Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

- Audio card recommendations for home recording?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 1:55:46 PM

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

I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
upgrade cards as well.

Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
again?

I was told the top-line Creative cards have caught up to the point of
becoming an actual player in this field. This true?

Your recommendations are welcome (no $1,000 cards please... let's stick to
the Echo price range, which is as high as I can go).

Many thanks!
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 4:59:45 PM

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

W. Forsk wrote:
> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
> upgrade cards as well.
>
> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
> again?

How many channels?




> I was told the top-line Creative cards have caught up to the point of
> becoming an actual player in this field. This true?

Creative owns Emu, and I understand the Emu cards are okay. Stay away form the Creative-branded stuff for pro work.



> Your recommendations are welcome (no $1,000 cards please... let's stick to
> the Echo price range, which is as high as I can go).

Lynx Two is (barely) under $1k and you can't do a whole lot better in terms of audio quality <http://lynxstudio.com/lynxtwo.html&gt;

RME HDSP9632 is another one to check out <http://rme-audio.com/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm&gt; Under $600 with two analog I/Os, can be expanded with more as needed.


Those are the two brands I would pick above all others for pro work.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 5:36:21 PM

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

In article <2rdeisF19d4c9U1@uni-berlin.de> newsgroup@only.com writes:

> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
> upgrade cards as well.
>
> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
> again?

Why do you want to upgrade your sound card? Are you upgrading other
equipment as well and need a different I/O configuration? I'd hang on
to what works and spend your money elsewhere. The Gina is just fine
for any reasonable home recording project.


--
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
Related resources
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 7:29:21 PM

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

"W. Forsk" <newsgroup@only.com> wrote in message news:<2rdeisF19d4c9U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
> upgrade cards as well.
>
> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
> again?
>
> I was told the top-line Creative cards have caught up to the point of
> becoming an actual player in this field. This true?
>
> Your recommendations are welcome (no $1,000 cards please... let's stick to
> the Echo price range, which is as high as I can go).
>
> Many thanks!

I just sold a Gina24 and replaced it with a Lynx L22. The Lynx sounds
so much better than the Gina24. However, I've owned two Echo cards
and they are rock solid. Lynx doesn't have a production WDM driver
either, so I'm using the ASIO driver in Sonar 3. I bought my Lynx L22
at GC for $655.00. Once I got it working, I had one of those "I
should have done this years ago" moments. :>)

DaveT
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 9:15:24 PM

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

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:55:46 -0400, "W. Forsk" <newsgroup@only.com>
wrote:

>I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
>like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
>upgrade cards as well.
>
>Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
>again?

I'd stick to the Gina, unless you want more ins/outs. The M-Audio
equivalent is currently selling for a very attractive price. But it
won't sound any different to your Gina.
>
>I was told the top-line Creative cards have caught up to the point of
>becoming an actual player in this field. This true?

No.

>
>Your recommendations are welcome (no $1,000 cards please... let's stick to
>the Echo price range, which is as high as I can go).
>
>Many thanks!
>


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 9:33:56 PM

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

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:55:46 -0400, "W. Forsk" <newsgroup@only.com>
wrote:

>I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
>like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
>upgrade cards as well.

Take a look at Terratec range.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:19:47 AM

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

Hi there,

> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what seems
> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
> upgrade cards as well.
>
> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
> again?

You could do both. If you are looking to upgrade your card just for
the sake of it, you might want to check out the brand new Gina 3G from
Echo. It's a 24bit card with better converters than your Gina20, and
it's very reasonably priced with street price at around $300-350 new.
It also has two preamps in it.

From my experiences with Layla20 and what I've heard about Echo from
other users as well, you should be happy with their cards, especially
this one.


Kalle
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 6:15:03 AM

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

Unless you need different I/O (more ins/outs, ADAT in/out etc) theres little
reason to change the Gina 20. It sounds just fine! Go buy yourself a LOAD of
booze with the cash instead!

Martin

"W. Forsk" <newsgroup@only.com> wrote in message
news:2rdeisF19d4c9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what
seems
> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
> upgrade cards as well.
>
> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
> again?
>
> I was told the top-line Creative cards have caught up to the point of
> becoming an actual player in this field. This true?
>
> Your recommendations are welcome (no $1,000 cards please... let's stick to
> the Echo price range, which is as high as I can go).
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 4:00:21 AM

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

On 22 Sep 2004 15:29:21 -0700, psychodave.thomas@gmail.com (Deaf
Mellon MESA) wrote:

>I just sold a Gina24 and replaced it with a Lynx L22. The Lynx sounds
>so much better than the Gina24.

In any particular way?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 4:37:42 PM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1095870220k@trad...
>
> In article <2rdeisF19d4c9U1@uni-berlin.de> newsgroup@only.com writes:
>
>> I've been using an Echo Gina20 for my Sonar recordings for, well, what
>> seems
>> like forever... I will soon be upgrading the ol' computer and wanted to
>> upgrade cards as well.
>>
>> Is there a new standard for that price range? Or should I go with an echo
>> again?
>
> Why do you want to upgrade your sound card? Are you upgrading other
> equipment as well and need a different I/O configuration? I'd hang on
> to what works and spend your money elsewhere. The Gina is just fine
> for any reasonable home recording project.

The author mentioned that it was a Gina20. He might be looking for an
upgrade to 24 bits.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 7:36:45 PM

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

In article <k0Y4d.68687$z74.698978@wagner.videotron.net> nospam@please.com writes:

> The author mentioned that it was a Gina20. He might be looking for an
> upgrade to 24 bits.

Why? What does that buy you? For the price range he's looking in,
maybe a couple more bits. Those will get lost in the noise of a
typical home recording setup.

--
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
Anonymous
October 3, 2004 12:52:42 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <k0Y4d.68687$z74.698978@wagner.videotron.net> nospam@please.com writes:

>> The author mentioned that it was a Gina20. He might be looking
>> for an upgrade to 24 bits.

> Why? What does that buy you? For the price range he's looking in,
> maybe a couple more bits. Those will get lost in the noise of a
> typical home recording setup.

That was my opinion too until I started comparing parallel 16 bit 48 kHz
and 24 bit 44.1 kHz recordings of the output from the same mic pre. The
spatial decay appears to me to be more natural in the 24 bit recording.
This however is about subtleties, upping the sampling frequency probably
does more than upping the wordlength and not all will feel that either
really matters if at all much.

> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
October 3, 2004 2:56:33 PM

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

In article <415FA1BA.45C57016@mail.tele.dk> SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk writes:

> > Why? What does that buy you? For the price range he's looking in,
> > maybe a couple more bits. Those will get lost in the noise of a
> > typical home recording setup.
>
> That was my opinion too until I started comparing parallel 16 bit 48 kHz
> and 24 bit 44.1 kHz recordings of the output from the same mic pre. The
> spatial decay appears to me to be more natural in the 24 bit recording.
> This however is about subtleties

Of course. And that's the sort of thing that someone with your level
of experience would notice if you went looking for it. Someone asking
a general question about a simple home recording setup is hardly
likely to notice, or even care about those differences. The same
amount of money spent elsewhere could be more noticeable, and
therefore more effective.


--
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
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 2:16:48 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

> .... The same
> amount of money spent elsewhere could be more noticeable, and
> therefore more effective.

Indeed, Mike, indeed ...

> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:31:27 AM

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

On 2004-09-22, W. Forsk <newsgroup@only.com> wrote:

Get an M-Audio card and be happy. The Delta A/P 2496 was made in heaven
by angels.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:33:29 AM

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

On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> They've just been bought.

Uh-oh. So much for the only serious choice. I hope they don't go
either way -- more consumer-y or total pro$$$. The price point on the
Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:36:22 AM

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

On 2004-09-24, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> Why? What does that buy you?

Headroom in the dynamic range?

Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
against something that increased your headroom in any domain?

I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
device.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:41:38 AM

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

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:36:22 GMT, james of tucson
<fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote:

>> Why? What does that buy you?
>
>Headroom in the dynamic range?
>
>Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
>against something that increased your headroom in any domain?
>
>I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
>device.


You don't really get headroom. You don't own a source that has 16
bits of dynamic range, let alone 24. What it does give you is a
bigger window in which to place the range you CAN supply. It lets
you be sloppy with record levels without falling into the noise floor.
Not that this isn't useful :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:31:34 PM

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

In article <slrncotccr.7ha.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> fishbowl@conservatory.com writes:

> Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
> against something that increased your headroom in any domain?

Depends on how much headroom I needed and how much it cost. In a pop
music world where dynamic range on recordings is limited (literally)
to less than 6 dB, is it asking too much of the engineer to set
recording levels and internal mixing levels so that a system with a
potential dynamic range of 96 dB will allow him to make good
recordings? We didn't have insurrmountable problems with headroom back
when we were using analog tape with 30 dB less headroom. Even
classical recordings today have far less than the full dynamic range
available.

Where most people run out of headroom is at the mic preamp or the
input of the A/D converter. Why? Because they want to turn on all the
bits for fear of losing resolution. Back off a couple of dB, lose the
clipping, and even at 16 bits, you'll still have a low enough noise
floor that you can make a recording with more dynamic range that any
reasonable listener can accommodate.

> I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
> device.

I wouldn't doubt it, but that may be because the 24-bit device that
you're using today is just plain better overall than the 16-bit device
you used previously. While it's true that using 24-bit resolution
allows you to be more conservative in setting levels while not running
out of headroom, if you want a certain output level of the final
product, by recording at a lower average level and boosting on the far
end, you'll boost the neighbor's leaf blower that leaked into your
room, or the barking dog, or the mic preamp's noise, or even the long
sought after room ambience.

It's your responsibility to control all of those things, and not
everyone thinks about that when using gear that "should be" better.


--
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
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:12:46 AM

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

On 2004-11-08, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> Depends on how much headroom I needed and how much it cost. In a pop
> music world where dynamic range on recordings is limited (literally)
> to less than 6 dB

I play and record classical (and classical-ish) piano and flute.

I cannot tell any difference between takes at 16 and 24 bit on the same
equipment, but I don't care. I have 24 (32) bits available in my
digital signal path, and I'm not out of disk space or anything.

Until a couple of years ago, I was using consumer cassette tape, so
everything sounds good to me :-)

> I wouldn't doubt it, but that may be because the 24-bit device that
> you're using today is just plain better overall than the 16-bit device
> you used previously.

I'm going to agree with you, but I'm not seeing any argument that would
support buying a 16 bit recorder in this day and age. Particularly when
I already have adopted the Deltas as the only serious choice :-)
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 6:40:12 PM

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

james of tucson wrote:
> On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The price point on the
> Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow.

There are better sounding options from RME and Lynx that don't cost all that much more.
!