Soundblaster Live or AC'97?

scottboyher

scottboyher

New member
I have a buddy that is just getting into recording so he doesn't really need anything special.

I was wondering.. His computer has the AC'97 stock onboard audio..

I have a Soundblaster Live sitting around that I could throw in there if I thought it would make a difference.

What do you think? Soundblaster Live or stick with the onboard AC'97?
 
Believe it or not, once upon a time I've tracked a bit through a Soundblaster. It is what it is but I got passable results. My vote=Soundblaster.
 
I've just recently got into recording onto the computer with a Soundblaster Live card...It sounds okay to me (to me the recording rendered is a reasonably clean, clear representation of the sound source)...I would have no idea how relativly bad this card is supposed to be except for what I have read on this board. On the other hand I haven't had experience recording with a more reputable card. I will probably get one of the ($100) M-Audio or Emu cards in the near future because they are supposed to be a real step-up from Soundblaster but right now I have enough trouble just writing a new song.
 
I've got computers with each and the SB sounds better. And there's support for soundfonts in the Creative software.
 
SB Live has on-board EMU synth
Make sure you load the 8 meg soundfont, instead of 2 or 4 meg
This will give you the GS Midi sounds (308 vs 128 ) and 10 drum kits

If you have a synth or synth sound module, you can use the MIDI Mapper program to have certain channels go to the synth, and rest on SB.

I find the piano's very dry and casio-like, so I route the midi channels for piano, strings, synths to my Roland synth.
I always have channel 10 (drums) from the SB. My synth has only one kit vs 10 on the SB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top