[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] USB music card vs. onboard digitization
I totally agree with everything Richard said at the end of his message. If I were starting out
today, I might not even look at the DAL internal card, with all the talk about external being so
superior. I'd want to listen to a bunch of different external boxes and see if that's true. As the
case has been, I settled on the DAL card back in 2001 and it's done me right through two DAW's and
continues to sound like I want (ie output = input). Next time out with a DAW building, I'll probably
do some comparing of external boxes. There's a greater range of affordable options, and the DAL
won't do 192K/24-bit.
For what it's worth, the new Presonus low-end box has gotten good reviews. So has the Firebox.
Neither will break the bank. There seems to be mixed views about the little Digi box. Also about
Mackie's fin-shaped thing.
As a wildcard, particularly if your records aren't in great shape anyway and you don't have a great
turntable/cartridge or a great cleaning system (ie you're not an audiophile or an archivist anyway),
look for a used Ensoniq PCI card. That was my first audio interface. Just the other day I had reason
to listen to a WAV I made with that card from a good-sounding safety tape and I was very surprised
at how good it sounded on my vastly better than then monitoring system. One problem with the Ensoniq
is that Soundcrapper put out a terrible driver "update" for it and it's hard to find the original
pre-Soundcrapper drivers -- and you have to use the Soundcrapper driver if you're using an NT-based
Windows (2K or XP). Linux actually has very good drivers for the Ensoniq card and it's recognized
and installed automatically by most versions of Linux. Anyway, that's another way to go. One thing
I'd avoid is that Audigy card. I know of two people that have had really bad problems configuring
the card to record correctly.
One man's opinions, etc.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] USB music card vs. onboard digitization
Alyssa,
It's always good to hear your perspective. I've been rather pleased with my middle-of-the-road
(i.e. not Weiss) RME Multifaces which keep the conversion outside the computer, but you're in the
just-under-a-grand range for 8-channels when you buy the Multiface and its dedicated PCI card. The
link between the two is on a 1394 cable, but not 1394 protocol.
I also recently purchased a MOTU 828 MK II which is a 1394-connected device to go with my laptop.
It offers eight line inputs and two mic inputs, simultaneously.
Arny Krueger has done a great job (although not always including the latest) of comparing in-PC
sound cards.
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/compare/index.htm
The DAL card offers good value for money for stereo interfacing. I think Tom Fine can attest to
that.
If you're going to spend the time to digitze 1000 records, I think spending a little time up front
selecting an outstanding card (for the budget) makes sense. Of course, one also needs to pay
attention to the analog chain as well. But time ends up being the most valuable commodity and
doing something that has a mediocre result is, in the end, a waste of time.
Cheers,
Richard
Cheers,
Richard
At 12:59 AM 1/27/2006, Alyssa Ryvers wrote:
Does resolving interrupts make the sound more satisfactory? Enquiring minds want to know, because
last time I resolved an interrupt, it didn't. Doesn't mean it doesn't now, and I'm open to hearing
about that, because I'm always interested in keeping up, and it's been years since I fuddled with
interrupts on a sound card. I'm sorry for the weird mood, but I do think from the tone of Mr.
Bresler's post, you might overwhelm him by suggesting he inspect waveforms visually, etc. You
start talking "Spectrum Analysis", and you're making me nervous too
I think exploring sound cards is a responsible way to go before you take on a task of 1000 xfers.
My 2c, but wouldn't know which is the best of the low-end stuff. ProTools ain't worth writing home
about, and that's Medium end. Perhaps someone here has listened to the lower end lately; certainly
used to be better to keep the conversion outside the computer. I wouldn't trust it inside. If
these are copies for yourself (you're transferring your personal collection because you want to
retire your turntable, etc.), not for preservation purposes (the one pressed copy of your
Grandmother telling stories), then the decision isn't as critical. I still would go for outside
the box (computer), and wait to see if someone else trolling on here has taken a listen to the
converters under $X? Then go take a listen for yourself, if you can, at a store using headphones
in a quiet(!) environment. Listen for noise, of course, but also listen for warmth, brittleness -
all these things (converters) colour the sound, and in the end, you're going to have to live with
the best choice given the choices you present yourself with. Take a listen to an Apogee converter,
in order to compare with something that is Professional quality (a number of music stores have the
Apogee MiniMe [$1000ish] kicking around). Be sure to listen to the same sample and bit rate (ex:
44.1K, 16bit) on both the Apogee and the lower end ones, otherwise you're comparing apples
with...even ProTools starts sounding like it maybe - might be - reasonable - at 96K, 24bit [faster
rates].
And then you can compare all that to what you've already got, and voila!
Best,
Alyssa.
:)
"If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds should enter
a great fire, the fire could not burn him...If one were washed away by a great flood and call upon
his name, one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." (The Lotus Sutra)