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.

"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.

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.

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...

"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/manufac...udio-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).

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.

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?

"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...

"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.

"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

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.

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


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"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

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
om...

"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.

"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.

(drummer) wrote in message . com...
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

"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

"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

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

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com
"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...

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...

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...

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.

John Atkinson wrote:
(drummer) wrote in message . com...

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

"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message

John Atkinson wrote:
(drummer) wrote in message
. com...

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.

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
. com...

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?

"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

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?

"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.

"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=xs...%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.

"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.

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)

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%40newss vr16.news.prodigy.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.new s.prodigy.com&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%40newssvr 15.news.prodigy.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.

"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=Y1...21%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...newssvr15.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?

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..

"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.

"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.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message


John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message
le.com...


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.

"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=xs...%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

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."

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."

John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message . com...

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