bye bye audigy!

  • Thread starter Thread starter pellgarlic
  • Start date Start date
P

pellgarlic

New member
after coming across problems with my current sound card (sb audigy 2 zs) within cubase sx3 (ie - "samplerate could not be set..." blah blah blah) and while looking for a solution, finding out that it doesn't do 24-bit 96khz recording in asio mode, and that it is "fixed" at 48khz, and so performs some quality-degrading conversion any time you record anything at another frequency, i have decided to switch cards.

i am looking for something in the sub-£100 region, that can do 24-bit 96khz recording, full-duplex, and i have zeroed in on two cards, both from m-audio: the audiophile 2496 and the revolution 5.1. the audiophile seems on the surface to be more aimed at home-recording, and the revolution aimed at movies and games, but it also seems like the revolution has similar specs to the audiophile, so i find myself with a choice...

in the u.k., (where i am) the audiophile 2496 is the cheaper of the two, but usa prices show the revolution 5.1 to be cheaper. what i am most concerned about (obviously - considering what this site is all about!) is the fidelity of audio recording. i will be recording acoustic guitar and voice, (and once in a blue moon, electric guitar) mostly one "instrument" at a time, so i don't really have any need for loads of inputs - one or two will do, although i like the fact that the revolution card has the mic and line-in inputs, as i currently keep a desktop mic plugged in to the mic input, for quick and easy "note" recordings, but hook up my phantom-power providing preamp and condenser mic to the line-in for better quality recordings. the surround capabilities and input choices of the revolution card would be a welcome bonus, but are not worth sacrificing recording quality for.

so does anyone here know whether there is any difference between the recording quality of these two cards? (e.g. one may have a better dac than the other - i couldn't find very detailed information from m-audio's website) or does anyone have any alternative recommendations in the same price bracket?
 
Emu 0404. Has 1/4" instead of RCA I/O and pretty good convertors
 
altitude909 said:
Emu 0404. Has 1/4" instead of RCA I/O and pretty good convertors
Click to expand...

I have an EMU 0404. Although my first sound card was a SB Audigy Z2. The EMU blows away the SB card. Plus like Altitude said, the EMU has the 1/4 output and input.
 
cool - had a look at the emu 0404, and it looks pretty good, but are either of you recommending it OVER the two m-audio cards i mentioned (if yes, why?), or just as an alternative?

i have read a lot of positive remarks about m-audio cards, but haven't really heard much about emu cards, and something i read concerns me that it may cause the same "samplerate could not be set" message in cubase that i get with my audigy:

"This audio interface card is based on a slightly beefier version of the same audio processor that powers the Audigy 2 ZS, and the effects engine of this architecture is limited to sample rates of 48KHz and below"

(from: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1753464,00.asp)

although, the sound on sound review at http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep04/articles/emu0404.htm is pretty enthusiastic, without being gushing.


edit: i've also come across this card (the echo mia midi):

http://www.dv247.com/invt/9209

which sounds good also...
 
Last edited:
FYI, Emu and Soundblaster are both made by Creative.
I've owned a few M-Audio cards and have nothing bad to say about any of them.
 
The Revolution is aimed at the home cinema 5.1 market, it's not designed for recording and has a higher noise floor on the inputs.

I'd stick with the 24/96, it does exactly what it says on the tin, and it does it very well for the price.
 
kremitmusic said:
FYI, Emu and Soundblaster are both made by Creative.
I've owned a few M-Audio cards and have nothing bad to say about any of them.
Click to expand...

LemonTree said:
The Revolution is aimed at the home cinema 5.1 market, it's not designed for recording and has a higher noise floor on the inputs.

I'd stick with the 24/96, it does exactly what it says on the tin, and it does it very well for the price.
Click to expand...

cool, thanks guys - that's exactly the kind of info i was after! see, i thought the revolution would probably lose something in exchange for the features it has over the audiophile, i just didn't know what.

think i'll go for the audiophile 2496 then, seems to be my best bet on my quite tight budget, and certainly a step up from my audigy (although i think i'll keep that hooked up just for games and movies!)
 
It is worth to note that the emu has a DSP effect processer
 
noted, but i don't use much in the way of effects - "less is more" is a good philosophy, and i am more concerned about getting a good, clean, accurate recording than having hardware effects processing - i always record a clean signal, and add any effects i want later anyway, so i can live without the dsp. the emu's proximity to the audigy also makes me nervous about it - perhaps unjustifiably, but i know that m-audio gets a lot of kudos from those who do home recording, and is probably a safer bet than the emu.

as always though, there will be an element of chance in my decision - it could well be that if i went with the emu, i would be more pleased with the results than if i went with the audiophile, but at present, that doesn't seem likely, so i have to go with my instincts. if some evidence were presented to me to convince me of the worthiness of the emu card over the m-audio card, i would consider it seriously - all i want is a good, clean, accurate recording. but as things are just now, the audiophile seems the better proposition for what i want out of an audio card.
 
I have used both the 2496 and the 0404 and I would say that the Emu has way better convertors and features, although the patchmix is a little complicated. The EMU has the same 24/192 convertors as the PT HD rig plus ADAT which is nice to have. Most bang for the buck def goes to the Emu
 
altitude909 said:
I have used both the 2496 and the 0404 and I would say that the Emu has way better convertors and features, although the patchmix is a little complicated. The EMU has the same 24/192 convertors as the PT HD rig plus ADAT which is nice to have. Most bang for the buck def goes to the Emu
Click to expand...

I agree totally that the convertors on the emu are better. It is a great little card for the money.
 
thanks for the input guys, i've ordered myself a 2496, and had done before the last two comments, which have nonetheless aroused my interest -

to be honest, i don't really understand the implications of the emu card having "better converters" ... what does that mean in practical terms? does it refer to conversion between bitrates and such (e.g. from 24-bit 96khz to 16-bit 44.1khz)? or does it refer to digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital conversion?

i would like to know for future reference and general knowledge. perhaps it could be an influencing factor in the next card i buy, or what someone else reading this thread buys.
 
Last edited:
pellgarlic said:
noted, but i don't use much in the way of effects - "less is more" is a good philosophy, and i am more concerned about getting a good, clean, accurate recording than having hardware effects processing - i always record a clean signal, and add any effects i want later anyway, so i can live without the dsp. the emu's proximity to the audigy also makes me nervous about it - perhaps unjustifiably, but i know that m-audio gets a lot of kudos from those who do home recording, and is probably a safer bet than the emu.

as always though, there will be an element of chance in my decision - it could well be that if i went with the emu, i would be more pleased with the results than if i went with the audiophile, but at present, that doesn't seem likely, so i have to go with my instincts. if some evidence were presented to me to convince me of the worthiness of the emu card over the m-audio card, i would consider it seriously - all i want is a good, clean, accurate recording. but as things are just now, the audiophile seems the better proposition for what i want out of an audio card.
Click to expand...
the hardware effects can be used as a VST plug in so you dont have to process the signal with the effect as it comes in. also it reduces CPU and memory usage. it appears in your vst plugings menu as a plug in. some dont like the effects. but as with maany effect you need to adjust it acording to your liking.
 
thanks everyone for their responses - i am now the proud owner of a shiny new m-audio audiophile 2496!

i have to say, the difference from the audigy is incredible - my recordings are much clearer, and much more representative of my perception of what i'm playing - there is more depth of tone and dynamics, and i don't feel the need to smother my recordings with effects to try and make it sound like it did when i was playing it (as i had to with the audigy). with the audiophile, the signal is clear and strong enough that i can apply effects sparingly and subtly, enhancing the original signal rather than trying to alter it substantially.

moral of the story: gaming and dvd oriented cards perform pathetically when compared even to a low-end audio-recording oriented card. i am more than happy with my choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top