Sound Cards ( some advice needed )

submission · Post by **submission** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:46 am

Hello All

Just wanted some opinions on what you might think would be the best Sound card I could get thats not to $$$ .

Im only going to be Mixing Down and Mastering with MTS , I use a stand alone multitrack recorder to do the actual recording and Import tracks as Wave files to MTS , so a sound card that supports the ability to plug in and record directly to PC is not needed + my PC has fire wire ports allready installed so this is also not needed.

Plus , any advice as to what to look for in a sound card , you know the stuff that really matters and not what the manufactures use hype up the specks to sell the card ?

I got some Really hot stuff going here , looking forward to getting some final mastering going.

Well I appreciate any advice or help you have to offer .
Thank you
Kyril

doveman · Post by **doveman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:23 am

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/ ... sku=701341

I finally bought one of these full-duplex cards after using my stock sound card for 3 years ... I've heard a lot of good things about it. At $99 it may be more than you are planning to spend.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:05 pm

For Mixing and Mastering, and even the occasional tracking of an added track in stereo or mono, that Audiophile card can't be beat.

--Mac

submission · Post by **submission** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:50 pm

Cool , and the price is right , cheaper then I thought I was going to have to spend .

Thanks a lot
Kyril

mcairenius · Post by **mcairenius** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:33 pm

I have allways found the audigy cards work just fine.
Right now I am using the audigy 4 none pro oem version,
only cost me about 75 bucks canadian. before I owned
the audigy 2 zs.. And so far the one I got now is great
it has every little thing you need..Well I need. lol
And works great with multitrackstudio, I find..

Here's a link

http://www.creative.com/products/produc ... duct=14103

That link wont take you to the oem version but it still
is cheap price wise, if you look around, lots of store
sell the oem version without the remote and other nick
nacks.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:17 am

Either card would work, I have ample experience with both, the Audigy has the edge if you are in need of an offboard Soundfont Synth or effects engine, but the Audiophile comes out slightly ahead in the audio specs department, which would make it the better choice when the target will be Mixing and especially Mastering, where even slightly improved audio specifications can mean a lot.

--Mac

mcairenius · Post by **mcairenius** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:30 pm

True dat!

But I don't find any hearable difference between 48 and 96 khz.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:02 pm

mcairenius wrote:True dat! But I don't find any hearable difference between 48 and 96 khz.

Suspect your monitors. A lot of them cutoff at around 20-22KHz, the Nyquist Law means that the highest frequency reproducible by the sampling rate is one half the sampling rate -- 48KHz cutoff is therefore 24KHz, tops, most nearfield monitors don't even extend with flat response out that far. And don't really need to.

Also suspect your file content. Most samples are recorded at 16/44.1, using a higher recording sampling frequency can't add what is not there in the first place. Frequencies above 20KHz are felt and not heard actually. There are those who talk of the "delicacy" and "transparency" available at sampling rates of 96 or even 192KHz, and it is true, 24/192 is hard to accomplish without the fastest, latest and greatest, but it really can sound a lot better. Problem is that you only hear that in that particular and expensive studio environment for the most part because of the ubiquitous CD.

A better comparison, one I've actually done, would be to install the Audiophile 24/96 alongside an Audigy card and then compare the same bitrate and sampling frequency on both, recording the same thing on each. You don't have to use 96KHz, and frankly I don't. I usually like to work at 24/48 or 24/44.1. The 24 bitrate gives better amplitude resolution and that's good, since most targets are going to be CD or "CD quality" the 44.1 sampling frequency is all you can use to burn anyway. Some like to record at higher sampling frequency and then convert with dithering at the last step before burning. Might be a good thing to do for a classical string quartet recording or the like, where subtleties and delicacies are the goal, maybe not a needed thing to do for a funk tune that has bed tracks made from 16bit 44.1 samples.

--Mac

mcairenius · Post by **mcairenius** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:28 pm

Mac wrote:
mcairenius wrote:True dat! But I don't find any hearable difference between 48 and 96 khz.
Suspect your monitors. A lot of them cutoff at around 20-22KHz, the Nyquist Law means that the highest frequency reproducible by the sampling rate is one half the sampling rate -- 48KHz cutoff is therefore 24KHz, tops, most nearfield monitors don't even extend with flat response out that far. And don't really need to.

Also suspect your file content. Most samples are recorded at 16/44.1, using a higher recording sampling frequency can't add what is not there in the first place. Frequencies above 20KHz are felt and not heard actually. There are those who talk of the "delicacy" and "transparency" available at sampling rates of 96 or even 192KHz, and it is true, 24/192 is hard to accomplish without the fastest, latest and greatest, but it really can sound a lot better. Problem is that you only hear that in that particular and expensive studio environment for the most part because of the ubiquitous CD.

A better comparison, one I've actually done, would be to install the Audiophile 24/96 alongside an Audigy card and then compare the same bitrate and sampling frequency on both, recording the same thing on each. You don't have to use 96KHz, and frankly I don't. I usually like to work at 24/48 or 24/44.1. The 24 bitrate gives better amplitude resolution and that's good, since most targets are going to be CD or "CD quality" the 44.1 sampling frequency is all you can use to burn anyway. Some like to record at higher sampling frequency and then convert with dithering at the last step before burning. Might be a good thing to do for a classical string quartet recording or the like, where subtleties and delicacies are the goal, maybe not a needed thing to do for a funk tune that has bed tracks made from 16bit 44.1 samples.

--Mac

Ya, I only said what I said cause I did a test too! Recorded my voice
at 16 bits/48 khz and tryed 24 bits/96 khz using the audigy..The Audigy
4 cant do 24/96{asio with monitoring} (to bad! otherwise I'd use it
for the sake of it) Anyhow..What I was saying is after I did the test, at first I was like whoooe NICE! 24/96 is really really nice..But! After I listened to it and compared more over, I began to think that this quality thing between 16/48 khz and 24/96 is just an illusion. I have used all sorts of different speakers and headphones..

My point there is no difference my ears can differenciat between the two.(good headphones speakers or whatever) I dont know, It's a strange thing to me, depends on what a person wants I guess like you said..

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:01 am

Check the published audio specs on yer cans and on yer speakers.

And don't forget to check same on yer amp.

Might be a better way, take a look at each file on a good spectrum analyzer software -- if you can gind one that goes up past a few KHz either side of 24, that is.

A vocal recording, speech no less, is likely a poor candidate for such anyway, speech is very narrow band to begin with and it is very hard to hear the overtones, which again don't go up very high except for the sibilances. And then there's the frequency response of the chosen mic and the preamp to consider, too.

Put 'em all together and you did your test through quite a set of filters, man.

--Mac

mcairenius · Post by **mcairenius** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:18 am

Nah I'd rather trust my own little human ears.

Frusciante · Post by **Frusciante** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:17 pm

Hey there,

this is a supplement to this topic: Digital audio Converters (which is on the soundcard).

I'M workign on a laptop and I'M using the generic soundcard that came with it.

I theoretically presume that for audio coming in, the DAC makes the difference because it's the DAC that converts the audio into numerical value. So a good DAC gives good results for audio coming in.

However, should I be worried to use a poor soundcard if I use the MTS sampler for example? isn't the samples already recorded with a good quality? (depending on how it was recorded of course)

Or for soft synths, does the DAC affects the sound quality of soft synths?

And lastly, does the DAC affect the mixdown of a file? (I'M having trouble conceptualizing how it could make the difference because the seperate wav files to mix down are already in numerical value, so a good or poor DAC shouldn't affect the quality of the mix down).

Am I right?

André Giroux · Post by **André Giroux** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:32 pm

Hi you all,
I've recorded 4 CDs with MTS. All four were done with Sound Blaster Audigy Value 2 trying to cut cost for starters. That was a bad idea. I had my share of problems with this card and its on its way out. From crackles,pops and with the lastest driver release from creative don't even both because you'll go back with your old drivers to be able to use asio driver set. Now my opinion from my experiences, a sound card would be the last peice of your recording equipment you'll want to limit your budget on. Audigy is a great card if you use your PC as an enternaiment center but has some ways to go to match up with M-AUDIO which it's designed for recording. I have some friends who own Audiophile, Delta and let me tell ya my creative has some ways to go to match up on the quality m-audio brings out, a good example of this here checkout Doveman trow away tune posted in this forum. Now that's clean. For someone who don't want to sale there boat for a sound card Audiophile is a wise choice and a good match for MTS. I'm expecting my 10-In/10-Out PCI/Rack Digital Recording System with MIDI and Digital I/O any day now. So if anyone want to learn some new swares I have an Audigy Value 2 for sales for cheap but I advise to really checkout M-audio to match up your great tool. MTS

Andr

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:28 am

Frusciante wrote:Hey there,

this is a supplement to this topic: Digital audio Converters (which is on the soundcard).

I'M workign on a laptop and I'M using the generic soundcard that came with it.

I theoretically presume that for audio coming in, the DAC makes the difference because it's the DAC that converts the audio into numerical value. So a good DAC gives good results for audio coming in.

However, should I be worried to use a poor soundcard if I use the MTS sampler for example? isn't the samples already recorded with a good quality? (depending on how it was recorded of course)

Or for soft synths, does the DAC affects the sound quality of soft synths?

And lastly, does the DAC affect the mixdown of a file? (I'M having trouble conceptualizing how it could make the difference because the seperate wav files to mix down are already in numerical value, so a good or poor DAC shouldn't affect the quality of the mix down).

Am I right?

First we are talking about two converters and not one.

INPUT (analog) is governed by the A-D converter, the ADC. These are poor in the laptop or even the desktop builtin soundcards for reasons of cost, they suffer from clock jitter, noise, poor analog handling circuits in front of them. Since noise is a sound and in digital audio all sound is additive in nature, these analog inputs are poor choice for multitracking. One track may sound fairly nice, two tracks not as nice, etc. as the noise from each track builds up. If you want to track from the analog input, get an aftermarket soundcard.

At the output, though can be a different story. The D-A there, (that is the DAC) can be of much higher quality than the input A-D these days, and if your laptop is less than about two to three years old, chances are very good that it is. The earphone jack output can double as a stereo unbalalanced consumer level output with a few caveats: First one is to make sure that the Windows software mixer is turned up all the way on any outputs that you wish to hear, and that should include the Master fader too. Drive the line as hard as the thing can and get the volume adjustment at the amplifier proper if you can. Best signal to noise ratio that way. Only back off the software fader if you happen to get distortion from driving your amp input too hard. Likely most laptops can't do that, though.

Anything done "inside" the puter is at the digital level at all times until it is sent to that output so you can hear it. So those softsynths, etc. are not going to suffer any degradation whatsoever, and that includes any digital files you make from them.

So you are theoretically correct in your thinking.

But if you are serious about your music, you really should get yourself a good aftermarket sound solution for your laptop before attempting to make anything for posterity. Because the better you can hear it, the better it will be. If you listen and respond properly to what you hear, that is.

--Mac

Frusciante · Post by **Frusciante** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:33 pm

First one is to make sure that the Windows software mixer is turned up all the way on any outputs that you wish to hear, and that should include the Master fader too. Drive the line as hard as the thing can and get the volume adjustment at the amplifier proper if you can. Best signal to noise ratio that way. Only back off the software fader if you happen to get distortion from driving your amp input too hard.

Thanks a lot Mac, I knew already that audio coming in in a poor computer is something to watch for because at first, I was working with a 4-5 year old laptop before. This thing was NASTY. You could hear the beeps and crakles of the soundcard circuitry in the tracks!! Doing a noise filtering in cool edit would also damage the track.

I was primarly asking because now that I have a better laptop (bought 2 years ago), I do see a difference. However, I'm still cautious.

I was just afraid that my mixdown or the freezing of a midi file would be altered because of the DAC.

Now, I'm just cautious to know which tracks I need to rerecord in a better soundcard since I'm working a lot with samples and VSTi's. My audio coming in are not that many.

Now concerning the quote, you're explaining the way to get a better signal to noise ratio for hearing what's coming out of the computer right? You're not talking about the signal to noise ratio to record a track.

The way I'm recording right now is to actually have the software fader of the mic the lowest possible!! not to record any circuitry of the soundcard and I prefer recording the hiss of my mixer/mic setup since its a constant hiss. I do a noise filtering in cool edit which works quite well. If I had to filter a not constant noise, this would damage the tracks even more.

I guess you would be worried when I say "recording hiss", but for the budget I have, it's the less worst I can do. (Having a Shure SM58 mic in a Behringer Xenyx 1204FX mixer going into the mic input of my laptop).

I do Have a friend who has a desktop and we'll probably invest in the same soundcard Doveman just bought. I think it's the audiophile Maudio 2496.

But your comment on digital audio being additive makes sense. each track are quite good with the noise filter, however, when 2 or more are playing I have a weird feeling that something's not right.

Thanks, At least I can still work without hesitation with the sampler and vsti's