Audgy 2..How much difference to pro?

[topman]

Im currrently using the Sound blaster audigy 2 , I only require the one input as im using a misxing desk for my line in...

Im basicaly trying to figure out how much difference is the recoding quality to that of a better sound card...
I want to avoid working and buying a better sound card if there is not going to be a noticable difference..If theres a difference then what would be the cheapest but professional sound card for me to get.....(Bearing in mind i only need minimal inputs). Ive also heard that if I record in 24 bits that would boost the quality..but is this good enough?

PS
Also how much does it matter if you record a stero signal in from teh mixing desk...say from a Mic...in aposed to recrding a mono signal in and then splitting in in the sequencer package?

Thanks
Gareth

 

[Burden of Proof]

like most things it depends...

You'll probably hear a lot of criticism of the SB series of cards here - but there's just one big question you have to ask yourself:

Does it sound okay?

If you're okay with the audio quality you're getting, then that's it. No more questions, no need to upgrade. Most people here will agree that the difference between even 16-bit/44.1 and 24-bit/96 is not too noticeable unless you're doing high-end recordings (think: London Philharmonic).

If you're not okay with the quality you're getting, then you should investigate upgrade options - anywhere from about $100 to upwards of $500 just for the soundcard, depending on what you're doing.

If you only ever care about the stereo output from your mixer, then a single input card (like your Audigy) or an Audiophile 2496 (highly recommended around here) should do the trick.

The thing about mono L-R outs is for recording multiple simultaneous tracks separately in your computer (2 mono instead of 1 stereo). If this is something you're looking towards, then a multi-input card is probably better - although you can still definitely get 2 mono ins even out of that Audigy using this trick. I've heard wonderful things about the Delta 1010 for $180-or-so (10-mono-ins and 10-mono-outs), which can be used to take individual tracks out of your mixer or from various line-level inputs.

Hope this helps.

-The Burden-

 

[topman]

Thanks for reply

Its more about if a proffesional would be able to tell the difference.
Ive spent alot of money on a home studio , and if I could record at 24 bits on an audigy 2 to the same quality of the Delta 44 then it would save me money.

However if theres gonna be a professional difference in sound quality then ill have to folk out soem more money.

in need of help!
Thanks
Gaz

 

[AGCurry]

Yes, a professional is likely to hear the difference.

The biggest difference between consumer cards like soundblaster and better cards is noise, and it isn't good noise like analog tape.

 

[HangDawg]

Most people here will agree that the difference between even 16-bit/44.1 and 24-bit/96 is not too noticeable unless you're doing high-end recordings (think: London Philharmonic).

No, most people here will not agree to that. Not anybody who has a pair of ears anyway. There is clearly a difference between 16 and 24 bit. Do yourself a favor and step up to a better interface. You won't be disappointed.

 

[Burden of Proof]

hang dawg

Hey Hang Dawg,

as a side note, what do you think the point is where a home recording is not going to be improved by a better sample rate? I mean, that was an overgeneralization on my part -- I certainly noticed a difference in audio quality between my old SB Live and my Audiophile 2496, but I thought that the difference between sound cards was mainly in the circuitry (less noise, as mentioned above).

besides, I've been reading on the board here a lot of posts from people dying to get to 24bit/96kHz with a lot of responses saying 'don't kill yourself, it's not that big a difference unless...' basically what I was saying above. At what point does it really become an issue? Guess I'm a little confused on the subject...

 

[manning1]

topman. here are my comments. do with them what you will.
some will agree with me, and some will disagree like all in life.

if your producing songs just for yourself, friends,selling a few CD's at gigs etc
then people have been able to do songs using audigy with the proviso you must clean up any noise in your tracks so as to lower the overall noise floor
of the mix. a good editor/noise reduction piece of software will help you with this.(eg; powertracks that i use has quite an effective noise gate one would use after recording a track, which a lot of folks find valuable who have consumer type sound cards. you just have to set the threshold correctly so as not to cut out any real signal. you can hear it when signal cuts out, so you just set your threshold down further. eg if -20 doesnt work - try -22 etc)
some audio editor demoes are at hitsquad.com. look in the audio editors section.
a good engineer probably COULD use an audigy and get pretty good results because he would know how to work within the limitations of the audigy.
as well as clean up his tracks.
however if you find this too limiting then you might consider a better lower noise sound card without spending a fortune. there are quite a few in the 90 to 150 dollar range. tracertek.com have a list.
you might also consider a better sound card if you anticipate building your own independent record label and selling lots of CD's.
or if you really want to impress big record labels. but even in this case ,
they are normally focusing on your songs rather than the nitpick stuff.
they will normally re-record your songs in top facilities with high end equipment anyway.
in summary - maybe consider an maudio which is what a lot of folks do.
but dont spend the inheritance if you see what i mean.
peace.

 

[AlfredB]

another thing to consider ... ALL SB cards work 48khz (hard-locked!) ... whenever you want to get 44.1 ... there is some serious bit shuffling going on ...

alfred

 

[HangDawg]

Hey Hang Dawg,

as a side note, what do you think the point is where a home recording is not going to be improved by a better sample rate? I mean, that was an overgeneralization on my part -- I certainly noticed a difference in audio quality between my old SB Live and my Audiophile 2496, but I thought that the difference between sound cards was mainly in the circuitry (less noise, as mentioned above).

besides, I've been reading on the board here a lot of posts from people dying to get to 24bit/96kHz with a lot of responses saying 'don't kill yourself, it's not that big a difference unless...' basically what I was saying above. At what point does it really become an issue? Guess I'm a little confused on the subject...

I just don't think there is any reason not to go to a decent 24bit card. The sample rate may not play as big of a role and more people will tell you they can't tell the difference between 44.1k and 96k. But it's kind of cut and dry as to the benefits of 24bit. They are not that expensive either.

 

[mixmkr]

I'll chime in here and say that the mp3's I've listened to in the clinic for the last several years had made me a firm believer that recording techniques FAR OUTWEIGH the things like 16 bit VS 24 bit and even some mic choices and especially preamps. Sure, there are quality differences, but for the most part, it seems like most home recordists mask these subtlties to a huge degree with there recording experitise...or lack there of. I am sure someone is going to jump my case and tell my I am deaf, etc... but upon listening to many recordings, things like mic choice and even soundcards didn't effect their final outcome as much as what they were actually putting into their mics and soundcards.... and this has nothing to do with performance.