Beck said:
Whoa!
The X-3 and 22-2 are built on the same chassis but they aren’t the same inside.
The 22-2 has a nominal output level of -10 dB (216 mV). It is well matched to the M-Audio inputs. A pad in between the 22-2 and the M-Audio analog inputs is the last thing you want. If you were running something like an Otari MX5050 at +4 dB then a pad would be appropriate.
An active mixer would be handy, but not necessarily needed as the 22-2 has its own active variable output stage.
No one that has a grasp of audio gain structure would fail to understand the different issues I was addressing in response to different questions. Not that people that don’t understand gain staging are necessarily bad people, but you don’t want them interpreting for you what they don’t understand.
Threads break down when other members incorrectly quote or otherwise misrepresent what someone has said.
The following should be a sticky (If we could post stickies)
Never let one member interpret for you what another member has said... Some people genuinely have poor comprehension, while others are professional trolls, deliberately splitting hairs, twisting words and meaning for sport. They are indeed more interested in wrestling than shooting the breeze with on-line friends sharing a common interest.
If someone really doesn’t understand what I or another member is talking about in a particular instance, that’s ok… please buy, borrow or steal a copy of John Woram’s Sound Recording Handbook (1989) or even Craig Anderton’s Home Recording for Musicians (any edition), or Bruce Bartlett’s Practical recording Techniques, or Brent Hurtig’s Multi-track Recording for Musicians… anything other than letting some chucklehead on this forum attempt to lead you through the darkness; himself having no candle.
Beck, you opened by quoting my observation that there is no record gain adjustment in the 2496 (on which you were wrong) but then ignored it. Were you wrong on this point or not? Readers might wonder why you quoted it and then made no comment. I am certainly wondering.
You say a pad in between the two is the last thing you want. Well it can be. It all depends on the pad and the problem it is addressing.
I mentioned the pad in the context of a
small amount of output amp noise that was audible in my setup and which added slightly to the 2496's own noise which is not brilliant. Hence any small improvement can be desirable if one wants the best out of the modest setup in terms of dynamic range. I detected the added noise in a real world setup which I described in my post.
With a +4db output machine, a pad would not only be appropriate but probably highly advisable! But it does not follow therefore that a small pad in this situation , not for the purposes of matching +4 db, but for the purposes of gaining a couple more db of headroom is not appropriate. One is for matching two significantly dissimilar levels. The other is very much a tailor made fine tuning of a basically or essentially matched setup. You dont seem to grasp that distinction and yet I stated it clearly enough in my post. (talk of interpreting another person's post!!!)
If you dont understand, I will explain further, for you and for anybody else interested. Nominal levels dont necessarily tell you exactly at what level the equipment actually clips, and neither the precise level of noise it has. Different gear can have different levels at both ends of the dynamic spectrum. Two items which though they are
nominally matched can sometimes be more finely matched with something as simple as a few 2 cent resistors. Of course it can only be done when there is some signal to spare from the source unit, as is the case here. It's wasteful of power of course but that's why it can also only be done when there's power to spare. It breaks the old engineering rule of power transfer but that is only appropriate when power and signal levels are at a premium and preserving that's the goal. It isnt here. It also has to be done carefully with the right resistor values or it can make things worse, adding more noise. It cant of course be done the other way around except with active components or maybe a stepup transformer.
Part of my reason for setting up was to check for my own interest if there was possibly too much noise emanating from the machine's output stage, trying to help Golden with his issue.
Some machines use a passive potentiometer as the final output stage. Others have a pot before a driver amp. That was the case here. It's generally a better design but it can also mean if the next stage is quite sensitive and its sensitivity cant be reduced, ( as it cant with the 2496, contrary to what you told Golden) you can have driver amp residual noise coming through, adding to the soundcard's own residual noise, even when the tape machine's output pot is on zero. Exactly the case here. That's how I detected it.
After having made and inserted the small pad I carefully checked the setup on my own system and confirmed that with the pad inserted, the 2496 still clipped before the machine's output stage did. Success.
It was only a modest improvement and I stated it in those terms. But an improvement it was and is.
In any case, this wasnt me criticising you on this point. I just offered to Golden a potential small improvement. You werent even mentioned.
You are criticising
me,
and you are wrong. Or so it appears.
The correction I did make of your post was to add that the 2496 has no record gain facility. That fact can be gleaned by reading the 2496 manual. It says it has two
output levels but fixed ("consumer") input sensitivity (ref. page 24. M Audio Audiophile 2496 manual)
Golden's very first post asked if it was even possible to make such a gain adjustment in his PC. Remember he said "somewhere" meaning he couldnt find it. He couldnt find it because it isnt there. You say it is. You are wrong.
You gave him wrong advice. I gave him the correct advice.
Now, if there HAD been a record fader on the 2496, my mod, or any other improvement would have been superfluous! There is a connection between the two. You not only did not understand my modification suggestion, you didnt even understand the reason for it, because you got your info on the 2496 card wrong. Do you even have such a card. I've been using this one for 4 years.
It's true you didnt actually say in so many words the 2496 has record gain adjustment but you advised Golden to make such an adjustment on his PC, which Golden could only reasonably assume to mean there
is such an adjustment in the 2496. But there isnt such an adjustment. Further, that was in his first question in his first post on the thread!
If I am wrong on this point about the 2496's not having inbuilt record gain facility show me where I am wrong.
If I am wrong on the principle of fine matching nominally matched items in a chain, in the way described, explain that to me too.
I'm waiting to be corrected Beck. Over to you.
BTW, re the
three texts you cited.
Why not actually use them! Quote from them chapter and verse, showing my error. Perhaps start by looking up attenuators.
If you like I can quote it for you.
But you go first. I insist.
Tim
Even "effectively infinite" is light years better than any current sampling technology. Why go elsewhere when analog is as good as it gets or will get ? Why reinvent the wheel ?? Oh yeah, I know, profits ...
. And what "hi-end equipment"? If you ask: "What hi-end equipment do you refer to?", the the answer will be: "The equipment you can NOT afford."
