Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help with Sound Blaster Audigy mods

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:18:44 PM

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

I just installed a SB Audigy into my workshop PC. It is a significant
advance over the internal sound card, providing a good 20dB superior S/N
ratio. This will be quite useful for test purposes. Emboldened, I have my
heart (but not my bank balance) set on a Lynx, which seems to offer very
superior performance.

Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558 ICs. It
would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should fit quite
nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?

TIA


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:32:19 PM

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
> performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558
ICs. It
> would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
> something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should
fit quite
> nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?

I found a good datasheet on OP275, but only sketchy info on the 4558.
It looks like the OP275 has lower voltage noise but probably higher
current noise. Thus, the noise tradeoff would depend on the exact
application circuit. In terms of other factors, the OP275 has a higher
slew rate, but the 4558 has sufficient slew rate for competent
performance.

Seems like a toss-up. Worth considering is the OPA2134. Of course there
comes a point where your dynamic range is determined by your
microphones and recording space. Improving the measured performance
might be fun from a hobby standpoint (never one to discourage this,
since I am an electronics hobbyist myself), but of minimal practical
value.

One experiment might be to ground the input of the analog-to-digital
converter and see if the noise floor goes down. If it does not, then
superior op amps won't improve matters.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:40:53 PM

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

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:18:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>I just installed a SB Audigy into my workshop PC. It is a significant
>advance over the internal sound card, providing a good 20dB superior S/N
>ratio. This will be quite useful for test purposes. Emboldened, I have my
>heart (but not my bank balance) set on a Lynx, which seems to offer very
>superior performance.
>
>Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
>performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558 ICs. It
>would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
>something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should fit quite
>nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?

Is it worth it? The Audigy's system of resampling everything
internally to 48KHz count it out as a quality card, though it has
useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
an Audigy), why not install one.
Related resources
February 5, 2005 3:40:54 PM

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

Any recommendations on what you would consider a better card?


"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nif901tntj47su5hbkbd153i89joq7979l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:18:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
....

> Is it worth it? The Audigy's system of resampling everything
> internally to 48KHz count it out as a quality card, though it has
> useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
> an Audigy), why not install one.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:12:11 PM

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

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

> Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
> performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558 ICs. It
> would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
> something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should fit
> quite nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?


I would question the point of oputting any effort into this, considering the
amount of dickery that goes on in this range of cards (compulsory SRC in
DSP, etc).


geoff
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:13:56 PM

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

"Morris" <don't_spam_me@msn.com> wrote in message
news:o Y-dnf2yMPhVeJnfRVn-vA@rogers.com...
> Any recommendations on what you would consider a better card?
>
>
> "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nif901tntj47su5hbkbd153i89joq7979l@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:18:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>> Is it worth it? The Audigy's system of resampling everything
>> internally to 48KHz count it out as a quality card, though it has
>> useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
>> an Audigy), why not install one.


Audiphile 2496 . Soundtrax (Hoontech) range., etc, etc.


geoff
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:53:03 PM

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

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:24:21 -0500, "Morris" <don't_spam_me@msn.com>
wrote:

>Any recommendations on what you would consider a better card?

The classic good, cheap card is the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 pci. At
the current price, it's a steal.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:48:48 AM

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

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:420528c7@clear.net.nz...
> >> useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
> >> an Audigy), why not install one.

Agreed.

> Audiphile 2496 . Soundtrax (Hoontech) range., etc, etc.

Try the ESI Juli@. Best bang for the buck IMO.

MrT.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:51:04 AM

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

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4205285e@clear.net.nz...
> I would question the point of oputting any effort into this, considering
the
> amount of dickery that goes on in this range of cards (compulsory SRC in
> DSP, etc).

It's a bloody game card not a test/measurement card. However the SRC is a
red herring. Just use it at it's designed rate, NOT 44.1!

MrT.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:51:05 AM

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

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:51:04 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>It's a bloody game card not a test/measurement card. However the SRC is a
>red herring. Just use it at it's designed rate, NOT 44.1!

Fine, if that suits your needs. In practice, it's largely a 44.1KHz
world out there.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 4:08:28 PM

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

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rsic01lps1bm7uqhhh5kjs2i93ob9lvifr@4ax.com...
> >It's a bloody game card not a test/measurement card. However the SRC is a
> >red herring. Just use it at it's designed rate, NOT 44.1!
>
> Fine, if that suits your needs. In practice, it's largely a 44.1KHz
> world out there.

NOT for test/measurement purposes it's NOT!

MrT.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:17:11 AM

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

<elephantcelebes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107570739.165129.222670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
>> performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558
> ICs. It
>> would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
>> something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should
> fit quite
>> nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?
>
> I found a good datasheet on OP275, but only sketchy info on the 4558.
> It looks like the OP275 has lower voltage noise but probably higher
> current noise. Thus, the noise tradeoff would depend on the exact
> application circuit. In terms of other factors, the OP275 has a higher
> slew rate, but the 4558 has sufficient slew rate for competent
> performance.

**Perhaps, but the card is not to used for listening. It is for test
purposes.

>
> Seems like a toss-up. Worth considering is the OPA2134.

**Certainly. Unfortunately, I have no SOIC versions of the 2134 to hand. I
only have 275s.

Of course there
> comes a point where your dynamic range is determined by your
> microphones and recording space. Improving the measured performance
> might be fun from a hobby standpoint (never one to discourage this,
> since I am an electronics hobbyist myself), but of minimal practical
> value.

**Wrong. It may have great practical value. I wish to lower the THD and
noise floor of the card as far as possible. And again: The card will not be
used for listening.

>
> One experiment might be to ground the input of the analog-to-digital
> converter and see if the noise floor goes down. If it does not, then
> superior op amps won't improve matters.

**Perhaps.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:17:59 AM

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

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nif901tntj47su5hbkbd153i89joq7979l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:18:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I just installed a SB Audigy into my workshop PC. It is a significant
>>advance over the internal sound card, providing a good 20dB superior S/N
>>ratio. This will be quite useful for test purposes. Emboldened, I have my
>>heart (but not my bank balance) set on a Lynx, which seems to offer very
>>superior performance.
>>
>>Here's the problem: I don't have a PCI extender card, so I have not
>>performed any tests on the SB card, but I notice quite a few 4558 ICs. It
>>would seem prudent and not too onerous a task to replace these with
>>something a little better (I have a OP275s on hand, so they should fit
>>quite
>>nicely). Has anyone modded the Audigy and what results were found?
>
> Is it worth it? The Audigy's system of resampling everything
> internally to 48KHz count it out as a quality card, though it has
> useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
> an Audigy), why not install one.

**I did not realise that about the Audigy. I guess I'll need to start saving
for that Lynx.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:45:13 PM

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

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:36v2f9F56ccb3U1@individual.net...
> > Is it worth it? The Audigy's system of resampling everything
> > internally to 48KHz count it out as a quality card, though it has
> > useful features. As better cards are so cheap, (often cheaper than
> > an Audigy), why not install one.

Use it at 48kHz!
BTW, I don't think that applies to the Audigy 2 anyway?

> **I did not realise that about the Audigy. I guess I'll need to start
saving
> for that Lynx.

There are plenty of better cards than the SBA's for less money than the
Lynx.
(Many less than the SBA2!)

Just pick the level of performance you need. If you can justify the Lynx,
buy it.

MrT.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:30:54 PM

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

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:45:13 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>Use it at 48kHz!
>BTW, I don't think that applies to the Audigy 2 anyway?

As I heard it, we hoped it wouldn't, but it does.

I suspect it may be a difficult-to-avoid side effect of having an
onboard synth and SoundFont player. That will require a known and
fixed clock?
!