Soundcard???

T

Tappy

New member
I know this question is asked all the time but I want to ask it again. What would be the best soundcard for my needs? I am just doing home recording for a hobby and looking to get a new computer system and have to make the decision of a soundcard. I am currently using an Audigy 2ZS Plant. in my present system but have decided that I am going to stay away from Creative this time. I usually record vocals, guitar, midi, etc. and my price range is $0-$250.00

I would appreciate any suggestions you have.
 
Any sound card is fine for recording two tracks at once. I'm a fan of the M-Audio Audiophile 2496. If you need more inputs at once they have other more expensive models. I also prefer PCI cards rather than Firewire or USB. But really, anything you get will likely be fine.

--Ethan
 
I've been drooling over an Echo Layla 3G for a while. Most everything you might need, and not a bad card either. But a bit beyond your budget. Something PCI or Firewire should do you. USB has a limited bandwidth and can be problematic if you need to expand or do anything complex.

I'm on a Delta 44 myself. Nice, but limited as it doesn't have any microphone preamps or headphone preamps and only 1/4" TRS ins and outs. But the time I got all of the extras to use it like a normal soundcard, I spent more than your budget, and I got a good deal on the card used at about 1/3rd MSRP. Little did I know what I was getting into.
 
If you don't need more than 2 channels at one time, the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 is the way to go.

Would have been easier to say "plus 1" on Ethan's answer. Oh well.
 
It looks like the difference is that the 2494 ins\outs are unbalanced where as the 192 arebalance. What does this mean in a practicle sense?
 
Tappy

Creative has two brands of soundcard Soundblaster (Audigy) and EMU

The first is for general purpose and not that good for recording, the second is for professional recording.

Look at the EMU site. I have the EMU 0404 USB and I am very satisfied.

The most populair in Europe is however TASCAM us 122L.

Cheers
Wim
 
wim van p said:
Soundblaster (Audigy) ... not that good for recording
Click to expand...

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but even the really cheap SoundBlaster cards sold these days are quite acceptable.

Here are two files (1.5 MB each) of the same acoustic guitar performance, with the signal split to different converters after the microphone preamp. One was recorded through an Apogee 8000 and the other through a $25 SoundBlaster X-Fi sound card:

Clip 1
Clip 2

Can you tell which is which?

--Ethan
 
VERY little difference between the two but If I had to say, Clip 2 is the SB X-Fi card. I say this simply because it sounds just the slightest bit thinner than Clip 1.

Speaking as one that has went from a SB X-Fi card to a 2496, for all practical purposes, the sound quality is there. The problem lies in the drivers and the lack of no other input other than analog (no s/pdif or midi as the 2496 does) Even ASIO4ALL, although an improvement from the Creative drivers, isn't capable of getting the latency to an acceptable level. Face it, it isn't really designed for recording. For a solo artist that does just vocals and a single instrument, it will work. Though not spectacularly. Anything at all more than that, the little extra bit more for the cost of a 2496 or a 0404 is WELL worth it.
 
Your recording levels are much to low to hear a differance, but if I have to say what is what, I think No 2 is the audio interface, because it has if you cranck up the volume (which ruins the test) slightly more dynamics.

I did not dream this up myself. You find this statement everywhere in the recording business and why do you think Creative has two brands.
Buy a few recording magazines and get familiar what is used in the business.

Step number one is always, buy a suitable audio interface.

Cheers

Wim
 
Ethan Winer said:
Say what? Both files peak around -2 dB. How much louder do you think it needs to be? :D
--Ethan
Click to expand...

I guess what he wants is the ENTIRE track compressed to -2db and then push it up 1.5db so the whole thing is just shy of clipping. LOL Louder is better, right??????:rolleyes:
 
On my laptop they sound the same. On my Korg MR-1000 they sound basically the same. Then I read where you split it from the preamp. I think the main gripe on cheap soundcards is that the onboard preamps suck. Since you're not using that preamp, a non-issue for you and these clips.

That being said, clip 2 sounds worse of the bunch. More string smacking / scrapping, and other unpleasantries. Where clip 1 sounds less metalic. But that's as viewed through laptop speakers and headphones (HD280).

Through the other headphones (Sony MDR V-600) a little more difference is noticeable. Clip 2 sounding the worse with metal string distractions. It almost sounds like two different mics were used at different locations. Clip 2 being closer to the strings. (maybe even being used ON the strings as a pick or something).

Through the headphone preamp to my PC speakers (GNT-5000). Clips 2 is the thinner sounding clip.

Through the studio monitors (BX8), clip 2 has quite a bit more high end treble in it. Otherwise closely matched given that everything except for the converters were the same (in theory). It'd be interesting to know which mic and preamp.
 
Shadow_7 said:
On my Korg MR-1000 they sound basically the same. Then I read where you split it from the preamp. I think the main gripe on cheap soundcards is that the onboard preamps suck. Since you're not using that preamp, a non-issue for you and these clips.
Click to expand...

Right, these clips compare only the two A/D converters. But the mic was not moved, and it's the same performance recorded at the same time!

clip 2 sounds worse of the bunch. More string smacking / scrapping, and other unpleasantries. Where clip 1 sounds less metalic.
Click to expand...

Clip 1 is the SoundBlaster X-Fi card, and Clip 2 is the $6,000 Apogee converter.

It'd be interesting to know which mic and preamp.
Click to expand...

We used a DPA 4090 omni microphone through the preamps in my Mackie 1202 mixer.

Now I'll go shuffle the files randomly again, so the next time I post them somewhere else, people won't know which is which even if they see this thread.

--Ethan
 
Well sometimes bad converters helps hide bad performances. The test is a bit crippled don't you think? The SB at it's max settings, the Apogee at it's lowest. With a middle of the road preamp/mixer in the bunch. Not that I've had an X-Fi as a STOCK soundcard. nVidia MCP 61, Via 8233, Intel 810... on the other hand. It is somewhat surprising how close they are though. A little EQ and they could probably match. But one doesn't normally compare converters side by side without reproduction gear of equal or greater value.
 
Shadow_7 said:
The test is a bit crippled don't you think?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The same signal was recorded through each. Why do you think it's flawed?

one doesn't normally compare converters side by side without reproduction gear of equal or greater value.
Click to expand...

I'd say the SoundBlaster is the better "value" by far, especially since you preferred its sound!

Plus, preamps vary even less because they're so much simpler to design than converters. There's nothing inferior, or "veiling" if you prefer, about Mackie preamps.

--Ethan
 
Well, my Korg records DSD audio. And dithered down to typical sampling rates, it maintains some of that DSD detail. Which can make even relatively cheap mics sound semi-pro. Arguably recording at 24/96 instead of DSD and converting to 24/96 differs greatly in quality. Each piece of gear has it's feature that makes it shine. In this test, you're taking a 500hp/200mph sportscar and only driving it in a parade at 2mph. With leaded gasoline.

I didn't really say that I liked the clips. Just that clip 1 was less annoying. Weaker highs, stronger mids. Some people might call that muddy sounding. And in a mix, it would probalby sound as such. I liked it better than clip 2 because the chalkboard scratching of metal strings isn't my cup of tea, being a trombone player and all. It would have been nice to have a better preamp in the mix. Something more than $200 per channel. To better compliment the $6K converters. Hence crippled.

I suppose the mackie is better than an Art Tube MP, but not good enough to make the difference between each noticeable. It's too much like M$ running benchmarks on a highly optimized 64 bit version of windows and a stock 16 bit version of linux. And claiming it's unbiased because it was run on the same machine.
 
Shadow_7 said:
Just that clip 1 was less annoying.
Click to expand...

But that was the SoundBlaster card!

Weaker highs, stronger mids.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that from, but the basic tonality of both clips is the same IMO. Maybe try listening again with headphones?

I suppose the mackie is better than an Art Tube MP, but not good enough to make the difference between each noticeable.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into an extended argument with you about this, but the idea that a competent preamp like the Mackie 1202's is not "revealing" enough to hear a difference between converters is flawed. It doesn't really work that way. For example, the distortion in a 1202's preamp is at least 1/10th what even the finest loudspeakers can achieve. So maybe the limiting factor is really your speakers?

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top