|
Subject:Sound Card question
Posted by: virus
Date:4/9/2003 5:10:47 PM
There is one thing i dont understand about soundcards. I keep hearing that the more expensive the soundcard is, the better the quality, but what does this actually mean? If two different soundcards, one expensive and one cheap, both recorded something at, say, 16 bit, 44.1 khz, wouldnt the end result be of the same quality? I understand that the audio wouldnt sound so good when played back from the cheap soundcard, but if for a example i burned the recorded file on cd and then played it through my stereo, woulnt the quality be the same? Lets assume that the cheap soundcard is a semi-decent one that doesnt make any noise. Me no understand. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: buffalosnout
Date:4/9/2003 5:41:06 PM
That's a great question, virus. While were at it, here's another one related to yours: Creative makes some more expensive soundcards, like the Audigy Platinum. Is it reasonable to assume they are not in the same league as say, the M-Audio Duo, the Audiophile 24/96, and the other cards that have been recommended on this forum? Thanks, James |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: dorkus
Date:4/9/2003 6:06:45 PM
Most good soundcards nowadays will operate at 24 bits. Other things to look for: the amount of ins and outs, the types of ins and outs (analog, digital, midi, preamp, etc.), and the reputation. If you buy a card from Creative, you will probably regret it. They are infamous for crappy drivers. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:4/9/2003 11:17:41 PM
creative cards and the like are designed for general consumer usage and gaming apps (playback/half duplex). they are not designed to meet the excessive damands of audio production, recording, and editing apps(full duplex). |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: virus
Date:4/10/2003 9:19:30 AM
Thanks for the tips guys, but i still dont get it: Ok, I understand that more expensive soundcards are likely to have more features, such as more ins and outs, the ability to operate at 24 bits, less latency etc. What I dont understand has to do purely with comparing the quality of TWO recordings that have BOTH been done at 16 bits / 44.1khz, one with a proffessional card and the other with a crappy one. Isnt the actual recording quality going to be the same??? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: braulio
Date:4/10/2003 9:36:00 AM
It all depends on what you call "recording". If you are using analog audio input from microphones and instruments, your soundcard quality does matter. Cheap soundcards tend to be noisy and somewhat unshielded from interference. If all you are doing is creating music from prerecorded loops, samples, and software synths, your soundcard shouldn't really factor in the final result. Some better soundcards have the ability to assist in rendering sound from VST and DX synths and effects in real time, but the final mix from digital data is still is created by the software, not the soundcard. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as my wrong function seems to be working better than my right function lately (could be a bad API call). |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: Spy
Date:4/10/2003 9:37:46 AM
"... If two different soundcards, one expensive and one cheap, both recorded something at, say, 16 bit, 44.1 khz, wouldnt the end result be of the same quality? ...' Greetings Virus, The quality to which you refer is determined by the components which make up the converters (analogue to digital and digital to analogue). Think of it this way, if you buy a car (let's assume that it is fully functional and hasn't been abused) that has a top notch (e.g. Ferrari) engine in it and another one that has a poorer (e.g. Hyundai) engine in it they will both take you from A to B but the first car will get you there (ignoring speed limits, road conditions, etc. for the moment) faster and smoother than the second one. Both engines work on the same principle: convert fuel into energy, which drives the driveshaft that rotates the wheels and so on. The difference between the two engines, apart from the price (which is relevant), is the research and development that went into the engine designs, the robustness and resistance to heat, wear, etc. of the component parts, the testing of the parts individually and collectively and so on and so forth. That's why a Ferrari engine costs so much more than a Hyundai engine. The above analogy can be applied to soundcards (or probably any part of your computer) where the journey from A - B is the conversion from analogue to digital (or vice versa). Companies such as Aardvark, MOTU, Echo, etc. have spent time and money developing and testing their hardware to give optimum audio performance hence the (comparatively) high prices. Creative (Hyundai from the analogy) on the other hand haven't spent the amount of time and/or money in developing their products (at least not specifically for audio) and so their products are cheaper to purchase and sound cheaper (noisier) too. One Love, Spy! |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: alex
Date:4/10/2003 10:53:20 AM
Very Cheap cards are ok if you just want to play a sound file. Cheap Cards If you want to record and play back at the same time, you need on card monitoring feature as well. Not Cheap Cards If you want to record and apply real time effects without any latency Expensive Cards If you want all of the above plus virtual instrumnets without any latency must be with DSP chips check these vendors they make cheap (starting from about $500 ) and very expensive stuff http://www.digidesign.com http://www.creamware.com |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:4/10/2003 1:04:31 PM
In addition to what's been said, a pro-level card such as those from Echo or M-Audio offers features far and above anything Creative has to offer—and all without bloating your system with software you'll never use. For example, the Audiophile 2496 only has a control panel for its myriad and truly useful functions (such as choosing S/PDIF master clock and setting sample rate) and that's it. Nothing extra or "gee whiz". Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: coolout
Date:4/10/2003 4:35:27 PM
really the difference is that little thing called "s/n" aka signal to noise ratio. whatever you're doing, if you're actually planning on producing some type of finished product it's best to judge it in the most acurate, quiet, environment you can afford. that means you have to pay attention to everything in the signal path from the sound source to you ears. even if you just arrange a bunch of loops and render the composition to a cd, with a crappy soundcard, crappy speakers for reference, in a crappy sounding room, you're more likely to make crappy adjustments to the audio trying to make it sound better. there's really no excuse for not have a good soundcard these days. every pro-audio company has an entry level card that's only 20-50 bucks more than a "gamer" card. the prices have come down so much in the past 3 years. hell, on ebay the pro-audio cards are CHEAPER than the "gamer" cards |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: virus
Date:4/11/2003 7:57:40 AM
Thank ya all, thats cleared it up for me. The thing that got me most confused was the difference between actually recording using the analog ins, and "recording" by rendering sounds from soft synths, soft samplers or pre-recorded loops, but braulio pointed out the difference. Makes sense... |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: dkistner
Date:4/12/2003 8:26:49 AM
"you're more likely to make crappy adjustments to the audio trying to make it sound better." Boy, does that ever nail it! And it helps explain why people get so into their monitors and such. I mix using headphones, because my work is intended specifically for listening with headphones, even though I hear over and over that one should never mix using headphones.... |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: drbam
Date:4/12/2003 8:47:13 AM
<<I mix using headphones, because my work is intended specifically for listening with headphones, even though I hear over and over that one should never mix using headphones....>> Not necessarly. I've read some articles in the audio mags that speak to the benefits of mixing on *good* headphones. But of course if you want your mixes to translate well on a variety of systems, then use as many monitoring sources as possible. When carving out a mix, I continuously check everything through 2 different sets of headphones (Sony 7506 and a high end Beyer), and 2 sets of monitors (Mackie 824s & JBL 4411s). Primarily I use the 824's tho. drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: coolout
Date:4/12/2003 1:58:39 PM
i'm using passive tannoy reveals with an alesis amp and a yamaha subwoofer with total trust. i also have a stereo out wired to my home theater in the living room and of course i check my mixes in the car. i noticed when i mix on headphones it never translates well although i have a great pair of sennheiser headphones. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: drbam
Date:4/12/2003 4:38:56 PM
<<i noticed when i mix on headphones it never translates well although i have a great pair of sennheiser headphones.>> Yes, if you're wanting the mix to translate well to a variety of systems, phones should only be used to check panning, certain aspects of imaging, edits, clicks, tics, etc., and not serve as the primary reference source. drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: Laurence
Date:4/12/2003 9:06:56 PM
For anyone trying to get good low latency performance out of a cheap audio card, there actually is a solution in the works. I've been playing around with a beta version of an ASIO overlay driver that gives low latency performance to a lot of cheap audio cards. The web page is: http://www.asio2ks.de/ I find that it works great (albiet only at 16 bits, and with some chipsets at 48k), and can give rock solid low latency ASIO performance to cheap audio cards you'd never expect to be able to use such as those in a lot of laptops, on PC motherboards, and generic USB interfaces such as some of the Edirol USB audio cables. I use a pair of Roland monitors with digital ins, so for me the audio quality is the same regardless of what I use. My main computer is one of those toaster sized PCs with everything built into the motherboard, including six channel audio. This driver gives me full 5.1 surround sound 48k 16 bit audio at under 5ms using the audio built into the motherboard! On my Toshiba laptop, the same driver gives me stable 48k 16 bit audio at 11ms using the built in audio. As I said before, the final release version isn't ready yet. The beta I have starts periodically beeping after ten minutes to encourage you to buy it once it's available. I personally am sold on it. I will get the full release version as soon as it comes out. Laurence Kingston |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: coolout
Date:4/14/2003 3:34:39 AM
wow, i wish i had known about this before i sold my edirol usb audio interface. no disrespect to the propagamma guys, but i was not willing to pay $30 for a driver for a $70 device. i'll try it with my terratec card. they claim 2ms latency but i've never had success with anything that low in acid pro, but that's probably on SOFO. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound Card question
Reply by: Spy
Date:4/14/2003 5:22:27 AM
"i'll try it with my terratec card. they claim 2ms latency but i've never had success with anything that low in acid pro, but that's probably on SOFO." With the best will (and equipment) in the world, you'd be hard pressed to do better than 7-8ms. Mind you, I find that even as much as double that is still workable. One Love, Spy! |