Soundblaster Live or AC'97?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scottboyher
  • Start date Start date
scottboyher

scottboyher

New member
I have a buddy that is just getting into recording so he doesn't really need anything special.

I was wondering.. His computer has the AC'97 stock onboard audio..

I have a Soundblaster Live sitting around that I could throw in there if I thought it would make a difference.

What do you think? Soundblaster Live or stick with the onboard AC'97?
 
Believe it or not, once upon a time I've tracked a bit through a Soundblaster. It is what it is but I got passable results. My vote=Soundblaster.
 
I've just recently got into recording onto the computer with a Soundblaster Live card...It sounds okay to me (to me the recording rendered is a reasonably clean, clear representation of the sound source)...I would have no idea how relativly bad this card is supposed to be except for what I have read on this board. On the other hand I haven't had experience recording with a more reputable card. I will probably get one of the ($100) M-Audio or Emu cards in the near future because they are supposed to be a real step-up from Soundblaster but right now I have enough trouble just writing a new song.
 
I recorded for 3 years on AC 97 and felt just fine about it!
 
I've got computers with each and the SB sounds better. And there's support for soundfonts in the Creative software.
 
SB Live has on-board EMU synth
Make sure you load the 8 meg soundfont, instead of 2 or 4 meg
This will give you the GS Midi sounds (308 vs 128 ) and 10 drum kits

If you have a synth or synth sound module, you can use the MIDI Mapper program to have certain channels go to the synth, and rest on SB.

I find the piano's very dry and casio-like, so I route the midi channels for piano, strings, synths to my Roland synth.
I always have channel 10 (drums) from the SB. My synth has only one kit vs 10 on the SB.
 
SB Live should do a lot better than an AC97. Just listening to Audio on AC97 is bad to me.
 
Back
Top