What sound card is the favorite for high quality recording?

Michael wrote:

What sound card is the favorite for high quality recording?

Anything that is supported that has AES/EBU inputs and outputs so you
can use quality outboard converters.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I have a Lynx L22 that sounds great to me.
DaveT

Michael wrote:
What sound card is the favorite for high quality recording?

How high quality and what kind of recording? Do you have (or will you
be buying) outboard A/D and D/A converters? 2-track? More-tracks? What
sample rate do you NEED (as opposed to WANT)?

Finally, how much are you willing ot spend? You can get pretty good
performance for $100, or you can spend $3,000, and that's just for two
tracks.

I'd like to spend under $400.
24 bit/192khz

Mike Rivers wrote:
Michael wrote:

What sound card is the favorite for high quality recording?


How high quality and what kind of recording? Do you have (or will you
be buying) outboard A/D and D/A converters? 2-track? More-tracks? What
sample rate do you NEED (as opposed to WANT)?

Finally, how much are you willing ot spend? You can get pretty good
performance for $100, or you can spend $3,000, and that's just for two
tracks.

Michael wrote:
I'd like to spend under $400.
24 bit/192khz

You only partially answered my questions. Try again.

By the way, only crummy sound cards perform better at 192 kHz than at
96 kHz. Do you have well-paying customers who insist on 192 kHz and
high quality? If so, you'd best start thinking of the AES/EBU input and
external A/D converter approach, and you won't get that for under $400.
Otherwise, don't sweat the 192 kHz.

If you want the best quality 2-channel 192 kHz sound card for under
$400, what are your options? What research have you already done? I
have a Lynx L22 myself, but that's over your budget.

I can't recommend what I don't know, but I suspect that whatever you
find in that price range (if anyting) will be about the same. I suspect
that you'll be just as happy with something around $200 as you will be
if you spend $400. Lot of people seem to like the E-Mu cards these
days. You can probably do as well with their Model 1212M as anything
else until you get up to the Lynx grade or some of the tweak RME stuff
(but I don't think they make any more 2-channel products).

Check out MAudio http://www.m-audio.com. I've been happy with a Delta
66 for several years. Spec'd at 24-bit 96KHz, it has 1 stereo S/PDIF
IO and 4 analog IO. List is ~$240, but I've seen better deals at
Musicians Friend & Swee****er Sound etc.

"Michael" wrote in message
news
I'd like to spend under $400.
24 bit/192khz

2 channels or 4?

Either way take a look at the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192.
It's a high quality 2-channel card that can be used in
synchronized pairs and still be within your budget.
..

2 channels.
I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the external box and
the recommendations on this forum. I thought about the 192, but it
seems the 66 gives me more flexibility. Unless I'm missing something,
the sound quality of both units are the same (?).

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in my mind since I
am taking signals from vinyl and putting them through a TC-750LC
pre-amp. If I were like you folks and recording and mixing then that
would be the way to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my
lp's and onto a CD with full resolution. If I could write SACD's I
would. (Can I write DVD-audio?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
news

I'd like to spend under $400.
24 bit/192khz


2 channels or 4?

Either way take a look at the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192.
It's a high quality 2-channel card that can be used in
synchronized pairs and still be within your budget.
.

"Michael" wrote in message
. com
2 channels.

I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the
external box and the recommendations on this forum.

While I own and use a Delta 66, I got to ask why? It's a
historical artifact. The Delta 66 external box is entirely
passive. IOW, its mostly decoration. For the money the
obvious comparison would be to the 1010LT.

Delta 66 converters are older-tech and therefore a little
less slick than the ones in a Delta 1010LT. Both the Delta
1010LT and the Delta 66 are actually unbalanced in and out,
both have SP/DIF IO, but the 1010LT has word clock I/O and
two inputs that can be jumpered to work with a dynamic mic.
Oh, I forgot to say that the 1010LT has twice as many analog
channels for about the same money.

I thought about the 192, but it seems the 66 gives me more
flexibility. Unless I'm missing something, the sound
quality of both units are the same (?).

Three words in favor of the 24/192: true active balanced
I/O.

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in
my mind since I am taking signals from vinyl and putting
them through a TC-750LC pre-amp.

Actually, even the Audiophile 2496 is more than what you
need.

If I were like you
folks and recording and mixing then that would be the way
to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my
lp's and onto a CD with full resolution. If I could
write SACD's I would. (Can I write DVD-audio?)

You can write DVD-As with any DVD burner and the right
burning software, such as Minnetonka's DiscWelder

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/news/...ly/STEEL2.html

Why you would want to do such a thing when you can just burn
prefectly good CDs for free is another question. ;-)

I'd go for an RME.
Nice converters, digital I/Os, good sync.
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/index.htm
They go up to 96KHz but who needs more?
F.

Include the Emu 1212m in the list of cards that you check out. Your
criteria are not clear, but it is a good card that can be found for
under $200.

Good luck,

Dean


Michael wrote:
What sound card is the favorite for high quality recording?

"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
2 channels.
I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the external box and
the recommendations on this forum. I thought about the 192, but it
seems the 66 gives me more flexibility. Unless I'm missing something,
the sound quality of both units are the same (?).

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in my mind since I
am taking signals from vinyl and putting them through a TC-750LC
pre-amp. If I were like you folks and recording and mixing then that
would be the way to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my
lp's and onto a CD with full resolution. If I could write SACD's I
would. (Can I write DVD-audio?)

Yes, if you have a DVD writer and software that does that.

As far as your soundcard is concerned...192kHz sampling is way overkill for
vinyl. The CardDeluxe is reasonably clean and has good drivers. It goes up
to 96kHz sampling, and frankly I think that's plenty for vinyl. (Personally,
I do vinyl at 44.1kHz, but that's because I end up burning onto CD and don't
want the sample-rate-conversion artifacts.)

Peace,
Paul

Check out the Digital Audio Labs Card Deluxe as well:

http://www.cascademedia.net/products...104&prodid=393

Clear and transparent with a very low noise floor, the Card Deluxe has
been the choice for high end digital audio cards by our customers for
quite some time.

- Frank


Cascade Media, Inc.
For All Your Digital Recording Needs
Portland, Oregon USA
(888)336-4643
(503)353-6860
(503)353 6864 -fax
www.cascademedia.net

"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
2 channels.
I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the external box and
the recommendations on this forum. I thought about the 192, but it seems
the 66 gives me more flexibility. Unless I'm missing something, the sound
quality of both units are the same (?).

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in my mind since I
am taking signals from vinyl and putting them through a TC-750LC pre-amp.
If I were like you folks and recording and mixing then that would be the
way to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my lp's and onto
a CD with full resolution. If I could write SACD's I would. (Can I write
DVD-audio?)

If you are transcribing LPs then you don't need 192 (or 96 for that
matter). Try an Audiophile 2496 or similar. Other than base-level, there are
not too many outright bad soundcards around any more.

geoff

wrote in message
ups.com
Check out the Digital Audio Labs Card Deluxe as well:

http://www.cascademedia.net/products...104&prodid=393

Clear and transparent with a very low noise floor, the
Card Deluxe has been the choice for high end digital
audio cards by our customers for quite some time.

That was then, this is now.

The M-Audio AP 24192 equals or bests the CardDeluxe based on
every parameter I can think of, including true balanced
inputs and outputs. About half the price.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:57:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
.com

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in
my mind since I am taking signals from vinyl and putting
them through a TC-750LC pre-amp.

Actually, even the Audiophile 2496 is more than what you
need.

Actually, IMHO, that model is just right. Its specs and stuff may
look like "more than what you need" but any lesser card gets into
consumer soundcard territory, which from my experience are NOT good
enough for digitizing LP's if you care about the quality. Out of the
cards available, this or a similar bottom-of-the-line semipro card is
adequate.

I am going to take a look at what you suggest below and hold off on the
Delta-66 Thanks!!

Regarding DVD-A' vs CD --- that's a subject for another day. I'd hate
to get it started here. DVD-A, like SACD is much much better than CD.
But of course you know that already.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
. com

2 channels.


I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the
external box and the recommendations on this forum.


While I own and use a Delta 66, I got to ask why? It's a
historical artifact. The Delta 66 external box is entirely
passive. IOW, its mostly decoration. For the money the
obvious comparison would be to the 1010LT.

Delta 66 converters are older-tech and therefore a little
less slick than the ones in a Delta 1010LT. Both the Delta
1010LT and the Delta 66 are actually unbalanced in and out,
both have SP/DIF IO, but the 1010LT has word clock I/O and
two inputs that can be jumpered to work with a dynamic mic.
Oh, I forgot to say that the 1010LT has twice as many analog
channels for about the same money.


I thought about the 192, but it seems the 66 gives me more
flexibility. Unless I'm missing something, the sound
quality of both units are the same (?).


Three words in favor of the 24/192: true active balanced
I/O.


The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in
my mind since I am taking signals from vinyl and putting
them through a TC-750LC pre-amp.


Actually, even the Audiophile 2496 is more than what you
need.


If I were like you
folks and recording and mixing then that would be the way
to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my
lp's and onto a CD with full resolution. If I could
write SACD's I would. (Can I write DVD-audio?)


You can write DVD-As with any DVD burner and the right
burning software, such as Minnetonka's DiscWelder

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/news/...ly/STEEL2.html

Why you would want to do such a thing when you can just burn
prefectly good CDs for free is another question. ;-)

"....sample rate conversion artifacts." .... hmmmmmm.

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
. com...

2 channels.
I am considering the M-audio's Delta 66 because of the external box and
the recommendations on this forum. I thought about the 192, but it
seems the 66 gives me more flexibility. Unless I'm missing something,
the sound quality of both units are the same (?).

The Lynx 22 would be great, but I couldn't justify it in my mind since I
am taking signals from vinyl and putting them through a TC-750LC
pre-amp. If I were like you folks and recording and mixing then that
would be the way to go. I just want to get the best signal I can off my
lp's and onto a CD with full resolution. If I could write SACD's I
would. (Can I write DVD-audio?)


Yes, if you have a DVD writer and software that does that.

As far as your soundcard is concerned...192kHz sampling is way overkill for
vinyl. The CardDeluxe is reasonably clean and has good drivers. It goes up
to 96kHz sampling, and frankly I think that's plenty for vinyl. (Personally,
I do vinyl at 44.1kHz, but that's because I end up burning onto CD and don't
want the sample-rate-conversion artifacts.)

Peace,
Paul

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com
Check out the Digital Audio Labs Card Deluxe as well:

http://www.cascademedia.net/products...104&prodid=393

Clear and transparent with a very low noise floor, the
Card Deluxe has been the choice for high end digital
audio cards by our customers for quite some time.

That was then, this is now.

The M-Audio AP 24192 equals or bests the CardDeluxe based on
every parameter I can think of, including true balanced inputs and
outputs. About half the price.

It should be noted that Arny's comment above makes it sound like the
CardDeluxe doesn't have true balanced inputs and outputs. It does. At least,
mine does.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com
Check out the Digital Audio Labs Card Deluxe as well:

http://www.cascademedia.net/products...104&prodid=393

Clear and transparent with a very low noise floor, the
Card Deluxe has been the choice for high end digital
audio cards by our customers for quite some time.

That was then, this is now.

The M-Audio AP 24192 equals or bests the CardDeluxe
based on
every parameter I can think of, including true balanced
inputs and outputs. About half the price.

It should be noted that Arny's comment above makes it
sound like the CardDeluxe doesn't have true balanced
inputs and outputs.

I guess it could, but that wasn't the intent. The Card
Deluxe and the Lynx cards have full active balanced I/O.

It does. At least, mine does.

See "equals". ;-)

Most M-Audio products have followed in line with much of the
other low-and mid-end pro products by not providing full
active balanced I/O. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Delta
66 and 44 have unbalanced inputs and impedance balanced
outputs, which means that half of the output stage is a
low-value resistor running to signal ground.

The AP2496 is totally unbalanced with RCA jacks which is
either a bug or a feature depending on your needs.

The AP24192 is different - it really has active balanced
inputs and outputs like the higher end cards. It's also
about 10 dB quieter than most of the other low-mid audio
interfaces, IOW more like 110 dB dynamic range than 100 dB.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

The AP2496 is totally unbalanced with RCA jacks which is either a bug or a
feature depending on your needs.

The AP24192 is different - it really has active balanced inputs and
outputs like the higher end cards. It's also about 10 dB quieter than most
of the other low-mid audio interfaces, IOW more like 110 dB dynamic range
than 100 dB.


How many phono preamps have you seen with balanced outputs ?

geoff

"Geoff@work" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

The AP2496 is totally unbalanced with RCA jacks which is
either a bug or a feature depending on your needs.

The AP24192 is different - it really has active balanced
inputs and outputs like the higher end cards. It's also
about 10 dB quieter than most of the other low-mid audio
interfaces, IOW more like 110 dB dynamic range than 100
dB.

The previous comments were intended to be more general in
nature, not specifically related to the OP.

How many phono preamps have you seen with balanced
outputs ?

Just a few, but you don't need balanced outputs for
balanced inputs to be advantageous.

???

How are balanced inputs advantageous if the outputs are not?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff@work" wrote in
message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


The AP2496 is totally unbalanced with RCA jacks which is
either a bug or a feature depending on your needs.

The AP24192 is different - it really has active balanced
inputs and outputs like the higher end cards. It's also
about 10 dB quieter than most of the other low-mid audio
interfaces, IOW more like 110 dB dynamic range than 100
dB.


The previous comments were intended to be more general in
nature, not specifically related to the OP.


How many phono preamps have you seen with balanced
outputs ?


Just a few, but you don't need balanced outputs for
balanced inputs to be advantageous.

Michael wrote:

How are balanced inputs advantageous if the outputs are not?

They still allow you to lift the ground, and they still give you
considerable improvement in noise rejection even if only one leg
of the output is driven.

If they are balanced with a transformer, you can add RF noise
rejection as well.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
???

How are balanced inputs advantageous if the outputs are not?

For one thing, if you have a phono preamp that inverts polarity, you can
plug it into the ring/sleeve side rather than the tip/sleeve side, and
record it properly. Not that I hear the difference, but I gather about 40%
of the population can. Of course, that assumes the *record* has the right
polarity.

Peace,
Paul

"Michael" wrote in message
. com

How are balanced inputs advantageous if the outputs are
not?

The most common cause of electrical noise in audio is
probably grounding problems.

Most grounding problems are due to the fact that signal
ground at the output of the source is not identically the
same as signal ground at the input of the load. Unbalanced
outputs generally have signal ground and chassis ground
identically the same.

The standard ways to make cables interfacing unbalanced
outputs to balanced inputs provide considerable rejection of
noise due to grounding problems.

Balanced input noise rejection comes from the fact that a
balanced input is also a differential input. IOW, the signal
that is effectively transferred to the balanced input is the
difference between signal positive ( TRS tip or XLR pin 2)
and signal negative (TRS ring or XLR pin 3).

Balanced inputs basically work pretty much the same whether
the balancing or differential action is produced with a
transformer or mirror-imaged amplifiers. One major advantage
of the transformer is that a transformer winding can be
almost completely disconnected from chassis ground, and
major differences (even 100's or even 1,000's of volts!) in
chassis ground potential are easily accomodated. One major
disadvantage of balanced inputs effected with mirror-imaged
amplfiers is the fact that the range of differences in
chassis ground potentials are limited to only a few volts.
Fortunately, most chassis ground potentials are relatively
small, except as compared to signal voltages and the
requirements for perceived noise-free operation.

In the distant past, transformers were less costly than
active circuitry. This situation has changed dramatically,
and active circuitry costs only pennies, while good audio
transformers cost dozens of dollars.

If you attach the input signal negative line to the signal
ground of the source, and the input signal positive line to
the ouput signal terminal of the source, then there can
still be a significant difference between source ground and
input ground, but the effects of the ground potential
difference will be minimized by means of analog signal
voltage subtraction that takes place automatically within
the balanced input circuitry.

What a great explanation!! I understand.

by the way - I'm deciding between the Delta-66, 192 and 1010lt (I can't
find the 24192).
Between those three which one would you pick. Again, my main goal is to
rip LP's with the highest fidelity possible.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
. com


How are balanced inputs advantageous if the outputs are
not?


The most common cause of electrical noise in audio is
probably grounding problems.

Most grounding problems are due to the fact that signal
ground at the output of the source is not identically the
same as signal ground at the input of the load. Unbalanced
outputs generally have signal ground and chassis ground
identically the same.

The standard ways to make cables interfacing unbalanced
outputs to balanced inputs provide considerable rejection of
noise due to grounding problems.

Balanced input noise rejection comes from the fact that a
balanced input is also a differential input. IOW, the signal
that is effectively transferred to the balanced input is the
difference between signal positive ( TRS tip or XLR pin 2)
and signal negative (TRS ring or XLR pin 3).

Balanced inputs basically work pretty much the same whether
the balancing or differential action is produced with a
transformer or mirror-imaged amplifiers. One major advantage
of the transformer is that a transformer winding can be
almost completely disconnected from chassis ground, and
major differences (even 100's or even 1,000's of volts!) in
chassis ground potential are easily accomodated. One major
disadvantage of balanced inputs effected with mirror-imaged
amplfiers is the fact that the range of differences in
chassis ground potentials are limited to only a few volts.
Fortunately, most chassis ground potentials are relatively
small, except as compared to signal voltages and the
requirements for perceived noise-free operation.

In the distant past, transformers were less costly than
active circuitry. This situation has changed dramatically,
and active circuitry costs only pennies, while good audio
transformers cost dozens of dollars.

If you attach the input signal negative line to the signal
ground of the source, and the input signal positive line to
the ouput signal terminal of the source, then there can
still be a significant difference between source ground and
input ground, but the effects of the ground potential
difference will be minimized by means of analog signal
voltage subtraction that takes place automatically within
the balanced input circuitry.

"Michael" wrote in message
. net

by the way - I'm deciding between the Delta-66, 192 and
1010lt (I can't find the 24192).

I obtained my 24192 at the local Guitar Center (Roseville,
MI). That means that Musician's Friend should have them. If
you can't find them in the US there's something funny with
your search process. ;-)

Between those three which one would you pick.

For what? ;-)

Remember, I own 2 1010LTs a 66 and a 24192. None of them
have particularly disappointed me in practical use, to say
the least. The 66 acquisition was arguably a mistake of
sorts, but the other acquisitions were strictly intentional.

Again, my main goal is to rip LP's with the highest
fidelity possible.

The 24192 is probably the cleanest card that M-Audio makes.
The only thing I have that is appreciably cleaner is the
LynxTWO, which has twice as many channels for about six
times the price. Furthermore, the 24192 is way cleaner than
the LynxTWO for the first 5 dB or so below FS.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Balanced input noise rejection comes from the fact that a
balanced input is also a differential input. IOW, the signal
that is effectively transferred to the balanced input is the
difference between signal positive ( TRS tip or XLR pin 2)
and signal negative (TRS ring or XLR pin 3).

Balanced inputs basically work pretty much the same whether
the balancing or differential action is produced with a
transformer or mirror-imaged amplifiers. One major advantage
of the transformer is that a transformer winding can be
almost completely disconnected from chassis ground, and
major differences (even 100's or even 1,000's of volts!) in
chassis ground potential are easily accomodated. One major
disadvantage of balanced inputs effected with mirror-imaged
amplfiers is the fact that the range of differences in
chassis ground potentials are limited to only a few volts.
Fortunately, most chassis ground potentials are relatively
small, except as compared to signal voltages and the
requirements for perceived noise-free operation.

Another major difference between active balanced and transformer
balanced inputs is that an active balanced input only rejects common
mode noise up to a certain breakdown voltage, while a transformer has no
such limitation. This max breakdown voltage is usually quite high in
comparison to what you normally find under normal circumstances, but
when the going gets tough (i.e. a signal line that runs right next to a
large SCR dimmer rack) a transformer will reject noise that an active
balanced input won't.

Also, transformers rarely pass anything very far out of the audio band,
so they're really good at filtering RF. Another "tough circumstance"
situation is a tranmitter shack where large amounts of RF are being
induced into the audio lines. A transformer can make a big difference here.


In the distant past, transformers were less costly than
active circuitry. This situation has changed dramatically,
and active circuitry costs only pennies, while good audio
transformers cost dozens of dollars.

And even some of the good ones aren't as transparent as an active
circuit. 99% of the time an active input will be preferred over a
transformer for performance and cost reasons. But sometimes you need
transformer balanced inputs.

//Walt

By the way, I have Headroom's Overture DAC and Coda LE headphone
amplifier which take signals direct from the USB bypassing my current
audio card. Terrific sound and silent operation. I use them for
critical listening (Sennheiser HD650) to the lp's for noise removal. I
wonder how the DAC compares with the cards you mentioned.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
. net


by the way - I'm deciding between the Delta-66, 192 and
1010lt (I can't find the 24192).


I obtained my 24192 at the local Guitar Center (Roseville,
MI). That means that Musician's Friend should have them. If
you can't find them in the US there's something funny with
your search process. ;-)


Between those three which one would you pick.


For what? ;-)

Remember, I own 2 1010LTs a 66 and a 24192. None of them
have particularly disappointed me in practical use, to say
the least. The 66 acquisition was arguably a mistake of
sorts, but the other acquisitions were strictly intentional.


Again, my main goal is to rip LP's with the highest
fidelity possible.


The 24192 is probably the cleanest card that M-Audio makes.
The only thing I have that is appreciably cleaner is the
LynxTWO, which has twice as many channels for about six
times the price. Furthermore, the 24192 is way cleaner than
the LynxTWO for the first 5 dB or so below FS.