Recording Sound Cards

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

"Steve-o" <sh48_97@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83218b17.0407200424.b5cd9c5@posting.google.com
> Hi All;
>
> I am looking into recording my band (nothing too crazy quality wise).
> I have been browsing around and finding 8-10 channel sound cards and I
> am wondering which ones are the best? I am not looking to spend too
> much as I am just looking to play around with this for a little while
> so whichever card will give me the best sound/money would be cool.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Cards I am looking at:
> M-Audio Delta 1010LT
> M-Audio Delta 1010

http://www.republika.pl/sklep_akutech/pomiary/karty/del...

The big difference between these two is that the 1010 has true balanced
inputs, and the 1010LT has two inputs that can be strapped as phantom-less
mic inputs. There's about a 2:1 difference in price.

A number of people around here use 1010s including myself. They basically
just work, but command little respect in the boutique market.

> C-Port DSP 2000 MultiChannel System

Looks a lot like the guts of a 1010LT in a box that looks like a 1010.

> Edirol FA-101 Unlike the others, its a Firewire box, not a PCI box.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20040510/101_48....

Interesting counterpoint:

http://www.kordak.net/0404/results.htm

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:GvKdnbvvNoHCx2DdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
http://www.republika.pl/sklep_akutech/pomiary/karty/del...
10_24_44.htm

The graphs show a large amount of mains interference. Is that the case with
yours Arny, or is it poor test procedure?
Can it be fixed, if so how.

TonyP

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:40fe018e$0$18190$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:GvKdnbvvNoHCx2DdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>
http://www.republika.pl/sklep_akutech/pomiary/karty/del...
> 10_24_44.htm

> The graphs show a large amount of mains interference. Is that the
> case with yours Arny, or is it poor test procedure?

Looks like a marginal cable. Note the spike around 15 KHz.

My 1010 is at my remote site, so I can't just pop in a cable and double
check. My recordings from it show the footprint of Mackie mic preamps, lots
of cable and open mics.

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

Arny,
I hope you can help me. I have been learning about ways to record my
6'1" Grand piano (see thread:
news:49b94fcf.0407171031.56ad3057@posting.google.com
I checked out your website. It's great, but I'm really a novice in
recording. Could you suggest some cards that would be suitable for my
use? I plan on buying 2 Behringer B-5 mikes and the Mackie 1202.
Thanks,
Frank

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

"Frank Mazzola" <fmzep@aol.com> wrote in message
news:49b94fcf.0407220856.5d19c3b3@posting.google.com
> Arny,
> I hope you can help me. I have been learning about ways to record my
> 6'1" Grand piano (see thread:

> news:49b94fcf.0407171031.56ad3057@posting.google.com
> I checked out your website. It's great, but I'm really a novice in
> recording. Could you suggest some cards that would be suitable for my
> use? I plan on buying 2 Behringer B-5 mikes and the Mackie 1202.

What have you got, and what do you want to spend?

If money is an issue, I'd rather see you blow your wad on mics.

The existing sound card in your PC might work for you, depending on what it
is.

If you're in the US. The Turtle Beach Santa Cruz is the cheapest PCI card
I'd recommend for a PC.

Right now there's a Terratec card - the Phase 22 - that's on sale for about
$120 and looks really good on paper and has some good informal reports. If
you are in Europe, this might be the better, cheaper way to go.

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

> What have you got, and what do you want to spend?
>
> If money is an issue, I'd rather see you blow your wad on mics.
>
> The existing sound card in your PC might work for you, depending on what it
> is.
>
> If you're in the US. The Turtle Beach Santa Cruz is the cheapest PCI card
> I'd recommend for a PC.
>
> Right now there's a Terratec card - the Phase 22 - that's on sale for about
> $120 and looks really good on paper and has some good informal reports. If
> you are in Europe, this might be the better, cheaper way to go.

Thanks Arny,
I don't have a huge budget but I can spend $1500-2000 for the whole
setup. I have a Soundblaster Live (not one of your favorites). I
know I'm not buying $5,000 microphones, but I want to make sure the
card is not the limiting factor.
-Frank

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zsadnQjdRu66_mPdRVn-oA@comcast.com
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:40fe018e$0$18190$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:GvKdnbvvNoHCx2DdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>
>
http://www.republika.pl/sklep_akutech/pomiary/karty/del...
>> 10_24_44.htm
>
>> The graphs show a large amount of mains interference. Is that the
>> case with yours Arny, or is it poor test procedure?
>
> Looks like a marginal cable. Note the spike around 15 KHz.
>
> My 1010 is at my remote site, so I can't just pop in a cable and
> double check. My recordings from it show the footprint of Mackie mic
> preamps, lots of cable and open mics.

I had a chance to drop by my remote site and run a number of tests on the
1010. I found some power line noise, but it was about 110 dB down, or about
30 dB lower than the test shown above.

Here's a link to my test results:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm

My tests were done at +4, BTW.

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

Steve-o wrote:

>Hi All;
>
>I am looking into recording my band (nothing too crazy quality wise).
>I have been browsing around and finding 8-10 channel sound cards and I
>am wondering which ones are the best? I am not looking to spend too
>much as I am just looking to play around with this for a little while
>so whichever card will give me the best sound/money would be cool.
>Any help would be appreciated.


>C-Port DSP 2000 MultiChannel System

I borrowed this one for awhile - I found it very noisy although I've been told
it's not. It's cheap but I'd pass on it.






Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

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

Stev-o wrote:

>i All;
>
>I am looking into recording my band (nothing too crazy quality wise).
>I have been browsing around and finding 8-10 channel sound cards and I
>am wondering which ones are the best? I am not looking to spend too
>much as I am just looking to play around with this for a little while
>so whichever card will give me the best sound/money would be cool.
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Cards I am looking at:
>M-Audio Delta 1010LT
>M-Audio Delta 1010
>C-Port DSP 2000 MultiChannel System
>Edirol FA-101
>
>Thanks;
>Steve-o
>
>

How about a Digi 002 Rack?

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:n9SdnbtGSY37yp3cRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> I had a chance to drop by my remote site and run a number of tests on the
> 1010. I found some power line noise, but it was about 110 dB down, or
about
> 30 dB lower than the test shown above.
>
> Here's a link to my test results:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm
>
> My tests were done at +4, BTW.

Many thanks Arny, they look a lot better. The 16/44 FR is a bit surprising
and the droop at 20 kHz in 24/96 mode even more so. I bet that one is
something to do with RMAA though.

TonyP.

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4100c467$0$25462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:n9SdnbtGSY37yp3cRVn-sQ@comcast.com...

>> I had a chance to drop by my remote site and run a number of tests
>> on the 1010. I found some power line noise, but it was about 110 dB
>> down, or about 30 dB lower than the test shown above.

>> Here's a link to my test results:

>> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm

>> My tests were done at +4, BTW.

> Many thanks Arny, they look a lot better.

> The 16/44 FR is a bit surprising

I've seen that sort of thing before in other cards.

>and the droop at 20 kHz in 24/96 mode even more so.

(1) AFAIK, the Delta cards expose a number of AKM codec chip (in this case a
single chip that contains the ADC & DAC) parameters through the drivers.
Things like FR can and have changed from release to release of the drivers.
There were some big mistakes in some of the early drivers.

(2) It is stylish to put gentle slopes on 24/96 cards to avoid the *feared*
audible artifacts of brick wall filters.

> I bet that one is something to do with RMAA though.

IME RMAA is pretty clean at this point. If it says it, its probably
happening.

Look at any of the RMAA Lynxtwo tests...

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/lynx-two-b-1644.html

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/lynx-two-b-2496.html

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/lynx-two-b-32192.html

Notes:

At the remote site I found the results of RMAA tests done 14 months ago.
They were somewhat different. Nothing big enough to be audible, but a bit
different. Two things had changed - the driver release and the fact that for
the second tests, the 1010 was fully lashed up to the SR system and a slaved
Delta 66 (except for the two channels tested), while the origional tests
were of a naked box.

Also, the 1010 vastly outperformed the Delta 66 even though they are using
the same drivers. 1010 noise was 10 dB better, and DR was 17 dB better in 24
bit mode.

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:IPudnWDjR5xBVJ3cRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> (1) AFAIK, the Delta cards expose a number of AKM codec chip (in this case
a
> single chip that contains the ADC & DAC) parameters through the drivers.
> Things like FR can and have changed from release to release of the
drivers.
> There were some big mistakes in some of the early drivers.

Yes I'd heard that, but was told everything was fixed now. Obviously not
quite.

> (2) It is stylish to put gentle slopes on 24/96 cards to avoid the
*feared*
> audible artifacts of brick wall filters.

I cant see how you could roll off the FR with the slope shown at 20kHz, and
still get anywhere near the response claimed by M-audio for 96kHz sample
rate.
I will be checking mine properly as soon as it arrives.

> IME RMAA is pretty clean at this point. If it says it, its probably
> happening.
> Look at any of the RMAA Lynxtwo tests...

OK, something is not right though.

> Also, the 1010 vastly outperformed the Delta 66 even though they are using
> the same drivers. 1010 noise was 10 dB better, and DR was 17 dB better in
24
> bit mode.

That's pretty significant!
BTW is yours a 1010 or 1010LT?

Thanks again.
TonyP.

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4100ce41$0$12389$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:IPudnWDjR5xBVJ3cRVn-iQ@comcast.com...

>> (1) AFAIK, the Delta cards expose a number of AKM codec chip (in
>> this case a single chip that contains the ADC & DAC) parameters
>> through the drivers. Things like FR can and have changed from
>> release to release of the drivers. There were some big mistakes in
>> some of the early drivers.

> Yes I'd heard that, but was told everything was fixed now. Obviously
> not quite.

Perhaps. I haven't got the latest drivers installed at the remote site. See
more comments below.

>> (2) It is stylish to put gentle slopes on 24/96 cards to avoid the
>> *feared* audible artifacts of brick wall filters.

> I cant see how you could roll off the FR with the slope shown at
> 20kHz, and still get anywhere near the response claimed by M-audio
> for 96kHz sample rate.

Recheck http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm !

> I will be checking mine properly as soon as it arrives.
>
>> IME RMAA is pretty clean at this point. If it says it, its probably
>> happening.
>> Look at any of the RMAA Lynxtwo tests...
>
> OK, something is not right though.

Could be. I did have some problems when I first fired the system up for
these tests. I'll recheck it next time I'm on site. The tests from 14 months
ago don't show the ripples.

>> Also, the 1010 vastly outperformed the Delta 66 even though they are
>> using the same drivers. 1010 noise was 10 dB better, and DR was 17
>> dB better in 24 bit mode.
>
> That's pretty significant!
> BTW is yours a 1010 or 1010LT?

I have one of each 1010, 66, and 1010LT. The 1010LT is new. I bought the
1010LT to expand the system that currently has the 1010 and 66.

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

> I had a chance to drop by my remote site and run a number of tests on the
> 1010. I found some power line noise, but it was about 110 dB down, or about
> 30 dB lower than the test shown above.
>
> Here's a link to my test results:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm
>
> My tests were done at +4, BTW.


Great site! I've been waiting to see a RMAA test(or other) on the
1010. I searched the RMAA site and strangely noone's done it there
yet, or at least not posted.

I'm confused about your chart on the 1010 which lists FR as "very
good," but the chart on the "Sound Card Comparator" page lists it as
"excellent." Is this a typo or do I not understand your ratings
system?

Any chance of testing any MOTU stuff any time soon?

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:HK2dnSQfw9c4T53cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4100ce41$0$12389$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> > I cant see how you could roll off the FR with the slope shown at
> > 20kHz, and still get anywhere near the response claimed by M-audio
> > for 96kHz sample rate.
>
> Recheck http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm !

Yes I did. No matter how I extrapolate the graph I cant get -0.7 dB at 40
kHz as claimed by M-Audio.
Still, it's not something I'm worried about at all!

> I have one of each 1010, 66, and 1010LT. The 1010LT is new. I bought the
> 1010LT to expand the system that currently has the 1010 and 66.

OK, I guess that means the test was done on the 1010 then?
Would be interesting to compare with the LT if you get a chance.

TonyP.

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4100db2c$0$18667$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:HK2dnSQfw9c4T53cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4100ce41$0$12389$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>>> I cant see how you could roll off the FR with the slope shown at
>>> 20kHz, and still get anywhere near the response claimed by M-audio
>>> for 96kHz sample rate.

>> Recheck http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm !

> Yes I did. No matter how I extrapolate the graph I cant get -0.7 dB
> at 40 kHz as claimed by M-Audio.

No extrapolations should be necessary, as this morning I added a chart that
goes out to 45 KHz or so.

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/1010_2496...

But, you're right, no way is it -0.7 dB down at 40 KHz. More like 3 dB down
which is what I expected.

> Still, it's not something I'm worried about at all!
>
>> I have one of each 1010, 66, and 1010LT. The 1010LT is new. I
>> bought the 1010LT to expand the system that currently has the 1010
>> and 66.

> OK, I guess that means the test was done on the 1010 then?

Yes.

> Would be interesting to compare with the LT if you get a chance.

Will do as soon as I get some results.

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4100db2c$0$18667$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:HK2dnSQfw9c4T53cRVn-pg@comcast.com...

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/

> OK, I guess that means the test was done on the 1010 then?

Yes.

> Would be interesting to compare with the LT if you get a chance.

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010lt/

Long story short - good enough but not as good.

BTW, these are with the most recent drivers.

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

"ap" <ashley.powell@att.net> wrote in message
news e430161.0407231815.73d4f0c9@posting.google.com
>> I had a chance to drop by my remote site and run a number of tests
>> on the 1010. I found some power line noise, but it was about 110 dB
>> down, or about 30 dB lower than the test shown above.
>>
>> Here's a link to my test results:
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010/index.htm
>>
>> My tests were done at +4, BTW.
>
>
> Great site! I've been waiting to see a RMAA test(or other) on the
> 1010. I searched the RMAA site and strangely noone's done it there
> yet, or at least not posted.
>
> I'm confused about your chart on the 1010 which lists FR as "very
> good," but the chart on the "Sound Card Comparator" page lists it as
> "excellent." Is this a typo or do I not understand your ratings
> system?

The ratings on the page are by RMAA.

The rating on the comparator is my opinion.

> Any chance of testing any MOTU stuff any time soon?

I only test what I have in my posession, almost all which I bought for my
own use.

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:r_qdncRpN979gpzc4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4100db2c$0$18667$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> > Would be interesting to compare with the LT if you get a chance.
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010lt/
> Long story short - good enough but not as good.
> BTW, these are with the most recent drivers.

Many thanks Arny, looks good enough for me. Have ordered one :-)
(BTW, what are the latest drivers, I can't seem to negotiate the flash
nightmare they call a web site, so I hope they come in the box.)

TonyP.

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

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:410523b0$0$25461$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:r_qdncRpN979gpzc4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4100db2c$0$18667$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>>> Would be interesting to compare with the LT if you get a chance.
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/delta-1010lt/
>> Long story short - good enough but not as good.
>> BTW, these are with the most recent drivers.

> Many thanks Arny, looks good enough for me. Have ordered one :-)
> (BTW, what are the latest drivers, I can't seem to negotiate the flash
> nightmare they call a web site, so I hope they come in the box.)

I used something called Delta_1007_web.exe

Go to http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.driverlicen... to
bypass all the flashy trashy stuff.

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:c_CdnVVobOjhq5jcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Go to http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.driverlicen... to
> bypass all the flashy trashy stuff.

Thanks once more Arny, but that link still tries to download and install
flash on my computer, and just goes around in a loop if I click No.
M-audio were no help either.

It really annoys me that a company would go out of it's way to make things
difficult for their customers :-(
Flash is an abomination for dial up IMO. Real Web authors provide a non
flash alternative.

Fortunately it seems their cards are better than their web site.

TonyP.

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

TonyP wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:c_CdnVVobOjhq5jcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>> Go to
>> http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.driverlicen... to
>> bypass all the flashy trashy stuff.
>
> Thanks once more Arny, but that link still tries to download and
> install flash on my computer, and just goes around in a loop if I
> click No. M-audio were no help either.
>
> It really annoys me that a company would go out of it's way to make
> things difficult for their customers :-(
> Flash is an abomination for dial up IMO. Real Web authors provide a
> non flash alternative.
>
> Fortunately it seems their cards are better than their web site.


Agreed. Remember the expression 'a flash Harry' and it's connotations !

geoff

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

If all these cards test with such high specs- seemingly above and
beyond the ability to hear- how can one sound better the other? How
can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
any better?

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

ap <ashley.powell@att.net> wrote:
>If all these cards test with such high specs- seemingly above and
>beyond the ability to hear- how can one sound better the other? How
>can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
>any better?

Don't let Phil hear you ask that question!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <de430161.0408020731.7b568f8c@posting.google.com> ashley.powell@att.net writes:

> If all these cards test with such high specs- seemingly above and
> beyond the ability to hear- how can one sound better the other?

They don't test (and specify) what you hear.

> How
> can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
> any better?

Better accuracy.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1091474320k@trad>...
> In article <de430161.0408020731.7b568f8c@posting.google.com> ashley.powell@att.net writes:
>
> > If all these cards test with such high specs- seemingly above and
> > beyond the ability to hear- how can one sound better the other?
>
> They don't test (and specify) what you hear.
>
> > How
> > can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
> > any better?
>
> Better accuracy.


So what else should be tested, assuming it's even possible? Am I
correct in assuming all the other stuff- freq response, THD, dynamic
range etc.- is important, it's just that most pro-sumer cards are good
enough in those areas?

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

ap <ashley.powell@att.net> wrote:
>
>So what else should be tested, assuming it's even possible? Am I
>correct in assuming all the other stuff- freq response, THD, dynamic
>range etc.- is important, it's just that most pro-sumer cards are good
>enough in those areas?

Right.

Take a look at settling times and monotonicity specs to begin with.
There used to be a nice discussion in the Crystal Semi databook on
various measurements of converters and how they affect sound.

Looking at sidebands of pure tones is always interesting. And looking
at the noise floor spectrum tells you a whole lot more than just a scalar
dynamic range number.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <de430161.0408031025.79ff89d7@posting.google.com> ashley.powell@att.net writes:

> So what else should be tested, assuming it's even possible?

It depends on if you're in the Engineering department or the Marketing
department. Engineering likes to know what they've built, Marketing
doesn't want anyting published that makes their product look like it
might be different than any other product on the market. Publishing a
spec like converter linearity at low levels will make all but a few
worry about what they're hiding since nobody else specifies it.

> Am I
> correct in assuming all the other stuff- freq response, THD, dynamic
> range etc.- is important, it's just that most pro-sumer cards are good
> enough in those areas?

Yes. In fact it's hard to find a bad card these days if you stick to
those designed for audio recording rather than games and multimedia
glitz. There are of course better ones, but for home use it's hard to
go wrong with whatever you can afford.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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

"ap" <ashley.powell@att.net> wrote in message
news e430161.0408031025.79ff89d7@posting.google.com...

> > > How
> > > can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
> > > any better?
> >
> > Better accuracy.
>
>
> So what else should be tested, assuming it's even possible? Am I
> correct in assuming all the other stuff- freq response, THD, dynamic
> range etc.- is important, it's just that most pro-sumer cards are good
> enough in those areas?

THD is essentially a useless figure. Looking at the spectrum of the harmonic
distortion produced can be instructive, though. Intermodulation distortion
figures can be useful, too; look at the tests Arny has published on his
website for some comparisons.

Peace,
Paul

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

"ap" <ashley.powell@att.net> wrote in message
news e430161.0408031025.79ff89d7@posting.google.com

> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message
> news:<znr1091474320k@trad>...

>> In article <de430161.0408020731.7b568f8c@posting.google.com>
>> ashley.powell@att.net writes:

>>> If all these cards test with such high specs- seemingly above and
>>> beyond the ability to hear- how can one sound better the other?

>> They don't test (and specify) what you hear.

This has been argued for decades, mostly for power amps. Having spent a log
of time carefully testing and listening to power amps and audio interfaces,
IME audio interfaces are the far easier of the two to characterize.

In fact audio interfaces are now among the most technicall perfect of all
kinds of audio gear. A LynxTWO or L22 plus analytical software can measure
audio technical purity at a level that is someplace around Audio Precision's
current best and one generation back.

Here's what I found when I tested a LynxTWO:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm

There's a gosh-awful lot of leading zeroes there, and that's for both analog
and digital conversion back-to-back. All things being equal, each half of
the card should have about 3 dB better dynamic range, and about half the
distortion. 0.015 dB frequency response, 118 dB dynamic rnage and 0.00008%
distortion are tough numbers to beat.

The best computer audio interfaces are basically buffers, converters, and a
digital interface. AFAIK they are all based on off-the-shelf analog buffer
chips and converter chips, parts you find in catalogs from AKM and Crystal,
for example.

Some of the *name* dedicated converters use the same chips, others use
proprietary chips or even discrete parts. Remember that you can't build a
SOTA converter purely out of discrete parts, so there have to be some chips
in there someplace.

>>> How can any dedicated converter, apogee, mytec, prism, lavry etc., sound
>>> any better?

>> Better accuracy.

There are two issues - measured accuracy and sonic accuracy. In terms of
measured accuracy, it seems that some of the equipment just mentioned can
perform better than the best computer interfaces. Unfortunately, there
aren't a lot of published independent technical tests of these dedicated
converters.

0.015 dB frequency response, 118 dB dynamic range and 0.00008% distortion
are tough numbers to beat. You get 8 copies of that, 4 round-trips, for
under $1,000 with LynxTWO.

> So what else should be tested, assuming it's even possible?

The right thing to do is to do a proper job of listening to this stuff.
It's easy enough to do, there are a number of practical examples of doing
just that at http://www.pcabx.com/product/soundcard/index.htm .

What you find is the best digital interfaces are simply undetectable or
excruciatingly close to being undectable by purely listening. I've posted
the results of looping audio through the DAL Card Deluxe 20 times at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm , along with the
original minimalist pristine recordings. Can you hear a difference?

> Am I correct in assuming all the other stuff- freq response, THD, dynamic
> range etc.- is important, it's just that most pro-sumer cards are good
> enough in those areas?

I wouldn't know about *most*, but I know that a number of them are simply
undetectable or excruciatingly close to being undectable by purely
listening.

Bottom line, there's a lot more to audio production than converters, and few
if any of it is as good as the better audio interfaces. The weakest link is
probably human.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
>Bottom line, there's a lot more to audio production than converters, and few
>if any of it is as good as the better audio interfaces. The weakest link is
>probably human.

Great quotable line!

Oh. I *AM* the weakest link. goodbye.

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

On 2004-07-22, Frank Mazzola <fmzep@aol.com> wrote:
> Could you suggest some cards that would be suitable for my
> use? I plan on buying 2 Behringer B-5 mikes and the Mackie 1202.

If you can go wrong with a M-Audio Delta card, I'd like to hear how.