Delta 1010 What do you think?

q10

I've used the delta 1010 with a mackie 1202 and a Aardvark DP 24/96. I prefered the aardvarks quality compared to the delta/mackie combination. The Aardvark was very transparent sounding. This leads me to an importent point nobody seems to put any emphesis on -cabling. With the Aardvark, you get the best cabling money can buy, lowest noise, least intereference and greatest transparency, NONE. The Arrdvark has no cabling between the preamps and the D/A convertors. So if you want to make a better comparison, include $40 dollars a channel in cables as well. That's another $200. I now have the Q10 and I'm using win2k for which there are only beta drivers. Don't expect great performance. In fact, I get a lot of crashing so beware.
 
Ok i had some time so i went and looked at the q 10 reviews ok on first sight and reading on what it offers yes it is a great product

the io department is where i was impressed its price also is not so unreasonable for what you are getting in the one package i thought the sound card was extra but no you get that as well so yes i have to conceed for the price this q 10 is looking to be a serious contender on anyones wants list

its way cheaper then the sta systems three though im told the systems three has great mic pres and i believe this q10 is probably better then the sta c port system though that system is very well priced @399 the downside there being the unbalanced io,s

the delta 1010 i guess falls between all of these systems @495 and its proven itself to also be a good setup id still like to see a real technical review done on the q10 if any one knows of one please post it as id be very eager to read this if this proves as good as the reviews have stated i may have also found what iam looking for as well but wont decide till i see the techical specs id say if this unit drops to the 500usd mark it would be hard to say no to it

the only other cards now ive seen are the lynx one and two cards both nice but again the io,s problem was a sticking point for me as i want as many io options as one can get as iam sure most do

i guess january aint far away now so lets see what happens here.


Regards Wayne
Melbourne Australia
 
the mackie must have messed up your delta sound.

Golly.

The Q10 cant touch the 1010. The fact that the delta 1010 can go up to 96khz means that more quality had to go into it to achieve specs at that level. For example, the clock on the 1010 is freaking amazing and it alone is worth the price of admission.

THe delta 1010 is the best sounding 8-in -8 out card out there, especially given the price. Even without price comparison, reviewers have called the 1010 the best sounding 8-in -8 out card .

OK, time to prove it. I did this test for somebody. I recorded 4 tracks into the delta 1010 and then into the Lucid 9624 with genx6 clock, which costs $1100 for the two units. I'll give you a hurrah if you can tell the difference. Keep in mind that Many pros prefer the sound of the Lucid to the apogee and definitely to the digidesign converters. For a soundcard to come so close is mindblowing.

Listen to " MULTITRACK COMPARISON OF CONVERTERS "
on this page:

www.nowhereradio.com/artists/alternative/testerslogic

and see for yourself why everybody is raving about the 1010.
 
THe Q10 cant touch the 1010?....with all due respect, it can and does......have you heard it yet, Cyan?....

Believe me, im as much a fan of M-Audio products as anyone, but I think unless Delta drops the price of their 1010 more, the Q10 is gonna kick its ass.....
 
gidge,

not a chance. I have not heard the q10, but it would have to be as good as a Lucid to beat the delta1010 and I guarantee you it aint no Lucid.

THe fact that it does not have 96k sampling rates means that it will never touch the 1010. Maybe the q32 will though.

It also has onboard preamps. Onboard preamps are traditionally worse than regualr preamps, and I heard, more noisy.

Did you listen to the file? can you tell me which one is the 1010 and which one is the lucid?

In defense of the q10 though , I will admit it does have one thing on the delta1010. It looks very good.
 
Umm

Greetings,


Listening to the file through a pair of modern yet average computer speakers i have no clue as to what was recorded with what.

For a second I thought maybe the first recording has a tad more low end to it. But i have no idea. What was the price differences for the Lucid vs 1010 equip again?

SirRiff
 
I used to hear the same thing about tube equipment, could never compare to solid state gear because it always measured noisier with higher distortion. Then people started using thier ears and discovered tube equipment tends to sound more musical.

I think most people don't record at 96K and I've seen little to indicate that it's some kinda holy grail. So I think it wouldn't be wise to claim every system that records at 96K beats every system that records at 48K.

Besides, why bother judging something that you havn't heard?
 
I seriously hope you aren't suggestiing that we listen to mp3 files to judge sound quality of D/A convertors.

I think the quality of almost all modern recording equiment surpassses what an MP3 file can resolve.
 
Sirrriff, the cost to upgrade to two ad converters and a clock is $1100 today. It cost me more than that 3 months ago.

Its saying a lot that you and the average user cannot hear the difference between a world class unit and a soundcard. I guess the soundcard is a world class unit. I'm lucky I have it.

Wesley, you make very good points. I dont know the technical terms, but a soundcard designed for 96khz has to use better filters or something, and so it sounds better even at 48khz.

I was not comparing the d-a. I was actually comparing the A-D. I am waiting for mp3s or wavs if the q10 to make my judgements. I am sure that it will be no dog. What I am saying right now though, is that it would be virtually impossible for the q10 to be better than the 1010, and if it is , at what cost?
 
The over all specs on the card are comparable to the best audio systems available. Some of you, however, may be 'put off' by the fact that the Q10 is a 24/ 48 card instead of the current rage, 24/ 96. Let me put it this way: 96 sounds great in some paper written by an audio scholar. In The Real World, however, very few systems are set up to handle 96...and it doesn't look like it's going to become the 'standard' anytime soon! CDs are still being released at a sample rate of 44.1 with only a 16-bit depth. Obviously, even at 'only' 48, the Q10 samples at a higher rate than 44.1...with room to spare! Anyway, my crystal ball tells me that Aardvark has some plans to add that all-important 96 kHz sampling rate for those 'purists' among you who absolutely can't live without it...even if there isn't much practical use for it, at present! My crystal ball also tells me that this is going to probably happen before the end of the year...maybe as a software download. So, don't let the present...and temporary...lack of a 96 kHz sampling rate keep you from checking the Q10
Click to expand...
taken from audio midi review by Ian Bruce Douglas
 
Ive heard lots of arguments that give the "well, CDs are only 16bit/44.1 so why bother with higher rates when recording" and I've read where lots of people refute that by saying it always helps when adding effects/EQ to have the higher resolution. So if I was buying a soundcard only to record CDs into my computer and burn those to other CDs without editing or mastering them at all, then 24/96 wouldn't be necessary in the "real world." But I want a soundcard where I can record at the highest possible level that makes sense with my computer hardware. Right now I'm at 24/48 so the 96 doesn't really matter to me, but it bothers me that this guy seems to blow it off. And that he disregards the lack of 96 support by saying most systems aren't setup to handle it. That may be true, but that seems like more an excuse to overlook the lacking features of the card than an argument for getting the Q10. Obviously he likes the card a lot.

My question is why spend more money (if the Q10 is more) and hope they will update the thing with software later on (in "real world" terms my crystal ball says that means 'prepare for disappointment') when you can get something now that does the higher rates, has been doing so for a while now, and is a good value?

I haven't heard the Q10, and probably never will. Just bothers me when reviewers use arguments like that. I'm sure it's a great card, and the lack of 96 shouldn't keep people from buying this thing if they don't need 96, but what this reviewer guy is saying makes me want to not buy it just because of the stance he takes.
 
Jonx,

it bothers me to. I feel ya.

It also bothers me that the only review on the q10 is done by somebody who is obviously trying to sell q10s.

It also bothers me that the reviewer did not name the card that he compared it to. For all we know, it could have been a sounblaster clone.

It also bothers me that nowhere in the review, or on the aadvark site, or in the .pdf manual, are there hard specs like S/N ration, or THD, or flatness curve.

The q10 still looks good though.
 
There's a review of the Q10 in this months Sound on Sound that came out 2 days ago. I don't want to pay the $26 bucks for the electronic subscription but it would be cool if anyone here has one, maybe they could give us a quick run down.
 
My only complaints about the delta1010 is that it doesn't have AES/EBU output. Also it would be nice if it had XLR in/outs rather than TRS.

My question is this - if $$ is not an issue, what it the best audio interface money can buy? (at least 8 analog ins - with converters - I'm not talking about xternal converters)

How is the Hoontech SystemIII?
Ben
 
ive been asking similar questions but i need 16 i,os heres something else i discovered rme makes it gnarled put me onto this and i think for what it is its a dam fine unit the rme multiface 649 @ sweetwater heres the rme url check their list on the left of screen you will find the multiface i believe this system puts no strain on your cpu anyway check it out see what you think

http://www.rme-audio.com/english/index.htm
 
TRS and XLR

I've been wondering about how big an issue the XLR and TRS deal is. On my 4 track minidisc recorder I had 2 XLRs and 2 TRS ins and I could never tell the difference in audio. What's the real difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top