct connection from
>unbalanced to balanced, as you seem to suggest, is much less than ideal.
>
>I Googled the subject, and came up with this:
>
>www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an003.pdf
>
>
>Which recommends the use of transformers, modifications to existing output
>circuits, etc.
>
>I was wishing to avoid this type of thing. Surely a phone plug gives better
>connection, all things being equal, but simply tying one side of the
>balanced line to ground bothers me. Should it not?

At line level, not really. You'd lose the common-mode rejection of a
balanced connection. But noisy connections aren't often a problem at
line level.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 8:45:45 PM

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

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:2l7c47F9ciqvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> I was wishing to avoid this type of thing. Surely a phone plug gives
better
> connection, all things being equal, but simply tying one side of the
> balanced line to ground bothers me. Should it not?

No since they are not really balanced in the first place. Even if they were,
you would be no worse off tying one side to ground than using an unbalanced
system anyway. The transformers are necessary where you need to maintain
common mode rejection.

Why don't you read the manufacturers data sheets, it probably tells you that
connection is perfectly acceptable at line levels with normal length cables.

TonyP.
!