Aardvark direct pro 24/96!!!

PRiZ

New member
Does anyone have any experience or heard anything about this card? I've been looking at it for a while and want your oppinions?
It's seems good until it states... "If you choose to record at 96kHz all the effects will be disabled" The effects are one of the main attractions of the card, but like I'm not gonna wann record at 96khz, is this some sort of scheme or what?
Is this card worth the money, I've seen it aoround for 500 US, oringinally 699 I think. Please Please Please Help!!!!
 
PRiZ, this is a very good card....with a good mic, this may be all you need for what you are doing....one thing to keep in mind is that these effects can only be used when recording a track, not to process tracks after...of course, if you can record the tracks right with them, this isnt a problem.....
 
thanks...

So you can bring the recording up to the same quality as it would of been when recorded in 96khz... Is it possible to do the compression, equilization and reverb effects with other programs not combined with the card. I have a digital reverb by Korg called DRV-2000. Here is what it says on the back:
It's got midi in/midi out, the out has an option of in or through.
Then there is two plug in's called SW-1/SW-2.
It has an output R and L/mono and an input.
Lstly a switch that says -20db or over to +4db
Could this machine do my digital reverb at 96khz...?
but more importantly could it connect to the soundcard, what would it need...?

I'm still open to as much info as anyone else can give me about this machine, whether good or bad I wanna know...thanks!
 
The dsp in that card will give you nice low latency..the converters sound good...its a good card..
Why would you even want to use its efx?

Id suggest you record in 24/44.1 anyways. And, if you have a decent computer, there are plug in efx, such as the waves gold bundle. Plus now, theres efx cards like the tc powercore and ua audio card. Theres even feebie efx plug ins on the net,

So, what Im saying is, your not going to be using the aardvark for its efx generally. For the price without efx its still magnificent beause you get low latency and then some.

If youn want dedicated hardware efx
for reverb, check out a lexicon processor like the mpx 500
. If you want weird exf, the boss vf-1 is ok.

get a decent mic...dont look back...

Ps..the human ear cant hear past 21khz,most not even that far, more like 19.
you dont really need 96 khz, unless you have some genelec moniters a neuman mic, a treated room, and a brilliant mastering engineer to polish the stuff up. Youll be able to get more computer performance at 44.1...DO record in 24 bits though, thats a noticable difference.
 
look at the post...

called "somebody shoot me" and tell if you think the Omni studio setup etc, is better than the Aardvark?
I've kind'ov moved on from this place, unless you think the Aardvark is still better...?
 
Hey Jaybird

If I'm not mistaken (it would be my 1st time ever!) the 44.1 and 96khz and whatever isn't referring to how high the frequency response goes. Hell, what good would it be? Its actually referring to the rate at which it samples, or "snaps a picture" of the sound. The faster the rate, the better quality the sound.
I beleive 44.1 samples 44,100 samples per second, and 96 samples 96000 samples per second. Imagine your computer monitor: if it had 44000 pixels, and then imagine 96000 pixels. Much clearer, more defined picture. :)
Peace,
Paul
 
hi PRiZ,

i've used the aardvark direct pro and the omni studio. i think for what these things do they are both really good. if you've been reading about these card/preamp packages you probably know that the omni lacks a midi input whereas the aardvark card has midi in/out. (this is something to consider if you plan to get a midi keyboard to sequence stuff.) neither card has an onboard synth, though, as has been pointed out, the aardvark has onboard dsp (compression, eq, reverb) which i never use.

as you've probably also read the aardvark has four mic preamps whereas the omni has only two. however, the omni has its own power supply while the aardvark is powered thru the pci slot.

the aardvark is controlled totally with software. i found this annoying at times. the omni has manual controls for monitor volume, headphone volume, preamp gain. it also has channel inserts for hooking up a compressor or other device and fx sends and returns for outboard gear. the aardvark has nothing on the breakout box except inputs and outputs....and phantom power switch. both have s/pdif in/out

both cards have good asio support, though only the omni , or the delta 66 card that comes with the omni, has wdm drivers (mainly for sonar). however, aardvark will eventually have these too.

if i'm not mistaken the omni will let you do four tracks at a time while the aardvark will do six...but you should double check this.

both the aardvark and the omni setup were designed so that someone recording only a few tracks at a time could bypass a mixer and external preamps. i'd say they were designed for desktop recording (especially the omni). how many tracks are you planning to record at a time? if you think you are going to eventually get separate preamps and maybe a mixer, you might want to look at some other cards.

others have pointed out that the aardvark is now bundled with cakewalk 9 which puts you on the upgrade path to sonar , while the omni comes with some babified version of logic audio....

last time i checked the omni package was about a hundred bucks cheaper than the aardvark.($400 vs. $500)...but if you shop around you might be able to find a better price on the aardvark....

for this price range, i don't think you could go wrong with either one.

good luck
 
GREAT comparison...helped!

Of course, I always have questions...

"if i'm not mistaken the omni will let you do four tracks at a time while the aardvark will do six...but you should double check this."

I was just about to start asking about this, I really thought tracks were just the things in software, you know thay say 128 tracks etc, but am just learning about this aspect. I really have no idea how many tracks I'll need, this is only at once right. So meaing I could record 4 things at once or what?
I just found out a cool technique somewhere, about advantages of tracks, with copying and pasting your original track to an open track and manipulating the equalization, panning, and efx to get a fatter sound when combining the two...could I do this?
Plese explain a little bit more about tracks.
If I had more info I could decide how many I need.

"both the aardvark and the omni setup were designed so that someone recording only a few tracks at a time could bypass a mixer and external preamps."

With the Omni package don't you get some form of mixer? You get really good preamps included, so I don't see a reason why I would get external, Omni's are external arn't they...?

i'd say they were designed for desktop recording (especially the omni).

what exactly does "desktop" mean?...right out in front of you?

others have pointed out that the aardvark is now bundled with cakewalk 9 which puts you on the upgrade path to sonar , while the omni comes with some babified version of logic audio....

hhmmm, good point. Thanks!
The leaning tower is back in swaying motion.
 
NICE! This will really help.

I'm gonna try to think this through...
I've been printing it all out for on hand reference, it's all helping.
 
prIz,

when you get ready to burn a cd of your songs or encode them to mp3, you are gonna need either a mono or stereo mix of yourstuff. assuming we go stereo what you have is a wav. file that is basically a two track recording. however, this two track recording is a combination of other tracks, which have been processed and mixed together so that they all sound good in unison and split between the stereo spectrum. when you create this stereo wav file it is crucial that you have a good listening environment . basically creating this file is a matter of setting up the software mixing environment so that the song sounds like you want. recording this is just a matter of saving the file as a stereo wav file. up to this point your song has been stored as a project file of some sort in whatever sequencer/multitracker you are using....of course, i'm assuming you plan to mix everything on the pc...if you have a cd burner you can save alternate mixes and make a cd you can listen to on different systems and stereos to see how the sound varies....you can then tweak your mix....

so before you make your stereo file you have a bunch of tracks...tracks are typically midi or digital audio tracks...this goes for programs like cubase, logic audio, cakewalk, n-tracks...and now, acid....midi tracks don't contain sounds they are commands like sheet music...in this case the sound module is the piano player...sound modules are either hardware or software.....if you are doing it mainly on pc, software synths are the way to go..there are also software samplers. in this area reason is an excellent program, fruity loops is cool too.....anyway, to create midi tracks you need to create midi files...there are a variety of ways to do this...

in addition to midi tracks there are digital audio tracks...you can have a track in stereo or one in mono...i only record a track in stereo if there is some kind of stereo sound i got that i want to record...otherwise mono is the way to go..you can easily turn this into a stereo track later....now you may want to record in stereo...let's say you want to record a duet and you don't want to overdub, or say you are in the barbershop quartet...so you want to record four tracks, not just two , or in stereo...a card with multiple inputs does come in handy if you want to record a drum set too. this way you have mutiple tracks of a single performance.....this give you much more control of how the source is gonna sound in the final mix...if you record everthing in mono you are stuck with the 'mix' in the first take....unless you have some sexy girlfriend you want to do a duet with or a drumset you want to record, you can easily get by doing everything in mono....this is where the pc tricks can really kick in...and obviously you can record an identical track over again and mix it with the original....this will make things sound better in most cases. once you have some tracks on the pc the possibilites are wide open.

the omni and the direct pro are mixer, preamps and sound card all in one....this is what makes these devices so attractive for the money....this is prosumer territory not professional....however, that is a line that gets more blurry with pcs....and anyway this is home recording....:)

both the omni and the aardvark consist of a pci card that goes into the pc and a breakout box which houses the preamps and analog inputs....mixers are used to handle multitrack recording and these boxes are very limited , two to six channels....the idea is that you will be mixing the entire project with software, where you can have any number of tracks...most software allows for a lot of tracks for the final mix...

desktop recording is pretty much like desktop publishing....
 
tubedude,

This is veering off the main track of this post a bit but I can't help it...

Your analogy to the pixels on the monitor is not a good one. If you were describing the difference between the number of bits used to record one sample, then that analogy would hold better (if you are thinking of the image on the monitor -- the picture -- being the equivalent of one sample). Number of bits is the resolution of the sound; the sampling rate is how many of them get recorded per second, as you stated. Number of pixels is the resolution of the monitor, and the more pixels, the sharper the image. This analogy is a little confusion because one might also consider that each pixel on the screen is the equivalent of a sample, and the number of possible colors it has controlled by the number of bits used to represent the red, green, and blue components of the pixel. This is what is meant by 16- or 24- or 32-bit color -- the resolution of the color spectrum. More bits -- less of a jump from one color value to the next.

A better analogy would be motion pictures or video. The rate at which the individual frames pass by is like the sampling rate of digital audio. A motion picture has 24 frames (still photos) pass by each second (in video it's basically 30 per second). The perceived motion is pretty smooth. If you halved that number and made it 12 frames per second, your eyes would start to notice the difference -- it would start to look a little flickery and less smooth. However, if you doubled the speed, would it look any smoother to you? Probably not unless you have really unusual eyes.

With the motion picture analogy, the number of dots in each single frame would be the resolution, analogous to the number of bits in the audio sample.

Interesting that the eye can be fooled into thinking it sees smooth motion by only 24 frames whisking by per second (due to the perceptual visual phenomenon called persistence of vision), while the ear can arguably sense the difference between a sound sampled at 44,100 times per second and the same sound sampled at 96,000 times per second...

The other point you were trying to make -- I'm not sure robert jaybird actually was thinking that sampling rate was equivalent to frequency response... there is a direct relation, though. In order to get a reasonable representation of the highest frequencies present in your audio material, you need to sample it at a rate about double the desired frequency, at least. For human ears hearing up to 20 kHz, that means a sampling rate of 40 kHz would be the minimum. This rule of thumb is called the Nyquist rule.
 
Back
Top