Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

24-bit audio card models: can one hear a difference ?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
November 23, 2004 6:07:49 PM

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

Under which circumnstances can one particular 24-bit card model be
regarded as better or worse, sonically speaking (that is, other than
extra hardware features) ?
I've read that even a pcmcia card such as Digigram's can pass
unnoticed in sound comparison with bigger units, and that there isn't
sound benefit in using a 96k sampling rate over 48 or even 44.1. How
accurate are such statements, and how and when can they be proven
wrong in a practical world ?
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 11:29:26 PM

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

In article <94e1470a.0411231507.dad7c41@posting.google.com> visitor@zaz.com.br writes:

> Under which circumnstances can one particular 24-bit card model be
> regarded as better or worse, sonically speaking (that is, other than
> extra hardware features) ?

When the recording and monitoring chain are accurate enough to hear a
difference, and when the program material is good enough and
interesting enough to care.

> I've read that even a pcmcia card such as Digigram's can pass
> unnoticed in sound comparison with bigger units

Just because it's physically small doesn't mean it's a small
performer. The Digigram VX Pocket is a pretty good quality card.

> and that there isn't
> sound benefit in using a 96k sampling rate over 48 or even 44.1.

This is debatable. In some circumstances, it sounds better.

> How
> accurate are such statements,

Totally accurate.

> and how and when can they be proven wrong in a practical world ?

Any time you can hear a difference, in a practical world. The ear is
extermely sensitive, as is the mind.


--
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 25, 2004 2:54:45 AM

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

"Visitor" <visitor@zaz.com.br> wrote in message
news:94e1470a.0411231507.dad7c41@posting.google.com...
> Under which circumnstances can one particular 24-bit card model be
> regarded as better or worse, sonically speaking (that is, other than
> extra hardware features) ?
> I've read that even a pcmcia card such as Digigram's can pass
> unnoticed in sound comparison with bigger units, and that there isn't
> sound benefit in using a 96k sampling rate over 48 or even 44.1. How
> accurate are such statements, and how and when can they be proven
> wrong in a practical world ?

I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
about it ? Just get a good soundcard.

geoff
Related resources
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 2:54:46 AM

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

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in news:jMZod.7324$3U4.208034
@news02.tsnz.net:

> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
> But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
> about it ? Just get a good soundcard.

It's my understanding that the best bitters can be found in an English pub.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 2:54:46 AM

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

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote :
> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
> But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
> about it ? Just get a good soundcard.

OK, so which 24-bit card is a "bad" one, that would really make a
noticeable difference against "better" ones? Not including the PC game
cards.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 10:48:38 AM

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

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB5E142C129gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in news:jMZod.7324$3U4.208034
> @news02.tsnz.net:
>
>> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
>> But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
>> about it ? Just get a good soundcard.
>
> It's my understanding that the best bitters can be found in an English
> pub.

Naa, they run too warm and have high noise.

geoff
November 25, 2004 10:48:39 AM

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

Geoff Wood wrote:

> "Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95AB5E142C129gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
>> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in news:jMZod.7324$3U4.208034
>> @news02.tsnz.net:
>>
>>> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
>>> But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
>>> about it ? Just get a good soundcard.
>>
>> It's my understanding that the best bitters can be found in an English
>> pub.
>
> Naa, they run too warm and have high noise.

Yeah, but "warm" is the Holy Grail we're all after, right? If I can get
warm, I'll Dolby the noise.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 10:48:39 AM

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

Geoff Wood wrote:
> "Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95AB5E142C129gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
>
>>
>> It's my understanding that the best bitters can be found in an
>> English pub.
>
>
> Naa, they run too warm and have high noise.

It's not warm! It's hand pulled, cellar temperature, cask conditioned ale.

Mmmmmmmm...
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 10:44:13 AM

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

<visitor2@zaz.com.br> wrote in message
news:f2a3834.0411241929.3f6596c8@posting.google.com...
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote :
>> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24 bitter.
>> But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for years, why stress
>> about it ? Just get a good soundcard.
>
> OK, so which 24-bit card is a "bad" one, that would really make a
> noticeable difference against "better" ones? Not including the PC game
> cards.

I was thinking along the lines of game cards marketed as quality audio
cards. You know the ones !


geoff
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 1:44:15 AM

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

<visitor2@zaz.com.br> wrote in message
news:f2a3834.0411241929.3f6596c8@posting.google.com
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote :
>> I'm sure the are good 16 bitters than sound better than a bad 24
>> bitter. But as there hasn't been a 16 bit A-D manufactured for
>> years, why stress about it ? Just get a good soundcard.
>
> OK, so which 24-bit card is a "bad" one, that would really make a
> noticeable difference against "better" ones? Not including the PC game
> cards.

It's getting harder and harder to find bad sound cards unless you look at
legacy products.

If you want to listen to differences among audio cards given this a spin:

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

The Soundblaster samples are pretty easy to distinguish.

However, I should point out that they were from an obsolete version of the
card. The current product sounds appreciable better.
!