Cheap vs Expensive Soundcard

ORIGINAL: GPM

I read this post by Joe Bravo:

And don't listen to sales hype about soundcards and AD/DA converters. Some of that was true several years ago but nowadays even an inexpensive Audigy sounds exactly the same as the most expensive soundcard made and I've got the A/B recordings to prove it.

I'd like to hear more about this cheap vs expensive soundcard topic. I've been using the SB Audigy card that came with my Dell 8400. To my much abused ears it sounds fine, but am I missing something? I've heard other people say that there is a huge difference in the sound when using M Audio, EMU, etc.

Unless you're going for an image, I would use whatever works for you. If you are happy with Audigy, then keep on using it, and spend all the money you saved on microphones.

Yeah this is a good one. A soundblaster is an OK general purpose card for listening to MP3's and internet surfing but it is not the type of thing you want for serious recording work.

Maybe so but comparing an Echo card to the one that came with my work computer was like night and day.

Comparing my RME Fireface with my old Echo Mona in my recording rig is also like night and day. The converters in the
RME are just excellent.

ORIGINAL: GPM

I read this post by Joe Bravo:

And don't listen to sales hype about soundcards and AD/DA converters. Some of that was true several years ago but nowadays even an inexpensive Audigy sounds exactly the same as the most expensive soundcard made and I've got the A/B recordings to prove it.

I'd like to hear more about this cheap vs expensive soundcard topic. I've been using the SB Audigy card that came with my Dell 8400. To my much abused ears it sounds fine, but am I missing something? I've heard other people say that there is a huge difference in the sound when using M Audio, EMU, etc.

Using the Audigy is one of those things you will regret later. You may not hear a problem now but some day you will have a good audio interface and you will. At that point you will wish your older tracks had not been recorded on the Audigy.

Here's a story:

back when I was first starting out with DAW's I went to Guitar Center and was asking the salesdood about some of the software they had for sale. At some point in the conversation we got around to soundcards and I asked if I could use a soundblaster. There was a guy standing next to me at the counter and he starts laughing his butt off which caused the saleman to start laughing as well. I think everyone within earshot turned and started laughing at me. I had no clue why they were laughing at me but I assumed it had something to do with the fact that soundblasters weren't very highly regarded at Guitar Center. Out of sheer spite I bought one anyway because I was building my own PC and I figured I needed something to hear sounds so why not. I mean, it didn't sound bad. In fact I thought it sounded pretty good. "Why not" I asked myself. Well, during subsequent travels to buy the software, I went to Gand Music here in Chicago and they had an actual DAW demo room set up where you could audition all the hottest products. The salesman sold me on Creamware TripleDat which came bundled with it's own recording soundcard. I installed the card and software in the computer (right next to the soundblaster) and couldn't believe the difference. Then I understood why I got laughed at.

ORIGINAL: GPM

I read this post by Joe Bravo:

And don't listen to sales hype about soundcards and AD/DA converters. Some of that was true several years ago but nowadays even an inexpensive Audigy sounds exactly the same as the most expensive soundcard made and I've got the A/B recordings to prove it.

I'd like to hear more about this cheap vs expensive soundcard topic. I've been using the SB Audigy card that came with my Dell 8400. To my much abused ears it sounds fine, but am I missing something? I've heard other people say that there is a huge difference in the sound when using M Audio, EMU, etc.

The main difference in soundcards is the choice of converters. $100 soundcards use AKM converters that cost $2. A card like the Lynx1 which costs $1000 uses AKM converters that cost $30 or more. Mid-priced cards use converters that cost $7-$15. You get what you pay for.

Hello GPM,

I think you've got a pretty good idea from all of the above comments. However, the bottom line is this: buy the best that you can afford. There will always be something better no matter what you pay! Luckily, there is something called ''The Law of Diminishing Returns''.
Specs are one thing, but the components and parts used are another.

I think someone spiked J Bravo's brownies before he made that comment.

Hope so anyway, since it's absurd.

Oh, and don't think that because I've posted a tune in the past couple of years here that this means its a newer one done with the Echo card. Most of the tunes I post are things I've been working on and off on for several years. They could have been recorded on either card.

ORIGINAL: Resounded

Hmmmm,
well here I go and try not to sound like an Idiot. I bought Soundblaster's X-Fi card and after reading the remarks,,, I wonder,,, Gee is this why my recordings just don't have the depth as in most "Red Book" recordings???? I have strived soooo hard to tweak up the final mix just so close to the edge of clipping to get the most gain on the recordings. I purchased Izotopes Mastering software and it helped but with all the effort it still lacks that volume and depth. When you read the specs on X-Fi.... it's all right there in comparison to the Pro Cards. The difference though is the circuitry. The quality of the components that make up the pre amps and the A/D & D/A converters. Ohhhhh, the silly thought of even believing the specifications you read as well make you wonder..... Gee.... It this Really Facts .... or Hype?????? Does anybody have some testimony on this? X-Fi (the top of the line of Soundblaster???? ) It's not really Soundblaster.... It's Creative. It is not classified as a Soundblaster PCI Card. Please respond. Thanks!

Mark

X-Fi is still 100% SoundBlaster card.

Actually, all other X-Fi models but the Elite Pro (which is build using same parts used in Audigy 4) are build using same DAC/ADC/opamps used on most Audigy 2 and 4 models. There are only couple important improvements like no more internal resampling (44.1/48/44.1kHz) (btw, this is true only when working in Creation mode) and bit-matched recording/playback. These components are really good but the utilization is poor. Poor are the drivers too ATM.

Sure the X-Fi card is 'cleaned' a bit from those Audigy 2/4 series cards but, it's still a consumer card intented for gaming and multimedia applications.

The X-Fi Elite Pro aswell as now discontiinued Audigy 4 PRO does have potential for more but, I suppose Creative didn't like to put these cards in competition w/ their pro-cards family (systems like E-MU 1212M and now 1616 PCI and 1616M PCI) which are sold in same price group.

There are lots of reviews available for different models of X-Fi. One good can be found @ http://www.digit-life.com/sound.html


Junski

ORIGINAL: GPM

I read this post by Joe Bravo:

And don't listen to sales hype about soundcards and AD/DA converters. Some of that was true several years ago but nowadays even an inexpensive Audigy sounds exactly the same as the most expensive soundcard made and I've got the A/B recordings to prove it.

I'd like to hear more about this cheap vs expensive soundcard topic. I've been using the SB Audigy card that came with my Dell 8400. To my much abused ears it sounds fine, but am I missing something? I've heard other people say that there is a huge difference in the sound when using M Audio, EMU, etc.

Some like it hot, some like it cold, I like it best when it's ... You're just missing the other device so you be able to make some comparisons ;)

If you can record through Audigy digital path (S/PDIF, bit-matched), then the quality is ~OK (just do the final processings/export w/ some better card) but, if you record through Audigy analog path --> quality is not very good from the start --> every processing just make it worse.


Junski

Joe Bravo: I like the approach of testing and comparing. I'm at work and can't listen to the samples you provided. Will comment later though. Thanks.

"Well, since all these samples vary in sound, and in recording technique, this is somewhat redundant."

Not so much really. All of the acoustic guitar tracks were recorded with the same two Oktava mics and board. All the electric guitar tracks were recorded with the same amp and board. The bass and drums used were recorded in various forms, but I believe the same bass was used for everything except maybe one tune.

Still, the claim was that there was some kind of "night and day" difference between an SB card and those claiming higher quality. I say that if there's any difference at all, its extremely slight and not worth worrying about. And to be honest, I think some of the tracks recorded with the SB card sound better than those with the Echo card.

Larry,

I agree that some of my acoustic guitar tracks in particular sound a little "Harsh". I have a very agressive right-hand playing style that peaks the meters on my compressors all the time. Maybe I'll post some quieter passages later where you can judge the sound quality of the cards better. You can find stores selling old SB Live cards for $25 nowadays so, I may go out and buy another one for testing purposes. I also want to make a web page testing tube pres against this cheap Behringer mixer I've been using lately because, like Jonas showed in his test, that little Behringer sounds every bit as good as any expensive tube pre I've ever played with. I'll also post some tests between my cheap Behringer compressor against my top-o-the-line DBX 160.

I like tests like these. Everybody always talks but nobody ever puts things to the test in these forums. Some folks claim that "you get what you pay for" in audio gear but, that certainly hasn't been my experience. You mostly throw money away on big ticket items in my opinion. Tube pres for example, tend to sound muddy and rob your midrange. I noticed years ago that those expensive Monster Cables stole something in the midrange too.

The bottom line for me is not that you get what you pay for but, that somebody is going to make a much bigger sales commission off those high ticket items they talked you into than they would have on the cheaper products that sound just as good.

And something else concerning converters is that, a lot of the hype about them is based on over-sampling. Most cards made in the past couple of years claim 128X whereas older cards were mostly 64X. I really don't here any difference between them but, if you're recording at anything higher than 44.1, who needs over-sampling? I generally record at 16/48 or 32/48. Over-sampling be damned.

Well, since all these samples vary in sound, and in recording technique, this is somewhat redundant.

well, I think that redundant is not the right word. However, I this test is completely invalid.

A valid test would be one where the same signal being recorded into an Audigy and a [insert "better" soundcard here]. I have no idea how much Reverb, EQ, panning, was given to these tracks, or how differently the mikes were placed, etc. The only way to properly judge this is to compare two identical, unprocessed input signals.

There was a guy around here a year or so back who did "tests" of different mikes by singing the same vocal line into each mic that he wanted to test. Problem is, for every mic came a different performance, perhaps different distance from the mic, different breaths, etc. See what I mean? The signals need to be identical, otherwise it's not a good test. Even if you are comparing two similar music styles, it's apples to oranges, or maybe it would be more like "red delicious apples" to "granny smith apples".

Sidenote: I would never consider getting an Audigy, not because of what I have heard of the Audio quality, but rather what I have heard about performance. I feel like I have heard of people having to record at high latencies to get these bad boys to work. Maybe I am mistaken about that, or the people who have reported problems don't know how to set their systems up properly, but there's been enough disdain in DAW forums I have read to keep me away...

ORIGINAL: deiseldave

I am with Joe on this. Long ago, someone was dissing the Delta 1010 (which I own), going on about how Maudio sucked, and that investing in new converters would make a huge difference, bla, blah, blah. Pseudoscience crap that is meaningless to the human ear.
My $.02: The differences in modern 24bit converters is largely academic, and typically cannot be heard at standard listening levels (at least not by me).
Good job Joe. Way to tell the truth.

What I have found is that the converter chip is not the big issue with quality. For example a Lynx card has better specs and better quality (that you can hear) when you compare it to other interfaces that use the same chips. You can go very wrong (or cheap out) on the rest of the design and analog components. You can also go wrong on the clock when making a sound card.

That being said, it is true that with modern digital recording there is less difference between the best and worst devices then existed in years past. Same is true of microphones and other deivces. There are $59 microphones now that sound fantastic, years ago no one would have dared to dream that would ever be true. Microphones of that price were not even good enough to call Bingo at the VFW years ago. LOL ! Hell,,.. you paid more then that for a decent CB mic.

Years ago my ADAT and DAT recorder sounded way better then my old cassette deck and better then any reel to reel I could afford. But today the quality gap between a $100 M-Audio card and a $1,000 Lynx is MUCH less. However, I do think the jump from a soundblaster to an M-Audio is well worth it and the cost difference is almost nothing. Why would you not want to do that ?

The type of music matters also. If plan to record punk rock or rap and drive the levels to clipping during the mastering do you really need to care what "quality" your tracks were ? I think not. However, if you record acoustic insturments or plan to leave any of that quality in the final product you should try to make those tracks the best they can be. Even if you can't hear it your fans might.