Re: sound card recommendation

[Arny Krueger]

"Ken Bouchard" > wrote in message
et
> any recommendations on a good sound card under $100 with decent "line
> in" characteristics?

For that price you're stuck with a *consumer* line-in, ca. 1 volt RMS
maximum input, unbalanced, 16 bits.

The good news is that you can get 4 such inputs (2 stereo pairs) for about
$60 with a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz.

If you check my tect tests
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/santa_cruz/index.htm you'll see that the
Santa Cruz is not a SOTA masterpiece, but it is uncolored and the noise
level is manageable for most practical applications if care is taken with
the level setting. You can listen to how looping musical sounds through a
Santa Cruz colors them by downloading files from
http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Let your ears (and pocket book) be your guide!

;-)

[Ken Bouchard]

OK, Arny, gotcha, the Santa Cruz looks good according to your review so I'll
get one.
Now for sort of a general question: Are there any measurements one can look
at with a simple VOM, or do you need a good DVM? (like maybe the level of
the signal going into your "line in")
I'm asking because even my "cheapo" VOM has a dB scale.

thanks, ken

--
1st Class Restoration
"Put your old music on CD"
www.dvbaudiorestoration.com


"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Bouchard" > wrote in message
> et
> > any recommendations on a good sound card under $100 with decent "line
> > in" characteristics?
>
> For that price you're stuck with a *consumer* line-in, ca. 1 volt RMS
> maximum input, unbalanced, 16 bits.
>
> The good news is that you can get 4 such inputs (2 stereo pairs) for about
> $60 with a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz.
>
> If you check my tect tests
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/santa_cruz/index.htm you'll see that
the
> Santa Cruz is not a SOTA masterpiece, but it is uncolored and the noise
> level is manageable for most practical applications if care is taken with
> the level setting. You can listen to how looping musical sounds through a
> Santa Cruz colors them by downloading files from
> http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .
>
> Let your ears (and pocket book) be your guide!
>
> ;-)
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Ken Bouchard" > wrote in message
et

> OK, Arny, gotcha, the Santa Cruz looks good according to your review
> so I'll get one.

> Now for sort of a general question: Are there any measurements one
> can look at with a simple VOM, or do you need a good DVM? (like maybe
> the level of the signal going into your "line in")
> I'm asking because even my "cheapo" VOM has a dB scale.

IME a cheap analog meter is often better for audio than a cheap digital
meter.

As you point out, the cheap analog meter generally has a dB scale, which has
some value.

IME no cheap meter has good frequency response up to 20 KHz, but the analog
meter probably has better frequency response than the digital meter.

Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I find it easier to relate to relative
indications on an analog scale - that's probably why so many digital meters
have an analog-like bar graph as part of their display.

My last analog meter broke about 20 years ago, and I miss it. It wasn't
cheap, and I got a lot of good out of it.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Ken Bouchard wrote:
> I found a site that APPEARS to have decent prices for sound cards and it has
> pictures of those cards. One thing bothers me about their higher end cards:
> They all seem to have RCA plugs! No mini plugs.! Are you expected to get an
> adapter, or what? Are they ALL like that?

All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks at
a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an amplifier.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Ken Bouchard wrote:
>> I found a site that APPEARS to have decent prices for sound cards
>> and it has pictures of those cards. One thing bothers me about their
>> higher end cards: They all seem to have RCA plugs! No mini plugs.!
>> Are you expected to get an adapter, or what? Are they ALL like that?

> All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks at
> a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an amplifier.

RCA jacks for anything but SP/DIF digital I/O indicate that the sound card
is a consumer, medium-quality product. High end sound cards use TRS or XLR
connectors for analog I/O.

[Laurence Payne]

>All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks at
>a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an amplifier.

That's higher-end as compared to really-nasty-consumer-end. :-)
Up a few more notches you start seeing balanced connections.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Laurence Payne wrote:
>>All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks at
>>a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an amplifier.
>
>
> That's higher-end as compared to really-nasty-consumer-end. :-)
> Up a few more notches you start seeing balanced connections.

Well, yeah - but considering the OP was looking for an under $400
solution...

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Laurence Payne wrote:

>>> All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks
>>> at a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an
>>> amplifier.

>> That's higher-end as compared to really-nasty-consumer-end. :-)

Agreed.

>> Up a few more notches you start seeing balanced connections.

Right.

> Well, yeah - but considering the OP was looking for an under $400
> solution...

Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent Card
Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

http://www.digitalaudio.com/

http://digitalaudioworks.com/manufacturers-d-n-digital-audio-labs.html

BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...

www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280

There's TRS I/O on the Midiman Delta 44 (ca. $230) and Delta 66 (ca. $280).

[drummer]

so is cardeluxe considered one of the best?

i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent Card
> Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

(snip)

Nice. :) $200 is affordable. Q: how good is the Mia?

[Arny Krueger]

"drummer" > wrote in message
om

> so is cardeluxe considered one of the best?

It is a very good card. One of the best would be the LynxTWO.

> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> sound card like that?

Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.

> it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
> finding something a tad cheaper.

Echo MIA...

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent
>> Card Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

> (snip)

> Nice. :) $200 is affordable. Q: how good is the Mia?

A lot closer to the Card Deluxe than DAL might find comfortable. Up to 24/48
the two are nearly indistinguishable. The DAL card has stronger analog
interfaces, if that matters.

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
> www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280

Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[drummer]

>
> > i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> > sound card like that?
>
> Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
> play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.

i thought the playback was just 2 outs for stereo, and you could
listen to all the tracks you mwant to at the same time.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
m...
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
>> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280
>>
>> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.
>
>Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
>comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored at
>another.
>
You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
your end. I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.

<shrug>

[dave weil]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:04:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> m...
>
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >...
>
>> >> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
>> >> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280
>
>> >> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.
>
>> >Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
>> >comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored
>at
>> >another.
>
>> You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
>> your end.
>
>Or someplace along the way...

Fair enough.

>For the record I sucessfully visited the site
>maybe an hour later. At the time I wrote the post I had no idea of the full
>domain or total duration of the problem, but I wanted to prepare people for
>the possibility that the link might be down when they tried it.

That's fair as well.

>>I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
>> connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.
>
>That's quite a different thing than saying that the report was incorrect.
>Your report was correct, but the problem was obviously someplace between
>your site and my web site as I checked and knew that my site was
>continuously up during that time.
>
>I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web logs
>before he made his angry little post.

Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
link. He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
problem with the link. He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
about you at all as you did toward him. If there's any anger in the
two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
>and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.

I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message



>> I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web
>> logs before he made his angry little post.

> Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
> rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
> link.

Weil just to refresh your memory, your bias in any matter involving me is
like a metaphorical telephone pole in your eye.

> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

> He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
> problem with the link.

But my report was correct as stated. Atkinson said straight out that my
report was wrong. Yet without omniscience, he really has no way of knowing
whether my report was right or wrong.

>He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
> about you at all as you did toward him.

Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".

>If there's any anger in the
> two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

What Atkinson could know at best is that there were no interruptions of
service at the server.

However, I'd bet that he didn't ever bother to check that. He simply tested
the link when he saw it and globally pronounced my earlier report wrong
without further investigation. This is BTW a common personality flaw of
his - he tends to make global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence.
The bad news is that Atkinson has made a profitable business out of making
global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence. Large segments of the
audio business suffer with this kind of bad logic.

Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

>> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
>> and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.

> I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
> that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
> checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.

....and as an interested party I checked the link several times over a period
of several minutes and found that it was broken, but that every other part
of the web that I tested was working just fine.

[John Atkinson]

(drummer) wrote in message >...
> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
> finding something a tad cheaper.

Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.

You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Girth said to **** of ****s:

> >Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
> >of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".
>
> Only in your "mind". You would love there to be a "history" between
> you and John Atkinson, because you are a nobody and Mr Atkinson is a
> successful guy working in the audio business - so like a limpet you
> attach yourself to him in the hope that some of the magic rubs off. In
> actuality, the only dealings John Atkinson has had with you involves
> him defending himself from libelous and repugnant comments you have
> directed at both himself and the magazine he edits - Stereophile. So,
> in essence, the "history" you speak of, is you stalking John Atkinson.


Well said. This delusion of Krooger's ranks right up there with his
wacky belief that the disgust and loathing he inspires on Usenet is
the result of his so-called "audio opinions". Many other people who
are not insane have similar opinions to what Krooger professes, and
none of them is regularly equated with a pile of stinking doo-doo.

Don't get me started on the Beast's shrill and self-righteous whining
about his "family" being besmirched either. Krooger is the only
"person" most of us would ever hope to meet who is so vile as to
boast about his alleged wife's sexual stamina and use the death of
his child as troll bait, and then complain when he is mocked for his
own words.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:
>
> bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.


It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
the english language can only stand so much torment.

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>
> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
was over the weekend.

I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
on-line archives that the link was working.

> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
> > end.
>
> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
was not intended to belittle you.

> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>

>>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

> I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
> the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
> "incorrect."

Agreed.

> I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
> were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
> checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
> review, which was over the weekend.

"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
knew something that you didn't know!

> I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
> on-line archives that the link was working.

You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
and at your place.

My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

>>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
>>> your end.

>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
>> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

> My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
> Mr. Krueger.

LOL!

>Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
> but it was not intended to belittle you.

It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
this late date, Atkinson?
>
>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
>> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>
> And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:36:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>
>>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>
>> I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
>> the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>> "incorrect."
>
>Agreed.
>
>> I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
>> were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
>> checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
>> review, which was over the weekend.
>
>"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
>place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
>doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
>knew something that you didn't know!
>
>> I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>> on-line archives that the link was working.
>
>You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
>and at your place.
>
>My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
>claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.
>
>>>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
>>>> your end.
>
>>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
>>> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>
>> My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
>> Mr. Krueger.
>
>LOL!
>
>>Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
>> but it was not intended to belittle you.
>
>It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
>this late date, Atkinson?
>>
>>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
>>> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>>
>> And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile

Unbelievable!

Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...

[dave weil]

On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>>
>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>
>I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
>link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
>no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
>it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
>was over the weekend.
>
>I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>on-line archives that the link was working.
>
>> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
>> > end.
>>
>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
>> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>
>My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
>Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
>was not intended to belittle you.

Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt by originally
accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.

>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
>> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>
>And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)

Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
grenades while he's at it...

[dave weil]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:51:41 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, (John
>Atkinson) wrote:
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>>
>>I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
>>link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>>"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
>>no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
>>it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
>>was over the weekend.
>>
>>I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>>on-line archives that the link was working.
>>
>>> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
>>> > end.
>>>
>>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
>>> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>>
>>My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
>>Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
>>was not intended to belittle you.
>
>Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt

Or "blunt" even...

> by originally
>accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
>incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
>to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
>warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
>an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.
>
>>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
>>> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>>
>>And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>
>Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
>grenades while he's at it...

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
> >place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> >doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
> >knew something that you didn't know!

> >My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
> >claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

> >LOL!

> >It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
> >this late date, Atkinson?

> Unbelievable!

Surely not. Only a newbie might think that.

> Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...

Yes, the borganoia seems to have metastasized beyond projections.
Perhaps an encounter with some randy bears is in order for the Kroo.

[Laurence Payne]

>> Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
>> play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.
>
>i thought the playback was just 2 outs for stereo, and you could
>listen to all the tracks you mwant to at the same time.

Yup.

[Nick H (UK)]

John Atkinson wrote:
> (drummer) wrote in message >...
>
>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>
>
> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
> protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
> channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.
>

Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
was more than delighted by the results on that score.

The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the level
going to the card.

Nick H (UK)

> You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
> http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
> Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message

> John Atkinson wrote:
>> (drummer) wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>> finding something a tad cheaper.
>>
>>
>> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>> LightPipe.

> Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
> PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
> was more than delighted by the results on that score.

Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
$100 CD or DVD player.

> The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
> analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
> level going to the card.

Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).

The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
input.

Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:11:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message

>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> (drummer) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>
>>>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>>> finding something a tad cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>>> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>>> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>>> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>>> LightPipe.
>
>> Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
>> PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
>> was more than delighted by the results on that score.
>
>Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
>on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
>a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
>Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
>$100 CD or DVD player.
>
>> The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
>> analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
>> level going to the card.
>
>Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
>other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
>no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
>degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
>generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
>clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
>to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
>headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
>
>The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
>analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
>match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
>input.
>
>Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
>is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
>enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
>interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
>digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

You just can't keep from bashing, can you?

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om
> > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service and
> > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
> > and the last time I acessed the review, which was over the weekend.
>
> "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
> place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
> you knew something that you didn't know!

I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger. You had difficulty
accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
is probable that there was another reason for your problem.

> My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
> your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger. You
claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than "Mr.
Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
evening or Monday morning. Yes our server could have been down, as you
have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.
My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
have gone wrong.

Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL. It can happen. But if, indeed, you
were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
postings. The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[drummer]

so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...

will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless? cause i wanted
to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
adat gives. do you think that would be a waste of time?

[Richard Crowley]

"John Atkinson" wrote ...
....
> Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> Krueger.

Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > om
> > > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service
and
> > > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
> > > and the last time I accessed the review, which was over the weekend.
> >
> > "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time
and
> > place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> > doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
> > you knew something that you didn't know!
>
> I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger.

What anger? I was merely making light of your diminished mental and ethical
state, Atkinson.

>You had difficulty
> accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
> this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
> server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
> is probable that there was another reason for your problem.

"didn't appear to have gone donw" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the
time and
place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
you knew something that you didn't know!


> > My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
> > your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

> I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger.

IMO, if you observed the usual social niceties you'd shut your lying
ragazine down, Atkinson. So what do social niceties have to do with any
discussion involving you and your ragazine, Atkinson?

> You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than
"Mr.
> Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

> Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
> that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
> evening or Monday morning.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date.

>Yes our server could have been down, as you
> have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Rather than belaboring this issue Atkinson, why not admit that anybody with
a modicum of social grace would have simply said that you just checked the
file in question and had no problem accessing it at that time?

> My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
> of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
> have gone wrong.

In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

> Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it up
from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your site
www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

> It can happen. But if, indeed, you
> were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
> then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
> postings.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was not
on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

>The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
> server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
> didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
> display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA%40comcast.com can
see.

> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> Krueger.

Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and not
the substance of the man.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" wrote ...
> ...
> > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> > Krueger.
>
> Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
> are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
> reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

Agreed.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:04:08 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"John Atkinson" wrote ...
>...
>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>> Krueger.
>
>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:11:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than
>"Mr.
>> Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.
>
>Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
>name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Not true:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=zM0n7.2937%24qZ6.831997067%40newssvr16.news.p rodigy.com&rnum=6>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=L0bX9.472%24oB2.56%40newssvr16.news.prodigy.c om&rnum=9>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.news.pro digy.com&rnum=11>

Nousaine wrote:
> (John Atkinson) wrote:
>> (Nousaine) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> OK, do you believe that nominally competent amplifiers and
>>> wires have an acoustical sound of their own.
>> As literally expressed, Tom, no I do not believe wires "have an
>> acoustical sound of their own," nor amplifiers unless they have
>> an AC transformer that buzzes. If you are asking whether the
>> choice of an amplifier or wire can affect the sound of someone's
>> system, then the only correct answer is "yes," as has been shown
>> not just in Stereophile but even in the magazines for which you
>> write, Tom, and has even been expressed here on r.a.o. by your
>> friend Arny Krueger.
> OK I would guess then that you really do endorse, even the
> ridiculous, items that are published in your magazine. I just
> wanted a clear statement of such. I just didn't think that this
> could be possibly true.

If you look at what was written by the Stereophile Editor Tom, it's
really hard to figure what the Stereophile Editor really does
endorse. We're talking about someone who is in deep evasion mode.

For example Tom, your phrase "acoustical sound of their own" has been
turned into a discussion of incidental mechanical sounds that an
amplifier might make, such as transformer buzz.

Then Tom, your phrase "nominally competent amplifiers" has been
expanded to include amplifiers which you and I would say aren't
really competently designed, and my name has even been gratuitously
attached to the discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1vWa.28604%24cF.10921%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one you
cited Weil, namely

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.n e
ws.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

[Rob Adelman]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
>>>name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.
>
>
> Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
> don't make or break a rule.

Umm, oh never mind..

[Arny Krueger]

"drummer" > wrote in message
om...

> so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...

IMO its a good deal. I have 2.

> will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless?

I don't think so.

>cause i wanted
> to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
> adat gives.

That should still be possible, although you won't be able to bounce 8 tracks
at one time to the comp with a Card deluxe.

> do you think that would be a waste of time?

I can see still using the ADAT to lay down a few tracks when you are away
from the computer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >If the recording software you use does an internal mix of the multiple
> >tracks (many do, example Cool Edit Pro) then you only need 2 sound card
> >channels for playback. But, strictly speaking you're not playing back
> >multiple tracks, you're playing back a 2-track mixdown of them. In some
> >cases this can make a difference. If it doesn't for you, then the Card
> >Deluxe can work for you.

> That's a rather individual reading of the terms "Track" and "Channel"
> as applied to multi-track audio recorders.

Perhaps I should have said:

But, strictly speaking you're not playing back multiple tracks, you're
playing back a 2-channel mixdown of them.

> Could you quote the recording software that DOESN'T offer a stereo
> mix?

Sorry, but I don't have experience with enough different pieces of DAW
software to characterize how they work, one way or the other. Hence the
speculative tone of my comment.

[Lived EHT]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>>> Krueger.
>>
>>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
>>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
>>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.
>
>I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
>connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
>links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
>once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.
>
>A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.
>
>Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
>whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
was looking for.

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

--
Thine

[Nick H (UK)]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message
>
>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
(drummer) wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>>>optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>>>Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>>>recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>>>LightPipe.
>>
>
>>Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
>>PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
>>was more than delighted by the results on that score.
>
>
> Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
> on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
> a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
> Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
> $100 CD or DVD player.
>
>
I had already 'upgraded' from a an old, cheap Soundblaster card to a
ST-Audio card at about $100. It gave me digital I/O and very reasonable
results when burned to CD, but sound quality from the PC was dire.
My RME card now seriously rivals my Cyrus CD player which was around
$600 IIRC.

>>The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
>>analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
>>level going to the card.
>
>
> Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
> other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
> no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
> degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
> generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
> clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
> to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
> headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
>

Are you saying that my analogue input would not have been too high
without being 'turned down' externally? It was pushing the CoolEdit
meter into the red.

> The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
> analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
> match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
> input.
>
> Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
> is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
> enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
> interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
> digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.
>
>

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
> > of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
> > have gone wrong.
>
> In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

> > Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.
>
> Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
> line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
> up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
> site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

> > But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
> > archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
> > in traffic due to the new news postings.
>
> Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
> particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
> not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
time.

> > The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
> > server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
> > you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
> > display, it is possible that this was the reason.
>
> Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA%40comcast.com
> can see.

Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
gone wrong.

> > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> > Krueger.
>
> Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
> not the substance of the man.

And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Scott Dorsey]

drummer > wrote:
>
>what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
>down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
>better sound than just recording straight to computer.

All other things the same, it will probably sound worse because you're
going through more stuff, and the converters in the Adat aren't so great
to begin with.

BUT, doing this can give you a degree of portability, so you can take the
Adat out to a good sounding room and then take the machine and tape back
later to import into the workstation. And that can give you a much better
sound if the room you're working in isn't right for the tracks you are
doing.

And, it does make it a lot easier to take the tapes somewhere else to mix.
You can take the computer to a studio, but you really don't want to be
fooling around with trying to export stuff while the clock is ticking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
> down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
> better sound than just recording straight to computer.

Depends on how you record the tracks. The ADAT will probably make the
recording process easier because you don't have to fumble with a
computer, but of course you'll need a mixer so you can hear what
you're doing while you're tracking. If you don't have that, then you
might as well record straight to the computer.

It's not too hard these days to buy an 8-channel audio interface
("sound card") that has better sounding A/D converters than an ADAT,
but if you're asking about whether an ADAT is better than recording
straight to the computer using the sound card that came with it, then
I'd give a resounding "yes."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Robbie Noake > wrote:
>Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................
>The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
>thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
>the awful snideness that is only too prevelent with most regular
>posters. You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
>out your posts, some of you do know your audio
>but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
>very pompous

When stuff gets crossposted from rec.audio.opinion into other newsgroups,
NOBODY wins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

In rec.audio.misc Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Mark D. Zacharias" > wrote in message
> nk.net

>> I agree. RAO is a sewer.

> It's been on a downhill roll ever since the advent of Middius.

After Advent comes Epiphany. I don't know if I want to know what means
in terms of rao.

[Kurt Albershardt]

John Atkinson wrote:

> (drummer) wrote in message >...
>
>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>
>
> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
> protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
> channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.
>
> You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
> http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
> Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile


Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

[Nick H (UK)]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
>> and nearly the same price.)
>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>
>
> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>
> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>

My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

Nick H


>
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Nick H (UK) wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>
>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
>>> and nearly the same price.)
>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>>
>> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>>
>
> My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
> is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
> better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
> well pleased.

How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
>>> and nearly the same price.)
>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>
>
>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>
>
> Old news. I first saw this *feature* on the original LynxONE, and that was
> about 3-4 years ago. The LynxTWO does the same, and its working on year two.
> It really makes a lot of sense in a studio environment. Why have a gloppy
> old breakout box which demands even more jumper cables when you can hang the
> jumper cables on the sound card with a DB connector?

Because you want to rackmount the breakout box? Because the card has
more I/O ports than can practically fit on its back? Because you want
to locate the computer in a separate machine room?

[Arny Krueger]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>
>>
>>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>>
>>
>> Old news. I first saw this *feature* on the original LynxONE, and
>> that was about 3-4 years ago. The LynxTWO does the same, and its
>> working on year two. It really makes a lot of sense in a studio
>> environment. Why have a gloppy old breakout box which demands even
>> more jumper cables when you can hang the jumper cables on the sound
>> card with a DB connector?

> Because you want to rackmount the breakout box?

OK, but that's kind of like specifying the right answer, isn't it?

;-)

>Because the card has more I/O ports than can practically fit on its back?

The DB connector + attached wires and connectors addresses that well.

>Because you want
> to locate the computer in a separate machine room?

The DB connector + attached wires and connectors addresses that well.

[Nick H (UK)]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>>>
>>> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>>>
>>
>> My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
>> is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
>> better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
>> well pleased.
>
>
> How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
> and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
> sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
> for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
> and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.
>
> I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
> and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
> sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.
>
> Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
> hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
> a better alternative that isn't a fortune.
>

Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

Nick H

[Kurt Albershardt]

Nick H (UK) wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>
> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
> it does that sales spiel;-)

"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"

[Nick H (UK)]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>>>
>>
>> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
>> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
>> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
>> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
>> what it does that sales spiel;-)
>
>
> "1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"
>

Woops, sorry, wrong again. That's been happening *all* day ! ;-)
Nick H

>

[Kurt Albershardt]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
>>> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
>>> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
>>> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
>>> what it does that sales spiel;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> "1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"
>
>
> Neat - so how does it do in games and such(Direct-X)

It doesn't since it's a pro soundcard. ASIO and MME drivers only at
this point.



> what does it cost?(probably way more than my budget - lol)

See my reply earlier.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Bubba wrote:
> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
> Has had great reviews.
> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

[Les Cargill]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> Bubba wrote:
> > Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
> > http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
> > This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
> > This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
> > Has had great reviews.
> > Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>
> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
> confusing to say the least.

FWIW, I have a Soundblaster and a hgher end card in the same machine.
Works good.

What I have noticed is that some games have
*ugly* "dll hell" issues with DAW software, and therefore,
only old DOS games on the DAW machine.

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message


> Bubba wrote:
>> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>> Has had great reviews.
>> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
> confusing to say the least.

You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Bubba wrote:
>>
>>>Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>Has had great reviews.
>>>Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>
>
>>Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>confusing to say the least.
>
>
> You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!

;)

Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
than the Audigy II.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Girth wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>
>>>Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>Has had great reviews.
>>>Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>
>>Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>confusing to say the least.
>
>
> No it's simple.
>
> Buy a professional grade card.
> Buy a compatible game card.
>
> Put them in the same machine, just like I told you yesterday!

That can be done I guess. What is the option for game cards
other than the Audigy II? I hate Creative - always mess things
up and are impossibly hard to configure.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bubba wrote:
>>>
>>>> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>> Has had great reviews.
>>>> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>>
>>
>>> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>> confusing to say the least.
>>
>>
>> You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it,
>> too?
>
> Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
> with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!
>
> ;)
>
> Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
> than the Audigy II.

"other than the Audigy II"?????

I suspect most people who have a foot in each world run an Audigy for games
and a pro card for serious quality audio. They generally cohabit well.