Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
"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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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." |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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." |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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" |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
"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? |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
sound card recommendation
"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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
sound in wav-format | General | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | General | |||
Computer Sound | General | |||
New Notebook external audio option | General | |||
Heavy Guitar sound? | General |