The info here should be included in CW 101!
I'm by know means an "expert" in recording and all the previous info has helped me to understand in techno speak what I thought I understood,Thanks
But the bottom line for me was that after getting a dedicated sound interface I was able to hear things that I didn't hear with my SB.
So to answer the post, on the lowly end a beter SC will be better. Does a $1000.00 card sound better then a $200.00 card, I don't know, but maybe someday I will.
FWIW
Thankyou

Something else I was thinking about in price verses quality is how often that high price figures more in the construction of gear than in the performance nowadays. Since printed circuitry started appearing in music gear (what, about 20 years ago I guess?) manufacturers have been able to make dramatic drops in the price of gear. Its apparently a lot cheaper to build a resister or cap etc., into a circuit board than it is to solder one in. I think a lot of the budget priced gear that's been showing up during the past two decades is because manufacturers were able to cut prices by going the printed circuit board route. In theory, the components in a printed board, if up to spec, should probably perform as well as discrete components. But the downside to this is that quite often if a small little nothing component goes out on a printed board, you have to chuck the entire board.

Remember when Alesis came out with that first 16-channel recording mixer way back in the late 80's for a few hundred bucks? This was when the Fostex 16 track machines were in full swing and every other guy you saw with the Fostex deck went out and bought that Alesis mixer for it. The mixer worked fine and sounded good, but dang, if so much as a pot went out or even got to sounding a little scratchy, the only way to fix it was to buy a brand new circuit board which cost almost the price of a new mixer. If you opened up the mixer you'd see one big gigantic board with every single component printed onto it. There was no way to replace a pot or a cap because it was literally part of the entire board. Suddenly the great price for the mixer didn't seem so great anymore.

So I think that's what a lot of the money you spend on quality gear is going for. Not so much a better sound, but discrete components that can be easily replaced, or if you like to make little mods to your gear and so forth, you can still do it. There's no way to make a mod to a printed circuit board or to repair it. The cheaper stuff with printed circuitry sounds just as good a large part of the time, but it may hit you in the pocketbook later. Just depends on how much you paid for it, how long it lasts, and so forth.

The terms "jitter, 2d, cumulative effect" are not in and of themselves sales double talk. can they be used that way? You bet. That doesn't mean that they can't be measured and heard.

Jitter can be measured, true. I never meant to imply otherwise. What I have implied is the near non-existance of audible artifacts due to jitter in modern prosumer 24B converters. But crafty sales folk propogate myths that many prosumer cards have clock problems that result in poor audio. When, in reality, if you check out the specs on most "prosumer" clocks, they are beyond excellent.
"2D" cannot be measured. But it can be heard. That's awesome for the salesman. Because now you can't prove he's full of s#!+, or at least not without a lot of work. The real problems that cause a crappy "2D" mix are usually the result of either signal degrading problems that exist prior to conversion (acoustic phase issues, electrical phase issues, poor mic placement, poor source, using the same mic on everything, etc.), or poor production technique after conversion (improper use of reverbs and delays, not using complementary eq methods, poor panning strategy, too much compression, etc) Most of these things that add up to a "2D" mix have nothing to do with converters or preamps, and are usually remedied for low $ + high skill. However, because keeping all these things together is beyond most home recordists, the salesman has found a weak spot. So he doesn't tell you all the things that will really help your mix, he sells you some converters, and after the honeymoon ends, and your mixes are still "2D", he convinces you that the problem is the preamps, then the mics, then... After you've bought the whole store, he says "maybe you should look into some acoustic treatment."
You just bought $15K worth of stuff you didn't need, and still haven't addressed the phase issues due to where your speaker sits in the room, or how your Ampeg B-15 does some funky microphonic thing every time you hit an F#. The "cold reader" salesman intercepted you on your way to really fixing your problem, and talked you out of your money. That is his job.
The highest percentage of the real fixes are simple. Replace a bad speaker or tube, spray out a connection or jack, re-solder a bad connection, throw away that piece of crap cord that cut out on you last time. Don't wobble the mic stand while you record your acoustic, etc..
The "2D" term just nails what a mix with no depth sounds like, and because nobody wants thier mixes to sound like that, and few know how to really remedy it, "2D" has become the new "warm". Just a sales term to me. Over it. As usual, the largest benefits can be had with the least $ and the most hard work and study.
The "Cumulative effect" is also real (in a way), and can be measured. But that's only half the story. The salesman always want to talk about the cumulative effect of noise. But what about the cumulative effect of signal? If I record a note on a keyboard at -3db, and the noise floor is at say -50db (which is mostly all acoustical noise, and electrical noise from the source because the 24B converter noise floor is more like -100db), then I record 20 other notes with the same signal to noise. Then I have the same ratio between signal and noise. In order to mix all those tracks to a 2 track at -3db, I will have to lower thier individual volumes, and so the noise, and the signal are reduced proportionately for each. So, signal to noise ratio stays pretty much the same because the converter hash which is already -50db below your acoustic noise floor is so far below, it can't be heard. So both signal and noise are cumulative, and reductive proportionately.
Resonse curves are also cumulative. For example, an EVM12L is pretty hot around 3-5K, and an SM57 has a peak around 5K. I know that will have a cumulative effect for better or worse. But that effect will be in the neighborhood of 3db to 6db. Big effect. Way bigger than you will get from cumulative preamp or converter curves.
Phase issues, and everything are also cumulative. But the big ones are pre-existing conditions prior to conversion, and usually have little to do with the preamp or converter.

As far as the "regurgitated sales double-talk" line. I said that because usually the people I hear pushing "2D" as a converter problem are either gear peddelers, or unsuspecting victims who have been hypnotized by thier BS. Hell, people actually read horoscopes, and go to fortune tellers. How bizarre is that? Healthy scepticism has saved me from many a dark pit. Until I'm proved wrong (which happens often) I stand by these beliefs.

That is a direct result of the use of surface mount technology.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The kind where the components are more or less sealed in an epoxy-like substance and you literally can't get to them, or where an inductor is just a coiled wire sealed under the epoxy. There's just nothing you can do. And in fairness, the two tunes you picked as being from the Echo card were correct. Not bad ears for an old man like myself.

Response curves are also cumulative.

Tell me about it. All open reel decks have a bass bump, some are in a better frequency range than others and if its in the right spot people generally think of it as warm sounding, but Tascam decks always seemed to have them in a bad area that you had to try and EQ out. But add to that all those cheap dynamic mics we used in the old days (80-90's) because home recording people couldn't afford much else, and the low end bump you got from trying to mic an acoustic guitar with something like an SM57 added to the already present bass bump from the recording deck was a nightmare to try and get rid of.

More a comment on the sales staff than me, but I usually know more than they do.

Don't-cha just hate that!

On another note, I just love old Edison Diamond discs. I've restored a bunch of them along with some old cylinder recordings, and there's no denying that there's something about the hiss and crackles and limited frequency response that make these records special. But I'm not just talking about "special" as in a nostalgic sense but, it can actually add to a performance sometimes. It's almost all midrange in a narrow band and there are times when that over-emphases on the mids will make something just leap out at you. I found a recording of Fontana (and I'm not an opera fan) at YouTube one day that's taken from a 1915 Edison Diamond disc record, and even though I don't really care for opera or the singer here, the section between 1:20 and 2:20 is so strong that it feels like it goes right through your chest. And this was recorded before microphones too. I don't think you could duplicate it today without using the old disc recorders and cones.

Eduardo Ferrari-Fontana - Puccini ? 1915

ORIGINAL: rossipsu1

Good job Joe. Way to tell the truth.

Maybe your ears suck...


Truthfully, to think hi quality A/D coverters are useless is just a flat wrong. They *can* make a big difference...

But for most hobbyists who are recording using bad practices and low end gear, you're just not going to reap any benefits.

Electronics is not rocket science. You put high quality parts and use smart and practical electronic design and production practices, & things *will* sound better in microphones, preamps, etc, etc. Op amps, output and input transformers, power supplies. ALL of these things affect quality. So do soldering practices, stage design, plate voltage. It's finding your way through the vat of bad prosumer gear that will let you hear the difference in A/D converters.

That's not to say *cheap* is equatable to bad...that's not the case anymore. However, I do think there is a lot of bad gear out there because everyone is rushing to this rather large market.

Rock on....nice cahoney's.

We talk a lot about SNR, noise floor, jitter, impedance matching, gain, freq. curves, etc. But one facet that we've never talked about is slew rate. For the EE guys out there and the guys with great ears & rooms, how much does slew rate affect the accuracy of the signal in a preamp? Is it a factor at all?

how much does slew rate affect the accuracy of the signal in a preamp? Is it a factor at all?

That's a good question. Unfortunatelty, I don't know the answer. I'm sure you know what slew rate is, but for those who don't: "Slew rate" is a spec measured in volts per microsecond. It is most commonly referenced in amplifiers. A higher slew rate means the amplifiers output voltage changes will correspond more accurately to the input. Basically it is the amp's ability to replicate the sources transients. The point at which a slew rate spec has reached its point of diminishing returns for musical replication is unclear to me.
From personal experience (regarding slew rate's effect on amplifiers), years ago, I swapped out a Peavey power amp with a Hafler P3000 in my stage bass rig, and the thing became a "slap machine". Very fast response. Not as noticeable on finger style, but the amp was noticeably more responsive to transients. Coincidently, the slew rate of the Peavey was something like 20 V/us, and the Hafler was something like 100 V/us. Whether real or imagined, I associated the increased responsiveness of the Hafler with the significantly better slew rate.
I know one thing though. A lot of the gear that is touted as being "high end" in musical instrument amplification, have lower slew rates than the Peavey. Many people apparently don't have an issue with, and even prefer smeared transients.
Whether slew rate specs are an issue, or even apply to converters... I don't know. I have not encountered a slew rate spec on any of the converters that I have looked at. It may be that it doesn't apply because there is no amplification taking place, and the spec to be considered is the conversion accuracy.
My gut tells me that "slew rate" would be more of an issue with amplifying devices.

i realized that the cheap speakers that came with the cumputer need to be replaced thank you all

Speakers..... Now that's where you can hear a day and night difference!

I'm glad this thread didn't die yet because it just dawned on me last night what the reason may have been for that ever so slight increase in high end coming from the SB Live. If you've read any of my yammerings the past couple of years around here about Monster cables, you may recall that I've always complained that: 1) they're nutty expensive, 2) they have big, cluncky connectors that wear out female jacks prematurely, (3 they seem to boost highs and lows.

I used a Monster cable on the SB Live test card because that was the only brand I could find that had a stereo Y-cord going from two 1/4" jacks to a single stereo 1/8" mini connector. I used Pro Performer cables for the Echo MIA card test. That slight increase in highs sounds exactly like what I've always complained about with those Monster cables.

Anyhow, I really do have to get out of here. That just hit me last night and I felt like I had to say it. See you guys around after the new year.

I have used sound blaster live 16 bit
and currently i bought new computer with onboard 24bit 192khz "Realtek 8ch" they say

I am going to buy Behringer BCA2000
Any comment, suggestion, bad/good experience?
please help !
Thx
(sorry I dont speak english well, perhaps my sentences above very short short ;)

soens - LOL, my very thoughts.  I tried reading from the beginning but gave up as it quickly moved to a dozen other stand-alone topics.

As it applies to the OP and my experiences:  I used a MOTU 24i for years and liked the sound.  Later had the BLA updgrade (analog stage) which improved my throughput.  I even have used the same Alesis R100 amp and Event 20/20 passive speakers the whole time so it was all I knew in MY studio.

However, when I purchased a Lynx L22 card several years back, I had my first AHA audio moment.  There was a marked improvement in what I heard - not unlike the improved view through my windows after a good spring cleaning.

I cannot help but think that hearing clearer can do anything but help the quality of what I do before and after a recording.  And this is where the OPs question is directred IMO.

As is applys to the OP, listening to soundclips regardless of how they are made does little when it comes to listening through ones own soundcard.  I would think there would be a world of difference ABing any soundclip on the same computer through two different sound cards.  IMHO

For me, there was marked improvement just between Mid -> HighMid cards.

And the x-fi only really records at 48000 sample rate because that is the clock in it, and the only clock. Other audio/interfaces do much more when they are made for professional recording of music.

soens

Is it just me? Or is this thread another example of why "SEARCHING" for info on this forum is a waist of time. I simply want a simple answer to a simple question - not pages & pages of 'Yadda, yadda, yadda! Blah, blah, blah! It seems like 85% of Cakewalk Forum posts amount to this. NOT very helpful! I thought forums were a place to get help and information. It would be nice to see CW Forums return to this format.

If you need to go back 5 years to find an example of a poor thread, then maybe the forum is really not that bad after all.

Well it's hard to read every response to this post, but I'd like to offer my two cents.

The law of diminishing returns is empirically true. But, if I recall correctly, the original post was about the card and not just the conversion aspect (Yes, I know I could be wrong, but the OP is back three pages.) Some of the more expensive cards have on-board DSP, have sophisticated mixing and routing abilities, etc. Another thing that they offer is the ability to record and play back larger numbers of tracks simultaneously, and at lower latencies.

This leads to questioning whether or not these features and capabilities are important for your situation. For me personally, I record live drums frequently using as many as 14 mics simultaneously. Having the ability to record this many mics into separate tracks while listening to a bunch of others is important to how I record. Thus, having a card that can do this effortlessly is helpful.

Last point on this topic and others that are similar, is that in engineering, science, etc....error propagates. Thus, if there is a little jitter in a track here and there over a set of a few, it's not a big deal. But if you are working on a large project with a large number of tracks (i.e 40 plus) the slight errors in sample rate and synchronization add up more than they would in a project with relatively few tracks. Sample rate clocking, believe it or not, does make a difference audibly in large projects.

I'm not dissing any product for any particular use. These things really depend on the needs of the projects that you are working on and the desired end product. The more layers of complexity you add to a finished product, the more you will gain from equipment that is capable of clean and accurate audio and AD/DA conversion. It's similar to mixing a project with two or three tracks versus one with 40. The one with 40 is generally harder to achieve great separation, as the layers start to overlap. The same goes with distortion/noise, inaccuracy in conversion etc.

In the end though, tuning, timing and tone are more important than gear. A great performance of great music trumps it all!