Creative Audigy 2 ZS.

I would take a serious look at the maudio products first. I was facing the same decision..., maudio won.
 
You should seriously NEVER purcahse that card, nor any soundblaster card for recording at all.
You will get semi-crappy recordings, never pro.
 
AllOrNothinEnt said:
You should seriously NEVER purcahse that card, nor any soundblaster card for recording at all.
You will get semi-crappy recordings, never pro.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I'm trying to understand why.

I mean if its 24/96 capable, then why not? Would just like an elaboration.

Thanks :D
 
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but soundblasters do not RECORD at 24/96, they simply playback at that.
They are more of a gamers card, not a recording card.
 
The audigy can record 24 bit, but you have to get the kx drivers. I don't believe it can with the creative drivers, at least mine hasn't been able to. With the kx you can actually record 3 stereo channels or 6 mono channels simultaneously. With the creative drivers, only one stereo or two mono.

I use an Audigy 2 Platinum and a M-Audio Audiophile 2496. I prefer the sound of the m-audio 2496 but with the kx drivers for the audigy, the latency is amazing on both.

I've have never believed what people said about the poor recording quality of the audigy. From my experience on these boards, bashing creative is the national past time, enjoyed by all. When I first installed the Audiophile 2496, I did some tests. I recorded to both the creative and the m-audio simulateously. I then played it back for some friends and it was a 50/50 split between which one they like better. They don't sound identical. They just sound like they have a little different eq. But I always mess with the eq of each track anyways, so that is really a big problem.

Don't believe the hype. Creative is not that bad. But I would still buy the m-audiophile 2496 for the $150 rather than the creative at $200. But if you want surround sound and the ability to do more than just record (games, etc), the creative is not too bad of a choice.
 
Nitronium Blood said:
Fair enough. But I'm trying to understand why.

I mean if its 24/96 capable, then why not? Would just like an elaboration.

Thanks :D
Click to expand...

Because Creative wouldn't know how to write decent WDM or ASIO drivers if their livelyhood depended on it.
 
dmbpettit, thank you. I shall take your advice and purchase the Audigy 2 Zs.

AllOrNothinEnt, the Audigy 1 could only playback at 24/96. The Audigy 2 line of cards also RECORD at 24/96
 
Audigy 2 - more than one track simultaneously

dmbpettit, you said "The audigy can record 24 bit, but you have to get the kx drivers. I don't believe it can with the creative drivers, at least mine hasn't been able to. With the kx you can actually record 3 stereo channels or 6 mono channels simultaneously. With the creative drivers, only one stereo or two mono."

I got the Audigy 2 with my new computer (because it was an inexpensive upgrade and I didn't really want a soundblaster)

Is it true that all I need are different drivers to enable me to record 6 mono tracks simultaneously? If so that would be very cool !!

Can someone please give more information about this and let me
know if it is possible and if so how to set things up ??

THANKS.

Kester
 
HangDawg said:
SB are not meant for recording, period. Why spend more money on an inferior product?
Click to expand...

Well, keeping in mind that the Audigy 2 is 24/96 recording capable, what separates the Audigy 2 from other 24/96 audio cards 'under the hood'? Please explain this to me and I am dying to know.

The Audigy 2 is also the only THX certified audio card (correct me if I am wrong). Does not that mean some assurance of quality?

Thanks.
 
Nitronium Blood said:


The Audigy 2 is also the only THX certified audio card (correct me if I am wrong). Does not that mean some assurance of quality?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Pure marketing BS...

There is NO way the Audigy can deliver the sound quality of a $1000+ THX certified receiver for 20% of the price.
 
I think the big difference in the Audigy and real recording cards are the A/D, D/A converters. I of course have no idea how they work so i couldnt explain it, but i know that converters do very in quality. Real cards also have xlr inputs and preamps. hopefully someone can explain what makes different cards sound different.
 
Both a Hyndai and a Ferrari have 4 wheels and an engine and are ceritifed to be driven in this country. Is there a difference between the two? Of course! Will they both get you from your house to work? Yes! The Soundblaster will get your sounds recorded, but not as well as other cards.
 
I needs more info!

Don't mean to sound like Forrest Gump or anything but...

-I have a POD 2.3, which goes straight into line-in of my onboard Nforce sound card (I know I know... bad).

-It certainly isn't a 24bit soundcard, BUT - the character of the sound as heard through headphones on the POD itself is 99.9% retained compared to headphones connected to the soundcard.

-This is the way it seems to be atleast to my ears. And even recording at 16/48, the playback sounds 99.9% true to audio from just using the POD standalone with headphones.

Given the case above:
1) Am I tonedeaf to say that my crappy motherboard sound is decently reproducing and recording audio from the POD? Basically it is not like the recorded audio is that of an old man farting compared to what I hear when phones are connected directly to the POD.

2) POD does not output even close to 44.1kHz, and I am certain its a/d/a is done only at 16bit. Let say I purchased something highly reccommended like an Audiophile 24/96 or a Maudio card, would recording in 24/96 benefit me?

Thanks and sorry for the constant irritation :D
 
First off, the POD is not outputting 44.1 (or 16-bit) since it is Analog. It only becomes 44.1/16 (or 96/24) once it becomes digitized in the soundcard.

You're probably not hearing much of a difference because you're listening on headphones and you're relying on the DA (digital->analog) converters on your built in soundcard. The listening/monitoring chain becomes very important in this game. Alot of the differences between the SB and better cards won't be noticed unless you have a really nice playback system. Also as you said, your ears might not be as sensitive yet.
Finally, just recording a track of electric guitar isn't the most demanding source for an AD converter. If you do alot more acoustic work, and once you start mixing lots of tracks together, you'll appreciate the lower noise floor and better resolution of a better card.

I'm glad your setup is working and you're recording stuff. That's what this game is all about. Eventually you might outgrow your setup so when you step up to a better card, you'll really appreciate the difference.

Good luck!
 
Re: I needs more info!

Nitronium Blood said:
Don't mean to sound like Forrest Gump or anything but...

-I have a POD 2.3, which goes straight into line-in of my onboard Nforce sound card (I know I know... bad).

-It certainly isn't a 24bit soundcard, BUT - the character of the sound as heard through headphones on the POD itself is 99.9% retained compared to headphones connected to the soundcard.

-This is the way it seems to be atleast to my ears. And even recording at 16/48, the playback sounds 99.9% true to audio from just using the POD standalone with headphones.

Given the case above:
1) Am I tonedeaf to say that my crappy motherboard sound is decently reproducing and recording audio from the POD? Basically it is not like the recorded audio is that of an old man farting compared to what I hear when phones are connected directly to the POD.

2) POD does not output even close to 44.1kHz, and I am certain its a/d/a is done only at 16bit. Let say I purchased something highly reccommended like an Audiophile 24/96 or a Maudio card, would recording in 24/96 benefit me?

Thanks and sorry for the constant irritation :D
Click to expand...

24/96 audio is not all about better audio on the way out. Recording in 24/96 gives you more information when mixing down tracks in stereo and adding effects. If there is more information to begin with, the software/computer doesn't dither the audio (guess the outcome) as much when applying effects or merging tracks down to a stereo path.

24bit audio even allows for a lower noise floor.
 
thread hijack (sort of)...

gordone said:
First off, the POD is not outputting 44.1 (or 16-bit) since it is Analog. It only becomes 44.1/16 (or 96/24) once it becomes digitized in the soundcard.
Click to expand...

gordone and brzilian thank you for your reply.

The POD 2 is a digital guitar modeller and its output sample rate is 31.250 kHz and A/D/A conversion is 20 bit.

So would 24/96 recording still make any sense? I can understand recording at that rate for something truly 'analog' such as acoutic guitar, drums or even mic'ing a high gain amp. But for a POD?

Thank you again. :D
 
uhm...

I thought most people recorded in 44.1khz. You could record to 96KHZ, but when you convert, won't you be losing quality? This seems to be the opinion of some record producers i have been in touch with on other forums. Please let me know.
 
Re: uhm...

97reb said:
I thought most people recorded in 44.1khz. You could record to 96KHZ, but when you convert, won't you be losing quality? This seems to be the opinion of some record producers i have been in touch with on other forums. Please let me know.
Click to expand...
I usually hate it when people hijack threads, but to reply to your question: When you downmix to 44.1 kHz from 96 kHz, you are dithering 96 kHz information to 44.1 kHz. In other words, the 44.1kHz downmixed track will have the 'vibe' of the 96kHz recording.

Now someone please respond to my post above.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top