pc soundcard vs high end sound card

  • Thread starter Thread starter chinglnc
  • Start date Start date
C

chinglnc

New member
What would be the difference in recording when using cheap sound card and high-end sound card?

for example, I record something in 16 bits, 44.1 Khz in my PC sound card and compared to Motu Sound card in the same specs?
 
The main difference will be in the distortion and maybe even in the clock stability. Also signal to noise ratio can be different.
And you won´t find a cheap soundcard with the specs of the Motu (or the real parameters).
 
what I meant is both are recorded in 16bits, 44.1Khz...

So, is that mean we can actually hear the difference if the two identical recordings are mixed down in two different sound card?
 
think in it in terms of analog tape recorders. Comparing a radio shack casssett recorder to a studer 2". Hey, both analog! Should sound the same? Nope!
 
I think its that you won't get the sound interferance, like static from your computer. you'll get stereo recording which is like one channel. I'd invest in a interface that would suit your budget and the channels you would need to record. good luck.
 
erm.....

I can't hear the difference really....there is no static that you mentioned...and the stereo images are similar as well (of course I meant play both of them over the same speakers)...

what am I supposed to hear? so that I know which one is from the good or cheap soundcard?


yeah..I know it's quite apparent in analog..but digital.hmm....
 
Of course, the better soundcard will likely have balanced ins and outs, xlr's and an actual ground per channel
 
Quality of other components

I think what the OP is asking, is not getting addressed.

The simple answer is that the recording specs (i.e. 16 bit and 44.1k htz, or 24 bit and 96k Htz, etc.) are only the basic specs that the average Joe refers to. But the really important aspects of sound are those techie things that most people don't know or bother to know about. That is, the quality of the components, which are the signal to noise ratios, the type of AD/DA converters, and even I am forgetting a couple of the other components now.

What it amounts to, chinglnc, is that the quality of the sound on a more expensive card SHOULD have less noise, and cleaner signals. SHOULD!

Ethan posted that in many cases, you could not tell the difference in recordings from a cheap card to a very expensive card, and I am sure this is true in many cases, but it does not address "why?".

I think, that a lot of comparisons are probably comparing crap to begin with. By this, I mean truly horrible sounds and horrible equipment with lots of brashness and distortion in the original source. Regardless of what type of sound system you play it on, it still sounds like shit.

But if you actually record something beautiful, and clean, say a string quartet, you SHOULD be able to be able to distinguish a good recording card from a bad one, all other things being equal.

I am only trying to address chinglnc original question as to what would make the difference between expensive and cheap cards. Again, the answer should be the other components that go into the signal process.

A similar comparison (and it is very disappointing to me how many "pros" nowadays don't even know this) is that in a PA system, people always want to boast about the size of their speakers and how much wattage their amplifiers can produce. But this totally is amateurish, and shows that they know nothing about sound. Why? Well, the other VERY IMPORTANT elements of a sound system are the amount of Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) of the amplifier, the rated power into a certain type of speaker (i.e. 8 ohms, or 4 ohms?), the threshold vs continuous rating of the speakers.

I spent extremely high dollars on my sound system because nothing could hold a candle to it when I play my CD collection through it, as well as my own keyboards. The end result is so smooth and wonderful. NO NOISE!!!

People fail to understand that NOISE and DISTORTION are what is awful in a signal process.
 
One more comment

I remember some 30 years ago, being in a music store talking with a recording engineer. He was explaining some really cool stuff to me.

In that conversation, he explained to me, and also demonstrated on some equipment in front of us, that if you have a PA system with no noise/distortion in the signal, and quality equipment, you can turn the volume level up VERY HIGH, and the human ear will NOT be disturbed.

He demonstrated that it is NOISE in a signal, that causes the ear bones to hurt and make people say "TURN IT DOWN!!!!". Noise is what offends. But in a clean signal, you can turn the volume levels up very high and you will think it is still nice and enjoyable.

He proceeded to turn the PA system in the store up very loud, and we were able to listen and talk without much problem.
 
Toddskins said:
That is, the quality of the components, which are the signal to noise ratios, the type of AD/DA converters, and even I am forgetting a couple of the other components now.
Click to expand...

There are only four parameters needed to define everything that matters in audio equipment:

Frequency response
Signal to noise
Distortion
Time-based errors

These are the general categories, and each has subsets. Much more here:

Audiophoolery

He proceeded to turn the PA system in the store up very loud, and we were able to listen and talk without much problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, though there's more to this than just a lack of distortion. Other things that make music sound irritating at high volume levels are too much content in the "harshness" range between 2 and 4 KHz, and too much room ambience. I can crank my living room home theater system REALLY loud and it still sounds good - assuming a good sounding source, of course! - because the distortion is low, the system is very flat, and the room acoustics are highly controlled. If you listen to well-mastered recordings and movie sound tracks, one common trait is a very controlled amount of treble content. Good sounding recordings never have too much energy in that irritating range.

--Ethan
 
Ethan Winer said:
Some people hate when I say this, but the truth is there will be very little difference. Here's a report on a comparison of a $25 SoundBlaster versus a $6,000 Apogee converter, with files you can download:

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12836--Ethan
Click to expand...


Tks, Ethan!
I listened it some weeks ago and showed to some friends (blind test),and even did a "re"-groove :D with (editing) the percussion to make a "song" for an even better comparision(with both converters at exactly same level).No noticiable difference, at least with 3 tracks...

--Ethan[/QUOTE]
 
Depending on how many layers or overdubs you're doing with the cheap card - the audio can get pretty "gritty" sounding - of course, imho, the mixing & digital effects path makes a big difference...
 
Are we talking about recording or playback here?

I would assume that your average sound card manufacturer puts a much higher priority on making playback sound decent since that's what your average user will be using an noticing. Your average 12 year old doesn't need high-quality input to shout "lol, f*g" at you while playing Counterstrike, but he may be upset if the booming voice that shouts "headshot" at him isn't crystal clear.
 
jitteringjim said:
Depending on how many layers or overdubs you're doing with the cheap card - the audio can get pretty "gritty" sounding
Click to expand...

I don't see why that would be the case. Each track you record will have some amount of distortion added, and a slight affect on the frequency response. But it's not like the music gets sent out and then back in multiple times depending on how many tracks there are. So each track will have only a tiny degradation, which is not usually audible, and the combining that happens inside the DAW will not affect that further much if at all.

Now, multiple tracks can accumulate a degradation due to poor room acoustics or lousy microphones. Most home studio rooms sound pretty bad, so if the room has a lot of midrange ambience, all of the tracks recorded live with microphones will have that same bad ambience. And if you use only one microphone that has a presence peak around 4 KHz or whatever, then all tracks will suffer from that character. Rooms have huge problems like this compared to insignificant amounts present in even very cheap sound cards.

--Ethan
 
VomitHatSteve said:
I would assume that your average sound card manufacturer puts a much higher priority on making playback sound decent
Click to expand...

It's not only a matter of priority, but D/A conversion is much easier to implement than A/D conversion. A D/A converter can be as simple as a few resistors followed by a minimal preamp. Versus an A/D converter that has a clock, must sample small voltages with high accuracy in a tiny fraction of a second, and so forth.

--Ethan
 
man i've read your arcticle and laughed out for good
so you took a DPA 4090 plugged it into a built in mackie pre and didnt hear any difference between apogee and sb?
hell why i am not surprised :D

ps
why didnt you put an art tube pre instead of mackie? it would kill every possible difference from the signal, i mean, come on... mackie had a very little, but still a chance :)
 
Not sure I get your point. :confused:

elf13 said:
why didnt you put an art tube pre instead of mackie?
Click to expand...

Because an ART toob preamp is a colored piece of crap with high distortion. It sounds like you're an ART fan? In that case, sorry if I offended you.

--Ethan
 
Better connections and better latency are the main differences. My buddy makes awesome recordings with his sound blaster though. I use a delta 1010lt and his recordings often sound better than mine but that's because he is more talented than I am.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top