"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If the recording software you use does an internal mix of the multiple
tracks (many do, example Cool Edit Pro) then you only need 2 sound card
channels for playback. But, strictly speaking you're not playing back
multiple tracks, you're playing back a 2-track mixdown of them. In some
cases this can make a difference. If it doesn't for you, then the Card
Deluxe can work for you.

That's a rather individual reading of the terms "Track" and "Channel"
as applied to multi-track audio recorders.

Perhaps I should have said:

But, strictly speaking you're not playing back multiple tracks, you're
playing back a 2-channel mixdown of them.

Could you quote the recording software that DOESN'T offer a stereo
mix?

Sorry, but I don't have experience with enough different pieces of DAW
software to characterize how they work, one way or the other. Hence the
speculative tone of my comment.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
was looking for.

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

--
Thine

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message


John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message
le.com...


i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.


Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
LightPipe.


Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
was more than delighted by the results on that score.


Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
$100 CD or DVD player.


I had already 'upgraded' from a an old, cheap Soundblaster card to a
ST-Audio card at about $100. It gave me digital I/O and very reasonable
results when burned to CD, but sound quality from the PC was dire.
My RME card now seriously rivals my Cyrus CD player which was around
$600 IIRC.

The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
level going to the card.


Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).


Are you saying that my analogue input would not have been too high
without being 'turned down' externally? It was pushing the CoolEdit
meter into the red.

The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
input.

Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
have gone wrong.

In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
in traffic due to the new news postings.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
time.

The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xs...%40comcast.com
can see.

Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
gone wrong.

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
not the substance of the man.

And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

drummer wrote:

what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
better sound than just recording straight to computer.

All other things the same, it will probably sound worse because you're
going through more stuff, and the converters in the Adat aren't so great
to begin with.

BUT, doing this can give you a degree of portability, so you can take the
Adat out to a good sounding room and then take the machine and tape back
later to import into the workstation. And that can give you a much better
sound if the room you're working in isn't right for the tracks you are
doing.

And, it does make it a lot easier to take the tapes somewhere else to mix.
You can take the computer to a studio, but you really don't want to be
fooling around with trying to export stuff while the clock is ticking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
better sound than just recording straight to computer.

Depends on how you record the tracks. The ADAT will probably make the
recording process easier because you don't have to fumble with a
computer, but of course you'll need a mixer so you can hear what
you're doing while you're tracking. If you don't have that, then you
might as well record straight to the computer.

It's not too hard these days to buy an 8-channel audio interface
("sound card") that has better sounding A/D converters than an ADAT,
but if you're asking about whether an ADAT is better than recording
straight to the computer using the sound card that came with it, then
I'd give a resounding "yes."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article ,
Robbie Noake wrote:
Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................
The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
the awful snideness that is only too prevelent with most regular
posters. You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
out your posts, some of you do know your audio
but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
very pompous

When stuff gets crossposted from rec.audio.opinion into other newsgroups,
NOBODY wins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In rec.audio.misc Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
news

I agree. RAO is a sewer.

It's been on a downhill roll ever since the advent of Middius.

After Advent comes Epiphany. I don't know if I want to know what means
in terms of rao.

John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message . com...

i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.


Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.

You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

Nick H

Nick H (UK) wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm



Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.


Old news. I first saw this *feature* on the original LynxONE, and that was
about 3-4 years ago. The LynxTWO does the same, and its working on year two.
It really makes a lot of sense in a studio environment. Why have a gloppy
old breakout box which demands even more jumper cables when you can hang the
jumper cables on the sound card with a DB connector?

Because you want to rackmount the breakout box? Because the card has
more I/O ports than can practically fit on its back? Because you want
to locate the computer in a separate machine room?

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.


Old news. I first saw this *feature* on the original LynxONE, and
that was about 3-4 years ago. The LynxTWO does the same, and its
working on year two. It really makes a lot of sense in a studio
environment. Why have a gloppy old breakout box which demands even
more jumper cables when you can hang the jumper cables on the sound
card with a DB connector?

Because you want to rackmount the breakout box?

OK, but that's kind of like specifying the right answer, isn't it?

;-)

Because the card has more I/O ports than can practically fit on its back?

The DB connector + attached wires and connectors addresses that well.

Because you want
to locate the computer in a separate machine room?

The DB connector + attached wires and connectors addresses that well.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm




Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.


How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.


Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

Nick H

Nick H (UK) wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
what it does that sales spiel;-)


"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"


Woops, sorry, wrong again. That's been happening *all* day ! ;-)
Nick H

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm



Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
what it does that sales spiel;-)



"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"


Neat - so how does it do in games and such(Direct-X)

It doesn't since it's a pro soundcard. ASIO and MME drivers only at
this point.



what does it cost?(probably way more than my budget - lol)

See my reply earlier.

Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

FWIW, I have a Soundblaster and a hgher end card in the same machine.
Works good.

What I have noticed is that some games have
*ugly* "dll hell" issues with DAW software, and therefore,
only old DOS games on the DAW machine.

--
Les Cargill

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message


Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message



Bubba wrote:

Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.


Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.


You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!



Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
than the Audigy II.

Girth wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.


No it's simple.

Buy a professional grade card.
Buy a compatible game card.

Put them in the same machine, just like I told you yesterday!

That can be done I guess. What is the option for game cards
other than the Audigy II? I hate Creative - always mess things
up and are impossibly hard to configure.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message



Bubba wrote:

Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.


Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.


You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it,
too?

Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!



Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
than the Audigy II.

"other than the Audigy II"?????

I suspect most people who have a foot in each world run an Audigy for games
and a pro card for serious quality audio. They generally cohabit well.