Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Opinions on Sound Card and / or Audio Interface
- Thread starter bassballs27
- Start date
Actually.......I know this information well.
I've studied it before. Control and Feedback Systems are my Forte.......I love this stuff!
I just wanted to know the big picture.........that is why I asked the people who use these products, rather than those who have studied it.
To quote the above website:
"It is a digital sample rate reduction filter and is sometimes termed downsampling (as opposed to oversampling) since it is here that the sample rate is returned from its 64-times rate to the normal CD rate of 44.1 kHz, or perhaps to 48 kHz, or even 96 kHz, for pro audio applications. The net result is much greater resolution and dynamic range, with increased S/N (signal to noise ratio) and far less distortion compared to successive approximation techniques -- all at lower costs."
Therefore, for pro audio applications........a higher sampling rate is a good choice.
However...........as quoted from the website:
"Due to the oversampling and noise shaping characteristics of delta-sigma A/D converters, certain measurements must use the appropriate bandwidth or inaccurate answers result. Specifications such as signal-to-noise, dynamic range, and distortion are subject to misleading results if the wrong bandwidth is used. Since noise shaping purposely reduces audible noise by shifting the noise to inaudible higher frequencies, taking measurements over a bandwidth wider than 20 kHz results in answers that do not correlate with the listening experience. Therefore, it is important to set the correct measurement bandwidth to obtain meaningful data."
Keep this in mind!
I've studied it before. Control and Feedback Systems are my Forte.......I love this stuff!
I just wanted to know the big picture.........that is why I asked the people who use these products, rather than those who have studied it.
To quote the above website:
"It is a digital sample rate reduction filter and is sometimes termed downsampling (as opposed to oversampling) since it is here that the sample rate is returned from its 64-times rate to the normal CD rate of 44.1 kHz, or perhaps to 48 kHz, or even 96 kHz, for pro audio applications. The net result is much greater resolution and dynamic range, with increased S/N (signal to noise ratio) and far less distortion compared to successive approximation techniques -- all at lower costs."
Therefore, for pro audio applications........a higher sampling rate is a good choice.
However...........as quoted from the website:
"Due to the oversampling and noise shaping characteristics of delta-sigma A/D converters, certain measurements must use the appropriate bandwidth or inaccurate answers result. Specifications such as signal-to-noise, dynamic range, and distortion are subject to misleading results if the wrong bandwidth is used. Since noise shaping purposely reduces audible noise by shifting the noise to inaudible higher frequencies, taking measurements over a bandwidth wider than 20 kHz results in answers that do not correlate with the listening experience. Therefore, it is important to set the correct measurement bandwidth to obtain meaningful data."
Keep this in mind!
nice and all about the better quality sound of higher quality sample rates but going from a sound blaster your probobly going to get way more from just about any thing you purchase... providing it's not another sound blaster 
You may also want to look at Tascam US-122 and many different Edirol products.
You may also want to look at Tascam US-122 and many different Edirol products.
Yes sir, I agree with you Steve man! Going from a Sound Blaster........anything will be bettersteve_man said:nice and all about the better quality sound of higher quality sample rates but going from a sound blaster your probobly going to get way more from just about any thing you purchase... providing it's not another sound blaster
You may also want to look at Tascam US-122 and many different Edirol products.
I've seen those Tascam products at the local music shop I visit every so often.
I think the USB Devices aren't getting any good opinions as of now, do you care to add to this? Is the Tascam US-122 a decent USB compatable approach at recording on your PC?
What does Edirol make that you would recommend?
What type of recrding do you plan on doing?
I am not experienced with these products. instead mostly poked around a lot. I''ve been wanting to record some stuff my self and I'm in the same position you are in (XLR's into a sound card).
from what you are saying you seem like you want something of decent quality that will retain the characteristics of your preamp.
I've been also studying about the higher sample rates and while there are many theories as to why a higher sample rate would be superior I haven't heard anything great about sound deveices that transfer
24 bit /96 kHz audio
Well from looking around most of these products
Edirol seems like a well built product (priced nicely aswell). They are a Roland product. I like the looks of the UA-5 and the new UA-25.
http://www.edirol.com/
The tascam product I've seen many reviews on and none of them has really put them down. The US-122 does not record in 24 bit / 96 kHz audio but can record in 24 bit / 96 kHz.
Both the edirol and tascam products have some nice mike preamp features as well as a hi-z input (if you want to just plug your bass in)
if you want to see more reviews check out www.soundonsound.com
I am not experienced with these products. instead mostly poked around a lot. I''ve been wanting to record some stuff my self and I'm in the same position you are in (XLR's into a sound card).
from what you are saying you seem like you want something of decent quality that will retain the characteristics of your preamp.
I've been also studying about the higher sample rates and while there are many theories as to why a higher sample rate would be superior I haven't heard anything great about sound deveices that transfer
24 bit /96 kHz audio
Well from looking around most of these products
Edirol seems like a well built product (priced nicely aswell). They are a Roland product. I like the looks of the UA-5 and the new UA-25.
http://www.edirol.com/
The tascam product I've seen many reviews on and none of them has really put them down. The US-122 does not record in 24 bit / 96 kHz audio but can record in 24 bit / 96 kHz.
Both the edirol and tascam products have some nice mike preamp features as well as a hi-z input (if you want to just plug your bass in)
if you want to see more reviews check out www.soundonsound.com
Steve man,
I plan on just recording with at most 4 tracks right now.
I'd prefer to invest in a product that would be useful in the long run.
I'm not into something that just 'works', I'd rather use something that is relatively decent and I can guarantee it will capture my bass without any unwanted noise.
From what I've seen, the M-Audio Omni, already recommended by Droog would be a good choice. As wood the E-MU, recommended by Blisshead.
The only problem with the E-MU is that I'm not sure if I can find them up here in Canada, and I'd rather order something that is off the shelf, and readily available without ordering.
The store I visit carries most of the M-Audio line from the MobilePre to the 1010T (which has a lot more channels than I need!).
So......I'm still looking.
I'll have to see if there are any Edirol dealers up here in Canada......Tascam and M-BOX (ProTools) equipment is, of course, readily available as well.
Thanks for the insights! I appreciate it!
I plan on just recording with at most 4 tracks right now.
I'd prefer to invest in a product that would be useful in the long run.
I'm not into something that just 'works', I'd rather use something that is relatively decent and I can guarantee it will capture my bass without any unwanted noise.
From what I've seen, the M-Audio Omni, already recommended by Droog would be a good choice. As wood the E-MU, recommended by Blisshead.
The only problem with the E-MU is that I'm not sure if I can find them up here in Canada, and I'd rather order something that is off the shelf, and readily available without ordering.
The store I visit carries most of the M-Audio line from the MobilePre to the 1010T (which has a lot more channels than I need!).
So......I'm still looking.
I'll have to see if there are any Edirol dealers up here in Canada......Tascam and M-BOX (ProTools) equipment is, of course, readily available as well.
Thanks for the insights! I appreciate it!
If you want to record 4 tracks then I would definetly not go for a usb solution!
If you don't need to go through the computer I'd almost suggest you go for say a boss digital recorder.
If you do want to go into your computer (and record 4 tracks) then there are many options but they are just as expersive as a seperate digital recorder (not always having the software you need). Some of these options I'd check out at the is website:
Link Removed
If the soundcard doesn't already come with an external box like some of the M-Audio solutions or the Emu 1820m then check out an external box (again a lot of options here - companies such as focusrite, pre sonus, etc.) that has a XLR connector and has a digital out.
hope this helps!
If you don't need to go through the computer I'd almost suggest you go for say a boss digital recorder.
If you do want to go into your computer (and record 4 tracks) then there are many options but they are just as expersive as a seperate digital recorder (not always having the software you need). Some of these options I'd check out at the is website:
Link Removed
If the soundcard doesn't already come with an external box like some of the M-Audio solutions or the Emu 1820m then check out an external box (again a lot of options here - companies such as focusrite, pre sonus, etc.) that has a XLR connector and has a digital out.
hope this helps!
The M-Audio and E MU stuff can be had for $500 and even lower, is there any all in one box that's equal too or cheaper than that yet offers similar quality?steve_man said:
Could anyone tell me why the E-MU 1212M wouldn't be a good choice for me?
I think the 1212M would work just fine.......I don't really have to have XLR's, I can always purchase an XLR to balance TRS 1/4" cable anyway.
I'm quite suprised M-Audio doesn't produce anything quite like the 1212M, something without a break out box is what I mean.
I think the 1212M would work just fine.......I don't really have to have XLR's, I can always purchase an XLR to balance TRS 1/4" cable anyway.
I'm quite suprised M-Audio doesn't produce anything quite like the 1212M, something without a break out box is what I mean.
Let me say right off the bat that I work at E-MU (and have been a TB'er for several years). I spotted this thread and thought I'd clarify the E-MU/Creative distinction:
The E-MU cards are very different from the Creative SB and Audigy cards. For starters, the E-MU circuit was designed by E-MU's top hardware engineer (ex-Apogee engineer) specifically for audio/MIDI recording and production. A huge difference between the E-MU cards and the Creative stuff is the fact that Creative's cards sample rate convert all audio to 48kHz as it passes through the processor. E-MU's circuit keeps audio at its native sample rate throughout (up to 192kHz). The A/D and D/A converters are not even in the same league, as the 1212M and 1820M use the hi-end AKM A/D converters. Even the lower end 1820 and 0404 use better converters than almost anything on the market.
The E-MU cards are very different from the Creative SB and Audigy cards. For starters, the E-MU circuit was designed by E-MU's top hardware engineer (ex-Apogee engineer) specifically for audio/MIDI recording and production. A huge difference between the E-MU cards and the Creative stuff is the fact that Creative's cards sample rate convert all audio to 48kHz as it passes through the processor. E-MU's circuit keeps audio at its native sample rate throughout (up to 192kHz). The A/D and D/A converters are not even in the same league, as the 1212M and 1820M use the hi-end AKM A/D converters. Even the lower end 1820 and 0404 use better converters than almost anything on the market.
Really basshag?
How does the A/D converters on the 0404 compare to say, the Omni Studio Converters?
How does the A/D converters on the 0404 compare to say, the Omni Studio Converters?
basshag said:
Are you in sales? Nothing that you wrote is very helpful. Every companys "top" engineer is workin on the "best" stuff, it means nothing. Ex-Apogee? Who cares? He was obviously not their top engineer. The fact that E-mu maintains native sample rate is not suprise, any interface worth a sh** does. To say that a product that cosst a couple hundred dollars uses better converters than anything on the market is pretty ballsy. Does your ex-Apogee engineer, design stuff better than his former employer? I have a hard time believing the 1820 and 0404 are better than an AD8000. If you are comparing price points then the term "better" requires some backing up.
Sorry to sound like an ass, I just want people to buy what they want, not whats pitched to them in the brightest way. Your post just reeks of Guitar Center. I still say buy whats most flexible, offers what you need and you feel best about. Read facts and testimonies from users, not sellers. For the money you are going to invest I think you will find the quality of the differing products to be at the same level. Find what works best for you.
I'll step off the pulpit, take it easy, and make good music.
Droog said:
You make some valid points, but before calling BS you might check thins out a little first. You can google it and find independent reviews that back up the claims on the converters. Examples include the link bassballs27 posted and Recording magazine, both of which checked E MU's numbers. The main problem with the E MU products (yes I own the 1820M, and yes it is phenominal) is that at higher rates you lose onboard effects and the number of tracks you can do at once.
Droog,
You seem particularly bent out of shape about my post. I suggest that if you actually have any interest in these products that you research them for yourself. My post was specifically in regards to the E-MU/Creative connection. You can find more than enough info on the web about the comparitive converter qualities yourself without having to trust my word for it.
You seem particularly bent out of shape about my post. I suggest that if you actually have any interest in these products that you research them for yourself. My post was specifically in regards to the E-MU/Creative connection. You can find more than enough info on the web about the comparitive converter qualities yourself without having to trust my word for it.
It's a point of diminishing returns for some folks. No Human can actually hear frequencies above 22KHz without bionic implants, so why would one need sampling above 48KHz? Because of aliasing, I say. The finer your resolution the closer you get to the true "curve" of the original sound. Can your hard drive handle the data load? Are you using high end mic-pres and large diaghram condensers with >100db SNR? Go for 192KHz then down-sample for your CD master! Are you more into a grunge sound, dynamic mics, and only have 10GB of disk space? Save your money for strings and new set of 12AX7's (or whatever tubes get you gruvin'). One thing is FER SHURE - get your converters OUTSIDE of the PC! A lot of modern systems have S/PDIF inputs these days - use an external device to get your sound digitized and port in on that digital RCA jack. Heck, I can use my Lexicon MPX-100 as an A/D converter by hitting the bypass button and it will smack down ANY soundcard's analog input! BTW the MAudio duo will function as a stand-alone A/D converter, so you're not stuck with the USB connection (which has it's own set of problems)
Yes Zlartibartfast! You are exactly correct. Aliasing is the key issue. It's all about Nyquist Theory.......you have to sample at a minimun of double the analog frequency that you want to produce digitally. A/D is Analog to Digital where D/A is Digital to Analog.
Hearing range is rougly 20 Hz to 22 kHz, that's a bandwidth of about 22 kHz anyway......so the sampling frequency should be 44 Hz.....they add the .1 for argument sake....and this is the frequency for CD sampling.......I believe the next frequency of most A/D converters is 48 kHz (which probably has no difference between 44.1kHz) it's the 96kHz and 192 kHz which will be more dramatic.
So, why the heck has the computer interface industry decided to start standardizing on USB 2.0 or Firewire connections? Aren't these connections of low quality when doing A/D conversions at 96 kHz? I can see some models have reduced inputs when operating anything higher than this frequency.
Zlartibartfast, I guess this agrees with your argument with allowing for all A/D converter hardware to be external from the PC / MAC System Unit. I'm going to have to agree, if the converters are external, then there will be less computer based noise.
This is why I feel the M-Audio Omni Studio PCI version is actually a better concept than the new Omnistudio USB. Not to mention, M-Audio offers an Unlimited warranty for the PCI version, which is great! Means it's rock solid! The USB unit has a 1 year warranty (as does other models) so, what does this mean? is it good enough to throw away after a year?
On the other hand, the M-Audio DUO and Quattro are backed up by a limited lifetime warranty, and they are USB.......
Hearing range is rougly 20 Hz to 22 kHz, that's a bandwidth of about 22 kHz anyway......so the sampling frequency should be 44 Hz.....they add the .1 for argument sake....and this is the frequency for CD sampling.......I believe the next frequency of most A/D converters is 48 kHz (which probably has no difference between 44.1kHz) it's the 96kHz and 192 kHz which will be more dramatic.
So, why the heck has the computer interface industry decided to start standardizing on USB 2.0 or Firewire connections? Aren't these connections of low quality when doing A/D conversions at 96 kHz? I can see some models have reduced inputs when operating anything higher than this frequency.
Zlartibartfast, I guess this agrees with your argument with allowing for all A/D converter hardware to be external from the PC / MAC System Unit. I'm going to have to agree, if the converters are external, then there will be less computer based noise.
This is why I feel the M-Audio Omni Studio PCI version is actually a better concept than the new Omnistudio USB. Not to mention, M-Audio offers an Unlimited warranty for the PCI version, which is great! Means it's rock solid! The USB unit has a 1 year warranty (as does other models) so, what does this mean? is it good enough to throw away after a year?
On the other hand, the M-Audio DUO and Quattro are backed up by a limited lifetime warranty, and they are USB.......
I'll venture a guess on the external hardware/warranty issue - if it's inside a PC case it won't get tossed around, so it's less likely the manufacturer will be doing replacements. Re; USB - well for me it's a metter of convenience and portablilty (2 ways - I can carry it in my little gear bag, and I can use in on my Powerbook when I finally save the money). Firewire on a PC was a very difficult thing to integrate, whereas the Mac seemd to take to it like a duck to water. Firewire is much faster than USB 1.1 but I can't speak from experience on it's ease of use. I would not have bought that Duo if it didn't have the S/PDIF stand-alone function, though ;-)
re: 48KHz - I'm not claiming to be golden-eared but I really CAN hear a difference - I think it's due to the gentler roll-off at the top (44.1 is more of a "brick-wall" filter). I first became a believer in 48KHz when I was at a studio with a brand-new R-DAT mastering deck (later they dropped the "R" from R-DAT, because the rotary head design was the only kind that stayed in production). So today my band records at 48KHz 24 bit. Considering how much hardware costs have dropped, there's no reason not too! Hey, guys, there's a lot of top-rate hardware to choose from - pick your application first, look at it's recommended hardware list, and choose what fits your budget. As it happens M-Audio wins fror me mainly because price/performance is good, I have had great tech support in the past, and they support Gigasampler on their PCI stuff
re: 48KHz - I'm not claiming to be golden-eared but I really CAN hear a difference - I think it's due to the gentler roll-off at the top (44.1 is more of a "brick-wall" filter). I first became a believer in 48KHz when I was at a studio with a brand-new R-DAT mastering deck (later they dropped the "R" from R-DAT, because the rotary head design was the only kind that stayed in production). So today my band records at 48KHz 24 bit. Considering how much hardware costs have dropped, there's no reason not too! Hey, guys, there's a lot of top-rate hardware to choose from - pick your application first, look at it's recommended hardware list, and choose what fits your budget. As it happens M-Audio wins fror me mainly because price/performance is good, I have had great tech support in the past, and they support Gigasampler on their PCI stuff
